Although not a panacea, community organizations have particular strengths that they bring to crime prevention: generating and sustaining participation, generating a broader understanding of community crime, developing programs that address broader social causes of crime, and forming partnerships for community policing. Questions about the efficacy of community-based crime prevention programs may be due to several limitations of prior evaluations. First they fail to acknowledge the fluid and political planning process of community organizations, which results in changing goals and objectives. Second, the need of community organizations to balance the production of outcomes and the process of developing activists makes it difficult to assess their accomplishments. Third, the emphasis on outcomes forces organizations to shorten the necessary social learning process, undermissing the programs' effectiveness. Finally, the evaluations' conceptual model ignores the political and institutional dimensions of communities and assumes only one means of producing safe communities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Wesley G. Skogan , “Community Organizations and Crime,” in Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, ed. Michael Tonry and Norval Morris (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 10:39-78.
2.
idem , Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Neighborhoods (New York: Free Press, 1990).
3.
John E. Prestby and Abraham Wandersman, “An Empirical Exploration of a Framework of Organizational Viability,”Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 21:287-305 (1985).
4.
Dennis P. Rosenbaum , ed., Community Crime Prevention (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1986).
5.
5. Betsy Lindsay, “Community-Based versus Police-Based Models of Problem Definition and Organizing” (Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, 1988).
6.
Skogan , “Community Organizations and Crime.”
7.
John M. Orbell and Toru Uno, “A Theory of Neighborhood Problem Solving,”American Political Science Review, 66:471-489 (1972).
8.
Claus Offe and Helmut Wiesenthal, “Two Logics of Collective Action: Theoretical Notes on Social Class and Organizational Form,”Political Power and Social Theory, 1:67-115 (1980).
9.
Carole Pateman , Participation and Democratic Theory (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1970).
10.
10. Skogan, Disorder and Decline.
11.
See also Lindsay, “Community-Based versus Police-Based Models.”
12.
12. Bursik and Grasmick, Neighborhoods and Crime, p. 149.
13.
Arthur J. Lurigio and Dennis P. Rosenbaum, “Evaluation Research in Community Crime Prevention: A Critical Look at the Field,” in Community Crime Prevention, ed. Rosenbaum, pp. 19-44.
14.
Cf. Susan F. Bennett and Paul J. Lavrakas, “Community-Based Crime Prevention: An Assessment of the Eisenhower Foundation's Neighborhood Program,”Crime and Delinquency, 35:345-364 (1989).
15.
15. Marlys McPherson and Glenn Silloway, “Planning to Prevent Crime,” in Reactions to Crime, ed. Dan A. Lewis (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981), p. 150.
16.
Aaron M. Podolefsky , “Rejecting Crime Prevention Programs: The Dynamics of Program Implementation in High Need Communities,”Human Organization, 44:33-40 (1985).
17.
17. David Menefee-Libey, The State of Community Organizing in Chicago, Planning Paper 1 (Chicago: Community Renewal Society, Feb. 1985).
18.
18. Offe and Wiesenthal, “Two Logics of Collective Action,” p. 82.
19.
19. Carl Milofsky, “Structure and Process in Community Self-Help Organizations,” in Community Organizations: Studies in Resource Mobilization and Exchange, ed. Carl Milofsky (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp. 209-211.
20.
20. Dennis P. Rosenbaumet al., Cross-Site Comparisons and Conclusions: The Community Responses to Drug Abuse National Demonstration Program Final Process Evaluation Report (Chicago: University of Illinois, 1993), 1:51-52.
21.
21. Milofsky, “Structure and Process,” p. 195.
22.
22. Rosenbaumet al., Cross-Site Comparisons, p. 72.
23.
Milbray Wallin McLaughlin , “Implementation Realities and Evaluation Design,” in Social Science and Social Policy, R. L. Shotland and M. M. Mark (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985), pp. 96-120.
24.
24. McLaughlin, “Implementation Realities and Evaluation Design,” p. 100.
25.
25. Rosenbaumet al., Cross-Site Comparisons.
26.
26. John Clayton Thomas, Between Citizen and City (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1986), pp. 97-100.
27.
27. Korten, “Community Organization and Rural Development,” p. 502.
28.
28. Ora Simcha-Fagan and Joseph Schwartz, “Neighborhood and Delinquency: An Assessment of Contextual Effects,”Criminology, 24(4):667-703 (1986).
29.
29. Avery Guest and R. S. Oropesa, “Problem-Solving Strategies of Local Areas in the Metropolis,”American Sociological Review, 49:828-840 (1984).
30.
McCourt , Working Class Women and Grass-Roots Politics.
31.
31. Sarah L. Boggs, “Formal and Informal Crime Controls,”Sociological Quarterly, 12:312-327 (1971).
32.
32. Albert Hunter and Suzanne Staggenborg, “Local Communities and Organized Action,” in Community Organizations: Studies in Resource Mobilization and Exchange, ed. Milofsky, p. 247.
33.
33. Crenson, “Social Networks and Political Processes,” p. 593.
34.
34. Ibid., p. 579.
35.
35. Matthew Crenson, Neighborhood Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), pp. 100-115.
36.
36. Ibid., pp. 147-48.
37.
37. Wesley G. Skogan, “Communities, Crime, and Neighborhood Organization,”Crime and Delinquency, 35(3):449-450 (1989).
38.
38. Perkinset al., “Participation,” p. 106.
39.
John Hutcheson, Jr. and James Prather, “Community Mobilization and Participation in the Zoning Process,”Urban Affairs Quarterly, 23(3):346-368 (1988).
