EFFECTIVE MULTI-AGENCY SYSTEMS FOR EFFECTIVE
URBAN CRIME PREVENTION
Role of the Community in the Integrated Approach (multidisciplinary approach) andEstablishment of an Effective Multi-Agency Cooperation and
Collaboration System for Urban Crime Prevention

By Prof. Irvin Waller*
I. REVIEW OF KNOWLEDGE BASE AND INTERNATIONAL NORMS
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the laws and policies called for juvenile delinquents to berehabilitated or cured by social workers, probation officers and child care workers. But the legislators neverinvested in the programmes to rehabilitate young offenders. So unfortunately by the 1970’s rehabilitation
was assumed to have failed.
This failure of rehabilitation was used by populist politicians to invest more in being “tough on crime”.
They wanted young persons to be prosecuted for a discrete offence, defended by a lawyer, and if found guilty,
punished to the full extent of the law.
Statistical studies on large samples of young offenders in the USA, England and many other countries
have evaluated whether a sentence of prison, service in the community or probation stops the juvenile fromre-offending. In sum, they do not.
However, the studies do show that fifty per cent or more of the typical young offenders are reconvictedwithin three years of their original conviction. Those that are reconvicted tend to come from worse family
situations and have done less well in school.
They also show that the nature of the sanction does not make any difference, unless it includes one ofthose few programmes “carefully designed to target the specific characteristics and problems of offenders
that can be changed” (Sherman, 2002, 351). The number of police officers or the severity of court sentences
do not figure among the factors that affect whether a youth will stop offending – indeed the more a youth isarrested or in front of a court, the more likely he is to the more-offend in the future.
Overall the conclusions about the effectiveness of corrections could be summarised as follows that
corrections will contribute to reduced crime and victimisation through:• Investment in programmes that divert offenders from prison to community programmes that are
adequately resourced and known to tackle successfully the causes of violence and alcohol use.
• Marginal decreases in rates of crime achieved by massive increases in the number of persons
incarcerated. In the USA, increasing the incarceration rate by 250% from 1974 to 2004 is estimatedto have decreased the crime rate by 35% - but at costs exceeding $20 billion - enough to provide a
job to every unemployed youth or childcare for the poor that would have had a much larger impact on
crime rates.
• A few correctional programmes that have reduced recidivism by small proportions, though mostcorrectional agencies resist investment in programmes that work.
The accumulation of prestigious reviews which repeatedly recognize the effectiveness of prevention
conclude that:• Tackling particular social causes (inconsistent parenting, school abandonment, and so on) reduces
offending.
• Tackling particular situational determinants (lack of surveillance, ease of turning into cash and so on)
reduces victimization.
• Using enforcement must be strategic or in partnership to work (using GIS, intelligence,accountability).
* Professor of Criminology, University of Ottawa; Founding Director General, International Centre for Prevention of Crime(1994-2000); President, Canadian Forum for Crime Prevention.

89

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.68••

Where costs are evaluated, tackling causes is significantly more cost effective than current policing,
judicial and particularly prison practices.
Social prevention projects lead to additional benefits (school completion, jobs, paid taxes and so on).

Large scale scientific studies identify the experiences in early childhood, the pre-teen years andadolescence that preceded involvement in offending. Data were collected from doctors, schools, peers and soon before the youth started offending.
Most young persons will commit acts occasionally that are prohibited under criminal codes. They may
shoplift, use substances that are prohibited or even joyride in cars without permission. This behaviour isconsidered a normal even if worrying part of adolescence. Usually, they continue in school, sports and intheir peer group in at least average ways.
These studies have shown that a small group of individuals (5 to 10 percent) account for most offences(50 to 70 percent) committed each year. This sub-group is often referred to as persistent offenders. Thisbehaviour gets them in touch with the police frequently. They tend to grow up with negative family andschool experiences, such as parents who were inconsistent and uncaring towards them, living in poverty
that is worse than those around them, and facing difficulties in completing school. The conclusions are
similar to what a police officer or prosecutor would conclude from looking at the bulk of the cases going
through their hands.
• 5% of youth account for 55% of offences
Longitudinal studies confirm 5% risk factors such as relative poverty, ineffective parenting anddropping out of school• 4% of victims account for 44% of victimisation
Victimisation studies confirm 4% risk life routines such as not guarding goods, vulnerable toopportunity, close to offenders• Hot spot locations for drugs and other offences
Police statistics confirm that hotspots concentrate offenders and victims geographically
The studies have been able to conclude that youth exposed to any or all of the following conditions are
more likely to commit delinquent acts than those who are not:• Born into a family in relative poverty and inadequate housing;• Brought up with inconsistent and uncaring parenting;• Limited social and cognitive abilities;• Presenting behavioural problems in primary school;• Excluded from, or dropping-out of, school;• A witness or victim of intra-familial violence;• Frequently unemployed and with relatively limited income;• Living with a culture of violence on television and in the neighbourhood.
The overall list of established causes should be important for efforts to solve youth offending. It implies
that sectors, that can tackle these problems such as housing, social services, schools, police and so on,
should be able to reduce youth offending.
Various innovative projects have been established along these lines. A few of them have been evaluatedscientifically by comparing children who experienced the programme to similar children who did not. The
results provide strong evidence that investing in children to solve these problems is much more effective
than court ordered sanctions such incarceration. It is the results of some of these projects that are the focusof the next part of this paper.
Bonnemaison provided the vision where crime will be solved through wise partnerships of schools, local
government and policing to tackle these multiple causes. These must use systematic analysis, planning,
implementation, and evaluation
The various guidelines have been accepted including the UN Guidelines for Crime Prevention, which
include:• Multi-sector partnerships to tackle the multiple social factors associated with crime• Comprehensive strategies, targeting high risk neighbourhoods and encompassing environmental
design90

129TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

II. INSPIRING EXAMPLES OF PROJECTSIn 1998 the Crime and Disorder Act included sections to create the Youth Justice Board (YJB) which is apermanently funded public body mandated to prevent crime and re-organize the youth justice system byusing evidence on effective practice. The prevention, intervention, and rehabilitation strategies of the YJB
are knowledge-driven, and follow a process of systematic analysis, planning, implementation, and evaluation.
The antecedents to the YJB are important as they show that the government was interested in using its
funds carefully and committed to implementing change.
• In 1994, the audit report concludes that paying for police and criminal justice was Misspent Youth.
• In 1998, the government passes the trail blazing Crime and Disorder Act which establishes theYouth Justice Board to implement effective pre-crime prevention.
• In 2003, an audit of its flagship youth prevention programme concludes that youth offending is
reduced by more than 50% in 70 communities.
Crime prevention is a permanent part of the youth justice structure of the United Kingdom. Resources
allocated to prevention are used to identify and promote various strategies that are known to be effective in
reducing crime. The YJB sets out to achieve specific short and long-term crime reduction goals, and invests
a portion of its funds toward the quality of implementation and the evaluation of its efforts in crime
prevention.
The “Youth Inclusion Programme” is a prime example of the YJB’s knowledge-driven practice. For thisnational programme, the YJB funded an independent group called Crime Concern to focus on the 50 most atrisk youth aged 13-16 in 70 of the most difficult neighbourhoods. The youth are provided with 10 hours aweek of activities, including sports training, in information technology, mentoring, and help with literacy andnumeracy issues. The Programme also includes assistance in dealing with violence, drugs, gangs andpersonal health. I mentioned Crime Concern in my first paper and I will have more to say in my section on
implementation below.
One of the YJB’s goals is to achieve an overall 30% reduction in youth offending in at least two-thirds ofthe neighbourhoods with a Youth Inclusion Programme. The YJB set aside 8% of the Youth Inclusion
Programme costs to ensure the quality of its implementation, and 6% for the evaluation of the projectnationwide.
A preliminary evaluation of the Youth Inclusion Programme reports a 65% reduction in youth arrests, a
27% reduction in youth removed from schools, and a 16% reduction in overall crime. The Youth Inclusion
Programme clearly illustrates the reductions in crime and victimization that can result from the leadership ofa governmental crime prevention responsibility centre dedicated to effective practice.
The programme costs about $5,000 per place per year. Coincidentally, this is the cost of taking a young
offender through the youth justice system for one offence.
The Youth Justice Board used the results from the evaluation to expand the programme to more than 100
neighbourhoods and start an equivalent programme with youth aged 8-13.
[www.youth-justice-board.gov.uk]
Crime Concern meets the challenges from the Youth Justice Board to reduce youth arrests by 65% andgeneral crime by 16%.
• Locates 50 most at risk youth aged 13-16 in each of 70 of the most difficult neighbourhoods• 10 hours a week focused on sports, training in information technology, mentoring, help with literacy
and numeracy, and coping with violence, drugs, gangs and personal health• cost about $5,000 per place per year
• Targets
Outcome• 60% reduction in youth arrests65%• 30% general reduction in crime16%• 30% reduction in youth removed from schools. 30%
The Youth Justice Board used the results from the evaluation to expand the programme to 140
neighbourhoods and start an equivalent programme with youth aged 8-13.

91

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.68

One important primary source used by most of the prestigious reviews is Del Elliot’s “Blue Prints”
programme at the University of Colorado at Boulder, which has identified eleven of the most effective earlychildhood and youth programmes for reducing delinquency.
In 1996, the Centre for the Study and Prevention of Violence (CSPV), with funding from theColorado Division of Criminal Justice and the Centres for Disease Control (and later from thePennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency), initiated a project to identify ten violence
prevention programmes that met a very high scientific standard of programme effectiveness—
programmes that could provide an initial nucleus for a national violence prevention initiative.
Their objective was to identify truly outstanding programmes, and to describe these interventions
in a series of “blueprints”. The practical descriptions set out the theoretical rationale, the corecomponents of the programme as implemented, the evaluation designs and results, and the practicalexperiences programmes encountered while implementing the programme at multiple sites.
The blueprints would allow states, communities, and individual agencies to: (1) determine theappropriateness of this intervention for their state or community; (2) provide a realistic costestimate for this intervention; (3) provide an assessment of the organizational capacity needed toensure its successful start-up and operation over time; and (4) give some indication of the potential
barriers and obstacles that might be encountered when attempting to implement this type ofintervention. (Elliott, 2002)
There are now eleven model programmes which have met these rigorous selection criteria. In addition, anumber of programmes met some of the criteria and were designated promising programmes. The Blue
Prints web site (Elliott, 2002) contains considerable information on each of the programmes.
The Blue Prints projects at the early childhood and in primary school level include:• Sending nurses to visit homes of new mothers who are at risk, such as young single mothers, of low
socio-economic background and weak school achievement. The aim is to improve their parenting
skills by assisting with infant health and development problems as well as strengthening themother’s support network and development.
• Developing emotional skills for primary school children so that they can understand, express andregulate their emotions. PATHS is one model programme. Another is the Incredible years.
• Using pre-school and other programmes to increase the cognitive and social abilities of children,
particularly in underprivileged socio-economic surroundings.
• Increasing support and respite for parents.
The Blue Prints projects at the teenage - secondary or high school – level include:
•
•

•
•

Fostering adult mentors who can develop a caring relationship with youth aged 6-18 from single
parent families reduces youth crime. Big brothers, big sisters are the best known example of thisprogramme.
Reducing dropping out from school for small groups of disadvantaged teens reduces delinquency andviolence. Quantum Opportunities provided education and development coupled as well as asustained relationship with a peer group and a caring adult over the four years of high school. It
focused on youth at risk from poor families and neighbourhoods to graduate from high school andattend college.
Preventing bullying by changing the social climate at the school to increase awareness and makeappropriate responses through involving students, teachers, and parents. It enforces rules andassists both victims and bullies.
Avoiding drug abuse from primary to secondary school by training students in life skills andproviding information and skills to avoid drug use. The Midwestern Project tackles parent, school,
media, community organization and health policy to reduce adolescent drug use.

A further group of Blue Prints deal with chronic and violent juvenile offenders:• Helping parents to deal with specific factors in their family life, such as the family, peer, school andneighbourhood, that contribute to poor school performance, deviant peers and crime. Multi-systemic
Therapy is one model programme. Function Family Therapy is another which also emphasises using
outside system resources.

92129TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS•

Providing foster care as an alternative to incarceration, which provides structured and therapeutic
living with foster parents

When treating young children and their parents, the following interventions have proved useful:• Visiting at-risk families at home to improve parenting skills (particularly of young, single, low
income mothers with limited schooling).
• Increasing support and assistance for parents.
• Using preschool and after-school programmes to increase the cognitive and social abilities ofchildren, particularly in underprivileged social environments.
The following interventions are used with school-age children:• Improving cognitive and social skills through at-home visits by teachers and structured recreationaland cultural activities.
• Providing incentives to complete secondary studies by offering educational and financial assistance.
• Improving self-esteem and social integration capacity through neighbourhood programmes such as
Big Brothers/Big Sisters and Boys & Girls Clubs.
• Offering on-the-job training and opportunities.
• Organizing school and after-school activities to decrease violent behaviour.
• Working with families of first time youthful offenders to decrease domestic dysfunction.
Governments and communities that tackle the established causes of the concentrations of crime achieve
reductions such as those demonstrated in the following chart for the social causes.

Tackling Causes of Persistent Youth Offending (5%responsible for 55%) Reduces Crime by 50% or More

Enriched pre-school andparental support (USA) p. 71-75%

Responsibilisation and help
(Halt, the Netherlands) p. 139-72%

Incentives to complete
school (Quantum, USA) p. 67-62%

Enhancing parenting through nurse
visitation (Elmira, USA) p. 72, 78-50%

Focussing parents and teachers
vs causes of bullying (Norway) p. 98

-50%

-80%

-70%

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

Promising results for individual prevention projects in the USA, the Netherlands and the UK have been
confirmed by thorough evaluations and demonstrate that crime can be reduced. Though the USA has madelittle use of its research to multiply effective projects, it is a rich source of extensive blue prints for ways tointervene with teenagers, pre-teens and young children to reduce everything from persistent offending toschool bullying.
A recent study was completed on the impact of an early childhood project in Chicago on the lives of 989
children born in a disadvantaged suburb of Chicago. The study compared the 989 children with a comparisongroup of 550 born in the same neighbourhood. 17% of those who attended the child parent centre had beenarrested by age 20 compared to 25% of the comparison group. So the Child Parent Centre contributed to a
32% reduction in arrests.
The knowledge available goes beyond what has been shown to reduce crime and victimisation. We also

93

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.68

have some useful information about the comparative costs and benefits of different strategies and some ofthis information is being used to decide large investments by governments in strategies to reduce crime.
Some is being used to avoid litigation as we shall see in the USA in later chapters.
The analysis underlying these conclusions can be illustrated by the cost benefit analysis of the Chicago
Child Parent Centre. (Reynolds et al., 2002) The average cost of the programme per child was $6,730.
Benefits were demonstrated of $25,771 made up of $4,000 to $7,000 for each of four sectors. For instance,$7,200 additional taxes were paid. Similar benefits were identified for the reduction in losses to victims,
decreased costs for policing and criminal justice, and less need for remedial services.
When these sectoral benefits are aggregated, they represent a benefit of $3.83 for every dollar invested.
For the 1000 children in the study this is $26 million which is impressive enough. But for the total of 100,000
children who have passed through this programme, this represents $2.6 billion in benefits. The taxes arereal production, but the benefits to remedial services and criminal justice represent freeing these services
for other purposes rather than actual savings to taxpayers.
These savings far exceed those from detention. Rand has already shown that for a 10% reduction incrime, taxes would need to be increased US $250 per household for incarceration, yet only US $50 for
assistance with school completion and US $35 for family training (ICPC, 1999a).

Increases in Taxes to Achieve 10% Reduction in Crime

Increase in $US taxes per household$250

Extended sentences for repeat
offenders (3 strikes law)

$225
$200

Taxes for 10%
reduction in
crime

$175
$150
$125

Delinquent supervision

$100
$75
$50

Parent training

Incentives for yoouth
to complete schoool$25$0International Centre for the Prevention of Crime
Assisting cities and countries to reduce delinquency, violence and insecurity

In addition, investments in crime prevention through social development provide other social benefits asshown for the Chicago Child Parent Centre.

III. THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTCity wide crime will be solved through joint work of schools, local government and policing to tackle
multiple causes.
In France, reports from the Mayors’ Commission chaired by Gilbert Bonnemaison have inspired thecreation of over a thousand local government Community Crime Prevention Councils to tackle problems ofurban planning and youth delinquency. Headed by the Délégation interministerielle à la ville (DIV; Interministerial secretariat to the city), the Councils receive local safety contracts, which require municipalities
to perform safety audits involving resident participation and consultation. The contracts further require theimplementation of a rigorous action plan, along with the evaluation of actions taken. [www.ville.gouv.fr]

94

129TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Bonnemaison Approach in France• City crime prevention councils
Federation of Canadian Municipalities• Primer gives an explanation on how to
White Paper on Safety and Security, South Africa
Habitat - Safer Cities
Crime and Disorder Act, UK• requirement of cities and police services to collaborate in inter-agency strategy with schools, social
services …
Neighbourhood renewal unit, UK
In 1998, the UK adopted the landmark Crime and Disorder Act, requiring every local government toestablish a permanent committee jointly chaired by a senior manager from the city and the police service.
The committee must create a permanent responsibility centre to bring together police services, municipal
government, schools, social services, and so on, ensuring a multi-sector approach to community safety. The
committee must examine the crime problems faced by the city and prepare an appropriate strategy torespond to them. Cities hire skilled staff to prepare the diagnosis for the committee and implement the plan.
Many of these plans are available to the public over the Internet for comment, and all strategies must
include some type of evaluation. Agencies such as Crime Concern and NACRO (see first paper), which were
established to provide technical assistance and coaching to those implementing crime prevention, assist
local governments in ensuring the success of this process.
The city of Brent is one of 350 communities in the UK to provide core funding for crime prevention
planning that is separate from policing. With a population of 250 000, Brent receives $650,000 in corefunding, allowing them to plan for crime prevention through systematic crime analysis, community
mobilization, and project proposal. Brent receives another $800,000 in project funds to implement andevaluate community-based efforts. At the municipal level alone, this represents a cost of $6 per resident.
[www.brent.gov.uk/crimezone]
Recognizing the important role that local governments play in ensuring community safety through crime
prevention, City leaders across Canada have taken these matters into their own hands. The Federation of
Canadian Municipalities has produced a primer that guides municipal leaders on how to implement thesestrategies. The City of Toronto adopted a Municipal Community Safety Plan in 2004 balancing enforcement
and prevention to address increases in gun violence and youth crime.
• a Mayor’s Advisory Panel on Community Safety was created - comprising the Mayor, city
councillors, school board officials, provincial and federal representatives, the Attorney General of
Ontario, judges, business people, youth, citizens, media - to coordinate a multi-sector strategy totackle the root causes of crime in Toronto.
• At-risk neighbourhoods will benefit from increased resources and support, and efforts will focus
specifically on guns, gangs, and increasing economic opportunities.
• A Community Safety Secretariat will co-ordinate, implement, and evaluate the Panel’s plans andinitiatives.
Since 1982, the City of Montreal annually invests $1.50 per resident for Tandem Montreal, a city agency
that integrates, coordinates, and financially supports local crime prevention initiatives based on “whatworks” to prevent crime.
• With a current budget of around $1.5 million, Tandem focuses on improving home security and safety
for children, youth, women, and the elderly, with particular attention to at-risk neighbourhoods.
Tandem’s success has been exemplary in Canada, with a 50% drop in home burglary inMontreal since 1982.
Tandem funded and supported “Little Burgundy’s Neighbourhood Coalition”, which reduced
overall crime by 46% and violent crime by 45% for that particular high crime neighbourhood.

IV. COUNTRY WIDE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK TO MAINTAIN CRIME PREVENTIONThe UN Guidelines for Crime prevention call for a permanent and funded responsibility centre forprevention. Based on scientific knowledge of “what works” in reducing crime, this entity provides theleadership for creating and co-ordinating crime prevention strategies and partnerships, while also seeking

95

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.68

active public participation.
As a permanent part of crime policy and programming, this centre has a voice that is equal to the otherthree pillars of crime control (police, courts, and corrections). It has adequate resources to ensure that crime
prevention programmes are sustained to produce significant long-term reductions in crime and victimization.
On an international level, examples of government action in Sweden, Australia and the United Kingdom,
for example, show how jurisdictions have implemented more developed crime prevention plans throughproper legislation, funding, and a dedication to research and evaluation. These strategies benefit from
adequate funding, and provide clear accountability for programming, coordinating, and evaluating crime
prevention initiatives that are successful in demonstrating the achievement of planned results.
In Sweden, the National Council for Crime Prevention is a permanent agency established by legislation in
1974. It aims to reduce crime through the implementation of crime prevention strategies at both the local
and national level. Following a review of its activities, it was re-organized in the 1990’s to cover crime
response as a whole. The success of this Council is largely attributed to its permanency, and to its strong andwell-funded research and evaluation component. [www.bra.se/web/english/]
In Australia, Crime Prevention Victoria is the successor to a series of multi-sector crime prevention
strategies that have evolved over the last decade. Responsible for co-ordinating the crime prevention aspectof the Growing Victoria Together policy, this entity ensures that governments and local key players (police,
school, public health, etc.) work in partnership to address the underlying causes of crime. Its priorities are to
improve safety on the streets and in homes, and to reduce the incidence of crime and violence among youth.
Funding is expended towards local professional development, sustaining successful programmes andevaluating experimental strategies. Similar entities exist in South Australia, New South Wales andQueensland. [www.justice.vic.gov.au]
National Crime Prevention Board, Sweden
National Crime Prevention Centre, South Africa
Youth Justice Board, UK
Crime Prevention Victoria, Australia
National Crime Prevention Strategy, Canada
The funds available to these boards are also critical. Annual budgets of country wide efforts to invest in
prevention vary from less than 1% to nearly 5% of expenditures on law enforcement and criminal justice. A
good guideline is spend 5% of CJS expenditures on prevention.
In France, the Délégation interministerielle à la ville (DIV; Inter-ministerial secretariat to the city) wasestablished to promote multi-sector approaches to tackle problems of urban planning and youth delinquency.
As a result, over a thousand local governments have created a Community Crime Prevention Council toprovide leadership in fostering partnerships between school boards, police, social services, community
groups, sports agencies, and so on. Typically the local government will have one or more employees tosupport and co-ordinate the work of the Council. These Councils diagnose the local crime situation andpropose appropriate activities to tackle the particular causes of crime. The DIV also funds a number ofnational programmes such as summer camps, community justice centres and community policing.
[www.ville.gouv.fr]
In the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister launched the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) in 1997, a multisector approach to reduce social exclusion by tackling crime and improving housing, education,
unemployment and health conditions at the local level. The inter-departmental programme has established
Units in some of the most high-risk estates of the UK. Efforts focus on making sure everyone has access to
mainstream services while also reintegrating those who have fallen through the cracks. The Units benefit
from significant and sustained funding, and SEU evaluations show positive impacts such as a 66% reductionin people sleeping on streets at night, a 33% reduction in children excluded from school, and the successfulplacement of over 17,000 youth previously not involved in school, training or employment. As part of theSEU, a newly established Children’s Fund, with a budget of over $1 billion, will fund local services toincreasingly prevent the social exclusion of children and youth. As a parallel project, the UK Department of96

129TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Health has invested significant funds in a programme called Sure Start to specifically help young children
and families in difficulty. [www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk/]
Also parallel to the Social Exclusion Unit of the UK, the federal Neighbourhood Renewal Unit (NRU) was
created to narrow the gap between deprived neighbourhoods and the rest of the country. The goals of the
NRU are to tackle the many core problems that contribute to deprivation, such as weak economies and poor
schools. To this end, around $4.5 billion was invested over four years in multi-sector Neighbourhood
Renewal Teams to improve local services and conditions in 88 of the most deprived estates of the UK. As acomprehensive strategy, the NRU also funds and implements Neighbourhood Warden Teams, who work
closely with residents, police and local organizations to reduce individual deprivation and anti-social
behaviour. The NRU further funds other national partnership programmes, such as the Neighbourhood
Management Pathfinders, who are responsible for testing new ways of effectively delivering multi-sector
services at the local level. In its dedication to effective practice, the NRU also has a Research andDevelopment Branch, as well as a Skills and Knowledge Branch. [www.neighbourhood.gov.uk]
Integrating Crime Prevention into Social Development
Interministerial secretariat on the city, France
Neighbourhood Renewal Units, UK
Safer beginnings, safer futures, Canada
Nurse visitation programmes, e.g. Hawaii, USA
Success requires public support

V. CHALLENGE OF IMPLEMENTATION
Among the prerequisites for effective implementation of preventive measures are the following:
Visibility• Multiply victimisation and longitudinal surveys• Public awareness – media, “years”, school curricula
Capacity• Invest massively at all levels in prevention training - handbooks
Ownership• Promote municipal and school co-ownership with police
Intersectoral action• Create responsibility centres at all government levels to mobilise schools, social services, police,
parents and others
Effective government• Shift investment from law and custody to prevention• Require accountability for outcomes (not outputs)

VI. WORLD REPORT ON HEALTH AND VIOLENCE: IMPLEMENTATION STEPS







Increasing the capacity for collecting data on violence
Researching violence – its causes, consequences and prevention
Promoting the primary prevention of interpersonal violence
Promoting social and gender equality and equity to prevent violenceStrengthening support and care services for victims
Bringing it all together – developing a national plan of action

VII. CANADIANS BELIEVE•••

The best examples of crime prevention are support for children and parents (31 per cent),
recreational activities for youth (20 per cent), community policing (20 per cent) and educating
families on avoiding victimization (14 per cent) - Ekos Research Associates, 2000.
Eighty seven per cent of Canadians believe that police, government and community groups working
together are in the best position to successfully implement crime prevention - Ekos Research
Associates, 2000.
Seventy one per cent of Canadians believe that crime prevention is more cost effective than law
enforcement - Ekos Research Associates, 2000.

97

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.68

In California, the public belief in prevention was put to the test in proposition 36. With 61% in favour, theproposition was adopted showing that the public is indeed in favour of prevention when given the facts.






Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (Proposition 36)
Passed by 61% of California voters on November 7, 2000
Initiative allows:•
first- and second-time, non-violent, simple drug possession offenders•
to receive substance abuse treatment in community instead of incarceration
Initiative allocates $120 million annually for five and a half years to pay for treatment services
Public awareness campaign•
70% reduction in violent recidivism•$19,000 per offender less in costs•$7 in collateral benefits for every $1•
Avoid $300 million cost of prison

VIII. CONCLUSIONS
Comprehensive crime prevention strategies – led and organised by crime prevention board at eachcritical level of government – will lead to a quality of life where rates of crime have been reduced
significantly below international norms without any unwarranted increase in taxes and with a better use ofpresent social and criminal justice policy dollars.
This requires legislation to assure the permanency and sustainability of the lead crime prevention entity
as well as the investment of 5% of enforcement and criminal justice dollars, so that it can do the diagnosis
and planning as well as foster the implementation and evaluation of the measures that are needed.
It will need to use what has been tested and shown to reduce crime and elsewhere as well as capacity
development, better data and so on. The following overviews some of the elements discussed above thatwould form part of the business plan to reduce crime and victimization, avoid considerable annual losses due
to crime and improve the quality of life.
Business plan for Prevention that will reduce crime and its costs by 50% in the next ten years
1. Consolidate national, state and local government centres to•Spearhead shift to solving crime•
5% rule.
2. Main stream well planned crime prevention into policing, schools and local government and set
targets.
3. Invest immediately in human skills to implement well planned crime prevention at State and local
level.
4. Ensure basic data such as victimisation, longitudinal, offender based and comparative co-benefit.
5. Communicate to public what works and targets will be set
6. Balance efforts to tackle common crime, intra-familial violence and high need communities – startwith quick hits.
Results are less crime, less costs and a better future for youth.

98129TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERSREFERENCES•

Audit Commission (1996) Misspent Youth, London, www.youthjusticeboard.uk.

•

Federation of Canadian Municipalities (2000). Primer on Municipal Crime Prevention. Ottawa.

•

Goldblatt, P. & C. Lewis (1998) Reducing Offending: An Assessment of Research Evidence, London:
Home Office, www.crimereduction.gov.uk/toolkits/.

•

International Centre for Prevention of Crime (1999a) Crime Prevention Digest II: Comparative
Analysis of Successful Community Safety, Directed by Irvin Waller, Written by Daniel Sansfaçon and
B. Welsh. Montreal, www.crime-prevention-intl.org.

•

International Centre for Prevention of Crime (1999b) 100 crime prevention programs to inspire
action across the world, Directed by Irvin Waller, Written by Gauthier, Lily-Ann, David Hicks et al.
Montreal, www.crime-prevention-intl.org.

•

Morgan Harris Burrows (2003). Evaluation of the Youth Inclusion Programme: End of phase one
report. London: Youth Justice Board.

•

Newman, Graeme ed. (1999) Global Report on Crime and Justice, New York, Oxford University
Press, www.odccp.org/crime_cicp_publications.html.

•

Sherman, Lawrence, David Farrington, Brandon Welsh, Doris MacKenzie, (2002) Evidence Based
Crime Prevention, New York: Routledge www.crimeprevention.org.

•

UN Economic and Social Council, (2002) Crime Prevention Guidelines , United Nations 11 th
Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, New York www.odccp.org/
crime_cicp_documentation.html.

•

US Surgeon General (2001) Juvenile Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General ,www.surgeongeneral.gov.

•

Waller, Irvin, Mel Bania, Mary-Anne Kirvan, Lucie Léonard (2005). Handbook on Implementation of
UN Guidelines for the Prevention of Crime. Ottawa: manuscript in preparation for National Crime
Prevention Centre.

•

Waller, Irvin, Daniel Sansfaçon, (2000). Investing Wisely in Prevention: International Experiences.
Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Monograph, Crime
Prevention Series #1 www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/.

•World Health Organisation, (2004). Preventing violence: A guide to implementing therecommendations of the World Report on Violence and Health. Geneva: Violence and Injuries
Prevention: www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/index.html.

•

World Health Organisation (2002) World Report on Health and Interpersonal Violence, Geneva
www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention.

•

Yoshioka, Takeko (2004). National Crime Prevention Strategies for Japan: Implications of Scientific
Knowledge and International Guidelines. Ottawa: University of Ottawa. MA Thesis.

99