112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

CITIZENS’ EXPERIENCE WITH CRIME PREVENTION
Ugljesa Zvekic*
I. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Among the criminological theories
specifically applicable to crime prevention,
the economic theory of crime proposed byBecker in1968 1 asserts that potential
offenders constantly move between
legitimate and illegitimate activities,
depending on the results of a cost-benefit
assessment. While making the decision,as whether or not to undertake illegitimate
actions, they calculate the risk of being
apprehended as costs against the economic
benefit if the action is successfully
concluded. This theory starts from theassumption that the offender’s behaviour
is induced by the desire of economic gain.
In order for a crime of this type to becommitted, three elements are
determinant: the presence of a suitabletarget, skill and opportunity.
According to his theory, further
developed by Ehrlich 2 , the offender
represents the supply side of the crimemarket. The supply of crime will be basedon the costs (the probability of beingcaught, the amount of sanction envisaged
for that particular crime and all possible
intervening variables). Depending on thelevel of the cost, more or less crimes will
occur. Such “costs” very much depend on
deterrence determined by effective law
enforcement.

also envisages a “crime market”, but thepresence of motivated offenders is definedas the demand side and the availability ofsuitable and poorly protected targets as the
supply side.
Although motivated by the same
assumption of the existence of a “crimemarket” as was the case for Becker andEhrlich, van Dijk reverses the parties anddescribes the victims as “reluctant
suppliers” of opportunities for crime: “Thecriminal opportunities offered by potential
victims are an undesired side-effect of theirpossession of certain goods”.
The theory keeps the focus on theoffender’s behaviour and the cost-benefit
analysis which motivates the decision ofwhether or not to commit a crime.
However, in this paradigm, higher
opportunity costs for the offender are
determined by better protection of suitabletargets and increased self-precautionary
measures adopted by potential victims(target hardening), rather than effective
law enforcement alone. In this respect,more attention is paid to the prevention ofcrime rather than the punishment of theoffender once a crime has already occurred.
Potential victims are involved in thescheme, thus shifting from a specialisedrole for the police in crime prevention to1

In more recent years, the rationalinteractionist model developed by van Dijk3* Deputy Director, United Nations Interregional
Crime and Justice Research Institute, UNICRI.
**Authored by Dr. Anna Alavazzi del Frate, Research
Officer, UNICRI. Presented by Ugljesa Zvekic,
Deputy Director, UNICRI.

G. Becker, “Crime and Punishment: An Economic
Approach”, Journal of Political Economy, 76:2, 1968,
pp. 169-217.
2 I. Ehrlich, “Participation in Illegitimate Activities:
A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation”, Journalof Political Economy, May 1973, pp. 521-565.
3 J.J.M. van Dijk, “Understanding Crime Rates”,
British Journal of Criminology 34:2, 1994, pp. 105121.

163

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
community-based crime prevention.
The rational-interactionist model helps
to understand crime phenomena, which aresimilar in many countries and are of highconcern to the international community.
this model is applicable to crimes against
the household, but also to property andeconomic crimes in which shops, officebuildings and corporations are increasingly
becoming the victim. In both cases - crimes
against individuals or households andcrimes against business - target hardening
is up to the potential victims.
However, an involvement of the “formal”
structures in crime prevention activities isstill necessary to address the problems
which are at the basis of the offender’sbehaviour. Issues to be addressed include
urbanization, migration flows, educationand opportunities for employment,
especially for young males. Furthermore,
urban design, especially in newly built
residential areas, should be improved toprovide the necessary infrastructure (e.g,schools, shops, recreational areas) as well
as services (e.g, street lights, public
transport and telephones), which would
assist in improving the quality of life in theneighbourhood and of the people who live
there.
II. URBAN DESIGN AND TYPE
DWELLING
The International Crime (Victim) Survey
was carried out on national samples inWestern Europe and the New World, whilein other participating countries samples
were drawn from large cities.
The type of dwelling most frequently
found in the survey was a house, either
isolated, semi-detached or in a row. For
example, the popular formula of houses ina row represents the absolute majority ofcases in Northern Europe.
Apartments rank first as the type ofdwelling, except in the group of countries
in transition, where the former-socialist
model based on extensive urbanization
predominates. In these cities the large
majority of people live in apartmentbuildings. In Africa, Asia and Latin
America, the large majority of the
respondents live either in houses or indifferent types of dwellings. Shanties
account for 17% in Africa and 13% in Asia,and the inclusion of respondents from theseareas in the ICVS sample may also reflect
on victimisation rates.
However, it should be noted that the
ICVS classification by types of dwelling wasmeant to identify the type of housing rather
than assessing the residential status of the
respondent. Obviously, different types ofdwelling require different crime prevention
devices.
The concept of an isolated or semidetached house may represent different
realities in developed and developing
countries. For example, high-income areas

Table 1
Type of Dwelling of ICVS Respondents, by Regions (1996)

Apartment
House
Other

164

WesternEurope
29.3
69.2
1.5

New
World
21.2
73.4
5.4

Countries inTransition
62.6
33.1
4.3

Africa

Asia

9.2
70.7
20.1

19.9
66.3
13.8

Latin
America
25.6
70.4
4.0

112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
in some developing countries often consist
in compounds that are extremely well
protected from the outside by fences, watch
dogs and patrols. It was reported by someICVS national co-ordinators that it was
sometimes difficult for the interviewers to
obtain access to houses selected for thesurvey because of the high level of security
at the entrance of the compound. The
corresponding type of housing will mostprobably be less protected and patrolled inWestern Europe or the New World, where
this type of security is less common.
III. BURGLARY
Burglary is the typical household crime.
The ICVS questionnaire included questions
on victimisation experiences for burglary
and attempted burglary. Table 3 shows
one-year prevalence victimisation rates atthe country and regional levels for burglary
and attempted burglary.
The regions in which survey respondents
were often affected by these types of crimewere Latin America and Africa. Medium
risk was observed in the New World andcountries in transition, while Western
Europe and Asia showed the lowest levelsof risk. In most regions, the 1996 one-year
burglary rates were either equal to or lower
than those observed in 1992. At thecountry level, both types of crime increasedin The Netherlands, Georgia, Russia, India,
and in all three Latin American countries
which were involved in both sweeps of the
ICVS. Rates for burglary and attemptedburglary are very close to each other inmost regions.
People who live in rural contexts
apparently run lower risks ofhousebreaking in comparison with citydwellers. Higher percentages of residents
of urban areas were victims of burglary
than respondents from villages and rural
areas. However, as van Dijk observed withreference to the 1992 sweep of the ICVS4,
the type of housing, more than thesurounding context, is correlated withburglary. Actually, a positive correlation
was found between being a victim ofburglary and living in a house rather thanan apartment. As Table 3 shows, in all
regions - with the exception of countries intransition - respondents living in a houserun risks of burglary higher than the
average.
Very often a break-in also involved
damage to doors, locks or windows. This
happened more frequently in Western
Europe, in Africa and in the New World. A
possible explanation for the lower
frequency of damage found in countries intransition, Asia and Latin America is thathouseholds are less often protected bycrime prevention devices, thus making iteasier for the burglar to access the house.
Another aspect which was taken into
account was whether anything had
actually been stolen when the burglary
occurred. Actual theft during burglaries
happened more frequently in countries intransition and in developing countries.
This finding may suggest that the type ofobjects stolen is different in Western
Europe and the New World to those in otherregions. According to national coordinators from developing countries,
stolen goods often included money, food andsimple household objects such as cutlery
or linen, which were most probably stolen
for the personal use of the burglar. In rural
areas, cattle were often stolen.

4

J.J.M. van Dijk “Opportunities of Crime: A Test of
the Rational-Interactionist Model”, in Crime andEconomy - Reports Presented to the 11th
Criminological Colloquium (1994), Council ofEurope, Criminological Research, Vol. XXXII, 1995,
pp. 97-145.

165

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
Table 2
One Year Prevalence Rates for Burglary and Attempted Burglary, byCountries and by Regions, 1992 and 1996, and Risk of Burglary for Type ofArea and Type of Dwelling, by Regions, 1996
Burglary Attempted Burglary Attempted Burglary Burglary Burglary Burglary
Burglary
Burglary Rural
Urban Apartment House
Areas
Areas
Austria
Belgium
England and Wales
Italy
FinlandFranceN. Ireland
Netherlands
Scotland
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland
Western Europe

1992
n.a.
2.3
3.2
2.4
0.6
n.a.
n.a.
2.0
n.a.
2.7
1.5
n.a.
2.1

1992
n.a.
1.8
3.0
1.7
0.5
n.a.
n.a.
3.0
n.a.
4.9
0.8
n.a.
2.2

1996
0.8
n.a.
3.0
n.a.
0.6
2.2
1.6
2.6
1.5
n.a.
1.4
1.7
1.7

1996
0.6
n.a.
3.4
n.a.
0.7
2.1
1.1
3.2
2.4
n.a.
1.2
1.3
1.8

Australia
CanadaNew Zealand
USA
New World

4.1
3.4
4.4
3.2
3.8

4.0
2.9
3.6
3.9
3.6

n.a.
3.4
n.a.
2.7
3.0

Albania
Czech Republic
Estonia
Georgia
Hungary
Kyrgyzstan
LatviaMacedonia
Mongolia
PolandRomania
RussiaSlovak Republic
Slovenia
Yugoslavia
Countries in Transition

n.a.
4.7
5.9
2.5
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a
n.a.
2.2
n.a.
1.8
3.4
1.8
n.a
3.2

n.a.
1.6
3.1
2.0
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
2.7
n.a.
3.6
1.6
2.5
n.a.
2.4

Egypt
South Africa
Tanzania
Tunisia
UgandaZimbabwe
Africa

3.0
7.2
21.2
7.4
14.2
n.a.
10.6

China
India
Indonesia
Philippines
Asia
Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Costa Rica
Latin America

166

1996

1996

1996

1996

1.5

2.0

1.6

1.7

n.a.
2.8
n.a.
3.5
3.2

2.8

4.0

2.4

3.5
2.2
4.0
4.0
2.6
4.6
2.6
2.0
9.3
2.0
1.2
2.9
n.a.
n.a.
2.9
3.4

2.9
2.7
3.9
3.1
1.9
4.3
5.3
1.6
6.1
1.7
2.0
4.6
n.a.
n.a.
2.7
3.3

2.8

3.5

3.3

2.6

3.8
3.9
13.3
4.5
13.0
n.a.
7.7

n.a.
6.8
n.a.
n.a.
8.1
10.2
8.4

n.a.
3.7
n.a.
n.a.
10.4
7.2
7.1

5.5

8.5

5.8

9.0

1.5
1.2
4.6
2.9
2.6

0.4
1.3
2.0
2.1
1.5

n.a.
2.2
4.5
1.7
2.8

n.a.
3.0
2.9
0.9
2.3

3.2

2.7

2.1

2.8

2.9
n.a.
1.4
4.4
2.9

3.9
n.a.
2.4
6.1
4.1

7.5
7.1
2.6
7.6
6.2

6.9
9.0
3.5
9.3
7.2

5.4

6.3

5.2

6.3

112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Table 3
Percentages of Burglaries Involving Damage and Actual Theft, by Regions - 1996

Apartment
Objects Stolen

WesternEurope
58.4
74.9

New
World
50.0
72.6

Countries inTransition
42.2
77.9

Vice versa, in the more affluent regions,where most people keep their money in theblank, and often jewelry and other valuableobjects are kept in safes and security
lockers, burglars take what is available andgive preference to objects which are easily
re-sold. In this respect, the most frequently
stolen objects are those which are easier toplace on the market of stolen goods, suchas electrical appliances, TV and radio sets,
VCRs, hi-fi equipment, as well as furnitureand objects of art. The difference in objects
stolen between the affluent and poor
regions is opportunity determined, in termsof the type of objects available, or the levelof protection.
A. Fear of Burglary
The respondents were asked whether
they felt that a burglary was likely to occur
in their household in the next twelve
months. Table 5 shows that the majorityof the respondents from Western Europe,
the New World and Asia were notconcerned about the possibility of a breakin in the near future, while the opposite
was the case with the majority of the
respondents from Latin America and morethan 40% of those from countries intransition and Africa. The higher the rates
of victimisation for burglary and attemptedburglary, the higher the fear of this type ofcrime. There is a strong correlation at theregional level between the perceived
likelihood of burglary and burglary(0.8232), and even more with attemptedburglary (0.9111). Within the regions,similar levels of fear of burglary wereperceived by those living in houses andthose living in apartments.

Africa

Asia

55.7
89.1

28.9
91.5

Latin
America
32.8
85.9

B. Crime-prevention at theHousehold Level
The costs related to burglary may
greatly be increased if a household is
protected by crime prevention devices.
Deterrence is put in place by creating
physical or psychological barriers between
the offender and the target.
It appears that the patterns ofcommitting burglaries in isolated houses
or flats in condominiums are different. Anapartment may be better protected fromattacks from outside than a house, but oncea burglar gets in, he/she is more likely towork undisturbed because of the higher
level of anonymity which is found in acondominium.
Crime prevention measures suggested
for the two types of dwelling are also
different: while a burglar alarm can beadvisable in both situations, its
effectiveness can be greatly reduced if thehouse is isolated and the alarm is notconnected, for example, to the local police
station. Otherwise, if the alarm consistsof an acoustic deterrent, it can only work if
it is likely to be heard by somebody in theneighbourhood.
Three main types of crime prevention
measure are commonly used to protect
households and were identified by the
ICVS questionnaire. The first type consistsof behaviours adopted by the household
members in order to prevent crimes. For
example, keeping a watch dog, making thehouse look and sound occupied while away
by leaving curtains and shades in their167

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
Table 4
Likelihood of Burglary in the Next Twelve Months, by Regions (1996)

Very likely/likely
Not likely
Don’t knowWesternEuropeNew
WorldCountries inTransition

AfricaAsia

Latin
America

29.6
63.0
7.5

26.8
67.5
5.7

41.1
35.6
23.3

43.7
33.2
23.1

21.3
51.7
27.1

56.6
31.4
12.0

normal position or lights on, or asking aneighbour or a caretaker to look after thehouse. In many cultures, households are
rarely left unattended and relatives orfriends may come along and take care of
the home.
A second type consists of physical devices
which are put in place in order to makeaccess of unauthorized persons to thehousehold more difficult. This typeincludes the simplest and more diffusedcrime prevention devices such as door
locks, window grills and fences. Burglar
alarms installed to protect the householdfrom break-ins also belong to this category.
Finally, a third type exists at thecommunity level and consists of theestablishment of community-based
initiatives involving other parties in crime
prevention (such as other citizens, but also
the police, the municipality or the schools).
For example, “neighbourhood watch”
schemes involving the residents of aparticular area.
Table 5 shows the rates of crime
prevention measures observed by the 1996
ICVS. It should be noted that the adoptionof crime prevention measures very muchdepends on the type of dwelling (acorrelation of 0.835 was found between an
aggregate index of crime prevention
measures and living in a house rather thanan apartment). In fact, most of the devices
or precautions listed in Table 6 are moresuitable for a house than an apartment. It

168

therefore appears that crime prevention
measures are least used in countries intransition, the region in which most
respondents lived in apartments. In
addition, the cost of crime prevention
devices that are more suitable forapartments (e.g, burglar alarms) arehigher and therefore less in use in lessaffluent countries even if apartments are
more diffused dwelling places for city
inhabitants.
It should also be noted that thepercentage of those who declared that they
did not use any of the measures listed by
the ICVS ranged from 11.9% in the New
World to 36.5% in the countries intransition, reflecting both the suitability oftypes of devices for types of dwellings, aswell as the level of expenditure for crime
prevention.
The ICVS revealed that various types ofcrime prevention measures exist in all
world regions, although their use is more
frequent where affluence is higher. The
most popular crime prevention measure
was asking the neighbours to look after thehouse in case of absence. A minimum of
25% of the respondents in Russia to a
maximum of 83% in Northern Ireland andIndia normally ask their neighbours to lookafter the household when away.
The second most diffused method was
the use of door locks and ownership/use ofwatch dogs. Keeping a watch dog was
mentioned by approximately a quarter of

112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Table 5
Crime Prevention Measures at the Household Level, by Regions (1996)

Ask neighbours tolook after the house
Door locks
Watch dog
Windows grills
Neighbourhood watch
Fence
Burglar alarm
Caretaker
None

WesternEuropeNew
WorldCountries inTransition

AfricaAsia

Latin
America

59.2
46.2
20.4
14.5
17.7
16.2
13.4
4.0
27.5

97.1
54.7
34.7
20.9
36.2
17.5
20.5
8.3
11.9

48.6
26.9
20.7
8.6
8.4
5.2
4.4
0.9
36.5

47.7
31.9
18.9
34.2
10.3
38.6
5.9
7.5
27.2

76.7
42.0
19.7
30.0
22.9
4.2
1.7
10.6
21.3

60.5
41.8
39.7
34.2
12.1
20.7
12.3
10.4
15.4

the respondents, with peaks of 65% in
Bolivia, 39% in the USA and 38% in The
Philippines.
Asking the neighbours and keeping awatch dog are two widely used types ofprotection by the respondents from all theregions, including more than 20% in
countries in transition. It is interesting toobserve that watch dogs are not only
frequently found in houses, but are alsofrequently kept in apartments: it appears
that even a pet might do some crime
prevention work.
Employing a caretaker to prevent crime
was indicated by 10% of the respondents
in Asia and Latin America. This measure
is very much related to the urban and social
structure of the country, as well as its
habits. It therefore appears that rates varydepending on the local situation. In a few
countries, including Costa Rica, Argentina.
India, Zimbabwe, Finland and France,
rates of employment of caretakers aremuch higher than in the rest of theparticipating countries. In all regions,
respondents who declared the presence ofa caretaker showed a significantly lower

fear of burglary than the average.
Data from the ICVS reveal that “simple”
crime prevention measures such as door
locks and window grills are used in all theparticipating countries. The countries inwhich such devices are less used are thosein which there is a low incidence of crime
prevention measures in general, as is thecase in Finland, Estonia, Albania, Latvia,
Poland, Russia, Mongolia and Yugoslavia.
As regards Finland, low crime rates may
be a possible explanation for a lesser useof household protection. In the othercountries, all belonging to the group ofcountries in transition, it appears that theprocess of increased protection of residence
is much slower than the spread of property
crime.
As expected, window grills and fences
are very frequent in all regions where themost popular type of dwelling is a house,
with the exception of Asia. An aggregate
index of crime prevention measures reveals
that they are more frequently used in theregions in which burglary rates are higher.
These findings suggest that crime
prevention measures are adopted where

169

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
Table 6
Burglar Alarms, by Countries - 1992 and 1996
England & WalesThe Netherlands
FinlandSwedenCanadaEstonia
PolandRussiaGeorgia
Czech Republic
India
Indonesia
The Philippines
UgandaSouth Africa
Costa Rica
Argentina
Brazil

1992
22.1
7.6
1.0
5.4
13.0
0.8
1.4
5.9
3.7
2.9
2.7
3.9
2.3
5.5
9.4
9.1
15.8
2.9

and when burglary occurs more frequently.
Once adopted, the crime prevention devices
tend to reduce the feeling of insecurity, atleast initially: the respondents who
adopted crime prevention measures more
frequently perceived that burglary in thenext twelve months is unlikely.
It therefore appears that respondents
from high-crime regions feel safer(unlikelihood of burglary) if they use crime
prevention measures, while the same
feeling of safety is expressed byrespondents from low-crime areas who did
not adopt any of the crime prevention
measures identified by the survey.
C. Burglar Alarms
Table 6 shows the percentages of
respondents who owned burglar alarms in

170

1996
27.2
10.1
1.0
6.7
20.0
3.1
1.4
7.2
3.5
6.9
1.7
0.9
1.8
4.6
8.0
8.3
26.7
0.1

% Difference
+5.1
+2.5
0.0
+1.3
+7.0
+2.3
0.0
+1.3
-0.2
+4.0
-1.0
-3.0
-0.5
-0.9
-1.4
-0.8
+10.9
-2.8

1992 and 1996 in the participating
countries. In general, burglar alarms are
more frequently installed to protect houses
than apartments. Alarms are morediffused in the more affluent regions, i.e,
the New World and Western Europe.
However, within these regions they are notvery popular in Switzerland, Finland,
Sweden and Austria, which are also thecountries with the lowest burglary rates.
The apparently high incidence of burglar
alarms in Latin America is mostly due totheir spread in apparently high incidenceof burglar alarms in Latin America ismostly due to their spread in Buenos Aires,
where 26% of the respondents owned sucha device in 1996.
Between 1992 and 1996 the use or
installation of burglar alarms increased in112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
most countries in Western Europe, the New
World and countries in transition. It is
hard to tell whether a wider use of burglar
alarms can be related to the increase or
decrease of burglary rates, although it
appears that the majority of the
respondents who owned an alarm in 1996
were not victims of burglary in the past five
years. Respondents with a burglar alarm
who were not victims of burglary in the past
five years showed the percentages of fearof burglary were markedly lower than the
average for the sample.
It thus appears that the respondents
believe that alarm systems actually deter
burglars. Nevertheless, in ten
industrialised countries participating in
the 1996 ICVS, an experimental question
was posed to victims of burglary who werealso owners of burglar alarms to assess
whether their alarm was installed before
or after the burglary occurred. Results
show that the majority of victims who
declared that their household is protectedby a burglar alarm decided to install it only
after the burglary occurred.
Finally, for comparative purposes, it
should be taken into account that in several
countries insurance companies encouragea wider use of burglar alarms by offering
reductions on the cost of household
insurance if an alarm system has been
installed.
D. Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
and Examples of Partnership in
Crime Prevention
Neighbourhood watch schemes are quite
popular in the New World, Asia andWestern Europe, but much less so in theother regions. These schemes imply acertain level of social cohesion and that all
the participating residents share theobjective of preventing and reducing crimeby increasing the level of “natural
surveillance” in a specific area, thus

promoting informal crime control. Thisapproach, if co-ordinated with the police,
helps to limit the use of self-defense and to
improve the quality of life in the area.
The ICVS identified huge differences in
the country-by-country rates of the use ofneighbourhood watch schemes within thesix observed regions, and even at the subregional level between countries that areotherwise similar to each other. For
example, while in England and Wales morethan 48% of the respondents said they
belonged to such schemes, this was the casewith only 28.3% in Scotland and 1.6% inNorthern Ireland. This data suggest that“neighbourhood watch” very much depends
on programme implementation at the local
level.
IX. POSSESSION OF FIREARMSFOR CRIME PREVENTION
The perception that a gun can beconsidered an effective crime prevention
device is frequent in some countries andmany people depend on a firearm forprotection.
Table 7 shows that rates of ownership offirearms very much vary from region toregion. The highest ownership rates wereobserved in the New World and Western
Europe, followed by Latin America andcountries in transition. However, thereasons for gun ownership are different andvary very much from country to country.
Not all the firearms are meant to be used
for crime prevention purposes.
In countries in transition and developing
countries hand guns were more widespreadthan long guns. It should be observed that
handguns - which are mostly owned forcrime prevention purposes - were more
frequently found in large cities than inrural areas and in some cities, especiallyin Latin America, they represented the171

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
absolute majority of the firearms owned by
the respondents.
In the United States, 57% of the
respondents said they owned a weapon for
hunting, while another 39% said that the
purpose of ownership was self-protection
and prevention of crime. Although it waspossible to provide multiple responses, this
proportion of respondents believing in guns
for crime prevention is among the highest
reported to the survey.
In countries such as Canada andFinland, the relatively high ownershiprates were explained by the respondents
as being for hunting purposes as theysometimes need to be ready to face wild
animals which may attack isolated houses.
In these countries, ownership with the
purpose of crime prevention was mentioned
in less than 1% of the cases.
In Switzerland, 64% of the respondents
declared that a firearm was in theirhousehold because they belong to the army.
This is because the military system in
Switzerland envisages that all malecitizens remain enrolled with the army
until they are 55 years old, thus
participating in periodical re-training andtaking care of their own military weapon,
which is normally kept in the household.
The purpose of crime prevention was
mentioned by 7 % of the owners only.
The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
represents a different situation. There isa tradition of ownership of firearms in thiscountry and furthermore it has recently
emerged from a period of disintegration of
the former Yugoslavia. War was spreading
all around and contributed to increased
feelings of fear, on the one hand, and to
more availability of weapons on the other.
According to the Yugoslav survey coordinator, the ownership rate of 30% is anunderestimate of the actual number of
weapons existing in Belgrade. The main
purpose for ownership was reported as
being for the prevention of crime, followedby the statement that a weapon has always
been in the respondent’s family.
Finally, in Argentina the large majorityof gun-owners (65%) declared that theyowned it to protect themselves from crime.
This was the case with most of the firearmowners from Latin America, Asia andAfrica, although actual rates of ownershipvaried, the lowest being in Asia and Africa.
The above examples show different
patterns of ownership and use of weapons.
While it appears that there is no correlation
between burglary and gun ownership as
such, a strong correlation was foundbetween both burglary and attemptedburglary and ownership with a purpose ofcrime prevention (.962 and .926
respectively).
Finally, respondents who declaredowning a weapon for crime prevention
purposes also perceived high chances ofburglary (very likely and likely) within thenext twelve months (correlation = .728419).

Table 7Firearms: Rates of Ownership and Crime Prevention Purpose, by Regions (1996)

Gun ownershipc.p. purpose

172

WesternEuropeNew
WorldCountries inTransition

AfricaAsia

Latin
America

17.8
8.6

36.5
21.8

11.7
28.7

63.6
79.4

4.1
34.6

15.9
65.7

112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
V. CRIME PREVENTIONSTRATEGIES: BETWEEN FORMALAND INFORMALThe ICVS data shows that crime
prevention measures at the individual level
was not a major concern of the respondents
from the participating countries. Althoughburglary in the next twelve months isperceived as likely or very likely by morethan 40% of the respondents in mostdeveloping countries and in countries intransition, only some basic measures toprevent crime are put in place by those who
fear that their household will be broken
into soon.
It is hard to assess whether this meansthat there is not enough protection put inplace by individuals or whether crime
prevention policies in different countries
are based on different strategies which give
more or less room to “self-help”. “Self-help”
may be considered the most informal typeof crime control, and is therefore
individualised. The “social” mechanisms
for crime prevention, such as nighbourhood
watch schemes, require the citizens toparticipate in crime prevention activities
organised by groups of peers who work inagreement with the agencies of formal
control for the benefit of the community.
It therefore appears that a desirable
development would include a broader
participation of citizens in crime prevention
programmes which would involve several
counterparts and tackle various aspects ofeveryday life.
A. International Work
Within the framework of the Ninth
United Nations Congress on the Preventionof Crime and the Treatment of Offenders,
held in Cairo, Egypt, in 1995, a workshop
on “Urban Policy and Crime Prevention”
was organized. Its final report reflected
the indissoluble links established between

urban policies and crime prevention, andstressed that only a global and partnershipbased approach may be effective inembracing all the causes of crime, with theparticipation of all the agents concerned.5
The principle of sharing crime
prevention responsibilities with thecommunity has been widely accepted andmany governments place crime prevention
programmes involving citizens, law
enforcement and all relevant components
of society among the highest national
priorities. This implies a significant effort
to be jointly undertaken by all the partners
involved, including setting an agenda
which should focus on local needs withoutloosing track of the experience gained at
the national and international level, clearly
identifying its objectives and timing,
assigning roles and appointing leaders toco-ordinate action, adopt common
standards and include proper evaluationof the results achieved.
Long-term plans may not be primarily
aimed at the reduction of crime, which is a
desirable side-effect. For example,
improving the design of the urban
environment by providing more street
illumination is likely, primarily, to improve
the quality of life and secondarily, reduce
opportunities for crime.
The International Centre for thePrevention of Crime (ICPC) has promoted
a review of best practices in the field ofurban crime prevention.6 This resulted ina collection of model programmes put inplace in various cities and local
5

United Nations, Report of the Ninth United Nations
Congress on the Prevention of Crime and theTreatment of Offenders, A/CONF. 169/16, 12 May
1995, p. 82.
6 The collection of best practices is accessible fromthe Internet at the ICPC World Wide Web address<www.crime-prevention.org/ipc.>173

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
communities around the world. Threemain areas for effective prevention havebeen identified:(a) reducing risks of victimization and revictimization of citizens by increasing
formal and informal control;(b) preventing offending and re-offending,by targeting groups at risk andproviding them with educational andrecreational opportunities, as well as
possibilities for housing andemployment;(c) specific target-hardening, through theencouragement of a broader use of selfprecautionary measures.

situation and trends in crime prevention.
It also provides an opportunity to analyse
particular contexts and to makesuggestions as to specific crime prevention
programmes. In 1994 UNICRI, in cooperation with the Research Institute of the
Ministry of the Interior of the RussianFederation, recommended a model crime
prevention programme for the city of
Moscow.9 A comprehensive model of thecomponents of crime prevention
highlighted the particular problems of acountry in transition towards a market
economy. The transition process involves
higher rates of crime (in particularproperty crime), whilst there are scarcefinancial resources to combat it. The crime
prevention strategy should include sevenelements:

It should be noted, however, that the vast
majority of crime prevention programmes
have been established in Western Europe
and the New World.7 Very few cases havebeen found in developing countries andcountries in transition. Among them, one
has been reported from Colombia 8 andconsisted of setting up groups of “peace
promoters” who assisted in theidentification of problematic situations andpotential offenders, thus leading to thecreation of programmes in law
enforcement, public education and social
development.

1. The promotion of active crime
prevention policies to accompany law
enforcement and criminal justice,based on international experienceobtained through effective projects
developed by the United Nations andother relevant internationalorganisations.
2. The development of long-term plans,even though public opinion might ask
for short-term responses to crime.
3. Improved coordination of crime
prevention activities at the national,
regional and local levels.

The ICVS is not only useful for providing
an informed overview of the international
7

For a comprehensive collection and analysis ofcrime prevention programmes in Europe and North
America, see J. Graham, T. Bennett, Crime
Prevention Strategies in Europe and North America,
European Institute for Crime Prevention andControl, affiliated with the United Nations(HEUNI), 1995.
8 The programme is called DESEPAZ, Programma
Desarrollo Seguridad y Paz (Urban Development,
Safety and Peace Programme) and is based in Cali,
Colombia.

174

4. The encouragement of the public to
be involved in crime prevention, bystrengthening the community’s
confidence in the police.
5. The promotion by law enforcement
and criminal justice of the safety and9M. Alexeyeva, A. Patrignani (eds.), Crime andCrime Prevention in Moscow, UNCRI Publ. No.52,
1994.

112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
security of persons and property.
6. The treatment of victims with respect
and understanding of their needs,
and the provision of prompt
assistance and information about
their rights.
7. The regular monitoring of crime
prevention programmes, based onreliable information, analysis andpublic discussion with all parties
involved.
The Moscow model, which was also
based on the extensive analysis of theresults of the 1992 ICVS in Moscow,
confirms the potentials of the ICVS as atool to promote community and victimcentred crime prevention strategies.
Furthermore, improved policecommunity relations, which may result
from a better knowledge of victimisation
experiences, will lead to an increased useof crime prevention measures at theindividual/household level, as well as
within the framework of “social” crime
prevention programmes.

175