C RIME P REVENTION S ERIES

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

#2

Monograph

THE ROLE OF LOCAL

GOVERNMENT IN

COMMUNITY SAFETY

THE ROLE OF LOCAL

GOVERNMENT IN

COMMUNITY SAFETY
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft

Attorney General

Office of Justice Programs

World Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Bureau of Justice Assistance

World Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

For grant and funding information contact

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center

1–800–421–6770

This document was prepared by the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime under

grant number 95–DD–BX–K001,awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance,Office of Justice

Programs,U.S.Department of Justice. The opinions,findings,and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the

official position or policies of the U.S.Department of Justice.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also

includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
THE ROLE OF LOCAL

GOVERNMENT IN

COMMUNITY SAFETY

April 2001

NCJ 184218

Prepared by the International Centre 

for the Prevention of Crime
Increasing numbers of people no longer view the safety of their neighborhoods as the sole responsibility of the police. Throughout the world, citizens

in areas plagued by crime and violence are uniting to work with local government. Together, they have the knowledge and resources to identify and

remove the sources of crime, drug use, and juvenile delinquency in their

communities.

Developing and sustaining these partnerships requires strong local 

leadership from mayors, city managers, city planners, and other elected

local officials. This monograph was prepared to help create that leadership

by chronicling how local public officials have used community safety 

partnerships to build healthier communities.

A framework for using community-local government partnerships to

reduce crime now exists based on the experiences of public officials in

North America, Europe, Africa, and Australasia. This framework includes

the following:

• Recognizing crime and safety as a quality-of-life issue.

• Working across jurisdictional boundaries.

• Recognizing the crucial role of political leadership.

• Developing tools and measures of success that involve the community

and victims of crime.

The programs examined in this monograph illustrate that this framework

works best when adapted to the specific needs of a community. Good governance requires that mayors and other key local officials develop the capacity to respond to those needs. 

Bureau of Justice Assistance

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE iii

Foreword
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE v

This monograph was prepared for the Bureau of Justice Assistance, 

U.S. Department of Justice, by Margaret Shaw, who was assisted by Kathie

Oginsky. Advice and knowledge were provided by Bernard Arsenault, Frantz

Denat, Lily-Ann Gauthier, Daniel Sansfaçon, Claude Vezina, and Irvin Waller

at the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime. The authors would

like to thank the project advisory group for their insight, particularly Ed

Summers of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Robbie Callaway of the Boys &

Girls Clubs of America, Linda Bowen of the National Funding Collaborative

on Violence Prevention, Roberta Lesh of the International City/County

Management Association, members of the National League of Cities, Michel

Marcus of the European Forum for Urban Safety, and Sohail Husain of

Crime Concern. The advice and help of staff from the National Crime

Prevention Council, especially Theresa Kelly, Jack Calhoun, and Jim

Copple, are gratefully acknowledged, as is the support of Jay Marshall 

and Patrick Coleman at the Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Acknowledgments
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE vii

Contents

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

I. Community Safety in Cities, Suburbs, and Rural Areas . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Audience for This Monograph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Challenges for Local Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Increasing Knowledge About Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

Good Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

II. The Emergence of Community Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

How Local Authorities in Other Countries Are Tackling 

Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 

Focus on the City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 

Developing and Transitional Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 

Recent European Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Australasia and Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Recent Developments in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

III. A Framework for Community Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

A Strategy for Analyzing Problems and Mobilizing Resources . . 21

Safe and Healthy Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Horizontal and Vertical Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Political Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Adapting Strategies to Local Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Building Capacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Tools and Measurements of Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Basic Elements of the Local Government Approach. . . . . . . . . 27
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

viii

IV. Limitations, Lessons, and Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Partnership Problems and Information Sharing. . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Evaluation and Funding Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Emerging Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Centralized States and Federal Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

V. Examples From Practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Borough of Brent, London, England: Community Safety and . . . . 

Community Empowerment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 

Toronto, Ontario, Canada: A Community Safety Strategy for 

the City.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 

Brisbane, Queensland, Australia: Youth and Public Space 

Major Centers Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Leichhardt Municipal Council, New South Wales, Australia: 

Draft Youth Social Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Freeport, Illinois: Coalition for a Safe Community . . . . . . . . . . 40

Hartford, Connecticut: Neighborhood Problem-Solving 

Committees and the Comprehensive Communities Program. . . 41

Salt Lake City, Utah: Changing the Way Government Works 

and the Comprehensive Communities Program . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Maryland HotSpot Communities: Reclaiming Our 

Neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

METRAC, Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Taking Action 

Against Abuse of Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam, and Utrecht, 

Netherlands: Big Cities Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

EURO 2000 Football Cities Against Racism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Aix en Provence, France: Local Security Contract and 

Observatory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

VI. Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

VII. References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

VIII. Resources and Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

IX. For More Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE

Executive Summary

Good Governance

In recent years, mayors and

municipal leaders throughout the

United States have confronted

increasing problems of community

safety. These problems have affected not only urban centers but also

small towns and rural municipalities. Many other countries have

experienced similar rapid increases

in crime that have only begun to

decline in the past few years. The

response of many governments has

been to toughen their legal and 

justice systems, increasing policing

capacities and penalties. Despite 

these efforts, the social and economic consequences of crime have 

been enormous: 

• Expenditures on law enforcement

have increased tremendously. 

• Criminal sentences have become

tougher. 

• The number of offenders prosecuted and incarcerated has risen 

dramatically. 

• Private security personnel

have outstripped official law

enforcement. 

• Communities increasingly

have resorted to fortifying 

neighborhoods.

ix

• Crime has reduced the tax base

of cities by driving out residents

and businesses. 

Traditionally, the public has

viewed crime reduction as the

responsibility of the police and 

the courts. However, in spite of increased expenditures, these institutions have been unable to contain

the epidemic of crime. The result

has been a loss of confidence in

criminal justice systems and high

levels of public concern about

crime. Migration, rapid changes in

populations, rising poverty levels,

and income disparities continue to

affect many countries. Crime prevention, rather than reaction or

repression, has generally played a

very minor role in addressing crime

problems. To have an impact on

current crime problems and avoid

even greater problems in the future,

a more balanced approach and 

perceptual shift by society are 

necessary.

This monograph was prepared for

mayors, city managers, planners,

and elected officials. It brings

together information from around

the United States and around the

world on ways that public officials

have used their authority to foster

safer, healthier communities. More

specifically, it outlines the following:
x

THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

• Why change is necessary.

• Why communities can no longer

leave safety to only the criminal

justice system.

• How knowledge about the factors

that lead to crime and insecurity

has increased.

• How knowledge about how citizens can intervene effectively has

increased.

• The leadership, strategies, and

tools needed to bring about

change.

• Examples of city-led projects.

• Lessons learned from past 

practice.

From Crime Prevention to

Community Safety

Mayors and local government officials have played a major role in the

evolution of community safety over

the past 20 years in Europe, North

America, Africa, and Australasia.

Increasing numbers of initiatives target crime, victimization, and the

social exclusion of individuals,

minority groups, and neighborhoods. The links between poverty

and social disadvantage and crime

and victimization have shown that

many agencies need to work together to prevent crime. 

Mayors and local officials have

come to see community safety as a

basic human right and an important

aspect of the quality of life in their

communities. They have mobilized

local partnerships with key actors—

the police, government agencies,

community organizations, and 

residents—to develop safe, secure,

and vibrant communities in metropolitan as well as rural areas. These

partnerships have made significant

gains in how crime prevention is

viewed. For example:

• The narrow focus on crime prevention has shifted to the broader

issue of community safety and

security as a public good.

• A consensus has developed

about the need to work for 

community safety by tackling

the social and economic conditions that foster crime and 

victimization. 

• The common public view that

community safety is the sole

responsibility of the police has

changed and people now recognize that governments, communities, and partnerships at all levels

must be actively engaged. 

• A recognition has evolved that

local municipal leaders play a

crucial role in protecting communities by organizing and motivating coalitions of local partners.

• Increasing evidence shows that

intervention targeting risk factors

can be effective and efficient in

reducing crime and other social

problems. 
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE xi

Executive Summary 

A Framework for

Community Safety

A framework for tackling community safety has emerged in recent

years that can be used by local governments. This framework includes

the following: 

• Recognizing crime and safety as

quality-of-life issues.

• Working across jurisdictional

boundaries both horizontally and

vertically.

• Recognizing the crucial role of

political leadership.

• Adapting strategies to local

needs on the basis of good analysis and targeted plans. 

• Building capacity. 

• Developing tools and measurements of success. 

Limitations, Lessons

Learned, and Examples

From Practice

Defining communities and developing and sustaining partnerships

are not simple tasks. Much can be

learned from past successes and

failures. Including community partnerships, understanding the links to

underlying problems, looking at the

strengths and assets of communities

and individuals as well as risk factors, working on the analysis and

planning process rather than 

focusing solely on programs that

provide quick results, and addressing funding and evaluation are

important activities that must be

thought through. 

Examples from Australasia,

Europe, and North America, described in greater detail in chapter 5

of this monograph, illustrate how

this framework has been adapted to

the specific needs of individual communities. The initiatives are at different stages of development, and

not all have reached the evaluation

stage. They include 3-year strategic

plans in large cities, projects targeting youth needs in public spaces,

small town coalitions, neighborhood

problem-solving committees, comprehensive community programs,

hotspot initiatives that pool funding

resources, coalitions targeting violence against women, groups of

cities working on common problems

or against racism, and local security

contracts to help communities assess problems and create targeted

action plans.

Mayors are strategically placed to

make a difference in these endeavors. They can provide leadership to

identify and mobilize key partners;

authorize development of a rigorous

safety audit that includes an action

plan with short- and long-term

goals; assign staff to implement,

monitor, and evaluate the plan; and

act as a conduit for exchanging

expertise and good practices.
Introduction

Over the past 30 years, mayors

and municipal leaders throughout

the United States have faced

increasing problems in keeping their

communities safe. Disorder, crime,

drugs, and guns have become daily

reminders of the threats to living in

safety and security. In the 1990s,

these problems soared to their highest levels and had a major impact

on children and adolescents. Young

people increasingly have become

the victims of violence, including

homicides, and their involvement in

serious crime and violence has also

risen.

Tragedies such as the shootings

at Columbine High School in

Colorado have demonstrated that

crime, insecurity, and violence are

not limited to inner cities and large

urban areas. Recent surveys of

young people have found higher

levels of drug use in suburban and

rural areas than in cities. Guns,

which are kept in millions of homes

across America, have been a major

factor in the increase in deaths of

young people in the 1990s.

Increases in crime and violence

have affected countries worldwide.

The response of most governments

was to toughen their legal and 

justice systems, increasing law

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 1

I. Community Safety in Cities, 

Suburbs, and Rural Areas

enforcement expenditures and

toughening penalties. The number

of offenders prosecuted and incarcerated rose dramatically, and the

number of private security personnel

outstripped official law enforcement.

The costs of maintaining criminal

justice and correctional systems

soared to unprecedented levels.

Throughout this period, crime prevention, rather than repression,

played a minor role. Furthermore,

crime prevention was seen as largely the responsibility of the police. As

this monograph makes clear, investing in the broader approach of community safety offers much greater

rewards. 

BETWEEN 1980 AND 1997, NEARLY

38,000 JUVENILES WERE MURDERED IN

THE UNITED STATES. THE RISE IN MURDERS

OF JUVENILES BETWEEN 1984 AND 1993

WAS ALL FIREARM RELATED, AS WAS THE

SUBSEQUENT DECLINE.

—Juvenile Offenders and Victims:

1999 National Report

In the past few years, levels of

recorded crime and violence have

fallen significantly in a number of

European countries and in North
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

2

America.1 In the United States, the

Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI) reported a 7-percent drop in

serious crime in 1999, the eighth

consecutive year that the number 

of reported serious crimes fell.

Reductions occurred in all types of

crime, both violent and nonviolent,

and they were found in all regions of

the country. In Canada, crime rates

have fallen for the past 8 years to

the lowest crime level in 2 decades.

In England and Wales, recorded

crime fell 8 percent between 1993

and 1995, and a further 10 percent

between 1995 and 1997, although

violent crime rates are still rising.

IN 1994, A UNITED NATIONS SURVEY OF

135 MAYORS FROM EVERY CONTINENT

FOUND THAT CRIME AND VIOLENCE WAS THE

FOURTH MOST SEVERE PROBLEM FACING THE

WORLD’S CITIES.

—International Colloquium of Mayors on Social

Development, United Nations Development

Program, 1994

Despite these decreases in crime

rates, levels of crime and victimization are still well above those found

in most countries 30 years ago and

continue to be a great public concern. The public is often misinformed

about criminal justice, as well as

unaware of recent declines in crime

and violence.2 A number of trends

suggest that unless city officials

begin to approach crime problems

differently, the growth, health, and

well-being of cities will deteriorate.

There have been marked changes

in the ways both local and national

governments understand and tackle

the problems of crime, violence, and

insecurity. Many countries now see

these problems as intricately linked

to the health of neighborhoods and

communities, to their quality of life,

and as part of a wider concern about

community safety and security.

This awareness has led to a focus

on tackling the underlying problems

of communities, based on careful

analysis and planning in collaboration with citizens and local agencies.

It represents a more concerted and

multifaceted approach to prevention, and one that is likely to be

more cost effective and bring wider

benefits to the community than

reacting after crime and tragedies

have taken place.

Audience for This

Monograph

This monograph is intended for

use by mayors, city managers, planners, elected officials, and others

who face the challenges of crime in

their communities. These leaders

are in a unique position to mobilize

local agencies in the development of

safe, secure, and vibrant communities. They are strategically placed 

to bring together the key actors in

community crime prevention. Traditionally, they have been responsible for urban or rural planning and

for developing ties with hospitals,

schools, transportation companies,

youth and social services, police,

the judiciary, and the business

community.

2
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 3

Challenges for Local

Governments

Growing Urbanization,

Increasing Poverty, and 

Income Disparity

The 21st century presents huge

challenges for mayors and local

governments. Populations are

expanding and migrating; towns and

cities and their surrounding rural

areas are growing rapidly; and levels of poverty and disparities

between rich and poor are increasing. These developments have

already had a significant impact on

safety and security in many countries and their effects are likely to

continue.

• Currently, between 40 percent

and 55 percent of the world’s

population lives in urban centers.

This proportion is expected to

climb to 70 percent by 2020.

• Levels of poverty have risen in

many Western countries despite

increasing overall wealth.

• Throughout the world, income

disparities between rich and poor

families have increased.

• In developing countries, the poor

tend to be concentrated in particular areas. In developed countries, conditions in many urban

cores have declined while poverty rates in rural areas have

increased.

OUR CITIES MUST BE PLACES WHERE HUMAN

BEINGS LEAD FULFILLING LIVES IN DIGNITY,

SAFETY, HAPPINESS, AND HOPE.

—Habitat II Declaration, 1996

This monograph sets out the 

elements needed to bring about

change. It presents information from

around the world, including the

United States, on how people 

in such positions have used their

authority and energy to work toward safer communities. In the four 

chapters to follow, the monograph

discusses

• Why change is necessary.

• Why the problems of crime 

can no longer be left solely 

to the justice system.

• How knowledge of the 

factors that lead to crime 

and violence has increased.

• How knowledge of ways to intervene effectively has increased.

• Strategies and tools needed to

bring about change.

• Examples of local government

and city-led projects that illustrate these themes.

Community Safety in Cities, Suburbs, and Rural Areas 
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

4

• More women are living in poverty

in both developed and developing

countries. The number of single

mothers has increased and they

are likely to face more discrimination in job markets and housing than men. 

• Due in part to systemic racism

and discrimination, minority and

immigrant populations are more

likely to be living in poverty than

the majority population.

Migration, immigration, and rapid

growth are bringing about major

changes to the ethnic character of

urban populations. There are

increases in indigenous populations

moving to cities in Australia, New

Zealand, North America, and South

America. Western European countries have received increasing numbers of immigrants from Eastern

European, Mediterranean, and North

African countries.

Social Exclusion

In many countries, the concentration of poverty and social and 

economic problems in particular

areas has led to talk about social

exclusion. In Britain, France, and

Germany, for example, increasing

income disparity and concentration

of poverty have been restricted 

to certain areas of the country.3

Families who live in these areas

are often the poorest in the country

and include many immigrants and

minorities. They often live in public

housing estates in suburban or

urban areas in the worst housing

and environmental conditions.

People in such areas are

excluded from taking part in the

employment, health, safety, and

prosperity enjoyed by the rest of

the population. For these residents,

poor health, crime, vandalism,

drugs, unsupervised young people,

litter, pollution, and lack of services add to the lack of safety and

security in their lives. 

THE ISSUES FACING DEPRIVED NEIGHBOURHOODS ARE WELL KNOWN, AND MAKE SOBER

READING. VIRTUALLY EVERY SOCIAL

PROBLEM—CRIME, JOBLESSNESS, POOR

HEALTH, UNDERACHIEVEMENT—IS SUBSTANTIALLY WORSE IN DEPRIVED AREAS.

THERE IS GROWING EVIDENCE THAT THESE

PROBLEMS REINFORCE ONE ANOTHER TO

CREATE A DOWNWARD SPIRAL OF DEPRIVATION AND DECLINE.

—National Strategy for Neighbourhood

Renewal: Neighbourhood Management

In the United States, black communities are concentrated in inner

cities. These areas experienced

huge increases in youth crime,

especially violence and youth homicide, in the early 1990s. In some

areas, generations of children are

also growing up without fathers and

the increased imprisonment of

women has left many of their children without close parental care. As

a result, the network of social controls normally exercised by these 
people as parents, employees,

friends, and neighbors has been

reduced. This has major consequences for the future. The proportion of African-American, Asian/

Pacific, Hispanic, and Native

American children is expected to

increase for the next 20 years.4 

BETWEEN 1988 AND 1997, THE NUMBER

OF JUVENILES LIVING IN POVERTY GREW 13

PERCENT. THE NUMBER OF BLACK JUVENILES

IN POVERTY DECREASED 2 PERCENT, COMPARED WITH A 21-PERCENT INCREASE FOR

WHITE JUVENILES AND A 32-PERCENT

INCREASE AMONG ASIAN/PACIFIC

ISLANDERS.

—Juvenile Offenders and Victims:

1999 National Report

Poverty in America has also

increased outside the big cities,

affecting the majority white population in rural areas, especially in the

South. Between 1988 and 1997, for

example, white juveniles living in

poverty increased by 21 percent. 

In a number of countries, problems for small- and medium-size

towns and rural areas are growing.

In England and Wales, some of the

highest increases in reported crime

in the 1990s have been in rural

areas (Hosain, 1995). In the United

States, while overall levels of reported crime fell for the past 8 years,

there have been increases in crime

Community Safety in Cities, Suburbs, and Rural Areas 

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 5

and victimization in some American

towns and rural areas such as those

close to the Mexican border.

Unemployment, Drugs, and

Young People

While North America is currently

experiencing a better economic climate, in other countries changing

labor and trade markets, technological developments, and the loss of

unskilled jobs have increased the

extent and duration of unemployment. This situation has especially

affected young people, increasing

their vulnerability to drugs, gangs,

illness, and crime. More adolescents

and young adults are now out of

school, job training, or work. For

example,

• In several European countries,

youth unemployment rose

between 1991 and 1995 from

15 percent to 20 percent for

young men, and from 19 percent

to 23 percent for young women

(Pfeiffer, 1998). 

• In Australia, full-time employment among teenagers fell from

56 percent in 1966 to 17 percent in 1993 (National Crime

Prevention, 1999).

• In the United States, unemployment is especially high among

African-American and Hispanic

youth who have few educational

skills. In one city, 63 percent did

not graduate from high school

(Rosenbaum et al., 1998). 
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

6

Drug and alcohol abuse has

become more prevalent among

young people. This has been the

case in European countries over the

past 10 years, especially in areas of

high unemployment.5 

SMOKING, DRINKING, AND DRUG USE AMONG

YOUNG TEENS IS HIGHER IN RURAL AMERICA

THAN IN THE NATION’S LARGE URBAN

CENTERS. . . . SINCE 1990, DRUG LAW

VIOLATIONS HAVE INCREASED MORE IN SMALL

COMMUNITIES THAN IN LARGE CITIES; DRUGS

ARE AS AVAILABLE IN SMALL COMMUNITIES AS

THEY ARE IN LARGE CITIES, AND ADULT DRUG

USE IN SUCH COMMUNITIES IS EQUAL TO

THAT IN LARGE METROPOLITAN CENTERS. AT

THE SAME TIME, MID-SIZE CITIES AND

RURAL AREAS ARE LESS EQUIPPED TO DEAL

WITH THE CONSEQUENCES.

—No Place to Hide

In the United States, a recent

study by the National Center on

Addiction and Substance Abuse

commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that drug use

was higher among young teens in

mid-size cities and rural areas than

in large metropolitan centers. Eighth

graders in rural areas were 83 

percent more likely to use crack

cocaine and 70 percent more likely

to have been intoxicated than their

peers in large cities. 

Offending and Victimization

In most countries, similar patterns

of crime and victimization can be

found in areas with many social and

economic problems. We know from

surveys in a number of countries

that a small number of serious or

persistent offenders are responsible

for the majority of crime, especially

serious crime. In many countries

surveyed, 6 to 7 percent of young

males are responsible for 50 to 70

percent of all crimes and 60 to 85

percent of serious and violent

crimes (Loeber and Farrington,

1998).

A large overlap exists between

victimization and offending. Those

who are victimized tend to come

from the same backgrounds and

areas as those charged with offending, and people are often revictimized. A 1992 British survey found

that 4 percent of victims suffer 40

percent of the crimes. In the United

States, 50 percent of violent crime

takes place in about 3 percent of

addresses.

Violence against women and

children is widespread. In developing countries, it is estimated that

between 33 and 50 percent of all

women are victims of violence

from male partners.6 In the United

States, the number of children who

are abused or neglected almost doubled between 1986 and 1993. We

know that violence in the family

often leads to other problems,

including crime and ill health, as

children grow up.
Community Safety in Cities, Suburbs, and Rural Areas 

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 7

A major problem for many countries is the overrepresentation of

indigenous and racial and ethnic

minority groups in criminal justice

systems. The proportions of

immigrant children and secondgeneration children in justice systems have increased significantly in

a number of European countries.7

Increasing Knowledge

About Prevention

Risk and Prevention—

People in Trouble Have

Multiple Problems

More about the actual benefits of

tackling community safety is known

today and underlines the importance of investing in prevention.

Evidence is accumulating about the

factors that put people and areas at

risk of becoming involved in crime

and victimization. It is remarkable

how similar these factors are from

one country to another (Farrington,

2000). They include poverty and

poor environment, poor parenting

practices, family conflict and

violence, early signs of aggressive

behavior, spending too much time

with friends and without adult contacts, doing poorly at school or

dropping out, failing to learn good

work skills or have employment

opportunities, living in areas that

lack services and facilities, and having access to drugs. These factors

place children at risk and affect

their development from birth to

adulthood.

Early Intervention Is Effective

Researchers have studied the

effectiveness of interventions, particularly in deprived areas where

families and children are most at

risk (Sherman et al., 1997; International Centre for the Prevention of

Crime, 1999a). Interventions include

–80 –70 –60 –50 –40 –30 –20 –10 –0

–72%

–71%

–40%

–33%

Responsibility and assistance

(Halt, Netherlands)

Incentives to complete school

(Quantum Opportunities, USA)

Functional family therapy

(Lund, Sweden)

Training and support to find

employment (Job Corps, USA)

Percent crime reduced

Figure 1 

Prevention Programs Targeting Risk Factors for Youth Ages 12–18 Showing

Reductions in Delinquency
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

8

projects that provide preschool

home visits and give children a head

start in school. They have shown

impressive long-term reductions in

delinquency, lower school dropout

rates, and improved quality of life

for children and parents. Parent

training and family therapy projects

designed to strengthen parents’

child-rearing capacities have similarly shown both short- and longterm benefits.

Other research has demonstrated

that widespread intervention programs in schools can help reduce

bullying behavior and improve

school climate and academic

performance, as well as decrease

school disruptions and dropout

rates. Programs targeting youth who

have dropped out of school or been

excluded have shown that work

skills, job training, and mentoring

can all help to reintegrate them into

their communities.

Broken Windows and 

Brownfields

Many countries have demonstrated that changing the environment

and situations that encourage crime

are effective strategies. Cleaning

up rundown streets, changing the

design of buildings or public spaces,

and improving lighting and surveillance all reduce the opportunities

for crime. Studies of such efforts

have demonstrated reductions in

household burglary, car theft, graffiti, and vandalism. For example,

in the Netherlands, England,

and Wales, the rate of household

–25

–25%

–13%

–22%

Crack presence

Drug activity

Juvenile crimes

Percent crime reduced

–20 –15 –10 –5 –0

Figure 2 

Reduction of Criminal Activity in Public Places Where Boys and Girls Clubs

Are Present
Community Safety in Cities, Suburbs, and Rural Areas 

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 9

burglaries has been reduced by

about 75 percent by neighborhood

watch programs, improved security,

and marking personal property.

Vandalism and disorder have been

reduced by increasing surveillance

on public transportation, closedcircuit television cameras, and

requiring bar owners to change their

serving practices. Much of this work

has been initiated by the police in

collaboration with local mayors,

agencies, and community members. 

These experiences demonstrate

that approaches that are carefully

planned and build on past knowledge

reduce crime and reduce risk factors.

They improve the lives of those

involved and demonstrate that the

most effective intervention projects

are those that include agencies and

institutions at the local government

level: community organizations,

families, police departments, school

systems, labor unions, social service

agencies, youth groups, housing

developments, and justice systems. 

Costly Examples

Dealing with the impact of crime

is expensive. Although people may

feel that something is being done

when tough measures are taken

against crime, this approach does

not deal with the long-term consequences for families or help to prevent future delinquency. Children

growing up in poverty, lacking services and supports, are vulnerable

to long-term involvement in drug

use and crime. Most prisoners will

eventually be released from prison,

but generations of children may

have been raised without close

parental care.

$0 $200

England

France

Netherlands

Australia

Canada

USA

Criminal Justice

Private Security

Property loss 

(estimate)

Sheltered

lives (estimate)

$400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400

Figure 3 

Cost of Crime Per Capita in Selected Countries
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

10

expenditures, they have not been

able to contain the huge increases

in crime that have occurred over the

past 40 years.

Fear of crime and violence has

led to fortifying neighborhoods,

excluding individuals, and imposing

tougher sentences. These reactions

do not deal with the long-term problems of the excluded nor with the

spread of crime and insecurity to

small cities and rural areas in the

United States. In many countries,

the public has lost confidence in

criminal justice systems. An approach is needed that balances

good policing and justice with 

well-planned prevention.

Public opinion shows consistent

support for prevention. A 1994 survey found that 61 percent of

Canadians felt government resources should be spent on prevention rather than criminal justice. In

America, 54 percent felt increased

spending on social and economic

problems, rather than police or

prisons, was a more effective

response to crime.

To have an impact on current

crime problems and avoid greater

problems in the future, municipal

leaders must shift how they think

and act. Seeing community safety

as a basic human right, good governance insists that local government

leaders bear the primary responsibility for fostering safe and healthy

communities.

There are considerable differences

in the costs and benefits of action

to prevent crime, compared with

action after it takes place. Preventive action can be up to 10 times

more cost effective than traditional

control measures such as incarceration. Money invested in crime prevention also brings benefits such as

improved education, job skills, and

health.

LOCAL LEADERS ARE ACUTELY AWARE OF THE

MANY COSTS OF CRIME TO THE COMMUNITY

AND THE NEED TO REDUCE OR PREVENT IT.

OUTLAYS FOR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

AND OTHER CRIMINAL JUSTICE ELEMENTS

SKYROCKET; LOCALLY SUPPORTED HOSPITALS,

SOCIAL SERVICES, AND SCHOOLS SUFFER AS

THEY ABSORB THE COSTS OF CRIME AND ITS

EFFECTS ON VICTIMS.

—Creating a Blueprint for Community Safety

Good Governance

The social and economic consequences of crime are enormous.

Expenditures on policing, the

courts, prisons, and private security

have grown enormously. Crime

causes serious problems for local

government when towns or city centers decay as residents, businesses,

and jobs move away, reducing the

tax base. Traditionally, crime prevention has been regarded as the

responsibility of police and prosecutors. Yet in spite of increased
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 11

How Local Authorities in

Other Countries Are

Tackling Problems

In recent years, in an increasing

number of countries, crime prevention projects have reduced the

opportunities and increased the risks

of committing crime by changing

policing practices or the city environment. Some countries have

focused on renewing poor neighborhoods and others on strengthening

the ability of residents to integrate

better into society. In both cases

there has been an emergence of

community-based strategies and

expertise, bringing together local

partnerships, with local authorities

playing a key role. There has been

a shift from the narrower notion of

crime prevention as something the

police do to the broader idea of

community safety, which is a 

community responsibility.

Focus on the City 

Since the 1980s city leaders have

begun to take a leadership role in

crime prevention. In France, for

example, the Mayors Commission

on Security (Bonnemaison, 1982)

led to the creation, in 1982, of a

system of city contracts with mayors that enabled them to create local

crime prevention councils. Under the

leadership of their mayors, these

councils brought together a range of

local people and agencies to develop prevention projects in their communities throughout France.8 The

European Forum for Urban Safety

(EFUS) was set up in 1987 to link

mayors across Europe, developing

community safety through strong

city partnerships. EFUS now

includes more than 100 local

authorities.

In the past two decades, a series

of international meetings has

brought together mayors, police

executives, judges, community 

leaders, policymakers, crime

prevention practitioners, and

researchers to discuss ways of creating safer communities. Meetings

were held in Strasbourg (1986),

Barcelona (1987), Montreal (1989),

Paris (1991), and Vancouver

(1996). The U.S. Conference of

Mayors and the National League

of Cities took part in the first

European and North American

Conference on Urban Safety and

Crime Prevention in Montreal in

1989. The Federation of Canadian

Municipalities and EFUS were also

represented, and the conference

established an Agenda for Safer

Cities. These organizations took part

in a followup conference in Paris

(1991) that brought together 1,600

people from 65 countries, who set

II. The Emergence of 

Community Safety 
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

12

out seven steps to make world

communities safer. 

Developing and

Transitional Countries

Attempts to establish city-based

crime prevention strategies have

also been made in developing countries.9 A Latin American forum on

urban safety was held in Cordoba in

1998. In Africa, an International

Forum of Mayors for Safer Cities

was held in Johannesburg in 1998,

bringing together nearly 60 mayors

from across the continent (Institute

for Security Studies, 1999). A Safer 

CITIES THAT ARE SAFE FOR ALL PEOPLE

WILL, IN TURN, MAKE THE WHOLE WORLD A

SAFER PLACE, FOR FEAR OF CRIME AND VIOLENCE IMPRISONS PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES

AND MAKES THE REALIZATION OF ALL OTHER

HUMAN RIGHTS MORE DIFFICULT TO

ACHIEVE. . . . PREVENTION STRATEGIES

ADDRESSING THE ROOT CAUSES OF URBAN

CRIME HOLD CONSIDERABLE PROMISE.

—U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, 1998

Cities Program was also launched

in 1996, with pilot projects in

Johannesburg, Durban, Dar es

Salaam, and Abidjan.10 South Africa

has placed a strong emphasis on

community-based solutions and

local autonomy. Its 1999 manual for

local community-based crime prevention, Making South Africa Safe,

provides a clear framework for

developing and implementing local

strategies.

KINGSMEAD ESTATE,

HACKNEY, UNITED KINGDOM

STARTING WITH CIVIL INJUNCTIONS TO STOP

GANGS AND CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION, THIS

LOCAL COUNCIL, TENANTS, AND POLICE

PARTNERSHIP HAS MOVED ON TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, E.G., RENOVATING PROPERTIES AND STARTING DROP-IN CENTERS

AND ACTIVITIES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE. . . .

BURGLARIES FELL FROM 340 IN 1992 TO

50 IN 1993 AND RESIDENTS HAVE GAINED

CONFIDENCE.

—Reducing Neighbourhood Crime

Recent European Initiatives

In more than 20 countries, local

authorities and communities are

developing community-based policies and programs with the support

of national government bodies that

promote community safety.

In England and Wales, local governments have been mobilized by

two major initiatives that began

in 1998. Under the Crime and

Disorder Act, each local authority

and its police force must establish

a multiagency Community Safety

Partnership to include health, probation, and other authorities, as well

as youth representatives. In 3-year

cycles, these partnerships will 
The Emergence of Community Safety 

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 13

conduct local audits of crime, victimization, and disorder, set priorities for action, and develop and

initiate strategic plans.11

Authorities recognize that crime

prevention partnerships are likely to

be more effective than single agencies (such as a police department or

a school system) working alone,

and that targeted strategies, using

rigorous analysis, monitoring, and

evaluation, produce results.

These community safety partnerships are part of the new National

Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal. Since 1998, the Social

Exclusion Unit has produced a

series of 18 Policy Action Team

reports as part of this strategy. The

reports outline ways to achieve four

objectives: less long-term unemployment, less crime, better health,

and better qualifications.12 

Local governments can apply for

some of the $415 million in funding

for developing crime reduction

strategies targeted to high-risk

crime areas and families. In addition, 10 percent of this money is to

be spent on evaluating these programs to assess short- and longterm benefits as well as their costs.

A major emphasis has been placed

on what is called “joined-up thinking,” trying to work across agency

boundaries at the local, regional,

and national levels (Social Exclusion

Unit, 2000b).

In France, local security contracts

(or CLS) have been in existence

for more than 15 years. They are

based on the notion that security

equals prevention plus sanction and

reintegration. Prevention and reintegration are seen as the responsibility of everyone in the community.

The contracts require local partnerships to foster access to justice and

victim assistance, to create new

youth jobs and training, and to take

action to prevent delinquency

through youth employment, parent

support, and sports and cultural

programs that meet local needs.

Many of the new jobs, such as

social mediation agents and local

security assistants, will be filled by

youth from disadvantaged areas

with high levels of unemployment.13

The local security contracts are

HANKO, FINLAND

IN 1991, THIS SMALL CITY OF 11,000

CHANGED ITS CHILD WELFARE POLICIES AWAY

FROM INSTITUTIONAL CARE; IMPLEMENTED A

NIGHTLIFE STREET PATROL PROGRAM TO

INCREASE INFORMAL SOCIAL CONTROL; AND

DEVELOPED EMPLOYMENT AND APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS TO REDUCE TRUANCY, SUBSTANCE ABUSE, CRIME, AND ANTISOCIAL

BEHAVIOR. THE RESULT WAS A 41-PERCENT

REDUCTION IN PROPERTY CRIMES BY JUVENILES, AND A 50-PERCENT REDUCTION IN

WELFARE COSTS BETWEEN 1991 AND 1993.

—100 Crime Prevention Programs To 

Inspire Action Across the World
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

14

embedded within the larger city

contracts concerned with overall

social and economic renewal and

development.

Belgium has adopted the French

system of funding city contracts.

In the past 6 years, more than 30

municipal crime prevention councils, as well as the 5 major cities

and the 7 districts of Brussels,

have signed contracts. The councils

are usually required to appoint a

responsible officer to administer

and develop their activities to

meet local needs.

Netherlands developed the Major

Cities Policy in 1996 to respond to

the crisis in its cities. This policy

focuses on the concentration of

unemployment, family breakdown,

decaying neighborhoods and public

spaces, drug addiction, and crime.

Agreements have been reached

between local government leaders

in the 4 major cities and 21 

medium-size cities and with national government ministries. The

agreements provide funds for the

development of strategies and programs targeting those issues.

In 1999, the Integral Programme

on Safety and Security was

launched to target youth crime and

safety, drug-related problems, street

violence, robberies, vehicle-related

crime, and traffic safety. The program emphasizes working jointly

across ministries at the municipal

level and with community and business groups. Current projects target

at-risk children and youth, particularly ethnic minorities, by providing

healthy start programs and projects

that aim to reduce school dropout

and unemployment rates. 

THE STADSWACHT OR CITY GUARDS PROGRAM IN DORDRECHT, HOLLAND, RECRUITS

AND TRAINS THE LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYED

TO WORK AS UNIFORMED CIVILIAN POLICE.

THEY PROVIDE INFORMATION FOR THE

POLICE AND MUNICIPALITY ON CRIME AND

DISORDER PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS, AS

WELL AS HELPING TOURISTS. . . . THERE

HAS BEEN A 17-PERCENT REDUCTION IN

CRIME IN THE AREAS THEY PATROL SINCE

THEY WERE INTRODUCED.

—100 Crime Prevention Programs To 

Inspire Action Across the World

Local Security Contracts

In France, some 378 city contracts have been signed with mayors, and 720 local security contracts

will be completed covering most

large urban areas in the country.

Job creation activities will include

the appointment of 20,000 socialmediation agents to work on prevention and security issues at the

local level, and 15,000 local security assistants attached to police

departments.
Australasia and Canada 

The region known as Australasia

comprises New Zealand, Australia,

Tasmania, and Melanesia. In New

Zealand, 62 local authorities have

signed contracts to set up Safer

Community Councils modeled on the

French contract system. Their goal is

to enhance the ability of local communities to prevent crime and deal

with local crime-related problems

(Hamilton, 1999). In Australia, cities

and shires across the provinces of

Victoria, South Australia, and Queensland have developed safer city strategies and aids to local governments 

IN 1990, AN ESCALATING ILLICIT DRUG

TRADE AND A HIGH CRIME RATE IN THE

LITTLE BURGUNDY AREA OF MONTREAL LED

TO THE CREATION OF A NEIGHBORHOOD

COALITION WITH MUNICIPAL DEPARTMENTS,

RESIDENTS, AND THE POLICE. THE COALITION DEVELOPED A NEW SPORTS COMPLEX,

BETTER LIBRARIES, TRANSPORTATION,

LIGHTING, AND SECURITY; ENCOURAGED JOB

CREATION; AND PROVIDED BETTER SOCIAL

ASSISTANCE SERVICES. THEY DEVELOPED A

COMMUNITY NEWSPAPER AND AN ANNUAL

RESIDENTS FESTIVAL. THERE WAS A 46-

PERCENT REDUCTION IN CRIME AFTER THE

FIRST 3 YEARS, AND A REDUCTION IN THE

DRUG TRADE.

—100 Crime Prevention Programs To

Inspire Action Across the World

The Emergence of Community Safety 

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 15

and their partners since the mid1990s (International Centre for the

Prevention of Crime, 1999b; White,

1998).

In Canada, the Federation of

Canadian Municipalities and

local authorities in cities such as

Montreal, Toronto, and Kitchener

have worked together to create

community safety plans. The federal

government, through its National

Crime Prevention Centre, has

recently put $27 million (Canadian)

into three major funding programs:

a community mobilization program,

a crime prevention investment fund,

and a crime prevention partnership

program. These programs stimulate

locally based community crime prevention efforts that focus on social

development and develop tools and

knowledge about partnership development, needs assessment, plan

development, best practices, effective intervention, and evaluation.

Recent Developments in the

United States

In the United States, city mayors

and local authorities have begun to

play a more active role in community safety over the past decade. The

increase and spread of crime, victimization, and violence in the late

1980s and early 1990s associated

with the crack cocaine epidemic,

youth violence and homicides, and

rapidly increasing prison populations

have all helped to spur a search for

new approaches. Apart from their

involvement at international
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

16

conferences, the U.S. Conference of

Mayors and the National League of

Cities have undertaken surveys and

developed working groups on

aspects of crime prevention including issues such as drugs and youth.

MUSCLE and T–CAP:

Combining Municipal and

Grassroots Energies

In 1991, the severity of crime and

its increase led the mayors of eight

Texas cities to form Mayors United

on Safety, Crime and Law Enforcement (MUSCLE).14 Their cities were

home to 35 percent of the population in Texas, but 60 percent of violent crimes across the state. They

developed legislative proposals and

a major crime prevention initiative.

The Texas City Action Plan to Prevent Crime (T–CAP) included support from officials in seven of the

cities (El Paso decided not to participate). The mayors felt that developing their programs simultaneously

would enable them to benefit from

each others’ experiences. 

T–CAP, according to the National

Crime Prevention Council (NCPC),

was able to

• Create a road map to reach

goals.

• Focus effort where action was

needed and productive.

• Avoid the “business as usual”

trap.

• Maximize use of existing

resources.

• Tailor its product to local needs.

• Build new commitments, partnerships, and resources.

• Reflect and incorporate changes

in the real world outside the planning room.

• Deal more effectively with contingencies and emergencies.

The U.S. Government funded

NCPC to act as a facilitator. This

responsibility included hiring a state

coordinator, developing a planning

prototype, training staff, and developing local material and manuals

to assist in the implementation of

community-based plans. Each city

established a coalition of municipal

agencies and community leaders

under the mayor’s leadership;

assessed the community’s safety

needs; created a task force of

residents and experts to deal with

specific issues; and developed a

comprehensive implementation

plan.

The plans were diverse, reflecting

local interests and issues. They

ranged from setting up a youth

sports network and organizations to

help poor neighborhoods to implementing school curriculum changes

and crime prevention resource centers. The result was that “the role

and value of crime prevention grew,

along with people’s capacity for

action” (National Crime Prevention

Council, 1994: 4). T–CAP demonstrated that cities have considerable

knowledge. Municipal agencies such
The Emergence of Community Safety 

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 17

as parks, sanitation, traffic, youth

services, health, and education

departments all provided information that provided a detailed picture

of how problems of violence and

crime are linked with other social

issues and how intervention programs work. The costs of the program were relatively modest, with

$450,000 in federal funding and

$5,000 to $10,000 from participating cities, as well as in-kind

support.

Comprehensive Community

Programs

In the 1990s, several major federal funding initiatives facilitated local

community-based crime prevention

actions that responded to local

needs. They recognized that fragmented services waste resources

and that it is better to work collectively rather than in isolation. These

initiatives include Operation Weed

and Seed, Pulling America’s

Communities Together (PACT), and

the Comprehensive Communities

Program (CCP). They have three

major differences from earlier

funding approaches: 

• They fund comprehensive rather

than single-issue or service 

programs. 

• They target key situational,

social, and economic factors

associated with crime using

multidisciplinary approaches.

• They combine grassroots and

local initiatives with funding and

support from higher levels of

government. 

CCP was launched in 1994 by the

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)

to integrate law enforcement with

social programs. The program

empowers local leaders to control

the allocation of funds. Fifteen

CCP sites have been funded.15

A Few Signs That CCP Is Working

In Baltimore, trash has been removed, crackhouses have been shut down,

and properties have been put into receivership to be managed on behalf of

neighborhoods. Associations have been formed to help renters buy homes that

were formerly abandoned.

In Columbia, police can now park both their personal and police cars in public

housing developments without fear of vandalism, and pizza is again being delivered to residents.

In Boston, the head of a local business association is asking merchants to

remove the metal shields over their doorways and windows.

In Salt Lake City and Fort Worth, residents are asking for a say in local 

government and an opportunity to voice their opinions about local problems.

—Comprehensive Communities Program: A Preliminary Report
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

18

Communities were required to take

the initiative to develop partnerships, to have an existing local

coordinating structure, and to develop community policing. In many

cases CCP communities have built

on their earlier experiences of local

coalitions developed under T–CAP

or Weed and Seed funding. The

expansion of community policing as

a requirement has helped communities develop strategies. They have

learned from their mistakes and

successes. Self-evaluation and

accountability have usually been

built into the contracts.

Examples of the successes of

some of these programs are highlighted in the report Six Safer Cities,

which outlines their main strategies

and programs (National Crime

Prevention Council, 1999a). The six

cities (Boston, Denver, Fort Worth,

Hartford, New York City, and San

Diego) have all achieved reductions

in crime greater than the national

average. The shrinking of the youth

population responsible for much

crime, changes in the drug market,

improved economic stability, and

increases in youth employment

have contributed to the decline in

recorded crime, along with the multiagency and local communitybased initiatives. In Boston, New

York City, and Fort Worth, the police

took the lead in initiating the projects. In Denver, Hartford, and

San Diego, it was the mayor and

city council who assumed the leadership role. In all cases, city

representatives worked with multiagency and community coalitions to

develop locally tailored programs.

Small Cities Initiative

Small towns and rural municipalities have also developed comprehensive programs. Approximately

70 percent of Americans live in

towns and cities of between 25,000

and 50,000 people. The Small Cities

Initiative was developed by NCPC in

1997 to provide assistance to seven

cities through federal, state, and

local funding.16 There are now 10

cities and 1 county in the initiative,

developing strategies that use their

close networks and resources. 

Summary

Looking at the involvement of

local authorities across a number of

countries in Europe, North America,

Africa, and Australasia—in large

metropolitan areas as well as small

cities and rural areas—several

important trends are apparent:

• A shift from a relatively narrow

focus on crime prevention to the

broader issue of community safety and security as a public good.

• A developing consensus about

the need to work for community

safety by tackling the social and

economic conditions that foster

crime and victimization. 

• A shift in public view from seeing

the primary responsibility for

community safety as that of the
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 19

police to recognizing that governments, communities, and

partnerships at all levels need to

be actively engaged in reducing

crime. 

• A recognition of the crucial role

that local municipal leaders play

in this process through organizing and motivating coalitions of

local partners to create healthy

and safe communities.

• An increase in evidence that

intervention targeting risk factors

can be effective in reducing

crime and other social problems. 

• A realization that intervention

can be cost effective compared

with criminal justice solutions.

What has emerged in recent

years is a framework for understanding community safety and a

strategy for creating it that can be

used by local governments. This

framework is outlined in the next

chapter.

The Emergence of Community Safety 
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 21

A Strategy for Analyzing

Problems and Mobilizing

Resources

This chapter outlines major elements of a framework for fostering

community safety that are being

used by local governments in many

countries. The approach includes

the following:

• Recognizing community safety as

a right and an issue of the quality

of life in healthy communities.

• Working horizontally as well as

vertically across jurisdictional

boundaries.

• Understanding the crucial role of

political leadership.

• Adapting strategies to local

needs on the basis of good 

analysis and targeted plans. 

• Building capacity. 

• Developing tools and measurements of success.

Safe and Healthy

Communities

Citizens are entitled to safe and

healthy communities. Protecting

communities from crime or reestablishing levels of safety can be tackled in the same way as public health

issues. A preventive public health

approach, such as that used to

reduce the incidence of heart disease, involves looking for factors

that increase the risks of development. Looking at patterns of economic and social problems in a

neighborhood or community, as well

as patterns of crime, disorder, and

victimization, makes it easier to

see how and where to intervene. In

the United States, the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention has

been active in demonstrating how

crime and violence can be seen as

health problems.

COMMUNITIES THAT CARE IN SEATTLE,

WASHINGTON, USES A PUBLIC HEALTH

APPROACH. ITS MAIN GOALS ARE TO REDUCE

DELINQUENCY AND DRUG USE BY COMBINING

KNOWLEDGE ABOUT RISK AND PROTECTIVE

FACTORS AND EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS

WITH CAREFULLY PLANNED COMMUNITY

MOBILIZATION. A COMMUNITY BOARD OF

KEY LOCAL LEADERS, RESIDENTS, AND AGENCIES UNDERTAKES AN ASSESSMENT OF THE

MAIN RISK AND PROTECTIVE FACTORS AND

DEVELOPS A STRATEGY FOR INTERVENTION.

—Communities That Care Prevention Strategies

III. A Framework for 

Community Safety
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

22

Similar programs are now being

developed in the United Kingdom

(Nuttall et al., 1998), Scotland,

Netherlands (Junger-Tas, 1997),

and the United States. 

This approach encourages broad

responses to crime for victims.

Recognition of the long-term impact

of crime on victims’ health has

resulted in programs that provide

ongoing community assistance

beyond immediate victim support.

An example is a partnership in

Boston to help youth victims of

crime prevent reinjury, given that

the risk of revictimization is high

once someone has been victimized.

In London, the local health service is

developing a health strategy that

recognizes the links between crime,

disorder, and victimization with

health (Crime Concern, 1999).

Horizontal and Vertical

Thinking

Working across jurisdictional and

geographic boundaries is important

to community crime prevention for

two reasons. First, isolated projects

are unlikely to be effective in dealing with the multiple problems facing families living in deprived and

high-crime areas. In their review of

what works in preventing crime,

Sherman and colleagues (1997)

concluded that effective crime

prevention in high-violence

neighborhoods requires simultaneous intervention by many local

institutions.

Second, effective local government action requires all the

municipal services to work together

rather than in isolation. It requires

support from higher levels of government and links among national,

state, regional, or provincial authorities. This recognition has motivated

policies in England, Wales, and

France that stress the importance of

working across jurisdictions and

developing “joined-up thinking.” 

Political Leadership

For community crime prevention

to work, real commitment and leadership must come from someone at

a high level who takes responsibility

for putting the issues of community

safety on the policy agenda.

Often the mayor, a chief executive

of a local authority, or a police chief

is the key person at the local government level. In some cases a

specific body or community safety

officer is appointed and given the

A 1996 study by the National

League of Cities showed that local

elected officials and administrators

provide leadership in four ways:

• They model and set the tone for

public discourse and problem 

solving.

• They use the power of their office 

to convey messages to their 

community.

• They help shape the processes 

and programs.

• They use team-building skills to

build trust and communication 

and resolve conflicts.
A Framework for Community Safety 

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 23

responsibility for developing partnerships and plans. While local governments are best placed to give

citizens a role in the development of

their neighborhoods, their leaders

can play a number of major roles:

• Preventive: educating the

population and the media.

• Promotional: encouraging the

development of community

safety.

• Active: providing aid to victims

and facilitating the mediation

and resolution of local disputes

and conflicts.

• Knowledge providers: developing

and planning.

• Articulative: developing internal

and external requirements and

constraints.

• Constructive: putting in place a

permanent local structure with

local coordination and the necessary resources.

Adapting Strategies to

Local Needs

Thorough and careful analysis of

local problems is an important element in a community safety framework. Analysis includes studies on

local factors that place people most

at risk and effective intervention

strategies for reducing those risks.

A careful analysis of local problems, sometimes called a safety

audit or a security diagnosis,

requires the collection of detailed

information about crime, victimization, disorder, and fear of crime in a

neighborhood or across a whole

municipality. This information can

include police statistics, census

data, and the results of local surveys of residents, businesses,

schools, transportation officials, and

hospitals. But the analysis needs to

go further by looking at the links to

a range of other problems such as

housing, jobs, unemployment,

school dropout rates, youth facilities, and other existing community

resources. 

The National Crime Prevention

Council asked a range of local 

government-community coalitions

what motivated them to work

together. The answers varied considerably, depending on local circumstances and events:

• A pending crisis and a sense that

the situation would worsen without immediate action.

• Community pressure arising

from a catalyzing event or

tragedy.

• Success of a single-issue 

initiative.

• Support from outside.

• Realization that single-focus

interventions cannot deal with

complex issues.

• Desire to sustain safe neighborhoods and avert a crisis.
A good security diagnosis can

take between 6 months and 1 year

to complete. This careful analysis

allows for the development of

targeted strategies and plans. Once

projects have begun, they need to

be monitored and evaluated continuously to see if they are working as

planned or need to be modified. The

more focused the strategy, the more

successful it is likely to be.

Building Capacity

Developing partnerships, getting

funding or local security contracts,

conducting a security diagnosis or

safety audit, developing an action

plan, and implementing, evaluating,

and sustaining the plan are not simple tasks. They require expertise,

information, and approaches that

may be very different from traditional ways of working. 

THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

24

Building capacity includes the

development of the skills, practical

knowledge, experience, and tools

required to undertake effective

community-based action. Many

countries recognize the importance

of capacity building. A growing

range of training programs for community safety personnel on monitoring and evaluating special issues

such as drugs, domestic violence,

and mental health and providing

ongoing technical assistance,

advice, and support is now being

developed. 

In European countries, training is

provided by organizations such as

the European Forum for Urban

Safety, Crime Concern, the London

Borough of Brent in England and

Wales, and Copping On in Ireland.

This includes training for specific

interventions such as mentoring or

working with at-risk youth, and

providing governments and community safety partnerships with a range

of skills. In England and Wales, local

governments also have national

guidelines on setting up partnerships, developing safety audits,

and evaluating the outcome of

programs.

In the United States, CCPs have

been provided with technical assistance and budget and program

guidelines by such federal funders

as BJA. The National Funding

Collaborative on Violence Prevention

(NFCVP) and National Crime

Prevention Council (NCPC) already

provide training for collaborative

Neighborhood management projects are most likely to be successful if they include the following five

elements:

• Someone with overall responsibility at the neighborhood level.

• Community involvement and 

leadership.

• The tools to get things done.

• A systematic, planned approach 

to tackling local problems.

• Effective delivery mechanisms.

— National Strategy for Neighbourhood

Renewal: Neighbourhood Management
A Framework for Community Safety 

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 25

and local authority community safety initiatives. NCPC is also developing a curriculum training program

with the University of Kansas for use

over the Web.

The Press and the Media

Building capacity to develop public awareness of community-based

prevention and to utilize the media

appropriately is another important

area. This component includes

showing the benefits and successes

of well-planned strategies and

informing the public of stories about

how problems have been solved.

Mayors, local agency staff, the

police, community safety professionals, community members,

researchers, and evaluators all

need training and clear policies

to develop their ability to communicate with the media. It is important

to present initiatives as citizen

projects to help to ensure community ownership.

Local Security Contracts and

Funding

Community projects require funding for startup, pilot projects, and

implementation, but they also need

long-term funding. Resources are

needed to sustain action at the local

level, to demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of projects, and

to disseminate information and best

practices through transfer and training. One way to do this is through

local security or community safety

contracts that allow local partnerships to develop and tailor plans to

their own needs. In many cases,

projects must be monitored and

evaluated.

A second way to fund initiatives is

pooling existing funding from local

government agencies such as

schools, community organizations,

private foundations and businesses.

NFCVP pools resources from public

and private sources to help local

community coalitions develop programs to reduce violence. 

Tools and Measurements

of Success

Tools are needed to identify trends

in crime such as where it occurs

and associated social and economic

problems. Tools are also needed to

target risk factors underlying those

problems and to evaluate the

process and impact of programs. 

Quality of Life and

Social Safety: Ghent,

Belgium

IN 1997, A SAFETY CONTRACT ENABLED A

HIGH-RISE “PROBLEM ESTATE” TO IMPROVE

ITS PHYSICAL CONDITIONS AND QUALITY OF

LIFE; REDUCE DRUG DEALING, CAR THEFT,

AND BURGLARIES; AND ESCAPE FROM ITS

PROBLEM IMAGE. MORE THAN 300

RESIDENTS, LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND THE

POLICE DEVELOPED AND CARRIED OUT THE

PLAN.

—European Crime Prevention Awards, 1999
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

26

in 1995 to collect information

about the frequency and location

of crime and mental health problems and about the capacity of

neighborhoods to respond to these

problems. It surveyed residents, 

disadvantaged groups, and young

people to assess their views on

problems and solutions. Built in

1990, Eurolille has large residential,

shopping, entertainment, and commercial sectors and a rapid transport system. It established its

observatory to collate information

as a basis for developing a joint

action plan and neighborhood safety

policy. Businesses were required to

contribute resources to the process.

The purpose is to develop a healthy

social climate in Eurolille, reduce

crises, and encourage interaction

between institutions, agencies, and

individuals (European Forum for

Urban Safety, 1996).

Another tool used effectively by

communities is crime mapping,

which involves systematically

collecting data and assessing the

location and development of specific problems in neighborhoods.

Recent initiatives of this type in the

United States include Strategic

Approaches to Community Safety

Initiatives and the Arrestee Drug

Abuse Monitoring Program. 

In addition, communities use

benchmarking to compare practices

and performances of different service

providers, identify good practices,

and foster collaboration between

providers, or to establish a basis for

A great deal of information on

community-based strategy development is now accessible in many

countries, including compendiums

of best practice programs, guides

and how-to manuals, summaries of

evaluated research, and detailed

blueprints for setting up tested,

effective programs. Examples from

the United States are provided in the

following publications: Innovative

State and Local Programs (BJA,

1997); Creating a Blueprint for

Community Safety (NCPC, 1998);

Standing in the Gap (NCPC,

1999b); Blueprints for Violence

Prevention (CSPV, 1997); and 150

Tested Strategies To Prevent Crime

From Small Cities, Counties, and

Rural Communities (NCPC, 2000).17

Working collectively at the

neighborhood level requires good

information. To succeed, community

safety partnerships need to know

the range of social, economic,

health, and environmental problems

apart from information on crime and

disorder typically available from

police records. One solution in

Europe has been the creation of

observatories, permanent centers

that collate information on a range

of social, economic, and health indicators, including criminal justice

measures. Their effectiveness

depends on the accuracy of the data

they collect, the diversity of their

sources, and the quality of their

observations. 

In Lille, France, the neighborhood

of Eurolille set up an observatory
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 27

subsequent evaluation of programs.

By using standardized procedures

and measures, comparisons can be

made between programs. 

Basic Elements of the Local

Government Approach

The basic elements of the local

government approach to community

safety include the following:

• Identification and mobilization of

key partners led by local city

authorities and involvement of

local agencies, community organizations, police and justice systems, and the private sector.

• A rigorous assessment or security diagnosis of local problems of

urban safety and victimization to

set out policies and priorities

based on partnership consensus.

• Development of local action

plans that address the causes of

crime and victimization, not just

its symptoms.

• Implementation and evaluation of

long- and short-term prevention

projects that target social exclusion and urban poverty as well

as specific crimes and specific

geographical areas.

• Understanding that community

crime prevention is a long-term

process which requires educating

the community that prevention is

a normal part of local community

activity and local governance.

The range of agencies, organizations, and individuals who should be

involved in this process is very

extensive, offering considerable flexibility and opportunities. A list of

potential partners for developing a

comprehensive plan was developed

by NCPC (Kelly, 1998). The list

includes 

• Local government leadership.

• Law enforcement and criminal

justice agencies. 

• Human and social service

agencies.

• Neighborhood and civic associations and clubs.

• Youth and seniors groups.

• Health, safety, and quality-of-life

agencies.

• Universities, schools, school

boards, principals, and Parent

Teacher Associations.

• Cultural and ethnic populations.

• Business owners and

organizations.

• Faith community leaders.

• Local media.

• Nonprofit groups.

• Public housing residents

associations and management.

• Military.

A Framework for Community Safety 
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 29

This chapter provides examples

of the ways in which different cities

and local governments around the

world have applied the community

safety approach. Because a great

deal can be learned from program

failure, the chapter examines limitations and lessons that have been

learned from past experience in

developing community safety initiatives and local partnerships. Some

of the most important lessons for

developing partnerships, undertaking safety audits, and developing

strategies and programs come

from learning what went wrong,

what proved to be difficult, and

what went right. 

WE SHOULD STOP THINKING ABOUT COMMUNITIES AS HOMOGENOUS NEIGHBOURHOODS AND START RECOGNIZING THAT THEY

COMPRISE INTEREST GROUPS THAT ARE

OFTEN IN CONFLICT.

—“Participatory Policing,” Imbizo

Two important and related discussions of the past few years have

revolved around what we mean

when we talk about “community”

and whether local authorities are

really able to work with all members

of a neighborhood. At the heart of

these discussions are the following

realities: 

• Conflicts need to be talked

through, not smoothed over.

• It is easier to work with established members than to include

marginal groups. 

• Communities that are weakest

need the most help and support.

• Cities and local authorities must

be willing to share the blame and

the credit.

Having the tools to promote community safety is not enough. Also

needed is clear understanding of the

underlying problem. It is important

to resist focusing only on the symptoms of crime and disorder in a

community, or only on visible crime

in public places. Minority groups, for

example, may be wary of reporting

harassment or crime. Recognizing

the long-term nature of community

change, and working on the process

itself, may be more important than

focusing on projects, current fads,

or quick results. 

IV. Limitations, Lessons, and 

Conclusions
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

30

Partnership Problems and

Information Sharing

Developing partnerships is not

easy and requires the following: 

• Getting agencies to work together

and share information.

• Ensuring that some agencies,

such as the police, do not

dominate.

• Ensuring that community partnerships represent the interests

of the minority as well as the

majority.

• Ensuring that women and men

have an equal voice.

• Maintaining confidentiality during

information-sharing efforts.

• Retaining momentum and

sustaining initiatives.

Problems may arise when partners have different management

styles, volunteers and paid staff try

to work together, and leaders

change.

Differences in Management

Styles

Salt Lake City’s experience developing Community Action Teams

(CATs) revealed a number of

management-generated problems

(Rosenbaum, 1999). Tensions arose

between city departments with different management styles. The

open management style of the

mayor’s office that encouraged

brainstorming, cooperative problem

solving, and risk taking was in conflict with the traditional hierarchical

and bureaucratic style of the city

police department. As a result,

some local CATs identified more

with their community than with the

city because the management of the

teams had not been clearly thought

through. This situation led to the

isolation of CAT police officers from

their colleagues and was only

resolved when the police department made organizational and communication changes. In addition,

community residents initially were

not recruited as regular members of

CAT because of the confidentiality

of information being shared, while

other team members, such as community prosecutors, attended meetings irregularly.

Volunteer Groups and

Multiagency Work

Multiagency local partnerships to

reduce domestic violence have been

encouraged in several countries

over the past 10 years. Experience

has shown that such partnerships

have many benefits but present difficulties (Hague, 1999). Volunteer

groups tend to be underrepresented

in such partnerships, while agency

groups tend to assert control.

Partnerships can pose problems for

grassroots organizations that want

to retain their independence as service providers. Long-established

organizations providing services to

women can be ignored in the rush

to develop “new” initiatives. Women

who have experienced domestic

violence often have their needs and
Limitations, Lessons, and Conclusions 

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 31

views overlooked. Small minority

groups can be marginalized by local

partnerships, whose membership

often does not reflect the diversity of

the community.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE ROAD TO SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION LIES NOT IN RUNNING

AWAY FROM THE CONCEPT OF “COMMUNITY”

BUT IN EMBRACING IT, STUDYING IT,

UNDERSTANDING IT, AND RESPONDING TO IT

APPROPRIATELY.

—The Prevention of Crime

Changing Leaders

Sustaining initiatives is difficult

when mayors or police chiefs are

replaced, when funding runs out,

or other priorities dominate. In

Toronto, for example, a new mayor

was elected as the task force on

community safety submitted its

plan. Responsibility for implementing the plan was not given to the

office of the chief administrator as

the task force had recommended,

but to a different agency as part of

the city’s reorganization, one with a

number of other functions. Over

time, staff changes resulted in a loss

of institutional memory, making it

difficult for the implementers to

generate and sustain the energy,

time, and resources needed to realize the plan. A lesson to be learned

from many initiatives is that they

need to be supported by both a

“champion” and community

members who feel that they own

part of the process and who will

maintain momentum as elected

officials or leaders move on.

Evaluation and

Funding Issues

Projects can be evaluated at

different stages: Have they met

immediate, short-term, or long-term

goals and are they cost effective?

Some researchers have emphasized

the importance of looking at the

process of program development

and implementation rather than just

the outcome in terms of reductions

in crime. What were the conditions

that helped the program work or

fail? It is clear that the more multidisciplinary and comprehensive a

program, the more difficult it is to

assess exactly what worked. What is

important is to establish a range of

short- and long-term goals and outcomes for projects. 

While creatively using existing

funds and resources and bringing

together untapped energy is part of

the new way of working, funding is

still important. Unfortunately it is

still categorically driven in many

countries and tied to particular

problems or initiatives. A pooling of

resources is more valuable for city

initiatives or community contracts

that fund local prevention councils

to develop a range of projects that

meet their needs. In a number of

countries, business partners support

and sponsor projects, but continued

funding is not always easy to obtain

on a long-term basis.
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

32

Emerging Issues

A public health approach to community safety that looks at risk

factors is valuable, but it is also

important to look at the strengths

and assets of individuals and communities. Other issues that need to

be considered include the role of

volunteers and faith communities

and how they can best be included

under local government leadership;

the extent to which public groups

can intervene in private issues or

private locations; the rights of young

people to public space; and the

impact of new technologies on

communities.

In Europe, new jobs associated

with community safety, such as

mediation and security assistants,

outreach workers, youth wardens,

community safety officers, and

mediators, are showing promise.

Communication technologies, especially the Internet, offer opportunities for exchanging experiences and

expertise, training, and linking

municipalities together.

Centralized States and

Federal Nations

The different approaches to facilitating local government involvement

in community safety show similarities and pose questions. It seems

clear that local action needs to be

supported vertically as well as horizontally. Netherlands, Belgium,

England, and Wales, for example,

have leaders at the national level

linked to regional and local

municipal leaders. While regions or

counties adapt and develop community programs to meet their needs,

there are binding requirements and,

in some cases, legislation attached to

funding contracts that require them

to act in partnerships.

In France, the interministerial delegation to the city (DIV) requires all

sectors—health, justice, housing,

employment—to work together to

develop the economic and social

health of cities. The cities are able

to define their own alliances in relation to their own needs. This gives

them legitimacy and allows them to

negotiate, innovate, and modify the

functions of local agencies and

develop new capacities. 

Australia and Canada, federal

countries with national structures,

are not able to mandate their

provinces, territories, or states with

such ease. Nevertheless, their

national crime prevention centers

are well placed to offer funding,

stimulate best practices, and coordinate information to regional and

local groups. The United States,

with a federal structure but strong

state autonomy, arguably has less

leverage to enforce or legislate. It

has, nevertheless, managed to

encourage a considerable amount

of important locally based action

across communities, enabling

mayors, elected representatives, city

managers, and administrators to

make links with their regions

and states as well as with federal

funders.
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 33

Summary

The pace of change in cities

around the world has increased

enormously in the past few years: 

• With rapid globalization, urbanization, and migration, the health

and well-being of citizens are

major concerns in developed and

developing countries. 

• Poverty and exclusion, two of the

most important problems facing

cities and municipalities, have

increased and are major factors

increasing the risks of crime,

victimization, and insecurity.

• In the past decades, despite

tougher criminal justice responses in many countries, the problems of community safety have

increased and remain a major

concern for citizens.

• There has been a loss of faith in

criminal justice systems. 

• There has been recognition of the

importance of prevention and of

community safety as a right, and

recognition of the need to revitalize cities and municipalities to

deal with the social exclusion of

young people and their families. 

Since the 1980s, mayors and

other local authority leaders have

begun to promote community safety.

They no longer see crime as

primarily the responsibility of the

police. They have come to see crime

reduction as an issue of good governance that requires community partnerships to tailor local solutions to

local problems. Accumulating evidence from many countries points to

similarities in the factors that place

people and places at risk of crime

and victimization, the most important

factors being poverty and discrimination. Evidence of the short- and longterm effectiveness of intervention to

reduce risks is also accumulating and

has been shown to be cost effective.

Limitations, Lessons, and Conclusions 
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 35

This chapter highlights a variety

of community safety initiatives

developed by local government

partnerships in countries around the

world. They have been selected to

illustrate different aspects of the

strategic approach and to show how

communities of different sizes have

tackled a range of issues. The initiatives include strategic plans in large

cities following safety audits and

public consultation; neighborhoodbased committees and action

groups; urban planning and management strategies for youth and

public spaces; small-town initiatives;

domestic violence strategies;

statewide city initiatives targeting

hotspots and cooperative financing;

coalitions of local authorities and

cities; and social observatories as

tools for strategic local planning.18

Borough of Brent, London,

England: Community

Safety and Community

Empowerment

Brent is one of 33 London boroughs, each with its own mayor and

council. Brent has a population of

240,000 and the highest proportion

(50 percent) of black and ethnic

minority citizens in London. It is the

most culturally and racially diverse

of all local authorities in England

and Wales and includes areas of

considerable wealth and extreme

poverty. The borough’s average

unemployment rate is 13 percent

but runs as high as 30 percent in

some wards. Crime rates in the borough are higher than the national

average and are concentrated in

deprived housing estates, some of

which present serious policing problems. Major concerns are street robbery, theft and burglary, drug- and

alcohol-related crime, and violence.

Working Partnership

Brent now has 10 years of

experience working with partnerships, undertaking safety diagnoses,

and planning and implementing

community safety strategies. It 

has a permanent department of

Community Safety and Community

V. Examples From Practice

In Brent’s experience the three

key principles necessary for effective local authority crime prevention

work can be classified as the three

C’s:

• Councillors: to secure political

support for crime prevention.

• Corporate: to secure a council

corporate approach to crime

prevention.

• Coalitions: to ensure that local

authorities take the lead in developing crime prevention

strategies.

—John Blackmore, Head of Community

Safety and Community Empowerment,

Borough of Brent
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

36

Empowerment within its Community

Development Directorate, which

works closely with all council

services, national agencies, and

businesses. 

Brent has five interagency crime

prevention/community safety strategies. Projects developed with partners

have included burglary reduction programs, a mentoring scheme for

young people, neighborhood watch,

and a targeted policing initiative for

high-crime areas using crime mapping and analysis. The latter has been

funded by a £1.3 million national

government grant. 

Brent has also set up accredited

community safety training courses

for local citizens and a community

information system Web site

(www.brent.gov.uk/brain). The borough recently held a conference on

community safety that was transmitted on the Internet and will form the

basis of a video. Its safety strategy

for 1999– 2002, which followed a

safety audit and extensive community consultation, was produced by

the partnership between the local

council and the police, probation

service, and health authorities serving the borough.

The Crime and Disorder Audit

compared Brent’s crime levels with

neighboring boroughs, highlighted

crime hotspots, and examined

trends in burglary, robbery, violence,

sexual offenses, young offenders,

domestic violence, racial incidents,

victimization of the elderly, disorder,

road injuries, drug and alcohol problems, and fear of crime. It showed

that between 1996 and 1998,

recorded crime had decreased in the

borough by 5 percent, burglary had

decreased by 13 percent, and street

robbery had decreased by 14 percent, although violent crimes as a

whole had risen. The audit listed

some of the options for reducing the

problems identified.

Community Consultation

Some 10,000 copies of a summary of the crime and disorder audit

were sent to the public and to ethnic

minority, faith, neighborhood watch,

and business groups. The full audit

was available in police stations,

libraries, and medical clinics.

Forums were held to discuss the

audit with resident and tenant 

Community Safety

Strategy for Brent

1999–2002

Top priorities:

1. Reduce residential burglary.

2. Decrease robbery and streetcrime.

3. Improve partnership response to

racial incidents and violence and

victimization of ethnic minorities.

4. Reduce crime and disorder in

town centers.

5. Reduce crime by young

offenders.
Examples From Practice 

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 37

organizations, police community

consultation groups, and the Brent

Youth Council. 

The resulting document, A Crime

and Disorder Reduction and

Community Safety Strategy for

Brent 1999–2002 (Borough of Brent,

2000), identifies the borough’s 15

priority targets, an overall target for

each priority, a detailed list of action

plans for each target, and performance measures to assess their

effectiveness. The top priority is

burglary reduction and the target is

reduction by a minimum of 6 percent in 12 months, or 12 percent in

36 months, compared with 1998

figures. Apart from the top five priorities listed on page 36, other priority targets include reducing youth

victimization, domestic violence,

road injuries, and drug and alcohol

abuse.

Contact: John Blackmore, Head,

Community Safety and Community

Empowerment, London Borough of

Brent, Brent Town Hall, Forty Lane,

Wembley, Middlesex, HA9 9HD,

England. 44–020–8937–1035;

44–020–8937–1056 (fax);

john.blackmore@brent.gov.uk 

(e-mail).

Toronto, Ontario, Canada:

A Community Safety

Strategy for the City 

Toronto, with a population 2.5

million, has seen enormous growth

as a city and region over the past

20 years. This growth includes rapid

changes in the ethnic distribution of

the population. Before 1980, 60

percent of immigrants were from

Europe. Since 1980, the majority

of immigrants have come from

Asia, Africa, Latin America, the

Caribbean, China, Hong Kong, and

the Philippines. About 42 percent of

citizens have a mother tongue other

than English. These changes have

brought considerable social and

economic benefits, but there is

increasing income disparity and

poverty. Only 27 to 36 percent of

Toronto citizens feel that all ethnic

and cultural groups are treated fairly

by city politicians and the police.

Violent crime levels were still increasing as recently as 1997, and

community safety remains one of

citizens’ top concerns. 

Formerly a city of 650,000, the

new megacity of Toronto was created in 1998 with the amalgamation

of the surrounding municipalities of

East York, Etobicoke, North York,

Scarborough, and York. The new

city council established a Task

Force on Community Safety to

develop a comprehensive safety

plan. Chaired by two councillors, it

included representatives from the

police, school boards, neighborhood

crime prevention groups, businesses, ethno-cultural groups and agencies, organizations working with

at-risk children and people with

disabilities, and family violence

counselors. 

Its key strategy was community

consultation using a community survey, interviews with city councillors,

public meetings, and presentations.
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

38

Its interim report was discussed at a

conference bringing together citizens,

local organizations, and councillors.

The final report Toronto, My City, A

Safe City: A Community Strategy for

the City of Toronto (1999), outlines

the extent of the city’s problems of

crime, insecurity, and inequalities. It

discusses their root causes and how

they can be overcome, describes

existing community services and programs, sets out its vision for a safe

city within a healthy communities

framework, and outlines 35 recommendations for implementation. Each

recommendation identifies the major

city services that should take the

lead. A new task force was established in 2000 to develop a work

plan to implement the recommendations. Among other work, a social

atlas, based on analysis of city

wards, is being constructed and

implementation of the plan is

expected to take 3 years.

Contact: Lydia Fitchko, Policy

Development Officer, City of

Toronto Community and Neighborhood Services Department, Social

Development and Administration

Division, 55 John Street, 11th Floor

Metro Hall, Toronto, Ontario M5V

3C6, Canada. 416–392–5397;

416–392–8492 (fax); lfitchko@city.

toronto.on.ca (e-mail).

Brisbane, Queensland,

Australia: Youth and

Public Space Major

Centers Project

Brisbane is a major Australian city

with a population of 1.6 million and

regional and subregional satellite

centers. Recently, it has experienced

a strong population growth, including immigration from Southeast

Asia. Crime, vandalism, incivilities

in public places, the presence of

street kids and youth gangs, and the

increasing exclusion of minority

youth are major concerns.

High numbers of indigenous

young people have migrated from

rural areas and the city suffers from

a lack of transport, social services,

and facilities designed to meet the

needs of young people.

Toronto Community

Safety Strategy 

A Vision for a Safer City

• Reduce crime and fear of crime.

• Increase community knowledge

and involvement in creating a

safer city.

• Focus on vulnerable groups.

• Recognize diversity.

• Know what works and the

importance of evaluation.

Five Directions for Action

• Strengthen neighborhoods.

• Invest in children and youth.

• Increase police and justice.

• Obtain information and organize

coordination.

• Make community safety a corporate policy with a council

accountability structure.
Brisbane began a project to develop safer public spaces that were

more inclusive and relevant to the

needs and interests of young people. It focused on the major public

sites where young people gathered,

such as city and regional shopping

malls, beaches, and parks. The project took as its starting point the

importance of recognizing the inherent right of young people to have

access to public spaces and to be

consulted and involved in the development of facilities.

A CRUCIAL ISSUE IS WHETHER YOUNG PEOPLE VIEW AMENITIES AS YOUTH FRIENDLY. A

SURVEY OF YOUNG PEOPLE FOUND THAT THE

FACTORS INVOLVED IN DEFINING A PLACE AS

‘FRIENDLY’ INCLUDED ACCEPTANCE AND SUPPORT, NO VIOLENCE, CHEAP FOOD AND

DRINKS, AND NO ADULTS OR POLICE.

—Hanging Out: Negotiating Young 

People’s Use of Public Space

The city held extensive discussions with young people and other

users of commercial and community

spaces and compiled information on

the city council strategic planning

system, corporate and local area

plans, and urban design. It examined good practice models and principles and the current use of major

centers in the city, suburbs, and

regions. It set out principles, recommended policies, detailed strategy

outlines, and targeted indicators to

Examples From Practice 

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 39

reach each of the policy objectives

in three areas: youth and community development policy, urban

management through strategic and

local planning and design, and operational management and community relations in major centers. 

A related project, Girls in Space

Consortia (1997), looked at the

needs of girls and young women in

public spaces. Brisbane now has

good examples of well planned and

designed city centers such as

Southbank.

Youth and Community

Development Policy

Principles

• Inclusive public and community 

spaces.

• Recognizing the tension between 

commercial and community 

objectives.

• Understanding shopping centers in 

their local and regional contexts.

• Active inclusion of young people.

• Responsive and coordinated policy 

development within the council.

• Promoting realistic and accurate 

information on young people to 

the broader community.

• Responding to diversity among 

young people.

• Safety.

—Hanging Out: Negotiating Young 

People’s Use of Public Space
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

40

Source: P. Haywood, P. Crane, A.

Egginton, and J. Gleeson (1998),

Out and About: In or Out? Better

Outcomes for Young People’s Use of

Public and Community Space in the

City of Brisbane. 

Leichhardt Municipal

Council, New South Wales,

Australia: Draft Youth

Social Plan

This small municipal council,

serving a population of 62,053,

developed its Youth Social Plan

1995–1997 (White, 1998) to

respond to local unemployment,

poverty, and inequality to provide

concrete ways of dealing with current problems. These included conflicts over the use of public space

by young people. The plan asserts

the basic rights of young people

and outlines strategies for the 

following:

• Area planning and local services

coordination.

• More equitable distribution of

youth services and facilities

throughout the municipality.

• Youth consultation, participation,

and advocacy.

• Recreation and public space provision for young people.

• Youth facilities for commercial

developments.

• Active recreational spaces.

• Public space design and inclusion

of artwork.

• Health and well-being of young

people.

• Youth and family support

services.

• Education, training, and

employment.

• Housing and homelessness.

• Crime prevention. 

Source: “The Youth Section of

Leichhardt Municipal Council’s Draft

Social Plan 1997–1999: Defining How

Council Works With and on Behalf of

Young People Aged 12–24.” R. White

(1998), Public Spaces for Young

People.

Freeport, Illinois: Coalition

for a Safe Community

In the early 1990s, 25 percent of

Freeport’s 27,000 citizens lived at or

below the poverty line, with 54 percent of children living in poverty.

African Americans made up 20 percent of the population and there

were concerns about disparities in

educational provision and treatment

of students.

The catalyst to action was a threat

by four Fortune 500 companies,

which provided 40 percent of local

employment, to pull out of the city.

The city set up Project 2009 with

local businesses in 1993. They

developed a strategic plan to ensure

that 90 percent of young people
Examples From Practice 

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 41

stayed in school and graduated

equipped to work in local businesses. The project coalition included

city leaders, school administrators,

business and community representatives, and local clergy. 

Beginning in 1994, the mayor met

with residents over the course of 18

months to discuss and debate concerns about increasing violence. In

1996, the city established the

Coalition for a Safe Community,

whose mission was to build a safe

and healthy community for children

and families. Four task forces developed plans leading to the creation of

family mentoring, parenting education, media awareness programs,

and a job bank. 

The results have been significant.

Rates of child abuse and neglect

have fallen. The local newspaper

has developed a guide to local family and social services. New lighting

has been installed. A new neighborhood park and play area is planned.

School buildings are now available

as community centers, and 50 new

mentors for local youth are being

recruited by local organizations and

businesses. Even with a new mayor

and police chief, in 1997 and 1998,

implementation of the plan was

completed. The coalition has

obtained more than $450,000 from

federal, state, and foundation grants

and plans to develop an affordable

housing project. 

Contact: Tracey Johnson, Deputy

Director, MLKCSI, 511 South Liberty

Street, Freeport, IL 61032.

815–233–9915; 815–235–0007 (fax).

Hartford, Connecticut:

Neighborhood ProblemSolving Committees and

the Comprehensive

Communities Program

From 1986 to 1996, severe

neighborhood gang wars catapulted

Hartford’s crime levels into the top

10 for cities with more than 100,000

citizens. A mayor’s commission

on crime was set up in 1987. The

commission recommended establishing citywide community policing,

developing interagency partnerships, and combining community

efforts to work on social issues.

A Police Gang Task Force was

established in 1992, and neighborhood problem-solving committees

(PSCs) were set up in the 17 city

neighborhoods. PSCs meet monthly

to diagnose neighborhood problems

and decide on objectives and plans.

Three special assistants to the city

manager were hired to serve as

liaisons between PSCs and the city

government. Our Piece of the Pie,

a prework program for youth, was set

up in 1996. The program also began

hiring young adults as trainers,

counselors, and role models to

support at-risk youth and set up a

youth job clearinghouse. As a result

of these efforts, overall rates of

crime fell by 30 percent from 1986

to 1996, and rates of employment

placement from the program have

been up to 87 percent.
CAT youth workers from the local

Boys & Girls Club help link at-risk

youth to local services. More recently, school representatives have

joined each team. CATs meet weekly to deal with neighborhood problems, with the aim of providing

services quickly to clients, cutting

across agency boundaries and red

tape. The mayor’s Office of

Community Affairs acts as the

liaison between agencies and city

government and the teams. 

THE PURPOSE OF COMMUNITY ACTION

TEAMS IS TO POOL THEIR RESOURCES

(TIME, AUTHORITY, STAFF) IN A PROBLEMSOLVING FOCUS ON NEIGHBORHOODSPECIFIC AND FAMILY-SPECIFIC PROBLEMS AS

THEY ARISE. . . . CATS ARE EMPOWERED

BY UPPER-LEVEL CITY MANAGEMENT TO

WORK OUT THE MOST EFFECTIVE SOLUTION

THEY CAN DEVISE THROUGH COLLABORATION

AMONG MEMBER AGENCIES AND THE

COMMUNITY. 

—Standing in the Gap

Some of the outcomes of Salt

Lake City’s approach include Community Peace Services, a diversion

program that provides education,

mediation, and intervention to firsttime offenders; a domestic violence

court; and increased youth and family specialist staff. The city has

been able to attract increased resources from federal, state, and

local government and from 

THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

42

Contact: Rae Ann Palmer,

Coordinator, Special Projects and

Community Programs, City of

Hartford, City Manager’s Office, 525

Main Street, Hartford, CT 06103.

860–543–8681; 860–722–6216

(fax). 

Salt Lake City, Utah:

Changing the Way

Government Works and

the Comprehensive

Communities Program

In recent years, Salt Lake City

has not only grown in population but

become increasingly diverse ethnically and racially as well. Youth violence, including drive-by shootings,

and gang-related crime rose in the

early 1990s. At that time, the percentage of the city’s 180,000 people

living below the poverty level was

16.4 percent, compared with the

national average of 12.8 percent. In

1995, its unemployment rate was

3.6 percent, compared with the

national average of 5.6 percent, and

the rate of violent crime was 83 per

10,000, compared with the national

level of 72 per 10,000. Fear of

crime increased and the courts

were overloaded.

The city set up Community Action

Teams (CATs) in each geographical

area, as neighborhood-based

problem-solving teams focusing on

the problems of youth and youth

gangs. CATs include community

police, probation, the city prosecutor, community mobilization specialists, a youth/family specialist, and

a community relations coordinator.
Examples From Practice 

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 43

foundations. These have led to new

programs and new staff. Gang activity has diminished, property crime is

down, and homicides have declined

33 percent from 1995.

Contact: Jeanne Robinson, Assistant

City Prosecutor, Salt Lake City.

801–535–7660.

Maryland HotSpot

Communities: Reclaiming

Our Neighborhoods

This initiative targets heavy concentrations of crime, insecurity, and 

victimization in 36 HotSpot communities across Maryland. The effort

began in 1997 and provides funds

to neighborhoods to develop partnerships and strategies to reclaim

those areas. The program recognizes that nationally 50 percent

of crime occurs at 3 percent of

addresses. It is the first statewide

intervention to help selected HotSpot areas reclaim their neighborhoods, investing $3.5 million in

state and federal grant funding in

36 communities.

A major innovation of the initiative is coordinating state and federal

funding to support “core” and

“enhancing” projects arising from

strategic plans. Each community

receives operational and technical

assistance from various state and

local agencies. The core elements

are community mobilization, community policing, community probation, community maintenance,

crime prevention among youth, and

local coordination. The enhancing

elements are community prosecution, juvenile intervention, crime

prevention through environmental

design, victim outreach and assistance, community support for

addiction recovery, and housing

and business revitalization.

Contact: Stephen Amos, Executive

Director, Governor’s Office of Crime

Control and Prevention, 300 East

Joppa Road, Suite 1105, Baltimore,

MD 21286–3016. 410–321–3521;

410–321–3116 (fax);

STEPHEN@GOCCP-State-MD.org

(e-mail).

METRAC, Toronto,

Ontario, Canada: Taking

Action Against Abuse

of Women

One in 6 women in Canada is

abused by her partner each year

and more than 60 percent of homicides result from family violence. A

major problem in Canada has been

the lack of coordination of services

and programs across all sectors.

Sponsored by the chair of Metro

Toronto in 1992, the Metro Woman

Abuse Council of Toronto was

formed to create a metrowide integrated community response to

violence against women that

promotes effective and efficient

provision of services for assaulted

women and their families. The

city provides in-kind support. The

council brings together 18 representatives of key sectors of the

community, including shelters,

police departments, hospitals, 
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

44

support service agencies, community health centers, probation officers,

and survivor groups. There are five

standing committees and ad hoc

working groups.

The council’s successes include

conferences that have brought

together different sectors and

groups, two publications (Best

Practice Resource Manual and Best

Practice Guidelines for Responding

to Women Abuse for Health

Practitioners), safety audit kits, protocols and accountability standards

for intervention programs, and education and awareness projects. The

council worked with police departments and courts to develop specialized domestic violence courts,

model batterer’s programs, and

court-watch projects, and developed

inter-sectoral partnerships and

protocols. 

Contact: www.city.toronto.on.ca/

council/wac_index.htm#f (Internet).

Amsterdam, The Hague,

Rotterdam, and

Utrecht, Netherlands:

Big Cities Policy

Social problems such as drugs,

nuisance, and street crime in

Netherlands’ major cities led to 

the development of a Big Cities

Policy. A memorandum was drawn

up by the municipal authorities 

of the major cities to strengthen

their social and economic bases 

in partnership with the national 

government in three major areas:

employment and education, public

safety, and quality of life and care.

The main impact is directed at the

neighborhood level and the plan

sets targets and outlines measures.

As part of the initiative, a pilot

project modeled on the French

example, Justice in the Neighborhood: Justice Closer to the Citizens

and Their Problems, was begun in

1992.19 Neighborhood justice offices

were opened in five Dutch cities to

work in problem-oriented ways with

local residents. The offices provide

accessible, quick, and direct action

to deal with local street crime, nuisances, and conflicts. They offer

information, legal advice, and conflict mediation to help prevent local

disputes from getting out of control.

Contact: Ministry of Justice,

Information Department,

31–0–70–370–68–50;

31–0–70–370–75–94 (fax);

infodesk@wodc.minjust.nl or 

voorlichting@best-dep.minjust.nl 

(e-mail); www.minjust.nl:8080

(Internet). 

EURO 2000 Football Cities

Against Racism

The European Forum for Urban

Safety funds groups of cities in

Europe to tackle specific problems.

Over the past 10 years it has

brought member cities together for

conferences and initiatives on violence and schools, the mass media,

senior citizens, victims, immigration

and insecurity, the integration of

young people, and drug prevention.

A recent initiative targets racism
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 45

and soccer violence. Soccer violence has been a major problem in

Great Britain as well as other

European countries for a number of

years. Nine host cities (Brent in

London, four Dutch cities, and four

Belgian cities) have developed antiracism campaigns around the EURO

2000 championships. 

Contacts: John Blackmore, Head,

Community Safety and Community

Empowerment, London Borough of

Brent, Brent Town Hall, Forty Lane,

Wembley, Middlesex, HA9 9HD,

England. 44–020–8937–1035;

44–020-8937–1056 (fax);

john.blackmore@brent.gov.uk (email); European Forum for Urban

Safety, 38 rue Liancourt, Paris

75014, France. 33–1–40–64–49–00;

33–1–40–64–49–10 (fax);

fesu@urbansecurity.org. (e-mail).

Aix en Provence, France:

Local Security Contract

and Observatory

This city of 126,000 has experienced considerable growth in the

past 30 years. It is “rich, cultured,

and young,” but with increasing

disparities between its economically

stable and marginalized populations.

The city received a Contrat de

Ville in 1994 to improve housing,

transport, education, and health services, as well as to develop delinquency and drug prevention

strategies. A community council

partnership for the prevention of

delinquency was formed that applied

for a new security contract (CLS)

as soon as they were announced in

1997. The partnership includes not

only the city of Aix en Provence but

its surrounding communities, each

with its own mayor, police department, and other services. Representatives of the region and national

ministries are also included.

A comprehensive security diagnosis was undertaken, looking at direct

and indirect problems. In addition, a

permanent observatory of social

problems was created, using specific indicators at the local government

level. 

Using this knowledge as a foundation, the city established 10 priorities relating to the quality of life:

social, cultural, and sports facilities

and policies; citizen access to the

law; prevention of child abuse and

neglect; prevention of substance

abuse; parental support; victim

support and aid; improving court

and reintegration policy and practices; and safety and security. The

action plan (Fiches actions de contrat, 1999) outlines 42 separate

actions relating to these 10 priorities. In each case it identifies the

specific problem, the objectives

set, the agreed action, the partners 

responsible for implementation,

methods of finance, evaluation,

and target dates. The prevention

of school violence, for example,

involves measures to reduce

absenteeism and school exclusion,

early identification of behavior

problems, use of alternative

Examples From Practice 
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

46

disciplinary measures, and educational support. The plan is now

being implemented and evaluated.

Among other initiatives, community policing has been established,

and new security assistants have

been recruited. Better links and

coordination between the national

and municipal police have also been

set up. Social mediation agents

have been recruited and trained to

work on public transport, around

schools, and in public spaces. Their

role includes mediating situations

and intervening between groups

such as local shop owners and

young people to try to develop creative solutions to problems. Although the outcomes have not yet

been evaluated, the CLS has had a

considerable impact on policies and

practices in the city as well as the

region.

Sources: Diagnostic local de securite

de la Ville de Aix en Provence

(1999) and Fiches actions de contrat (1999): Centre de gestion de la

fonction publique territoriale des

Bouches du Rhone.
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 47

1. This statement refers to crimes

recorded by the police. We know

from victimization surveys taken in

many countries that only approximately 50 percent of crime events

are reported to the police, so these

levels underestimate the extent of

crime and victimization. 

2. In England and Wales, for

example, 59 percent of the public

thought that crime rates were still

rising in 1998 in spite of 4 years of

decline (Mattinson and MirrleesBlack, 2000). 

3. For example, in Britain 82 percent of Pakistani and 84 percent

of Bangladeshi families, many of

them living in public housing, have

incomes that are less than half the

national average, compared with 28

percent of the majority white population (Social Exclusion Unit, 2000a:

30). In France, concentrations of

social problems are found in the

satellite housing complexes around

the major cities with social outcasts

and immigrant families living in far

greater poverty and substandard

conditions than the rest of the country (Dubet and Lapeyronnie, 1994,

in Pfeiffer, 1998). In Germany, 39

percent of foreign born Turkish

youth experience high levels of

deprivation compared with 12 percent of native-born Germans

(Pfeiffer and Wetzels, 1999).

4. See Snyder and Sickmund

(1999) and Harris and Curtis (1998)

for more information about juvenile

offending and victimization and

future population trends. Hagan

(1996) and Rose and Clear (1998)

have discussed the impact of

high rates of imprisonment on

neighborhoods.

5. An international survey in 12

countries found drug use was prevalent among youth in areas of high

unemployment and was associated

with a high incidence of property

and violent crime (Killias and

Ribeaud, 1999). 

6. See Violence Against Women: The

Hidden Health Burden (Heise, L.L.,

et al., 1994).

7. In Germany, for example, the proportion of ethnic minorities in youth

custody increased from 10 percent

in 1990 to 35 percent by 1998

(Pfeiffer and Wetzels, 1999).

8. These projects include summer

holiday and job creation programs

for disadvantaged young people.

Since 1989 these city contracts

have been administered through an

interministerial agency (DIV) at the

national level that links the interests

of national ministries together in

supporting a range of city projects. 

VI. Notes
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

48

9. Countries in transition include

many east European countries that

were part of the Soviet Union or the

Eastern Bloc. Developing countries

include many in South America,

Africa, and Asia. International victimization surveys have been carried

out in many of these countries since

the mid-1990s.

10. These are being funded by the

United Nations Center for Human

Settlements (Habitat) based in

Nairobi in partnership with ICPC,

EFUS, the South African Institute of

Security Studies, and national and

local governments. Projects under

the Habitat program are being

developed in other African cities as

well as in Asia and Latin America

(www.unchs.org/safercities). The

project in Dar es Salaam was

awarded the Urban Security Prize

at the Africities Summit 2000.

11. A safety audit includes a detailed mapping of crime and disorder problems in a community.

12. The National Strategy for Neighborhood Renewal is a multiministerial strategy for tackling the problems

of deprived neighborhoods. Each of

the 18 reports focuses on a particular issue. For example, Report 12

deals with young people (Social

Exclusion Unit, 1999b); Report 4

with neighborhood renewal (Social

Exclusion Unit, 2000a). Three major

funding areas target crime reduction

and community safety: Sure Start

funds early family intervention programs, On Track funds projects for

children and families, and Youth

Include provides activities for at-risk

youth between 13 and 16 years old.

13. See Profils, Missions et Perspectives des Agents Locaux de Mediation Sociale (Forum Francais,

1999).

14. These were the mayors of

Arlington, Austin, Corpus Christi,

Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth,

Houston, and San Antonio.

15. The sites in Baltimore, Boston,

Columbia, Fort Worth, Salt Lake

City, and Seattle have been intensively evaluated; Atlanta, Denver,

East Bay, Hartford, and Wichita

have been the subject of less intensive evaluation (Kelling et al.,

1998). A total of $34 million was

invested in the program.

16. They include Burlington, Chapel

Hill, and Garner in North Carolina;

Deerfield Park, Florida; Deer Park,

Texas; Lima and Stow, Ohio; Keene,

New Hampshire; Bessemer,

Alabama; Pearl, Mississippi; and

Pueblo County, Colorado.

17. The National Crime Prevention

Council has produced a number of

other guides to community initiatives in crime prevention, including

Crime Prevention in America:

Foundations for Action (1990);

Uniting Communities Through

Crime Prevention (1994); New Ways

of Working To Reduce Crime (1996);

and Designing Safer Communities

(1997).
18. Other examples can be found in

100 Crime Prevention Programs To

Inspire Action Across the World

(International Centre for the

Prevention of Crime, 1999b).

19. Maisons de justice et du droit.

Notes 

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 49
VII. References

Bonnemaison, G. (1982). Rapport

de la Commission des Maires sur la

Sécurité. Paris, France.

Borough of Brent (2000). A

Crime and Disorder Reduction and

Community Safety Strategy for

Brent 1999–2002. London, England:

Borough of Brent.

Bureau of Justice Assistance

(1997). Innovation State and Local

Practices. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice.

Center for the Study and

Prevention of Violence (1997).

Blueprints for Violence Prevention.

Boulder, CO: Center for the Study

and Prevention of Violence.

Crime Concern (1998). Reducing

Neighbourhood Crime: A Manual for

Action. Swindon, England: Crime

Concern.

Crime Concern (1999). Review to

Support the Development of the

Health Strategy for London Crime

and Disorder. Woking, England:

Crime Concern.

European Forum for Urban Safety

(1996). Tools for Action. Interim

Report. Paris, France: European

Forum for Urban Safety.

European Forum for Urban Safety

(1996). Safety and Security: New

Jobs for the New Millenium. Paris,

France: European Forum for Urban

Safety.

Farrington, D.P. (2000). “Explaining and Preventing Crime.”

Criminology 38(1): 1–24. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation

(2000). Preliminary Annual Uniform

Crime Report, 1999. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Hagan, J. (1996). “The Next

Generation: Children of Prisoners.”

The Unintended Consequences of

Incarceration. New York, NY: Vera

Institute of Justice.

Hague, G. (1999). “Reducing

Domestic Violence—What Works?

Multi-Agency Fora.” Briefing Note:

Policing and Reducing Crime.

London, England: Home Office.

Hamilton, J. (1999). Results

Centred Evaluation of Safer

Community Councils. Wellington,

New Zealand: Crime Prevention

Unit, Department of the Prime

Minister.

Harris, F.R., and Curtis, L.A.

(1998). Locked in the Poorhouse:

Cities, Race and Poverty in the

United States. New York, NY:

Rowman & Littlefield.

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 51
Heise, L.L., et al. (1994). Violence

Against Women: The Hidden Health

Burden. Washington, DC: World

Bank.

Hosain, S. (1995). Cutting Crime

in Rural Areas. Swindon, England:

Crime Concern. 

International Centre for the

Prevention of Crime (1999a). 

Crime Prevention Digest II. Montreal,

Canada: International Centre for the

Prevention of Crime. 

International Centre for the

Prevention of Crime (1999b). 100

Crime Prevention Programs To

Inspire Action Across the World.

Montreal: International Centre for

the Prevention of Crime.

Institut des Hautes Études de la

Sécurité Intérieure (1998). Guide

Pratique Pour les Contrats Locaux de

Securité. Paris, France: Institut des

Hautes Études de la Sécurité

Intérieure.

Institute for Security Studies

(1999). International Conference on

Safer Communities. Pretoria, South

Africa: Institute for Security Studies.

Junger-Tas, J. (1997). Jeugd en

Gezin. The Hague, Netherlands:

Ministry of Justice. 

Kelling, G., Hochberg, M.R.,

Kaminski, S.L., Rocheleau, A.M.,

Rosenbaum, D.P., Roth, J.A., and

Skogan, W.G. (1998). The Bureau of

Justice Assistance Comprehensive

Communities Program: A Preliminary Report. Research in Brief.

Washington, DC: National Institute

of Justice.

Kelly, T. (1998). “Planning Brings

Results: Comprehensive Blueprints

for Community Safety.” NCPC presentation to National Conference

on Preventing Crime, November

1998. Washington, DC: National

Crime Prevention Council.

Killias, M., and Ribeaud, D.

(1999). “Drug Use Among

Juveniles: An International

Perspective.” Studies on Crime

Prevention 8(2): 189–207.

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P.

(1998). Serious and Violent Crime

Offenders. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications. 

Marcus, M. (1995). Faces of

Justice and Poverty in the City.

Paris, France: European Forum for

Urban Safety.

Mattinson, J., and Mirrlees-Black,

C. (2000). Attitudes to Crime and

Criminal Justice: Findings From the

1998 British Crime Survey. Research Findings No. 111. London,

England: Home Office Research,

Development and Statistics

Directorate. 

Mayhew, P., and van Dijk, J.J.

(1997). Criminal Victimization in

Eleven Industrialized Countries. The

Hague, Netherlands: WODC.

National Center on Addiction and

Substance Abuse at Columbia

University (2000). CASA White

Paper, No Place to Hide: Rural 8th

THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

52
Graders Using Drugs, Drinking and

Smoking at Higher Rates Than

Urban 8th Graders. New York, NY:

National Center on Addiction and

Substance Abuse at Columbia

University.

National Crime Prevention.

(1999). Hanging Out: Negotiating

Young People’s Use of Public Space.

Australian Capital Territory: National

Crime Prevention, Attorney

General’s Department. 

National Crime Prevention Council

(1994). Taking the Offensive to Prevent Crime: How Seven Cities Did It.

Washington, DC: National Crime

Prevention Council.

National Crime Prevention Council

(1998). Creating a Blueprint for

Community Safety: A Guide for

Local Action. Washington, DC:

National Crime Prevention Council.

National Crime Prevention Council

(1999a). Six Safer Cities: On the

Crest of the Crime Prevention Wave.

Washington DC: National Crime

Prevention Council. 

National Crime Prevention Council

(1999b). Standing in the Gap: Local

Family Strengthening Initiatives

for Safer, Better Communities.

Washington DC: National Crime

Prevention Council.

National Crime Prevention Council

(2000). 150 Tested Strategies To

Prevent Crime From Small Cities,

Counties, and Rural Communities.

Washington, DC: National Crime

Prevention Council.

National League of Cities (1996).

Connecting Citizens and Their

Government: Civility, Responsibility

and Democracy. Washington, DC:

National League of Cities.

Nuttall, C.P., Goldblatt, P., and

Lewis, C. (Eds.) (1998). Reducing

Offending: An Assessment of

Research Evidence on Ways of

Dealing With Offending Behavior.

Home Office Research Study No.

187. London, England: Home

Office.

Pfeiffer, C. (1998). “Juvenile

Crime and Violence in Europe.”

Crime and Justice. A Review of

Research 23: 255–328. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Pfeiffer, C., and Wetzels, P.

(1999). The Structure and

Development of Juvenile Violence

in Germany. Forschungsberichte

No. 76. Hanover, Germany:

Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut

Niedersachsen.

Rose, D.R., and Clear, T.R.

(1998). “Incarceration, Social

Capital, and Crime.” Criminology

36(3): 441–479.

Rosenbaum, D.P. (1999).

“Creation of a Neighborhood-Based

Government in Salt Lake City.”

Paper presented at the American

Society of Criminology Annual

Meeting. Toronto, Canada:

November 17–20.

Rosenbaum, D.P., Lurigio, A.J.,

and Davis, R.C. (1998). The

References 

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 53
THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

54

Prevention of Crime: Social and

Situational Strategies. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Sarre, R. (1991). “Problems

and Pitfalls in Crime Prevention.”

National Overview on Crime

Prevention. Adelaide, Australia:

Australian Institute of Criminology.

Shearing, C. (1994). “Participatory Policing,” Imbizo 2: 5–10.

Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D.,

MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P.,

and Bushway, S. (1997). What

Works, What Doesn’t Work, What’s

Promising. Washington, DC:

National Institute of Justice.

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M.

(1999). Juvenile Offenders and

Victims: 1999 National Report.

Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Social Exclusion Unit (1999a).

Bridging the Gap. London, England:

The Stationery Office.

Social Exclusion Unit (1999b).

National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal Report of Policy

Action Team 12: Young People.

London, England: The Stationery

Office.

Social Exclusion Unit (2000a).

National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal Report of Policy

Action Team 4: Neighbourhood

Management. London, England:

The Stationery Office.

Social Exclusion Unit (2000b).

National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal Report of Policy

Action Team 17: Joining It Up

Locally. London, England: The

Stationery Office.

van Zyl Smit, D. (1999). “Criminological Ideas and the South

African Transition.” British Journal

of Criminology 39(2).

Waller, I., and Welsh, B. (1999).

“International Trends in Crime

Prevention: Cost-effective Ways

To Reduce Victimization.” Global

Report on Crime and Justice. United

Nations Office for Drug Control and

Crime Prevention. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

White, R. (1998). Public Spaces

for Young People: A Guide to

Creative Projects and Positive

Strategies. New South Wales,

Australia: Australian Youth

Foundation and National Campaign

Against Violence and Crime. 

Wong, S., Catalano, R., Hawkins,

J.D., and Chappell, P. (1996).

Communities That Care Prevention

Strategies: A Research Guide to

What Works. Seattle, WA:

Developmental Research &

Programs, Inc.
National Crime Prevention 

(Australia)

Attorney General’s Department

Robert Garran Offices

National Circuit

Barton Act 2600

Australia

61–02–6250–6711

Fax: 61–02–6273–0913

E-mail: commentsncp@ag.gov.au

Web site: www.ncp.gov.au

Australian Local Government 

Association

8 Geils Court

Deakin Act 2600

Australia

61–02–6281–1211

Fax: 61–02–6282–2110

E-mail: alga@alga.com.au

Web site: www.alga.com.au

Secrétariat permanent à la politique

de prévention (Belgium)

Ministére de l’Intérieur

26, rue de la Loi bte 19

Brussels 1040

Belgique

32–2–500–49–47

Fax: 32–2–500–49–87

E-mail: info@belgium.fgov.be

Web site: www.vspp.fgov.be

International Centre for the 

Prevention of Crime (Canada)

507, Place d’Armes, Suite 2100

Montreal, Quebec

H2Y 2W8

Canada

514–288–6731

Fax: 514–288–8763

E-mail: 

cipc@crime-prevention-intl.org

Web site: crime-prevention-intl.org

International Crime Prevention 

Action Network (Canada)

BC Coalition for Safer Communities

c/o The People’s Law School

605–318 Horner Street

Vancouver, British Columbia

V6B 2V2

Canada

604–669–2986

Fax: 604–689–2619

E-mail: icpan@web.ca

Web site: www.web.net/~icpan

National Crime Prevention Centre 

(Canada)

Department of Justice of Canada

123 Slater Street

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0H8

Canada

877–302–CNPC (French);

877–302–NCPC (English)

Fax: 613–952–3515

E-mail: cnpc@web.net (French); 

ncpc@web.net (English)

Web site: www.crime-prevention.org

VIII. Resources and Addresses

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 55
Crime Concern (England)

Beaver House

147–150 Victoria Road

Swindon Wiltshire SN1 3BU

England

Crime Prevention Agency

(England)

Home Office

50 Queen Anne’s Gate

London SW1H 9AT

England

0171–273–3000

Fax: 0171–273–4037

E-mail: public.enquiries@

homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Web site: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

Social Exclusion Unit (England)

Cabinet Office

35 Great Smith Street

London SW1P 3BQ

England

020–7276–2055 (general inquiries)

Fax: 020–7276–2056

E-mail: 

jowood@cabinetoffice.x.gsi.gov.uk

Web site: 

www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/seu

Délégation Interministérielle à la 

Ville et au Développement Social 

Urbain (France)

194, avenue du Président Wilson

St-Denis-La Plaine 93217

France

Tel: 33–1–49–17–46–10

Fax: 33–1–49–17–45–55

E-mail: didier.michal@ville.gouv.fr

THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY SAFETY

56

European Forum for Urban Safety 

(France)

38, rue Liancourt

75014 Paris

France

33–1–43–27–83–11

Fax: 33–1–43–27–79–52

Web site: www.urbansecurity.org

Secretariat for Safety and Security 

(South Africa)

Private Bag X463

Pretoria 0001

South Africa

27–012–339–15–86

Fax: 27–012–339–25–36

E-mail: blfdoss@iafrica.com

Web site: www.gcis.gov.za/sss

Boys & Girls Clubs of America 

(USA)

National Headquarters

1230 West Peachtree Street NW.

Atlanta, GA 30309–3447

1–800–854–CLUB

Web site: www.bgca.org

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

(USA)

U.S. Department of Justice

810 Seventh Street NW.

Fourth Floor

Washington, DC 20531

202–616–6500

Fax: 202–305–1367

E-mail: askbja@ojp.usdoj.gov

Web site: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA
Resources and Addresses 

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 57

National Crime Prevention Council 

1000 Connecticut Avenue NW.

Thirteenth Floor

Washington, DC 20036

202–466–6272

Fax: 202–296–1356

Web site: www.ncpc.org

National Funding Collaborative on 

Violence Prevention (USA)

815 15th Street NW.

Suite 801

Washington, DC 20005

202–393–7731

Fax: 202–393–4148

E-mail: lbowen@nfcvp.org

Web site: 

www.peacebeyondviolence.org

Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (USA)

U.S. Department of Justice

810 Seventh Street NW.

Eighth Floor

Washington, DC 20531

202–307–5911

Fax: 202–307–2093

E-mail: ASKJJ@ojp.usdoj.gov

Web site: ojjdp.ncjrs.org
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE 59

For information regarding the topics

and programs discussed in this

monograph, contact:

Margaret Shaw

Director, Analysis and Exchange

International Centre for the 

Prevention of Crime

507 Place d’Armes, Suite 2100

Montreal, Quebec 

H2Y 2W8 

Canada

514–288–6731, ext. 227

Fax: 514–288–8763

E-mail: shaw@crime-preventionintl.org

Web site: www.crime-preventionintl.org

For additional information on

BJA grants and programs, contact:

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

810 Seventh Street NW.

Fourth Floor

Washington, DC 20531

202–616–6500

Fax: 202–305–1367

Web site: 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Clearinghouse

P.O. Box 6000

Rockvile, MD 20849–6000

1–800–688–4252

Web site: www.ncjrs.org

Clearinghouse staff are available

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m.

to 7 p.m. eastern time. Ask to be

placed on the BJA mailing list.

U.S. Department of Justice 

Response Center

1–800–421–6770 or 202–307–1480

Response Center staff are available Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.

to 5 p.m. eastern time.

IX. For More Information
Bureau of Justice Assistance

Information

General Information

❒ Mail

P.O. Box 6000 

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

❒ Visit

2277 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20850

❒ Telephone 

1–800–688–4252 

Monday through Friday 

8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. 

eastern time

❒ Fax

301–519–5212

❒ Fax on Demand

1–800–688–4252

Callers may contact the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center for general information or specific needs, such as assistance in submitting grant applications and information

on training. To contact the Response Center, call 1–800–421–6770 or write to 1100

Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005.

Indepth Information

For more indepth information about BJA, its programs, and its funding opportunities,

requesters can call the BJA Clearinghouse. The BJA Clearinghouse, a component of the

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), shares BJA program information

with state and local agencies and community groups across the country. Information specialists are available to provide reference and referral services, publication distribution,

participation and support for conferences, and other networking and outreach activities.

The Clearinghouse can be reached by

❒ BJA Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

❒ NCJRS World Wide Web 

www.ncjrs.org

❒ E-mail

askncjrs@ncjrs.org

❒ JUSTINFO Newsletter

E-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

Leave the subject line blank

In the body of the message,

type:

subscribe justinfo

[your name]