Last updated: 2009 www.ojjdp.gov/mpg

Community Awareness/Mobilization 

Community characteristics can serve as both risk and protective factors for criminal and delinquent 

behavior. The foundation for this premise dates to research by Shaw and McKay (1942). The authors 

noted that juveniles are more likely to become involved in delinquent and criminal behaviors when 

regularly exposed to crime. They pointed out that areas characterized by lower economic status 

generally have higher rates of delinquency as compared with higher income areas, and that lower 

economic areas are characterized by a wide diversity in norms and standards of behavior. The theorists 

suggested that the legitimate social institutions within these communities are not strong enough to 

compete with illegitimate groups in their ability to attract youth. As a result, criminal activity may 

appear equally or more attractive to youths as criminal opportunities may be both profitable and 

readily accessible options for employment or promotion. In addition, within communities composed 

of varying norms, delinquent or criminal behaviors (e.g., theft or drug sales) may be seen as proper in 

some groups and improper in others. 

More recent research (Hawkins, et. al. 2000) suggests that several community-level factors predict 

violent and delinquent behavior. For example, being raised in poverty (Sampson and Lauritsen 1994), 

community disorganization (Maguin et al. 1995), the prevalence of drugs and firearms (Maguin et al. 

1995), neighborhood adults involved in crime (Maguin et al. 1995), and exposure to violence in the 

home and elsewhere (Paschall 1996) all increase the probability of individual criminal or delinquent 

behavior. 

For over a century, social reformers and community activists have attempted to address these 

“environmental” risk factors, and to reduce juvenile violence in their communities, by mobilizing 

community resources and organizing various types of “community action” campaigns. Some of the 

most common community-based strategies include local crime-prevention partnerships and alliances; 

broad-based community mobilization initiatives (generally designed to improve the overall quality of 

life and improve opportunities for everyone within the community); and policy change, media, and 

civil approaches. 

Local Partnerships and Coordinating Councils 

One of the oldest community-based strategies for combating delinquency is the formation of local 

partnerships, coordinating councils, and steering committees dedicated to battling crime. Such 

partnerships may take many different forms. For example, representatives from local police and 

probation departments may partner with public housing authorities and tenants associations in an 

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2009. “Community Awareness/Mobilization.” Literature review. 

Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Community_Awareness.pdf

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under cooperative agreement number 2013–JF–FX–K002. Points of view or 

opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 1 
effort to more aggressively enforce drug laws; for-profit corporations may partner with schools and 

employers to create vocational training and employment opportunities for poor youth; or 

representatives from several social service agencies may form a coordinating council to provide more 

integrated and intensive services to special needs youth. 

A number of model programs currently feature such community coordinating councils in their overall 

program design. For example, Wraparound Milwaukee, and other wraparound programs, relies on 

interagency steering committees and treatment teams to coordinate the activities of local 

service/healthcare providers. Such coordinating councils and steering committees have been an 

important feature of community-based campaigns against delinquency for over a century. Their 

enduring appeal may, in part, stem from their emphasis on reorganizing or reallocating community 

resources—an approach which is often more feasible for low-income neighborhoods than introducing 

entirely new programs or institutions. However, the actual effectiveness of such steering committees 

and coordinating councils can vary tremendously from community to community, depending upon 

their objectives, their resources, and local leaders’ capacity to collaborate. 

Community Mobilization 

The purpose of community mobilization is to facilitate change within the community to alter the basic 

patterns of social interaction, values, customs, and institutions in ways that will significantly improve 

the quality of life in a community. This sweeping change distinguishes community mobilization from 

more traditional interventions, which typically attempt to meet social policy goals by using a relatively 

defined and discrete mechanism (such as a new service or program) to produce desired changes in the 

lives of targeted individuals. Community mobilization, in contrast, attempts to change the everyday 

environment in communities in ways that will result in better outcomes for everyone living within a 

designated geographic area. This crucial difference in strategy poses a new and complex set of 

challenges and at the same time multiplies and complicates the issues that need to be addressed by 

those evaluating the initiatives. 

Because communities differ significantly, mobilization efforts across communities will differ. 

Community mobilization reflects a set of community-based strategies, each designed to address 

different goals, target specific groups or neighborhoods, and work in different arenas of community 

action. What community mobilization efforts all share in common is communication and outreach. But 

community mobilization initiatives differ because of their different target audiences and different 

outcomes. The most common citizen mobilization programs are neighborhood block watch programs 

and citizen patrols. Neighborhood block watch programs follow from the premise that residents are in 

the best position to monitor suspicious activities and individuals in their neighborhoods. Evaluations 

of such programs, however, found little evidence that the programs have a significant effect on 

neighborhood crime (Lindsay, and McGillis 1986; Rosenbaum, Lewis, and Grant 1986). However, a 

recent meta-analysis by Bennett and colleagues (2008) did find an overall positive impact on crime due 

to neighborhood watch programs. 

Policy Change 

Many communities and States have changed policies and laws governing the sale and use of alcohol, 

cigarettes, and firearms to affect community-level risk and protective factors (Catalano, Loeber, and 

McKinney 1999). The theory driving these policies is that by making it more difficult to obtain these 

items it will be more unlikely that a community will be damaged by it. 

The research evidence of preventing antisocial behavior by juveniles through policy change is 

promising. For instance, policies limiting the availability of alcohol tend to reduce both the 

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 2 
consumption of alcohol and the problems associated with alcohol use. Specifically, studies on raising 

the minimum drinking age to 21 (O’Malley and Wagenaar 1991), taxes on alcohol (Grossman, Coate, 

and Arluck 1987), and the licensing of establishments to sell alcohol (Holder and Blose 1987; Wagenaar 

and Holder 1991) all seem to reduce the prevalence of alcohol use. Similarly, studies of laws regulating 

the purchase and sale of firearms have revealed positive results (Brewer et al. 1995). For example, 

studies comparing rates of violent crime suggest that laws restricting the sale and purchase of handguns 

prevent gun-related crime (Sloan et al. 1988; Loftin et al. 1991). Finally, mandatory sentencing laws for 

felonies involving firearms appear to prevent homicides involving firearms (McDowall, Loftin, and 

Wiersema 1992; Loftin, McDowall, and Wiersema 1993). 

Media Intervention 

Media campaigns attempt to change public attitudes and standards, educate community residents, or 

support other community interventions. The advantage of media-based communications is that they 

can rapidly reach large numbers of people. In addition, some mediums (such as radio) allow you to 

target your audience very specifically, while others (such as television) permit you to reach a more 

diverse audience. In general, there are two types of media-based communications: free (e.g., articles in 

newspapers or on television or radio covered as a news story), and paid advertising. “Free” media is 

sometimes called “earned” media, because of the effort it takes to presenting one’s group and its 

activities to reporters and news editors as a newsworthy event. Advertising, while sometimes costly, 

has the advantage of communicating without interpretation and commentary by intermediaries, such 

as reporters and editors, who may quote opposing views in a story about your event. A well-known 

media intervention is the truth® Campaign. It is a national smoking prevention campaign that uses 

advertisements with anti-tobacco messages targeted at youths ages 12 to 17 who are most at risk of 

smoking. Evaluations of the campaign found significant declines in smoking prevalence and smoking 

initiation (Farrelly et al. 2005; Farrelly et al. 2009). Other evaluations show that media interventions can 

be effective when used in conjunction with other interventions, such as curriculums to prevent smoking 

or other substance abuse (Flynn et al. 1992; Flynn et al. 1995; Goodstadt 1989; Pentz et al. 1989; Perry et 

al. 1992; Vartiainen et al. 1986, 1990). 

Civil Remedies 

Civil remedies use procedures and sanctions specified by civil statutes and regulation to prevent and 

reduce criminal problems and incivilities (Mazerolle, Price, and Roehl 2000). Many civil remedy actions 

seek to reduce signs of physical (broken windows, graffiti, trash, etc.) and social (public drinking, 

loitering, public urination, etc.) incivilities to break the cycle of neighborhood decline and decrease 

victimization (Mazerolle, Price, and Roehl 2000). Other civil remedies (e.g., youth curfews, gang 

injunctions, ordinances controlling public behavior, and restraining orders) concentrate on reducing 

social incivilities and preventing the opportunity for crime. Specifically, civil remedies generally aim to 

persuade nonoffending third parties (e.g., landlords and property owners) to take responsibility and 

action to prevent criminal behavior through the use of code enforcement, neighborhood cleanup, and 

nuisance and drug abatement statutes. 

While the use of civil remedies as a crime prevention strategy is relatively new, it is growing rapidly in 

popularity. One reason is that civil remedies, unlike traditional criminal sanctions, attempt to resolve 

the underlying problems of criminal misconduct (Hansen 1991) and enhance the quality of life 

(Rosenbaum et al. 1992). In addition, they offer an attractive alternative to traditional criminal remedies 

because they are relatively inexpensive and easy to implement (Davis and Lurigio 1996). Finally, they 

also offer opportunities for frustrated community members to become involved in the process by 

documenting problems and pressuring the appropriate authorities to take action (Davis et al. 1991). 

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 3 
An excellent example of a civil remedy strategy is the Beat Health program in Oakland, Calif. The 

program uses civil remedies to control drug and disorder problems by teaming police with city agency 

representatives to inspect drug nuisance properties and coerce landlords to clean up properties, post 

“no trespassing signs,” enforce civil law codes and municipal regulatory rules, and initiate court 

proceedings against property owners who fail to comply with civil law citations (Mazerolle, Price, and 

Roehl 2000). An evaluation of the program examined the impact of the program on calls for service for 

violent, property, drug, and disorder call incidents. The evaluation found a statistically significant 

difference for drug calls between the control and experimental groups. Specifically, it found a 7 percent 

decrease in the average number of drug calls per experimental site, while the average number per 

control group increased 54.7 percent. The authors conclude that the Beat Health sites improved relative 

to the control sites (Mazerolle, Price, and Roehl 2000). The study found improvement in drug problems 

in the areas surrounding the experimental residential sites. By contrast, the control treatment (patrol 

response) led to significant increase in drug problems, particularly at commercial properties. 

References 

Bennett, Trevor, Katy Holloway, and David Farrington. 2008. “The Effectiveness of Neighborhood 

Watch”. Campbell Systematic Reviews 18. 

Brewer, D.D.; J.D. Hawkins; R.F. Catalano; and H. Neckerman. 1995. “Preventing Serious, Violent and 

Chronic Juvenile Offending: A Review of Evaluations of Selected Strategies in Childhood, 

Adolescence, and the Community.” In J.C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J.D. Hawkins, and J.J. Wilson 

(eds.). A Sourcebook: Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage 

Publications, Inc. 

Catalano, R.F.; R. Loeber; and K.C. McKinney. 1999. School and Community Interventions to Prevent 

Serious and Violent Offending. Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Davis, R.C., and A.J. Lurigio. 1996. Fighting Back: Neighborhood Antidrug Strategies. Thousand Oaks, 

Calif.: Sage. 

Davis, R.C.; B.A. Smith; A.J. Lurigio; and W.G. Skogan. 1991. Community Responses to Crack: Grassroots 

Antidrug Programs. Report to the National Institute of Justice. New York: New York City 

Victim Services Agency. 

Farrelly, Matthew C., Kevin C. Davis, M. Lyndon Haviland, Peter Messeri, and Cheryl G. Healton. 

2005. “Evidence of a Dose–Response Relationship Between ‘truth’ Antismoking Ads and 

Youth Smoking Prevalence.” American Journal of Public Health 95(3):425–31. 

Farrelly, Matthew C., James Nonnemaker, Kevin C. Davis, and Altijani Hussin. 2009. “The Influence 

of the National truth® Campaign on Smoking Initiation.” American Journal of Preventive 

Medicine 36(5):379–84. 

Flynn, B.S.; J.K. Worden; R.H. Secker-Walker; G.J. Badger; and B.M. Geller. 1995. “Cigarette Smoking 

Prevention Effects of Mass Media and School Interventions Targeted to Gender and Age 

Groups.” Journal of Health Education 26:S-45-S-51. 

Flynn, B.S.; J.K. Worden; R.H. Secker-Walker; G.J. Badger; B.M. Geller; and M.C. Costanza. 1992. 

“Prevention of Cigarette Smoking Through Mass Media Intervention and School Programs.” 

American Journal of Public Health 82(6):827–34. 

Goodstadt, M.S. 1989. “Substance Abuse Curricula Versus School Drug Policies.” Journal of School 

Health 59:249–50. 

Grossman, M.; D. Coate; and G.M. Arluck. 1987. “Price Sensitivity of Alcoholic Beverages in the 

United States: Youth Alcohol Consumption.” In M.H. Moore and D.R. Gerstein (eds.). Control 

Issues in Alcohol Abuse Prevention: Strategies for State and Communities. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI 

Press, 169–198. 

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 4 
Hansen, K.J. 1991. “An Exploratory Study of the Extension of Local Empowerment Through 

Community Policing.” Unpublished paper. 

Hawkins, J.D.; T.I. Herrenkohl; D.P. Farrington; D. Brewer; R.F. Catalano; T.W. Harachi; and L. 

Cothern. 2000. Predictors of Youth Violence. Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Holder, H.D., and J.O. Blose. 1987. “Impact of Changes in Distilled Spirits Availability on Apparent 

Consumption: A Time Series Analysis of Liquor-by-the-Drink.” British Journal of Addiction

82:623–31. 

Lindsay, B., and D. McGillis 1986. “Citywide Community Crime Prevention: An Assessment of the 

Seattle Program.” In D.P. Rosenbaum (ed.). Community Crime Prevention: Does It Work? Beverly 

Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc., 46–67. 

Loftin, C.; D. McDowall; and B. Wiersema. 1993. “Evaluating Effects of Changes in Gun Laws.”

American Journal of Preventive Medicine 9(Supplement):39–43. 

Loftin, C.; D. McDowall; B. Wiersema; and T.I. Cottey. 1991. “Effects of Restrictive Licensing of 

Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in the District of Columbia.” New England Journal of 

Medicine 325:1615–20. 

Maguin, E.; J.D. Hawkins; R.F. Catalano; K. Hill; R. Abbott; and T. Herrenkohl. 1995. “Risk Factors 

Measured at Three Ages for Violence at Age 17–18.” Paper presented at the American Society 

of Criminology, November 1995, Boston, Mass. 

Mazerolle, L; J. Price; and J. Roehl. 2000. “Civil Remedies: A Randomized Filed Trial in Oakland, 

California.” Evaluation Review 24(2):212–41. 

McDowall, D.; C. Loftin; and B. Wiersema. 1992. “A Comparative Study of the Preventive Effects of 

Mandatory Sentencing Laws for Gun Crimes.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 83:378–

94. 

O’Malley, P.M., and A.C. Wagenaar. 1991. “Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Laws on Alcohol Use, 

Related Behaviors and Traffic Crash Involvement Among American Youth: 1976-87.” Journal of 

Studies on Alcohol 52:478–91. 

Paschall, M.J. 1996. “Exposure to Violence and the Onset of Violent Behavior and Substance Use 

Among Black Male Youth: An Assessment of Independent Effects and Psychosocial 

Mediators.” Paper presented at the Society for Prevention Research, June 1996, San Juan, 

Puerto Rico. 

Pentz, M.A.; D.P. MacKinnon; B.R. Flay; W.B. Hansen; C.A. Johnson; J.H. Dwyer. 1989. “Primary 

Prevention of Chronic Diseases in Adolescence: Effects of the Midwestern Prevention Project 

on Tobacco Use.” American Journal of Epidemiology 130:713–24. 

Perry, C.L.; S.H. Kelder; D.M. Murray; and K.-I. Klepp. 1992. “Communitywide Smoking Prevention: 

Long-Term Outcomes of the Minnesota Heart Health Program and Class of 1989 Study.”

American Journal of Public Health 82:1210–16. 

Rosenbaum, D.P.; S.F. Bennett; B.D. Lindsay; D.L. Wilkinson; B.D. Davis; C. Taranowski; and P.J. 

Lavrakas. 1992. Executive Summary: The Community Responses to Drug Abuse National 

Demonstration Program Final Process Report. Chicago, Ill.: Center for Research in Law and 

Justice, University of Illinois. 

Rosenbaum, D.P.; D.A. Lewis.; and J.A. Grant. 1986. “Neighborhood-Based Crime Prevention: 

Assessing the Efficacy of Community Organizing in Chicago.” In D.P. Rosenbaum (ed.). 

Community Crime Prevention: Does It Work? Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc. 

Sampson, R.J., and J. Lauritsen. 1994. “Community Structure and Crime: Testing SocialDisorganization Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 94:774–802. 

Shaw, Clifford R., and Henry D. McKay. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas. Chicago: University 

of Chicago Press. 

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 5 
Sloan, J.H.; A.I. Kellerman; D.T. Reay; J.A. Ferris; T. Koepsell; F.P. Rivara; C. Rice; L. Gray; and J. 

LoGerfo. 1988. “Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities.”

New England Journal of Medicine 319:1256–62. 

Vartiainen, E.; U. Pallonen; A. McAlister; K. Koskela; and P. Puska. 1986. “Four-Year Follow-Up 

Results of the Smoking Prevention Program in the North Karelia Youth Project.” Preventive 

Medicine 15:692–98. 

Vartiainen, E.; U. Pallonen; A. McAlister; and P. and Puska. 1990. “Eight-Year Follow-Up Results of 

an Adolescent Smoking Prevention Program: The North Karelia Youth Project.” American 

Journal of Public Health 80:78–79. 

Wagenaar, A.C., and H.D. Holder. 1991. “A Change From Public to Private Sale of Wine: Results 

From Natural Experiments in Iowa and West Virginia.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 52:162–73. 

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 6