“Community Organizations and Crime," in Michael Tonry and Norval Morris (eds.)
Crime and Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988, pp. 39-78.
Community organizations that have crime problems on their agendas are common across the country. This
summary of the research suggests the following: 1) Voluntary participation cannot easily be initiated or
sustained in poorer, higher-crime areas. Organizations with this mission are disproportionally concentrated
in homogeneous, better-off areas, and attempts to transplant them are more likely to succeed there. 2)
Organizations that persist do not narrowly focus on crime. It is a no-win problem. 3) What organizations do
about crime rarely resembles the narrow, technical view favored by funding agencies. In poor areas,
insurgent groups push for redistributive social and economic policies that bring outside resources into their
community. Preservationist groups battle social change they see sweeping into their neighborhoods. 4)
Outside funding can purchase narrow crime prevention efforts for awhile. However, established, successful
organizations want to bend those programs to support their own agendas; insurgent organizations will
press for more broadly focused efforts to meet their constituents’ needs. 5) Funders favor the narrow,
technical agendas of preservationists, and the money is scooped up by the most aggressive and already
well-organized neighborhoods. 6) Crime focused groups begin and persist more easily when they operate
in cooperation with the police. They provide training, information, technical support, equipment, visibility and
legitimacy. However, securing this cooperation is difficult in poor, higher-crime areas where relationships
with police are often strained and community organizations are not prone to cooperate with the police. 7)
Successful programs are the least transferable to other areas. 8) Troubled communities need
organizations in order to address serious problems, but trends are moving in the wrong direction.. 9)
Organizing efforts are more likely to succeed in areas that need less help. Group formation succeeds more
easily in better-off neighborhoods where groups are predominately preservationist in character. Assigning
voluntary local organizations a major role in achieving public safety threatens to place lower-class
communities at a disadvantage.
Crime and Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988, pp. 39-78.
Community organizations that have crime problems on their agendas are common across the country. This
summary of the research suggests the following: 1) Voluntary participation cannot easily be initiated or
sustained in poorer, higher-crime areas. Organizations with this mission are disproportionally concentrated
in homogeneous, better-off areas, and attempts to transplant them are more likely to succeed there. 2)
Organizations that persist do not narrowly focus on crime. It is a no-win problem. 3) What organizations do
about crime rarely resembles the narrow, technical view favored by funding agencies. In poor areas,
insurgent groups push for redistributive social and economic policies that bring outside resources into their
community. Preservationist groups battle social change they see sweeping into their neighborhoods. 4)
Outside funding can purchase narrow crime prevention efforts for awhile. However, established, successful
organizations want to bend those programs to support their own agendas; insurgent organizations will
press for more broadly focused efforts to meet their constituents’ needs. 5) Funders favor the narrow,
technical agendas of preservationists, and the money is scooped up by the most aggressive and already
well-organized neighborhoods. 6) Crime focused groups begin and persist more easily when they operate
in cooperation with the police. They provide training, information, technical support, equipment, visibility and
legitimacy. However, securing this cooperation is difficult in poor, higher-crime areas where relationships
with police are often strained and community organizations are not prone to cooperate with the police. 7)
Successful programs are the least transferable to other areas. 8) Troubled communities need
organizations in order to address serious problems, but trends are moving in the wrong direction.. 9)
Organizing efforts are more likely to succeed in areas that need less help. Group formation succeeds more
easily in better-off neighborhoods where groups are predominately preservationist in character. Assigning
voluntary local organizations a major role in achieving public safety threatens to place lower-class
communities at a disadvantage.
Community Prevention
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |