Building crime prevention theory: A 3-part, 7-step process

Publisher's Note: During ten consecutive weeks, we will be publishing this groundbreaking crime prevention article authored by Dr. Anne T. Sulton, Esq. Since the mid 1970s, Dr. Sulton has focused her criminology-related work on community-based crime prevention efforts. Part 7 of our 10-part series appears below.

Step 2: Incorporate Prevention Science Concepts.

The second step includes incorporating prevention science concepts from other fields and disciplines, including psychology and medicine. The experiences of theorists, practitioners and researchers working in other prevention areas will help crime prevention theorists identify potential independent variables.

For example, emerging from the field of psychology, application of the Coie, Watt, West, Hawkins, Asarnow, Markman, Ramey, Shure & Long (1993) "prevention science" concept enables construction of crime prevention theories without initially requiring precision concerning the specific variables identified as the causes of crimes.

Their "prevention science" concept encourages theorists to search for and examine positive attributes in highly stressful environments to determine why some "people, who, in spite of exposure to major stressors, survive or thrive in their development" (Coie, et al., 1993).

This "prevention science" approach finds support in the work of Robert Woodson. During the past half century, Woodson has encouraged the study of and learning from the successes of inner-city residents. He contends more can be learned from their successes than can be learned by focusing on their" failures (Woodson, 2017).

According to Coie, et al. (1993) increasing "protective factors may be the strategy of choice," particularly where risk factors, such as poverty, are difficult to identify or to eliminate. They argued:

Theoretically guided prevention trials can simultaneously test the efficacy of interventions and provide answers to questions about etiology. Thus, if a specific risk factor is reduced or eliminated by an intervention but the pathogenic process is not altered, that risk factor would no longer be considered a causal factor but might be viewed simply as a marker of dysfunctional development.

J. David Hawkins, Richard Catalano & Michael Arthur (2002) concurred, stating:

The public health model for prevention of disease and disorder involved assessing the epidemiology of a targeted problem, identifying risk factors associated with the problem, applying interventions known to reduce these risk factors and enhance protective factors that buffer against the effects of risk, and monitoring the impact of these interventions on the incidence and prevalence of the targeted disease or disorder (p. 952).

Empirical and anecdotal evidence supporting a "prevention science" approach can be found when examining the work of some crime prevention practitioners. For example, since the early 1970s, the House of Umoja has operated on the theory or guiding principal that when approaching the problem of gang violence in Philadelphia it is better to start by providing protection from harmful influences than to start by eliminating these influences (Sulton, 1989, p. 17).

Queen Mother Falaka Fattah, and her husband David Fattah, founded the House of Umoja. It is one of the most successful corrective crime prevention measures specifically targeting gang violence.

Writing for the New York Times newspaper, William Robbins (1981) notes that "Gang-related deaths, which had been estimated to average 39 a year in the city, steadily declined. In 1977, the number was one."

In its October 15, 2016 edition, the Philadelphia Sunday Sun newspaper described its success as follows:

The north Frazier Street urban "Boy's Town" was instrumental in eradicating gang violence in the city. In 1974, at the height of gang violence in Philadelphia, the House of Umoja held a Gang Peace Summit that led 30 gangs to sign a truce. Praised by U.S. Presidents Carter, Reagan and Clinton for her work with at-risk youth, Fattah and the House of Umoja has guided more than 3,000 boys into manhood.

The House of Umoja's experience demonstrates that a laser-focused approach specifically directed toward prevention of a particular type of outlawed behavior, occurring within an identified geographical area, is a salient feature of a successful corrective crime prevention measure.

The House of Umoja's success is based, in part, upon its guiding principle - it is better to start by providing protection from harmful influences, which includes unemployment. This guiding principle emerges from the Fattahs' theory that the independent variable "harmful influences" is related to the dependent variable "gang violence occurring in Philadelphia".

Although appearing as a cluster of independent variables, "harmful influences" is well defined and measurable, as is the dependent variable "gang violence in Philadelphia". Thus, this theory can be tested using the scientific method.

When reviewing empirical evidence, the data show the Fattahs' theoretical basis is sound and is supported because "gang violence in Philadelphia" - the specific outlawed behavior upon which this theory-guided measure focused - decreased after the House of Umoja was established.

Scores of other crime prevention measures across the United States have realized similar successes upon which crime prevention theories can be built. However, the experiences of grassroots practitioners often are overlooked. Perhaps this oversite occurs because these ideas emerge as grassroots practitioners' guiding principles, rather than as theoretical propositions offered by university-based scholars.

Step 3: State Assumptions.

All crime prevention theorists make assumptions. Therefore, when the crime prevention theory is announced, the theorist should state key assumptions made and the bases for each assumption. This alerts the audience to the theorist's biases that inevitably shape and determine the direction of the theory offered in answer to the crime prevention question posed.

Stating assumptions made also helps distinguish crime prevention theorists as professionals with the expertise upon whom public policy makers can rely.

This new era of "fake news" includes the spread via the internet of massive amounts of completely unreliable data and utterly false information about crimes, causes and preventions, making it difficult for many observers to determine whether a bona fide expert is offering the crime prevention advice.

Also confusing audiences are highly unqualified "talking heads" clogging our airwaves and internet with baseless advice as they posture as self-identified experts on all things called crime.