crime prevention in schools and colleges research paper

Student perceptions of campus safety: testing the vulnerability and disorder models

• Original Article
• Published: 08 October 2020
• Volume 35 , pages 59–81, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Claire Nolasco Braaten   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4391-4908 1 ,
• Lily Chi-Fang Tsai 2 &
• Michael S. Vaughn   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0874-5790 3  

1042 Accesses

4 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This article examines perceptions of campus safety among a sample of 697 college students in two universities in the southern and northeastern regions of the United States. A survey instrument was sent through email to all registered and enrolled students taking at least 12 credits and attending at least one on-campus class during the Fall 2013 semester in an urban southern university and a rural northeastern university in the United States. Results indicate statistically significant effects of gender, fear of crime, and satisfaction with campus security measures on student perceptions of campus safety. Females are less likely to perceive that their campus is safe. Students who were less fearful of crime and were more satisfied with campus security measures had higher perceptions of campus safety.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Perceptions of Campus Safety Policies: Contrasting the Views of Students with Faculty and Staff

Michael J. Kyle, Joseph A. Schafer, … Matthew J. Giblin

Are students aware of, knowledgeable about, and willing to use campus safety services?

Tori Semple, Craig Bennell, … Qaila Walji

Perceptions of University Policies to Prevent Sexual Assault on Campus Among College Students in the USA

Tara K. Streng & Akiko Kamimura

We ran several models, regressing our dependent variable on prior violent, property, and sexual victimization experiences. The results for separating the different types of prior victimization (violent, property, and sexual victimization) in the model were very similar and none of them was significant. Similarly, we ran various models regressing our dependent variable on fear of violent crime and fear of property crime separately. The results were very similar to our current model.

Agreseti, A., and B. Finlay. 2009. Statistical methods for the social sciences , 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Google Scholar  

Alper, M., and A. Chappell. 2012. Untangling fear of crime: A multi-theoretical approach to examining the causes of crime-specific fear. Sociological Spectrum 32 (4): 346–363.

Baker, K., and K. Boland. 2011. Assessing safety: A campus-wide initiative. College Student Journal 45 (4): 683–699.

Barton, M., B. Jensen, and J. Kaufman. 2010. Social disorganization theory and the college campus. Journal of Criminal Justice 38 (3): 245–254.

Brantingham, P., and P. Brantingham. 1994. Surveying campus crime: What can be done to reduce crime and fear? Security Journal 5 (3): 160–161.

Brunton-Smith, I., and P. Sturgis. 2011. Do neighborhoods generate fear of crime? An empirical test using the British crime survey. Criminology 49 (2): 331–369.

Chiricos, T., M. Hogan, and M. Gertz. 1997. Racial composition of neighborhood and fear of crime. Criminology 35 (1): 107–132.

Cohen, L., and M. Felson. 1979. Social change and crime rates: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44 (4): 588–608.

Craig, L. 1998. Crime by design: An exploratory investigation. International Journal of Police Science and Management 1 (2): 109–121.

Cubbage, C., and C. Smith. 2009. The function of security in reducing women’s fear of crime in open public spaces: A case study of serial sex attacks at a western Australian university. Security Journal 22 (1): 73–86.

Currie, D. 1994. Women’s safety on campus: Challenging the university as a gendered space. Humanity and Society 18 (3): 24–48.

Davis, G. 2008. Connecting the dots: Lessons from the Virginia Tech shootings. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 40 (1): 8–15.

Day, K. 1994. Conceptualizing women’s fear of sexual assault on campus: A review of causes and recommendations for change. Environment & Behavior 26 (6): 742–765.

Dobbs, R., C. Waid, and T. Shelley. 2009. Explaining fear of crime as fear of rape among college females: An examination of multiple campuses in the United States. International Journal of Social Inquiry 2 (2): 105–122.

Farrell, G. 2010. Situational crime prevention and its discontents: Rational choice and harm reduction versus cultural criminology. Social Policy & Administration 44 (1): 40–66.

Fernandez, A., and A. Lizotte. 1995. An analysis of the relationship between campus crime and community crime: Reciprocal effects? In Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives , ed. B.S. Fisher and J.J. Sloan, 79–102. Springfield: Charles C Thomas.

Ferraro, K. 1995. Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk . Albany: State University of New York Press.

Ferraro, K., and R. LaGrange. 1987. The measurement of fear of crime. Sociological Inquiry 57 (1): 70–97.

Ferraro, K., and R. LaGrange. 1992. Are older people most afraid of crime? Reconsidering age differences of victimization. Journal of Gerontology 47 (5): 233–244.

Fisher, B., and D. May. 2009. College students’ crime-related fears on campus: Are fear-provoking cues gendered? Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 25 (3): 300–321.

Fisher, B., and J. Nasar. 1992. Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features: Prospect, refuge, and escape. Environment and Behavior 24 (1): 35–65.

Fisher, B., and J. Sloan III. 2003. Unraveling the fear of victimization among college women: Is the shadow of sexual assault hypothesis supported? Justice Quarterly 20 (3): 633–659.

Fisher, B., J. Sloan III, and D. Wilkins. 1995. Fear of crime and perceived risk of victimization in an urban university setting. In Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives , ed. B.S. Fisher and J.J. Sloan, 179–209. Springfield: Charles C Thomas.

Fisher, B., and A. Wilkes. 2003. A tale of two ivory towers: A comparative analysis of victimization rates and risks between university students in the United States and England. British Journal of Criminology 45 (3): 526–545.

Franklin, T., C. Franklin, and N. Fearn. 2008. A multilevel analysis of the vulnerability, disorder, and social integration models of fear of crime. Social Justice Research 21 (2): 204–227.

Fox, J., and D. Hellman. 1985. Location and other correlates of campus crime. Journal of Criminal Justice 13 (5): 429–444.

Fox, J., and J. Savage. 2009. Mass murder goes to college: An examination of changes on college campuses following Virginia Tech. American Behavioral Scientist 52 (10): 1465–1485.

Garofalo, J. 1979. Victimization and the fear of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 16 (1): 80–97.

Geason, S., and P. Wilson. 1988. Crime prevention: Theory and practice – conclusions . Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/crimprev/theory/conclusions.html . Accessed 12 Dec 2019.

Gregory, D., and S. Janosik. 2006. The views of senior residence life and housing administrators on the Clery Act and campus safety. Journal of College and University Student Housing 34 (1): 50–57.

Hale, C. 1996. Fear of crime: A review of the literature. International Review of Victimology 4 (2): 79–150.

Hayward, K. 2007. Situational crime prevention and its discontents: Rational choice theory versus the ‘culture of now’. Social Policy & Administration 41 (3): 232–250.

Hites, L., M. Fifolt, H. Beck, W. Su, S. Kerbawy, J. Wakelee, and A. Nassel. 2013. A geospatial mixed methods approach to assessing campus safety. Evaluation Review 37 (5): 347–369.

Hollingsworth, K., J. Dunkle, and L. Douce. 2009. The high-risk (disturbed and disturbing) college student. New Directions for Student Services 2009 (128): 37–54.

Hough, M., R. Clarke, and P. Mayhew. 1980. Introduction. In Designing out crime , ed. R.V.G. Clarke and P. Mayhew, 1–6. London: HMSO.

Hughes, S., R. White, and G. Hertz. 2008. A new technique for mitigating risk on U.S. college campuses. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 30 (3): 309–318.

Hummer, D. 2004. Serious criminality at U.S. colleges and universities: An application of the situational perspective. Criminal Justice Policy Review 15 (4): 391–417.

Jackson, J., and E. Gray. 2010. Functional fear and public insecurities about crime. British Journal of Criminology 50 (1): 1–22.

Jennings, W., A. Gover, and D. Pudrzynska. 2007. Are institutions of higher learning safe? A descriptive study of campus safety issues and self-reported campus victimization among male and female college students. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 18 (2): 191–208.

Kaminski, R., B. Koons-Witt, N. Thompson, and D. Weiss. 2010. The impacts of the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University shootings on fear of crime on campus. Journal of Criminal Justice 38 (1): 88–98.

Kennedy, L., and R. Silverman. 1985. Perceptions of social diversity and fear of crime. Environment and Behavior 17 (3): 275–295.

Klodawsky, F., and C. Lundy. 1994. Women’s safety in the university environment. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 11 (2): 128–136.

Lane, J., A. Gover, and S. Dahod. 2009. Fear of violent crime among men and women on campus: The impact of perceived risk and fear of sexual assault. Violence and Victims 24: 172–192.

Lane, J., and J. Meeker. 2003. Women’s and men’s fear of gang crimes: Sexual and non-sexual assault as perceptually contemporaneous offenses. Justice Quarterly 20 (2): 337–371.

Leavitt, M., M. Spelling, and A. Gonzales. 2007. Report to the president on issues raised by the Virginia Tech tragedy . Washington: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Department of Education, & Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2007/June/vt_report_061307.pdf . Accessed 11 November 2019.

Lee, M., and J. Ulmer. 2000. Fear of crime among Korean Americans in Chicago communities. Criminology 38 (4): 1173–1206.

Maier, S., and B. DePrince. 2020. College students’ fear of crime and perception of safety: The influence of personal and university prevention measures. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 31 (1): 63–81.

May, D., N. Rader, and S. Goodrum. 2010. A gendered assessment of the ‘threat of victimization’: Examining gender differences in fear of crime, perceived risk, avoidance, and defensive behaviors. Criminal Justice Review 35 (2): 159–182.

McCrea, R., T. Shyy, J. Western, and R. Stimson. 2005. Fear of crime in Brisbane: Individual, social, and neighborhood factors in perspective. Journal of Sociology 41 (1): 7–27.

McCreedy, K., and B. Dennis. 1996. Sex-related offenses and fear of crime on campus. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 12 (1): 69–80.

McGarrell, E., A. Giacomazzi, and Q. Thurman. 1997. Neighborhood disorder, integration, and fear of crime. Justice Quarterly 14 (3): 479–500.

McPheters, L. 1978. Econometric analysis of factors influencing crime on campus. Journal of Criminal Justice 6 (1): 47–52.

Meijer, J. 1995. Surveying campus crime: What can be done to reduce crime and fear? Campus Law Enforcement Journal 25 (5): 1–15.

Merianos, A., K. King, and R. Vidourek. 2017. Student perceptions of safety and helpfulness of resources. American Journal of Health Studies 32 (2): 90–101.

Miller, J., and M. Pan. 1987. Student perceptions of campus police: The effects of personal characteristics and police contacts. American Journal of Police 6 (2): 27–44.

Nobles, M., K. Fox, D. Khey, and A. Lizotte. 2013. Community and campus crime: A geospatial examination of the Cleary Act. Crime & Delinquency 59 (8): 1131–1156.

Nulty, D. 2008. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 33 (3): 301–314.

Peak, K., E. Barthe, and A. Garcia. 2008. Campus policing in America: A twenty-year perspective. Police Quarterly 11 (2): 239–260.

Pezza, P., and A. Bellotti. 1995. College campus violence: Origins, impacts, and responses. Educational Psychology Review 7 (1): 105–123.

Rader, N. 2004. The threat of victimization: A theoretical reconceptualization of fear of crime. Sociological Spectrum 24 (6): 689–704.

Reese, B. 2009. Determinants of the fear of crime: The combined effects of country-level crime intensity and individual-level victimization experience. International Journal of Sociology 39 (1): 62–75.

Roark, M. 1987. Preventing violence on college campus. Journal of Counseling and Development 65 (7): 367–371.

Schafer, J., C. Lee, G. Burruss, and M. Giblin. 2018. College student perceptions of campus safety initiatives. Criminal Justice Policy Review 29 (4): 319–340.

Seng, M. 1995. The Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act: Some observations, critical comments, and suggestions. In Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives , ed. B.B. Fisher and J.J. Sloan, 38–52. Springfield: Charles C Thomas.

Shariatia, A., and R. Gueretteb. 2019. Resident students’ perception of safety in on-campus residential facilities: Does crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) make a difference? Journal of School Violence 18 (4): 570–584.

Skogan, W. 1987. The impact of victimization on fear. Crime & Delinquency 33 (1): 135–154.

Sloan, J., M. Lanier, and D. Beer. 2000. Policing the contemporary university campus: Challenging traditional organizational models. Journal of Security Administration 23 (1): 1–20.

Starkweather, S. 2007. Gender, perceptions of safety, and strategic responses among Ohio University students. Gender, Place, & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 14 (3): 355–370.

Sulkowski, M., and P. Lazarus. 2011. Contemporary responses to violent attacks on college campuses. Journal of School Violence 10 (4): 338–354.

Taylor, R., and M. Hale. 1986. Testing alternative models of fear of crime. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 77 (1): 151–189.

Tewksbury, R., and E. Mustaine. 2003. College students’ lifestyles and self-protective behaviors: Further considerations of the guardianship concept in routine activity theory. Criminal Justice and Behavior 30 (3): 302–327.

Thomson, A., J. Price, A. Mrdjenovich, and J. Khubchandani. 2009. Reducing firearm-related violence on college campuses- police chiefs’ perceptions and practices. Journal of American College Health 58 (3): 247–254.

Tomsich, E., A. Gover, and W. Jennings. 2010. Examining the role of gender in the prevalence of campus victimization, perceptions of fear and risk of crime, and the use of constrained behaviors among college students attending a large urban university. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 22 (2): 181–202.

Tseng, C., J. Duane, and F. Hadipriono. 2004. Performance of campus parking garages in preventing crime. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (1): 21–28.

Turner, K., and A. Torres. 2006. Campus safety: Perceptions and experience of women students. Journal of College Student Development 47 (1): 20–36.

Walter, G., D. Florkowski, P. Anderson, and M. Dunn. 2014. The perception of safety between drinkers and non-drinkers among U.S. college students. Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education 59 (3): 48–66.

Warr, M. 1984. Fear of victimization: Why are women and the elderly more afraid? Social Science Quarterly 65 (3): 681–702.

Wilcox, P., C. Jordan, and A. Pritchard. 2007. A multidimensional examination of campus safety: Victimization, perceptions of danger, worry about crime, and precautionary behavior among college women in the post-Cleary era. Crime & Delinquency 53 (2): 219–254.

Wilson, J., and G. Kelling. 1982. The police and neighborhood safety: Broken windows. Atlantic Monthly 249 (3): 29–38.

Woolnough, A. 2009. Fear of crime on campus: Gender differences in use of self-protective behaviors at an urban university. Security Journal 22 (1): 40–55.

Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act, S. 128, 113th Congress (2013–2014).

Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistic Act, 20 u.s.c. § 1092 (f).

Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act, Public Law 101–542, 04 Stat. 2381.

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, Public Law, 113–4.

Download references

Funding was provided by Texas A & M University-San Antonio (US)- President's Circle Faculty Research Grant (Grant No. 2013).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Criminology, Texas A&M-San Antonio, One University Way, San Antonio, TX, 78224, USA

Claire Nolasco Braaten

Department of Criminal Justice, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, 1 College Backbone Road, Princess Anne, MD, 21853, USA

Lily Chi-Fang Tsai

Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Institute for Legal Studies in Criminal Justice, College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University, 816 17th St., P.O. Box 2296, Huntsville, TX, 77341-2296, USA

Michael S. Vaughn

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire Nolasco Braaten .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Braaten, C.N., Tsai, L.CF. & Vaughn, M.S. Student perceptions of campus safety: testing the vulnerability and disorder models. Secur J 35 , 59–81 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-020-00263-1

Download citation

Accepted : 18 September 2020

Published : 08 October 2020

Issue Date : March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-020-00263-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Perceptions of safety
• Fear of crime
• Campus climate survey
• Campus crime
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

School crime control and prevention

2009 Duke University and the University of Maryland study looking at school characteristics that influence the level of crime.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Sui-Jade Ho, The Journalist's Resource April 13, 2010

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/education/school-crime-prevention/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

A report by the National Center for Education Statistics finds that, in 2007, about 1.5 million students between the ages of 12 to 18 were victims of nonfatal crimes at school. About 85% of public schools recorded at least one violent crime, theft or other crime during the 2007-2008 school year.

The prevalence of school crime imposes substantial monetary and non-monetary costs on students and teachers alike.  A 2009 paper by researchers from Duke University and the University of Maryland, “School Crime Control and Prevention,” reviews past studies that considered the various school characteristics that have influenced the level of crime in schools.

The paper’s key findings include:

• The higher the number of students who are actively delinquent outside school, the greater the school crime rate.
• Positive school norms and bonds with adults in the school and communal social organizations can reduce problem behaviors.
• Strong and effective discipline management as well as involving students in the establishment of mechanisms for reducing misbehavior can be effective.
• Compared with larger schools, smaller schools are not found to be more effective in limiting problem behaviors.

The authors conclude by providing some recommendations on future research directions.  These include improving data quality, identifying additional variables to be included in studies and verifying the causal link between crime and school climate.

New York Times photo by Scott Olson. Tags: crime, poverty, African-American.

About The Author

Sui-Jade Ho

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Building Efficient Crime Prevention Strategies

D. max crowley.

Duke University

The aftermath of the global recession has encouraged policy makers to confront the staggering public burden of crime ( Cohen, 1988 , 2005 ; Ludwig, 2010 ; McCollister, French, and Fang, 2010 ; Miller, Cohen, and Rossman, 1993 ). In this context, there is growing acceptance that many “tough-on-crime” policies have become primary drivers of crime’s increasing societal cost ( Andrews and Bonta, 2010 ; Artello, 2013 ; Becker, 1968 ; Braga and Weisburd, 2011 ; Cameron, 1988 ; Cohen, 2005 ; Paternoster, 2010 ; Rikard and Rosenberg, 2007 ; Vitiello, 2013 ). Policy makers have responded with growing interest in making strategic investments in youth that prevent the development of lifetime offenders, instead of continuing to institute harsher punishments that lead to costly mass incarceration ( Dodge, 2001 ; Farrington, 1994 ; Heckman, 2006 ; Homel, 2013 ; O’Connell, Boat, and Warner, 2009 ). In response, innovative strategies for preventing crime and controlling costs are being engaged ( Barnett and Masse, 2007 ; Guyll, Spoth, and Crowley, 2011 ; Welsh and Farrington, 2010 ). At the forefront are developmental prevention programs that intervene early in life to reduce risk factors for delinquent and criminal behaviors ( Durlak, 1998 ; Eckenrode et al., 2010 ; Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller, 1992 ; Hawkins and Weis, 1985 ; Reynolds, Temple, White, Ou, and Robertson, 2011 ). As a growing body of evidence illustrates, when implemented appropriately, these developmental prevention efforts not only effectively prevent crime but also are cost-effective solutions that save public resources ( Crowley, Hill, Kuklinski, and Jones, 2013 ; Crowley, Jones, Greenberg, Feinberg, and Spoth, 2012 ; Heckman, Moon, Pinto, Savelyev, and Yavitz, 2010 ; Klietz, Borduin, and Schaeffer, 2010 ; Kuklinski, Briney, Hawkins, and Catalano, 2012 ; Reynolds et al., 2011 ).

Manning, Smith, and Homel (2013 , this issue) outline an innovative approach for valuing these programs to guide policy making. Their work draws on Saaty’s analytical hierarchy process (AHP), often used in the private sector, but less frequently in policy settings ( Saaty, 1988 ). This method ultimately provides an important framework for discussing how to build effective and efficient crime prevention efforts informed by developmental science ( Gifford-Smith, Dodge, Dishion, and McCord, 2005 ; Lerner et al., 2005 ; Osgood, 2005 ).

In this essay, I expand on Manning et al.’s (2013) discussion by highlighting how this new approach can complement current efforts to value developmental crime prevention programs for evidence-based policy making. I then discuss the importance of considering local programming capacity when investing in prevention and the economic value of prevention approaches that invest in both youth and their families (i.e., dual-generation approaches). Next, I provide a forward look at two approaches policy makers can engage when seeking to fund developmental prevention. I then conclude with four action steps for research and policy that can facilitate the dissemination of effective and efficient developmental crime prevention efforts.

Strategies for Valuing Developmental Prevention to Inform Public Policy

Broadly, the priority ranking and utility approach employed by Manning et al. (2013) is similar to ex-ante approaches used to elicit willingness-to-pay estimates around the cost of crime as well as cost-effectiveness analyses often employed in health-care decision making ( Birch and Gafni, 1992 ; Donaldson, Farrar, Mapp, Walker, and Macphee, 1997 ; Ludwig and Cook, 2001 ; Olsen and Smith, 2001 ; Zarkin, Cates, and Bala, 2000 ). Such approaches are gaining acceptance as they aim to estimate the value of preventing crime more completely—departing from ex-post approaches that rely explicitly on monetizable burden ( Brookshire and Crocker, 1981 ; Ryan and Watson, 2009 ). Furthermore, particularly for health outcomes, they avoid certain distributional problems that value morbidity and mortality at different rates for different groups (e.g., women and minorities; see Donaldson, Birch, and Gafni, 2002 ). The United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is one of the better known examples where national health policy is currently being informed by such utility-based approaches for valuing public services ( Kelly et al., 2010 ; Weatherly et al., 2009 ).

Although there is growing support for employing utility estimates to guide decision making, these approaches can be limited by the lack of clear cost and benefit estimates ( Marsh, Chalfin, and Roman, 2008 ; Weinstein and Manning, 1997 ). In particular, analysts scoring the fiscal impact of new policies for government bodies require robust estimates of prevention programs’ downstream costs to determine potential savings to agency budgets ( Aos, Lieb, Mayfield, Miller, and Pennucci, 2004 ; OMB, 1992 ). Several new efforts over the last 5 years have sought to promote the development of such estimates. One initiative that has gained substantial traction in the United States is the Results First Project supported by the Pew Charitable Trust and MacArthur Foundation ( Dueffert, 2012 ). This initiative partners with states to implement an innovative benefit-cost approach that assists policy makers seeking to invest in programs that can reduce crime, improve health, and result in public savings. By building tailored models of how programs impact a particular state’s budget, policy decisions can be made that are beneficial to both at-risk populations and local budgets ( Dueffert, 2013 ).

In part, the value of approaches that seek to monetize program outcomes is borne out by the ability to make estimates transferable across settings (where the value of currency is likely shared across groups). The approach outlined by Manning et al. (2013) captures a more idiographic—and possibly accurate—estimate of a group’s value of prevention programs, but this valuation is temporally and geographically bound. Specifically, a group of decision makers surveyed in one area or time may have a dramatically different valuation of a program than decision makers in another region at a different time. To use Manning et al.’s approach effectively to inform policy making, analysts will need to survey a larger sample of decision makers to develop more robust estimates. Furthermore, estimates will need to account for the larger body of prevention programs available in the marketplace. Although Manning et al. include more than 20 programs, policy makers may question valuation estimates that neglect commonly used or home-grown—even if ineffective—prevention programs. Ultimately, these programs may need to be included to facilitate decision maker buy-in.

In this context, there is a role for both utility approaches that elicit clear guidance for policy making as well as economic and fiscal analyses that place a monetary value on crime prevention programs. Next, I consider the importance of capturing infrastructure needs in program costs, the case for dual-generation programs, and promising approaches for investing in prevention.

Planning for Infrastructure and Capacity: The Costs of Developmental Crime Prevention

Recently, while accepting the 2013 Stockholm Prize in Criminology, Dr. David Farrington called for creation of national agencies to coordinate domestic prevention strategies ( Farrington, 2013 ). Although he is not the first to recognize that the patchwork of developmental crime prevention programs spanning the globe is inadequate for meeting the needs of youth at risk, Professor Farrington went further to outline the form and function of such agencies. This outline included the (a) recognition that primary crime prevention efforts are largely missing in most countries, (b) the need for continuous funding of prevention programs, and (c) the importance of building local prevention capacity. At the core of Professor Farrington’s message was that the continued lack of infrastructure and capacity to support the delivery of developmental prevention programs is a major threat to successfully preventing crime.

A closer look at the existing criminal justice, law enforcement, and education systems quickly reveals the limited capacity of localities to install and implement effective and efficient prevention efforts successfully ( Andréasson, Hjalmarsson, and Rehnman, 2000 ; Ringwalt et al., 2002 ; Spoth and Greenberg, 2011 ; Welsh, Sullivan, and Olds, 2009 ). For instance, most crime prevention is provided either when youth first enter the juvenile justice system (secondary prevention) or in an effort to prevent future recidivism (tertiary prevention; Farrington, 2013 ). These efforts are generally delivered in the context of the criminal justice system. In contrast, primary crime prevention programs have little or no natural home ( Dunworth, Mills, Cordner, and Greene, 1999 ; Hawkins and Weis, 1985 ; Hawkins et al., 2008 ; Spoth, Greenberg, Bierman, and Redmond, 2004 ). Schools generally have too many competing priorities to provide potent crime prevention efforts, and law enforcement personnel are rarely given the resources to implement effective crime prevention strategies among populations that have yet to commit a crime ( Dunworth et al., 1999 ; Spoth et al., 2004 ).

Developmental crime prevention programs delivered without appropriate levels of infrastructure and capacity not only are at risk for failing but also clutter a crowded marketplace. They contribute to a belief that prevention, although it is a nice idea, has weak effects at best ( Caulkins, Pacula, Paddock, and Chiesa, 2004 ; Spence and Shortt, 2007 ). In reality, developmental prevention programs that have been delivered with fidelity and have received adequate resources are not only effective but also cost effective ( Barnett and Masse, 2007 ; Dino, Horn, Abdulkadri, Kalsekar, and Branstetter, 2008 ; Foster, Jones, and the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 2006 ; Guyll et al., 2011 ; Kuklinski et al., 2012 ; Reynolds et al., 2011 ). Also, these programs face the same loss of potency that many effective medical interventions experience when delivered in parts of the world without the requisite infrastructure (electricity and refrigeration) and capacity (medical knowledge and reliable staff; Woolf, 2005 ). The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s work with disseminating malaria vaccines is a clear example of the value of local infrastructure and capacity ( Litzow and Bauchner, 2006 ).

Although Manning et al.’s (2013) work focuses on how to value prevention programs, researchers and policy makers alike must ask: What does an effective infrastructure for crime prevention programs look like, and what will it cost? The reality of investing in human development means that effective and efficient prevention efforts cannot succeed in environments with unstable or mismanaged funding streams ( Johnson, Hays, Center, and Daley, 2004 ; Scheirer and Dearing, 2011 ). To build efficient prevention efforts, investments also must support building local infrastructure and developing sustainable efforts with diverse funding streams that, when possible, recapture downstream savings for reinvestment ( Catalano, 2007 ; Crowley et al., 2012 ). To accomplish this goal, first researchers will need to provide a clear estimate of these costs.

Investing Across Ecological Systems: The Case for Dual Generation

As described by Manning et al. (2013) , the economic benefits of developmentally based prevention programs for crime and health are notoriously difficult to monetize ( Karoly, 2008 ). Numerous barriers are holding the field back in this area, but the primary obstacle stems from the difficulty in linking outcomes in childhood to future economic impact ( Crowley et al., 2013 ; Karoly, 2011 ). Early delinquency often occurs initially within the home and then in primary school where costs are low and difficult to quantify (likely in the form of lost parent or teacher productivity; Karoly, 2008 ; Karoly et al., 1998 ). These costs often are only apparent for the severest youth—until adolescence—when the rate of and harm from delinquent behavior grows exponentially ( Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1992 ; Foster and Jones, 2007 ). Furthermore, the greatest economic impacts from criminal activity tend not to become manifest until youth enter the labor force or the criminal justice system ( Bongers, Koot, van der Ende, and Verhulst, 2004 ; Cohen, Piquero, and Jennings, 2010 ; Hao and Woo, 2012 ; Heckman et al., 2010 ). Consequently, the delayed benefits to youth from prevention programs makes investing in new developmental efforts difficult not only from a budgetary standpoint but also from a political one ( Welsh and Farrington, 2012 ). Interestingly, some forms of developmental crime prevention programs seek to target not only youth but also their families ( St. Pierre, Layzer, and Barnes, 1995 ). Growing out of ecological systems theory, which holds that human development is impacted by several environmental systems, researchers have found these “dual-generation” approaches could result not only in long-term savings from youth benefits but also in more immediate economic and fiscal savings from parent benefits ( Bronfenbrenner, 1986 ; Miller, 2013 ; Sommer et al., 2012 ).

In practice, dual-generation approaches comprise efforts that combine high-quality early education programs for youth with opportunities for parents to participate in workforce development and parent training programs ( Foundation for Child Development, 2012 ). In this manner, benefits accrue not only in the long term for youth but also in the near term for parents. In turn, these improved parent outcomes augment developmental gains from early education programs (e.g., socioeconomic, health, and parenting; Yoshikawa, Aber, and Beardslee, 2012 ). One commonly cited example is the Nurse Family Partnership program. In this program, public savings accrue not only from children when they reach adolescence (greater than 25% reduction in arrest between 12 and 15 years of age) but also beginning directly after delivery from parents (more than $8,000 in additional tax revenue in 2013 dollars, 33% reduction in welfare use; Karoly et al., 1998 ; Miller, 2013 ). Importantly, Manning et al. (2013) found similar support for dual-generation approaches using the AHP method, where programs that deliver preventive services in preschool and incorporate family interventions were the most preferred option.

In this manner, dual-generation approaches can make developmental crime prevention programs more appealing to decision makers seeking to demonstrate the value of their investments in the near term. Furthermore, knowing that a sizable proportion of a crime prevention program’s return will occur within the first few years after the initial investment can buffer its impact on tight government budgets. Therefore, this knowledge leads us to two innovative approaches for investing in and sustaining developmental crime prevention programs: prevention portfolios and social impact bonds.

Hedging Our Bets: Building Prevention Portfolios and the Promise of Social Impact Bonds

Global austerity efforts have forced policy makers to both cut services and avoid investing in programs that carry even a relatively low risk of failure. In response, many policy makers across the political spectrum desire robust estimates of a program’s potential benefits and costs before they are willing to support new policies ( The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2012 ). In response, innovative approaches for funding new programs and lowering risk to the taxpayer are gaining traction.

One such approach is the development of investment portfolios comprised of many prevention programs. These portfolios offer policy makers a variety of programs with different returns-on-investment (ROIs) and different levels of risk ( Aos et al., 2004 , 2011 ; Drake, Aos, and Miller, 2009 ; Lee et al., 2012 ). In this manner, policy makers can make explicit asset allocation decisions for each program in the portfolio. One example of such an approach comes from the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP). To build these profiles, WSIPP has conducted large-scale meta-analyses to develop high-quality estimates of programs’ potential ROI and has engaged in sophisticated work modeling the risk of a program failing to produce expected savings. Like traditional financial portfolios, this approach distributes risk across different areas (e.g., primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention) to protect the principal investment. WSIPP has delivered these estimates to the legislature over the years and has increased state investment in prevention dramatically ( Dueffert, 2012 ). As a result, the state has observed meaningful declines in crime and incarceration—to the extent it avoided planned prison construction. The success of this model was the inspiration behind the Results First Initiative described previously and is being replicated across many U.S. states and internationally ( Dueffert, 2013 ).

In contrast to the portfolio approach that relies on public investment in developmentally based prevention, there is growing interest by many governments in offering the private sector incentives to invest in social welfare programs. One strategy that is gaining increasing support is known as a “social impact bond” (also known as a “social benefit bond,” “social policy bond,” or “pay-for-success bond”). These bonds are offered by governments to private investors to support prevention programs known to have a high ROI ( Horesh, 2000 ; Liebman, 2013 ; Liebman and Sellman, 2013 ). The program is delivered by an intermediary supported by the private investors’ funds. If the program is successful in delivering public savings, then the private investors receive both their principal investment and a predefined return (similar to a structured product or equity investment). The first social impact bond was developed by Social Finance UK in 2010. Since then, Australia and the United States have both observed offerings of social impact bonds (e.g., Massachusetts, New York City, and New South Wales). These trials are being closely watched for evidence that this new funding mechanism could be effectively used to support and incentivize efficient developmentally based crime prevention efforts.

Conclusions

Manning et al.’s (2013) valuation approach allows for a systematic comparison of developmental crime prevention programs and has the potential to fill a major gap in current efforts to value prevention for informing public policy. By further considering the economics of investing in developmental crime prevention programs, we can identify multiple actionable steps for research and policy. Combined, they offer the opportunity to build more efficient crime prevention efforts that will lead to substantial future savings. These steps are as follows:

• Replicate Manning et al.’s valuation approach (a) in new settings, (b) with new populations, and (c) with a broader array of crime prevention programs.
• Develop robust estimates of the costs from implementing and scaling developmental crime prevention programs.
• Invest in dual-generation interventions that deliver prevention programs to both youth and their families.
• Engage innovative mechanisms for investing in crime prevention efforts, including the development of prevention portfolios and social impact bonds.

In this context, policy makers wishing to install effective and efficient developmental crime programs into current crime prevention and control efforts should consider the utility of Manning et al.’s (2013) AHP approach and encourage replication of the process among their peers. Furthermore, policy makers should carefully consider the available programming infrastructure and capacity in target areas, the use of dual-generation programs, and innovative investment strategies that protect public resources from risk.

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the feedback from Dr. Ken Dodge, Center for Child and Family Policy, Duke University, and Dr. Philip Cook, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University.

D. Max Crowley is a National Institute of Drug Abuse Fellow at Duke University’s Center for Child and Family Policy studying the economics of investing in human development. His research program seeks to prevent the development of health inequalities and criminal behavior through evidence-based investments in childhood and adolescence. Dr. Crowley co-chairs the Society for Prevention Research’s MAPS Taskforce on economic analyses of prevention, is a research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER-Crime), and winner of the Research Society on Alcoholism’s John T. and Patricia A. O’Neill Addiction Science Education Award. His work has been supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, NoVo Foundation, ACF’s Office of Research, Planning and Evaluation, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

• Andréasson Sven, Hjalmarsson Kerstin, Rehnman Charlotta. Implementation and dissemination of methods for prevention of alcohol problems in primary health care: A feasibility study. Alcohol and Alcoholism. 2000; 35 :525–530. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Andrews Don A, Bonta James. Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy and Law. 2010; 16 :39–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aos Steve, Lee Stephanie, Drake Elizabeth K, Pennucci Annie, Klima Tali, Miller Marna G, et al. Return on Investment: Evidence-Based Options to Improve Statewide Outcomes. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy; 2011. Retrieved from wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=11-07-1201 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Aos Steve, Lieb Roxanne, Mayfield Jim, Miller Marna G, Pennucci Annie. Benefits and Costs of Prevention and Early Intervention Programs for Youth. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy; 2004. Retrieved from wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=04-07-3901 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Artello Kristine. Shifting “tough on crime” to keeping kids out of jail: Exploring organizational adaptability and sustainability at a mental health agency serving adjudicated children living with severe mental illness. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2013 doi: 10.1177/0887403412473473. E-pub ahead of print. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnett W Steven, Masse Leonard N. Comparative benefit–cost analysis of the Abecedarian program and its policy implications. Economics of Education Review. 2007; 26 :113–125. [ Google Scholar ]
• Becker Gary S. Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy. 1968; 76 :169–217. [ Google Scholar ]
• Birch Stephen, Gafni Amiram. Cost effectiveness/utility analyses: Do current decision rules lead us to where we want to be? Journal of Health Economics. 1992; 11 :279–296. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bongers Ilja L, Koot Hans M, van der Ende Jan, Verhulst Frank C. Developmental trajectories of externalizing behaviors in childhood and adolescence. Child Development. 2004; 75 :1523–1537. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Braga Anthony A, Weisburd David L. The effects of focused deterrence strategies on crime: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 2011; 49 :323–358. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner Urie. Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology. 1986; 22 :723–742. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brookshire David S, Crocker Thomas D. The advantages of contingent valuation methods for benefit-cost analysis. Public Choice. 1981; 36 :235–252. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from jstor.org/stable/30023439 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Cameron Samuel. The economics of crime deterrence: A survey of theory and evidence. Kyklos. 1988; 41 :301–323. [ Google Scholar ]
• Catalano Richard F. Prevention is a sound public and private investment. Criminology & Public Policy. 2007; 6 :377–397. [ Google Scholar ]
• Caulkins Jonathan P, Pacula Rosalie Liccardo, Paddock Susan, Chiesa James. What we can—and cannot—expect from school-based drug prevention. Drug and Alcohol Review. 2004; 23 :79–87. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen Mark A. Pain, suffering, and jury awards: A study of the cost of crime to victims. Law & Society Review. 1988; 22 :537–556. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen Mark A. The Costs of Crime and Justice. London, U.K: Routledge; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen Mark A, Piquero Alex R, Jennings Wesley G. Studying the costs of crime across offender trajectories. Criminology & Public Policy. 2010; 9 :279–305. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. A developmental and clinical model for the prevention of conduct disorders. Development and Psychopathology. 1992; 4 :509–527. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crowley D Max, Hill Laura Griner, Kuklinski Margaret R, Jones Damon E. Research priorities for economic analyses of prevention: Current issues & future directions. Prevention Science. 2013 doi: 10.1007/s11121-013-0429-z. E-pub ahead of print. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crowley D Max, Jones Damon E, Greenberg Mark T, Feinberg Mark E, Spoth Richard L. Resource consumption of a diffusion model for prevention programs: The PROSPER delivery system. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2012; 50 :256–263. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dino Geri, Horn Kimberly, Abdulkadri Abdullahi, Kalsekar Iftekhar, Branstetter Steven. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the Not on Tobacco program for adolescent smoking cessation. Prevention Science. 2008; 9 (1):38–46. doi: 10.1007/s11121-008-0082-0. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dodge Kenneth A. The science of youth violence prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2001; 20 :63–70. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donaldson Cam, Birch Stephen, Gafni Amiram. The distribution problem in economic evaluation: Income and the valuation of costs and consequences of health care programmes. Health Economics. 2002; 11 :55–70. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donaldson Cam, Farrar Shelley, Mapp Tracy, Walker Andrew, Macphee Susan. Assessing community values in health care: Is the “willingness to pay” method feasible? Health Care Analysis. 1997; 5 :7–29. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Drake Elizabeth K, Aos Steve, Miller Marna G. Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: Implications in Washington State. Victims & Offenders. 2009; 4 :170–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dueffert Nicole. Better Results, Lower Costs: Washington State’s Cutting-Edge Policy Analysis Model. Washington, DC: The Pew Center on the States; 2012. Retrieved from pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2012/ResultsFirst_Washington_casestudy.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Dueffert Nicole. Pew-Macarthur Results First Initiative. Washington, DC: The Pew Center on the States; 2013. States’ Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis: Improving Results for Taxpayers. Retrieved from pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2013/Pew_Results_First_50state_report.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunworth Terence, Mills Gregory, Cordner Gary, Greene Jack. National Evaluation of Weed and Seed Cross-Site Analysis. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice; 1999. Retrieved from ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/176358.txt . [ Google Scholar ]
• Durlak Joseph A. Common risk and protective factors in successful prevention programs. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 1998; 68 :512–520. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eckenrode John, Campa Mary, Luckey Dennis W, Henderson Charles R, Jr, Cole Robert, Kitzman Harriet, et al. Long-term effects of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on the life course of youths: 19-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 2010; 164 :9–15. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farrington David P. Early developmental prevention of juvenile delinquency. RSA Journal. 1994; 142 :22–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farrington David P. Saving Children from a Life of Crime: The Benefits Greatly Outweigh the Costs!. Presented at the Stockholm Price in Criminology; Stockholm, Sweden. 2013. Retrieved from criminologysymposium.com . [ Google Scholar ]
• Foster E Michael, Jones Damon E. The economic analysis of prevention: An illustration involving children’s behavior problems. The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics. 2007; 10 :165–175. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foster EM, Jones D the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Can a costly intervention be cost-effective?: An analysis of violence prevention. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2006; 63 :1284–1291. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.63.11.1284. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foundation for Child Development. Investing in Public Programs Matters: How State Policies Impact Children’s Lives. New York: Author; 2012. Retrieved from resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/sites/default/files/documents/5551.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Gifford-Smith Mary, Dodge Kenneth A, Dishion Thomas J, McCord Joan. Peer influence in children and adolescents: Crossing the bridge from developmental to intervention science. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2005; 33 :255–265. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guyll Max, Spoth Richard L, Crowley Daniel Max. Economic analysis of methamphetamine prevention effects and employer costs. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2011; 72 :577–585. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hao Lingxin, Woo Han S. Distinct trajectories in the transition to adulthood: Are children of immigrants advantaged? Child Development. 2012; 83 :1623–1639. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hawkins J David, Catalano Richard F, Arthur Michael W, Egan Elizabeth, Brown Eric C, Abbott Robert D, et al. Testing communities that care: The rationale, design and behavioral baseline equivalence of the community youth development study. Prevention Science. 2008; 9 :178–190. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hawkins J David, Catalano Richard F, Miller Janet Y. Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin. 1992; 112 :64–105. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hawkins J David, Weis Joseph G. The social development model: An integrated approach to delinquency prevention. The Journal of Primary Prevention. 1985; 6 :73–97. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heckman James J. Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science. 2006; 312 :1900–1902. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heckman James J, Moon Seong Hyeok, Pinto Rodrigo, Savelyev Peter A, Yavitz Adam. The rate of return to the High Scope Perry Preschool Program. Journal of Public Economics. 2010; 94 :114–128. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Homel Ross. Developmental crime prevention. In: Tilley Nick., editor. Handbook of Crime Prevention Community Safety. London, U.K: Routledge; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Horesh Ronnie. Injecting incentives into the solution of social problems: Social policy bonds. Economic Affairs. 2000; 20 :39–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson Knowlton, Hays Carol, Center Hayden, Daley Charlotte. Building capacity and sustainable prevention innovations: A sustainability planning model. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2004; 27 :135–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karoly Lynn A. Technical Report. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation; 2008. Valuing Benefits in Benefit-Cost Studies of Social Programs. Retrieved from rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2008/RAND_TR643.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Karoly Lynn A. Toward standardization of benefit-cost analyses of early childhood interventions. SSRN Electronic Journal 2011 [ Google Scholar ]
• Karoly Lynn A, Greenwood Peter W, Everingham Susan S, Houbé Jill, Rebecca Kilburn M, Peter Rydell C, et al. Investing in Our Children: What We Know and Don’t Know About the Costs and Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly Michael, Morgan Antony, Ellis Simon, Younger Tricia, Huntley Jane, Swann Catherine. Evidence based public health: A review of the experience of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of developing public health guidance in England. Social Science & Medicine. 2010; 71 :1056–1062. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klietz Stephanie J, Borduin Charles M, Schaeffer Cindy M. Cost-benefit analysis of multisystemic therapy with serious and violent juvenile offenders. Journal of Family Psychology. 2010; 24 :657–666. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuklinski Margaret R, Briney John S, David Hawkins J, Catalano Richard F. Cost-benefit analysis of Communities That Care outcomes at eighth grade. Prevention Science. 2012; 13 :150–161. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee Stephanie, Aos Steve, Drake Elizabeth K, Pennucci Annie, Miller Marna G, Anderson Laurie. Return on Investment: Evidence-Based Options to Improve Statewide Outcomes April 2012 Update. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy; 2012. Retrieved from wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=12-04-1201 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Lerner Richard M, Lerner Jacqueline V, Almerigi Jason B, Theokas Christina, Phelps Erin, Gestsdottir Steinunn, et al. Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifthgrade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 2005; 25 :17–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liebman Jeffrey B. Building on Recent Advances in Evidence-Based Policymaking. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liebman Jeffrey B, Sellman Alina. Social Impact Bonds: A Guide for State and Local Governments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School Social Impact Bond Technical Assistance Lab; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Litzow Jennifer M, Bauchner Howard. The grand challenges of the Gates Foundation: What impact on global child health? Journal of the Royal Society on Medicine. 2006; 99 :171–174. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ludwig Jens. The costs of crime. Criminology & Public Policy. 2010; 9 :307–311. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ludwig Jens, Cook Philip J. The benefits of reducing gun violence: Evidence from contingent-valuation survey data. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 2001; 22 :207–226. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manning Matthew, Smith Christine, Homel Ross. Valuing developmental crime prevention. Criminology & Public Policy. 2013; 12 :305–332. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marsh Kevin, Chalfin Aaron, Roman John K. What does cost-benefit analysis add to decision making? Evidence from the criminal justice literature. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 2008; 4 :117–135. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCollister Kathryn E, French Michael T, Fang Hai. The cost of crime to society: New crime-specific estimates for policy and program evaluation. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2010; 108 :98–109. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller Ted R. Nurse-Family Partnership Home Visitation: Costs, Outcomes, and Return on Investment. Bethesda, MD: HBSA Inc; 2013. Retrieved from pewstates.org/uploadedFiles/PCS_Assets/2013/Costs_and_ROI_report.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller Ted R, Cohen Mark A, Rossman Shelli B. Victim costs of violent crime and resulting injuries. Health Affairs. 1993; 12 :186–197. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Connell Mary Ellen, Boat Thomas F, Warner Kenneth E. Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Office of Management & Budget (OMB) Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs. A-94. Washington, DC: Author; 1992. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/a94/a094.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Olsen Jan Abel, Smith Richard D. Theory versus practice: A review of “willingness-to-pay” in health and health care. Health Economics. 2001; 10 :39–52. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Osgood D Wayne. Making sense of crime and the life course. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2005; 602 :196–211. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paternoster Raymond. How much do we really know about criminal deterrence? Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 2010; 100 :765–823. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds Arthur J, Temple Judy A, White Barry AB, Ou SuhRuu, Robertson Dylan L. Age 26 cost-benefit analysis of the Child-Parent Center Early Education Program. Child Development. 2011; 82 :379–404. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rikard RV, Rosenberg ED. Aging inmates: A convergence of trends in the American criminal justice system. Journal of Correctional Health Care. 2007; 13 :150–162. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ringwalt Christopher L, Ennett Susan T, Vincus Amy A, Thorne Judy, Rohrbach Louise Ann, Ashley Simmons-Rudolph A. The prevalence of effective substance use prevention curricula in U.S. middle schools. Prevention Science. 2002; 3 :257–265. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan Mandy, Watson Verity. Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. Health Economics. 2009; 18 :389–401. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saaty Thomas L. What is the analytic hierarchy process. In: Mitra Gautam., editor. Mathematical Models and Decision Support. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scheirer MaryAnn, Dearing James W. An agenda for research on the sustainability of public health programs. American Journal of Public Health. 2011; 101 :2059–2067. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sommer Teresa Eckrich, Lindsay Chaise-Lansdale P, Brooks-Gunn Jeanne, Gardner Margo, Rauner Diana Mendley, Freel Karen. Early childhood education centers and mothers’ postsecondary attainment: A new conceptual framework for a dual-generation education intervention. Teachers College Record. 2012; 114 :1–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spence Susan H, Shortt Alison L. Research review: Can we justify the widespread dissemination of universal, school-based interventions for the prevention of depression among children and adolescents? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2007; 48 :526–542. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spoth Richard L, Greenberg Mark T. Impact challenges in community science-with-practice: Lessons from PROSPER on transformative practitioner-scientist partnerships and prevention infrastructure development. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2011; 48 :106–119. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spoth Richard L, Greenberg Mark T, Bierman Karen, Redmond Cleve. PROSPER community–university partnership model for public education systems: Capacity-building for evidence-based, competence-building prevention. Prevention Science. 2004; 5 :31–39. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• St Pierre Robert G, Layzer Jean I, Barnes Helen V. Two-generation programs: Design, cost, and short-term effectiveness. The Future of Children. 1995; 5 :76–93. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• The Pew Charitable Trusts. Results First Initiative [homepage] 2012 Retrieved from pewstates.org/projects/results-first-328069 .
• Vitiello Michael. Still between a rock and a hard place: Sentencing reform in California. Federal Sentencing Reporter. 2013; 25 :233–235. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weatherly H, Drummond M, Claxton K, Cookson K, Ferguson B, Godfrey C, et al. Methods for assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions: Key challenges and recommendations. Health Policy. 2009; 93 :85–92. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weinstein Milton C, Manning Willard G., Jr Theoretical issues in cost-effectiveness analysis. Journal of Health Economics. 1997; 16 :121–128. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Welsh Brandon C, Farrington David P. The Future of Crime Prevention: Developmental and Situational Strategies. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Justice; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Welsh Brandon C, Farrington David P. Science, politics, and crime prevention: Toward a new crime policy. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2012; 40 :128–133. [ Google Scholar ]
• Welsh Brandon C, Sullivan Christopher J, Olds David L. When early crime prevention goes to scale: A new look at the evidence. Prevention Science. 2009; 11 :115–125. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Woolf Steven H. The break-even point: When medical advances are less important than improving the fidelity with which they are delivered. The Annals of Family Medicine. 2005; 3 :545–552. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoshikawa Hirokazu, Lawrence Aber J, Beardslee William R. The effects of poverty on the mental, emotional, and behavioral health of children and youth: Implications for prevention. American Psychologist. 2012; 67 :272–284. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zarkin Gary A, Cates Sheryl C, Bala Mohan V. Estimating the willingness to pay for drug abuse treatment: A pilot study. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2000; 18 :149–159. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Call to +1 (844) 889-9952

Crime Prevention in Schools and Colleges

Problem statement.

Crimes in schools and colleges are becoming a pressing issue for policy-makers. Crime surveys published over the past few years indicate that a high number of crimes are occurring, leaving behind a growing number of victims. According to Bouchrika (2020), schools and colleges are often presumed to be safe for learners, who are expected to focus on their studies and socialize with their peers. However, it can be observed that the school environment reflects some of the major issues within the society, especially when considering cultural, financial, geographic, and socio-economic factors. The disparities may be seen as some indicators of crimes or violence in schools. However, this study’s attention is on the growing incidences of student violence and other crimes over the last five years and the inability of the current security policies to achieve the desired outcome.

The current incidences reported in the various surveys highlight the need for crime prevention in schools and colleges. For example, the year 2019 saw over 764600 victimizations at school and 509300 away from the school of students aged between 12 and 8 years (Irwin et al., 2021). Additionally, about 22% of students in this age group reported being bullied at school, a relatively lower figure as compared to 28% recorded a decade ago in 2009. Gang presence at school has also been reported and students carrying weapons is still a problem despite the reducing number of such incidences. With these statistics, it is made apparent that school security is not guaranteed and that the current policies have failed. Therefore, there emerges a need to address the question of how to prevent crimes in schools and colleges.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to explore crime prevention measures at schools and colleges and their efficacy. The presumption is that different schools in different states follow certain procedures and protocols for their security, which means that the outcomes for individual institutions are varied. Additionally, there is a possibility that federal or standard security measures are deployed across the country, which also needs to be explored. Overall, the study will seek to examine a sample of schools across the country to determine their security practices and compare the data with the reported crime incidences. The data from the study will also be used to examine the best approaches to crime prevention in schools and colleges based on what seems to work well and what has failed to yield positive results.

Significance of the Study

The significance of the study can be found in its role and contributions toward reducing the crime incidences in schools and colleges, making these institutions safer for the American children. However, the study is intended to make significant contributions to literature, specifically crime prevention and criminology theories and other concepts in criminal justice. The study also informs the policymakers regarding strategies and approaches to crime prevention in the context of schools and colleges. As such, the findings from the study can be used to develop a set of best practices that can be used by individual institutions or law enforcement agencies to ensure safe learning environments for American students.

Literature Review

Crime prevention theories and practices have been extensively studied in the past few decades, often with the focus being on what works and evidence-based approaches to policy-making. Such scholars Welsh et al. (2018) emphasize the need to understand the role of theory in the prevention of crime and delinquency. In this case, crime prevention is understood as the social and environmental strategies of reducing crime, which is distinguished from punishment or controlling crime. In other words, interventions implemented by the relevant stakeholders are intended to keep people off crimes as opposed to convicting those committing crimes. This is the position taken for this literature review and the study where crime prevention in schools and colleges is perceived as the use of preventive measures, strategies, and approaches to student crime. Current literature has addressed these elements, often focusing on the broader social contexts. However, very few studies have paid any attention to the context of schools and colleges, which means that there is a significant gap.

Sexual assaults can be considered to be one of the major crimes and acts of violence in modern colleges, which has resulted in many institutions developing programs targeting this crime. A study by Kerner et al. (2017) focuses on sexual assaults on college campuses, there, the researchers find that women tend to suffer psychological issues when assaulted. As such, many universities have established sexual assault prevention programs designed to train and create awareness among students and staff. The major limitations of these programs as identified by Kerner et al. (2017) include low attendance, lack of consistent focus, time limitations, and failure to perform impact measurements. Consequently, Kerner et al. (2017) propose such measures as mandatory causes involving straight talk with both genders, written policies and reporting procedures, and crisis or sexual assault counseling centers. Even though these recommendations have not been tested, they offer an effective theoretical foundation for further research. The findings from this study are critical, considering the literature gap and the inclusion of valid theoretical assumptions coupled with empirical observations.

Sexual violence is not the only crime that schools and colleges try to prevent. Therefore, many institutions attempt to implement general crime prevention measures. A study by Liedka et al. (2019) has explored how the use of closed circuit television (CCTV) systems as crime deterrents on campuses, where the findings indicate that such systems have little to no effect on crime prevention. Additionally, the scholars establish that crimes are more associated with such elements as location, institutional control, student population density, student-body demographics, and crime control practices. As such, more successful approaches include scheduling security patrols and student escort or transportation services. The findings regarding CCTV are almost paradoxical, considering that many organizations and enterprises use CCTV as part of their security system. However, it can be argued that the CCTV systems may be useful in crime control as opposed to prevention, which justifies the findings by Liedka et al. (2019). However, CCTV acts as a deterrent in some cases, including auto theft, but not in other types of crimes as explained by Piza (2018). Therefore, institutions cannot be advised to rely on CCTV to prevent student crime.

Security patrols have been described above as one of those alternatives to CCTV that works better in crime prevention. Therefore, some of the studies have explored the efficacy of deploying police officers in schools, often referred to as school resource officers (SROs) in preventing school crime. According to Devlin and Gottfredson (2018), schools that deployed SROs reported more crimes than those that did not have the SROs, which indicates that officers facilitate the recording and reporting of crime. In this case, the study by Devlin and Gottfredson (2018) does not seek to directly address crime prevention but focuses on reporting, which should help develop the necessary interventions. It can be argued that institutions that have better crime recording and reporting can develop a better understanding of the problem, which allows them to formulate preventive policies alongside such practices as crime control. It may not be clear whether the presence of officers can act as a deterrent, but effective reporting aided by them should help develop interventions.

Some crimes in schools and colleges are related to gang membership, meaning that crime prevention should also extend beyond the schools. According to Thornberry et al. (2018), modifying and deploying evidence-based delinquency programs for gang-involved youth is considered one of the most reasonable strategies for developing effective programs to deal with street gangs. In this case, the rationale is that removing gangs from the streets will also help eliminates related crimes within the school and college environments. Some of the youth are at higher risk of joining gangs, especially those disproportionately affected by socio-economic factors, including poverty and health. Even those families that manage to send their children to school may not succeed in keeping them from joining gangs. Therefore, reducing gang involvement among the youth is a viable program for preventing crime in schools and colleges. The presence of gangs in schools often concerns officials and policy-makers since gangs are responsible for multiple safety issues (Carson & Esbensen, 2017). Therefore, gang membership within and outside the school should be highly discouraged as a preventive mechanism.

Some of the prevention programs and approaches are designed with the federal legislation in mind, especially those that focus on some of the major security issues. Gun violence in the United States affects the entire country, where criminals could perceive schools and colleges as targets. School shootings have been reported in the recent past, which explains the necessity of regulating the presence of guns and other weapons around the schools. A study by Katsiyannis et al. (2018) establishes that the Gun-Free School Zones Act 1990 was developed to prevent the possession and to discharge of guns in a school environment. This legislation only exempts police officers conducting their duties or other school programs that allow this incident. Besides guns, other weapons making their way into the schools should be approached with the same caution, especially in states or neighborhoods where the possibilities of gang activities are high. This means curtailing concealed weapons of all kinds and ensuring that violence can be prevented by disallowing weapons within schools. Even though the Act is federal legislation, the argument is that the individual schools and their security frameworks are responsible for ensuring compliance.

Parental involvement is another approach that takes the prevention practices beyond the school environment. Current literature on parental involvement has often focused on academic outcomes in education and child development. However, it can be argued that how children are raised in their families and neighborhoods will influence delinquent behavior within the schools and colleges. Data from the School Survey on Crime and Safety analyzed by Lesneskie and Block (2017) reveals four major determinants of lower violence levels in schools. These elements are school climate, school security, parental involvement, and community involvement. In this case, the entire community is solicited to participate in ensuring that schools are safer for their children by contributing to reducing violence. A safe and crime-free community can lead to similar characteristics in schools where compliance is considered the standard and the norm. Violent communities will likely result in violent schools, which means that parents and members of society have a critical role to play in the crime prevention programs.

Parental and community involvement should be prioritized when designing prevention programs. The study by Lesneskie and Block (2017) does not specify the capacities of the parents and community in the prevention programs. However, it can be argued that such capacities as role models and volunteering are considered a starting point. Additionally, the data only shows that higher parental and community involvement results in lower crime levels, which means that future research should explore the roles played by parents and the community in greater depth. A similar quantitative study by Song et al. (2019) also finds parental involvement to be positively correlated with lower crimes in schools, even without specifying the roles played by parents. Overall, the main point is that schools and colleges should develop appropriate of integrating both parents and the community in crime prevention practices.

Overall, it is apparent that the current literature has attempted to explore the best approaches to crime prevention in schools and colleges. Some of the crimes involved are serious and requires legislation at the state and federal level. Examples given include gun legislation, which means that schools are required to enforce this law (Katsiyannis et al., 2018). Other major issues include sexual violence that victimizes women. Regardless of the nature of the crime, the current literature indicates that several multiple approaches and strategies have proven successful in crime prevention.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The primary research question is what the best practices and approaches are for crime prevention in schools and colleges. This question is based on the identified purpose and problem statement, where crime rates seem to be reduced, but the incidence statistics show that crime remains a major challenge. With the focus on crime prevention, this question is broad and can be broken down into more specific questions, which will also be used in developing the research hypotheses. The specific study questions for this research are as outlined below:

• What are the current crime prevention strategies and approaches in schools and colleges?
• What are the key issues influencing the efficacy of the current crime prevention programs in schools and colleges?
• What are the best practices informed by current literature that could fill the gaps in crime prevention in schools and colleges?
• H1: Student courts, student-initiated programs, and peer mediation are some of the current approaches to crime prevention in schools and colleges that display a higher success rate.
• H2: Inadequate student participation levels and social and behavioral problems undermine the efficacy of the current approaches to crime prevention in schools and colleges.
• H3: Deterrents targeting behavioral and social processes should help fill the gaps in crime prevention in schools and colleges.

Research Methodology

Mixed methods approach.

Mixed-methods research is often viewed as the third methodological approach after qualitative and quantitative. Its emergence is also perceived as the result of the gaps observed in the qualitative and quantitative methods, which means that the mixed-methods approach seeks to combine both while addressing the major drawbacks. In other words, the mixed-methods approach combines qualitative and quantitative aspects to help achieve greater outcomes. In quantitative studies, the numerical treatment of the data means no in-depth insights are possible despite allowing for generalization to take place. Similarly, qualitative methods help scholars to dig deeper into a research phenomenon, but smaller sample sizes make it difficult to achieve generalization. Therefore, a mixed-methods approach seeks to collect and analyze data using both approaches to help achieve a more comprehensive view of the subject. According to Dawadi et al. (2021), mixed methods tend to have their own philosophical assumptions and inquiry methods. As such, this approach does not seek to simply combine methods. In this case, the use of the mixed-methods approach is intended to help collect and analyze both numerical and textual data on the subject of crime prevention in schools and colleges.

The rationale for the selection of the mixed-methods approach is the inherent advantages it offers in terms of the ability to offer richer insights. As explained by Dawadi et al. (2021), the mixed methods approach allows integrating multiple data sources to help study complex problems. In this research, the data will be collected from surveys and documents, including incident reports across the country. These sources are different and the data will need to be handled differently. For example, the surveys could yield both numerical and qualitative data to be treated statistically and using other preferred qualitative methods. More rigorous conclusions will be needed for those studies considering their significance and policy implications. Therefore, no major gaps should be left when proposing policy practice since such gaps could result in failed regulations and other negative consequences. A mixed-methods approach is deemed the best method to facilitate the development of true knowledge.

Descriptive Research Design

Descriptive research is chosen as the design for this study. By definition, descriptive research entails the collection to help test the hypotheses and/or answer research questions and offer greater details on the research problem (Sahin & Mete, 2021). Additionally, descriptive research tends to describe a situation, population, or phenomenon. Therefore, this design will be used to offer insights into the crime incidence in schools and colleges, crime prevention approaches and their efficacy, and the best practices that can be derived from current literature to fill the gaps or deficiencies in the success of crime prevention programs. In this case, descriptive design works well with the mixed-methods approach adopted, which also serves the same purpose of offering a comprehensive understanding of crime prevention in schools and colleges. The populations to be described include the school and college students and their institutions. Additionally, the phenomenon explored in student crime or violence and the prevention programs by the states and the individual institutions.

Descriptive research can be classified into several types, each offering a different perspective to the study. For example, a descriptive-survey design uses surveys to collect data on varying subjects to understand the extent to which different conditions are observed with the subject. A descriptive-normative survey is similar to a descriptive survey but extends the analyses to comparison with what is considered the norm. Other types include descriptive status, comparative, classification, and analysis. The type adopted for this study will be a descriptive survey, which will involve collecting data from such populations as students, teachers, and the relevant security bodies involved in student crime. However, this design will not be used exclusively, considering that some of the data will be collected using methods other than a survey. Overall, the descriptive research design is deemed to be the most appropriate design for this study.

Data Collection and Analysis

This research will collect and analyze both primary and secondary data, each of which will require different methods and approaches. The primary data will be conducted using a survey method, which is selected due to its rigor and reliability. The survey method involves collecting data regarding the population and its perceptions regarding the research phenomenon. Considering the current study seeks to obtain as much detail as possible, the survey will comprise online questionnaires to the selected samples. The questionnaire is preferred to other data collection techniques since it consumes less time compared to interviews and it is not as costly. Therefore, questionnaires create room for larger samples.

The sample size will comprise 200 respondents, comprising 120 students, 60 teachers, and 20 security personnel. The sampling strategy used will be stratified sampling, where random sampling will be used under each stratum. This requires that the populations be precisely and specifically defined to make the sampling easier. Additionally, purposeful sampling will be used in the selection of the schools and states where the respondents will be gathered. In this case, the national statistics on student crimes will be used to identify the most and least effective states and schools, which will help offer both perspectives of failing and succeeding prevention practices and approaches.

Secondary data will be collected using a systematic review of literature, which entails examining documents with data on the research subject. In this case, school reports and incident reports from either the schools or relevant law enforcement agencies will be used to assess the efficacy of programs. Additionally, indicators and factors explaining the incidences and recorded historical data depicting the extent of the problem will be explored from the relevant documents.

Data analysis will also require different methods based on the type, nature, and source of information. In this case, descriptive statistics will be used to provide demographic characteristics and the incidences across the selected schools. Additionally, a regression analysis will be used in modeling the relationship between prevention programs and crime incidence, as well as core indicators and crime incidence across the selected schools. Thematic analysis will be the method used in analyzing the secondary data. In this case, codes will be determined to help with the development of themes. Each theme will be supported by the literature gathered from multiple sources, including the primary survey research where possible.

Ethical Issues

Conducting a study of this nature, which involves people in the collection of data, will require the researcher to observe several ethical issues. Ethical issues can be described as a set of principles that guide research designs and practices. In this case, both students and teachers are involved, alongside security personnel. Additionally, the data sought is sensitive, which demands careful handling. The first ethical issue is informed consent before engaging students in the study. Considering that the study takes place in the school setting, consent will be sought from the teachers. Other necessary guidelines, both at the federal and state level, will be followed, including where parental consent will be needed. Confidentiality and anonymity will be maintained to help protect the identity of the respondents. Additionally, privacy will be observed by ensuring no personal details are collected. The researcher will ensure to cause no harm to any participants, either mental, psychological, or physical. Participation will also be made voluntary, which means that no one will be coerced to participate.

Policy Implications

The current research has several policy implications, both at the institutional level and state level. At the institution level, the findings of this research offer detailed insights into the current status of crime prevention policies and the gaps that they display in their implementation and deterring student violence and crime. The institutional policymakers are tasked with the responsibility of formulating policies, which means that they depend on current research to build their frameworks. Therefore, this study will offer policymakers a comprehensive view of the current security landscape across schools and colleges and a chance to examine how their policies compare to what are considered best practices. Today, it can be observed that each institution has its policy and programs for crime prevention, each targeting a specific aspect of crime. For example, some focus on sexual violence among students, which can be considered one of the most common issues in schools across the country. Others provide a more general approach in terms of mentoring programs and victim services intended to treat individuals that have suffered from crime.

Therefore, this study informs these schools about what others are doing and how they are faring as compared to themselves. In other words, the study provides a benchmark for the schools and colleges upon which to gauge their programs and success rates in preventing crimes. This goal is achieved by highlighting what can be considered to be best practices informed by the current literature. From a theoretical perspective, approaches and strategies used are based on proven theories. In this case, the policymakers will have a more solid theoretical foundation to inform their practices.

At the state level, this research will have several policy implications, most of which revolve around approaches and strategies of law enforcement in handling student crime. Different states face different challenges with crimes at schools and colleges. The rationale for involving law enforcement is that many of the criminal activities affect the country as a whole and their handling goes beyond the school administration. Behavioral and social determinants of crime should be a key area of interest for policymakers. They serve as both indicators of crime and areas of intervention. Law enforcement will need to understand the current landscape of major crimes, including illicit weapons and gang affiliations. Additionally, their prevention efforts should focus on the broader social context seeking to prevent youth from criminal tendencies. This research offers the best practices and informs on the efficacy of selected programs, which should act as a guide to the implementation of state-level prevention programs.

Bouchrika, I. (2020). 40 student crime statistics: 2021/2022 data, analysis & predictions. Web.

Carson, D., & Esbensen, F. (2017). Gangs in school: Exploring the experiences of gang-involved youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 17 (1), 3-23. Web.

Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., & Giri, R. (2021). Mixed-methods research: A discussion on its types, challenges, and criticisms. Journal of Practical Studies in Education, 2 (2), 25-36.

Devlin, D. N., & Gottfredson, D. (2018). The roles of police officers in schools: Effects on the recording and reporting of crime. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 16 (2), 208-223. Web.

Irwin, V., Wang, K., Cui, J., Zhang, J., & Thompson, A. (2021). Report on Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2020. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Katsiyannis, A., Whitford, D., & Ennis, R. (2018). Historical examination of United States intentional mass school shootings in the 20th and 21st centuries: Implications for students, schools, and society. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27 , 2562-2573. Web.

Kerner, L., Kerner, J., & Herring, S. (2017). Sexual assaults on college campuses. Journal of Academic Administration in Higher Education, 13 (2), 41-47.

Lesneskie, E., & Block, S. (2017). School violence: The role of parental and community involvement. Journal of School Violence, 16 (4), 426-444. Web.

Liedka, R., Meehan, A., & Lauer, T. (2019). CCTV and campus crime: Challenging a technological “fix”. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30 (2), 316-338. Web.

Piza, E. (2018). The crime prevention effect of CCTV in public places: A propensity score analysis. Journal of Crime and Justice, 41 (1), 14-30. Web.

Sahin, S., & Mete, J. (2021). A brief study on descriptive research: Its nature and application in social science. International Journal of Research and Analysis in Humanities, 1 (1), 23-33.

Song, W., Qian, X., & Goodnight, B. (2019). Examining the roles of parents and community involvement and prevention programs in reducing school violence. Journal of School Violence, 18 (3), 403-420. Web.

Thornberry, T., Kearly, B., Gottfredson, D., Slothower, M., Delvin, D., & Fader, J. (2018). Reducing crime among youth at risk for gang involvement. Criminology & Public Policy, 17 (4), 953-989. Web.

Welsh, B., Zimmerman, G., & Zane, S. (2018). The centrality of theory in modern day crime prevention: Developments, challenges, and opportunities. Justice Quarterly, 35 (1), 139-161. Web.

Cite this paper

Select style

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

LawBirdie. (2023, April 15). Crime Prevention in Schools and Colleges. https://lawbirdie.com/crime-prevention-in-schools-and-colleges/

"Crime Prevention in Schools and Colleges." LawBirdie , 15 Apr. 2023, lawbirdie.com/crime-prevention-in-schools-and-colleges/.

LawBirdie . (2023) 'Crime Prevention in Schools and Colleges'. 15 April.

LawBirdie . 2023. "Crime Prevention in Schools and Colleges." April 15, 2023. https://lawbirdie.com/crime-prevention-in-schools-and-colleges/.

1. LawBirdie . "Crime Prevention in Schools and Colleges." April 15, 2023. https://lawbirdie.com/crime-prevention-in-schools-and-colleges/.

Bibliography

LawBirdie . "Crime Prevention in Schools and Colleges." April 15, 2023. https://lawbirdie.com/crime-prevention-in-schools-and-colleges/.

• Sexual Assault: Crime Types and Offenders
• Strategies to Decrease Recidivism
• The Prison Fellowship Faith-Based Program
• Cyberbullying: Criminological and International Perspective
• Criminal Justice Note-Taking and Its Benefits
• Victimology of Sexual Assault and Its Importance
• A White Collar Crime and Its Impact on the Country
• The Psychopath Concept in Criminology
• Attack on Pulse Nightclub: Critical Review
• Challenges of Parolees During Reentry Into Society

Data shows crime is on the rise at college campuses. How that looks at New England's Ivies

After dropping during the pandemic, government data shows that the number of crimes reported by college campuses across the country in 2022 have rebounded to pre-pandemic levels.

Crime reported from almost 6,000 institutions rose about 8% from 2019. The jump in offenses between 2019 and 2022 has coincided with many students returning to campuses after the pandemic.

The recent increase in campus crime across the country was primarily driven by a surge in reported motor vehicle theft, which more than doubled from 2019 and made up more than a fourth of 2022's offenses, according to USA Today reporting.

The recent spike represents the largest increase since universities and colleges that receive federal funding began reporting campus safety statistics. Experts are skeptical that this incline is gravely concerning, according to USA Today, but parents are concerned.

New England's Ivy League schools aren't immune to the rebound in campus crime. Here's a look at what the data says.

Check out USA TODAY's  Crimes on Campus tool  for detailed information. Zoom in on the map below to search crimes on more than 10,000 college and university campuses.   Don't see a map?  Click here.

Reported crime numbers at Brown University

Brown University was not immune to the spike, with a total of 91 reported criminal offenses in 2022. In 2020 and 2021, the number of reported crimes were 21 and 42, respectively. From 2014 to 2019, the average number of reported crimes were 57.

At Brown, 18 of the 91 reported offenses in 2022 were motor vehicle thefts.

There were 21 reports of rape, 28 reports of aggravated assault and 12 reports of fondling. There were also nine reports of burglary, two reports of robbery and one report of arson.

Brown had an undergraduate enrollment of 7,639 in fall of 2022.

In response to the data, Deputy Director of News and Editorial Development Amanda McGregor wrote in an email that Brown has a "culture of reporting," which helps them to address the incidents.

"Brown University is proactive in reporting crime data, and this is part of our strong commitment to prevention and response," McGregor said. "The safety of our community is always our top priority."

To address the "national issue of sexual- and gender-based harassment and violence on college campuses," McGregor wrote that Brown created a new Office of Equity Compliance and Reporting in the Division of Campus Life in 2024, to make reporting crimes like these as easy as possible, adding that the increased crime numbers actually show the abundance of resources Brown has towards crime reporting.

"[T]he University has proactively encouraged a culture in which students report incidents of sexual assault and misconduct and seek and receive support and assistance from the University," she wrote.

The school also educates students and campus community members on safety, including personal safety, securing personal property and remaining vigilant.

Reported crime numbers at Yale University

Connecticut's Ivy League school, Yale University had 135 reported criminal offenses in 2022, with an undergraduate population of 6,645 in the fall of that year.

There were 41 reports of rape and 17 reports of fondling. There were 35 reports of motor vehicle theft.

In 2020, Yale had a total of 114 crimes reported, and in 2021, there were 115 crimes reported.

The 2022 crime report numbers are higher than the last three pre-pandemic years, 2017, 2018 and 2019, as their crime report numbers were 108, 123 and 124, respectively.

Reported crime numbers at Harvard University

The Commonwealth's crown jewel of higher education, Harvard University had 172 reported criminal offenses in 2022, with an undergraduate population of 7,240 the fall of that year.

There were 75 reports of motor vehicle theft, 34 reports of burglary and 23 reports of fondling. There were also 16 reports of rape, 17 reports of aggravated assault, five reports of robbery and two reports of arson.

In 2020, Harvard had a total of 120 reported crimes, and in 2021, the school had 106 reported crimes.

The 2022 total number of reported criminal offenses is also higher than the pre-pandemic numbers, as Harvard had 135 reports in 2018 and 134 reports in 2019.

Reported crime numbers at Dartmouth College

New Hampshire's Ivy League Dartmouth College, had 65 total criminal offenses in 2022, with an undergraduate enrollment of 4,458.

The most numerous of the criminal offenses were burglary and motor vehicle theft, with 24 reports of burglary and 18 reports of motor vehicle theft.

Dartmouth had 23 crime reports in 2020 and 46 in 2021.

65 total reports of crime is a slight return to pre-pandemic numbers of crime reports, as 2018 and 2019 each had a total number of 71 crime reports. However, rape made up a much larger proportion of reports those years than in 2022.

Rin Velasco is a trending reporter. She can be reached at [email protected].