School bullies are particularly at risk of becoming serious violent offenders & are more likely to raise children who become bullies themselves.

Research reveals that where a ‘whole school’ approach to tackling bullying is adopted, (incorporating procedures for preventing and responding to bullying, improving playground supervision, encouraging victims to report incidents) levels of bullying, victimisation and anti-social behaviour is reduced.

Olweus, D., (1990). ‘Bullying Among Schoolchildren’. In: Hurrelmann, K. & Losel, F. (eds) ‘Health Hazards in Adolescence’ Berlin: De Gruyter.

Olweus, D., (1991). ‘Bully/victim Problems Among Schoolchildren: Basic Facts and Effects of a School-Based Intervention Programme’. In: Pepler, D.J.& Rubin, K.H. (eds) ‘The Development & Treatment of Childhood Aggression’. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

See also the Sheffield Anti-bullying Initiative. This was evaluated in 23 Sheffield primary & secondary schools. Schools were encouraged to take an approach to aggressive behaviour & bullying which are known risk factors for violent and criminal behaviour adolescence and adulthood. It was also recognised that action would need to extend beyond interventions with individual bullies and their victims and that the overall ethos and organisation of the school (even its design) might need to change. Increasingly, this ‘whole school’ approach is recognised as an effective means of tackling not just bullying but other education-related risks e.g. lack of commitment to school, truancy and exclusion and school disorganisation. The project schools saw an increase in the number of pupils saying that they had not been bullied and a significant decrease in the frequency of bullying, which was most evident in primary schools. An increase in pupils’ willingness to take bullying problems to their teachers was most evident in secondary schools.

Attend to the victim’s needs

Prevent re-offending

Enable offenders to assume active responsibility for their actions

Recreate a working community that supports rehabilitation of victims & offenders

Canadian research provides indications of a preventative effect on reoffending

Bonta, J. et al. (1998) ‘Restorative Justice: An Evaluation of the Restorative Resolution Project’. Ottawa: Solicitor General, Canada

Evaluation of the Northamptonshire Diversion Unit Project revealed that many victims derive benefit from the reparation element and that reoffending levels may be relatively low.

Situational Crime Prevention Measures

Aims to influence an offender’s decision or ability to commit crimes at particular places or times. It seeks to make criminal actions less attractive to offenders.

Situational crime prevention measures have been successfully applied to a tackling a range of offences.

Clarke, R., (1997). Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (2nd Edn). Albany, N.Y.: Harrow & Heston.

Welsh, B., & Farrington, D.P., (1998). Value for money? A review of the costs and benefits of Situational Crime Prevention. British Journal of Criminology, vol.38

Increase CCTV coverage

Cameras can:

Deter offenders

Aid detection

Support successful prosecutions

Can be effective where it is clear what impact the scheme is meant to have, and where the right conditions are in place for the cameras to have the intended effect.

Works best as part of an integrated and evolving package of measures.

(Tilley, 1993)

Improved lighting

Small scale studies suggest that better lighting may reduce crime and incivilities in localised areas, at least in the short term.

An evaluation of area-wide lighting improvements found these were popular and reassuring for the public but did not reduce crime to any great extent.

(Atkins et al, 1991)

See also Painter,K. & Farrington, D., (1997). The crime reducing effect of improved street lighting: The Dudley Project. In R. Clarke (Ed), Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (2nd Edn), pp209-229. Albany, New York: Harrow & Heston.

Targeted policing/Directed patrolling of hotspots

US evidence is that this is an effective strategy for dealing with local problems. Certain categories of crime are susceptible to the visible presence of police officers, and patrols directed at places and times where those crimes are known to occur (hotspots) will prevent the occurrence of crime. The increased level of police presence in some of these studies were quite large. Figures quoted ranged from 40%-400% more police presence at the hot-spots. This increased police presence cut crime by up to 50% in some cases.

Buerger, M. E., et al (1995). In: J. Eck & D. Weisburd, eds. Crime & Place. Monsey, N.Y. : Criminal Justice Press and Police Executive Research Forum.

Koper, C., (1995). Just Enough Police Presence: Reducing Crime and Disorderly Behavior By Optimising Patrol Time in Crime Hot Spots.

(Goldblatt & Lewis, 1998)

One particularly effective piece of work was a detached youth work project which had been funded by the DfEE, which appeared successfully to reduce young people’s involvement in racial harassment and to divert them from crime more generally.

Targeting persistent/high rate offenders through enforcement

Disrupting offenders’ methods/routines can reduce crimes.

There is clear evidence that targeting high rate offenders can be successful. Exercises, which targeted individuals, were aimed at securing sound evidence, convictions and long sentences and they were successful. Any impact on crime prevention would have been through incapacitation of the offenders and, possibly, through deterring other criminals. These effects need to be evaluated.

Abrahamse, A.F., et al (1991). An Experimental Evaluation of the Phoenix Repeat Offender Program. Justice Quarterly 8:141-168.

Repeat victimisation

Shaw, M. & Pease, K. (2000) Research on Repeat Victimisation in Scotland. Scottish Executive Crime reduction Unit

Multiple Victimisation: Racial attacks on an East London estate. Alice Sampson and Coretta Phillips. (1992) Police Research Group. Crime Prevention Series Paper 36. Home Office