UPI Study › Courses › Criminology › Free lessons › Lesson 10.6 Free with a free account
Emerging Patterns and Prevention Strategies for Violent Crime
Criminology · Chapter 10: Violent CrimeSection 10.6 · lesson 44 of 91video coming soon
← Domestic Violence and Stalking: Definitions, Causes, and Legal FrameworksNext lesson: Community and Societal Responses to Violent Crime and Victimization →
In this lesson
The public health framing, the main approaches, and how to judge the evidence.
- Describe the principal approaches to violence prevention.
- Explain what the public health framing adds.
- Present firearm policy as a contested area, neutrally.
- Assess a strategy against its mechanism and evidence.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,460 words). Read along, or search it.
Opening Question
Which Violence Strategy Actually Works?
Teresa runs her city's safety office, and the council wants violence down. She has six strategies on the table, and one budget. Which of them actually works? This lesson turns from describing violent crime to preventing it. It begins with the public health framing, which treats violence as preventable rather than inevitable. You will meet the main families of prevention: place-based, people-based, regulatory, and structural. For each, you will learn the mechanism it acts on, and how strong its evidence is. You will also see firearm policy presented as a contested policy area, with each side stated fairly. Finally, you will learn the evaluation standard any prevention claim must meet before it is scaled up. The habit to build is simple to state, and harder to practice. Ask what mechanism a strategy targets, and what evidence shows that it works.
Core Framework
Violence as a Preventable Public Health Problem
The public health framing treats violence as a preventable outcome. Like other public health problems, it has identifiable risk factors and protective factors. That stands in contrast to treating violence as a fixed feature of certain people or places. The framing organizes prevention through a four-step model, and the first step is defining the problem, using consistent measurement. The second is identifying causes, through research on risk and protective factors. The third is developing and testing interventions against a genuine comparison group. The fourth is scaling what the evidence shows actually works. The order matters, because scaling an intervention before testing it against a comparison group skips a step. That skipped step is the one that tells you whether it works.
Applying the Model
Expected Outputs at Each Step
Apply the four-step model to a violence problem, and each step has an expected output. Defining the problem should produce a description of the pattern, using consistent measures. Identifying causes should produce findings about risk and protective factors. Developing and testing interventions should produce a pilot, run against a genuine comparison group. Scaling what works should include monitoring fidelity during expansion. Fidelity means the scaled program still delivers what the tested program delivered. Each output is the input to the next step. A weak output at any step, such as inconsistent measurement, undermines every step after it.
Prevention Levels
Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Reach
Next, who does a program reach? Picture the neighborhood Teresa serves. The primary, secondary, and tertiary classification from Subchapter nine point four applies directly to violence. Primary approaches reach an entire population, before any violence occurs. Secondary approaches target those showing early signs of risk. Tertiary approaches address those already involved in violence, to prevent it from happening again. The levels describe who a program reaches, not how effective it is. A single community can run programs at all three levels at once. Keeping the levels distinct helps match a program to the population it is actually designed for. It also guards against judging a tertiary program by primary-level goals, or the reverse.
Place-Based
Targeting Locations Where Violence Clusters
Start at a single corner, where violence keeps clustering. Place-based prevention concentrates resources on the specific locations where violence clusters. It builds on the situational approaches introduced in Subchapter six point one. Hot spot policing increases police presence at identified high-concentration locations. Environmental design alters physical space to reduce opportunity. Place management works with those who control a location, such as a property owner, to reduce conditions that facilitate violence. Two questions qualify these approaches, and the first is the displacement question. Does reduced violence at the targeted location disappear, or simply relocate nearby? The second is the community relations cost, since concentrated policing can strain trust in the very communities where it is applied.
People-Based
Focused Deterrence and Violence Interruption
From corners, the focus turns next to people. People-based approaches focus on individuals rather than places. Focused deterrence concentrates attention and resources on a small number of individuals, people identified as responsible for a disproportionate share of violence. It combines clear communication of consequences with an offer of support services. Street outreach and violence interruption uses trained community members to identify and mediate conflicts before they escalate.
Hospital Approach
Intervening at the Point of Care
Hospital-based intervention engages violently injured patients at the point of care. That moment is sometimes described as an opening for behavior change. Each approach has documented successes, but each also faces a genuine replication problem, echoing the pattern for developmental prevention in Subchapter nine point four. Results achieved in one city do not always reproduce elsewhere.
Contested Policy
Three Kinds of Firearm Questions
Next on Teresa's agenda is the most contested item. Firearm policy is treated strictly as a contested policy area in this course. Regulatory approaches proposed and adopted in various jurisdictions include background check requirements, waiting periods, and other measures. They are named here without evaluation, and the key analytical move is to separate three kinds of question. The empirical question asks what effect a given regulation has on violence. The constitutional question asks what regulation the law permits. The normative question asks what regulation is desirable, as a matter of policy judgment.
Both Positions
Strongest Arguments on Each Side
Supporters of stronger regulation argue that reducing access reduces both the incidence and the lethality of violent events. Opponents argue that regulation burdens a constitutional right, without a demonstrated proportional effect on violence. They add that it can be circumvented by those most intent on causing harm. This lesson states the strongest form of each position, and takes no position of its own.
Broader Levers
Alcohol Outlets and Structural Programs
Two broader levers: the corner store, and the conditions around it. Alcohol outlet density is studied as a regulatory lever, where outlet density means the concentration of alcohol retail locations within an area. Research generally associates higher density with higher rates of violence in the surrounding area. But the strength and consistency of that association vary across the studies conducted. Social and structural prevention works on broader conditions, and employment, housing, and education programs are studied as structural levers for preventing violence. Subchapter seven point eight raised the implementation concerns that apply to them. Their persistent challenge is the attribution difficulty. Many other factors change in a community at the same time as the program. Isolating the program's specific effect on violence from all of them is very hard.
Comparison, Part One
Policing, Deterrence, Outreach, and Hospitals Compared
Here are the strategies compared, by mechanism, evidence, and cost. Hot spot policing concentrates presence at high-violence locations, with moderate to strong evidence for the targeted location. Its costs are possible displacement, and strain on community relations. Focused deterrence pairs consequences with support, and looks promising in several documented cities, with replication variation. It is resource-intensive, and depends on identifying participants accurately. Street outreach relies on trained mediators, and its evidence is mixed, varying by program fidelity. It depends heavily on outreach worker training and community trust. Hospital-based intervention is promising but limited in the scale studied, and needs funding beyond the hospital encounter itself.
Comparison, Part Two
Outlet Regulation Versus Employment and Housing
Outlet density regulation reduces a situational correlate, with a moderate association across studies, at an economic cost to affected businesses. Employment and housing programs address structural conditions. Their evidence is limited by attribution difficulty, and their effects take a long time to become measurable.
Evaluation Standard
What Evidence Must Show Before Scaling
Before any prevention strategy is scaled up, a defensible evaluation must show three things. It needs a genuine comparison group, and a follow-up period long enough to detect the claimed effect. And it needs replication in more than one setting. A single favorable pilot result, however encouraging, does not meet this standard on its own. The evidence reviewed here does not support the claim that any single strategy, applied alone, substantially resolves violence. The strongest evidence favors combinations of place-based, people-based, and structural approaches. Those combinations must be applied together, and evaluated honestly over time. One more caution concerns emerging patterns in violence, which are offered as areas of present attention, not settled trends, because newer data may soon outrun them.
Applied Scenario
Teresa Weighs Hot Spots Against Deterrence
Back to Teresa's city, now weighing two strategies for the same violence problem. One is a place-based hot spot strategy, and the other is a people-based focused deterrence strategy. The city's first task is to identify the distinct mechanism each one targets. The hot spot strategy acts on locations, concentrating presence where violence clusters. Focused deterrence acts on a small group of people, combining consequences with support. Each carries its own cost. The city must weigh the community relations cost of the place-based option. Against that, it must weigh the resources needed to identify participants accurately for the people-based option. Given the evidence, the answer may well involve both, evaluated honestly.
Quick Check
Spotting the Displacement Objection
Quick check: violence drops at the targeted location, and rises a few blocks away. Which objection does that illustrate? Pause, and decide. Displacement: the reduction may have simply relocated rather than disappeared.
Key Takeaways
Test, Combine, and Evaluate Honestly
To recap: violence is preventable, and a public health model shows the steps. Strategies act on places, people, regulation, or structure. Test each with a comparison group before scaling it. And the evidence favors combinations, evaluated honestly. Next, Subchapter ten point seven closes the chapter with the community and societal response to violent crime.
About Criminology at UPI Study
Criminology (Criminology 150) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 21 chapters, from classical criminology and crime data to theories of crime, victims, policing, courts and corrections. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Criminology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Criminology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Emerging Patterns and Prevention Strategies for Violent Crime
What does the public health approach add to violence prevention?
What are the main types of violence prevention strategies?
How can firearm policy be discussed neutrally in criminology?
How do you judge whether a violence prevention strategy works?
About the Criminology course
How many college credits is Criminology?
How much does Criminology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Criminology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Criminology.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →