Proactive policing, as a strategic approach used by police agencies to prevent crime, is a relatively new phenomenon in the United States. It developed from a crisis in confidence in policing that began to emerge in the 1960s because of social unrest, rising crime rates, and growing skepticism regarding the effectiveness of standard approaches to policing. In response, beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, innovative police practices and policies that took a more proactive approach began to develop. This report uses the term "proactive policing" to refer to all policing strategies that have as one of their goals the prevention or reduction of crime and disorder and that are not reactive in terms of focusing primarily on uncovering ongoing crime or on investigating or responding to crimes once they have occurred. Proactive policing is distinguished from the everyday decisions of police officers to be proactive in specific situations and instead refers to a strategic decision by police agencies to use proactive police responses in a programmatic way to reduce crime. Today, proactive policing strategies are used widely in the United States. They are not isolated programs used by a select group of agencies but rather a set of ideas that have spread across the landscape of policing. Proactive Policing reviews the evidence and discusses the data and methodological gaps on: (1) the effects of different forms of proactive policing on crime; (2) whether they are applied in a discriminatory manner; (3) whether they are being used in a legal fashion; and (4) community reaction. This report offers a comprehensive evaluation of proactive policing that includes not only its crime prevention impacts but also its broader implications for justice and U.S. communities.

Reactions to Crime proceeds, chapter by chapter, from informal, personal, and individual reaction to crime to formal, social, and institutional reactions. The authors synthesise relevant research in this field over the past decade, and assess the state of knowledge as to the causes and consequences of reactions to crime, and the steps taken at an institutional and individual level to deal with fear of crime.

Violence motivated by racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, and homophobia weaves a tragic pattern throughout American history. Fueled by recent high-profile cases, hate crimes have achieved an unprecedented visibility. Only in the past twenty years, however, has this kind of violence—itself as old as humankind—been specifically categorized and labeled as hate crime. Making Hate a Crime is the first book to trace the emergence and development of hate crime as a concept, illustrating how it has become institutionalized as a social fact and analyzing its policy implications. In Making Hate a Crime Valerie Jenness and Ryken Grattet show how the concept of hate crime emerged and evolved over time, as it traversed the arenas of American politics, legislatures, courts, and law enforcement. In the process, violence against people of color, immigrants, Jews, gays and lesbians, women, and persons with disabilities has come to be understood as hate crime, while violence against other vulnerable victims-octogenarians, union members, the elderly, and police officers, for example-has not. The authors reveal the crucial role social movements played in the early formulation of hate crime policy, as well as the way state and federal politicians defined the content of hate crime statutes, how judges determined the constitutional validity of those statutes, and how law enforcement has begun to distinguish between hate crime and other crime. Hate crime took on different meanings as it moved from social movement concept to law enforcement practice. As a result, it not only acquired a deeper jurisprudential foundation but its scope of application has been restricted in some ways and broadened in others. Making Hate a Crime reveals how our current understanding of hate crime is a mix of political and legal interpretations at work in the American policymaking process. Jenness and Grattet provide an insightful examination of the birth of a new category in criminal justice: hate crime. Their findings have implications for emerging social problems such as school violence, television-induced violence, elder-abuse, as well as older ones like drunk driving, stalking, and sexual harassment. Making Hate a Crime presents a fresh perspective on how social problems and the policies devised in response develop over time. A Volume in the American Sociological Association's Rose Series in Sociology

Most studies of fear of crime assume that is rimarily induced by direct or indirect contact with a criminal event. Consequently programs designed to deal with this problem focus on either increased police protection or a number of crime prevention programs. In this study, Dan A. Lewis and Greta W. Salem raise questions both about the validity of these assumptions and the effectiveness of the programs. A five-year investigation has led the authors to challenge those theories that focus only on the psychological responses to victimizations and fail to take into account the social and political environments within which such fears are shaped and nurtured.Explicitly laying out a 'social control' perspective which informs their research and analysis, the authors examine the fear of crime in ten neighorhoods in Chicago, San Francisco, and Philadelphia which represent the range of communities typically found in urban areas. On the basis of their analysis the authors contend that fear of crime is not related to exposure or knowledge about criminal events alone but also stems from residents' concerns about broad changes taking place in their neighborhoods. Many people, they argue, are afraid not only because crime occurs but also because they believe that they have lost control over the environment in which they live.Lewis and Salem conclude that the eradication of fear of crime requires strategies that move beyond the traditional crime prevention programs to consider ways to restore the control that community residents feel they have lost and the possibilities for a more equitable distribution of security in urban areas.