Full text of DOI:10.1093/cdj/36.3.212

© 2001 OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL
Mary Lane and
Kaylene Henry
Community
development,
crime and
violence:
a case study
ABSTRACT A community development project in a Sydney suburb provides an
opportunity to explore the potential of community development as a means for
‘street crime’ prevention. Violence and crime are seen as social problems associated
with social, economic and political disadvantage. A broad programme of social
development is undertaken, aimed at increasing educational and recreational oppor-
tunities for children and young adults, and at promoting inclusion and the capacity
of local people to deal with social problems in their area. Outcomes suggest that a
combination of social projects, modifications to the built environment and com-
munity development processes, can be an effective means for creating safer, more
neighbourly places, as well as achieving social justice outcomes for disadvantaged
people.
Introduction
In this paper we explore the potential of community development to con-
tribute to the prevention of crime and violence. In doing so, we note simi-
larities between many of the purposes, values, and strategies of community
development and those of certain crime prevention approaches. We refer,
particularly, to developmental and socio-cultural approaches which link the
incidence and fear of crime and violence, with inequality, social exclusion
and lack of opportunity for children and young people to develop their
potential (King, 1989; Weatherburn, 1992; Farrington, 1994; Hope, 1997;
Weatherburn and Lind, 1998).
Although a contested concept, community development is characteris-
tically described as a ‘grass-roots’, enabling intervention which seeks
through participatory processes to redress inequality and exclusion (Hen-
derson, Jones and Thomas, 1980; Fordham, 1993; Henry and Lane, 1993;
Checkoway, 1995; Ife, 1995; Lane, 1999). The work generally takes place
with marginalized groups, viewed as socio-economically, culturally, or
politically disadvantaged.
It is the explicit commitment to tackling inequality, disadvantage and
exclusion which we emphasize in this paper, concerned as we are to draw
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL
VOL. 36 NO. 3 July 2001 pp. 212–222

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, CRIME AND VIOLENCE
213
some connections between community development interventions, the pre-
vention and reduction of crime and violence, and social justice outcomes. A
community development project in a Sydney suburb serves to illuminate
connections and the focus is on what is commonly referred to as ‘street
crime’ – bashings, robbery, intimidation, vandalism, household theft. We
acknowledge however, this is a limited view of ‘crime’ and does not include
domestic violence, white collar and corporate crime, all of which are wide-
spread.
Connections between disadvantage and crime victimization are well
documented. In low income urban communities such as public housing
estates, fear of crime and the risk of being a victim are much higher than in
other types of neighbourhoods (Sarre, 1994; Bright, 1997; Murie, 1997; Pitts
and Hope, 1997). The problem is compounded by poverty; residents lacking
the material resources to protect themselves. Such was the case in the
project we explore.
Project Context
The geographical base for the Residents in Safer Environments (RISE)
project was a public housing estate in the Fairfield Local Government Area,
Sydney. Built in 1981 on a site originally occupied by about 400 people in
89 single standing residences, the estate was a medium density development
with 253 dwellings and around 1200 people with a population which
included large numbers of children, adolescents and unemployed young
single adults. By the late 1980’s, there were over 60 language groups in the
estate and 57% of the population were from non-English speaking back-
grounds. Many were refugees from south-east Asia, the middle east, Europe
and South America (Lane, 1990; Lane, 1999).
Until 1991, funding for a generalist community worker on the estate and
in the surrounding area had been limited and sporadic, leading to a turnover
of workers and few resources to deal with identified problems. Conse-
quently, whilst there had been some positive changes associated with com-
munity development, youth work and community artswork (Lane, 1988;
Cazalet and Lane, 1988; Lane, 1990; Henry, 1990; Lane, 1991) many social
problems continued. These included unemployment, early school leaving,
inadequate recreational opportunities for children and youth, and diffi-
culties with the English language and with obtaining information about
rights and services (Mahtani, 1988).
Street crime and violence had been a concern for residents ever since the
very first people moved into the estate (Vasta, 1983) and consequently, par-
ticipation in community activities was adversely affected by the reality and
fear of violence. The disrepair of the built environment, overflowing
garbage bins and the presence of fierce dogs, compounded fear, giving an
impression of social disorderliness (Richards, 1990; cf. Willemse, 1994;
Grabosky, 1995).

214 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 36 NO. 3 2001
In 1990, Fairfield City Council sponsored the Safer Neighbourhood
Project to research and promote crime prevention in the local government
area. The researcher identified one of the ‘trouble spots’ as the estate dis-
cussed above, commenting that it ‘appeared to be a community that greatly
needed a crime prevention program . . . a very demoralized and poorly
resourced community’ (Fairfield City Council, 1991, 18).
The research added weight to the arguments of residents and a local com-
munity development agency, Fairfield Community Resource Centre
(FCRC), for a full time community development worker for the estate.
FCRC gained funding from the state Department of Planning and the
worker commenced at the beginning of 1991. His first priorities were to
establish contact with residents and encourage their participation in a broad
programme of community development aimed at improving the social and
material conditions of existence.
At much the same time, another major intervention commenced – exten-
sive physical upgrading of the estate. Faced with huge maintenance costs
resulting from vandalism, break and enters and trashing of vacant proper-
ties, the Department of Housing had at last recognized that problems in the
estate required more than minor, ad hoc modifications to properties.
Upgrading sought to open up the estate, and increase community surveil-
lance and tenant satisfaction with homes and ‘place’. Strategies included
closing alleyways, enlarging private space around homes, and re-designing
homes to face outwards towards public streets rather than inwards towards
the estate. We see here parallels with the ideas of Jacobs (1962) and
Newman (1972), who spelt out theories of crime prevention though urban
design.
Two major interventions were thus introduced – full time community
development work and radical structural changes to the environment. A
third intervention followed . . .
Residents in Safer Environments: the RISE
project
A year after the community development worker commenced, the National
Roads and Motorists Association (NRMA) stated their interest in funding
a crime prevention project in the Fairfield Local Government Area (a high
crime area according to their home and car insurance claims and police
data). The NRMA had previously sponsored Neighbourhood Watch in
NSW, but wanted to test a new approach to community crime prevention.
The public housing estate emerged as a favoured location for the pilot
project for several reasons: previous research identified it as an extremely
vulnerable neighbourhood subject to crime and social problems; a well
respected and capable community development worker was based there;
and he recognized financial resources were needed to address the violence
and crime concerns of residents.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, CRIME AND VIOLENCE
215
Negotiations between the NRMA, the worker, and his employer (FCRC)
set terms for the RISE project which aimed to reduce street violence, van-
dalism and theft. Community development would be the means for tackling
immediate problems, as well as opening the way for longer term trans-
formation by addressing the conditions associated with crime and violence.
The RISE project would not be separate from the broad programme of
social development that the worker and residents were already undertak-
ing. And, the three years of generous funding offered by the NRMA would
be spent on activities identified by residents through community develop-
ment processes.
There is strong support, in Australia and internationally, for holistic,
social development approaches to crime prevention. Sutton (1997, 20)
refers to a review of Australian projects by Coventry et al (1992) who note
that a focus on crime prevention, rather than social development and social
justice, can deflect attention from ‘the real problems’, such as lack of access
to employment and adequate housing. In his discussion of disadvantaged
communities and multiple deprivation in OECD countries, Fordham (1993)
supports an integrated, multi-objective response, arguing there is substan-
tial evidence ‘that single-objective programmes, whether to do with edu-
cation, crime, housing, or economic development, by themselves cannot
work’ (p. 301).
Project implementation
From the outset, the worker sought residents’ views about directions for
RISE, talking with residents he knew through existing networks, and doing
a wider, random doorknock survey. The survey was designed to promote
discussion and encourage ownership of the project by residents. Despite
difficulties of language and fear, about 70 residents were surveyed with chil-
dren and young people deliberately included as they were seen as import-
ant stakeholders.
The survey gave clear direction to the project. It overwhelmingly found
that theft, vandalism and fear of violence were major issues for residents.
Responses did not provide evidence of an association between particular
ethnic groups and being an offender or victim – respondents took a broad
view, prioritizing activities for young people and those that brought the
community together as areas for positive intervention.
A planning day, where residents discussed survey results and identified
potential projects, was followed by a launch of RISE – a community event
with food and entertainment, allowing priorities and planned projects to be
promoted to a broader ‘community’.
Two main groups of projects were implemented: to address the needs of
youth and children, and to increase resources and networks in the wider
community. Programmes for young people aimed to build self esteem,
encourage participation in education, increase employment opportunities,

216 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 36 NO. 3 2001
and provide positive recreational outlets. They included holiday and after
school activities, camps, training and tutoring programmes, and sponsorship
of local sporting teams. Emphasis in all these activities was inclusion: to
bring young people into the life of the estate and to increase their oppor-
tunities for broader social and economic participation.
Community resources and networks were built through activities such as
playgroups, women’s groups, English classes, sewing classes, craft groups,
market days, and public parties and celebrations. Whilst seeking inclusion,
projects also emphasized the cultural diversity of the area and promoted
respect for difference. It was believed that an appreciation of diversity
would reduce the isolation, marginalization and violence which is associated
with fear of ‘the other’.
Broad participation was an ongoing and crucial feature of RISE. Funda-
mental, was the ability for people to participate at the level at which they
were comfortable – a critical issue in an area with high non-English speak-
ing background and youth populations, and long history of resident dis-
empowerment. As well as an annual evaluation, and planning meetings, a
core group of residents met regularly with the worker and other project staff
to oversee the day by day running of RISE; others attended meetings to
discuss particular aspects of the project. Many people chose to participate
simply by attending a RISE activity. Most importantly, resident partici-
pation was maintained through the worker’s day by day community
development work – contacting people, consulting with them, encouraging
them, and sharing information.
Project impact
Difficulties with ‘measurement’
One might assume that ‘measuring’ impact could best be done by analyzing
crime statistics. There are, however, a multitude of problems with this
approach, including under-reporting, and logistical problems with the way
data is collected, stored and analyzed (Norton, 1991a; Weatherburn, 1992).
We experienced such difficulties when we sought to use police statistics
as part of our assessment of impact. It was the view of a senior local police-
man that violence and crime had dropped in the estate during the time of
the project (Christley and Lane, 1995). We were however, unable to back
up this claim with comparative figures as there had been changes in the ways
that police calls were recorded.
Difficulties were also encountered when trying to access statistics from
other sources. Two years into the project, an NRMA representative claimed
that their statistics indicated household and car theft in the area had
declined, ‘because we’ve put a lot of work into it. . .community liaison work’
(Rush, 1995, 10;32). No statistics were provided to allow exploration of
these claims.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, CRIME AND VIOLENCE
217
The usefulness of statistics is further challenged by the argument that it
is the public’s perception of the crime problem and the public’s fear of crime
which has the most significant impact on the quality of life of individuals,
families and ‘communities’ (Grabosky, 1995, 1; Norton, 1991b, 2–3). It is
fear of crime, rather than crime rates, which should, then, be the focus for
measurement of change.
Taking up this argument, we now turn to some qualitative sources of
evidence for further insight into the project’s impact.
Sources of evidence
In 1991, Norton undertook an extensive study to measure fear of crime, per-
ceptions of the local crime problem, and victimization in the suburb which
included the project area (Norton, 1991b). His study gathered responses
from 180 randomly chosen residents representing a diversity of language
groups, 99 of whom lived in the public housing estate where RISE was later
to be based. Norton’s study provides a solid starting point for any assess-
ment of changes during the time of the RISE project.
One source of evidence comes from the extensive documentation of resi-
dents and paid workers views of community development on the estate,
which include reflections about the impact of RISE (Christley and Lane,
1992/3/4; Lane and Vinson, 1994; Christley and Lane, 1996).
A second source of evidence is the evaluation commissioned by the
NRMA and undertaken by Rush and Partners two years after RISE began.
The Rush report (1995) drew on 20 in-depth interviews, and a survery of 90
residents from the estate, with surveys in English and other community lan-
guages. The interviewing staff were residents and used their local know-
ledge to network within the estate: some interviewed door-to-door; others
followed networks of speakers of a particular language.
A third source is ‘Villawood Infront’ (1995), a project of the Department
of Housing and the University of Technology Sydney, to provide a strategic
plan for the estate. The report draws on interviews in 1995 with ‘individuals
and groups identified as having an interest in the estate’ – the Department
of Housing, residents, service providers and local government (p. 18).
Aspects of change
(i) Perception of Crime: The Norton study in 1991, found that 66.7% of
estate respondents evaluated the local crime problem as quite serious or
very serious (Norton, 1991b, 9). In 1994, participants in the Rush survey
were asked what they disliked about the neighbourhood. Just over 15% said
‘nothing’, and only 39% named crime/break-ins (Rush, 1995, 44). Nearly
two thirds (62%) said that during the last year or so, the neighbourhood had
become a ‘nicer’ place to live (Rush, 1995, 45). The ‘Villawood Infront’

218 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 36 NO. 3 2001
report (1995) stated: ‘Residents put forward generally favourable com-
ments about the estate. Most are very happy living there and come across
few problems’ (p. 18). It compared its findings to Norton’s, and stated:
‘Interviews with other service providers including Police, Department of
Community Services, local schools, Health and Ambulance indicate that the
problems on the estate have been considerably reduced’ (p. 19). Residents
interviewed for the Rush report agreed:
‘There was a lot of thieving going on and now it’s cut right back.’ (p. 9)
‘Since the project started the area has become safer, there are fewer break-ins
and places being trashed’ (p. 23)
‘There’s a noticeable change. People aren’t so worried about personal safety’
(p. 23).
Evidence suggests a widespread perception that street violence and crime
had dropped during the time of the project and that consequently the area
was a safer, more ‘neighbourly’ place to live.
(ii) Levels of Fear: In 1991, 52.5% of the estate respondents in Norton’s
survey, indicated that the local crime problem was serious enough to seek
a move from the area (Norton, 1991b, 9). In contrast, 82% of Rush respon-
dents planned to stay on the estate, and none of the 13% hoping to move,
named crime as their motivation (1995, pp. 41–42). Rush quotes a
representative of the Department of Housing as saying, ‘they are staying (in
the area) whereas I understand there used to be a very high turnover’
(p. 24). This is consistent with the findings of the ‘Villawood Infront’ report,
which noted that statistical data about tenancy turnover rate did not support
a negative community perception of the estate (1995, p. 25).
In Norton’s study, 52.5% of estate respondents indicated they would be
very worried about burglary if leaving their house for one hour or less
(1991b, 8). Norton noted many residents were virtually housebound; in some
families, members even took separate holidays to ensure their home was
never unattended (p. 12). In contrast, Rush found that of their 90 respon-
dents, just over two thirds had been to an activity or function on the estate
in the past year; some being ongoing commitments, others all-day events
(1995, p. 47). By 1994, the community development worker was also able to
identify many changes in resident behaviour, including increased levels of
participation in decision making about local projects and increased use of the
neighbourhood centre and other public spaces such as the park – the latter,
particularly by families with young children (Christley, 1995). There is a
strong argument that increased communal activity contributes to a reduction
in fear through the provision of ‘natural’ surveillance and the social rep-
resentation of greater security (James, 1997, 44; Hughes, 1998, 151).
According to Grabosky (1995, 3), ‘lack of neighbourhood cohesion, as
represented by the feeling that neighbours tend not to help each other, is an

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, CRIME AND VIOLENCE
219
important factor associated with fear of crime. The presence of sociable
neighbours can help reduce fear.’ In 1991, Norton found that 26.8% of estate
respondents did not know and trust a neighbour they could call on for assist-
ance (1991b, p. 85). In 1994, 93% of Rush survey respondents could call a
neighbour for help in an emergency, and 83% could enjoy a social cup of tea
with a neighbour (p. 46). When asked to name some ‘nice’ things about the
neighbourhood, 71% named ‘friendly caring neighbours/caring friendly
people’. This was the reply most frequently given to this question (p. 43).
Reduced tenant turnover, increased participation in public life, and
increased neighbourliness, suggest that between 1991 and 1994, fear of
crime had been reduced.
(iii) Quality of Life: Reductions in fear, along with increases in services,
activities and opportunities to participate meaningfully in the life of the
estate, had positive results for the quality of individual’s lives. The follow-
ing words from a resident capture the point: ‘When I think about [the area]
and how I feel about it now, it’s changed a lot. I like the place now. My whole
attitude’s changed. It’s not so bad. I’ve got to know people and involved in
other things’ (in Christley and Lane, 1996, p. 87).
Just as significantly, there is widespread evidence that there was an
increase in the level of social cohesion on the estate. Resident comments in
Rush (1995) and Lane and Vinson (1994), reflect an increased sense of
belonging, an appreciation of diversity and an attitude of inclusion toward
others. Rush states that a significant number of respondents said the area
was changing for the better in that residents were mixing more and there
was a better acceptance of each other (p. 8). A typical comment notes
‘people coming together from different walks of life, different nationalities,
making friends and staying friends’ (p. 19). The ‘Villawood Infront’ report,
when comparing its findings to those of Norton’s (1991b), also notes a far
more positive sense of community on the estate (1995, p. 19).
Associated with this increased social cohesion, was a belief that change
was both possible, and within resident control. In 1991, Norton found that
respondents looked to the police and justice system to remedy the crime
problem, even though most respondents identified the causes of crime as
social – drug and alcohol abuse and unemployment, particularly amongst
young people (1991b, pp. 72–74). In contrast, comments in the Rush report
reflect a community confident of taking successful action themselves to
reduce crime (pp. 20, 32).
On the ‘quality of life’ factor, there is substantial evidence of positive
change during the life of the project.
Links between interventions and outcomes
Whilst it is possible to show that during four years of community develop-
ment work there were demonstrable changes in the area of intervention, a

220 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 36 NO. 3 2001
harder task is to link identified outcomes with specific interventions. To
what might the perceived and tangible changes be attributed?
This is a difficult question facing broad-aimed, multi-strategy projects. As
noted earlier, social problems are inter-dependent and require integrated,
multi-objective, multi-strategy responses (Fordham, 1993). It is, then,
extremely difficult to clearly identify the effects of particular strategies. In
the work under discussion, for instance, it is questionable whether it is poss-
ible to separate out the effects – in terms of reductions in crime and vio-
lence – of RISE interventions (increased services and activities), design
changes to the estate, and community development processes, as these three
interventions were integrated and occurred concurrently (cf. James 1997,
p. 53).
It could well be that it is this very combination which was essential for
achieving change. That is, the perceived and apparent reduction in violence
and crime in the area were due to a combination and integration of
strategies – money for specific, locality-based social projects; changes to the
physical environment which created ‘defensible spaces’ along with in-
creased use of public areas; and skilled, broadly based, community develop-
ment which brought resources and strategies together to achieve desired
outcomes. We see here an integration of situational, developmental and
socio-cultural approaches to the prevention of violence and crime – modi-
fying physical environments; providing opportunities for young children
and youth; addressing underlying social problems and injustices.
It seems reasonable to argue then, that it is this combination of resourced
and skilled community development with careful planning of built environ-
ments which can provide a good recipe for tackling neighbourhood violence
and crime. Arguing for the effectiveness of a mixture of approaches is not
new (Sutton, 1994, 218). What we are emphasising as well, though, is the
means – that is, the potential of community development as a means for
achieving that effective mix, and for achieving it in a way which is consist-
ent with social justice outcomes for disadvantaged groups.
The authors are employed at the University of Sydney.
Address for correspondence: Mary Lane, Department of Social Work,
Social Policy and Sociology, The University of Sydney, RC Mills Building,
A26, NSW 2006, Australia.
References
Bright, J. (1997) Turning the Tide: Crime, Community and Prevention. Demos,
London, UK.
Cazalet, D. and Lane, M. (1988) Villawood Community Artsworker Project. Fairfield
Community Resource Centre, Fairfield, NSW.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, CRIME AND VIOLENCE
221
Checkoway, B. (1995) Six strategies of community change, Community Develop-
ment Journal, 30(1), 2–20.
Christley, J. (1995) Qualitative Changes on Villawood Housing Estate, 1990–1994.
Unpublished working notes.
Christley, J. and Lane, M. (1992/3/4) Villawood Interviews. Private audio tapes.
Christley, J. and Lane, M. (1995) Interview with a senior policeman at Fairfield, NSW.
Private notes.
Christley, J. and Lane, M. (1996) In This Place: Stories of Villawood. Christley Lane
Publications and Local Community Services Association, Sydney.
Coventry, G., Muncie, J. and Walters, R. (1992) Rethinking Social Policy for Young
People and Crime Prevention. La Trobe University Centre for Socio-Legal
Studies, Melbourne.
Fairfield City Council (1991) Summary Report: Safer Neighbourhood Project. Fair-
field City Council, Fairfield, NSW.
Farrington, D. (1994) Human development and criminal careers, in M. Maguire, R.
Morgan and R. Reiner, eds, Oxford Handbook of Criminology (1st edition),
Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.
Fordham, G. (1993) Sustaining local involvement. Community Development
Journal, 28(4) 299–304.
Grabosky, P.N. (1995) Fear of crime and fear reduction strategies. Trends and Issues
in Crime and Criminal Justice, 44, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.
Henderson, P., Jones, D. and Thomas, D.N., eds. (1980) The Boundaries of Change
in Community Work, George Allen and Unwin, London, UK.
Henry, K. (1990) A Report of the Community Artsworker Project. Prepared for The
Australia Council and Fairfield Community Resource Centre, Fairfield, NSW.
Henry, K. and Lane, M. (1993) Once Upon a Time: Stories About Community Work.
Local Community Services Association, Sydney.
Hope, T. (1997) Inequality and the future of community crime prevention, in S. Lab,
ed., Crime Prevention at a Crossroads. Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and
Anderson Publishing, Kentucky and Ohio, pp. 143–158.
Hughes, G. (1998) Understanding Crime Prevention: Social Control, Risk and Late
Modernity. Open University Press, Buckingham and Philadelphia.
Ife, J. (1995) Community Development: Creating Community Alternatives. Longman
Australia, Melbourne.
Jacobs, J. (1962) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Jonathan Cape,
London, UK.
James, S. (1997) Crime prevention and public housing: the dynamics of control, in
P. O’Malley and A. Sutton, eds, Crime Prevention in Australia: Issues in Policy
and Research. The Federation Press, Sydney, pp. 38–63.
King, M.J. (1989) Crime prevention French style, Australian Crime Prevention
Council Journal, 11(1), 4–15.
Lane, M. (1988) The Villawood Community Work Project: an Evaluation. A report
prepared for the NSW Department of Housing, and Fairfield Community
Resource Centre, Fairfield, NSW.
Lane, M. (1990) Community work with immigrant groups, Australian Social Work,
43(3), 33–38.
Lane, M. (1991) Memory and Imagination: Community Arts, Community Develop-
ment, a video. The University of Sydney, Sydney.

222 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 36 NO. 3 2001
Lane, M. and Vinson, T. (1994) Community Development and Crime: The RISE
Project, a video. School of Social Work, University of New South Wales, and
Department of Social Work, Social Policy and Sociology, The University of
Sydney, Sydney.
Lane, M. (1999) Community development and a postmodernism of resistance, in B.
Pease and J. Fook, eds, Transforming Social Work Practice: Postmodern Critical
Perspectives. Allen and Unwin, Sydney, pp. 135–149.
Mahtani, S. (1988) Just Hanging Around. Fairfield Community Resource Centre,
Fairfield, NSW.
Murie, A. (1997) Linking housing changes to crime, Social Policy and Adminis-
tration, 31(5), 22–36.
Newman, O. (1972) Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design,
Macmillan, New York.
New South Wales Department of Housing and University of Technology Sydney
(1995) Villawood Infront: An Integrated Strategy. A report produced under the
direction of L. Crawford UTS and reporting to the NSW DOH Steering Com-
mittee, Sydney.
Norton, R. (1991a) A Profile of Crime in Fairfield Local Government Area, July 1985
to June 1990. Fairfield City Council, Fairfield, NSW.
Norton, R. (1991b) Fear of Crime, Perceptions of the Local Crime Problem and Vic-
timisation. Fairfield City Council, Fairfield, NSW.
Pitts, J. and Hope, T. (1997) The local politics of inclusion: the state and community
safety, Social Policy and Administration, 31(5), 37–58.
Richards, S. (1990) Villawood 1990. A report to the NSW Department of Housing,
Sydney.
Rush, J. and Partners (1995) Residents in Safer Environments: The RISE Project in
Fairfield, Sydney. A research report prepared for NRMA Pty Ltd, Sydney.
Sarre, R. (1994) Violence: patterns of crime, in D. Chappell and P. Wilson, eds, The
Australian Criminal Justice System: The Mid 1990’s, Butterworths, Sydney, 37–60.
Sutton, A. (1994) Community crime prevention: a national perspective, in D. Chap-
pell and P. Wilson, eds, The Australian Criminal Justice System: the Mid 1990’s.
Butterworths, Sydney, 213–234.
Sutton, A. (1997) Crime prevention: policy dilemmas – a personal account, in P.
O’Malley and A. Sutton, eds, Crime Prevention in Australia: Issues in Policy and
Research. The Federation Press, Sydney, pp. 12–37.
Vasta, S. (1983) There is Nothing Stately About Living on This Estate. Fairfield Com-
munity Resource Centre, Fairfield, NSW.
Weatherburn, D. (1992) Economic adversity and crime, Trends and Issues in Crime
and Criminal Justice, 40, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.
Weatherburn, D. and Lind, B. (1998) Poverty, parenting, peers and crime-prone
neighbourhoods, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 85, Australian
Institute of Criminology, Canberra.
Willemse, H.M. (1994) Developments in Dutch crime prevention, in R. Clarke and
D. Weisburd, eds, Crime Prevention Studies, 2, Criminal Justice Press, Monsey,
New York, 33–48.