A review of crime prevention activities in an Australian local government area since the late 1980s

Abstract

To date, there has been limited analysis of local crime prevention approaches adopted in one council or local government area over time. This article seeks to partially address this gap. By reviewing crime prevention initiatives adopted by a single council in New South Wales (Australia) over time, it was possible to identify some continuities and discontinuities and to reflect on the impact of crime trends and changing demography on local approaches to crime prevention. Through a desktop analysis of the demographic profile of the area, crime trends across time, and crime prevention plans drafted by the council from the late 1980s, it became apparent that the council has adopted a myriad of crime prevention measures, many of which have continued over numerous years, complicating evaluation efforts of whole crime prevention plans and individual crime prevention measures; the cultural and linguistic diversity of the area has greatly affected how crime prevention is conceptualised and delivered and that crime trends have impacted crime prevention planning, but perhaps not in as clear a manner as might be expected. This case study highlights the challenges facing local governments with diverse populations, covering large geographic areas, with limited funding to support crime prevention activities, and raises questions about the roles of higher tiers in government in preventing crime.

Local government and crime prevention

The significant role assumed by local government in the delivery of crime prevention is well documented (see Crawford 1997; Shaw 2001; Hughes 2002; Sutton and Cherney 2002; UNODC 2004; Cherney 2004a, b; Anderson and Homel 2005; Homel 2005; Cherney 2006; Cherney and Sutton 2007; Sutton et al. 2008; Homel 2009; Shaw 2009; Clancey et al. 2012; Homel and Fuller 2015). The localised nature of much crime, the need to understand local crime problems and community dynamics, the importance of communication with local community members, as well as the capacity to mobilise local resources and form partnerships, are all reasons for local government taking responsibility for some aspects of crime prevention planning and delivery (Clancey et al. 2012).

As Clancey et al. (2016) suggest, commitment to crime prevention at the local government level has in some respects in the Australian context surpassed State and Territory crime prevention activities. All Australian capital city councils (and many smaller councils) now actively pursue diverse crime prevention initiatives and policies. While the state-level commitment to crime prevention in New South Wales (NSW) has been characterised as a ‘stop-and-start affair’ (Homel 2005, p 36), there has been a continuous commitment by local governments to crime prevention largely since the late 1980s and early 1990s (Clancey 2016). Recurring situational crime prevention policies at the local level have included alcohol-free zones, closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems in public spaces, graffiti removal programs and street lighting initiatives (Clancey et al. 2016, p 14). Similarly, social crime prevention programs at the local level have addressed issues of domestic violence, homelessness, drug use, and encompassed targeted initiatives for Indigenous populations and young people (Clancey et al. 2016, p 14).

Moreover, research assessing the role of local government in crime prevention has highlighted consistent recourse to partnerships in the delivery of crime prevention programs (Clancey et al. 2012). This suggests that while local government plays a critical role in ‘steering’ crime prevention within a local government area (LGA), much of the work (and responsibility) for implementing the initiatives lies with adjunct local groups, individuals, companies and mostly importantly other tiers of government (Clancey et al. 2012, p 236).

This notwithstanding, relatively little scholarship has focused on trends over time in localised forms of prevention, especially through longitudinal analysis of crime prevention activities in one location or LGA. This article seeks to redress this gap by pursuing a place-based analysis of crime and crime prevention activities operating in the Fairfield LGA, one of two NSW local councils that first formally embarked on tackling crime prevention in the late 1980s.

The case study site: Fairfield local government area (LGA)

An understanding of the socio-historical dynamics which characterise the Fairfield LGA is critical to an analysis of crime prevention responses to local crime problems and patterns in the area.

Fairfield LGA is a 104-square kilometre area in south-western Sydney. The traditional custodians of the land are the Cabrogal clan of the Darug Nation. The LGA now encompasses numerous suburbs, over 450 parks, is home to a large residential population and covers significant commercial and industrial areas.

Rapid population growth took place in the post-war period with large-scale settlement of European migrants and ex-servicemen facilitated by the establishment of a migrant camp. The area has continued to be an important site for newly arrived migrants (as depicted in Table 1). Between 1948 and 1979, the population increased from 27,000 to 120,000, spurred by development of extensive public housing estates in the 1950s, and further by greenfield developments from the 1960s to 1990s. Recent development of medium-density dwellings in the City is forecast to contribute to further population growth (ID Community, Fairfield City Community Profile).

Table 1 Socio-demographic characteristics of Fairfield LGA.

From Table 1, it is evident that the population of Fairfield increased by 16, 897 people from 1996 to 2016. The median age of 36 years in 2016 was the same as that for Greater Sydney; however, the median total family income was lower in Fairfield at $1220 per week in 2016 compared with $1745 in Greater Sydney. Moreover, the rate of unemployment was significantly greater in Fairfield than Greater Sydney at 10.5% compared with 6.0%, respectively, in 2016 and significantly more people were in state housing (8.1% in Fairfield compared with 4.6% in Greater Sydney). In contrast, 31% of the Fairfield population own their home outright in 2016, while 27.7% own their home in Greater Sydney.

Of the overall population in Fairfield LGA, a stable minority (40.6–43.2%) were born in Australia and a declining minority speak only English at home (falling from 32.8% in 1996 to 24.8% in 2016). This represents a large and growing proportion of people born overseas and from a non-English-speaking background compared to Greater Sydney (with 57.1% of the Greater Sydney population born in Australia and 58.4% speaking only English at home in 2016).

This birthplace and language data capture the cultural diversity which typifies the Fairfield LGA. As Table 2 demonstrates, the variety of birthplace countries is also illustrative of historical settlement patterns. Overall, 53.9% of the population was born overseas in 2016 with Vietnam as the largest non-English-speaking country of birth contingency in Fairfield from 1996 to 2016. Between 2011 and 2016, the largest increases in those born overseas were for those born in Syria (with an increase of 1542 people), Vietnam (with an increase of 3308 people) and Iraq (with an increase of 4214 people).

Table 2 Largest 8 overseas born populations in Fairfield.

The three largest ancestries, and consequently the largest cultural groups, represented in Fairfield in 2016 included Vietnamese, Chinese and Assyrian/Chaldean. Additionally, 61.9% of the overseas born population arrived prior to 2001 with 16% arriving during or after 2011 (see Table 3).

Table 3 Year of arrival in Australia by percentage of enumerated population in Fairfield.

This, somewhat limited, description of the Fairfield LGA and its residents highlights the significant size of the geographical area, the diversity of the population (reputedly the most diverse city in NSW and one of the most diverse in Australia, see Gow 2005 and Barr 2017), the significant number of new residents arriving in the area each decade (many of which have fled war and conflict), and the generally lower rates of employment and income levels experienced in the area. These are important contextual features with particular ramifications for local crime prevention planning efforts.

Research methods

The research methods adopted for this project included desktop reviews, crime data analysis, and analysis of relevant crime prevention documentation. Specifically:

• Desktop reviews allowed for an understanding of the historical, social, cultural and economic dynamics which characterise the Fairfield area over time.

• Crime data analysis involved accrual of crime data from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) for the Fairfield LGA for a 19-year period from April 1999 to March 2018 and its analysis to determine crime trends. This is the longest period available from the Bureau’s online data tools.

• Documentation analysis of relevant crime prevention/community safety documents delivered by Fairfield Council and affiliated organisations was undertaken to capture the programs and interventions devised to address crime problems in Fairfield.

Two key research questions guided this work:

• 1. What interventions and programs exist in the Fairfield LGA that facilitate crime prevention?

• 2. To what extent are these programs and interventions responsive to historical and current crime problems and trends in the Fairfield area?

It is acknowledged that these methods only provide a partial insight into crime prevention activities in the Fairfield LGA over time. Interviews with current and former council (and other relevant agency staff) staff would have helped to shed light on forces shaping particular approaches to crime prevention over time, and analysis of State and Federal government policies and laws impacting local crime prevention activities would have been beneficial but were beyond the scope of this project.

Crime trends in Fairfield LGA

The below analysis of crime trends in the Fairfield LGA facilitates assessment of the extent to which interventions and programs implemented in Fairfield were responsive to crime problems and patterns.

Crime data were accessed from BOCSAR for the Fairfield LGA. Data canvassing 63 offence categories were analysed to identify key crime trends or problems in the Fairfield area between April 1999 and March 2018. Many offence categories recorded fewer than fifty incidents over this time period and are subsequently not included here. Key volume offences were identified as those with 500 + incidents per annum between 1999 and 2018. Table 4 depicts those volume offences which have fallen over the 1999–2018 period and those volume offences which have risen over the same period are noted below Table 4.

Table 4 Average decline per annum for offence categories exhibiting a downward trend between 1999 and 2018 in Fairfield.

Offence categories which have risen in prevalence include assault—domestic violence related, breach bail conditions, intimidation, stalking and harassment, liquor offences, possession and/or use of cannabis, and transport regulatory offences. Incidence of fraud and steal from person were stable and not calculable, respectively.

As can be seen, many volume offence categories have fallen across the 19-year period with some increases (mostly related to regulatory and law enforcement-driven offence categories). However, this does not reveal how crime trends in Fairfield LGA compare with other areas.

When compared with crime rates in other LGAs, Fairfield LGA’s overall average rank is 64 (noting that 1 is the highest and therefore the area that has the worst rate of offending) over the five-year period (see Table 5). The lowest ranks were for break and enter—non-dwelling (with an average rank of 104) and steal from dwelling (with an average of 114). For the following offences, Fairfield LGA placed in the top 50 of the 120 LGAs with populations over 3000: fraud (21); motor vehicle theft (38); receiving or handling stolen goods (27); steal from person (29); and transport regulatory offences (18). Break and enter—dwelling and steal from retail store improved significantly between 2013 and 2017 from 44 to 83 and 47 to 70, respectively.

Table 5 Recorded rank out of 120 LGAs with a population greater than 3000.

These data provide an important backdrop to the following section which considers crime prevention programs and initiatives in the Fairfield LGA, especially given that parts of the LGA were at the centre of the ‘largest heroin distribution point in Australia’ (Darke and Ross 1999, p 39) and ‘Sydney’s drug capital’ in the 1990s (NSW Parliament 2001, p 11). The falls in many crime categories are quite extraordinary when considered in this context. It is also important to note that the crime drop in Fairfield mirrors trends in NSW more broadly with crime across most of NSW either remaining stable or falling between 2016 and 2018 (BOCSAR 2018). Consequently, while the crime decline may be attributable to effective crime prevention policy and practice within the Fairfield LGA, it is also likely impacted by broader social, political and economic factors operating across Greater Sydney and NSW.

Crime prevention in Fairfield

Great thanks to Fairfield City Council, especially Claudia Guajardo (Community Safety and Crime Prevention Officer, Fairfield City Council) for providing historical crime prevention and community safety documentation.

Crime prevention programs and interventions in the Fairfield LGA can be traced back to the joint Community Crime Prevention pilot project run in Waverley Municipal Council and Fairfield City Council during 1990 to 1991 (Hogan 1990; Hogg 1990). This 12-month pilot project involved a review of local crime statistics and development of corresponding local crime prevention responses by a staff member placed in each Council (Clancey 2016, p 193). As part of this project, a motor vehicle theft deterrent strategy was developed alongside community development in ‘high-crime’ estates, and establishment of a cooperative arrangement between Fairfield City Council and local Probation and Parole Service regarding administration of Community Service Orders (Hogg 1990, pp 286–289).

This pilot project became a precursor for greater involvement of local governments across NSW in crime prevention activities. Through the establishment of the NSW Crime Prevention Division, the NSW Crime Prevention Advisory Committee, and legislative guidance for local crime prevention through Part 4 of the Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997, local governments across NSW began to develop formalised crime prevention plans (Clancey 2016).

Consistent with these developments, the Fairfield City Council Crime Prevention Program in 1999 sought to address perceptions of public safety via establishment of inter-agency and collaborative partnerships mandated to implement crime prevention strategies and solutions (Mckenzie 1999). Key priority areas under which programs included:

• 1. Reducing fear of crime and improving public awareness of crime prevention.

• 2. Inter-agency partnerships and collaboration.

• 3. Improving physical environment and infrastructure systems, and

• 4. Community development programs.

Programs established under these umbrellas included initiatives such as the ‘Safe Families’ Domestic Violence educational program, Community Crime Prevention Guide, Business Crime Prevention Handbook, Business Watch Program, ‘Identify Fairfield’ Property Theft Deterrent Program, Community Festivals—Calendar of Events for Community Safety Activities, ‘Park Smarter’ Campaign, Cycleway and Park Safety Project, Community Safety Audits, ‘Family Connections’ Children’s Early Intervention Project, Homeless Person ‘Safe Haven’ Pilot Project, a Community Garden, and a Graffiti Removal Program (further details provided in Table 6).

Table 6 Key Crime Prevention Programs and Activities under the Fairfield City Council Crime Prevention Program from 1999–2002.

Since 1999, crime prevention and community safety plans have been consistently developed and implemented by Fairfield City Council. Given the sheer volume of programs contained within each, focus here will be limited to recurring key policies and initiatives throughout the history of crime prevention in Fairfield LGA. This is largely achieved by looking at the early crime prevention plans developed by Fairfield City Council (1999–2002) and then the most recent crime prevention plan (2013–2017).

In 2001, under the Fairfield City Council Safety Program, some of the aforementioned programs and initiatives were continued with little to no amendments (for example, ‘Out Smart Crime’ Business Crime Prevention Guide, Community Festivals/Special Events, Community Crime Prevention Guide); other pre-existing programs were expanded upon (see Identify Fairfield Property Marking and Theft Deterrent Program, Graffiti Removal Program with Department of Juvenile Justice and Cabramatta Youth Team, ‘Safe Families’ Domestic Violence Project); while some new initiatives were implemented (Seniors Community Safety Seminars, ADRA Care Centre—Cabramatta, Cabramatta Youth Team Summer Series and Self-Defence Program, and Fairfield Cabramatta PCYC) (see Table 6 for a summary of key programs between 1999 and 2002).

What is perhaps most striking about the initiatives outlined in Table 6 is the sheer volume and diversity of activities. These activities focus heavily on education (partly in response to the needs of a culturally diverse community), situational prevention and community-based measures. Interestingly, later plans adopted many of the same themes and initiatives.

The Fairfield City Council Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan 2004–2006 added three additional key priority areas including (1) reducing the incidence and impact of violence in the community, (2) early intervention and prevention/addressing the socio-economic factors behind crime and (3) reducing drug use across the city.

The majority of these programs were maintained in the Fairfield City Council Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan 2005–2008. Comparatively, the 2008–2012 and 2013–2017 Plans have adopted revised or new programs alongside new key priority areas. Under the 2013–2017 Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan, the key priority areas listed include (1) understanding the law; (2) feeling safe: promotion, education and awareness raising of safety at home and in public space; (3) promoting respectful relationships; (4) ‘supporting victims’: reducing offending and preventing domestic and family violence and all other forms of violence in our community; and (5) safety and well-being community partnerships. A list of relevant programs planned for under the respective priority areas is outlined in Table 7.

Table 7 Key Crime Prevention Programs and Activities under the Fairfield City Council Community Safety & Crime Prevention Plan 2013–2017

While the geographical references in Table 7 will be of little benefit to those outside of NSW, the above descriptions further demonstrate the diversity and sheer volume of crime prevention measures described in the most recent Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan. Moreover, a comparison between earlier Fairfield City Council Crime Prevention Programs from 1999 to 2002 and more recent programs implemented between 2013 and 2017 reveals adoption of a broad array of crime prevention strategies over time. Specifically, both situational and social crime prevention initiatives have constituted the bulk of crime prevention efforts in the LGA across the past two decades. Situational crime prevention strategies predominantly inform the more recent Crime Prevention Programs (2013–2017), particularly with proposed expansion to the CCTV camera program and incorporation of CPTED principles in the Graffiti Vandalism Prevention and Management Policy (see Table 7). This is not surprising given considerable evidence pointing to the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of situational crime prevention in reducing crime (Eck 2006; Welsh and Farrington 2001). Despite proliferation of crime prevention programs throughout this time, there is considerable continuity in the strategies which underlie implementation of these initiatives. Consistent focus on education and social prevention initiatives which target cultural diversity within the community as well as community-based and situational crime prevention strategies characterise the crime prevention goals of Fairfield City Council over time.

Discussion

A number of observations arise from this work. Firstly, it is important to note the significant declines in crime in the Fairfield LGA over the 19-year period for which crime data were reviewed. While this is consistent with wider crime trends in Sydney (Weatherburn and Holmes 2013), it should be noted that this is despite significant population growth, much of which has been driven by re-settling newly arrived migrants, many of whom have been escaping war and conflict. This is also on the back of the area being labelled Sydney’s drug capital and Australia’s largest heroin distribution site in the 1990s (Darke and Ross 1999, p 39; NSW Parliament 2001, p 11).

Secondly, it is clear that Fairfield City Council has maintained a strong interest in, and commitment to crime prevention and community safety since they first engaged with this area of work in the late 1980s. Numerous local community safety and crime prevention plans have been drafted and implemented across this period. These plans have included a myriad of crime prevention programs and initiatives.

However, long-term investment in crime prevention in the Fairfield LGA has not always been predicated on evidence-based policy and practice. There has been limited independent analysis or evaluation of the overall community safety and crime prevention plans, or the individual programs and initiatives contained within them. This has been and continues to be a common problem with local crime prevention activities in Australia (Morgan and Homel 2011). Consequently, it is difficult to draw any connection between the falls in crime and individual crime prevention approaches. Moreover, while summaries of crime data in Fairfield preface the Council plans, the extent to which these data inform planning processes is not clear (which echoes the findings of Homel and Fuller 2015, in their analysis of Victorian local government crime prevention arrangements). Given this, it is likely that local-level economic, political and social factors direct crime prevention developments in Fairfield.

Fourthly, the heavy focus on education and engagement of culturally and linguistically diverse groups is noteworthy. This, it is argued, is an issue that has received little commentary in recent crime prevention literature. As outlined in the review of demographic characteristics of the area, Fairfield LGA is home to an incredibly diverse population. With numerous language groups, religious affiliations and cultural practices operating in the area, it is unsurprising that education and community engagement are central to the crime prevention activities of Fairfield City Council. What this means for crime prevention has been less clearly unpacked. Based on this review, it would seem that this has placed considerable responsibility on the Council to translate materials into various languages so that crime prevention concepts can be clearly explained, especially to newly arriving migrants. It also adds layers of complexity to community consultation and education processes.

It is possible to imagine some of the challenges associated with crime prevention efforts in this context. The large geographical area covered by the LGA means there are numerous significant residential populations and various crime attractors and crime generators across the LGA. The multitude of cultural, religious and language groups within the LGA presents challenges associated with engaging groups in crime prevention planning activities, translating materials into numerous community languages, and conveying complex legal and crime prevention-related concepts to diverse communities. Waves of migration exacerbate these challenges with new communities arriving and forming in the LGA. Many of these communities have fled war and conflict and carry negative and traumatic memories of police, government and state institutions from far-off homelands. Thus, while community education and community awareness campaigns might not have especially strong evidence of successfully preventing or reducing crime (Barthe 2006), it is understandable that such approaches have been common throughout the various local crime prevention plans.

Importantly, the weight of research conducted in the US suggests that immigration is not associated with increased levels of crime and to the extent that a correlation between immigration and crime exists, the evidence points to a negative effect of immigration on crime levels, particularly violent crime (Stowell 2007, p 36). Comparatively, Bianchi et al. (2012) assessed correlations between immigration and crime in Italy between 1990 and 2003 and found a direct association between immigration and increased incidence of robberies, but no significant effect on crime overall. Evidently, immigration does not have a universal effect on crime. An examination of the impact of immigration on crime in Fairfield is beyond the scope of this article; however, it is notable that immigration can, in some contexts, have a protective effect on crime rates.

The re-settlement of significant numbers of people fleeing war and conflict is a complex undertaking and one that invokes involvement of the various tiers of government (especially the Federal Government). In this context, crime prevention assumes a much bigger and more complicated picture than what can be achieved by local government. Successful re-settlement of newly arrived migrants is likely to have important crime prevention outcomes, which necessarily elevates analysis beyond the role of local governments.

Conclusion

This article provides an historical snapshot of crime prevention policies and programs implemented in the Fairfield LGA across 30 years. Summaries of key demographic, crime and crime prevention policy trends in this timeframe illustrate the significant complexity and diversity which characterises the Fairfield LGA. The heterogeneity of the population and crime problems as well as the vastness of the area poses unique challenges for crime prevention management. In face of this, Fairfield City Council has consistently pursued highly ambitious and expansive crime prevention and community safety goals which have arguably been implemented successfully given the overall reduction in crime.

While this exercise started out focusing on the role of local government in crime prevention and what has been done in the name of crime prevention in one area over three decades, it turned to reflecting on the impact of re-settling waves of newly arrived migrants in the area and the corresponding implications for crime prevention planning and practice. The incredible cultural and linguistic diversity and somewhat rapid changes in composition of the residential population over time has implications for local crime prevention efforts. Consultation and engagement with diverse cultural and linguistic groups in the preparation of community safety and crime prevention plans is made more difficult by such diversity. Moreover, communicating crime prevention approaches to heterogeneous communities requires considerable attention to translating resources and using interpreters in community settings. Additionally, numerous crime prevention concepts have little or no resonance in particular communities. This undermines any belief in a shared understanding of key concepts surrounding the criminal law, policing, criminal justice and social services.

This area of scholarship, it is argued, is underdeveloped. Local crime prevention, as it evolved in the NSW context, initially had a heavy emphasis on consultation and engagement with community members. In part due to the rise of evidence-based prevention and policy, and the focus on demonstrating results, there has been a move away from what might be considered a more participatory and inclusive approach towards a more technocratic response to crime prevention. It is clear that Fairfield City Council continues to operate in the spirit of the former, as no doubt other local governments do. Consequently, there is merit in giving greater consideration to the dynamics of local crime prevention activities in these highly diverse areas.