Community Based Crime Prevention in El Salvador: Social Capital and Collective Efficacy

The regional evidence shows that although the countries in Latin America share important problems of violence and insecurity, there are marked differences amongst them when it comes to the magnitude of the problem. The most affected are the northern triangle of Central America (El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras). The high prevalence of crime and violence in Latin America and particularly in the northern triangle, has pressured the governments, international cooperation agencies and civil society to explore options beyond the traditional response of control and repression to address the situation. According to various scholars specialized in the subject, repressive measures have not delivered the expected results in terms of crime and violence reduction, and relying only on the police and the criminal justice system has not worked. On the contrary, it has contributed to a growing and more complex problem. In response, a change of paradigm has been unfolding and violence prevention policies have been gaining support. In this new framework, conditions have been created that allowed a repositioning of prevention policies in the public agenda (Alda, 2014) and within them a recognition of the importance of community participation experiences (Dammert, 2005). Crime prevention initiatives in Latin America show that there is an array of options that countries have been using to address the problem of crime and insecurity in their territories. These can be grouped into three types: (i) Community Based Crime Prevention (CBCP), (ii) Central Government-led crime prevention, and (iii) Community Policing. This study mainly focuses on the CBCP initiatives, which have been defined as: (a) an instrument to prevent crime and violence, and to reduce public fear of crime; (b) a tool to bring together different actors involved in crime prevention; (c) a means of developing local crime and violence prevention partnerships, (d) a method to ensure coordination and management of crime prevention initiatives, and (e) a way to identify priority areas and tasks. It is within this context that we have reviewed the theory of community social disorganization, which focuses on the characteristics of the community that create opportunities for crime. The argument is that the development and strengthening of social capital and collective efficacy are relevant to address the risk factors that encourage criminal and violent behaviour in society and facilitate prevention. Ansari (2013) argues in terms of the interrelation and complementarity of social capital and collective efficacy. Both concepts “are partially overlapping and complementary to one another with regards to establishing and sustaining community social control. When social capital is activated in the specific direction to develop social control, collective efficacy plays an important role by providing a connection and activating the resource of social capital for the specific goal of safety. Social capital alone cannot guarantee safety, but collective efficacy cannot exist in [the] absence of social capital”.