Crime Prevention and Community Safety

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 68–80 | Cite as

Examining guardianship in action in Waco, Texas

  • Meghan E. HollisEmail author
  • Danielle M. Fenimore
  • Monica Caballero
  • Shannon Hankhouse


The guardianship in action (GIA) instrument was originally developed by Reynald (Crime Prev Community Saf 11(1):1–20, 2009) as a tool for measuring guardianship potential at residential properties. This research determined that guardianship intensity at the property level can be measured through direct observation, and the measurement of guardianship intensity is enhanced when measures of aspects of the physical and social environment are included. Guardianship in action has been examined previously in major metropolitan areas and suburban contexts. Research has not examined the utility of the guardianship in action instrument or the related guardianship construct in rural areas, small cities and towns, or smaller non-metropolitan cities. The current study is designed to examine guardianship in action in a smaller, non-metropolitan city—Waco, Texas. Implications for research, theory, and policy are discussed.


Guardianship Guardianship in action Routine activity theory 


  1. Block, R., and W.G. Skogan. 1984. The dynamics of violence between strangers: Victim resistance and outcomes in rape, assault, and robbery. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  2. Brantingham, P.L., and P.J. Brantingham. 1993. Nodes, paths, and edges: Considerations on the complexity of crime and the physical environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 13(1): 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, L.E., and M. Felson. 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44 (4): 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eck, J.E. 1994. Drug markets and drug places. Unpublished PhD diss., University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  5. Eck, J.E. 1995. Examining routine activity theory: A review of two books. Justice Quarterly 12(4): 783–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Felson, M. 1986. Routine activities, social controls, rational decisions, and criminal outcomes. In The reasoning criminal, ed. D. Cornish and R.V. Clarke, 119–128. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Felson, M. 1995. Those who discourage crime. In Crime and place: Crime prevention studies, vol. 4, ed. J.E. Eck and D. Weisburd, 53–66. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  8. Felson, M. 1998. Crime and everyday life, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  9. Felson, M., and L.E. Cohen. 1980. Human ecology and crime: A routine activity approach. Human Ecology 8(4): 389–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hollis-Peel, M.E., D.M. Reynald, M. van Bavel, H. Elffers, and B.C. Welsh. 2011. Guardianship for crime prevention: A critical review of the literature. Crime, Law, and Social Change 56(1): 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hollis, M.E., M. Felson, and B.C. Welsh. 2013. The capable guardian in routine activities theory: A theoretical and conceptual reappraisal. Crime Prevention and Community Safety 15(1): 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hollis-Peel, M.E., D.M. Reynald, and B.C. Welsh. 2012. Guardianship and crime: An international comparative study of guardianship in action. Crime, Law, and Social Change 58(1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hollis-Peel, M.E., and B.C. Welsh. 2014. What makes a guardian capable? A test of guardianship in action. Security Journal 27(3): 320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moir, E., A. Stewart, D.M. Reynald, and T.C. Hart. 2017. Guardianship in action (GIA) within Brisbane suburbs: Examining the relationship between guardianship intensity and crime, and changes across time. Criminal Justice Review 42(3): 254–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Reynald, D.M. 2009. Guardianship in action: Developing a new tool for measurement. Crime Prevention and Community Safety 11(1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Reynald, D.M. 2010. Guardians on guardianship: Factors affecting the willingness to supervise, the ability to detect potential offenders, and the willingness to intervene. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(3): 358–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wilcox, P., T.D. Madensen, and M.S. Tillyer. 2007. Guardianship in context: Implications for burglary victimization risk and prevention. Criminology 45(4): 771–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meghan E. Hollis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Danielle M. Fenimore
    • 1
  • Monica Caballero
    • 1
  • Shannon Hankhouse
    • 2
  1. 1.Texas State UniversitySan MarcosUSA
  2. 2.Tarleton State UniversityStephenvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations