Description
Version-of-record in Justice Quarterly
Community safety is often conceptualized and measured with crime. There is growing recognition that this approach is narrow in scope and overlooks the perspectives of people in the community. This study uses Group Concept Mapping (GCM), a mixed methods community-engaged ...
Community safety is often conceptualized and measured with crime. There is growing recognition that this approach is narrow in scope and overlooks the perspectives of people in the community. This study uses Group Concept Mapping (GCM), a mixed methods community-engaged methodology, to conceptualize community safety in three U.S. counties. Participants defined 11 components of safety nested in 5 domains. The most cohesive components are aligned with traditional views of public safety (e.g., day-to-day feelings of safety, accountability) and the “community” (e.g., sense of community, infrastructure). Other aspects are more holistic, such as social and economic justice, supportive services, and fair and ethical government. Interview and focus group data indicate that participants perceive that measures of safety must be multifaceted, and the task of measuring safety is complicated by heterogeneity in meaning and priorities. We conclude by discussing the importance of democratizing knowledge in a reproducible and rigorous manner.