The links between the risk of criminal victimisation and urban social divisions have been clearly demonstrated using British Crime Survey (BCS) data (Hope, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001a, 2001b) and other analyses integrating a range of population data with recorded crime statistics, as well as spatially referenced data sources over recent years (Hirschfield et al, 1995). While the relations between disadvantage and victimisation are neither simple nor mechanical, and these data have their limitations, the finding that the most disadvantaged groups are also the most likely to suffer higher levels of property and personal crimes has been firmly established. That more affluent groups in some urban areas (Hope, 2000, 2001b), particularly in inner-city, gentrifying areas (Hirschfield and Bowers, 1995, 1997), also face greater risk than the general population means that New Labour's emphasis on ‘community safety’ and being ‘tough on crime’ and its ‘causes’ resonates with the experience of victimisation for more affluent as well as disadvantaged social groups, alongside the fears of those who face considerably less risk.

The ‘promise’ of ‘community safety’ was attractive to the electorate and many critical commentators. For them, the possibility of addressing a range of harms experienced disproportionately by the less well-off was opened up. However, worries about the narrow, managerial, ‘what works’ agenda, with its focus on ‘crime and disorder reduction’ at the expense of more progressive ideas that align, potentially at least, with ‘community safety’ (Hughes, 2002), emerged with the Crime and Disorder Bill. Nevertheless, the promise of ‘joined-up’ government and the emergence of strategies to address the range of problems faced by disadvantaged communities in the government's commitment to tackle ‘social exclusion’, crystallised in its National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, offered the opportunity to address a range of urban social problems, including crime, ‘holistically’. Some commentators, however, had already expressed concerns about the ‘criminalisation of social policy’ (Squires, 1990; Carlen, 1996), which flowed from the way welfare agencies were increasingly involved in community safety under earlier urban policy frameworks. They observed that, in these circumstances, social exclusion and disadvantage were becoming less important issues in themselves. More and more they were the focus of intervention because of their implications for social disorder and crime (Crawford, 1997; Gilling and Barton, 1997). Others felt that crime-centred policies alone would not address the ‘root causes’ of crime and a focus on the range of urban social problems was, potentially at least, regarded as a gain maker and a step towards ‘social justice’ (Hope, 2001a, pp 435-6).