The crime prevention literature finds extensive support for crimespecific approaches to organized interventions in crime problems. Yet within the communities and crime literature, little is known about the crime-specific (or generalized) way that individuals respond to different types of crime problems in their neighborhood. Using data from the Australian Community Capacity Study, this paper examines how individual characteristics, perceptions of agents of formal social control, and perceptions of informal community processes influence the decision a person makes to do something about different types of local crime problems. Results indicate that individual characteristics (prior police contact and previous victimization) and positive perceptions of informal community processes (frequency of neighboring) are positively associated with action; yet when people perceiveagents of formal social control as effective, they are less likely to take informal crime control action. We conclude that the mechanisms that prompt community action are best understood from a crime-specific approach.The crime prevention literature finds extensive support for crime-specific approaches to intervening in local crime problems (Clarke & Eck, 2005;Cornish & Clarke, 1986, 1989. Compared to a generalized approach that treats all offenses the same, situational crime prevention approaches create tailored responses based on the unique set of circumstances that lead to specific crime problems (Clarke, 1997). As Clarke reasons, "the commission of specific kinds of crime depends crucially on a constellation of particular environmental opportunities" and "these opportunities may need to be blocked in highly specific ways" (1997, p. 4). Research shows that different factors contribute to different types of crime, so disruptions to offending are likely also crime specific .This crime-specific perspective guides organizational responses to crime prevention, such as how police departments deal with an emerging crime problem. Yet within the communities and crime literature, little is known about the crimespecific (or generalized) way that individuals respond to crime problems in their neighborhood. Moreover, there is virtually no research that helps to differentiate the mechanisms that lead individuals to take action to address different types of local crime problems. In this study, we ask the following questions: What factors prompt a community resident to take action for different crime problems observed in the neighborhood? Do these factors differ depending on the type of crime? J. Community Psychol. 2017;45:922-939.wileyonlineliberary.com/journal/jcop