Reading summary

Situational crime prevention (SCP)

1

SCP THEORY

Introduction • Of the three major strategies, this targets the

“proximate” causes – Influenced by economic theory (decision-making)

• Focused on how to decrease likelihood of crime event in a given situational context – Any crime prevention measure that is: • directed at highly specific forms of crime • involves management/design/manipulation of immediate

environment • to reduce opportunity for crime or increase the perceived

risks of crime

Theoretical backdrop • Rational choice theory – Increase risks, increase effort, decrease rewards

• Routine activities theory – Harden targets, provide guardians, and decrease

motivation to offend

• Crime pattern theory – Crime is not dispersed randomly in space or time

Rational choice theory • Assumes offenders make choices based on opportunities

– Calculated decision based on risk, effort, and potential reward • Rewards (benefits) > Risks (costs)

• Crime scripts – May not be conscious decision process

• Instead, rely on “behavioral routines” (i.e., habits) that sketch out steps and actions for crime, based on experience

• Qualitative research on burglary offenders present clear evidence of rational choice – Burglars do not choose homes at random, but based on location,

occupancy, lighting, time of day, ease of entrance/exit, etc.

Routine activities theory • Expands idea of crime scripts based on “daily

routines” – Routine activities have changed over time

• E.g., shift to two income homes has produced more empty houses during daytime hours

• Opportunity is cause of most crime – Opportunity = motivated offender + suitable target + absent

guardian • Opportunity is convergence of 3 elements in daily routines

• Lifestyle perspective – Lifestyle of victim and offender create these opportunities

• Is victim motivating/tempting an offender? Is victim a suitable target? Is victim going somewhere without capable guardians?

• If offender being supervised at job, does offender have lots of unstructured time (i.e., “idle hands”)

Crime pattern theory • Crime fits patterns in terms of “where” and “when”

– Not randomly distributed in time and space

• Two keys to understanding patterns: – Environment backcloth (EB)

• “social, economic, cultural, physical conditions within which people operate” – Social/crime template (SC template)

• “people have templates that outline expectations of what will happen at certain times and places . . . the template tells an offender what should occur in a certain place, time, or situation”

– Given EB & a SC template, people form “cognitive maps” • Cognitive maps involve “nodes” of activity and “paths”

– Some nodes are “crime generators” (bring in suitable targets), some are “crime attractors” (bring in motivated offenders), and some are “hunting grounds” (absent guardians)

• Offenders typically search for opportunities within the “nodes” and “paths” with which they are familiar

High-risk targets • Research reveals that crime is highly

concentrated at: –High-risk places –High-risk times –By a small group of high-risk people

• Targeting these places/times/people is sometimes referred to as “hot spots” approach

Situational crime prevention • Original 3 approaches (Clarke, 1983) – Surveillance (increasing risks) – Target hardening (increasing effort) – Environmental management (reducing rewards)

• 5 typologies (Smith & Clarke, 2012) – Increasing effort – Increasing risk – Reducing rewards – Reducing provocations – Removing excuses

Increase effort of crime • Harden targets – E.g., steering locks, car immobilizers, anti-robbery

screens at banks

• Control access – E.g., apartment entry phones, subway turnstiles,

alley gates, making it difficult to enter areas with children

• Screening exits – E.g., electronic tags, exit tickets, requiring bus

passengers to enter near driver

Increase risk of crime • Extend guardianship – E.g., signs of occupancy, wide aisles in stores to

make theft more visible

• Increase surveillance – E.g., street lighting, neighborhood watch, natural

surveillance through decreased congestion and physical design

• Reduce anonymity – E.g., cab driver IDs, school uniforms

Reduce rewards of crime • Conceal targets – E.g., unmarked armored trucks, off-street

parking

• Remove targets – E.g., removable car radio, women’s shelters

• Identify property – E.g., vehicle licensing, cattle branding

Reduce provocations to crime • Reduce frustration/stress – E.g., soothing music, muted lighting, polite service

• Avoid disputes – E.g., separating sports fans, reduced crowding in

pubs

• Reduce arousal/temptation – E.g., controls on violent pornography, screen

youth workers and prohibit pedophiles from working with children

Remove excuses to commit crime

• Set rules – E.g., rental agreements, harassment codes

• Post instructions – E.g., “no parking,” “private property”

• Alert conscience – E.g., speeding displays, “shoplifting is stealing”

Major criticisms (and responses) • It is simplistic and a-theoretical

– Based on three opportunity theories, as well as social psychology • It diverts attention from the root causes of crime

– By achieving immediate crime reduction, it benefits society • It is a conservative, managerial approach to crime

– It promises no more than it can deliver; solutions must be economic, practical, and socially acceptable

• It promotes a selfish, exclusionary society – It can provide protection for everyone, rich and poor

• It promotes Big Brother and restricts freedom – The democratic process involves a balance of freedom and security; people are willing to

deal with small infringements to freedom to increase safety • It blames the victim

– It empowers victims by providing information about how to avoid crime risks • It doesn’t work, but displaces crime and often makes it worse

– This is an empirical question we can investigate

Limitations to SCP • SCP focuses on situations where crime is likely to

occur, but does not address root causes – I.e., there are probably natural limits to how much SCP

alone can reduce crime since it does not seek to change individuals (DCP) or communities (CCP) • SCP proponents would argue that SCP does not compete

with DCP or CCP – It is a third, complementary strategy

• Displacement of crime? – Does SCP reduce crime, or just cause it to move elsewhere?

• Next week!

CPTED Crime prevention through environmental design

CPTED • Crime prevention through environmental design – “Defensible space”

• Physical characteristics of an area can influence behavior of residents and potential offenders

– Includes: • Territoriality • Natural surveillance • Image • Milieu • Access control • Activity support • Target hardening

Territoriality • Territoriality means that an area is owned – “Sense of ownership over an area which prompts

people to take action when something seems amiss”

• Real vs symbolic – Real territoriality

• “walls, fences, gates, or other items that place a physical barrier in front of people”

– Symbolic territoriality • “things such as signs, landscaping, or other items that

signal a change in ownership area”

Surveillance • Natural (informal) surveillance – “The ability to observe activity, whether inside or

outside, without the aid of special devices”

• Organized (formal) surveillance – Use of guards or employees tasked with watching

over an area

• Mechanical surveillance – Utilizes technology to observe activities (e.g.,

cameras), or lights to enhance natural surveillance

Image & Milieu • Image – “A neighborhood having the appearance that it is not

isolated and is cared for, and that residents will take action”

• Milieu – “The placement of a home, building, or community

in a larger area characterized by low crime”

• Purchasing real estate – E.g., buy up abandoned buildings/lots and build

expensive condominiums or businesses

Access control & target hardening • Access control – “The ability to regulate who comes and goes from

an area or building, with the intent of limiting access to legitimate users” • E.g., gated communities, private roads, cul-de-sacs &

dead-end streets

• Target hardening – “Actions that increase the effort by offenders in

committing a crime” • E.g., locks, gates, strong windows

Activity support • “Functions that assist and enhance

interaction between citizens and other legitimate users in the community” – Building a community atmosphere

• E.g., use of public space by communities (street fairs, community events), designing safe areas for such activities, maintaining community spaces

– Can also include anti-crime community activities • E.g., neighborhood watch, community-wide initiatives to

tackle incivilities or disorder and promote community (prevent social stigma)

SCP PROGRAMS Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)

Major approaches to CPTED

• Street lighting • CCTV • Physical design (natural surveillance) • Organized surveillance • Property identification programs • Alarms • Locks, doors, & access factors • Area permeability

Street Lighting • Improved street lighting may decrease crime

in several ways – Increase outdoor activity & natural surveillance – Enhance ability to detect crime in progress and

intervene – Improve ability to identify potential offender

• Lighting is popular because it is inexpensive and creates sense of guardianship in an area – Much crime occurs at night, and offenders often

choose poorly lit areas

Does street lighting prevent crime? • Meta-analysis by Farrington & Welsh (2002)

– 13 evaluations found average 20% reduction in crime (OR = 1.25) • Included studies with an experimental area with lighting and control area without

lighting, before and after lighting (i.e., level-3 quality) • 9/13 studies found significant reduction in crime after street lighting

• UK studies showed stronger effects than US studies – Average effect among 8 US studies was OR = 1.08

• 7.5% reduction – Average effect among 5 UK studies was OR = 1.42

• 29.5% reduction – UK studies (1991–2001) more recent than US studies (1974–1979, 1998)

• Nighttime crime did not decrease more than daytime crime – Might imply that causal mechanism is not surveillance

• One other possibility is that community pride caused street lighting as well as reduction in crime (i.e., selection bias)

Closed circuit television (CCTV) • Mechanical surveillance of an area is most

often accomplished by camera – CCTV has become very popular • Especially in UK where there are 4–6 million public

CCTV cameras – Most are private, not government

• CCTV can be placed in many locations – E.g., public transportation, car parks,

businesses, city centers, and public housing

Does CCTV prevent crime? • Meta-analysis by Piza et al. (2019) (updating Welsh & Farrington [2009])

– 76 evaluations found average 20% reduction in crime (summary OR = 1.14) • Included studies with experimental area with CCTV and control area without it, before and after

– I.e., level-3 quality

• Effects varied by setting – Car parks

• Across 8 evaluations, crime reduced 37% (OR = 1.59) – City/town centers

• Across 33 evaluations, crime did not decrease significantly (OR = 1.07) – Housing complexes

• Across 10 evaluations, crime did not decrease significantly (OR = 1.03) – Residential areas

• Across 16 evaluations, crime reduced 12% (OR = 1.13) – Public transport

• Across 4 evaluations, crime did not decrease significantly (OR = 1.37)

• Effects varied by country – Significant crime reduction in South Korea (OR = 1.51, n = 3) and UK (OR = 1.26, n = 34)

• No significant crime reductions in Canada (n =6 ), Sweden (n = 4), or US (n = 24)

Natural surveillance • Physical design can improve natural surveillance

– Prospect = ability to see an area • Blocked prospect associated with greater fear & victimization

– Refuge = presence or absence of concealment in which potential offenders could hide • Increased refuge associated with greater fear & victimization

– Escape = ability of both offenders and victims to escape from an area • Limited escape associated with greater fear & victimization

• Evaluations indicate several positive effects associated with increased informal surveillance – Reduced burglary, robbery, & theft – Reduced fear

Other CPTED approaches • Organized surveillance

– Security guards in parking lots & public transportation, caretakers in public housing • Evaluations show some positive impact

• Property identification programs – Identifying property may make it more difficult to dispose of stolen items

• Unclear impact

• Alarms – Evaluations show decreased burglaries for homes with alarms

• Interviews with burglary offenders suggest many inspect target homes

• Area permeability – Cul-de-sacs, dead-end streets, and alley gates

• Evaluations suggest reduced crime and reduced fear of crime

• Other access control – Measures such as dead-bolt locks and sliding glass door pins = increased effort

• Unclear impact