THE VALUE OF SITUATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION

Transcription

1 THE VALUE OF SITUATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION Jill Ogilvie and John Kelly Built and Natural Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, G4 OBA Abstract In the last decade there has been a renewal of interest concerning the crimogenic characteristics of the built environment. Emphasis has been placed on the importance of design as a deterministic and therefore preventative factor in crime. This paper reports on research examining the value of using situational crime prevention (SCP) measures to reduce crime in the built environment and the physical features of the environment which have been found to prevent or encourage crime. SCP involves preventing crime by changing or modifying the situational or spatial features pres ent in the environment so that they make it harder to commit a crime or make it easier to detect the offender. Research has indicated that the appropriate design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in both the opportunity for crime and fear of crime. The main objective of this research is to examine the value that good urban design has in reducing crime. This will be done by using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to examine the concept of good urban design and its potential social, economic, political and environmental value when used for in association with crime prevention. The expected conclusion is clarity of the exact value in using good urban design to prevent crime. Keywords Urban Design, Value, Situational Crime Prevention, Secured by Design INTRODUCTION This paper reports on continuing research examining the value of using situational crime prevention (SCP) measures to reduce crime in the built environment and the physical features of the environment which have been found to prevent or encourage crime. SCP involves preventing crime by changing or modifying the situational or spatial features present in the environment so that it is harder to commit a crime but easier to detect the offender. Research has indicated that the appropriate design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in both the opportunity for crime and fear of crime. The main objective of this research is to examine the value that good urban design has in reducing crime. This will be done by combining both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to examine the concept of good urban design and its potential social, economic, political and environmental value when used for in association with crime prevention. The expected conclusion of the research is clarity of the exact value in using SCP to prevent crime. BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH Before discussing the current research it is necessary to briefly discuss the theory of Situational Crime Prevention (SCP) and the deficiencies that have been established by previous SCP research. Situational crime prevention was developed by the Home Office in Britain in the early 1980s under the supervision of Ron Clarke. Clarke went on to become the main proponent of situational crime prevention whose work advocated and contributed to the demise of the rehabilitative ideal. (Martinson, 1974) Situational crime prevention was heralded as the answer to crime problems as criminological research had previously concluded that immediate situational factors played an important role in crime. At this time opportunity 369

2 reduction and the suggestion that crime could be designed-out were identified as key areas of crime prevention that required further research. Situational crime prevention, also known as physical crime prevention or targethardening, involves preventing crime by changing the situational or spatial features present in the environment so that they make it harder to commit a crime or make it easier to detect the offender. Crawford defines it broadly as involving the management, design or manipulation of the immediate physical environment so as to reduce the opportunity for specific crimes (1998, p. 18). Hough et al concur with the standard definition of situational crime prevention that was set by Clarke but in addition define it as: I. measures directed at highly specific forms of crime; II. which involve the management, design or manipulation of the immediate environment in which these crimes occur; III. in as systematic and permanent a way as possible; IV. so as to reduce the opportunity for these crimes; V. as perceived by a broad range of potential offenders (1980, p. 1) Situational Crime prevention introduces discrete managerial and environmental change to reduce the opportunity for crimes to occur seeks not to eliminate criminal or delinquent tendencies through improvement of society or its institutions, but merely to make criminal action less attractive to offenders (Clarke, 1997, p. 2) Therefore the focus is on the environmental setting in which crimes occur and not on the act itself. Clarke goes on to define situational crime prevention as a preventive approach that relies, not upon improving society or its institutions, but simply upon reducing opportunities for crime (1992, p. 3) This is achieved by modifying, manipulating or managing the environment. It was suggested by Clarke (1992) that situational features are more open to manipulation and are therefore more susceptible to change. SCP factors spatial, design and environment are more easily manipulated and modified than offenders. Crawford points out that situational crime prevention is based on the assumption that crime is opportunistic and that offenders apply the rational choice model of decision-making when committing a criminal offence. (1998, p. 68) Situational crime prevention developed partly as a result of Opportunity Theory which professed that individuals who committed crimes were heavily influenced by environmental inducements and opportunities and as being highly adaptable to changes in the situation (Clarke, 1995, p. 57) Situational crime prevention theory is based upon an opportunity reduction model as seen in table 1 and advocates the principle of deterrence and emphasises the certainty that offenders will be detected. The focus therefore is on detection instead of severity of punishment. Table 1: Situational Crime Prevention Opportunity-Reduction Techniques. Increasing Perceived Effort 1.Target Hardening 2.Access Control 3.Deflecting Offenders Increasing Perceived Risk 5. Entry/Exit Screening 6.Formal Surveillance 7. Surveillance by Employees Reducing Anticipated Rewards Removing Excuses 9. Target Removal 13. Rule Setting 10.Identifying Property 11.Reducing Temptation 14.Stimulating Conscience 15.Controlling Disinhibitors 370

3 4.Controlling 8.Natural Facilitators Surveillance Source: Clarke (1997, p. 18) 12. Denying Benefits 16.Facilitating Compliance The 16 opportunity reduction techniques as seen in table 1 can be divided into four lines of attack: 1. Increasing the perceived effort by methods such as target hardening, access control, deflecting offenders and controlling facilitators. 2. Increasing the perceived risk by using all forms of surveillance. 3. Reducing the anticipated rewards by removing targets, denying the benefits, reducing temptation and marking valuable or vulnerable property. 4. Inducing guilt or shame This has not conventionally been classified as situational but is starting to appear in contemporary research. This approach relies on establishing rules and reinforcing moral condemnation. (Clarke, 1992; Clarke and Homel, 1997) Opportunity theory is the foundation of SCP and is based upon ten principles: 1. Opportunity plays a role in causing all crime. 2. Crime opportunities are highly specific. 3. Crime opportunities are concentrated in time and space. 4. Crime opportunities depend on everyday movements of activity. 5. One crime produces opportunities for another. 6. Some products offer a more tempting crime opportunity. 7. Social and technological changes produce new crime opportunities. 8. Crime can be prevented by reducing opportunities. 9. Reducing opportunities does not usually displace crime. 10. Focused opportunity reduction can produce wider declines in crime. (Felson and Clarke, 1998) Changes in crime rates are seen by Felson and Clarke (1998) as coinciding with fluctuations in opportunities and incentives or the decrease in control or the increased vulnerability of targets. Couch et al (1999) cautions that we must be aware of raising the stakes in the sense that the offender feels that they have no opportunity to commit their "normal offence and are thereby forced to commit a new, more rewarding crime. Critics of Clarke and Situational crime prevention identify a number of problems that are commonly associated with the concept. It has been argued that situational crime prevention penalizes respectable law-abiding citizens by infringing their freedom and their privacy as the majority of SCP measures tend to be oriented towards social exclusion as generally their purpose is to keep out strangers. (Bright, 1997; Crawford, 1998; Gilling, 1997) Second, SCP neglects issues of moral responsibility and retribution. Third, SCP is often characterised as politically and socially naïve in its neglect of the role of social and economic inequalities in causation of and of political muscle in the definition or crime (Clarke, 1997, p. 4) Lastly, the most common criticism of SCP is that it diverts attention away from what are considered to be the root causes of crime as SCP is uninterested in addressing the root causes of crime. In sum, the aim of Situational crime prevention is to make it physically harder to commit a crime and to increase the likelihood of detection but also to make committing a crime less rewarding both financially and psychologically. 371

4 Deficiencies with previous studies Many studies have been undertaken in an attempt to provide absolute evidence that a link exists between the design of the built environment and the incidence of crime. Results vary but the general consensus is that the physical environment is one of the key factors that affect the likelihood of crime within a community or a neighbourhood. (Bright, 1997; Crawford, 1998; Couch et al, 1999; Clarke, 1992) Despite the abundance of studies relating to crime prevention and community safety few have examined the situation from a value perspective. The studies that do consider value only do so either in monetary terms, as in cost-benefit analysis, or as in street lighting research, by measuring the perception of safety felt by participants involved in the study as an indication of the study s value. Many of the studies that have been undertaken have provided either no or insufficient analysis and evaluation of the actual value, in social, economic, physical, monetary terms, of using a Situational Crime Prevention measure or a package of Situational Crime Prevention measures to reduce the incidence of crime. Studies have been traditionally evaluated as being either a success or a failure in terms of reducing crime but rationally this should be questioned as a study could have little effect on reducing the areas overall crime level and may therefore be considered to have failed, but the study could be of value in other related circumstances. For example, the study does not reduce the overall crime levels within the neighbourhood and wider community but due to the implementation of the SCP measures fear of crime within a specific neighbourhood or locale has been significantly reduced thereby the initiative has greater social value. Importance of the Research Understanding the value of SCP has an increased importance in the current What Works culture. The loss of faith in the ability of the state, criminal justice system, the police and the penal system in the 1970s led to a crisis in public confidence and the belief that nothing works in the fight against crime. This eventually led to new modes of managing and governing risk and hazard. The new theories of crime prevention situational or developmental (social) are permeated with a sense of progress and more specifically practicality as it is now believed that it is necessary to apply scientific knowledge with rational planning in order to discover what works in preventing crime. The what works approach has been critically acclaimed as an objective and consistent method of making inferences about the cause and effect of crime. This approach is favoured because it facilitates potential replication. This research potentially adds to scholarly research and literature in the field of both crime prevention and community safety by placing an explicit social, economical, political and environmental value on situational crime prevention measures that has been absent or has been meagrely considered in previous studies. Both policy and practise could be improved by providing tangible findings about the veritable value of situational crime prevention measures in the community and neighbourhood context. This will allow policy-makers and practitioners to focus more on situational crime prevention measures that are successful in reducing or preventing crime and have proven value in this context. The research paradigm used in this study is that of the positivist paradigm which focuses on the internal and external validity, reliability and objectivity of the research undertaken. This type of paradigm has been chosen because it is particularly value-laden. Positivism is more often than not the chosen paradigm in social science research as it is believed that the social world can be understood and measured. (Miles and Huberman, 1994) Positivism 372

5 therefore focuses on developing a set on generalized laws using empirical observation to explain social events that occur. This study will be using deductive research to empirically test the value of situational crime prevention measures and their value relationship to the prevention or reduction of crime. Using this method the aim is to gather as much information as possible, from multiple sources, to validate the theory concerning the value of situational crime prevention. Theories cannot be conclusively proven only falsified through empirical testing. This method results in a core body of theory that remains to be disproved. The knowledge claim undertaken in this research is that of a pragmatic nature in the sense that it is specifically problem-centred and pluralistic in examining the consequences of actions namely the value of and capacity of situational crime prevention measures to prohibit crime caused by the design of the physical environment. By examining specific situations through the use of case studies this research endeavours to have a constructive effect on reallife situations and future practice. Therefore this research seeks to understand what works in specific contexts when situational crime prevention measures are applied to solve problems and the tangible value of their implementation. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This section provides an outline of the approach taken to the research. The mixed methods approach is discussed briefly before examining the approach taken to the research problem. Mixed Methods Approach Mixed methods research is a relatively new form of research that originated in 1959 and therefore its form and substance is still very much under development. Multiple sources of data are collected by combing qualitative and quantitative forms of enquiry in order to provide a complete understanding and exploration of the research problem. Wisker (2001) suggests that a mixed methods approach to research is used when the researcher wants to understand how and why a specific phenomenon exists in more detail than a single method would provide. Flick (2002) also suggests that one possible advantage to combining both methods is that it is possible to mutually validate the findings of both approaches. Miles and Huberman (1994) give justification for combining qualitative and quantitative research strategies. These include: 1. Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative research methods o Both strategies are pursued in parallel o o Continuous observation of the field provides a basis for several waves of a survey. The research begins with a qualitative method, such as an interview, is followed by a questionnaire, before the results are deepened by quantitative stage. (Creswell, 2003) 2. Sequencing qualitative and quantitative data. Barton and Lazarfield (1955) suggest using qualitative research for developing hypotheses that can then be tested using quantitative measures. (Moore, 2000) 3. Triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data. It is assumed that the different methodological perspectives of qualitative and quantitative research complement each other. (Sale et al, 2002) Therefore is we view them as being complementary, then by combining both in one research design, it is possible to compensate for the inherent weaknesses associated with each method. 373

6 There are a number of possible outcomes when using a mixed methodology. Kelle and Erzberger (2002) suggest that when qualitative and quantitative approaches converge they can confirm and support the same conclusion or be incongruous and contradictory. The results may also be complementary and lead to the further development of the research by increasing the scope and breadth of the research by using each of the methods at different times. (Greene et al, 1989) Common problems associated with using a mixed methodology are usually related to how the qualitative and quantitative methods are combined. When both qualitative and quantitative methods are combined neither method is seen as being greater than the other as the two different methods remain autonomous but operate alongside the other. (Sale et al, 2002) For example when one method is applied and then afterwards the other method is used, or when both methods and used somewhat autonomously, and finally when one method is more dominant than the other. (Flick, 2002; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Rossman and Wilson, 1984, 1991) It is essential in a mixed methods approach that both methods carry an equal weighting. (Flick, 2002) Research questions and hypothesis The working hypothesis in this research is that design can be used to prevent crime in urban environments. The purpose of this research is to examine the value of physical environmental design in reducing crime. The primary research question that needs to be addressed is: What value does situational crime prevention measures have in reducing or eliminating crime in a neighbourhood and/or community setting? Additional questions that will be considered throughout the research include: 1. What effect does changing the physical design or the environment have on crime and fear of crime? 2. Does Situational Crime Prevention measures used to make changes to the physical environment justify expenditure? 3. Is it possible to place a value on design both before and after implementation of the design alterations? 4. Which Situational crime prevention design feature has the most value? 5. Is it possible to generalize on the cost of specific crime prevention measures? 6. Will the research findings facilitate changes when implementing crime prevention or reduction measures? 7. How will the research findings affect crime and the perception of crime for communities? DATA GATHERING AND ANALYSIS This section provides an analysis of the methods that were used for data collection, the process of designing and implementing the survey and interviews. The section concludes by providing an overview of the case study methodology and findings. Using a mixed methods research design requires data gathering from a multitude of sources that derive all of the perspectives concerning the research problem. Data gathering will involve the collection of both text and statistical information collected at in various contexts and points of time. Data was collection for this research study by triangulation as this gives the most coherent understanding of the research problem as it uses quantitative research to gather wide-ranging statistical trends and qualitative research to allow for specific detailed analysis. 374

7 The Value of Situational Crime Prevention Survey A wide range of participants from the police, the community safety sector, architects, urban designers, local and national government, Designing Out Crime Association (DOCA) and other crime prevention related agencies were approached. Participants were asked to complete a survey consisted of 57 statements concerning both general and specific issues in crime prevention, that were extracted from the findings of the extensive literature search of both community and crime prevention theory. There are numerous ways of measuring and quantifying data using methods such as factorial scales, scalogram analysis, Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) and Thurstones scale, to name a few. For the purposes of this research a Likert-type scale was used. The Likert Scale technique is used for measuring opinions, attitudes and beliefs. Likert surmised that the degree of agreement with an intentionally polarised statement can serve to measure attitude about the issue under study. (Likert, 1967) The statements in this survey were measured on a numbered continuum from 1-5, where 1 meant that they strongly agreed with the statement and the furthest point, 5, meant that they strongly disagreed. In order to code the survey it was necessary to work out whether each statement was positive or negative as negatively worded statements require reverse coding. The item scores and then added together to obtain the total score which will be in the range of (Mid-point is 176) The total score minus the item score was then used to work out the correlation co-efficient. The most common problem encountered when using the Likert Scale was that certain individuals tend to give the most neutral answer possible mid-way between the two extremes. (Thurstone, 1928) A possible way around this problem would have been to use an even number of options so that the participant if forced to choose either a positive or negative option but this is not without difficulties. The difficultly arises in forcing participants to choose an option when they perhaps do not have an opinion about the statement or issue under consideration. Therefore an odd number of options have been used in the survey. When designing a Likert Scale study it is essential that there is a clear understanding of what is being measured. Statements must only contain one idea so that participants can respond to the statement without any ambiguity. (Roberts et al, 1999) Statements must not be socially appropriate or in appropriate so that the respondents feel free to give their own personal beliefs and not simply what they believe the evaluator wants to know. (Patton, 1990) Each statement must not be unnecessarily dependent upon certain facts for an accurate appraisal option as if the respondent must be informed about a given fact in order to express an opinion, then that response becomes random rather than a reflection of actual opinion. (Miles and Huberman, 2002) The statements making up the survey were piloted with a small group before their ultimate use so as to eliminate any ambiguities. (Miles and Huberman, 1994) The validity of the survey was tested by piloting the survey on a group of peoples whose attitudes and opinions of the subject are known. (Flick, 2002) Case Studies Case studies allow for comprehensive individual and situational research and are based on empirical research which focuses on a particular observable fact. Case studies have the capacity to be applied in evaluation research in a number of ways: explain; describe; illustrate; explore and meta-evaluation. (Yin, 2003) Case studies attempt to place value on conclusions that arise from specific situations or events and are commonly used to investigate multifarious social phenomena. This study will use case studies to examine the contemporary issue concerning the value of Situational Crime Prevention measures and their ability to 375

8 successfully reduce crime within a community. Yin (2003) argues that case studies are the preferred methodology in examining situations when the germane behaviours cannot be influenced or controlled. It is not possible to generalize from one case study alone. (Whisker, 2001; Flick, 2002) Multiple case studies give strength to any generalizations that are made. (Yin, 2003) Even using only two case studies is better than a single case study. The rationale for using multiple case studies as opposed to a single case study is that it allows for replication logic instead of sampling logic as in single case studies. Therefore by carefully selecting each case study so that it either predicts similar results (literal replication) or contrasting results but for predictable reasons (theoretical replication). (Yin, 2003) The attraction of case study research is that it examines the situation or events in its actual context by direct observation of the situation by the researcher as well as examining the history of events and interviewing of participants involved in the events or situation. The attractiveness of using existing case studies, apart from the obvious cost implications, is the amount of field-based information that is already available. The main advantage of using a case study or studies is that it allows the researcher to examine an event or situation, in great detail, over which they have no or little control. Secured by Design (SBD) case studies were chosen to illustrate and investigate the value of SCP. Secured by Design is perhaps one of the most all-encompassing concepts in the sense that it is design-based and integrates the principles of SCP, Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED), Defensible space, Opportunity theory and Environmental cues. Perhaps the most unique feature is that it actively encourages the participation of not just the residents, as is the case with many other crime prevention and community safety measures, but the town planners, architects, builders and the police to name a few, that are involved in the development or redevelopment of an area. The performance of the initiative is measured by insuring that the development meets and retains certain minimum design for crime prevention standards. The case studies used in this research in order to place values on SBD and SCP were Northview in Swanley, Kent (ODPM, 2004); Royds in Bradford; Red Road in Glasgow; Cromer Street in Camden (ODPM, 2004); Ebor Gardens in Leeds (Pascoe, 1999), and St Marks/Brook Street Estate in Derby (Pascoe, 1999). All of the case studies had SBD and SCP measures implemented in their locale in an attempt to reduce or eliminate crime and associated problems with varying degrees of success and value. In sum, it is recognised that all research methods have explicit limitations but by triangulating data sources, as is done in this research, the biases that are inherent when using a single method will be counteracted. CONCLUSIONS The aim of this research is to place an absolute value on SCP measures in order to firmly establish for the first time what actually works in reducing or eliminating crime in communities. The nature of the research means that it was necessary to take a problemcentred approach so as to tackle the issues of and associated with situational crime. REFERENCES Bright, J., 1997, Turning the Tide: Crime, Community and Prevention, Demos, London. Clarke, R. V., and Mayhew, P., (eds) 1980, Designing Out Crime, HMSO, London. Clarke, R., 1992, Situational Crime Prevention, Harrow and Heston, New York. 376

9 Clarke, R. V., 1995, Situational Crime Prevention, in Tonry, M. and Farrington, D. (eds), Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention, Crime and Justice: A Review of Research Vol. 19, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Clarke, R. V., 1997, Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies, Harrow and Heston, New York. Clark, R.V., and Homel, R., 1997, A Revised Classification of Situational Crime Prevention Techniques, in Lab, S. P., (ed) Crime Prevention at a Crossroads, Anderson, Cincinnati. Crawford, A., 1998, Crime Prevention and Community Safety, Longman, Dorset. Creswell, J. W. (2003) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, Sage, London. Couch, S., Shaftoe, H., and Fleming, R., 1999, Design for Secure Residential Environments, Addison Wesley Longman Ltd, Essex. Felson, M., and Clarke, R., 1998, Opportunity Makes the Thief, Police Research Series Paper 8, Home Office, London. Flick, U. (2002) An Introduction to Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, London. Huberman, M. B. and Miles, A. M. (eds) (2002) The Qualitative Researchers Companion, Sage, London. Gilling, D., 1997, Crime Prevention: Theory, Policy and Politics, UCL Press Ltd, London. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., and Graham, W. F., 1989, Towards a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11 (2), p Hough, M., Clarke, R. V., and Mayhew, P., 1980, Introduction, in Clarke, R. V., and Mayhew, P., (eds) Designing Out Crime, HMSO, London.Isaac, S. and Michael, W. B. (1982) Handbook in Research and Evaluation, EdiTS Publishers, California. Kelle, U. and Erzberger, C. (2002) Quantitative and Qualitative Methods: No Confrontation, in Flick, U; Kardorff, E. V. and Steinke, I. (eds) Qualitative Research: A Handbook, Sage, London. Martinson, R. (1974) What Works? Questions and Answers about Prison Reform, The Public Interest 35, Spring, Miles, A. M. and Huberman, M. B. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, London. Moore, N. (2000) How to do Research: The complete guide to designing and managing research projects, Facet Publications, London.Pascoe, T. (1999) Evaluation of Secured by Design in Public Sector Housing, Construction Research Communications Ltd, Watford. ODPM (2004) Safer Places: The Planning System and Crime Prevention, Home Office, London. Rossman, G. B. and Wilson, B. L. (1984) Numbers and Words: Combing Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in a single large-scale evaluation study, Evaluation Review 9(5), p Rossman, G. B. and Wilson, B. L. (1991) Numbers and Words Revisited: Being shamelessly eclectic, Evaluation Review 9(5), p Sale, J. E. M. Lohfeld, L. H. and Brazil, K. (2002) Revisiting the Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: Implications for Mixed Methods Research, Quality and Quantity 36, p Wisker, G., 2001, The Postgraduate Research Handbook, Palgrave, Hampshire. Yin, R. K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, California. 377