CREATING SAFER COMMUNITIES: THE VALUE OF SITUATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION

CREATING SAFER COMMUNITIES: THE VALUE OF SITUATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION Jill Ogilvie Glasgow Caledonian University, Built and Natural Environment E-mail: jillfogilvie@hotmail.com Abstract: In the United Kingdom there has been a growing interest in the economic costs and benefits of preventing crime. Research suggests that Situational Crime Prevention (SCP) is an economically efficient strategy for preventing crime but little is known about its absolute value. This paper examines the value of SCP in reducing crime in a community context. SCP seeks to prevent crime by changing the situational and/or spatial features in the environment so that it is harder to commit a crime and/or easier to detect an offender. The assumption is that offending behaviour is opportunistic and therefore situational features can be more easily manipulated than the behaviour of offenders to inhibit crime. Consequently the focus is on the environmental setting in which crimes occur not the criminal act itself. The research uses a mixed methods approach to place an economic, social, political and environmental value on the prevention of crime using SCP measures. Secured by Design (SBD) case studies are used to highlight the value of SCP. Key words: Secured by Design, Situational Crime Prevention, Urban Design, Value. 1. INTRODUCTION The media and crime trend statistics have, in recent years indicated a rise in all types of crimes. With traditional methods of intervention, such as the police and the criminal justice system, seemingly powerless to halt the escalation of crime, interest has been renewed in understanding the crimogenic characteristics of the built environment and what affect it has on crime. Emphasis has been placed on the importance of design as a deterministic and therefore preventative factor in crime. 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. This paper reports on the findings of a survey undertaken in the course of PhD research examining the value of situational crime prevention (SCP). 551

Ogilvie 1.1 Background to the Research SCP involves preventing crime by changing or modifying 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. 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. Situational crime prevention, also known as physical crime prevention or target-hardening, 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 (1984) 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 (1997) 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 (1998) 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. 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, 1999, 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. 552

Creating Safer Communities Table 1: Situational Crime Prevention Opportunity-Reduction Techniques Increasing Perceived Effort 1.Target Hardening 2.Access Control 3.Deflecting Offenders 4.Controlling Facilitators Increasing Perceived Risk 5. Entry/Exit Screening 6.Formal Surveillance 7. Surveillance by Employees 8.Natural Surveillance Reducing Anticipated Rewards Removing Excuses 9. Target Removal 13. Rule Setting 10.Identifying Property 11.Reducing Temptation 14.Stimulating Conscience 15.Controlling Disinhibitors 12. Denying Benefits 16.Facilitating Compliance Source: Clarke (1997, p. 18) 2. 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. Figure 1 shows the breakdown of participant occupation. Participants were asked to complete the survey consisting of 57 statements concerning both general and specific issues in crime prevention, that were extracted from the findings of an extensive literature search of both community and crime prevention theory. Occupation of Participants 21% 1% 7% 8% 1% 7% 55% Police Academic CS or CP Town Planner Urban Designer Architect Other Figure 1: Occupation of Participants There are numerous ways of measuring and quantifying data but for the purposes of this research a Likert-type scale was used. The Likert Scale technique is commonly used for measuring opinions, attitudes and beliefs. Likert (1967) surmised that the degree of agreement with an intentionally polarised statement can serve to measure attitude about the issue under study. The statements in this survey were measured on a numbered continuum from 1-5, where 1 meant that participants strongly agreed with 553

Ogilvie the statement and the further 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 57 295. (Mid-point is 176) The total score minus the item score is then used to work out the correlation co-efficient. When designing the Likert Scale survey it was essential that there was a clear understanding of what was being measured. The statements were constructed so that they contained only one idea so that participants can respond to the statement without any ambiguity. (Roberts et al, 1999) It was important that the statements were not socially appropriate or in appropriate to ensure that participants felt free to give their own personal beliefs and not simply what they believed that the survey sought to discover. (Patton, 1990) Each statement was carefully constructed so that participants were not unnecessarily dependent upon certain facts for an accurate appraisal option as if the participant had to be informed about a given fact in order to express an opinion, then that response becomes random rather than a reflection of their actual opinion. (Miles and Huberman, 2002) The statements were piloted with a small group of individuals, whose attitudes and opinions concerning the subject of crime prevention were well known, in order to eliminate any ambiguities. (Miles and Huberman, 1994) 2.1 Findings The survey response rate was approximately 56% and Standard Deviation (STDEV) was used to rank the results according to their STDEV value. Statements that had the lowest STDEV value were found to have the highest levels of agreement. Table 2 shows the statements ranked according to their STDEV value. Standard Deviation is a measure of how widely values are dispersed from the average value (mean). The formula is: (x x ) 2 x = Sample mean average (n -1) n = Sample size Table 2: Survey Ranked using STDEV. Rank Statement No. 1 26 2 22 3 39 4 52 5 25 Statement STDEV Average It is possible to manipulate the physical environment so that it prevents crime and fear of crime. The appropriate design of the urban environment will lead to reductions in crime and fear of crime. Situational crime prevention measures have economic, social, political and environmental value. Access control is the most important factor in crime prevention. Improving street lighting has little effect on crime. 0.40 1.80 0.57 2.31 0.67 1.88 0.71 3.43 0.73 2.00 554

Creating Safer Communities - 31-47 6 5-49 7 42-44 - 57 8 21-36 9 17-53 10 3-28 - 34 11 1 12 33 All types of cul de sacs enhance opportunities for crime. Crime is not necessarily a harmful feature of society. Situational crime prevention measures have no value. Physical determinism is a feature of all situational crime prevention measures. Changing the physical environment has a positive effect on crime and fear of crime. The loss of community has contributed to the crime problem in modern society. Secured by Design prevents crime in residential areas. Lack of commonality in communities increases risk of criminal victimization. Crime can be prevented by reducing opportunities. Urban design can be seen as a mechanism through which the probability of certain behaviour occurring can be manipulated or altered. The physical design of the urban environments exhibits cues that effect behaviour. Situational crime prevention is an economically sustainable strategy for reducing crime. CCTV is the panacea in the fight against crime. Crime can be sustainably reduced using situational crime prevention measures. It is necessary to strike a balance between designing for crime prevention and designing for the effective use of the environment. It is not possible to generalize using situational crime prevention measures. 0.73 1.98 0.73 4.15 0.75 1.51 0.75 2.90 0.76 1.87 0.76 3.80 0.76 1.92 0.77 2.36 0.77 1.94 0.80 1.93 0.80 2.09 0.82 1.76 0.82 4.14 0.82 2.10 0.83 1.71 0.85 3.07-38 CCTV causes displacement. 0.85 3.11 13 37 14 32-35 15 45 A measure of crime is an inevitable and unpreventable feature of any society. Improving the physical design of the urban environment can alleviate social problems such as crime, disorder and community pathology. 0.86 3.51 0.87 2.03 Displacement is specifically a side-effect of situational crime prevention measures. 0.87 2.58 Surveillance is the most important factor in crime prevention. 0.88 2.82-55 Crime destroys communities. 0.88 2.37 555

Ogilvie 16 24-41 17 9 18 18 Crime and fear of crime are reduced in areas that exhibit a strong sense of territoriality. Crime is a pathological characteristic of modern society. Communities prevent residential crime and associated anti-social behaviour. Situational crime prevention penalizes law-abiding citizens. 0.89 2.07 0.89 3.27 0.90 2.35 0.91 2.02 19 40 Environmental cues deter crime. 0.92 2.30 20 19-50 21 12 Street lighting is a low cost crime reduction solution. Crime preventing designs should take preference over aesthetic design. Situational measures advocate social exclusion. 0.94 2.32 0.94 2.81 0.95 2.56-46 Good urban design costs more. 0.95 2.46 22 13 23 4-16 24 48 25 43-51 26 10 Design-based situational crime prevention measures exaggerate the influence that the physical environment has on behaviour. Good urban design adds value to developments. Crime strengthens communities by encouraging community co-operation and community action. Situational crime prevention diverts attention away from tackling the root causes of crime. Situational crime prevention measures must only be tailored to specific crime problems. Displacement is a side-effect of all crime prevention measures. Crime displacement should be viewed as a potential tool of crime control policies rather than an unwanted constraint on crime prevention programmes. 0.96 2.56 0.97 1.51 0.97 3.33 0.98 2.57 0.99 2.93 0.99 2.58 1.00 2.66 27 30 Opportunity causes all crime. 1.01 2.97 28 8 29 14 30 20-23 Residential crimes can be eliminated in urban areas by encouraging mixed-use developments. Poor quality urban environments exist in response to various social and economic threats. The form of the urban environment creates opportunities for crime. There must be greater co-operation between the professions involved in shaping and developing the urban environment. 1.02 3.01 1.03 2.71 1.04 2.05 1.04 1.51 556

Creating Safer Communities 31 2-11 32 6-54 33 15 34 29-56 35 27 36 7 More evaluations are required concerning What Works in situational crime prevention. It is not possible to design out residential crime. Law-abiding citizens are the largest unused resource in crime prevention. Situational crime prevention causes displacement Crime can only be altered using social crime prevention techniques. More quality research is required concerning the value of design-based situational crime prevention measures. It is the role of the criminal justice system and its associated agencies to prevent crime. Nothing Works in the fight against crime. It is the duty of the police to prevent crime. 1.05 1.77 1.05 2.01 1.06 2.24 1.06 2.90 1.12 2.37 1.15 2.06 1.15 2.61 1.32 1.74 1.34 2.39 The results were also categorized as either police or non-police according to the respondent s occupation. Figure 2 demonstrates the combined STDEV of both the police and non-police categories. Figure 3 shows the variations between the two categories according to their standard deviation scores. Police and Non-Police Ranking using Standard Deviation (Combined) 1.60 1.40 Police and Non-Police Ranking using Standard Deviation (Combined) 1.20 1.00 STDEV 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Statement Number Figure 2: Police and Non-Police Categories Combined STDEV 557

Ogilvie Police and Non-Police STDEV 1.60 1.40 Non-Police Ranking Police Ranking 1.20 1.00 STDEV 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657 Statement Number Figure 3: Category Variation According to STDEV The results of the survey were analysed and the following sections concisely highlights some of the main points from which The Value of Situational Crime Prevention Model was developed. 2.2 SCP Findings It was found that 58% and 28% agreed and strongly agreed respectively that situational crime prevention measures have economic, social, political and environmental value. Another strong response was provoked by the statement stating that situational crime prevention measures have no value. 94% of the respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed with this statement. 2.3 Community Findings The statement crime is not necessarily a harmful feature of society provoked a strong response with 82% of respondents choosing to disagree (44%) or strongly disagree (38%) with the statement. The statement that the loss of community has contributed to the crime problem in modern society caused over half of all respondents (53%) to agree with this statement while 20% neither agreed nor disagreed. Exactly half of respondents (50%) agreed with the statement that a lack of commonality in communities increases risk of criminal victimization. Over half (52%) of all respondents agreed with the statement that a measure of crime is an inevitable and unpreventable feature of any society. 41% of respondents believed that crime destroys communities. 46% of respondents agreed that crime is a pathological characteristic of modern society. 47% of respondents agreed that communities prevent residential crime and associated antisocial behaviour. 42% of respondents disagreed with the statement that crime strengthens communities by encouraging community co-operation and community action. 558

Creating Safer Communities 2.4 Design Findings The survey found that 43% of respondents disagreed with the statement that access control is the most important factor in crime prevention. 36% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the notion that surveillance is the most important factor in crime prevention, only 32% agreed. 86% of respondents agreed (61%) and strongly agreed (25%) with the statement that urban design can be seen as a mechanism through which the probability of certain behaviour occurring can be manipulated or altered. 79% of respondents agreed (62%) and strongly agreed (17%) with the statement that the physical design of the urban environments exhibits cues that effect behaviour. 17% of respondents felt that they could neither agree nor disagree with the statement. 89% of respondents agreed (49%) and strongly agreed (40%) with the statement that it is necessary to strike a balance between designing for crime prevention and designing for the effective use of the environment. 83% of respondents agreed (64%) or strongly agreed (19%) with the statement that improving the physical design of the urban environment can alleviate social problems such as crime, disorder and community pathology. Only 38% of respondents agreed that crime preventing designs should take preference over aesthetic design. 45% of respondents disagreed that good urban design costs more. The statement design-based situational crime prevention measures exaggerate the influence that the physical environment has on behaviour, caused a split in the opinions of respondents 49% disagreed with the statement, 20% agreed with the statement and 20% neither agreed nor disagreed. More than half of all respondents (61%) strongly agreed that G good urban design adds value to developments. 85% of respondents agreed (43%) and strongly agreed (42%) that situational crime prevention is an economically sustainable strategy for reducing crime. Physical determinism is a feature of all situational crime prevention measures caused a rather neutral response as 55% of participants neither agreed nor disagreed, and only 21% agreed. 76% of respondents agreed (48% and strongly agreed (28%) that the form of the urban environment creates opportunities for crime. 75% of respondents agreed and 22% strongly agreed with the statement that it is possible to manipulate the physical environment so that it prevents crime and fear of crime. 51% of respondents agreed with the statement that the appropriate design of the urban environment will lead to reductions in crime and fear of crime, but 40% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed. 2.5 Difficulties The most common problem encountered when undertaking the survey was that certain participants tended to give the most neutral answer possible, i.e. 3, 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. The difficultly arises in forcing participants to choose an option when they perhaps do not have an opinion about the statement or issue under 559

Ogilvie consideration. Therefore for this reason an odd number of options were used in the survey. 3. CONCLUSIONS THE FUTURE? The Value of Situational Crime Prevention Model based on the results of the survey, currently being fine tuned before being tested using multiple case studies and interviews with interested parties in the fields of planning, design and crime prevention/community safety. A number of Housing Associations have already expressed an interest in using the model to identify and prioritise crime prevention issues in their local communities and to employ SCP techniques that adhere to the contemporary What Works ideology. More importantly the model highlights the value of design-based situational crime prevention measures, not just the monetary savings that can be made by using a specified SCP measure, but the environmental and social value that can be added to communities and neighbourhoods through working in harmony with local communities. There is little doubt that crime is rapidly destroying our communities and is provoking a disabling fear of crime. The findings of the survey highlight the need for greater cooperation between the professions involved in shaping and developing the urban environment and the people who live there. By working in partnership, adhering to the values of SCP and taking a firm moral stance against criminality we can fight back and reclaim our communities together. 4. REFERENCES Clarke, R. V. and Mayhew, P. (eds) (1980) Designing Out Crime, HMSO, London. Clarke, R. V. (1984) Opportunity-based Crime Rates: The Differences of Future Refinement, British Journal of Criminology vol. 24, no. 1, p. 74-83. Clarke, R. V. (1989) Theoretical Background to Crime Prevention through Environmental Design and Situational Prevention, Paper presented at the Australian Institute of Criminology Designing out crime: CPTED Conference, 16 th June 1989, Sydney. Clarke, R. V. (ed) (1997) Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies, Harrow and Heston, NY. Clarke, R. V. (1999) Reducing Opportunities for Crime, Paper presented for the UN workshop on community involvement in crime prevention, Ministry of Justice of the Argentine Republic, Buenos Aires. Crawford, A. (1998) Crime Prevention and Community Safety, Longman, Dorset. Huberman, M. B. and Miles, A. M. (eds) (2002) The Qualitative Researchers Companion, Sage, London. Hough, M., Clarke, R. V. and Mayhew, P. (1980) Introduction, in Clarke, R. V. and Mayhew, P. (eds) Designing Out Crime, HMSO, London. Likert, R. (1967) The Human Organization, McGraw-Hill Kogakusha Ltd, Tokyo. Miles, A. M. and Huberman, M. B. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, London. Patton, M. Q. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Sage, London. Roberts, J. S. Laughlin, J. E and Wedell, D. H. (1999) Validity Issues in the Likert and Thurstone Approaches to attitude Measurement, Educational and Psychological Measurement 59, No. 2, p. 211-233. 560