Crime prevention A discussion of the emergence of crime prevention on the criminal justice agenda and the strengths and weaknesses of initial approaches that were adopted.

The context During the 1970s a perception arose that crime was spiralling out of control. It appeared that conventional responses to crime were failing to deal with the problem. Perceptions of this nature were fuelled by a suggestion that ‘nothing works’.

‘Nothing works’ This perception arose in an article written by Robert Martinson in 1974. His focus was on the correctional services and he suggested that they were failing to prevent recidivism. He argued that with few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism … our present strategies … cannot overcome, or even appreciably reduce, the powerful tendencies of offenders to continue in criminal behaviour (Martinson, 1974: 25, 49).

But – some initiatives do work Although Martinson’s views were influential in shaping future criminal justice policy, the accuracy of his findings was questioned. However, he had never asserted that nothing ever worked and subsequently re-asserted this by acknowledging that some programmes were effective in securing rehabilitation: Startling [positive] results are found again and again … for treatment programmes as diverse as individual psychotherapy, group counseling, intensive supervision and what we have called individual/help (aid, advice, counseling) (Martinson, 1979: 255).

Therefore, what does work? The perception that some offender intervention programmes do work gave rise to the ‘what works?’ approach. This entails differentiating between effective and non-effective offender interventions by piloting initiatives, evaluating their impact and – if shown to be successful in reducing re-offending rates – rolling them out nationally.

Crime prevention Although focused on the correctional services, a more general application of the ‘nothing works’ pessimism justified the widespread adoption of crime prevention policies in an attempt to combat crime. Crime prevention policies formed a key aspect of administrative criminology which (in the UK) emerged within the Home Office during the 1980s.

How to prevent crime – three approaches A key issue is who/what should be targeted in order to prevent crime. There are three key approaches (Brantingham and Faust, 1976): Primary prevention – target the environment in which crime occurs; Secondary prevention – target those deemed most likely to commit crime (risk factors, diversion schemes etc.); Tertiary prevention – target existing offenders. All three have practical relevance, although the initiatives associated with administrative criminology are largely based on situational crime prevention which (in turn) is heavily reliant on primary prevention methods.

Situational crime prevention Situational crime prevention aims to make an environment less attractive to criminals. It has been described as the use of measures directed at highly specific forms of crime which involve the management, design or manipulation of the immediate environment in which these crimes occur… so as to reduce the opportunities for these crimes (Clarke, 1992: 4). Initiatives associated with situational crime prevention can be carried out by individuals, businesses and public authorities.

Theoretical bases of situational crime prevention (1) Situational crime prevention draws upon a number of criminological perspectives. These include: Rational choice theory (which is derived from classicist criminology) sees a criminal as an economic actor who has weighed the potential gains of a criminal act against its possible losses.

Theoretical bases of situational crime prevention (2) It also draws upon routine activities theory (associated with Cohen and Felson, 1979). This asserted that certain types of crime would occur at a specific time and place arising from the convergence of three factors – likely offenders, suitable targets and the absence of capable guardians. The convergence arose from ‘recurrent and prevalent activities which provide for basic population and individual needs’, resulting in the absence of capable guardians.

Situational crime prevention This approach can involve initiatives undertaken by individuals (such as installing a burglar alarm in a residential or business premises) or by a neighbourhood (for example, the initiation of a neighbourhood watch scheme).

Examples of situational crime prevention (1) Focus on the target of crime and seek to make the target less attractive to criminals by: Target removal Target hardening Target devaluation.

Examples of situational crime prevention (2) Re-design the physical environment. This approach was developed by Oscar Newman (1972) whose concept of defensible space highlighted the relationship between the physical environment and crime. This approach is often referred to as ‘designing out’ crime.

Examples of situational crime prevention (3) Introduce improved methods of surveillance within an area. Neighbourhood watch embraces this approach. Closed circuit television is an important aspect of this approach - It has been stated that the average person in a major city is filmed up to 300 times a day by cctv cameras in shops, banks, places of work and, increasingly, the street itself (Bright, 1999).

Situational crime prevention – does it work ? It focuses on the symptoms of crime and not its root causes. It may succeed in displacing crime, but not eliminating it. Displacement takes numerous forms that embrace temporal (time), spatial (locality), tactical (methods used) or target (subject at which crime is directed) aspects.

Also … It may underpin a climate of victim blaming. It tends to focus on crimes committed in public spaces to the detriment of others (e.g. those that occur behind closed doors). It poses civil liberty issues (i.e. a ‘Big Brother’ or ‘surveillance’ society).

References / further reading Brantingham, P. and Faust, F. (1976) ‘A Conceptual Model of Crime Prevention’, Crime and Delinquency, 22: 130–46. Bright, J. (1999) ‘They’re Watching You’, The Guardian, 29 August. Clarke, R. (1992) Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. New York: Harrow & Heston. Cohen, L. and Felson, M. (1979) ‘Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach’, American Sociological Review, 44 (4): 588–608. Martinson, R. (1974) ‘What Works? Questions and Answers about Prison Reform’, Public Interest, 34: 217–27. Martinson, R. (1979) ‘New Findings, New Views: A Note of Caution Regarding the Sentencing Reform’, Hofstra Law Review, 7, 243–58. Newman, O. (1972) Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design. London: Architectural Press.