Clarkes Situational Crime Prevention Theory - Research Paper Example

 INTRODUCTION Crime prevention is a proactive response to crime with aims to address crime before it occurs. Together, the two systems of response to crime, traditional and preventative, form a balanced approach to reducing crime and victimisation. From the critical perspective, while there are many types of crime prevention strategies, most can be classified under two broad categories; situational crime prevention and social crime prevention widely referred in literature as prevention through social development. The differences between these two approaches to criminal behaviour have been widely recognised as misleading. Practically, organisations responsible to prevent and control criminal behaviour in order to be effective have to adopt and combine both situational and social approaches to crime prevention. UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH CONCEPTS OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL COHESION In order to understand the nature and methods of social crime prevention approach, one needs to frame it within the context of social development and social cohesion. In the United Nations, “social development is considered as one of the three components that define development, together with economic growth and environmental protection” (UN, 2010, para. 3). The Social Perspective on Development Branch of the United Nations Department for Social Policy and Development notes that, “a social perspective advocates a people-centered and participatory approach to development toward an inclusive, just and stable society” (UN, 2010, para. 1). They go on to say, “While public and policy concerns have given rise to a growing framework for economic growth and environmental protection, no such framework has been developed to address social issues” (UN, 2010, para.2). Social development has been used traditionally to address the problems of “social issues” such as “welfare matters” in a negative sense to see them as never being completely “resolved.” Professor James Midgley, in his paper on globalisation and social development defines social development as: “The social development perspective insists on the integration of economic and social policy and gives expression to two axioms: first, it requires that economic development should be inclusive, integrated, and sustainable and bring benefits to all; and secondly, it proposes that social welfare should be investment oriented, seeking to enhance human capacities to participate in the productive economy” (Midgley, 2007, p.22). In keeping with the United Nations definition of social development, Ellseworth in his work “Advances in social ecology: journeys in crime prevention, community policing and social development” has identified social development as “social good” (Ellsworth, 2002, p.3) based on the notion of social, economic and environmental capital. Consideration and promotion of social justice is central to social perspectives on development. The creation of social policy is a key instrument. However, the development and implementation of social policy presents many difficulties, since most social issues are value-related. This is probably why “social development is most often defined by reference to specific social problems” (United Nations, 2010, para. 2), including the problems of crime prevention. One cannot develop a shared meaning with reference to social development without dealing with the concept of building community capacity or social capital. One of four distinct approaches to social capital research has to do with synergy, which “emphasises incorporating different levels and dimensions of social capital and its recognition of the positive and negative outcomes that social capital can generate” (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000, p. 225). Capital “has the greatest empirical support and lends itself best to comprehensive and coherent policy prescriptions” (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000, p.226). These authors describe social capital in terms of “the norms and networks that enable people to act collectively.” According to them, this definition serves three purposes: (1) It focuses on the sources (as opposed to consequences) of “social capital while acknowledging that important features of social capital such as trust and reciprocity are developed through repetition and practice;” (2) It is through different combinations of bonding and bridging social capital that cultural understanding occurs and allows for continued growth and positive change based on a sense of shared meaning and values. (3) While this definition presents the community as a primary unit of analysis, “it recognises that individuals and households (as members of a given community) can nonetheless appropriate social capital and that the way communities themselves are structured turns in large part on their (working and socialising, relationship with [the state]” (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000, p. 227). These three purposes adequately describe the inter relationships between individuals in the community within the scope of social capital. Scope refers to descriptive features such as “trust and reciprocity,” “repetition and practice,” “bonding and bridging,” “cultural understanding,” “positive change,” “shared meaning and values,” “individuals and households,” and “working and socialising.” In turn, these same descriptive features accurately characterise what is required to build social capital indicators within the context of economic, environmental and social development. Research literature contains different academic and institutional conceptualising definitions on social crime prevention. For instance, the Government of Canada National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC) defines social crime prevention as follows: “Crime prevention through social development is an approach to preventing crime and victimisation that recognises the complex social, economic and cultural processes that contribute to crime and victimisation” (NCPS, 2002, p.l). From this perspective, social crime prevention approach approach seeks to strengthen the “bridge” between criminal justice policies and programmes and the safe, secure, and pro-social development of individuals, families and communities (NCPS, 2002). NCPC strengthens this bridge by addressing risk factors that contribute to crime and victimisation and are receptive and responsive to change. These risk factors are generally what NCPC considers “secondary prevention measures” as opposed to more direct societal influences such as poverty, gender inequality, media violence, racism and discrimination (NCPS, 2002, p.l). Examples of secondary risk factors addressed by crime prevent through social development are (NCPS, 2002, p.l): (1) inadequate living conditions; (2) family factors; (3) individual personality and behavioural factors; (4) peer association; (5) school-related factors; (6) employment opportunities. These protective factors tend to lessen the risk or disadvantages caused by crime or victimisation and reduce the risks of harm. They support proactive, long-term strategies that “build a comprehensive approach to crime prevention,” (NCPS, 2002, p.2) connect social policy and delivery services and “make connections beyond the traditional criminal justice sphere by recognising the important role that policies, programmess, and services…play in preventing crimes” (NCPS, 2002, p.2). The purpose of these strategies is “to create an environment that will reduce risk factors associated with criminal behaviour and victimisation over the long term…and involve a range of players: different agencies in forming a creative environment to reduce the risk factors associated with criminal behaviour and victimisation” (NCPS, 2002, p.2). Typical social crime prevention programmes uses three main types of strategies: individual-level, family-oriented, and community-level. The characteristics of social crime prevention programmes are that they are well-developed in their orientation using empirical research. They are “accessible, easily obtained, and affordable for users” (NCPS, 2002, p. 3). They display integrity (accountability). Environments are structured and organised. Resources (staff, financial and in-kind resources, and material) are excellent. And research and evaluation methods (they use both quantitative and qualitative research techniques) are solid and thorough. All three types of strategies (individual-level, family-oriented, and community-level) have these characteristics. Research literature identifies several examples of social crime prevention programmes, both local and national. For instance, various community moblisation programmes aim to help communities both on locan and national level to develp and implement grassroots stategies to prevent crime and victimisation by addressing their root causes at the local level. Business action programmes on crime prevention aim to support the involvement of businesses and professional associations in corporate/community partnership projects to prevent crime. Creation of crime prevention investment funds carried the objective to support research and evaluation of effectiveness of innovative efforts to prevent crime. Crime prevention partnership programmes support the involvement of various non-governmental organisations (NGOs), which through development of information, resources and tools enhance community crime prevention. In addition, many national crime prevention programmes have stategic funds whose objectives are to support projects that are beyond the scope or that have outgrown community mobilisation programmes, but still need support to bring them to a point where they are sustainable - or where they could be considered for funding support from other components of the National Strategy, other federal departments, or levels of government, or other sectors UNDERSTANDING SITUATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION: THEORY AND PRACTICE The UK Government appears to use the United Nations’ definition of situational crime prevention in their documents. The “United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Crime – 2002” defines situational crime prevention approaches as one of four approaches to crime prevention (UN, 2002, p.3. The other three are prevention through social development or social crime prevention, locally based crime prevention and reintegration programmes. Situational crime prevention approaches are those that “prevent the occurrence of crimes by reducing opportunities, increasing risks of being apprehended and minimising benefits, including through environmental design, and by providing assistance and information to potential and actual victims” (United Nations, 2002, p.3). Analysis of situational crime prevention methods has become a part of criminology curriculum in academic institutions. For instance, criminological courses on crime prevention emphasise the “environment”, “both the social, cultural and physical surrounding of crimes and finding ways, using planning and architecture, to reduce the amount and spatial clustering or “hot spots” of crime. As well as actual crimes, the course will also explore fear of crime and nuisance behaviour” (SFU, 2010, p.l). Because situational crime concerns itself with crime statistics and deals with crime from a collective and community standpoint, one can associate situational crime prevention as environmental. In other words situational crime addresses crime from an environmental perspective. Situational crime prevention is built upon the idea that crimes can be prevented by reducing opportunities, increasing the associated risks and difficulties, and reducing the awards (Clarke, 1997, p.18). Situational crime prevention is a practical approach in which practitioners work with researchers on certain criminal problems. Situational crime prevention includes a broad range of strategies, including access control of places, increased formal and informal surveillance, and increased control over certain people and places (Clarke, 1997, p.21). Situational crime prevention was developed as a practical product of environmental criminology. Environmental criminology is a movement that differs from conventional criminology in terms of explaining criminality and policy recommendations. While conventional criminology tries to explain why some individuals are involved in criminal acts and seeks criminal roots in the background of individuals and society, environmental criminology tries to explain how crime occurs. Environmental criminology focuses on the effects of the physical and social characteristics of an environment on the decisions of committing crime (Clarke, 1997, p.16). Three theories within environmental criminology are particularly important for understanding situational crime prevention: (a) rational choice perspective, (b) routine activity theory, and (c) crime pattern theory. The rational choice perspective focuses on the proximate motives of offenders and offender decision-making. Routine activity theory, on the other hand, examines the elements that make up the proximate situation within which offenders make decisions (Clarke, 1997, p.29). Routine activity theory also describes the movement patterns and schedules of crime targets. A related theory, crime pattern theory, describes the movement patterns of offenders. The rational choice perspective starts with the premise that criminals are rational decision-makers who can chose to commit or not to commit a crime to gain personal benefits. Their decision-making process is highly affected by immediate situational factors. These factors are constrained by time, space, and cognitive limitations. Therefore, criminals cannot make perfect decisions. Rather, offenders engage in what Cornish and Clarke (2003) call “bounded rationality” (p.43). The rational choice perspective forms the basis for situational crime prevention. The five factors offenders consider are risk, effort, rewards, excuses, and provocations. The relative importance of these factors varies from crime to crime and from circumstance to circumstance. Routine activity theory also has contributed to the development of situational crime prevention. This theory describes the situational conditions in which motivated criminals engage in crime. It suggests that the day-to-day activities (i.e., routines) of criminals and targets create opportunities for crime. In the first version of the theory, Cohen and Felson (1979) suggest that three essential elements must converge in a certain time and space for crime to be happen: (a) motivated offender, (b) suitable target, and (c) absence of capable guardians (p.596). The likely offender could be anybody. A suitable target might be any person or object that attracts the criminal interest of likely offenders. Capable guardians are people or things that increase the risk of criminal acts for the offender and reduce the attractiveness of a target. Routine activity theory has undergone several modifications. Felson (1986) added the concept of “handlers,” drawing on the ideas of Hirschi’s social-bond theory (p.115). Handlers are people who have emotional links with potential offenders. Offenders hesitate to commit crime in the presence of those intimate handlers. Possible intimate handlers are parents, teachers, and friends. However, Felson (1986) suggested that many offenders have few or no intimate handlers that would keep them from committing a crime (p.117). Other modifications came in the mid 1990s, when Eck (2003) added the concept of “manager.” Managers are people who are responsible for the functioning of places (Eck, 2003, p.85). The importance of place in crime prevention has gained much more weight than other elements of Eck’s concept. Eck and Weisburd, (1995) defined place as “a very small area reserved for a narrow range of functions, often controlled by a single owner, and separated from the surrounding area (Eck & Weisburd, 1995, p.23). Eck and Weisburd (1995) suggested that place should be the core component of any crime prevention theory (p.28). Place theories seek to explain why crime is concentrated in some places more than in others from the perspective of the situation of those places. The situational characteristics of some places make them safer for criminals than others, including the number of available targets, the degree of guardianship, the quality of management, and the importance of the position of the place on criminal patterns (Eck & Weisburd, 1995, p.33). Another theory that has bearing on situational crime prevention is crime pattern theory. Crime pattern theory focuses on how offenders’ routine activities are influenced by the availability of targets. The theory says that crimes occur when suitable targets and offenders converge at the same place; however, this theory emphasises the way offenders search for targets and places suitable for crime. Just as normal individuals shop for goods and services along their normal routes, offenders also seek criminal opportunities during their daily activities. Knowing the daily routines of offenders, targets, and handlers or managers provides important information about predicting and preventing crime (Eck & Weisburd, 1995,p.34). SITUATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION: ITS METHODOLOGY AND TECHNIQUES Situational crime prevention methodology consists of five contiguous steps (Clarke, 1997, p.48): (1) Collection of data about the nature and dimensions of a specific crime problem; (2) Analysis of the situational conditions that permit or facilitate the commission of the crime in question; (3) Systematic study of possible means of blocking opportunities for particular crimes (including analysis of costs); (4) Implementation of the most promising, feasible, and economical measures; (5) Monitoring of results and dissemination of experiences. Situational crime prevention describes a number of crime opportunity-blocking techniques. These have expanded since Clarke first suggested them. Clarke (1997) listed 12 techniques based on the theory and available studies. Originally, Clarke considered only approaches that increased offenders’ perceived risk, perceived effort, and perceived reward; he considered four techniques under each of these approaches (Clarke 1997, p.49). Clarke (1997) added consideration of perceived excuses and four techniques under this heading, thus expanding the number of situational techniques from 12 to 16 (p.61). Finally, Clarke and Cornish (2003) added consideration of provocations and expanded the number of techniques under each heading to five, bringing the total number of situational techniques to 25, among which are target hardening, control access facilities, screen tests, strengthen formal surveillance, control drugs and alcohol, etc (p.72). SITUATIONAL CTIME PREVENTION: APPLICATIONS AND EFFECTIVENESS Situational crime prevention has been applied successfully to a wide range of predatory crimes such as burglary, car theft, shoplifting, pickpocketing, drug dealings, injuries in bar fighting, prostitution, credit card fraud, check fraud, Internet crimes, child abuse, crime in metro trains, prison violence, and terrorism. There have been numerous studies of situational prevention interventions, and these studies have been reviewed in research literature. As part of a report to the U.S. Congress on the effectiveness of a variety of crime prevention strategies, Eck (1998) reviewed the extant literature on place-based prevention. He found that this literature provided strong overall support for the effectiveness of situational crime prevention applied to places, though most of the individual studies used relatively weak evaluation methods. Clarke (1997) examined more than 100 studies of situational crime prevention and found that opportunity-reducing techniques are effective in reducing crime. These studies ranged from very simple opportunity-blocking techniques (such as implementing transparent barriers on buses to prevent bus drivers from being robbed) to complex citywide camera surveillance systems. Other reviews found specific positive effects of situational crime techniques including place managers (Eck, 2003), natural surveillance, formal surveillance and closed-captioned television and lighting. CONCLUSION Clarke’s (1997) situational crime prevention theory is part of a larger body of theories that emphasises opportunities for crime. Situational crime prevention advocates have a range of interventions available to them, but these interventions need to be appropriate for the characteristics of specific crimes. The evaluation literature suggests that situational crime prevention can be quite effective, and this approach to crime prevention has been successfully applied to a diverse range of crimes. Simultaneously, social crime prevention approach constitutes another approach to crime prevention that alters social, economic and cultural processes that contribute to crime and victimisation. From the critical perspective, both approaches are mutually dependant in terms of their effectiveness and impact on preventing criminal behaviour. The distinction between approaches appears to be methodological, and practically agenicies, programmes and personnel responsible for crime prevention should incorporate both situational and social crime prevention methods in order to establish effective policies and risk solutions. REFERENCES Clarke, R. V. (1997). Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies. Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588-608. Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. V. (2003). Opportunities, precipitators and criminal decisions: A reply to Wortley’s critique of situational crime prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, 16, 41-96. Eck, J. E. (1998). Preventing crime by controlling drug dealing on private rental property. Security Journal, 11(1), 37-43. Eck, J. E. (2003). Police problems: The complexity of problem theory, research and evaluation. In J. Knuttsson (Ed.), Problem oriented policing: From innovation to mainstream. Crime Prevention Studies: Vol. 15 (pp. 79-113). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press Eck, J. E., & Weisburd, D. (1995). Crime places in crime theory. In J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and place (pp. 1-34). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. Felson, M. (1986). Linking criminal choices, routine activities, informal control, and criminal outcomes. In D. Cornish & R. V. Clarke (Eds.), The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspective on offending. New York: Springer-Verlag. Simon Fraser University. Techniques of Crime Prevention II. (2010). Retrieved March 17, 2010 from National Crime Prevention Strategy (NCPS). (2002). Factsheet: Crime Prevention through social development. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada Publication United Nations. Social Perspective on Development Branch: Our Mission. New York, NY: United Nations 2003. Retrieved March 17, 2010 from < http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/social/> United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Crime – 2002. (2002). Retrieved March 17 2010 from Midgley J. (2007). Perspectives on Globalization, Social Justice and Social Welfare. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare. Vol. 34 (2), pp. 17-35. Ellsworth, J. (2002). Advances in social ecology: journeys in crime prevention, community policing and social development. Halifax, NS: Safety and Emergency Preparedness Woolcock, M, & Narayan, D. (August, 2000). Social Capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 15, no. 2 pp. 225-249. Read More