Skip to start of content

Home → Publications → Reports → Crime prevention series → Retail crime → The approach : situational crime prevention

Crime prevention series

The approach : situational crime prevention

Published in:
Preventing retail crime
Susan Geason and Paul R Wilson
Canberra : Australian Institute of Criminology, 1992
ISBN 0 642 17047 9 ; ISSN 1031-5330
(Crime prevention series) ; pp. 7-11

Rational choice

While traditional criminology tended to see criminals as driven by their conditioning and environment, economics-based theories portray criminals as rational decision makers who base their decision to commit crimes on an analysis of the risks compared to the expected profits. That is, the criminal does a rudimentary cost-benefit analysis.

Rational choice theory makes the following assumptions:

  • offenders freely and actively choose to commit crimes;
  • the decision to commit the crime is made in response to the immediate circumstances and the immediate situation in which an offence is considered;
  • the motivation to offend is not constant or beyond control; that is, it is dependent on a calculation of costs and rewards rather than being the result of an inherited or acquired disposition to offend (Bennett 1986).

To put it concisely, one school of thought maintains that criminals analyse a given situation, and will not proceed if the going looks too tough.

Opportunity reduction

An approach to crime prevention which sets out to make the crime too difficult for the criminal by closing off opportunities to proceed is called 'opportunity reduction'. Opportunity reduction forms the basis of situational crime prevention.

The opportunity reduction school came to prominence in the 1970s with the work of (Mayhew, Clarke, Sturman & Hough (1976) and was expanded in the 1980s with the research done by the UK Home Office Research Unit (Clarke & Mayhew 1980) and Patricia and Paul Brantingham, the Canadian criminologists (1981). Strategies for opportunity reduction include the following.

Formal, organised surveillance: covers a range of observational strategies, from self-help groups such as Neighbourhood Watch, School Watch, Business Watch (in which people monitor their environment and report suspicious activities) through uniformed, sometimes armed security patrols to electronic surveillance via closed circuit television (CCTV).

Access control: means minimising, securing or blocking off ways in and out for potential offenders by natural surveillance; electronic surveillance; reception desks; entryphones; and target hardening such as better locks, secure doors, security grilles on windows, and alarm systems.

Employee surveillance: refers to vigilance by employees working in public places - bus conductors, car park attendants, receptionists, caretakers in schools or housing estates, and shop owners, managers or assistants - as a means of crime prevention.

Physical design and kinetic management: building on theories that criminals and victims find the shortest route, spend the least time and seek the easiest means to accomplish something - 'the principle of least effort' - this strategy maintains that, by manipulating the built environment, we should be able to minimise the contact between potential offenders and their victims (Felson 1987). This can be done by diverting flows of offenders away from likely targets or restricting flows to where they can be monitored, and by channelling potential victims away from risk.

Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED)

The CPTED school of crime prevention emerged in the 1960s and the early 1970s, with a surge of interest in the possibilities of manipulating the built environment to prevent delinquency and crime. In Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (1971), C. Ray Jeffery suggested urban design, including the design of streets, parks, terminals, super highways etc. could prevent crime by reducing 'opportunities'.

In Defensible Space (1972), a seminal work on CPTED, Oscar Newman established a definite relationship between urban design and crime rates.

For many goods, in particular cigarettes, it is wise to keep stock under lock and key
For many goods, in particular cigarettes, it is wise to keep stock under lock and key

Situational crime prevention

Criminology research has identified four major categories of crime and delinquency prevention (Perlgut 1981).

Corrective prevention attempts to prevent crime by ameliorating the social conditions which seem to lead to crime, for example, by job creation schemes, reducing overcrowding, creating viable neighbourhoods, rehabilitating slums and providing community health clinics and recreation facilities.

Punitive prevention uses police to deter crime through the police courts, the legal system and lawyers and gaols.

Mechanical prevention emphasises hardware such as locks, doors and protective grilles.

Environmental prevention manipulates building design and the relationship between buildings and their environment to reduce opportunities for crime.

Taken together, the last two categories comprise what is called the 'situational crime prevention' approach.

Successful security planning is likely to incorporate some aspects of all four approaches. This manual will concentrate on situational crime prevention, with an emphasis on crime-proofing different environments against property theft, vandalism, violence and nuisance behaviour.

Situational crime prevention seems most effective against offences which cluster in time or space, and which are of a high rate (Poyner 1986). While there is no doubt that situational crime prevention measures can reduce crime such as burglary, vandalism, shop crime and autocrime, there is some dispute about its effectiveness against violent crime.

Displacement

It has been argued that situational crime prevention, by reducing an offender's opportunity to commit crime in a certain place or at a certain time, simply causes the criminal to go elsewhere to offend. Research seems to show that, where the offender is not strongly committed to a crime, and where the costs and risks of committing the crime are high, displacement is unlikely to occur (Bemmett 1986).

For example, a recent analysis of improvements in bank security found little evidence that bank robberies had been displaced to other states in Australia or that the fall in bank robberies had led to increases in robberies of other targets in Victoria (Clarke, Field & McGrath 1991). Where the converse is true, however, displacement does seem likely.

Planning a crime prevention program

Successful crime prevention measures must be tailored to specific conditions. It is therefore not possible to recommend measures which fit all situations. There is, however, a planning process which is likely to lead to successful crime prevention programs (Poyner & Webb 1987).

The following steps are recommended for devising an effective crime prevention program, and should be followed in order.

  1. Search for local crime problems.
  2. Select specific crime problems.
  3. Analyse the crime problem you have selected.
  4. Consider a range of possible measures.
  5. Identify who will implement the measures.
  6. Document the implementation process.
  7. Monitor changes in the crime situation over several years.
  8. Evaluate the program before proceeding with another.

For further information about planning a crime prevention program, see Susan Geason & Paul R. Wilson 1988, Crime Prevention: theory and practice, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.

(Illustration)

SHOPPING BAG SEARCHES

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF CUSTOMERS

RIGHTS

  1. You have the right to know before entry that the store conducts bag searches.
  2. You have the right to refuse inspection of your personal handbag useless it is large, The size of a sheet of foolscap paper will be used as a guide. THIS NOTICE IS PRINTED ON A SHEET OF FOOLSCAP PAPER. ANY BAG LARGER THAN THIS SHEET OF PAPER WILL BE INSPECTED.
  3. You have thei right to refuse interference with your person or with your bags. Inspection means that staff can look and not touch. You can be asked to assist inspection, e.g., by removing obstructions to visualise inspection.
  4. You can refuse inspection of your bags but you can then be asked to leave the store with your purchases and not return.

OBLIGATIONS

  1. Having entered a store knowing that bag searches are conducted, you have accepted the store's right to ask you to make your shopping bags available for inspection.

IMPORTANT NOTES

  1. Where there are real grounds for suspecting theft, customers may be held at the store and/or the police may be called.
  2. If a shopkeeper or employee forcibly interferes with you or your goods, you may complain to the management or the police.
  3. If you have comments about bag searches or your experience, please send them to the following address:
    Bag Search
    Department of Consumer Affairs
    1 Oxford Street,
    DARLINGHURST. 2010

Approved by the Department of Consumer Affairs and the Retail Traders' Association of NSW