Skip to start of content

Preventing crime in Australia 1990 - 2002: a selected register of crime prevention projects

Defining crime prevention

Contents

In order to delimit the selection of appropriate projects, it was necessary to define the concept of crime prevention - which has been described as "a profoundly 'slippery' and 'free floating' signifier in the competing discourses on law and order" (Hughes, 1998: 17-18) and as "probably the most overworked and least understood concept in contemporary criminology" (Brantingham & Faust 1976: 284). Definitions of crime prevention vary from study to study, program to program and from academic account to academic account (Lab, 1997: 19). However, in recent times, criminologists have tried to categorise crime prevention into a number of different models or typologies.

Traditionally, criminology has tended to be more interested in the underlying causes of crime rather than in understanding and explaining forms of crime prevention and control (Hughes, 1998: 2-4). However, over the last decade or so there has been a marked growth of interest, research, knowledge and understanding of crime prevention, both in Australia and other Western countries. Although crime prevention as a concept per se is hardly new (the existence of police, courts and corrections are testament to this), there has developed more recently a plethora of 'new' crime prevention strategies, practices and studies. These recent approaches to crime prevention include those that signal a movement away from traditional law enforcement strategies (i.e. arising from the application of criminal law) and those that, centre around private community based projects and the development of more specific policies at both state and federal levels. Of course, many of these 'new' crime prevention measures are little more than reincarnations or extensions of past practices. The formal enforcement of criminal law through a state-controlled criminal justice system (i.e. police, courts and corrections) is, relatively speaking, a recent historical development. For example, one of the supposedly unique features of 'new' crime prevention strategies is citizen (community) participation but for most of human history the community has been the primary line of defence against crime (Lab, 1997: 1). While it is acknowledge that crime prevention is hardly new, the term will generally be used here to refer to contemporary developments rather than historical or formal (police, courts and corrections) responses to crime.

Public sector agencies in Australia have been particularly active in this 'new' project of crime prevention. From the late 1980's, several states began to "take an interest in the potential of crime prevention as an official public policy response to the growing crime problem, and began looking for ways to develop such an approach" (Cameron & Laycock, 2001: 4). The first state to make a serious attempt at implementing new crime prevention measures was South Australia, followed closely by Victoria and the remaining states and territories. By the early 1990's, the Commonwealth Government had also begun to take an interest in crime prevention with the 1992 Labour Government announcement that it would "take a role in managing crime prevention" (Cameron & Laycock, 2001: 7). In 1994, the Australian Government further committed itself to developing a National Anti-Crime Prevention Strategy and in 1997, under the Liberal/National Government, the National Campaign Against Violence and Crime was launched. The sum of 13 million dollars was allocated to the National Anti-Crime Prevention Strategy and between 1999 and 2000 a further 21 million dollars was committed to the project (Cameron & Laycock, 2001: 7-8).

Towards a typology of crime prevention

Crime prevention approaches across the world have developed out of different traditions. North American criminologists, for example, have drawn from public health models of disease prevention to create their own crime prevention typology. First, there is primary crime prevention which attempts to change environmental conditions that provide opportunities for or precipitate the occurrence of criminal acts. Secondary crime prevention is said to engage in the early identification of potential offenders by seeking to intervene to prevent criminal behaviour from developing. Finally, tertiary measures deal with actual offenders and involve interventions aimed at preventing further offending (Lab, 1997:21-23).

In contrast to North American approaches, the Australian crime prevention literature has tended to draw a distinction between situational, social and developmental strategies (see Gant & Grabosky, 2000, Geason & Wilson, 1988). This latter typology forms the basis for the present analysis.

Situational crime prevention

Situational crime prevention aims to reduce crime through the management, design and augmentation of the physical environment by: a) reducing the opportunity to commit crime, simply by making it harder to offend; b) increasing the risk of detection if deterrence fails; and c) reducing the rewards of crime. The installation of surveillance cameras in public places, controlling access to buildings, car steering locks and gun controls are examples of situational measures that aim to reduce opportunities for the commission of crime. Security guards, baggage screening and surveillance cameras, are examples of situational measures aimed at increasing the risk of offenders being caught. Removing car stereos, cleaning up graffiti and property marking are examples of situational measures that may reduce the rewards of crime.

Instances of situational crime prevention projects appearing in this publication include:

The theory underpinning situational crime prevention is rational choice theory which is concerned with the way in which offenders make decisions about offending in particular situations. The premise is that offenders make reasoned decisions about when and where to offend based on their perceptions of needs, risks, payoffs and other factors. The argument is that by a) making crime more difficult to commit, b) increasing the chance of being caught and, c) reducing the rewards associated with the offence, the criminal act becomes harder to rationalise and thus less likely to take place. This leads us to the principal weakness of situational crime prevention - displacement or movement of the offending problem or offender onto another area or group of victims (Hughes, 1998: 88). So while the management, design and/or manipulation of the physical environment may make it less rational to offend in one area there is a chance that the criminal behaviour could simply migrate.

It has been argued that crime displacement significantly diminishes the efficacy of situational crime prevention strategies - for while crime rates may decrease in the area where situational projects have been undertaken, they might increase in other areas where these measures do not appear to exist (see Gilling, 1997: 182). However in its defence, situational crime prevention advocates argue that the displacement of crime may only be partial and is not always negative (see Lab, 1997: 76). Barr and Pease (1990), for example, speak of benign displacement. Consequences of benign displacement may either be changes to offending or the more equitable distribution of crime throughout society. In the first instance, while offending may not be prevented, it might change and become less serious as a result of situational crime prevention measures. For example, robbery might become burglary, assault with a weapon might become simple assault and robberies with guns might become robberies without guns. In the second instance, displacement could provide a more even or equal spread of crime and victimisation across the community. The argument here is that some level of crime is inevitable in society but that it is not spread evenly across the social spectrum. Subsequently, the displacement of crime across the community would result in the burden being shared equally by all.

Social crime prevention

Unlike situational crime prevention, social or community crime prevention measures seek to prevent offending by changing the social rather than the physical environment. Interventions in this case provide tools for communities to use in an effort to reduce criminal behaviour by changing social conditions. The aim is to strengthen community bonds, increase levels of informal social control and thus deter actual or potential offenders. Social crime prevention measures could focus on making those who are at risk of offending feel more integrated into the community e.g. schemes such as youth 'drop in' centres and activity groups. Alternatively, projects could be aimed at strengthening informal defences in the community to help combat crime. For example, the aim of Neighbourhood Watch is to increase everyday safeguards against crime within a community. By 'looking out' for one another community bonds are strengthened and surveillance is increased. In an additional, perhaps more radical vein, social (community) crime prevention could involve the prioritisation of social policies (both at a local and governmental level) aimed at the redistribution of societal resources. After all, it is known that marginalisation, inequality and social exclusion often lie at the heart of criminal behaviour (Hughes, 1998: 117).

Examples of social crime prevention projects appearing in this publication include:

Like situational crime prevention, social measures aimed at reducing crime could involve displacement. However, situational crime prevention is somewhat narrower in focus than social measures and generally lacks an appreciation of why people offend in the first place. Social crime prevention makes a more assertive attempt at getting to the heart of the crime problem. In this case displacement is (at least in theoretical terms) less likely because crime is not considered an inevitable consequence of societal organisation. Rather crime is seen as the result of an unjust, dysfunctional or fragmented society - a problem that social crime prevention measures actively seek to alleviate.

Developmental crime prevention

In contrast to the environmental (either physical or social) changes sought by situational and social crime prevention measures, developmental crime prevention enterprises focus on the individual. In this case, prevention is based on attitudinal and/or behavioural change by potential offenders, actual offenders, prospective victims or actual victims. Developmental crime prevention either involves the early identification of potential offenders or victims and intervenes in some way to keep them from realising that potential or, works with those who have already offended or been victimised to prevent further offending or victimisation from taking place. For example, at the offender level, prevention could take the form of early childhood intervention for those deemed to be 'at risk' of offending. Projects in this case might attempt to improve children's health (physical and/or mental) and educational achievement. For those who have already offended, the prevention of future criminality could be sought through rehabilitation strategies aimed at reforming them through various 'treatment' regimes. Victim-focussed prevention could also be centred on early intervention for those considered 'at risk' of victimisation or take place after victimisation has occurred to prevent repeat victimisation. Thus, victim-focussed intervention might include educational campaigns warning young children about the dangers of getting into cars with strangers or self-defence courses for women.

Examples of developmental crime prevention projects appearing in this publication include:

Developmental crime prevention approaches have been criticised for their overly individualistic and positivistic nature. It is argued that the danger with developmental crime prevention is that the responsibility or blame for criminality and victimisation is focussed on the individual or the community from which that individual comes. The potentially decisive effects of wider social forces (such as unemployment and poverty) are subsequently side-lined (see Hughes, 1998:37-57). In response, proponents of developmental approaches argue that they do make room for social context in crime prevention. However, consideration of social structure in this case often only extends to the immediate community rather than the wider social context. For example, in a recent National Crime Prevention (1999: 12) work on developmental and early intervention approaches to crime in Australia, it is noted that an aspect of developmental crime prevention not often understood is that:

social contexts are always regarded as significant...it is not only that social contexts make a difference to the skills, strategies, or identities that individuals develop. They also make a difference to the support which is available when transitions are made. For example, transitions are made more easily when there are personal social supports, such as a network of friends. Transitions are also made more easily when social structures provide the information that is needed in order to know what a transition involves or are sufficiently flexible to allow for different points of entry or different understandings of what the transition involves.

While community is highlighted as important for the success of developmental approaches to crime prevention, issues of inequality and social exclusion as they are manifested in the wider social context remain marginalised.

Multi-faceted crime prevention

Theoretically, the distinction between situational, social and developmental crime prevention appears reasonably straightforward. However, in practice, crime prevention projects may not fit easily under these headings. Some crime prevention measures, for example, may incorporate various elements of developmental, situational and social crime prevention approaches. For example, a local council might install security cameras to prevent young people from 'tagging'1 (situational crime prevention), offer a program to young taggers to improve self esteem and re-channel their artistic talent in a less destructive way (developmental), and set up Neighbourhood Watch in the tagged area (social).

Summary

Rather than attempting a strict categorisation of projects, the following register arranges projects chronologically, while a detailed indexing system is used to highlight key words (e.g. author, funding body), facets (e.g. target crimes, target groups) and type (i.e. situational, social, developmental or multi-faceted) of crime prevention project. Individual projects are numbered sequentially and a directory of project numbers and titles is provided to make each project easy to locate.

The projects presented in this register are public or private projects which have tried or are trying to prevent and/or to reduce criminal activity.

Projects concerned with the formal enforcement of criminal law are omitted.