25 Techniques of Situational Crime Prevention

Ronald V. Clarke

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

Problem-Oriented Policing Conference

Charlotte, October 28-30, 2004

This presentation

• Explain Situational Prevention (SCP)

• Compare POP and SCP

• Development of 25 techniques

• Show 25 techniques on Popcenter website

Crime Prevention

Intervening in the causal chain to prevent crime

occurring

Two ways to prevent crime

1. Change people’s criminal motivations

2. Reduce opportunities for crime

Situational crime prevention (SCP)

1. Art and science of reducing opportunities for crime

2. Based on new crime theories:

– Rational choice

– Routine activity

– Crime pattern

Focus of New Crime Theories

• Crime not criminality• Events not dispositions• Near not distant causes• How? not Why?• Situational and opportunity factors

POP and SCPSIMILARITIES

• Both preventive approaches • Originated about same time

(U.K./U.S.A.)• Both focus on highly specific problems• Both use action research model

Action researchPOP• Scanning

• Analysis

• Response

• Assessment

SCP• Data collection

• Analysis of problem

• Choice of solution

• Implementation

• Evaluation

POP vs. SCPDIFFERENCES

SCP POPOrigins: Crime theory Origins: Police

management theory

Focus: Crime and disorder problems

Focus: Police problems

Implemented by agency with a crime problem

Implemented by police

Well evaluated Widely implemented

POP and SCPCONVERGENCE

• Scholars intermingling

• Literatures converging

• Popcenter website contains much SCP material

• POP Guides make use of 25 techniques

25 techniques

5 main mechanisms:– Increase the Effort– Increase the Risks– Reduce the Rewards– Reduce Provocations– Remove Excuses

5 techniques for each (Handout)

25 techniques (Continued)

Why do we need this classification:

• Systematize knowledge

• Stimulus for research• Practical guide – have you

considered these?

Why 25 techniques?

Grew from 8, 12, 16 to 25:

• Developments in theory:– Originally rational choice /routine activity– Neutralization theory (Matza)– Social Psychology (Wortley)

• New preventive ideas

• New technology

Limitations

Not all techniques equally suitable for all crimes:

– Remove excuses best for “everyday” crimes

– Reduce provocations best for closed environments

Limitations (2)

Techniques overlap - Increasing effort can increase risk

Some preventive measures can serve more than one purpose

Best used to help thinking at Response

Figure 1

Semi-Annual Fraud Dollar LossesUnited States, J une 1992 - December 1999

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

$350,000,000

$400,000,000

$450,000,000

$500,000,000

Tumbling &Cloning Losses

SubscriptionLosses

Clean Cars on NYC Subway (Reduce rewards)

Goal Actual

1984 400

1985 1720 1915

1986 3434 3454

1987 4707 4839

1988 5946 6077

1999 6221 6245

CCTV Installed in 1985 at University parking lots

(Increase risks)

CRIMES

1984 82

1985 138

1986 65