User:Ivantor11/sandbox

 SITUATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION 

Ronald V. Clarke was a major contributor to situational crime prevention theory, which it compiles tactical plans for reducing criminal acts. The theory focuses on putting safety measures that help protect citizens by making criminals feel like they will be unable to commit crimes or that the committed situation would be easily caught (Clarke, 1997). Thus it is focused on the setting for crime rather than upon those committing criminal acts. It seeks to forestall the occurrence of crime, rather than to detect and sanction offenders. It seeks not to eliminate criminal or delinquent tendencies through improvement of society or its institutions, but merely to make criminal action less attractive to offenders. The theory’s methods are rooted within the idea of rational choice regarding crime. By utilizing the idea that every criminal will analyze any situation for possible crime and balance how much they can gain against how much they loose if they fail. If safeguards are put in place to increase failure probability, then the criminals’ rationality will be to no commit crimes (Clarke, 1997).

OPPORTUNITY REDUCING TECHNIQUES
Ronald V. Clarke outlines 25 basic techniques that can be used to prevent crime. The opportunity reducing techniques are necessary to develop new ways of reducing opportunities and the practice of new forms to addressed crime. The techniques are grounded under five categories: increase the effort, increase the risks, reduce the rewards, remove excuses, and reduce provocation (Clarke, 1997).

Increase the effort Increasing the risk Reduce Rewards Reduce provocations Remove excuses These different approaches serve as the basis of the highly detailed classification system of situational crime prevention (Clarke, 1997). The techniques seek to defined solutions to specific crime issues. Instead of changing deviants, the 25 techniques seek to change the environment so that crimes become harder to commit and less profitable.
 * 1) Target harden: A highly effective way to reduce criminal chances is to obstruct the individuals by placing physical barriers through the use of locks, safes, screens, or reinforced items.
 * 2) Control access: This refers to measures or devices that exclude potential offenders from places such as offices, facilities, and apartment blocks.
 * 3) Entry/exit screening: Entry screenings differs from access control in that it excludes potential offenders than to increase the likelihood of detecting that not in conformity with entry requirements. These requirements may relate to prohibited goods and objects. Exit screen main purpose is to deter theft by detecting objects that should not be removed from the protected area.
 * 4) Deflecting offenders: Mainly use at overly crowded environments this is a way to prevent criminals or rival groups from interacting with each other, which conflict between one another is denied.
 * 5) Controlling facilitators: Being able to control a certain environment by setting up security to enforce certain rules implemented to prevent crime.
 * 1) Extend guardianship: Deterrence patrolling, leave signs of occupancy, and carry cell phone are ways to protect on another.
 * 2) Assist Natural Surveillance: Natural surroundings that deter crime like improving streetlights, trimming bushes for clear view, or businesses will install indoor lighting.
 * 3) Reduce anonymity: Items that easily identifies individuals from the general public like: school uniforms, taxi driver IDs, and register SIM cards in cellphones.
 * 4) Utilize Place Managers: Offer employee training to be able to identify deviants and/or reward vigilance.
 * 5) Strengthen Formal Surveillance: Bushiness owners provided extra security measures like CCTV, alarm systems, and security.
 * 1) Conceal Targets: Avoid identifying signage and markings.
 * 2) Target removal: By removing/setting up certain items that will prevent you from becoming a victim deters crime because there is nothing worth stealing.
 * 3) Identifying property: writing one’s name on your own property, which identifies it as yours.
 * 4) Disrupt Markets: Monitors businesses that sell potential stolen items like pawnshops and license street vendors.
 * 5) Deny Benefits: Criminals are denied from gaining any benefit from their criminal acts like ink tags and disabling stolen cellphones.
 * 1) Reducing frustrations and stress: Offering soothing environment and service eliminates the probability of an individual to commit an offense.
 * 2) Avoid disputes: Reduces high crowds to avoid potential offenses.
 * 3) Reducing temptation: It focuses on removing certain items or situations that would be conducive to crimes being committed.
 * 4) Neutralize peer pressure: Neglect/avoid acts that could lead to offending.
 * 5) Discourage imitation: Rapid repair of vandalism
 * 1) Set rules: Regulations and agreements are imposed for the protection of the owner and to inform individuals of the potential consequences of breaking them.
 * 2) Post instructions: Certain signs that impose norms around an area like: private property and extinguish campfires.
 * 3) Alert conscience: Roadside speed display and shop lifting is stealing signs.
 * 4) Assist compliance: easy store checkout, public restrooms, litter bins
 * 5) Controls drugs and alcohol: Alcohol free events and alcohol sell monitoring.

THEORY’S ORIGIN
The theoretical origins of situational crime prevention are wide-ranging, but it is mainly deriver from rational choice theory. This theory adopts a utilitarian belief that individuals are a reasoning actor that weighs pros ad cons, benefits and cost, and make a rational choice. The rational choice perspective states that crime is purposive behavior designed to meet the offender’s common needs like money, status, sex, and excitement (Cornish & Clarke, 1987). Meeting these needs involves decisions making that are constrained by limited time and ability. Ergo, criminal offenders make decisions that appear rational, to the be holder, to engage in criminal acts. Rational Choice Theory was created Ronald V. Clark and Derek B. Cornish. Their theory centralizes on human beings making rational behavioral decisions. The actors are rational in the sense that, given a set of values and beliefs, they calculate the relative costs and benefits of alternative actions and, from these calculations, make a choice that maximizes their expected utility (Cornish & Clarke, 1987). There by, choice is controlled through the perception and understanding of the potential pain or punishment, and the maximization of pleasure.

EMPIRIAL SUPPORT
David Farrington and colleagues conducted a study that evaluates the effectiveness of situational prevention in preventing shoplifting. Shoplifting, like other types of offending behavior, arises from the interaction between an individual, with a certain potential for offending, and the environment or situation, which provides opportunities for offending. (Farrington, 1993). The study was to evaluate by the effectiveness of 3 methods that prevent shoplifting: electronic tagging, store redesign, and a uniformed guard. Retail stores redesign the store inside structure to decrease opportunities by making it more difficult. Electronic tagging and uniformed guard are intended to deter crime by increasing the probability of being caught. Other tactics were also used like: security cameras, loop alarms, and locked items, which were noted as control items.

Stores measured shoplifting by repeatedly count the essential items each day, and by detecting products disappearances. Trainees’ will count and record each type of items at the beginning and end of each day. By comparing the number of missing items with the number sold and/or store used items, a measure of the number of items stolen was obtained. The study was measure during a six-day week, then implement the strategy, and then measure shoplifting again during a full week in the posttest. In addition to the posttest, a follow up was done to show long-term effects. Trainees measured four stores. Bradford where structure redesign was imposed and Altrincham store that implemented electronic tagging. Security Guards were place at the Leeds store and Portsmouth implemented control items.

The experiment was successful in showing the effectiveness of electronic tagging, short effectiveness of store design, and the ineffectiveness of security guards. Altrinchan electronic tagging tactics effectively decreased theft by 23 percent. Even after the follow-up they still showed a major decreased with ending score of 27 percent from its original score. After redesigning the Bradford store had a 22 percent decreased on theft. During the follow- up results showed that theft had only decreased 10 percent from its original score. Unfortunately, not all store showed the same success, Leeds security guard strategy increased theft by 1 percent. Statistics show that after the follow up they had a major increased of 12 percent increased from its original unit. Portsmouth also had an increased in theft by 7 percent, but after the followed up it decrease to its original unit. The data concluded that tagging caused a decrease in shoplifting that was maintain over time; redesign caused a decrease that was not maintained over time; and security guard had no beneficial impact (Farrington, 1993). Another researchers, Jing Sun and colleagues performed a study that evaluates the effectiveness of interventions to reduce the smoking in outdoors areas of a university campus. The trend to banned smoking everywhere except in designated areas enlarges the challenge of enforcement for security managers and other place managers responsible for compliance with rules. Sun study the behavior between the intervention campus and comparison campuses. All studied campuses where extensions from the Griffith University. Mt Gravatt was the intervention campus with approximately 3000 staff and students. Logan campus was chosen because it was size comparable to Mt. Gravatt and Gold Coast Campus because it was the largest with approximately 9000 staff and students (Sun & McMeniman, 2012).

A survey was used to measure students’ smoking habits and experiences of smoking, and also help design the intervention method. The survey consisted of two tests: a pre intervention test and a post intervention test. The pre intervention help identify smokers and non-smokers in comparison campuses. The post- intervention had four additional questions that evaluate the effectiveness of situational measures on the environment and smoking behavioral change.

The Vice Chancellor implicated a new policy against smoking at Mt. Gravatt campus that except nominated smoking areas. Facilities management staffs establish smoking areas that were away from building entrances, paths, passageways and ventilation. Students’ from the Smoke-less ambassadors were employed to help implement the no smoking policy, as well as to hand out broachers that target smokers. To discourage smoking, all butt bins were removed from non-smoking areas. The bins were then place in the designated areas. Messages about the new policy were provided to students and general public. The university sent out emails (faculty, staff, and students were included), banners were post around the school, and signs were posted around popular areas. The Smoke-less Campaign delivered the message through stress balls, posters, and pamphlets. In addition, the campaign provided health information and worked with Griffith Sport Committee to promote physical activities. They also offer free quit gym session, which were thought by clinical psychologists.

Situational crime prevention tactics implemented at Gravatt showed effectiveness in reducing smoking in that targeted area. Besides impacting smoking, the new policies also assisted smokers to quit or cut down. Results from the post-intervention show a decrease in smoking by members of both groups. However, the intervention had the greater smoking reduction overall, with a 6.3 percent reduction compared to 2.7 percent in the control groups. During the post-test smokers in the intervention groups were ask about how helpful the program was to them. Table 3 shows that 17.2percent of smokers at the intervention stated that the new policy had helped them either quit or cut down on smoking (Sun & McMeniman, 2012). On the other hand, 38.3 percent said that the policy created difficulties to smoke and 44. Percent reported that they had no affect.

This study’s results were successful in reducing smoking in open public places on the intervention campus and creating a healthier environment. As far as the situational crime prevention theory the strategies designed for the study were applied with the university’s authority support. The strategies are closely related to the technique of post instructions and remove excuses. In addition, signage assisted natural surveillance in creating non-compliance conspicuous (Sun & McMeniman, 2012).

Poyner and Webb (1987) develop a case study on how several of access control tactics can deter crime in South London public housing estate. Those included entry phones, fencing around apartment blocks and electronic access to the parking garage, which actually reduce vandalism and theft around that neighborhood. The study showed that setting up a reception desk on the lobby/ ground floor of the apartment building also reduced vandalism and other incivilities. In another study, researchers O'Neill and McGloin reported successes in deterring crime in commercial developments through natural surveillance. Main component in the program was to improve lighting of the exterior and interior to reduced burglary. Enhanced lighting in a commercial development reduced crimes with little evidence of displacement.

CRITICISM
Researchers simultaneously criticize and scrutinized situational crime prevention tactics. The techniques are based on determining the time and location of offending and change the environment to prevent crime. Reducing opportunities at a specific time and place would only ends up displacement of offending to a different time, place, or crime. Displacement occurs when crime or other types of activity shifts to different forms, times, and locates instead of being eliminated. Reppetto (1976) has identified five forms of displacement: temporal (crime is committed at a different time), tactical (crime is committed using a different method), target (crime is committed against a different target), territorial (crime is committed in a different area), and functional (a different type of crime is committed). In some situations displacement can lead to more harmful consequences. This occurs when a shift occurs to more serious offense or to similar offenses that have more serious consequences, which is known as malign displacement (Cornish & Clarke, 1987).

CRIME PREVENTION IMPLICATIONS
The efforts to prevent one crime sometimes helps prevent another, crime control efforts in one area reduce crime in another area, which the effects are know as diffusion of benefits. Situational crime prevention tactics may deter criminals by causing them to fear apprehensions. For example, when police close down a hotel that hubs prostitution and drug dealing, other negative types of activity around the area will deter. Offenders tend to leave the vicinity once the opportunities to offend are removed (Boba, 2005). By removing drug dealing and prostitutions, other crimes like: robbery, assaults, public intoxication, and high traffic cause by prostitution will slowly cease. Discouragement is the crime control efforts that target a specific locale, which help reduce crime in surrounding areas and/or impact related crimes. For example, drug enforcement programs tend to deter and catch drug dealers and buyers (Welsh & Farrignton, 2010). Not only does the program discourage buyers and sellers who saw familiar hangouts closed, but it will also decrease the number of people involved in drug activity even thought they did not operated in the targeted area.