Preventing Crime & Creating Safer Communities
|
|
Preventing Crime & Creating Safer Communities |
|
| Home | Distance learning | Information & news | Discussions | Join the network | Contact | Useful links | ||
Extract from a report produced for the Centre National pour la Recherche Sociale (CNRS, France) by Henry Shaftoe, Safe Neighbourhoods Unit, England.
(In this paper we will be talking about offences that affect ordinary people in urban residential or commercial areas, such as assaults, theft, burglary, robbery etc. We do not intend to cover terrorism, organised crime, major fraud and other types of large scale crimes which do not have a neighbourhood focus.)
Recorded crime has more than trebled in Britain during the last twenty years. In 1970 1.6 million crimes were recorded by the police in England and Wales (combined population about 50 million) increasing to 5.4 million crimes in 1992. This has undoubtedly concentrated the minds of politicians, researchers, community activists, and government officers, with the result that there has been an explosion of crime prevention activity over the same period. The list below highlights some of the most significant developments and publications between 1976 and 1994. With hindsight (and in the light of continuing crime rises) we can see that many of these ideas and activities proved to be ineffective. But it is a truism to say that we can learn from failure as well as success.
The current thinking in Britain is towards a "partnership" approach which entails the co-ordinated action of a number of different agencies and an eclectic range of measures tailored to fit the particular locale or crime problem. Running parallel with this is an enthusiasm for the use of new technology (particularly Closed Circuit Television and electronic access controls and emergency communication networks) as a means to spreading the thin coverage offered by service and security personnel. It would be unwise to suggest that either or both of these approaches represent the "cure-all" for crime problems, particularly when they both require such complicated and delicate structures for their maintenance.
The thread leading up to this current thinking can be followed through the developments and publications listed chronologically below:
In 1976 a group of professional researchers and community workers employed by Social and Community Planning and Research (SCPR) and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO) moved on to the Cunningham Road Housing Estate in Widnes, Cheshire. Funded by the Home Office through the Urban Aid Programme, their aim was to try and cut down the high levels of crime and incivilities on the estate by testing out the theory that if people have a sense of belonging and responsibility for the place in which they live, they will want to look after it and improve it. During their three year involvement in the area, the team consulted with local residents, helped them negotiate with the authorities for social and physical improvements to the area, and evaluated the whole process. Their conclusion was that the project had effected a reduction in crime and particularly vandalism, and had contributed to a noticeable improvement in the quality of life on the estate, as perceived by local residents and professionals. (Hedges A et al [1979] Community Planning Project: Cunningham Road Improvement Scheme - Final Report. SCPR, London).
The success of the Cunningham Road Scheme led to NACRO setting up a dedicated Crime Prevention Unit, with funding from the Government's Urban Programme and local authorities who were keen to replicate the "Cunningham" success on their own estates. Along with the Safe Neighbourhoods Unit (described below) NACRO's Crime Prevention Unit worked on over 100 housing estates throughout England and Wales during the following twelve years.
As NACRO's work in London expanded, the Greater London Council provided funding for the establishment of a Unit within NACRO to work exclusively for the London Boroughs on neighbourhood improvements and community safety. This was known as the Safe Neighbourhoods Unit, which continued to operate in London for the next ten years before becoming an independent national organisation in 1990.
The above publication explained the "situational approach" to crime prevention which was proselytised by the Home Office in the early 80s. The situational approach aimed to reduce the number of opportunities for crime through increased physical security, target removal, removal of the means, reducing the pay-off, improved surveillance and environmental management. Undoubtedly worthwhile in many respects, the situational approach is limited insofar as it risks displacing the problem, may reduce freedom and fails to address the social aspects of criminality.
This well designed piece of research tested the effectiveness of some aspects of the situational approach. A Housing estate was surveyed before and after a comprehensive range of physical security improvements. In the short term burglaries were reduced, but there were problems of displacement of crimes to neighbouring areas and unimproved homes. Also it was found that a significant minority of residents did not use the extra security devices fitted, and poor installation and maintenance weakened their effectiveness.
Until the British Crime Surveys were introduced by the Home Office, our only knowledge about levels and types of crime came from the statistics of crimes reported to the police. The British Crime Surveys interview a representative sample of 10,000 people about their experience of crime in the previous year. From this it has been clarified that, for types of crime that can be compared directly (such as burglary, thefts, vandalism, assaults and robberies) less than half of all incidents end up on the official police statistics. Since 1982 further surveys have been carried out in 1984, 1988 and 1992, yielding valuable data about crime trends, levels of victimisation and fear.
This influential circular was distributed to all police forces and local authorities in England and Wales. It was the first explicit statement by the government of the view that crime prevention "must be given the priority it deserves and must become a responsibility of the community as a whole". What had previously been identified as primarily a police task was now seen as something for local authorities and the general public to be actively involved in. Unfortunately, the Circular was not immediately backed up by additional government funding, the official view being that crime prevention could be supported through existing programmes and resources.
(Coleman 1985)
Professor Alice Coleman, a geographer at University College London published an influential book, based on extensive research on problematic housing estates, that claimed to have found a link between housing design factors and levels of crime. Professor Coleman identified a number of "design disadvantagement" factors which, if eradicated should reduce levels of crime and anti-social behaviour. Although methodologically flawed, Coleman's approach was enthusiastically received in certain political quarters, and led to a multi-million pound Design Improvement Controlled Experiment (DICE) which attempted to put the theory into practice on a number of housing estates. A definitive evaluation of the outcome is still awaited, although results so far are distinctly mixed.
Between 1985 and 1994 the government's Estate Action programme aimed to help local authorities in England to fund physical and social improvements that would "transform unpopular housing estates into places where people want to live". Although not solely aimed at crime prevention, Estate Action has probably been the most effective government programme for the creation of safer communities. The programme supported schemes which included the following objectives: Physical improvements to dwellings, improving local management, involving tenants, diversifying tenure, attracting private investment and providing estate-based training and enterprise initiatives.
This was the first report to warn of the shortcomings of over-reliance on technology alone as an aid to security in residential blocks. In the mid-80s phone-entry systems were being installed at a rapid rate in multi-storey and multi-occupied accommodation, but many were breaking down or being over-ridden. The report argued that there needed to be the facility for human intervention to ensure security, and in many cases entry-phones alone were inadequate.
This was the Home Office's direct attempt to put the experience of Cunningham Road and NACRO/SNU's estate-based work into practice on a slightly broader scale. Five areas of five towns were identified and a crime prevention co-ordinator appointed for each one. The co- ordinator was accountable to a multi-agency steering group consisting of local officers and community representatives. The co-ordinator's salary was paid by the Home Office for a fixed term of 18 months. Some of the schemes were more successful than others, and most of them continued under some form or other, with local authority funding.
Since 1987 the Home Office has spent approximately £5 million annually on publicity campaigns aimed at the general public, under the slogan of "together we can crack crime". The campaign has consisted of television advertising, posters and guidance booklets offered free to the public. The campaign seemed to reflect the government's desire to make crime prevention the responsibility of the individual, and in some cases portrayed the offender as an evil animal. In recent years the campaign has begun to stress partnerships and community actions. It is difficult to make any conclusive evaluation of the effectiveness of such broad-based publicity approaches.
In numerical terms, "neighbourhood watch" (where residents of particular streets or blocks watch out for suspicious activity and keep an eye on each other's property) has been the most successful crime prevention initiative in Britain in the last ten years. The number of households that were members of watch schemes rose from 2.7 million (14% of all households in Britain) in 1988 to 4.1 million (20%) in 1992. Evaluations of Neighbourhood Watch have shown reductions of crime in some well organised areas, but there have been two significant problems: 1> Neighbourhood Watch has flourished most in areas with comparatively low crime rates 2> The schemes have a high attrition rate - starting off with considerable activity but then petering down to no more than a name and a number on the police's crime prevention statistics.
A development of the Five Towns Initiative, the Home Office has funded up to twenty urban areas for three years at a time as "Safer Cities". The Home Office has control of the £0.25 million annual budget (reduced latterly) but priorities and activities are determined locally through a multi-agency steering committee. The best schemes have taken a pro-active approach in identifying and resolving crime problems, whereas other schemes have been little more than finance brokers for existing community projects.
Led by former managers of NACRO/SNU crime prevention work, "Crime Concern" was launched with Home Office funding as a semi-autonomous capacity building agency to support the development of local authority and community based crime prevention. Originally given the remit to encourage Neighbourhood Watch and police sponsored Crime Prevention Panels, these have been quietly dropped in favour of youth criminality prevention and corporate strategies. Crime Concern has had considerable success in raising money from big businesses and has mounted a number of high profile conferences.
In Britain tower blocks and low-rise deck access housing have generally become the least popular and most crime ridden types of housing. As a result, considerable effort has been put into improving management and security through a combination of surveillance/access technology and the French tradition of having "concierges" for multi-occupied housing. "A Better Reception" was a guide describing best practice at the time. This has now been superseded by "High Expectations" (see below).
This publication was the result of an expert working group's attempt to calculate the enormous social and financial costs of crime to both the authorities and the victims. This was the precursor to a number of "crime audits" in specific urban areas, which have been used as a baseline to identify areas or types of loss, and priorities for remedial action.
This book probably gave the best panorama of thinking, research and practice in crime prevention in the 80s. The book had chapters on: the community context, housing policy, community involvement and policing, community interventions, implementation and international perspectives on policy (including an account of the French experience).
Although most of the official initiative for crime prevention in the 1980s had been coming from central government's Home Office and Department of the Environment, research and experience was increasingly identifying the key role of local authorities in preventing crime and improving community safety. The report "Crime Prevention and Community Safety - a practical guide for local authorities" distilled this thinking and gave practical advice.
This report was produced by a working party set up by the Home Office. The report reminded us that fear of crime can have just as drastic an effect as actual victimisation, in lowering the quality of people's lives and restricting the freedom of people who feel vulnerable (such as the elderly, women and people from ethnic minorities). The report also pointed an accusing finger at the media for dwelling on and exaggerating the risks of falling prey to the more lurid and violent types of crime. A number of recommendations were made for good practice in fear reduction.
As crime rates multiplied during the 1980s, so did the sale of commercial security equipment and private security services such as guards and patrols. In 1988 the total amount of money spent on security by the public was estimated to be £1,600 million, which dwarfed the government's Home Office expenditure of about £15 million on crime prevention .
To draw on and enhance the experience of Estate Action projects (see above) the Department of the Environment commissioned three detailed guidance handbooks on: option appraisal for the rehabilitation of housing, improving external areas, and improving internal areas. Although aimed at general improvements the guidance incorporated crime preventative and security elements throughout.
Starting in the South East of England, and gradually spreading throughout the country, police forces have issued written guidance and have appointed officers to advise on the principles of crime prevention through environmental design. This service by the police is offered to architects, planners and developers to enable them to build new structures and environments that should avoid the obvious security pitfalls of earlier designs.
Although a valuable free service it has the usual shortcoming of considering only one aspect of the crime risk picture.
This Home Office circular was a kind of follow-up to the influential Circular of 1984. It requested (rather than required) all local authorities to come up with a strategy for crime prevention and also gave somme illustrative examples of successful partnerships.
This was another report produced by a working party of experts at the request of the Home Office. It made a number of well considered recommendations to improve research, training and delivery of crime prevention strategies. In particular, it identified a key role for local authorities in the promotion of community safety, and as a result the report was not well received by the government, who at the time were trying to reduce the role of local authorities in most things.
Concern about the deterioration of some town centres and their possible decline into unsafe and threatening environments, has lead to the appointment of dedicated town centre managers to co- ordinate the maintenance and improvement of public and communal areas. Generally employed by the local authority, these managers act as brokers between the statutory and commercial services, encouraging good practice in security, and town centre use generally.
Commissioned by the Department of the Environment, this substantial report reviews research and practice in crime prevention under the headings of: design, physical security, management, social development and policing. The main conclusions of the report were that the most effective initiatives were those that introduced a broad package of measures and that conversely, a narrow response to crime, such as increasing physical security, achieve short term reductions in some crime categories, perhaps by displacing crime elsewhere, but is unlikely to affect overall crime levels.
The 1980s and early 90s saw a proliferation of government programmes aimed at solving a range of urban problems, including unemployment, insecurity, physical deterioration of buildings and environments, and social and educational deprivation. In 1994, in recognition of the inter-connectedness of such problems, all these separate government programmes were combined under one budgetary and administrative heading.
This circular gives advice to local authorities, developers and designers about planning considerations relating to crime prevention. Drawing on research and practical experience it recommends a number of design, security and strategic measures to be considered by planners in the redevelopment or new building of housing, commercial premises and public areas.
An update and expansion of the guidance published in "A Better Reception", this publication covers: assessment, managing concierge schemes, technology and design, plus seven good practice case studies and a national review of local authority and housing association activity.
A good practice compendium for authorities and organisations who are considering installing CCTV to improve monitoring and security in town centres and other public urban locations.
Ever more sophisticated systems are being offered to housing authorities and commercial managers to improve the control of access to premises and the surveillance of people passing through or around them. Although a few high profile incidents have highlighted the value of such systems, questions have still to be resolved about erosion of civil liberties, and the problems of maintenance, obsolescence, displacement and the substitution of people presence with technology.
The case studies listed below cover a range of approaches to crime prevention in peripheral estates, inner city residential areas and town centres. Although some concentrate on a single category of action, many of the most interesting and effective programmes are those where a series of overlapping but complementary changes are made.
Detailed accounts of these case studies are available from Henry Shaftoe: henry.shaftoe@uwe.ac.uk
London Borough of Hackney
- Use of civil law to evict known drug dealers and troublemakers from housing
estates
Leicestershire County Council and Leicestershire Constabulary
- Planning guidance handbook on crime prevention for developers
Swansea City Council
- Block manager and estate warden schemes for resident care and
security
London Borough of Enfield: Alma Road Estate
- Design, management and technological improvements for a high rise
estate
Edinburgh District Council: Niddrie House Planning and Rehabilitation
Group
- Design, community involvement, social and employment measures on a
peripheral housing estate
London Borough of Lewisham: Pepys Estate
- Physical security, social provision, management and community
policing measures
Bristol City Council
- Lighting improvements to a multi-racial inner city area
London Borough of Westminster: Mozart Estate
- Design Changes (DICE) and decentralised housing management
Birmingham: Handsworth
- Physical security improvements to a multi-racial inner city area
Kings Lynn
- Town Centre Surveillance using a Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)
network
Coventry
- Town Centre crime reduction strategy incorporating CCTV network,
control of the consumption of alcohol in public spaces and management measures
Page last updated: 6 May 2004
Top of page | Terms and conditions | Privacy policy | Contact: Sara3.Williams@uwe.ac.uk | UWE
©2012 University of the West of England, Bristol.
Except acknowledged extracts from newspapers, journals, etc.