Introduction
Situational Crime Prevention (SCP) aims to remove criminal opportunities or make them less attractive to potential offenders in order to reduce crime (Burke 2014). Therefore, the SCP approach focuses on the context in which a criminal event occurs rather than the offender’s motives to commit crime in the first place (Ekblom 1998). This means that SCP strategies involve manipulating the environment to reduce criminogenic opportunities (Lee 2010; Clarke 1983). The SCP approach to crime is based upon opportunity theories of crime, such as rational choice and routine activities (Burke 2014; Cohen and Felson 1979).
Rational Choice Theory
This theory posits that offenders, see crime as a means to an end, thus will use their rationality to weigh up the risks of committing the crime against the potential rewards from the crime, to achieve maximum pleasure with minimum pain (Clarke and Felson 2017; Burke 2014). Therefore, interventions should aim to increase risk and reduce rewards (Clarke and Felson 2017; Burke 2014). To increase the perceived risk for a potential offender, surveillance methods can be used which will mean there is a greater chance of being caught thus deterring criminal behaviour (Ekblom 1998). Alternatively, target hardening strategies can be used to reduce the appeal of potential rewards by making them more difficult to obtain, as some rewards such as a car cannot simply be removed (Burke 2014).
(Get Safe 2018)
Routine Activities Theory
Routine activities theory suggests for a crime to occur three factors must be in place, these are: a motivated offender, a suitable target and no capable guardian present (Burke 2014; Cohen and Felson 1979). This means that a person’s day to day activities can affect the chance of them being involved in a crime (Burke 2014; Felson and Boba 2010). In order to deter crime, target hardening strategies can be used to reduce an offender’s motivation by increasing the effort required to carry out an offence (Lee 2010; Clarke, 1992). Target hardening would also make the potential target less vulnerable, thus making it less suitable (Ekblom 1998). Moreover, surveillance methods can be used to make up for the absence of a capable guardian (Burke 2014).
Starley Cross Community Safety Team 