Responding to Vandalism and Graffiti
Your analysis of the local problem should give
you a better understanding of the factors that are
contributing to the problem. Once you have analysed your local
problem and established a baseline for measuring
effectiveness, you should consider possible responses to
address the problem. The following response strategies provide
a foundation of ideas for addressing your particular problem.
These strategies have been used in practice or suggested by
researchers, and a small number have been formally evaluated.
Several of these strategies may apply to the particular
problem in your community. It is critical that you tailor
responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify
each response based on reliable analysis.
Researchers agree that current research and
practice suggests that the key to successfully dealing with
vandalism is the implementation of a package of responses.
This is likely to reflect the multi-faceted nature of this
crime and the need to address a large number of contributing
factors. Any intervention strategy should seek to address as
many known contributing factors as possible. Law enforcement
responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving
the problem.
When considering your response you will need
to consider its effectiveness, expense, acceptability and ease
of implementation (Poyner and Warne, 1988). It is also likely
that you will need to implement a combination of short-term
and longer-term strategies. For example, a short-term strategy
to reduce vandalism might include increased personnel
surveillance at times and locations where vandalism is most
concentrated, whilst a long-term strategy might include
replacing damaged items with damage-resistant substitutes.
This section considers responses that may be
effective to reduce the number and severity of incidents.
Although there are a large number of responses presented in
this section, very few have been formally evaluated. Although
little information is available on the costs and benefits of
responses, there is evidence to suggest that a comprehensive
strategy can lead to considerable reductions in the number of
incidents and the costs involved (see below).
|
Carr and Spring (1993) reported on the
introduction of the Travel Safe program in Victoria,
Australia in 1990. The Travel Safe program involved a
range of initiatives including: improved information
systems; cleaning up the system (including an initial
system-wide cleaning of graffiti, the repair of
vandalism and the subsequent introduction of a rapid
cleaning policy); and improved protective measures, such
as increased patrols and the introduction of CCTV. When
the program was evaluated in 1992, it was reported that
there had been:
-
a decrease in the number of windows
replaced - from an average of seven hundred per week
in 1990 to approximately one hundred per week in
1992;
-
a reduction in the number of
graffiti incidents per station (the authors also
noted that the nature of graffiti had changed from
large mural sized graffiti to mainly tagging);
-
and an increase in train
availability - 98% of trains were available for
service in peak times in 1992 (up from approximately
65% in 1990).
|
Responses to Reduce Vandalism and Graffiti
The responses discussed below work by
increasing the perceived risks of detection and/or increasing
detections of offenders, increasing the effort needed by
offenders, and making the crime appear less rewarding to
offenders. The final category of responses includes those
responses that work in other ways. Using responses that reduce
the opportunities for vandalism may lead to some displacement
of vandalism to other times or locations or result in
offenders adapting their methods.
Increasing the Perceived Risks of
Detection / Detecting Offenders
Increasing the Effort
Needed for Crime
Reducing the
Anticipated Rewards of Crime
Other Responses
References
|
