|
Approach |
Reasoning / mechanism |
Summary of research findings |
|
Increase CCTV coverage |
Cameras will either:
|
Can be effective where it is clear what impact the scheme is meant to have, and where the right conditions are in place for the cameras to have the intended effect. Works best as part of an integrated and evolving package of measures. (Tilley, 1993) |
|
Secure by design |
Crime can be reduced by making it harder and more risky to commit. |
Victims less vulnerable in well lit, open areas.
|
|
Improve lighting |
Better lighting will deter thieves and make detection more likely.
Ken Pease' paper argues that, 'Precisely targeted increases in street lighting generally have crime reduction effects' |
Small scale studies suggest that better lighting may reduce crime and incivilities in localised areas, at least in the short term. An evaluation of area-wide lighting improvements found these were popular and reassuring for the public but did not reduce crime to any great extent. (Atkins et al, 1991) See also, K Pease 1999 'A review of Street Lighting Evaluations: Crime Reduction Effects.' Crime Prevention Studies, volume 10, pp. 47-76 |
|
Targeted policing of hotspots |
The more precisely patrol presence is concentrated at the ‘hotspots’ the less crime there will be at those places and times. |
US evidence is that this is an effective strategy for dealing with local problems. (Goldblatt & Lewis, 1998) |
|
Target known offenders |
Crimes can be reduced by disrupting offenders’ methods/routines. The higher the police arrest rate for high risk offenders the lower the rates of crime. |
Targeting repeat offenders appears to be worthwhile. (Goldblatt & Lewis, 1998) For Example recent research points to the benefits of targeting repeat serious traffic offenders, in particular those convicted of driving while disqualified. – similar activity may be useful when dealing with street robbers. (Rose, 2000) |
|
Targeting the market in stolen goods |
Reducing and disrupting the market for stolen goods will reduce incentives/incitement for theft. |
Some evidence that difficulties in disposing of stolen property can deter inexperienced thieves from re-offending, while active ‘fences’ (handlers of stolen goods) encourage more offending. Strategies for reducing illicit markets are being tested. (Sutton, 1998) |
|
Education projects
|
Channelling young people’s interests in positive directions can deter them from offending / re-offending & remove some of the motivation for theft. |
May be similar projects available locally that can dissuade young offenders from engaging in robbery and street crime. |
|
Informant hotlines
|
Rewards, freephone number and anonymity will generate information leading to arrests. |
Schemes are in general highly productive in recovering stolen property/successful prosecutions. May be less suited to less serious robberies where most offenders and victims are juveniles. Sometimes regarded by those involved as an aggravated form of bullying.
|
|
Repeat victimisation
|
Crime can be reduced by protecting victims from further crime. |
UK research indicates that this can effect a significant reduction. (Chenery et al, 1997) |