Do we know enough about crime to prevent it?

Preventing crime has much more to it than cameras

by Gregory Saville

Recently, I was asked whether we know enough about crime to prevent it. Simple enough, you would think. Isn't the study of crime "scientific" and, if so, doesn't that provide a simple answer? Turns out, it isn’t that simple.  

Criminologists are concerned directly with the well-being of everyday people and their families, their property, and their safety. Scientists, of course, are as well – especially medical researchers searching for cures to diseases or meteorologists who want to warn you to stay away from bad weather. 

Yet scientists often study elemental phenomena with seemingly little direct impact on daily life. That is not always true, but the gulf from science theory to practical application can be wide. In criminology, it can be a very narrow gulf from theory-to-effect. Criminology speaks to the lives of everyday people (at least some criminology). In pure science, there are many branches where that is not so, particularly in theoretical research.

Consider titles of scientific studies: Non-Reciprocal Coupling in Photonics, Lightwave-driven electrons in a Floquet topological insulator, or Verification of Toronto temperature and precipitation forecasts for the period 1960-1979. 

[Disclosure: On that last study my name appears as one of eight co-authors. It was my first scientific publication as a young climatology student. I got my academic start in the physical sciences, hence my obsession with the science in social science.] 

Using the scientific method comes with some basics - hypothesis-testing is one

THEORY BASICS

The reason for this gulf is simple – pure sciences start with theoretical basics. What is atomic structure? What is the life cycle of living organisms? Long before science gets to apply anything to the real world, basic theoretical questions must be answered. Laws of nature are identified.

In criminology, that step has been difficult. Consider the most fundamental theoretical question in criminology: What causes crime? That question still remains elusive. There are disagreements about whether the cause of crime is biological, sociological, cultural, economic, psychological, political, or some weird recipe of all of them. 

Imagine an aeronautical engineer without a basic law of flight and aerodynamics? There would be no jets! Imagine a medical doctor without a basic law of biochemistry and anatomy. There would be no medicine. 

How can criminology proceed without such basic laws or answers to theoretical questions? 

What causes crime? Even this simple question does not have a simple answer 

PROCEEDING WITHOUT BASICS

Sometimes criminologists adopt a theoretical position and then test that against research data. Theory testing is a long-proven method of science and there are criminologists who call themselves “crime scientists” who advocate for this. Crime science is a kind of overlap between environmental criminology and experimental criminology.

Crime science aims directly at the crime event itself and those who commit it with the intent of preventing it. It claims the scientific method at its core. 

These are all laudable goals. So if science is at the core, then the scientific method demands theory-testing. That means the very first step in theory-testing is clearly stating a hypothesis, something quite rare in criminological studies. 

The methods of science have some basic steps to follow
Image courtesy of Brian Brondel at English Wikibooks, CC BY-SA 2.5

Unfortunately, when I read a few recent issues of the journal Crime Science, I could not find a single clearly stated hypothesis. Hardly a recipe for science! Science always attempts to measure things, and that usually means statistics and formulas. However, none of that matters if the hypothesis is not based on a logical chain of linked concepts (or not stated at all).

Am I nitpicking by seeking hypotheses with a clearly stated formula? After all, many authors simply write out their hypotheses in more descriptive text, something I’ve done many times. But keep in mind that if scientific veracity is the goal, then stating a clear hypothesis is not a minor quibble.

None of this is meant to take anything away from Crime Science. Read the journal. It has some fascinating studies such as the relationship between lush tree canopies on city streets and nearby crime rates (one of the same predictions we make in our Third Generation CPTED theory).

Biologists classify tree types before posing hypotheses
- a classification method that creates typologies

TYPOLOGIES – CLASSIFY THE DAMN THING

Typologies are the things that basic sciences employ during the founding of any field. Typologies are those things like Darwin’s famous charts of finches in the Galapagos Islands as the foundation of evolution (or tree typologies by botanist Patrick Matthew long before Darwin).

Typologies are the first step to mapping out the different categories of a phenomenon such as crime and that is how you begin to understand it. They are things on which hypotheses are constructed. One building block provides the foundation for the next and eventually, a theory emerges that is tested in experiments. 

Criminology has very few typologies. Some criminologists may take exception to that statement. However, when challenged to produce some, they seldom produce more than whether criminals are abnormal versus normal, expressive versus instrumental or professional, petty, or white collar.

Sometimes criminologists provide their own typologies within their own studies. That’s the beginning. But there is a big difference between typologies shared by an entire field and one made up on the spot. There really are very few overarching, agreed-upon classification typologies within the criminological enterprise. One exception might be the maturation effect (the stoppage of crime as offenders of specific genders age). But that too has fallen from grace in criminological theory. 

Doing science is more than stating hypotheses or conducting random tests

DOING SCIENCE?

Some publications make a valiant effort to classify the phenomena of different crimes. A good example is Martin Andresen’s books on environmental criminology. If you have not read Martin’s latest version of environmental criminology, do yourself a favor. Read it!

Another great effort to create crime typologies is the book I reviewed by crime analyst Deborah Osborne: Elements of Crime Patterns. 

Osborne's book is possibly the first thorough attempt to create a typology of different crime types, modalities, tools, and signature behaviors. Her book was published last year, over a century after the criminological enterprise began, suggesting that existing crime theories are akin to the cart before the horse.

THE EVIDENCE-BASED (EB) CROWD 

Now there is a new crowd on the criminology block – the evidence-based coalition. This is the latest version of the search for crime patterns using science that has always been embedded within criminology. For example, Robert Merton the famous criminologist (and former street gang member), called for scientific thinking in his writing almost a century ago (earlier European criminologists did the same). 

There is now a federal website dedicated to evaluating crime policies with EB methods. The premise is that programs will improve only through the gold standard of scientific testing called the randomized controlled trial (a standard that some criminologists like Malcolm Sparrow consider impractical). So while evidence-based methods wear the crown of the scientific method, they do that to test programs and evaluate strategies. That may not have anything to do with criminological theory. Testing programs is not the same as testing scientific theories. 

Remember the definition of the scientific method:

“the scientific method is critical to the development of scientific theories, which explain empirical laws in a scientifically rational manner… it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis.” 

 

"Doing science" in crime prevention means working
with the community, using science, and collaborating with others

WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US?

Do all these claims of scientific respectability in criminology mean we truly know enough about crime to prevent it? Are all these efforts enough? 

On one hand, they are probably not enough, but they are a work in progress. On the other hand, they show an emerging field with committed researchers who dedicate themselves to improving this thing we call criminology. I have no idea whether the current state of criminology can be properly termed a “science”, but I applaud the effort to reach that goal. 

What about the prevention of crime? We have known since the ancient Egyptians that ingredients in some tree saps can alleviate pain. When German chemists figured out how to manufacture that into aspirin, it became the pain reliever we know today. Science perfected those ingredients and we learned that too much aspirin can cause stomach ulcers, but the right amount is one of the best pain relievers in history. 

We can prevent many types of crime and improve livability. We know that from our experience and research in SafeGrowth. There is, hopefully, a gradual movement today toward authentic scientific methods – decent evidence, proper typologies, better hypotheses, practical and ethical tests, in collaboration with the very public we are trying to help. Combining that with the experiences and input from those in the community who suffer from crime, will help us refine the aspirin that comprises the crime prevention programs of today. 

This is the path that will allow us to create livable and safe neighborhoods that our kids can inherit. 

A new metric is in town - The Serene City Index

Central Park in Manhattan in the heart of New York City - quiet, green, and tranquil

by Mateja Mihinjac 

Since I got a new puppy a few months ago I have been more attuned to the quality of the surroundings in my living area, especially the noise and cleanliness. Anyone with a puppy knows they get distracted by every unusual sound or scent. This experience has offered a new look at my neighbourhood and made me appreciate serene neighbourhood pockets even more. Serene means a place that is tranquil, calm, and free from disturbance - an important quality in city life. 

We have previously written about the Livability Index. The Happy City Index, and the Sustainable Cities Index are two other popular ratings of selected measurements that rank worldwide cities.

Now a new metric has emerged - the Serene City Index.

Waterway in Ljubljana, Slovenia - water features can slow the pace of life
and provide natural serenity

SERENE CITY INDEX

According to the author of Serene City Index, MoneySuperMarket, this rating was developed to help travellers determine the most and least relaxing destinations to visit. Ratings are based on assembling information from existing databases for 75 cities around the world based on the following criteria: 

• average air quality, 
• artificial light pollution levels, 
• noise pollution, 
• traffic congestion, 
• sunshine hours, 
• overall tidiness, 
• country happiness, 
• green space, and
• the friendliness of locals.

These indicators are not only relevant to visitors but also (and probably more importantly) to residents of a city who live with excess noise, pollution, or limited access to green spaces. 

The scale, speed, and intensity of modern roadways make serenity difficult
- photo courtesy of Pixabay in Pixels

THE SCALE 

One concern with measuring and ranking based on any indices is the scale at which they are collected. In SafeGrowth, we focus on the neighbourhood as the core unit of people’s everyday experience. Ideally, that is where they spend most of their time and, if they perceive their neighbourhood as liveable, they will form attachments and connections to that place and the people within it. This is the very essence of the concept of territoriality in 1st Generation CPTED and social cohesion, in 2nd Generation CPTED.

Thus, as with crime concentrations and liveability levels, serenity may also differ significantly between neighbourhoods within the same city. That could make generalisations to the whole city somewhat misleading. This is an important limitation to keep in mind with the serenity index. 

 

Serenity through easy access to relaxing and clean park amenities

THIRD GENERATION CPTED CONNECTION

In her blog on noise pollution, Tarah already wrote about liveability being more than the absence of fear and crime, which we postulate in our Third Generation CPTED writings.

Noise, like other aspects of our immediate living environment, impacts physical and mental health outcomes. It should not be disregarded. The research we document in Third Generation CPTED suggests they can ultimately also lead to crime issues. 

The Serene City Index incorporates elements within the immediate living environment that may lead to frustration, irritability, anger, or depression. These are the very kinds of psychological factors that demand special consideration in future CPTED research and practice. 

Researchers and practitioners seldom include these factoring into their plans and research. It may be time to reconsider that habit. Further, it is also time to reconsider the scale at which we practice crime prevention and planning when it comes to community building. This is a lesson we learned long ago in SafeGrowth - when it comes to creating safer and more livable environments, it is the neighbourhood scale that matters most. 

Vancouver's Strathcona neighbourhood launches SafeGrowth

Night walking tour on one of Strathcona's residential streets

by Anna Brassard

Anna Brassard is a Canadian urban planner, CPTED specialist, and a member of the SafeGrowth Network. She was one of the co-authors of the first SafeGrowth book. In this blog, Anna joins our blogging team as she describes her recent experience as co-instructor of Vancouver's first SafeGrowth training. 

Our cities are in crisis. Increasing perceptions of fear, lack of sense of safety, and isolation are messages we are hearing repeatedly in our SafeGrowth workshops. Vancouver BC is developing its own responses to those challenges, among them, becoming the first city in Canada to commit to, and fund, what they are calling a Restorative City.   

Amid all these new responses, Vancouver's Strathcona neighbourhood chose to sponsor their first SafeGrowth training. Although British Columbia has a long history of 1st Generation CPTED training, going back to the 1980s, this is the first community-based SafeGrowth training in that city and the first-ever training in 2nd Generation CPTED in British Columbia.

Organized and sponsored by Strathcona Community Policing Centre – a police-sponsored organization and tremendous asset in the community -  we began the SafeGrowth journey in April at the Vancouver Japanese Language School, a national historic building, (and another amazing community asset) in Vancouver’s infamous Downtown Eastside.

The Strathcona Community Policing Centre sponsored the SafeGrowth training

The Strathcona class included members of the Strathcona Community Policing Centre, members from other community policing centres, Strathcona residents, local organizations, businesses, and a member from the Vancouver Police. They organized themselves into three teams, each completing a project within the neighbourhood using the SafeGrowth model.  They chose fairly complex issues and selected projects within or near public spaces and parks in the neighbourhood. 

 

THE PROJECTS

HAWKS AND HASTINGS 

Team 1 focused on a sidewalk seating area next to a community garden

Team #1 selected an area adjacent to a community garden. To displace drinking at a bus stop, picnic tables were placed on the sidewalk around the corner from the bus stop.  The city had even tried to respond to street disorder issues by designating the area as a legal place to consume alcohol in a partial effort to control problems on the street.  

Described as a “hot topic for years in the community” the team explored new ways to improve the area to bring more residents and other users into the area, control the disorderly behaviour, and improve retail and commercial activities nearby. They discovered the reality of what 2nd Generation CPTED calls Neighbourhood Connectivity, in this case, it is the complexity of trying to work with the many stakeholders and partners around, and in adjacent, neighbourhoods. 

One example they uncovered was working with the local businesses on Hastings Street along with the group that runs the community garden.  It brought home the central message of 2nd Gen CPTED – the importance of building relationships inside and outside the neighborhood to create a stronger sense of ownership (what architect Oscar Newman once called Defensible Space). 

OPPENHEIMER PARK

Strathcona's Oppenheimer Park was the site for Team 2

Team #2 selected a large park in the heart of the Vancouver neighbourhood called Japantown. The park is frequented by individuals experiencing homelessness and substance abuse, and it has been this way for a long time. It has also developed a reputation for being unsafe. Although it is not uncommon to walk through the park safely and have friendly conversations with people (members of the team did this), Oppenheimer Park has also frequently been in the news and social media highlighting its problems with encampments and conflicts. 

The team explored how to actualize what they, and others, see as the true potential for the park - a welcoming place that mitigates alienation, is inclusive of all people, and a point of pride for those who live and work in the area. While they were aware of other programs at Oppenheimer, they conducted a full assessment and spent time analyzing the crime, conducting safety audits, interviewing people camped in the park, and completing site visits and CPTED reviews. This led to some comprehensive short-term strategies such as lighting, landscaping and beautification, and some longer-term strategies such as different kinds of additional programming. 

Their next step is to include various stakeholders and residents directly at, and around, Oppenheimer Park to put their vision into action – an inclusive and safe gathering space for everyone. 

MACLEAN PARK PLAZA

MacLean Park Plaza was the focus on Team 3

Team #3 also selected a park that was designed as a neighbourhood hub but had been largely abandoned due to disruptive behaviour. The team analyzed why the park declined and they explored the potential to reclaim and reactivate it. 

During their initial research, they looked back at the park's history and became curious about a circle of benches that once existed. Over time the benches were removed and so the team dug deeper into resident experiences in the park. They initially wanted to restore the benches, but through their data collection and interviews with adjacent residents, they learned that, while there was a desire to reactivate the space, residents did not want to reinstall the benches. 

The team began with strategies to improve lighting and other physical landscaping features, but they concluded they needed a longer process of community engagement with local residents in the planning process. That is their next step.

  

Display boards used by the Strathcona community policing centre
for the public presentations

ENGAGEMENT IS KEY 

There were similar themes in all three projects. Each group envisioned public spaces that were inclusive and vibrant, instilled pride, and helped to build community cohesion. The teams all paid careful attention to the central SafeGrowth community engagement principle called TO-FOR-WITH.

Each team experienced why the SafeGrowth model stresses problem-solving “with” the local residents since they are the true neighbourhood experts. They learned the importance of not coming in to solve resident problems by creating strategies “for” them or “to” them. 

Final presentations to the public were held on the last day of the training and people from all across the city – politicians, city planners, police, the business community, and others – came to talk to team members from each project. Ultimately, the teams were asked to bring their poster displays to members of the city council for formal presentations later in the month. This was a major accomplishment for the Strathcona participants and the Strathcona Community Policing Centre. 

Remembering what matters - neighborhoods and crime

 

Independence Day celebrations - remembering history
Photo by Carol M. Highsmith, courtesy of Flickr Commons license

by Gregory Saville

Today it is American Independence Day! Three days ago it was Canada Day (Happy birthday to my Canadian and American peeps). National birthdays are times of reflection about our past and lessons learned, which makes today’s blog about social amnesia all the more salient. 

I first used the term social amnesia in a blog where I described my C. Ray Jeffery Moments about how practitioners in Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design - CPTED - and more appallingly, the instructors who teach them, fail to read the original CPTED texts or learn from the original CPTED pioneers about the vision for CPTED. 

I thought myself quite clever in coining social amnesia forgetting that historian Russell Jacoby had long ago invented the term. Talk about a perfect, and well-deserved, pie-in-my-face moment! I digress. 

I have written about social amnesia a number of times – for example, while reviewing the book Designing Out Crime by Garis and Maxim. Those authors ignored an entire golden age of CPTED in British Columbia, where they live, in describing crime prevention abroad. 

 Making Cities Work: The Dynamics of Urban Innovation
by David Morley, Stuart Proudfoot, Thomas Burns. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado (1980)

Reflecting on that, a question came to mind: What do you get when you put a political scientist, an urban planning scholar, an ethicist, and a criminologist in the same room? Sometimes, when you put brilliant minds together, you get a breakthrough in how to prevent crime, feed people, deliver health, and protect the environment. I’m referring to a chapter in an urban planning book from my past – Making Cities Work.  

The book emerged from a conference in 1977 at the Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University, Toronto and one of the organizers, and co-author, was my former graduate supervisor (one of those brilliant minds) urban geographer, and former Dean, David Morley. The innovation I’m describing is a chapter by four scholars with the seemingly innocuous title: “Institutions for Neighborhood Self-Development”.

Neighborhoods need places that are safe, seatable, and social 

READING HISTORY

All that to say, it is important to read history. It is the lifeblood of our future success – or failure. I have just seen yet another droll website on “innovations in CPTED” from a security consulting firm. It claimed the “latest in CPTED” but that turned into another gross misreading of what CPTED is all about. The author spoke of lighting and target hardening. She referenced her trainer who clearly has not read the foundational documents of CPTED. More amnesia! 

Too often people engaged in day to day projects, jobs, and research ignore (or don’t read) the history that led to where we are now. This is shameful – especially for those who should know better. That is why academics include literature reviews within their studies to ensure they acknowledge their history. 

It brought to mind the message in that chapter on urban innovation, and how it ties into all the work we do in CPTED, especially with a SafeGrowth angle. 

 

When it comes to preventing crime,
neighborhood greenery and walkability matters

NEIGHBORHOODS MATTER

The urban innovation authors wrote on the neighborhood as the center of urban life – as did the original CPTED writers. For proof, read Newman’s Communities of Interest, or Fowler’s ground-breaking evaluation of the Hartford neighborhood CPTED project. Like the CPTED pioneers, the urban innovation writers also knew that the neighborhood must be the center of service delivery for health, education, environmental concerns, and security. To them the neighborhood was where everything mattered, a theme we replicate in SafeGrowth. 

This all seems so obvious today. It is commonplace in urban studies and crime prevention research. The language of these professions references neighborhoods as the center of interest: collective efficacy to improve neighborhoods, asset-based community development, neighborhood capital, and activation and community engagement.

But 40 years ago when they wrote this chapter, neighborhoods were not seen that way. Interestingly, these four brilliant minds all became famous, thought-leading scholars. 

• Louis Mascotti, held professorships in three disciplines including economics, political science and real estate. He founded Northwestern University’s Center for Urban Affairs and the Real Estate Center. 
• John McKnight, a well-known scholar of urban affairs, created asset mapping, one of the tools we use extensively in SafeGrowth. He also co-authored the seminal book Building Communities from the Inside Out and authored The Careless Society: Community and its Counterfeits. 
• Stan Hallett, an urban planning scholar and ethicist at Northwestern University marched with Martin Luthur King, Jr in the 1960s. 
• Frederic Dubow, a professor of sociology and criminal justice at the University of Illinois, wrote that crime prevention was the community responsibility and it is the means by which citizens exercise their civil rights. He was one of the first criminologists to write prominently about citizen participation in crime prevention. 

Neighborhoods need a core landmark, or something to remember

IN THE YEARS THAT FOLLOWED

Each of these authors, in their own way, built on the premise that the neighborhood – as the primary unit of geography - is the key for preventing crime and improving livability. Notice that they did not mean community, that nebulous phrase that means everything and nothing. Rather, they meant neighborhood as a specific place with geographical boundaries, an identifiable population, and unique buildings, parks, schools, businesses, and residential areas. A place people call home!  

That was the original focus of both CPTED and urban innovation. We emphasize in our work that geography matters. Too large and programs get lost in the policy or politics of the day. Too small and you end up with target hardening to prevent drug deals in the park, but then you just move it elsewhere, fail to address fear, or leave the important questions unanswered. The key is in the middle…right-sizing. That means the neighborhood. Remember the lessons of history.

There is a whole section of the SafeGrowth website on the characteristics of some great neighborhoods we have seen over the years. Let’s not lose the important legacy of the first efforts to rebuild community life and prevent crime. 

In the meantime, Happy Birthday!