Situational Crime PreventionA crime prevention approach focusing on reducing opportunities for crime through environmental and situational changes. (SCP) is an evidence-based strategy that reduces crime by altering environmental conditions and increasing the perceived risks for offenders. It shifts the focus from changing offender motivation to managing the situations in which crimes occur.
Situational CrimeActs or omissions that violate criminal laws and are punishable by the state. Prevention (SCP) represents a shift in criminological thinking from offender-focused explanations of crime toward a pragmatic emphasis on the situational contexts in which crimes occur. Instead of asking why people offend in general, SCP focuses on understanding and manipulating the environmental and situational conditions that make specific criminal events more or less likely. By altering these conditions, the approach seeks to reduce opportunities for crime in targeted and systematic ways.
Key Points
Situational Crime Prevention (SCP)
Main Proponents: Ronald V. Clarke, Marcus Felson, John Eck
First Formulations: 1970s–present
Country of Origin: United Kingdom / United States
Core Idea: Crime is not simply the result of offender motivation but emerges through the convergence of opportunities, suitable targets, and the absence of capable guardians. By altering situational factors, crime can be prevented without necessarily changing offender motivation.
Foundation for: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), Routine Activity Theory, Problem-Oriented PolicingThe practice of maintaining public order and enforcing laws through authorized institutions.
Theory
SCP builds on the rational choice perspective in criminology, which holds that offenders make decisions based on perceived costs and benefits in specific contexts. The approach also integrates Routine Activity Theory, which highlights the convergence in time and space of a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of capable guardians as prerequisites for crime.
Ronald V. Clarke, one of the leading proponents of SCP, argued that criminal events are highly situational and that small changes in environmental design, management, or routine activities can have large effects on crime rates. Instead of addressing offender motivation through social reforms or punishment alone, SCP focuses on the proximate circumstances that facilitate crime.
The SCP framework groups interventions into five key strategies:
- Increase the effort required to commit crime (e.g., stronger locks, access control systems).
- Increase the risks of detection and apprehension (e.g., improved street lighting, CCTVClosed-circuit television used for monitoring and surveillance., security patrols).
- Reduce the rewards of crime (e.g., property marking, secure cash-handling procedures).
- Reduce provocations that may trigger offending (e.g., managing crowds at sporting events to prevent violence).
- Remove excuses for offending (e.g., clear signage about rules and legal expectations).
The widely used framework of the 25 Techniques of Situational Crime Prevention further subdivides these categories into concrete, actionable strategies. For example, measures to reduce burglary might include installing security cameras, using anti-climb paint, or fostering neighborhood watch schemes.
25 Techniques of Situational Crime Prevention
Ronald V. Clarke and John E. Eck (2005) developed a widely cited typology summarizing the diverse strategies of situational crime prevention into 25 specific techniques. These techniques are organized under five overarching goals, each addressing a particular situational dynamic of crime events.
This classification has become a standard framework for practitioners and researchers seeking to design interventions that reduce criminal opportunities without necessarily altering offender motivation.
| Increase the Risks | Increase the Effort | Reduce the Rewards | Remove Excuses | Reduce Provocations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extend Guardianship | Target harden | Conceal targets | Set rules | Reduce frustration and stress |
| Assist natural surveillance | Control access to facilitites | Remove targets | Post instructions | Avoid disputes |
| Reduce anonymity | Screen exits | Identify property | Alert conscience | Reduce arousal and temptation |
| Use place managers | Deflect offenders | Disrupt markets | Assist compliance | Neutralize peer pressure |
| Strengthen formal behaviour | Control tools/ weapons | Deny benefits | Control drugs and alcohol | Discourage imitation |
(Adapted from Clarke & Eck, 2005)
Examples in Practice
These techniques have been applied in diverse settings:
- Target Hardening: Installation of deadbolt locks, reinforced doors, or anti-robbery screens in banks and retail stores.
- Increasing Guardianship: Neighbourhood Watch schemes or assigning security personnel to vulnerable locations.
- Controlling Access: Gated communities or electronic access controls in office buildings.
- Reducing Excuses: Clear signage indicating rules and penalties (e.g., no trespassing signs).
- Reducing Provocations: Improved management of bars and nightclubs to prevent conflicts that can escalate into violence.
SCP has also been applied to reduce car theft through engineering solutions (e.g., immobilizers), to make ATM fraud more difficult through design changes, and to prevent alcohol-related violence through server training and crowd management in nightlife districts.
Implications for Criminal Policy
SCP has had significant practical influence on crime policy, moving the focus from reactive, punitive measures toward proactive, preventive strategies. It advocates a multi-agency approach that includes urban planners, architects, local councils, businesses, and law enforcement working collaboratively to reduce crime opportunities.
Examples of SCP in policy include:
- Designing car parks with good lighting, clear lines of sight, and controlled entry/exit points (as in the UK’s „Park Mark“ accreditation scheme).
- Using CCTV surveillance in city centers to deter street crime.
- Implementing pedestrian-friendly urban layouts that reduce isolated alleyways and blind spots.
- Mandating server training and regulating alcohol sales hours to reduce bar fights and assaults.
- Conducting hotspot policing informed by crime analysis to increase perceived risk for offenders in high-crime areas.
Crucially, SCP also emphasizes that criminal justice agencies should not be the sole actors in crime prevention. Instead, crime prevention is framed as a shared social responsibility embedded in everyday design and management decisions. Clarke and Eck (2005) even argued that formal criminal justice interventions should be considered a „last resort“ when situational strategies fail.
Critical Appraisal & Relevance
Situational Crime Prevention is widely praised for its practical orientation and demonstrated effectiveness in reducing specific types of crime. Numerous evaluations have shown substantial declines in theft, burglary, and public violence following targeted SCP interventions. Its focus on evidence-based, problem-oriented solutions aligns well with modern policing and urban policy strategies.
Nonetheless, SCP is subject to several criticisms:
First, critics argue that SCP addresses the symptoms rather than the causes of crime. By focusing on opportunity reduction, it often ignores the structural roots of crime such as poverty, inequality, social exclusion, and systemic discrimination. This limitation makes SCP less suitable for addressing crimes driven by deep-seated social grievances.
Second, there is the problem of crime displacement. Critics fear that removing opportunities in one place may simply push crime to other locations, times, or forms. While empirical research suggests that complete displacement is rare and that a „diffusion of benefits“ can occur, the risk remains that SCP may redistribute rather than reduce harm.
Third, SCP is sometimes accused of contributing to a „fortress mentality“ in urban design. Critics warn that security features such as CCTV, barriers, and access controls can erode public space, diminish community cohesion, and intensify surveillance culture. Such measures may inadvertently criminalize marginalized groups, reinforcing social divides rather than healing them.
Finally, SCP raises ethical questions about the balance between security and civil liberties. The expansion of surveillance technologies and environmental controls may limit privacy, autonomy, and freedom of movement in pursuit of security objectives. Policymakers must navigate these tensions carefully to ensure crime prevention measures respect fundamental rights.
Literature & Further Reading
- Clarke, R. V. (1980). „Situational Crime Prevention: Theory and Practice“. British Journal of CriminologyThe scientific study of crime, criminal behavior, prevention, and societal reactions to deviance within and beyond the criminal justice system., 20(2), 136–147.
- Clarke, R. V. (1995). „Situational Crime Prevention“. In Tonry, M. and Farrington, D. P. (eds.). Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention. University of Chicago Press.
- Clarke, R. V. & Eck, J. E. (2005). „Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps“. U.S. Department of Justice. Link
- Felson, M. & Clarke, R. V. (1998). Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory for Crime Prevention. Home Office, Police Research Series, Paper 98.
- Wortley, R. & Mazerolle, L. (eds.) (2008). Environmental CriminologyA field studying how environments and spatial factors influence crime patterns. and Crime Analysis. Willan Publishing.
- Eck, J. E. & Clarke, R. V. (2003). „Classifying Common Police Problems: A Routine Activity Approach“. Crime Prevention Studies, 16, 7–40.