Community Safety

Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An Australian Perspective

Andres Lopez Rodriguez, from the University of Sydney, and Garner Clancey, from the University of Sydney, presented a research paper entitled “Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An Australian Perspective” at an Annual Conference of the European Society of Criminology, under the category Crime Prevention. Here is the abstract:

“When politicians, talkback radio hosts and newspaper editorialists pontificate about crime and possible remedies, it is comparatively rare for them to mention prevention. Overwhelmingly, emphasis is on policing, sentencing and other ‘law and order’ responses. However, the experience has shown that commitment to crime prevention and community safety, especially for high crime areas, can be far more cost effective than criminal justice responses (Sutton et al, 2008). In Australia, crime prevention is commonly linked to the ‘what works’ approach that essentially aims to identify and develop the most effective methods that help to reduce crime and to guide policy and practice. Policy development is largely informed by the whole-of-government paradigm that acknowledges the causes of crime as being complex and multi-factorial. That is why coordinated actions and partnerships amongst all administrative levels, as well as with community, is deemed as essential. As a result, there is a widespread emphasis on situational crime prevention and targeted interventions which essentially aims to stop the opportunities for crime by increasing the risks of detection, reducing the rewards for offending and increasing the difficulty of offending (Clancey et al, 2011). Community safety is thus achieved through an integrated consideration of diverse harms to the public, and ‘refers to the likely absence of harms from all sources, not just from human acts classifiable as crimes’ (Wiles et al, 2003). Community safety also provides a strategic viewpoint on community harms by focusing attention towards the development of programmes that set targets to manage risks and aims to maximise public safety (Clancey, 2010).”

More details about the Paper

“In this vein, many Australian States and Territories have developed guidelines for the application of CPTED principles (Crime Prevention Trough Environmental Design). These principles are based on the idea that a “proper design and effective use of the environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime, and an improvement in the quality of life” (Crowe, 2000). Therefore, CPTED seeks preventative solutions rather than focussing on apprehension or punishment of an offender and in this respect, it can be viewed as a proactive rather than reactive measure. In broad terms, CPTED principles include: – Natural Surveillance: Physical design has the capacity to promote informal or natural surveillance opportunities for residents and their agents and surveillance is part of capable guardianship (Painter and Tilley, 1999). If offenders perceive that they can be observed (even if they are not), they may be less likely to offend, given the increased potential for intervention, apprehension and prosecution. – Access Management: It is focused on reducing opportunities for crime by denying access to potential targets and creating a heightened perception of risk in offenders (access control). The goal with this principle is not exclusively to keep potential offenders out, but to direct the flow of people while lessening opportunities for crime through a proper design of walkways, fences, lighting, signage and landscape (natural access control). – Territorial Reinforcement: The promotion of a ‘sense of ownership’ by clearly demarcating the public and the private space and the use of active security measures to increase the perception of a protected space. It can also takes into account how a clear and logical orientation of the layout may contribute to reduce the opportunities for crime (Hillier and Shu, 2000). – Quality Environment/Maintenance: It basically aims to show that a built environment is cared, promoting a positive image and routinely maintaining it. The significance of the physical condition and ‘image’ of the built environment and the effect that this may this may have on crime and the fear of crime has long been acknowledged (Lynch, 1960).”

More Develpments

“Numerous Australian local and State bodies now require analysis of crime risks for new developments that may create safety concerns or increase the risk of crime. Examples of the type of setting where this might be required include: office and commercial buildings, car parks, large scale residential developments, walkways, reserves and public spaces, town centres or local shops, transit interchanges, industrial subdivision, and so forth. In this context, safety audits are nowadays a commonplace practice in Australian environmental crime prevention. They allow informed recommendations by experts based on field observations and community consultation in order to reduce the risk of criminal activity and victimisation. They involve the main stakeholders in the process (local community, local council, members of local agencies and the local police) and thus provide an opportunity for the community to have a say about what contributes to their feelings of safety in their neighbourhoods, and thereby encourages better use of public space (Queensland CPTED Implementation Guidelines, 2007). This paper will explore contemporary Australian crime prevention developments, including commentary on ways that CPTED are now routinely incorporated into governmental practice.”