Prospective crime mapping in operational context Final report

that each study varies in its research design and analytical techniques and thus cannottherefore be directly compared, the Tactical Options Matrix merely provides a summary ofinformation and is therefore not inclusive of every opinion on each measure. In relation to thesymbols used, +, --- and – symbols are used to illustrate whether the intervention has workedin the past, had no impact, or did not work respectively. In some cases, reviews are mixedand both a + and – sign are given to the intervention. As mentioned previously, ultimately thetactical options selected for this project could have included a combination of the interventionspresented here, and would be affected by the partners involved and their ability to implementthe tactics in a timely manner, and the resources available.CostIn the matrix, the cost of implementing successful crime reduction tactics is classified in twoways: firstly in terms of how much the measure will cost to implement in a financial sense;and secondly, how quickly it can be mobilised. Both costs are expressed as either low,medium or high. While a certain measure might be expensive initially, it is essential to look atits cost in terms of swiftness of effect. If an intervention can be implemented quickly and inthose areas identified as being most at future risk, the potential exists not only to reduceburglary but also to prevent low crime areas at a tipping point from evolving into high crimeareas. Thus, it is crucial to compare both types of cost when deciding what will most likelywork best for the selected pilot site and in combination with the proposed approach. Perhapsthe optimal solution is offered by the intervention that has a medium financial cost butswiftness because it can be mobilised quickly.Geographic coverage of the measuresSituational methods of crime prevention work in a variety of ways: increasing effort; increasingrisks; reducing rewards; reducing provocation; and removing excuses. Once the nature of thecrime opportunities is identified, then a selection of measures can be made either to block orreduce these opportunities (Clarke, 1997), and these can be applied on at least twogeographic levels: the specific household or the area. Accordingly, each tactical optionoutlined in Table 3.2 is classified as representing either an area-level or household-specificcrime prevention measure.Measures that prevent crime at an area level will obviously do so by influencing risk at thehousehold level, but they may cost more, take longer to implement and will devote resourcesunnecessarily to many households that are individually at low risk. Conversely, measures thatare extremely effective at the specific household level may have a limited impact across thelarger neighbourhood and thus fail to reduce crime on a larger scale if they are focused ononly a subset of those individually at risk. The ultimate option perhaps is to have acombination of both specific and area-level situational measures that are both successful inreducing crime, providing benefits that address specific problems at particularly vulnerablehouseholds, lower the risk of burglary more generally and produce a realisable deterrenteffect.Partners involved and local responsibilitiesThe involvement of police, local partners and crime reduction agencies are (in currentfashion) important to the success of any crime prevention intervention. Multi-agency crimereduction has been a political priority for some years and, since the Crime and Disorder Act1998 the locally responsible agency is the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP)rather than the police alone. Table 3.2 shows potential partners such as the police, localauthority and other organisations who could have participated in the implementation of thelisted interventions.Putting together the best tactical options menu can be a difficult process, as the decisiondepends on the available resources as well as the eagerness of police and local partners toget involved. Thus, the aim of the exercise was to inform the discussions with the differentcrime reduction agencies that followed.31