Clarifying Responsibility for Crime and Safety Problems: Who is responsible for what? Gloria Laycock Institute of Crime Science University College London
Agenda • • • What’s the problem? Responsibility and competency Roles and responsibilities Identifying levers Some examples: – Car crime – Credit card fraud – Shop theft • Structural implications
What’s the problem? • A large retail store has the highest calls for service within all 3 districts of the division • They refuse to implement cp policies • The main office and ‘legal’ refuse to let them meet with the local police – bad for their image • The police say they’d like to take action but the company pays taxes to the city ….
Responsibility • traditional assumption - the police • In reality – – – local authority community/partnership groups commerce industry individuals etc
Competency • Any individual or group with the power to change the situation, eg: – – – motor manufacturers shop keepers head teachers Government departments fuel companies credit card designers etc
The Individual Should: · Take sensible precautions to protect themselves, their families, friends and communities against crime · Not commit offences themselves · Not buy stolen goods · Ensure that their children are safe and are not themselves offending · Report crimes to the police · Support the criminal justice process as victims or witnesses where appropriate
The Police and Their Partners Should: · Collect accurate information on crime and disorder and share it · Ensure that they have the skills and knowledge to analyse their data and produce evidencebased responses on the basis of it · Target hotspots · Monitor the effects of their strategies and modify them where appropriate · Learn to use ‘levers’ to get action from other agencies and organisations
Industry and Commerce Should: · Design goods, services and policies with ‘crime in mind’ · Understand that goods fitting the acronym ‘CRAVED’ will be stolen and need extra protection · Resist marketing their goods in ways which risk drawing young people into crime · Take some responsibility for the threat of theft, attack and other offences being directed at customers · Take reasonable measures to protect staff from victimisation through thoughtful policies, practices and training programmes
Federal, State and Local Governments Should: . . . create a context within which we can all take responsibility for crime reduction, as individuals, as members of communities as directors of commerce and industry. This means: · Providing an efficient and effective criminal justice system · Encouraging the reporting of crime and the attendance in court of victims and witnesses · Encouraging us all to take responsibility · Ensuring that all those with the competency to contribute to crime prevention do so
Goldstein’s hierarchy of ways to shift ownership Increasingly difficult Less cooperative Bringing of a civil action Legislation mandating adoption of prevention Charging a fee for police service Withdrawing police service Public shaming Pressing for the creation of a new organization to assume ownership Engaging another existing organization Targeted confrontational requests Straightforward informal requests Educational programmes
Motor Vehicle Theft Scanning: – High rates of theft of and from cars – Top of the league in international comparisons – Vehicle crime accounts for over 25% of all crimes reported to the police – Some cars are more popular with thieves than others – Cars had poor security - inadequate locks and no immobilisers – Requests for improved car security had been ignored – Government advisory board established to make recommendations: we need a car theft index
Why Did We Need a Car Theft Index? The government exercised its responsibility to press the car manufacturers into action and acknowledged the need for a lever: The car manufacturers alone had the competency to redesign the car
The Car Theft Index • Number of cars stolen of a given type divided by the number on the road • Complications – What does type mean? – How will security relate to the car type? – Where can we get accurate data?
Some Techy Bits. . . Deciding how far to break down the car type was a major issue
Outline of the SMMT classification system for motor vehicles MAKE Ford Vauxhall Volkwagen Escort Cavalier Golf Escort Mk 1 Escort Mk 2 Escort Mk 3 Escort Mk 4 Cavalier Mk 1 Cavalier Mk 2 Cavalier Mk 3 Golk Mk 1 Golk Mk 2 Golk Mk 3 (Approx 70 makes) MODEL (Approx 290 models) RANGE (Approx 350 ranges) LINE (Approx 4, 500 Lines) 1987 1392 cc Ford Escort GL Plus Mk 3 1984 1608 cc Ford Escort GL Diesel Mk 3 1981 1598 cc Vauxhall Cavalier L Mk 2 1989 1796 cc Vauxhall Cavalier GL Mk 3 1979 1093 cc Volkswagen Golf GL Mk 1 1976 1499 cc Volkswagen Golf GLS Mk 1
Top 9 ranges in use at the end of 1989 Ford Escort Mk 2 Ford Cortina Mk 5 Ford Sierra MK 1 Ford Fiesta Mk 1 Rover Mini Ford Fiesta Mk 2 Vauxhall Cavalier Mk 2 Rover Metro Mk 1 Ford Escort Mk 3 Source: Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders
Theft risks for the top 22 volume car ranges HIGH RISK FORD CAPRI FORD CORTINA MK 4 FORD CORTINA MK 5 FORD ESCORT MK 2 FORD FIESTA MK 1 FORD GRANADA MK 2/3 VAUXHALL ASTRA MK 2 MEDIUM RISK (SELECTED RANGES) BMW 300 SERIES ROVER MAESTRO FORD ESCORT MK 3 ROVER METRO FORD FIESTA MK 2 ROVER MINI FORD GRANADA MK 4 ROVER MONTEGO FORD ORION MK 1 VAUXHALL ASTRA MK 1 FORD SIERRA MK 1 VAUXHALL CAVALIER MK 1 FORD SIERRA MK 2 VAUXHALL CAVALIER MK 2
Notes. . . • Car security isn’t the only issue when thieves target vehicles – some cars are more attractive to thieves – older cars are more likely to be parked in high risk places and owned by poorer people who don’t fit security devices – some spare parts are more difficult to get than others etc
Effect of the Index (1992) • • The police loved it The manufacturers took it on the chin The insurance industry was supportive The consumer groups were keen The media picked up on it It avoided legislation It was very popular with the politicians
The Effect of the Car Theft Index? Years in which Car Theft Indices published
Credit Card Fraud • Scanning: – Police report credit cards thefts are significant • Analysis: – losses rose by 126% between 1988 and 1990 across the sector • Response: – – Report to financial institutions who worked together Established Association of Payment Clearing Services Raise floor limit of transactions Change method of sending cards to customers • Assessment: – losses dropped by 41% between 1992 and 1994
Credit card fraud losses, UK, £ millions Other Card not Application counter- Mail non- Lost & present fraud feit receipt stolen 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1. 6 1. 0 0. 8 0. 5 0. 3 0. 5 1. 2 2. 3 3. 0 6. 5 0. 4 1. 3 1. 6 2. 5 4. 6 6. 5 12. 5 13. 6 29. 3 56. 8 2. 0 1. 4 0. 9 0. 7 1. 5 6. 7 11. 9 14. 5 11. 4 10. 2 4. 6 8. 4 9. 9 9. 6 7. 7 13. 3 20. 3 26. 8 50. 3 102. 8 32. 9 29. 6 18. 2 12. 6 9. 1 10. 0 12. 5 12. 0 14. 6 17. 3 124. 1 123. 2 98. 5 71. 1 60. 0 66. 2 65. 8 79. 7 98. 9 Total 165. 6 165. 0 129. 9 96. 9 83. 3 97. 1 122. 0 135. 0 188. 3 292. 5
Shop Theft • Scanning – Shop theft in Oxford Street, London – 40% of shop thieves arrested in one store • Analysis – – – Special data collection exercise by store detectives £ 100 per thief to process through the CJS Arrestees mainly juvenile first offenders, UK citizens Store policy to detect crime rather than prevent it Reason for high crime rate: irresponsible marketing
Items recovered from thieves
Response • Recommended response: Move to prevention – adopt the ‘master-bag’ system • Store said no! • Compromise on the basis of threat: – – – Move to prevention Lower height of displays Raise checkout platforms – improve sight lines Employ security guards, not store detectives Stop selling high risk computer tapes Tag popular items
Assessment: Average Monthly Arrest Figures
The earlier example • Large retail store with too many calls for service, theft by customers and staff, bad checks, theft of and from cars on the lot: • Recommendations – Better and additional cameras on lot and in store – Greeters at all doors to check customers and look at receipts – Thumb print on all checks with 2 forms of ID – Large signs with cameras to lot about CCTV presence • No to all!
So …. . • Advice from Rana: – Tell them the problems: give them the facts – List the best practice responses – quote the POP guides – Copy to corporate HQ – ideally to the President personally – Say that the store said that Corporate HQ refused to let them take preventive measures and ask if that’s true – Tell them that the press will be interested in their reply
Questions for scanning/response development stages • Whose problem is this? – Who is the victim? – Who bears the real cost? • Who has the competency to change the situation? – Are they motivated to do so (eg do they bear the cost of crime or profit by it? ) • Does leverage need to be applied to get action? If so, what? • Who can apply that leverage?
Structural Implications
Locally you need • • Good data and sound rationale Inter-agency working relationships Effective project management To identify who has the competency to act • To make effective use of levers with the support of your local politicians
At Federal and State levels you need • A structure to ‘hear’ problems • To identify ‘levers’ at national level • An environmental scanning facility to respond to problems before they happen
What about academics?
Academics should …. . Work with the police and others to: – Understand the nature of crime – Develop evidence based policies to prevent and detect crime – Communicate clearly – Train analysts – Behave like scientists
A Word About Crime Science • About reducing crime ethically using the techniques of the scientist: – data – Logic – evidence – rationality – testing hypotheses – Establishing knowledge • Finding out what works, where and how
Medical Science and Crime Science
Future Prospects • By working together – police and scientists can: – Really understand the nature of crime – Reduce it to the lowest possible level – Make communities safer • But to do that they need: – To take a problem solving approach – Employ well trained analysts – Use levers
Скачать презентацию Clarifying Responsibility for Crime and Safety Problems Who
6de3866390f6a655bf000b30852f7ba3.ppt