“Situational crime prevention comprises opportunity-reducing measures that (1) are directed at highly specific forms of crimes (2) involve the management, design or manipulation of the immediate environment in as systematic and permanent way as possible, (3) make crime more difficult and risky, or less rewarding and excusable as judged by a wide range of offenders.”

Situational crime prevention (SCP) therefore tries to stop the offender before he or she actually commits the offence. Specific areas of opportunity-reducing techniques include: target hardening, access control, CCTV, security laminate, security guards, signage and alarms. These are all products and services we use and recommend daily in our industry.  

While in and of themselves, these products and services are all proven to be effective-in their more localized context-they also may have more dangerous and less local ”˜side effects’ as they are employed.  Some of these side effects that lead to greater crime are known as: Displacement, Escalation, Facilitation and Creative Adaptation.

Displacement
Displacement appears to be one of the main limitations of SCP. Clarke even describes displacement as the “Achilles’ heel of situational crime prevention.” Researchers have come across many instances where displacement has occurred, such as when the British government mandated all new cars to be fitted with steering column locks to prevent thieves from driving off with them, and the ”˜displacement’ result was that older cars were stolen.

In a property-marking program in Ottawa, researchers found that burglaries had shifted from the homes that had the marking systems to the houses that had not.

Researchers in the UK discovered that a reported decrease in burglary on a British public housing estate where target hardening was implemented had the unfortunate effect of increasing property crimes in neighbouring areas.

Displacement also has social implications since it raises serious inequality issues between the haves and have-nots. Wealthy people (and businesses) have the financial resources to implement situational prevention measures  whereas the poor certainly do not. Researchers also raise the unsettling idea that a displaced criminal activity may become a much more serious offence than the former. One of their examples shows that there was a higher casualty rate from the London underground fire at Kings Cross because of the toxic fumes that came from the chemicals in the anti-graffiti paint. Thus a relativity minor crime was displaced to a much more serious crime via a situational crime prevention application. 

Escalation
Escalation is another concern crime prevention practitioners have. Researchers cite examples of escalation such as fencing that was installed to prevent soccer hooliganism, which in reality, contributed to the 93 deaths of spectators who had been crushed against it. Physical barriers and fencing may also invite defacing or outright destruction to them. Another good example of escalation is given by researchers — bulletproofing was applied to subway token booths in New York ultimately resulting in attacks on booths with gasoline-fuelled fires.