The need for comprehensive crime prevention planning: the case of motor vehicle theft.

• Author: Linden, Rick
• Position: Includes text in French - Canada

La plupart des programmes de prevention du crime sont mal planifies et appliques, et ne contribuent que peu ou pas du tout a la prevention du crime. Les programmes sont habituellement fragmentes, la communication etant insuffisante entre les groupes qui ont un interet commun en matiere de reduction de la criminalite. La plupart des programmes sont isoles les uns des autres, et non lies dans le cadre d'une strategie de prevention communautaire globale. Les collectivites qui ont reussi a faire baisser de facon significative les taux de criminalite ont adopte une approche globale en matiere de prevention du crime, dans laquelle s'integrent une serie de programmes coordonnant les efforts concertes d'un grand nombre de partenaires et de participants. Pour etre complets et efficaces, les programmes de prevention du crime doivent viser a analyser les problemes de criminalite dans leur contexte communautaire, mobiliser un grand nombre de gens et d'organismes, tabler sur des strategies de prevention tres diverses, etre soigneusement choisis en fonction des besoins propres a une collectivite; enfin, leurs resultats doivent etre evalues. Cet article illustre l'application de ces exigences a la prevention du vol de vehicules a moteur.

Introduction

Most crime prevention programs do little or nothing to prevent crime (Sherman, Gottfredson, MacKenzie, Eck, Reuter, and Bushway 1997). Why are crime prevention efforts so unsuccessful? The main reason is that they are poorly planned and implemented. Those responsible for the programs rarely undertake a careful analysis of their community's problems, and programs are often implemented because they are fashionable rather than because they have been shown to be successful. All too often, programs are initiated in neighbourhoods that don't really need them, while less organized neighbourhoods with higher crime rates are not served by programs because local residents have not taken the initiative or do not have the capacity to start them and because programs are much more difficult to implement in high-needs communities. Furthermore, many programs are have little or no funding, and even projects that are funded may have little chance of surviving after the initial funding period is over. Programs are typically fragmented, and there is a lack of communication and awareness among groups with common interests. Finally, programs typically operate in isolation and are not linked to a broader community-wide prevention strategy.

However, some communities have found that it is possible to achieve meaningful reductions in crime rates. These communities have developed comprehensive programs that involve cooperation among different levels of government and other agencies and groups able to contribute to the solution; that are targeted to areas where they are most needed; that use a broad range of prevention approaches tailored to the specific needs of the communities; that draw upon programs that have been shown to be effective in other places; and that give the community a meaningful role in prevention. Comprehensive initiatives can be of two types:

* those that focus on the needs of an entire community or on high-crime neighbourhoods in the community, and

* those designed to address a particular problem, such as domestic violence or vehicle theft, on a broad scale.

In either case, the common theme is an attempt to deliver an integrated series of programs by coordinating the efforts of a broad range of partners and participants. Comprehensive planning for crime prevention emphasizes the need for a detailed understanding of the problem, one grounded in knowledge of the social and physical environment in the local neighbourhoods in which the problem occurs; it also requires that the necessary financial and human resources be available to respond to the problem. Finally, this approach stresses the need for a coordinated approach to developing and implementing solutions and evaluating the results.

While there is a growing consensus on the need to explore such approaches, much remains to be learned about how to design and implement them in different types of communities and to address different kinds of problems. The purpose of this article is to use the example of vehicle theft as a case study to outline the steps necessary to implement a comprehensive prevention strategy, in the hope that this example can be adapted to other contexts. The article will focus on a comprehensive approach to motor vehicle theft, but broader community-oriented programs will follow the same principles, (2) as these are necessary in order to ensure that communities can reduce crime:

1. Analyse the crime problems in their community context.

2. Involve a broad group of people and organizations.

3. Consider a diverse range of prevention strategies.

4. Carefully implement the best programs.

5. Assess the results.

The rest of this article will illustrate how this process can be applied to the prevention of motor vehicle theft.

The need for a comprehensive approach to vehicle theft

While most types of property crime have been declining in Canada over the past two decades, vehicle theft has been increasing. According to Statistics Canada, rates have increased from about 300 vehicle thefts per 100,000 Canadians in the early 1980s to 541 per 100,000 in 2003. The cost of motor vehicle theft is about $1 billion per year: $600 million for insurance premiums and $400 million for criminal justice and health care costs (Wallace 2004b). The deaths and serious injuries caused by crashes involving stolen vehicles add to the seriousness of this problem.

This increase in the rate of motor vehicle theft has largely been due to dramatically increased rates of motor vehicle theft in several cities: for example, Winnipeg's rates have quadrupled since 1992, while the rate in Regina has tripled. Several Canadian cities, including Winnipeg, Regina, and Vancouver, have among the highest rates of vehicle theft in the industrialized world. In 2001, Regina had 1,996 thefts per 100,000 people, followed by Winnipeg (1,581) and Vancouver (1,149). By contrast, Quebec City had 290 thefts per 100,000 people and St. John's had a rate of only 183 per 100,000 (Statistics Canada 2003).

The justice system response

The criminal justice system does not deal with motor vehicle theft very successfully. While a large proportion of stolen vehicles are recovered, particularly in areas where joyriding is the most prevalent type of theft, clearance rates are relatively low--12% in 2001, according to Wallace (2003a). Even when arrests are made for vehicle theft, cases are often diverted from the criminal justice system. Those offenders who are found guilty in court are most commonly sentenced to probation and are less likely than most other offenders to receive custodial dispositions (Hendrick 1999). It is not surprising that a group of incarcerated young offenders said they did not think of the possible legal consequences before they stole a vehicle (Anderson and Linden 2002).

The nature of this response means that we cannot rely on the deterrent effect of the justice system to reduce motor vehicle theft. Other prevention strategies must be developed in order to reduce the high rates of this crime. However, before developing these strategies, it is important to analyse the problem thoroughly. The more we know about patterns and causes of motor vehicle theft and about the background and motivation of the most serious offenders, the more likely it is that we will be able to develop successful prevention strategies.

What we know about vehicle theft

* There are large provincial differences in rates of vehicle theft. In 2003, when the national rate was 541 per 100,000, provincial rates varied from 126 per 100,000 in Newfoundland and Labrador to 1,111 per 100,000 in Manitoba (Wallace 2004a).

* Vehicles are most often stolen from parking lots, followed by streets and home garages and driveways (Wallace 2003a). A high proportion of vehicle thefts take place in low-income, high-crime communities (Mirrlees-Black, Budd, Partridge, and Mayhew 1998). The presence of large numbers of motivated offenders, combined with the availability of older cars that are easy to steal and a lack of private or enclosed parking facilities, means that the poor are the main victims of vehicle theft.

* Most stolen vehicles are recovered. Overall, in Canada, 75% of all stolen vehicles are recovered (Wallace 2003a), and in some communities the recovery rate can be over 90%. However, it is important to recognize that these patterns differ from one community to another and may also change over time, so it is important that data be local and current. For example, in 2002 the percentages of cars not recovered were 44% in Montreal, 38% in Ontario's York Region, and 32% in Ottawa-Gatineau, compared with only 3% in Regina, 5% in both Victoria and Winnipeg, 8% in Edmonton, and 9% in Vancouver (Wallace 2004b). These...