SAFEGROWTH®

SAFEGROWTH® BLOG

regular contributors
GREGORY SAVILLE · TARAH HODGKINSON · MATEJA MIHINJAC
SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE BLOG UPDATES DIRECTLY IN YOUR INBOX
  • HOME
  • WHO WE ARE
    • SAFEGROWTH NETWORK
    • SAFEGROWTH MOVEMENT
    • FRIENDS OF SAFEGROWTH
    • LIKEMINDED
  • WHAT WE DO
    • SAFEGROWTH & LIVABILITY ACADEMY TRAINING
    • TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE & CRIME PREVENTION
    • CONSULTING & ADVISING
    • SUMMITS & SEARCH CONFERENCES
  • ABOUT SAFEGROWTH
    • SafeGrowth History
    • Method & Philosophy
    • SafeGrowth Theory
    • What makes great neighborhoods
  • RESOURCES
    • TED-Ed tutorials >
      • SafeGrowth - Crime & the 21st Century City
      • Vision-Based Asset Mapping
    • SafeGrowth language
  • BOOK
  • BLOG
  • PODCAST
  • TOOLKIT (PASSWORD ACCESS)
    • Notes for SafeGrowth teams >
      • PORTLAND - TriMet (2022)
    • RISK ASSESSMENT FOR NEIGHBORHOODS >
      • RA Categories-Neighborhoods
      • 5 Steps & Report guidance >
        • Report structure
        • Sample reports
      • Readings for download
      • Glossary
    • RISK ASSESSMENT FOR REGULATORS >
      • RA Categories-Regulators

30/11/2021

AVOIDING WHAC-A-MOLE WHILE PREVENTING CRIME by Gregory Saville

0 Comments

Read Now
 
Picture
A violence interruption neighborhood in Syracuse during our SafeGrowth presentations

​by Gregory Saville

A number of years ago I watched an impressive problem-oriented policing presentation about a homicide reduction program in Boston that cut murders in half in a single year. Officially called Operation Ceasefire, it became known as the Boston Miracle and the magician behind it was David Kennedy, one of the brightest criminologists I know, professor of criminal justice at John Jay College in New York.

Ceasefire has evolved into what is now called the CVI method of violence and homicide reduction – Community Violence Intervention. There are two forms of CVI:

  • The first version of CVI is the one I saw from Boston. It goes by a number of names (commonly the “call-in” method where police call-in offenders for a meeting) and it is run through the Center National Network for Safe Communities. 
        The call-in model is described on the National Network website:    
"Community members with moral authority over group members deliver a credible moral message against violence. Law enforcement puts groups on prior notice about the consequences of further group-involved violence… support and outreach providers make a genuine offer of help for those who want it. A central method of communication is the call-in, a face-to-face meeting between group members and the strategy’s partners."

  • The other version of CVI tends to avoid the justice system, but rather taps into the street knowledge of former street offenders. 
The Cure Violence, also known as The Interrupters, is like the Guardian Angels on steroids. We have blogged on it before. It is described in the 2011 film called The Interrupters and it shows how “Interrupters” are hired directly from the community, sometimes people with a history of gang affiliation. When information arises indicating a potential outbreak of gang conflict, Interrupters visit the neighborhoods and speak directly to those involved. They describe of their own street experience and the consequences of violence and shootings. Their success rate is impressive. 

Cure Violence was the brainchild of Gary Slutkin, an epidemiologist from Chicago.

Picture
There are better ways to prevent violence than after-the-fact arrest

​Both styles of CVI programs are visiting cities across the U.S. and now Europe and they have an impressive evaluation history. We could certainly use those CVI strategies to tamp down violence in some of our communities in the first few months of our capacity-building work. 


THE NECESSARY INGREDIENT

However, all CVI programs require one essential element in order to function – existing crime! 

That means that, whether police call-in suspected gang members, or if Interrupters visit a potential offender for a shooting, CVI practitioners must already know of a crime underway or about to occur. And these pending events obviously do not happen in a vacuum, they occur in high crime areas or with known perpetrators of violence, shootings and gangs.

In other words, the social, economic, and psychological conditions that led to those risky moments were already in place long before CVI practitioners arrived. There is nothing wrong with preventing violence and shootings. But there is little evidence that intervening with a small group of offenders will do anything to sustainably transform the neighborhood conditions that led to their criminality in the first place. They might get some job offers, training, or perhaps social support for drug addiction. But what about the economic, social, and psychological conditions in the neighborhood where they and their families reside? 


If you tamp down the fireworks, do you address how those fireworks started in the first place so they don’t start again? One published 
long-term evaluation of the Ceasefire approach concluded “Boston has been challenged to sustain the implementation of the Ceasefire strategy over extended time periods. High profile replications of the Boston approach has experienced similar challenges.” 

What can be done to transform the long-term livability in such places that breed violence in the first place?


Picture
Whac-a-mole is a circus tabletop game from Japan - photo Creative Commons

​WHAC-A-MOLE

It is like going to the circus and playing the game called ‘whac-a-mole’. 

The whac-a-mole game is played on a tabletop with a number of holes filled with plastic moles. The moles randomly pop up and the player whacks each one with a plastic hammer as fast as possible to gain points. The player never knows which mole will pop up, why they pop up, or how to keep them down, other than smashing them with the hammer as fast as they can. 
​

Prevention programs like CVI require an offender, or offenders, to whack (to deliver CVI programming), but CVI programs have little to say about the root causes why they are violent, why they deal drugs, or from where their criminality arises. Other than individualized programs to help each offender (an important part of prevention, to be sure), CVI programs are not designed to transform the neighborhood so crime-causing conditions no longer create a breed of next-generation offenders.

Picture
SafeGrowth addresses many pieces of neighborhood livability leading to crime

​THE DIFFERENCE

That is what SafeGrowth does. By combining 1st, 2nd, and now 3rd Generation CPTED, we help residents rebuild troubled neighborhoods and attack crime at the roots where it grows. SafeGrowth is less about whacking moles, and more about the social ecology and cohesion of a community. CVI is attractive because it works quickly. SafeGrowth takes time. 

Both strategies are important. But without digging at the roots, you hack at the branches and do not fundamentally change neighborhoods where the seeds of crime are planted. We describe this work in SafeGrowth: Building Neighborhoods of Safety and Livability, and in scholarly articles on neighborhoods where we cut crime from New Orleans to Toronto.

We need programs like CVI for effective alternatives to ineffective arrest strategies. But we also need neighborhood transformation programs, like SafeGrowth, to sustain early successes over the long term. 
​

Otherwise, we find ourselves back to where we started, perhaps one reason the decades-long crime declines are now reversing in far too many cities! 

Share

0 Comments

25/11/2021

BLINDED BY THE LIGHT by Gregory Saville

0 Comments

Read Now
 
Picture
The Greek philosopher Aristotle created the scientific method - knowledge proceeds through evidence, objective analysis, and logic. Photo Creative Commons

​by Gregory Saville

As Bruce Springsteen writes in his song, it’s easy to get blinded by something you are passionate about. That especially applies to crime theory.

It’s hard enough to implement crime prevention without having to constantly check whether the prevention theory itself is under attack. Of course, prevention practitioners should know the strengths and weaknesses of their programs, including theory veracity. But when theory itself remains unchallenged by scientists, even when emerging data contradicts that theory, it makes the practitioner's job much more difficult. 

When that happens, practitioners are unsure whether it is the theory that is wrong or the implementation. 

Take crime displacement theory. When a crime happens in one location, will preventive measures move it somewhere else? Traditional displacement theory says crime will not necessarily move elsewhere. Or if it does, it might create benefits in other ways (the so-called diffusion of benefits theory).

Most likely, we are told, the displaced crime will reduce in impact – it won’t get worse! We are told dozens of studies confirm this theory over a number of years. 


WHAT IF IT IS WRONG? 

Then a British undergraduate thesis on displacement uncovered some disturbing patterns in the evidence.

Catherine Phillip's analysis discovered, “that displacement may, in fact, be more common than is widely claimed, particularly in the case of studies with offenders. Furthermore… the findings of the Kirkholt Burglary Prevention Project, which purport to demonstrate a diffusion of benefits, are shown to be based on questionable evidence.”

Curiously, this was met with deafening silence in the situational crime prevention community. Phillip's referring specifically to the scientific evidence would, one would think, sound alarms to scientific theorists. Not so.


A few years later, Tarah Hodgkinson, myself, and 
Martin Andresen, conducted a detailed study on displacement over a multi-year timeframe using extensive ethnographic/statistical research in a city where we had delivered CPTED for over a decade. We combined the best qualitative and quantitative research. Our research discovered that, indeed, displacement was not benign, there was no diffusion of benefits, and alarmingly, we uncovered clear evidence of malign displacement in which crime got much worse in two different areas. 

We published our study in one of the most prestigious journals in the criminological community – the 
British Journal of Criminology.

Again, from the displacement research crowd… crickets! Apparently, data and evidence, even in a thorough crime study, were also not enough to sound the alarm about troubles with displacement theory. 


Why?


Picture
Marc Brackett's Permission To Feel

​CONFIRMATION BIAS

For many years, Gerard Cleveland and I have taught our police students emotional intelligence (EI). EI was created by psychologists in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly the work of Yale University’s professor Peter Salovey and his colleagues. The best recent book on EI is Marc Brackett’s, Permission to Feel.

The role of emotions, it turns out, is poorly understood among professionals and, I would add, researchers. Emotions explain why researchers get attached to their theories and, when it comes to criminology, why they refuse to accept new theories or abandon old ones.

​The 
methodology of science suggests that researchers should carefully manage their emotions and follow the data. In displacement, at least, it seems that may not always have been the case. The attachment to theories – this clinging to something when contradictory evidence arises – emerges from poor emotional intelligence and the inability to detach from a theory and look at alternate theories with a clear eye. 

Picture
Avoid theory blindness by looking carefully at the data, self-awareness, and detaching from bias

​SECOND GENERATION CPTED

Take, for example, 2nd Generation CPTED! For years, Gerry Cleveland and I heard complaints from traditional crime prevention practitioners that “if it’s not about changing the physical environment, it’s just not CPTED”. 

When we pointed out that the founders of CPTED – Jane Jacobs, Oscar Newman, C. Ray Jeffery – did not limit their discussions to architecture; they also spoke of the interconnectedness between theories, of the role of neighbors in crime prevention, and of social cohesion in neighborhoods. Getting locals to create a sense of defensible space was the mantra in authentic CPTED, yet those practitioners attached to physical target hardening ignored this part of the theory. 

​This is theory-blindness! It is often triggered by emotional attachments to a particular view and it is known in psychology as confirmation bias – the tendency to search only for information that confirms your prior beliefs of something. It is not surprising we are sometimes blinded by the light of a theory to which we are attached. We are all, after all, human. But ignoring data and cherry-picking evidence that supports only one particular theory is not only unscientific – it obstructs our work to help create safer places. Our communities deserve better.


POSTSCRIPT

I spoke too soon in regards to crickets from the criminological community. The situational theory cluster inside the movement might ignore, but not so the mainstream criminology community. The American Society of Criminology just awarded our own Tarah Hodgkinson the prestigious 
Robert Bursik Award for the displacement study I referenced above that Tarah, Martin Andresen, and I co-published in the British Journal of Criminology. Congratulations Tarah.  

Share

0 Comments

19/11/2021

FINDING THIRD PLACES AFTER THE PANDEMIC by Tarah Hodgkinson

0 Comments

Read Now
 
Picture
Places like the Capitol Bar in Hamilton, Canada, create a shared dining space and opportunities for live music and conversation

​by Tarah Hodgkinson

We have written extensively on this blog, and elsewhere about the importance of the “third place”. In Ray Oldenburg’s work The Great Good Place, Oldenburg discusses the importance of the third place: Third places are spaces other than home (first place) and work (second place) where folks can meet, gather, connect and build social cohesion. He names several types of third places including cafes, hair salons, barbershops, pubs, libraries, bookshops and more that are at the heart of any great community. These are spaces that people can spend lots of unstructured time in without having to spend much money. 

Picture
The Red Bowler cafe in the west end of Brisbane, Australia, holds seating for dining and comfy couches and eclectic decor for evening events

​In the wake of COVID-19 many of these local places are starting to disappear. Unable to keep up with the rising costs of rolling lockdowns and having to restrict the number of patrons, many of these establishments have either limited the time you can spend in them or been shuttered altogether. This has led to several issues including vacant storefronts, reducing foot traffic and eyes on the street, and increasing monopolies of these spaces by large corporations that are less interested in creating a space for their neighbours and building community cohesion. 

We know that social cohesion relies on third places to bring together people together. We also know that a lack of these places, can reduce social cohesion and increase risks of crime. Never has that been a more prominent issue, than during a pandemic when we are literally more separated than ever before. 

Picture
"Third places" draw people together for more than food and dining - they are gathering places, relaxing spaces, and conversation bases

​However, there are some shining rays of hope in neighbourhoods around the globe. In Brisbane, Australia for example, a small café called the Red Bowler, feels exactly like a third place. Here, the café is not only a place to grab a coffee and a bite to eat, but the staff also know the locals, regulars sit down at comfy couches near you to strike up a conversation and the owners hold weekly events including movie nights, live music, and even mobile dog washes. No one is rushed out and as a result, the community builds. 
​
This is just one example of a commitment to create places that are neutral, inclusive and a home away from home. As we continue to emerge from the seemingly endless impact of COVID-19 on our everyday lives, it is more important than ever that we revive and support these third places. They are the neighbourhood cornerstones of connection that will help us to not only recover but thrive again as communities. 

Share

0 Comments
Details
    SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE BLOG UPDATES DIRECTLY IN YOUR INBOX

    REGULAR CONTRIBUTORS

    GREGORY SAVILLE
    TARAH HODGKINSON
    MATEJA MIHINJAC

    CATEGORIES

    All
    15-minute City
    4S
    AI
    Alcohol
    Alternative Development
    Art
    Artificial Intelligence
    Biophilia
    Black Lives Matter
    Bladerunner
    Bus Stops
    CCTV
    Change Agent
    Civility
    Collaboration
    Community Building
    Community Empowerment
    Community Engagement
    Community Safety
    Connectivity
    COVID 19
    COVID-19
    CPTED
    C. Ray Jeffery
    Creativity
    Crime Analysis
    Crime Displacement
    Crime Disruptors
    Crime Opportunity
    Crime Rates
    Crime Severity Index
    Criminology
    Culture
    Cure Violence
    Defensible Space
    Design Out Crime
    Diversity
    Downtown
    Drottninghog
    Emotional Intelligence
    Entertainment Districts
    Environmental Criminology
    Ethics
    Europe
    Evidence-based
    Eyes On The Street
    Fake News
    Fear Of Crime
    Feminism
    Food Access
    Future Cities
    Global Warming
    Governance
    Graffiti
    Green Spaces
    H22
    H22 Smart City Expo
    HACE
    Harmscapes
    Health
    Helsingborg
    Homelessness
    Housing
    Human Scale Design
    ICA
    Immigration
    Inclusiveness
    Indigenous
    International CPTED Association
    Laneway
    Latin America
    Law
    Law Enforcement
    Lighting
    LISC
    Livability
    Livability Academy
    Local Capacity
    Local Democracy
    Local Trust
    Location Quotient
    Loneliness
    Lovability
    Mental Health
    Motivation
    Neighborhood
    Neighborhood Asset
    Neighborhood Governance
    Neighborhood Hubs
    Neighborhood Livability Hierarchy
    Neighborhood Transformation
    NIMBY
    Operation Ceasefire
    Partnerships
    PBL
    Philadelphia
    Placemaking
    Policing
    Politics
    Populism
    Predictive Policing
    Problem Based Learning
    Problem-based Learning
    Professionalization
    Protests
    Public Health
    Quality Of Life
    Restorative Justice
    Rural Crime
    SafeGrowth
    Safety Audits
    San Romanoway
    Science
    Second Generation CPTED
    Security
    Self-governance
    Sitability
    Situational Crime Prevention
    Smart City
    Smart Growth
    Social Cohesion
    Social Distancing
    Social Ecology
    Social Isolation
    Social Justice
    Social Unrest
    Space Activation
    Street Walkability
    Suburbs
    Successful Places
    Surveillance
    Sustainability
    Sweden
    Target Hardening
    Technology
    Theory
    Third Generation CPTED
    Third Places
    TOD
    Transportation
    Urban Decline
    Urbanism
    Urban Planning
    Violence
    Youth


    ARCHIVES

    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009


CONTACT

SafeGrowth.Office@gmail.com


​AlterNation LLC is the parent company managing the SafeGrowth Alliance. 
Check out our website: www.alternation.ca

Picture

SafeGrowth® 2007-2022
All rights reserved.

© A registered product of AlterNation LLC

SafeGrowth® is a philosophy and theory of neighborhood safety planning for 21st Century.

​SafeGrowth® is available all over the world for creating new relationships between city government and residents. Any city can adopt this philosophy thereby creating empowered neighborhoods resistant to crime with residents engaged in planning their own future.


  • HOME
  • WHO WE ARE
    • SAFEGROWTH NETWORK
    • SAFEGROWTH MOVEMENT
    • FRIENDS OF SAFEGROWTH
    • LIKEMINDED
  • WHAT WE DO
    • SAFEGROWTH & LIVABILITY ACADEMY TRAINING
    • TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE & CRIME PREVENTION
    • CONSULTING & ADVISING
    • SUMMITS & SEARCH CONFERENCES
  • ABOUT SAFEGROWTH
    • SafeGrowth History
    • Method & Philosophy
    • SafeGrowth Theory
    • What makes great neighborhoods
  • RESOURCES
    • TED-Ed tutorials >
      • SafeGrowth - Crime & the 21st Century City
      • Vision-Based Asset Mapping
    • SafeGrowth language
  • BOOK
  • BLOG
  • PODCAST
  • TOOLKIT (PASSWORD ACCESS)
    • Notes for SafeGrowth teams >
      • PORTLAND - TriMet (2022)
    • RISK ASSESSMENT FOR NEIGHBORHOODS >
      • RA Categories-Neighborhoods
      • 5 Steps & Report guidance >
        • Report structure
        • Sample reports
      • Readings for download
      • Glossary
    • RISK ASSESSMENT FOR REGULATORS >
      • RA Categories-Regulators