CONJUNCTION OF CRIMINAL OPPORTUNITY

Paul Ekblom

Design Against Crime Research Centre

Central Saint Martins

University of the Arts London

Adapted fromEkblom. P. (2010) ‘The Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity Theory’. Sage Encyclopedia of Victimology and Crime Prevention. London: Sage.

The Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity (CCO) is a theoretical framework designed to draw together the major, immediate causes of criminal events, and in parallel, the major ‘families’ of intervention principles deployable to block, weaken or divert those causes, thereby preventing crime. It serves both theoretical, academic purposes, the development and management of practice knowledge, and practitioner education. This entry first explains the origins of CCO, then follow a full description, reference to alternatives to CCO, varieties of CCO and future developments as CCO continues to evolve.

Origins of CCOIn the 1990s an attempt was made to classify several thousand crime

prevention projects implemented through the UK Safer Cities Programme. One purpose was to put ‘like with like’ when evaluating project impacts. The diversity of those projects was challenging. They covered a range of institutional settings and preventive methods, and no single existing framework could handle the complexity or breadth. Likewise, even using detailed entries from the programme’s management information system, determining exactly what the individual projects were endeavouring to do proved difficult. There was no universal, rigorous and consistent schema or language by which the preventive interventions could be described – and no systematic map of preventive possibilities. Terminology for causation and prevention was confused, unclear and overlapping, with spurious contrasts such as ‘situational versus social’. This not only inhibited retrieval and replication of success stories, it also constrained the realisation and monitoring of each original project as it unfolded.

Exacerbating confusion was the fragmentation of the field of crime prevention into situational and offender-oriented territories, with their own languages and theories; and fragmentation, too, into institutional settings such as

‘enforcement and judicial-based’ and ‘civil’ prevention (changes made in everyday life such as the ethos of schools or the layout of parks). Again this generated spurious contrasts such as ‘prevention versus deterrence’. Even within situational prevention, the main theories were (and remain) poorly integrated, so each novice practitioner must assemble them afresh.

Therefore, it was decided to purpose-design a new framework: one that was inclusive of types and theories of crime, and types and contexts of prevention; and based on a suite of clear and consistent definitions. The focus was to be on the immediate, or ‘proximal’ causes of criminal events, whether originating in offenders or crime situations. ‘Distal’ or remote causes (such as children’s early upbringing, aspects of social structure such as inequality, or market forces such as those which made copper piping expensive therefore worth stealing), were important. But they were too varied, complex and often too hard to measure and define, to supply the basis of a theoretical and conceptual framework.

Contemporaneously, Nick Tilley was introducing a ‘Scientific Realist’ perspective to the crime prevention domain. This emphasised the importance of understanding, and manipulating, the ‘causal mechanisms’ that underlie preventive interventions. Here, the key question is not simply ‘what works?’, but ‘in what context, and how – by what causal mechanisms?’ So, CCTV in car parks might work simply by scaring offenders off, or by facilitating detection and arrest. Only the second mechanism is potentially durable (the offenders soon ignore the cameras if nobody catches them), so it is important for practitioners to know which is operating. They must also tune the intervention to their context, because mechanisms are quite ‘delicate’: only the right combination of circumstances triggers them. This means that understanding and reproducing mechanisms is vital for replication of ‘success story’ projects. In effect, the CCO offers a universal ‘mechanism map’ of the causal preconditions that must come together for a crime to occur. The mechanism perspective enabled CCO to centre on analytic causal and contextual factors rather than simply being a superficial listing of causes and a ‘natural history’ of preventive methods.

The framework was assembled from familiar theories of crime causation including Rational Choice Theory, Crime Pattern Theory and Routine Activities Theory. The last was in effect the starting point, from which questions were posed such as ‘how is the target suitable?’ and ‘why is the offender likely?’ Since these ‘situational’ theories intentionally contained only minimalist reference to offenders, psychological and interpersonal aspects of criminals were taken from the theoretical writings for example of David Farrington. Seeking an exhaustive ‘map’ of causes led to identification and filling of gaps: for example the concepts of ‘crime promoters’ and ‘offender resources’.

From these beginnings what became CCO evolved iteratively while it was applied to classify descriptions of several thousand Safer Cities projects, and progressively extended or refined as new kinds of cause or intervention were encountered. Eventually the framework stabilised at 11 generic causes and equivalent intervention principles as described below. What began as classification moreover produced a framework with much wider potential, as interest was growing in the education and training of a new cadre of crime prevention and community safety practitioners in the police and beyond; and in equipping them with tools for a demanding job. To reflect this wider applicability,

the original ‘Proximal Circumstances’ framework was rebranded in 1998 as the Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity. Development of CCO within this practitioner and ‘programme delivery’ context up to 2003 led to an accretion of ‘preventive process’ elements which were eventually ‘hived off’ to a separate (and equally deliberately-designed) process model, the 5Is framework, equivalent to SARA of Problem-Oriented Policing but containing more detail.

What is CCO exactly?CCO, like Routine Activities Theory, is an ecological model of the

immediate causes of criminal events centring on human agents acting out particular roles in a particular setting.

AgentsThe Offender is the one agent without whom a crime by definition cannot

occur. Offenders are covered in more detail below. The other agents about to be described, and the physical setting, are the situation for the offender. The other agents play two kinds of role in the causation of crime.

Crime Preventers are people who make criminal events less likely, by their mere presence or their action such as surveillance of strangers, supervision and (more distally) socialisation of their children, or using window locks. Preventer roles can be undertaken in various institutional or non-institutional settings, by police patrols, vigilant employees, neighbours chastising next-door’s children or ‘good citizens’ reporting hazards. Preventers can act before the criminal event (securing their car), during it (repelling assailants) or after. Regarding the last, the prevention will strictly speaking not affect the current crime but may involve action to fix a vulnerability before the next offence; arrest of the current offender; and perhaps deterring other offenders. However, offenders’ anticipation of such responses to their crimes may serve to prevent the current instance too.

Crime Promoters are people who, by contrast, play roles which actively increase the risk of criminal events, with varying degrees of intentionality and responsibility. They include someone accidentally provoking the (potential) offender; a ‘friend’ encouraging the offender to avenge an insult; a fence buying stolen goods or supplying weapons; or simply someone leaving their laptop visible when parking their car. The aim of much prevention is to switch the careless promoter into the role of careful preventer.

Note that victims don’t directly feature here, although unsuccessful preventers may become victims. Victims are not only active roles in which people seek to limit, repair and recover from the harms of the criminal event (and participate in investigatory and Justice processes), but may be the target of violent crime.

EntitiesEntities are the ‘things’ in crime situations. The Target of crime may be a

person or object that is inherently criminogenic: vulnerable, valuable or provocative. (The person as target is considered in passive terms; active human provocation is covered under the Promoter role.)

The target may be located in a Target Enclosure such as safes, locked rooms or gated compounds. Enclosures are characterised by structural features

including periphery, boundary fence, access doors/gates and interior. Each of these may have criminogenic properties (or criminocclusive ones – reducing the probability of crime).

Enclosures are situated in turn in a Wider Environment. This could be, say, a shopping mall, park, transport interchange or housing estate. Environments (whether ‘wider’ ones, or the interior environment of an enclosure) can be characterised by two distinct sets of properties. The instrumental environment relates to the goals of offender and preventer. The extent to which the physical layout (like sightlines and barriers), lighting etc affect the balance of tactical advantage between, for example, stealth v surveillance, ambush v awareness, pursuit v escape, respectively favouring one or other party. The motivating environment covers, say, how many attractive targets the environment contains. Using Richard Wortley’s situational ‘precipitators’, the environment may also supply physical conditions which directly prompt, pressure or provoke aggressive actions (such as ‘collision points’ at busy commuter stations), or which routinely contain crime promoters such as a ready audience for youths racing stolen cars, who may prompt, pressure or permit the action.

The offender As said, compared with situational approaches CCO adds psychological

depth to the offender concept; but in as generic way as possible rather than by adhering to specific psychological theories.

The offender side of crime causation starts with Predisposition to offend – aggressive tendencies, antisocial attitudes etc which comprise a permanent potential for criminal behaviour that is present, but not necessarily expressed, in all situations the (potential) offender encounters.

The next element is Resources to avoid offending which include both inhibitory capacity such as self-control and skills to make an honest living (hence to make honest choices when confronted with tempting criminal opportunities).

Remaining offender elements move gradually away from omnipresent potential towards factors activated in particular situations. Readiness to offend comprises emotional or motivational states induced by current life circumstances (like unemployment, poor housing or longstanding conflict) or recent experiences (like a stressful commuter journey or the desperate need for money for a drug fix; also intoxication).

Resources for offending empower offenders to tackle the risks and exploit the possibilities for instrumental crime and to realise expressive crimes such as revenge attacks. They range from facilitators like tools or weapons to skills and predispositions such as courage and strength, perpetrator techniques, knowledge of opportunities, and social contacts accessing trusted resources as offered by fences or co-offenders. The ability to neutralise guilt or psych oneself up for an attack may also aid offenders. Note that whereas in much of the situational prevention literature, ‘opportunity’ is considered a situational/environmental concept, the notion of resources makes it an ecological one. For example, an open window 5 metres up is only an opportunity to someone with strength, agility, courage and maybe a ladder.

Decision to commit offence captures the offender’s immediate perception and anticipation of, and response to, the ‘Rational Choice’ agenda of risk, effort and reward; and their reaction to situational prompts and provocations. The

immediate decision (with familiar qualifications on rationality) will be influenced by both the offender’s predisposition, resources to avoid and commit offences, and readiness. Habits and more strategic career choices (to be a burglar, to be a criminal and so forth) may also come into play and be influenced in turn by outcomes of individual attempts. Perceived risks, effort etc operate parallel causal mechanisms to their objective counterparts: the robust appearance of a bus shelter may discourage vandalism, or its robust construction physically resist attack.

Finally, Presence of offender in situation is of course necessary, although that presence could be ‘telepresence’ as in obscene phone calls; or ‘sending the boys round’.

The offender – twin perspectives

The CCO incorporates two perspectives on the offender. On the one hand, offenders are seen as agents, with goals, decisions, and actions intended to realise them. On the other they are themselves as much caused as causing: early experiences, current experiences, and operation of cognitive processes including perception, motivation and emotion. Recent formulations of CCO therefore refer to offenders as caused agents; likewise with preventers and promoters. CCO causes are illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity: immediate causes of criminal event

DynamicsCCO as described is a static, analytic picture of elements with the

immediate potential to cause criminal events. This is useful for many purposes; but it is also necessary, when focusing on causal mechanisms, to consider the dynamic, interactive nature of the conjunction. At one level this relates to offenders perceiving, being provoked perhaps, choosing, reacting and acting, applying skills and capacities to exploit the opportunity and overcome the risks of crime; to the preventers and promoters making equivalent contributions; and to the several players anticipating and adapting to one another’s perceived actions. At another level, dynamics covers the processes whereby the elements of the conjunction come together: for example, lifestyle routines of the players, market processes, people-flows on foot or in public transport (the ‘nodes and paths’ of pattern theory), all of which may count as crime generators. Of course, some offenders deliberately seek favourable places (defined as crime attractors); they may even actively plan to bring the elements of the conjunction together as in a ‘professional’ robbery or fraud.

The preventive sideCrime prevention is about intervening in the causes of criminal events to

reduce their probability of occurrence and any ensuing harm. The map of causes that is CCO can therefore be overlaid by an equivalent map of intervention principles aimed at blocking, weakening or diverting those causes. This relationship is shown in brief in Table 1, and illustrated in Figures 2 and 3.

Table 1 Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity: basic causes and intervention principles

Immediate causes of criminal event Possible interventions in causePredisposition to offend Reducing criminality through

developmental/remedial intervention

Lack of resources to avoid crime Supplying cognitive, social, work skills to avoid crime

Readiness to offend Reducing readiness to offend by control of disinhibitors eg alcohol, or stressors and provocations; satisfaction of psychological and social needs legitimately

Resources for committing crime Restricting resources – tools, weapons, knowledge

Decision to commit offence Deterrence (perceived risk) and discouragement (perceived effort and reward)

Offender presence in situation Excluding offenders from crime situation

Target property or person Reducing target vulnerability, attraction, provocativeness

Target enclosure Perimeter/ access security

Wider environmentEnvironmental design and management to reduce motivating and instrumental properties

Crime preventers Boosting preventers’ presence, competence, motivation, responsibility

Crime promoters Discouraging/deterring promoters, converting them to preventers

Figure 3 Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity: intervention principles

CCO can thus be used to articulate interventions in some theoretical depth. A practical intervention method may act via more than one mechanism – for example, creating an enclosure around an industrial estate may physically block the offender, deter through perceived risk, and aid preventers, who now only have to guard the access point, not the entire perimeter. CCO encourages precision – for example, note that ‘target hardening’ often relates to hardening the target enclosure, say by making a house resistant to burglary.

Alternatives to CCOA few alternative integrating theoretical frameworks exist within crime and

crime prevention. The most familiar is probably the minimalist ‘Crime Triangle’, originating within the Problem-Oriented Policing movement: Victim/Target, Location, Offender. This has been extended in recent years to allow for ‘crime preventer’ roles influencing each node: thus targets have guardians, locations place managers and offenders handlers.

The ‘General Theory of Crime’ of Gottfredson and Hirschi combines propensity and opportunity in an equally minimalist way. A more complex newcomer is the ‘Situational Action Theory’ of P-O Wikström. This also focuses

on causal mechanisms, and offenders as agents perceiving and acting in particular ecological settings, but additionally explains how the environment influences the development of people’s crime propensities.

Varieties of CCOCCO has been extended to cover various specific kinds of crime and

criminal context. These include complex organised crime, cybercrime (CCO can be rewritten in cyberspace terms where the target is information, the enclosure is a firewalled computer system and so on), drug dealing and terrorism.

Future developments Current work on CCO centres on developing its dynamic aspect principally

through use of scripts and ‘script clashes’ (surveillance versus stealth, pursuit versus escape etc), and adapting it for use by designers of products and places. Exploration of its use as a basis for computerised crime simulation, and crime impact assessment is also under way.

ConclusionCCO is undoubtedly more complex than individual equivalents such as the

Crime Triangle, although it offers compensatory simplification because it integrates all major theories of crime and its prevention in a single 11-factor framework. The key issues are whether that greater complexity adds greater value to practice and theory, and whether it is, or can be made, sufficiently user-friendly for practitioners to be prepared to use it.

FURTHER READINGSEkblom, P. (2000).   The Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity - a tool for clear, 'joined-up' thinking about community safety and crime reduction. In S. Ballintyne, K. Pease and V. McLaren (Eds.), Secure foundations: Key issues in crime prevention, crime reduction and community safety. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.

Ekblom, P. (2002). From the source to the mainstream is uphill: the challenge of transferring knowledge of crime prevention through replication, innovation and anticipation. In: N. Tilley (Ed.) Analysis for Crime Prevention, Crime Prevention Studies 13, pp. 131–203. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press/ Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.

Ekblom, P. (2003).   Organised crime and the Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity framework. In A. Edwards and P. Gill (Eds.), Transnational Organised Crime: Perspectives on global security. London: Routledge, pp. 241–263.

Ekblom, P. (2005). How to police the future: scanning for scientific and technological innovations which generate potential threats and opportunities in crime, policing and crime reduction. In M. Smith and N. Tilley (Eds.), Crime

Science: New Approaches to Preventing and Detecting Crime. Cullompton: Willan.  

Ekblom, P. and Tilley, N. (2000). Going equipped: criminology, situational crime prevention and the resourceful offender. British Journal of Criminology, 40. 376–398.

Roach, J., Ekblom, P. and Flynn, R. (2005). The Conjunction of Terrorist Opportunity: a framework for diagnosing and preventing acts of terrorism.' Security Journal, 18(3), 7–25.

See alsowww.designagainstcrime.com > Methodology and Resources > Crimeframeworks

http://5Isframework.wordpress.com

Ekblom, P. (2011) Crime Prevention, Security and Community Safety Using the 5Is Framework. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?pid=296569