Security issue: Vandalism

vandalised station clock

Vandalism is the act of wilful or malicious destruction, injury, disfigurement, or defacement of property without the consent of the owner or person having custody or control. By this definition, this category includes defacement, such as graffiti. However, in order to keep this security issue limited and surveyable, this act is defined as a separate security issue. Also, wilful destruction performed by an 'organised' group for a shared reason is dealt with in the security issue 'destruction by riots'. In the sense we use the term here, it will therefore only include physical damages, excluding defacement, motivated by other than rational reasons.

Description

The typical vandal is a young (adolescent) man, in a (small) group (but not organised) or alone. Youngsters prone to vandalism also often appear to have a poor understanding of the impact of their behaviour on others, and are primarily concerned with the consequences of such behaviour for themselves, such as getting caught. In their view, public property in a real sense belongs to no one. Vandalism appears to be useless, but one can better understand the behaviour of a vandal when considering it in the context of adolescence, when peer influence is a particularly powerful motivator. Most delinquent acts are carried out by groups of youths, and vandalism is no exception. Participating in vandalism often helps a youth to maintain or enhance his or her status among peers. This status comes with little risk since, in contrast to playing a game or fighting, there are no winners or losers.

Contributing circumstances

Known circumstances to influence the likelihood or effect of burglary, are presented in the table below:

Contributing Circumstance	Influence	Description
Lack of surveillance.	Decreases risk of detection.	A low level of surveillance, particularly round-the-clock surveillance, decreases the perceived risk of detection for a perpetrator and thereby increases the attractiveness.
High levels of burglary in the vicinity.	Increases likelihood of targeting.	The distance to known places where offenders live matters. On average, burglars travel 2,6 km to commit their crimes and the odds of a neighbourhood’s being chosen increases by a factor of 1.67 for every kilometre closer to the burglar’s home it is located.
High levels of unemployment	Increases likelihood of targeting	High levels of unemployment are associated with higher levels of burglary.
Low levels of ownership	Decreases the inhibitions for committing the crime	Uncertainty of ownership can reduce responsibility and increase the likelihood of crime and anti-social behaviour going unchallenged.
High expected levels of drug- or alcohol abuse	Reduces inhibitions for crime	The presence of regular abusers of alcohol or drugs has a strong correlation with the occurrence of burglary, often thought to be caused by the need for financing an addiction. Studies show that about 40% of all burglary is committed under the influence of alcohol.
Long reaction times or inadequate action of reaction force.	Decreases likelihood of apprehension	Untimely or inappropriate reactions to violence lead to a perception of little control, which will increase perceived risk for the public and decrease perceived risk for the perpetrators. Also, reducing the impact of an assault (by timely intervention) will also be impossible and lead to greater effects of incidents.
High percentage of single family detached homes	Increases the perceived reward and vulnerability	Single family detached houses are often attractive targets–with greater rewards – and more difficult to secure because they have multiple access points .
Large residential areas	Increases attractiveness of area	The number of residential units in a neighbourhood influences the chance of this neighbourhood to be chosen by burglars. When the number of residential units in a neighbourhood increases by 1000, the odds of being chosen rises by a factor of 1.35.
Increased ethnic heterogeneity	unknown	Ethnic heterogeneity is associated with higher levels of burglary. A study showed that an increase of 10% in heterogeneity in a neighbourhood makes it a factor 1.13 more likely to be chosen by burglars.
High amounts of traffic	Increases the visibility of targets	Houses near major thoroughfares are more likely to catch the attention of burglars passing by. Moreover, it is more difficult to distinguish residents and visitors from strangers in heavily travelled areas.
Multiple accesses and exits to neighbourhood	Decreases the risk of apprehension	Multiple access ways, particularly when limited in surveillance, provide good access and exit opportunities for criminals. Alleys, for example, provide both access and escape for burglars, and limit visibility to neighbours. In addition, large side yards facilitate access to the backs of houses. Mobility considerations in this context must be balanced with wider urban planning principles which advocate permeability, accessibility and connectivity.

• Alcohol
• Excitement
• Social circumstances (?)
• As is true for all forms of aggression,the single best predictor of future vandalist behaviour is similar past behaviour(Tygert, 1988).
• Presence of young adults/adolescents
• Presence of likely targets:
  • Easy to break (windows, bus stops)
  • Deteriorated - a derelict building
  • No apparent owner
  • No apparent surveillance

Impacts

Social impacts

Known social impacts of vandalism include changing citizens perception of (in)security and fear of crime. This usually happens in a way that has an effect on the gap between "felt" and "factual" security, since individuals tend to make - correct or incorrect - reasoning on societal security as a whole based on immediate environmental clues. This is known as the "broken glass phenomenon".

Economic impact

Vandalism leads to considerable costs in both a direct (primary) and a indirect (secondary) way. Direct costs of vandalism come in the form of:

• Preventive costs in anticipation of vandalism (e.g. security measures, insurance)
• Material and immaterial costs as a consequence of vandalism (e.g. physical damage, clean up costs, repairs, medical costs, mental harm); and
• Responsive costs to vandalism (e.g. the costs of detection and prevention, prosecution, support trial, etc.).

The average costs of an act of vandalism are estimated at around € 700 for the Netherlands and € 900 for the UK (2005 prices). In addition, the presence of vandalism can trigger secondary economic impacts. Vandalism can make the local environment an unpleasant place to live and work, creating a significant negative impact on real estate value and local business revenues. Crime prone areas with a long-standing reputation for suffering from much crime are subjects of high mobility of residents, vandalism, empty lots and buildings, businesses with extreme security measures, etc. On top of that, vandalism can lead to less public funding by local authorities (in terms of investments in social infrastructure). As a result, "crime-prone areas usually stay that way".

Measures

Hardened bus stop in Tallinn, built in brick after being vandalised repeatedly

• Change views of youngsters (In their view, public property in a real sense belongs to no one.In contrast, for youngsters less prone to vandalism, such property belongs to everyone; this view reflects their greater sense of themselves as part of a larger community ("Vandals," 1978))
• characterised by better aesthetic quality and maintenance of school property;
• measures to minimise the visibility of dereliction may reduce the occurrence of vandalism;
• located in more densely populated areas with higher activity levels;
• furnished a less obstructed view of school property to surrounding residents; and
• were located in better-illuminated neighbourhood areas.
• prison - approach (such as target hardening, access controlling, offender deflecting, entry-exit screening, surveillance increasing, inducement removing) (! consequences !)
• de-opportunising vandalism
• Surveillance
• Intervention