5Is – CLAIMED Framework – for mobilising preventers

Crime prevention interventions – seeking to manipulate the causes or risk factors of criminal events – are rarely implemented by professional crime preventers. Instead, the role of the professional is often one of specifying one or more crime prevention interventions and then somehow getting people or institutions in the ‘civil’ world to implement or otherwise support them.

For example, a crime prevention sticker on a bike parking stand may have been designed by a professional preventer; put in place by a council worker; and hopefully noticed by bike owners to alert and inform them of the risk of theft, and empower them to take appropriate preventive action in the form of parking their bike in a secure way (the intervention). Likewise, the developers and promoters of a teaching pack on ethics may negotiate with the local education authority to allow them to approach head teachers in individual schools to tell their staff to use the pack on their pupils (the intervention).

Again with the above examples, notice how the CLAIMED Framework is recursive – that is, the procedure can be repeated on its own outputs, an indefinite number of times, in generating a hierarchical ‘implementation track’. This fits with the more recent ‘supercontrollers’ concept of people higher up the chain of decision-making and influence (Sampson et al. 2010).


The CLAIMED methodology

This generic procedure for mobilising crime preventers to implement particular interventions comprises several tasks:

  • Clarify the crime prevention tasks or roles that need doing, e.g. the intervention itself; alleviating constraints; and supplying enablers
  • Locate the agents – individuals or organisations – best-placed to undertake them, including designers, manufacturers, marketers and consumers – then:
  • Alert them that their product could be causing crime, or that they could help stop unrelated crimes
  • Inform them of the nature of the problem/risk/ causation
  • Motivate them – by hard or soft incentives including an image of corporate social responsibility, naming and shaming, ‘polluter-pays’ taxes, awakening consumer expectations and pressures and imposing insurance costs, and legislation
  • Empower them – by supplying preventers with education, guidance on intervention, tools (e.g. property-marking kit) and other resources; and by alleviating a range of constraints
  • and perhaps Direct them, in terms of standards (such as BSI or CEN), and targets

These actions must be done in step with public and commercial understandings and expectations – hence the importance of climate-setting activities such as setting the public tone for who are considered to be responsible for the diverse causes of crime, and for who should take action.

Nor can specific actions always be undertaken in isolation. All the above enablers and their counterpart constraints interlock and may form a self-reinforcing system which is hard to shift from one state to another without a concerted approach. In some cases this may require basic actions to develop social capital/social cohesion to make things work

To the extent that the relationships between the various institutions and individual people initiating this process is one-sided, mobilisation is the appropriate concept; to the extent that there is a more symmetrical relationship of mutual decision-making, task/role specification and taking of responsibility, then partnership is the preferred term. Many crime prevention/ community safety actions combine elements of each, though there is a growing trend towards participation, engagement or co-design to use some of the many terms that apply.

Constraining crime promoters

Presentations on the Involvement task stream of 5Is, including CLAIMED

A general introduction to the Involvement task stream:

In security action, failure can happen in any part of of the CLAIMED tasks – and if carefully reviewed, practitioners can learn from it:

Origins of CLAIMED