Code of the streets and routine activities theory

The Theories Uncovered Beyond a Crime podcast features discussions on the Routine Activity Theory and the Code of the Street Theory. Routine Activity Theory focuses on motivated offenders, suitable targets, and lack of guardianship as conditions for crime to occur. It is measurable through victimization surveys and crime reports. Code of the Street Theory addresses informal rules guiding behavior in communities. While challenging to measure, it suggests using aggression for respect. Research on both theories has been conducted, impacting policy interventions for crime prevention and community safety. Both theories aim to prevent victimization and create safer communities by understanding and addressing root causes of crime. Hello and welcome to the Theories Uncovered Beyond a Crime podcast. Here we will dive into the theories that impact our lives and help us develop a better understanding of our communities. My name is Tanisha Thomas. And I'm Katherine Bellen. Today we will guide you through the Routine Activity Theory and the Code of the Street Theory. We will discuss what comprises each theory. That's right, Katherine. These theories offer contrasting perspectives. Today we will break them down for you. Well, let's get into it. Tanisha, tell me a little bit about the Routine Activity Theory. Sure thing, Katherine. Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Wilson focus on law-abiding citizens and their normal routine behavior. As a result, we now have what is referred to as Routine Activity Theories. It is important to note that there are three conditions that need to be true for the opportunity of crime to occur based on this theory. First, there must be an individual who is willing to commit a crime and this individual is labeled as a motivated offender. Second, there must be something or someone that is accessible and presents as valuable. This is viewed as a suitable target. Lastly, there needs to be what is considered a lack of guardianship, viewed as a deterrent to prevent crime. Examples could be a person, security system, or law enforcement, just to name a few. It is important to note that all three need to be met for crime to occur. However, it does not mean that each time that all of these requirements are met that crime is guaranteed to occur. Fascinating. How could we measure this? Glad you asked, Katherine. When Routine Theories was first introduced by Cohen and Feldman, it was measured on a large scale so science was written. With a specific focus on crimes reported through victimization surveys and a uniform crime report, also referred to as UCR. Since the 1990s through current day, it is measured by reviewing crime at specific times and places in which crime occurs in events that lead up to crime. Well, let's discuss how we could improve this viewpoint. Routine Activity Theory has proven to be the guidelines of a good theory. It is conducive or parsimonious, focusing on three main components in which crime could occur, motivated offenders, suitable target, and lack of guardianship. This theory meets the requirement of being abstract as it focuses on the entire population and not on any individual case. This theory has credits, meaning it does not focus on any particular crime but can be applied to all crimes. All three components of Routine Activity Theory are tied to one another, which makes it logically sound. Essentially, crime would not occur if one of the components were missing. Each component of the theory can be measured or be considered quantifiable and is falsifiable, meaning that it could be tested and proved wrong in essence. Lastly, Routine Activity Theory is empirically supported and has been utilized to influence policy as we get into this a little later in this episode. According to Routines Activity Theory, a common critique and pathway forward, Simon 2025 Routines Activity Theory fails to explain factors of change in routine activity. It should not be considered a theory but more so as an approach to better understanding how and why crime occurs. I believe that it would be beneficial for the theory to explore more in depth what makes an individual a motivated offender. What research has been done? Since its inception, there has been a ton of research done on this theory. However, I will highlight a few studies that stood out to me. In the book, Adolescent Online Victimization, a micro-level measurement study done that focused on exposure of policymates to motivated offenders online. This study included 483 completed surveys from freshmen at a mid-sized university focusing on the exposure to motivated offenders as well as highlighting how this particular normal routine could subject them to these civil targets as well as how information of guardianship can aid in reducing online victimization. In the article, Individual Offending Routine Activities and Activity Studies, Revisiting the Routine Activity Theory of General Defiance, utilized a self-reported questionnaire that focused on exploring if different routine activities correspond with different crimes. One part of the questionnaire inquired about the activities of youth in Edinburgh based on the following factors. Hanging around, nightlife, culture and consumer activity as well as youth, clubs, and sports measured along the following types of offenses that this group had participated in within the prior year. Assault, shoplifting, fare evasion, vandalism, and drug use. The findings in this study supported routine activity theory has a significant impact on increased offending. One policy implication that derived from this research was after school programs with interventions as an intervention measure to prevent or reduce youth offending. How has this theory impacted or how could it impact policy? Some policy implications from adolescent online victimization are as follows. Educational programs regarding internet use, highlighting communications with individuals known to you and limited, monitoring youth through filtering and blocking certain software. This theory has aided in better understanding targeted interventions, especially in crime prone places and situational crime prevention. Now Katherine, tell me about Code of the Streets. Certainly. According to the Community Violence and Code of the Streets examination, Code of the Streets is highlighted as a response to cultural violence as well as acceptance of informal rules. To avoid any victimization, community members can use aggression to gain respect. Code of the Streets suggests that in certain metropolitan communities, there are a set of informal rules that guide the behavior of its citizens. Referred to as the codes, suggests to avoid victimization, it is better to be tough or violent as a means of earning respect. Members may adhere to those rules due to lack of resources or opportunities. Can you tell me how this is able to be measured? Well, this is where it gets a little tricky. These behaviors are really difficult to measure. While surveys have been conducted, it is often hard to get to the truth due to people's fears or even their unknown role in this community. It can often be difficult to understand the motives behind our behaviors. Consider this for example. A study is conducted in the homeless and impoverished communities in Chicago. By studying these citizens' behavior and surveying people on the rules they follow, asking why would give so much insight into what and why these rules are in place. Using these rules, policymakers can have insight into the biggest needs and put programs into place to help these groups of people. Can you tell me what research has been done? In exploring the measurement quality of attitudinal scale in the Code of Streets-related violence, a study was done in relation to a program known as Gang Resistance Education and Training, which was school-based with a specific focus on prevention of violence. The data was collected from 3,820 students from seven different cities and 31 schools. The study included male and females in areas that were riddled with high volumes of gang violence. The study yielded the following findings. Males are more accepting of the street code-related violence that comes along with it than females and African American youth in the city of Philadelphia, represented the highest acceptance rates. The study highlighted the need to explore the development of street code and how communities become acclimated to street code. Would you say that Code of the Streets may form a theory or it can be improved in any way? Code of the Streets is often praised for its unique perspective on those members of disadvantaged communities. However, it is often criticized as over-simplified and ignores some complexities of social behavior. Can you tell us how this impacts policy? This theory suggests that focusing on violence prevention and creating community-based programs to promote community engagement and try to change the code. According to street codes, routine activities, neighborhood context, and victimization would be the promotion of police legitimacy. Having a working relationship between law enforcement and communities in which they serve can mitigate the need for an individual to take matters into their own hands when conflict arises. So, Tanisha, what do you think that routine activities theory and the Code of the Streets theory have in common? I believe one aspect that routine activities theory and Code of the Streets have in common is that it highlights the potential of victimization. According to street codes, routine activities, neighborhood context, and victimization, the study found it seems to contradict the idea that individuals that have adopted the Code of the Streets are less likely to be a victim. It is quite the opposite. Appearing tough or unwilling to be disrespected does not protect individuals from being vulnerable in certain settings, such as an alleyway in the dark of night or moving a nightclub for friends. I believe that the Code of the Streets may be more acceptable in certain places, but not that it would not apply to all places. Based on my understanding of Code of the Streets, it relies on cultural behavior as a response to the environment in which certain individuals live, work, and even socialize in. Comparison to routine activities theory, which relies on situational factors such as a motivated offender, a suitable target, and a lack of guardianship. Yes. In some regards, they both try to explain the cause and behavior and find solutions to prevent further crime and create safer communities. It is important to point out that both theories aim to prevent victimization. They both seek to create safer communities, just with different processes. Well, that's all we have time for today. Remember to stay curious and join us again on the Theories Uncovered. ♪♪