Designing out youth crime

Youth crime remains one of the most persistent and complex challenges facing societies worldwide. While crime among adolescents can take many forms—ranging from petty theft and vandalism to gang involvement—its root causes are rarely simple. Factors such as poverty, family breakdown, school disengagement, and systemic inequality all converge to increase risk. Previously an approach that gained traction: harnessing the power of design to prevent youth crime before it starts.

Design, in this context, isn’t just about buildings or street furniture. It includes urban planning, architecture, community programs, technology, and even the way schools and justice systems are structured. At its best, design can create environments that foster safety, inclusion, and positive identity formation among young people.

Environments that protect

The idea that physical environments influence behaviour isn’t new. Urbanist Jane Jacobs argued in The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961) that safe neighbourhoods depend on “eyes on the street”—a steady stream of people and activity that naturally deters wrongdoing. Her vision of mixed-use areas, walkable streets, and active public spaces challenged the isolated high-rise blocks that dominated mid-century planning.

Architect Oscar Newman took a more structured approach with his theory of Defensible Space (1972). Newman argued that crime could be reduced through careful design of housing layouts—using techniques like clear sightlines, private zones, and well-defined communal areas. These principles eventually evolved into Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), a framework that integrates both physical and social strategies to reduce crime risk.

For youth in particular, CPTED-informed spaces—such as well-maintained parks, welcoming community centres, and well-lit transit stops—can offer not only physical safety but also alternatives to boredom and risky behaviour.

Empathy is the new blueprint

Where traditional crime prevention often focuses on control and surveillance, a newer approach—design thinking—starts with empathy. Pioneered by organizations like IDEO and Stanford’s d.school, design thinking emphasises understanding users’ needs, brainstorming solutions, testing prototypes, and iterating based on feedback.

In the context of youth crime, this means seeing at-risk adolescents not as problems to be solved, but as people to be understood. Why do some kids skip school? What draws them to gangs? How do they experience their neighbourhoods? These are questions that can only be answered through deep engagement—via interviews, co-design workshops, or participatory research.

Empathy-based design often leads to more meaningful and effective interventions. For example, youth who co-create community spaces—like in Copenhagen, where teens helped design skate parks and hangout spots—tend to take better care of them, reducing vandalism and antisocial behaviour.

Designing systems, not just spaces

Design can also reshape the systems that surround young people. Schools, for instance, play a central role in youth development—but too often, their architecture and culture alienate students. Reimagining school design to include collaborative classrooms, green spaces, and project-based learning can help reduce disengagement and behavioural issues.

Likewise, juvenile justice systems benefit from design that prioritises rehabilitation over punishment. Facilities that resemble dormitories rather than prisons—with smaller living units, therapy rooms, and communal dining areas—are more likely to support long-term behavioural change.

Technology is also opening new design frontiers. Mobile apps, gamified learning platforms, and online mentoring systems can connect young people to support networks and track progress—if designed with youth voices at the table. However, these tools must avoid pitfalls like surveillance overreach or cultural disconnects.

Cities that inspire

Cities around the world are already demonstrating what design can achieve:

– New York City’s High Line turned an abandoned railway into a vibrant park, providing not only green space but also a symbol of urban renewal and community care (Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), 2014). While not created with crime prevention in mind, the High Line’s transformation has helped deter illicit activity in surrounding areas through consistent use and programming.

– In Medellín, Colombia, city leaders used a concept called social urbanism to reclaim neighbourhoods once dominated by violence. Projects like the Metro Cable, which linked poor hillside areas to the city centre, and new libraries and public plazas, helped rebuild community identity and offer youth alternatives to gang life.

– In Glasgow, urban redesign of public housing—from isolated high-rises to more integrated, low-density developments—has helped reduce youth antisocial behaviour, though care must be taken to avoid displacement in the process.

Barriers to change

My own research investigates the continued usage of mobile phones among young people and their prolonged interaction with social media that may generate serious offline violence amongst young people. Social media is something that is here to stay, it is important we highlight and engage with its potential to generate and aid serious offline violence amongst young people. The government is far too behind the issues to make the necessary changes with the pace that technology is evolving. Using design methodology to engage with young people may shed some light on the problem.

Of course, design alone can’t fix everything. Without addressing deeper structural issues like poverty, racism, and educational inequality, even the best-designed spaces may fall short. Additionally, well-meaning redevelopment can backfire if it leads to gentrification that pushes out the very families it aimed to support.

Securing funding and political will is another major challenge. Design interventions often require upfront investment and long-term commitment—something not always available in short political cycles. Evaluating success is equally complex. Crime rates are influenced by many overlapping factors, making it hard to isolate the impact of a single program or space.

Toward a safer, smarter future

Still, there’s real potential in this emerging intersection of design and youth crime prevention. When cities and organizations engage youth as co-creators, design solutions tend to be more relevant, more resilient, and more effective. Combining insights from architecture, social work, psychology, and data science enables truly holistic approaches.

Future strategies will likely focus on flexible spaces, interdisciplinary teams, co-creation models, and adaptive technologies. But most importantly, they’ll focus on people—listening to youth, honouring their experiences, and designing futures in which they are safe, supported, and seen.

Bibliography

Atkinson, R. (2004). The evidence on the impact of gentrification: New lessons for the urban renaissance? European Journal of Housing Policy, 4(1), 107–131.
Brand, P., & Dávila, J. D. (2013). Urban mobility and poverty: Lessons from Medellín and Soacha, Colombia. University College London Publications.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. Harper Business.
Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8(1), 30–35.
Cozens, P. M., Saville, G., & Hillier, D. (2005). Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): A review and modern bibliography. Property Management, 23(5), 328–356.
David, J., & Hammond, R. (2011). High Line: The Inside Story of New York City’s Park in the Sky. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Echeverri, A., & Orsini, F. M. (2010). Informalidad y Urbanismo Social en Medellín. In Urbanismo Social en Medellín 2004-2007 (pp. 130–141). Alcaldía de Medellín.
Farrington, D. P. (2003). Key results from the first forty years of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. In T. Thornberry & M. Krohn (Eds.), Taking Stock of Delinquency: An Overview of Findings from Contemporary Longitudinal Studies (pp. 137–183). Springer.
Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2002). Effects of improved street lighting on crime: A systematic review. Home Office Research Study 251.
Friends of the High Line (2019). High Line Programs Overview. Retrieved from: https://www.thehighline.org/
Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for People. Island Press.
Harcourt, B. E. (2001). Illusion of Order: The False Promise of Broken Windows Policing. Harvard University Press.
IDEO (2015). The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design. IDEO.org.
Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE). (2014). High Line, New York. [online] Available at: https://www.ice.org.uk/what-is-civil-engineering/infrastructure-projects/high-line-new-york.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House.
Jeffery, C. R. (1971). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Sage Publications.
Kintrea, K., Bannister, J., & Pickering, J. (2010). ‘It’s just an area—everybody represents it’: Exploring young people’s territorial behaviour in British cities. Children’s Geographies, 8(1), 39–54.
Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127–144.
Marcuse, P. (2015). Gentrification, social justice and personal ethics. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(6), 1263–1269.
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design. Macmillan.
Ritterfeld, U., Cody, M., & Vorderer, P. (Eds.) (2009). Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects. Routledge.
Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. University of Chicago Press.
Tonry, M., & Farrington, D. P. (1995). Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention. University of Chicago Press.
Wong, J. S., Bouchard, M., Gravel, J., Bélyea, C., & Vincent, B. (2016). Can at-risk youth be diverted from crime? A meta-analysis of restorative diversion programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(10), 1310–1329.