SECURITY PLANNING FOR

HUD-ASSISTED MULTIFAMILY HOUSING CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 2. THE ROLE OF MANAGEMENT

5\. THE CONTEXT OF MANAGEMENT\'S ROLE.

a\. Comprehensive Approach. The best approach to residential

security is a comprehensive one, and Management must find its

role within this broad context. Comprehensiveness implies a

complete response by Management and other key participants to

all of the problems of crime and vandalism confronting the

project and its residents. This response must take due

account of the complex interrelationships among different

problems and remedies. Coordination is essential, in terms

of both the involvement of key participants and the various

corrective measures employed. A comprehensive approach

should aim for short-term as well as long-term action and,

where critical problems exist, should include appropriate

emergency measures. There will, of course, be practical

limitations to the degree of comprehensiveness which can be

achieved in each instance. However, to the greatest extent

possible, a piecemeal approach should be avoided, for the

very practical reason that it is likely to prove wasteful and

ineffective.

b\. Scope of Residential Security. Although there is general

agreement as to the meaning of the term \"residential

security\" in the setting of multifamily housing, that term is

an elastic one and perceptions differ as to how far its scope

should extend. No precise definition is attempted here, in

recognition of the fact that there is a legitimate margin for

differences of opinion. In each instance, Management,

residents,and other key participants should feel free to

determine for themselves the scope of their residential

security concerns. The following considerations should be

taken into account in formulating a working definition:

\(1\) Specific Types of Offenses. Residential security is

usually defined in terms of the following types of

offenses:

\--Vandalism \--Burglary

\--Assault \--Robbery

\--Homicide \--Automobile theft

\--Mail theft \--Purse snatching

\--Rape/sex offenses \--Drug abuse (sale/

\--Arson distribution/use)

Page 3 4/74

SECURITY PLANNING FOR

CHAPTER 2 HUD-ASSISTED MULTIFAMILY HOUSING

\(2\) Location. Residential security is ordinarily defined in

terms of project boundaries. However, this delimitation is

not always fixed in the perceptions of Management and

residents. Some offenses within the project may not be

viewed as security problems, while others beyond the

project\'s boundaries may be considered residential in

nature. In common usage, residential security focuses on

\"stranger\" crimes (i.e.,where victim and offender are

strangers), with less emphasis on crimes among

acquaintances or members of the same family, even if

committed within project boundaries. Opinions differ as to

the extent to which crimes of fraud, the so-called

\"victimless\" offenses (e.g. drunkeness, drug use,

prostitution), minor disturbances of the peace and

infractions of certain project rules (e.g., parking

regulations) can or should be treated as security problems.

On the other hand, crimes on adjacent or nearby streets may

be seen as so closely associated with the residential

environment as to merit treatment as security problems of

the project itself.

\(3\) Illegal Access. Despite the usual priority concern for

restricting access to the property, residential security

cannot in most instances be defined simply in terms of such

restrictions. A \"fortress\" strategy may be an adequate

solution in housing for the elderly, but is apt to prove

infeasible in projects whose residents include a large

number of children. While protection of the individual

dwelling unit against illegal access is a basic

requirement for good security, it is more difficult to

enforce strict limitations on access to common interior and

exterior areas. In many family projects, much of the total

problem is attributable to offenses committed within common

areas by residents themselves, so that measures to control

access by nonresidents will not solve the problem.

\(4\) The Subjective Sense of Security. In the minds of

residents, Management staff, guests, tradesmen, public

service personnel, and others who have reason to be

concerned about crime and vandalism in the housing project,

the word \"security\" can evoke different concepts. The word

\"security\" can bring to mind the objective concern about

the real and obvious risk of crime and vandalism in certain

areas. It can also bring to mind, in other areas, the

subjective concern relating to the probability of crime and

vandalism where there is no actual known risk. For

example, residents may nurture extreme fears, particularly

with regard to violent crime, even though the actual danger

is remote. On the other hand, they may

4/74 Page 4

SECURITY PLANNING FOR

HUD-ASSISTED MULTIFAMILY HOUSING CHAPTER 2

feel tolerably secure in the face of a high degree of

genuine danger. Fear of crime (or sometimes the absence of

such fear) of itself constitutes a significant security

problem. Moreover, feelings of insecurity may reflect deep

anxieties about the individual\'s ability to cope with the

overall physical, social,and economic conditions with which

he or she is confronted.

c\. Types of Security Action. Where security problems are serious,

and particularly in the large housing project, a comprehensive

attack on crime and vandalism requires three types of action, as

follows:

\(1\) Check. Directly deter or control the problem (e.g., prevent

illegal access by hardware or policing).

\(2\) Treat. Address the surface causes of the problem (e.g.,

divert youthful energies from vandalism to wholesome

recreation).

\(3\) Cure. Attack the root causes of the problem (e.g.,provide

economic and educational opportunities).

d\. Applying Security Action. Action must be directed to each of

these three levels simultaneously, with the goal of decreasing

\"Check\" actions over time, while increasing \"Treat\" and \"Cure\"

actions. However, \"Check\" actions tend to be prerequisite to

substantial progress at the other two levels.

e\. Key Participants. A comprehensive approach to project security

requires the coordinated involvement of four key participants,

during the planning as well as implementation phase. These four

key participants are:

\(1\) Management

\(2\) The residents\' organization

\(3\) The local Police Department

\(4\) Local social services agencies.

f\. Roles of Key Participants. While arrangements may differ

with circumstances, the normal roles of these four key

participants, in connection with the three types of action

described in subparagraph 5c above, are as illustrated in

Figure l(page 9).These functions must be mutually

complementary. An absolutely essential requirement for

solving security problems is the establishment and

maintenance of strong operating links among these four key

participants.

Page 5 4/74

SECURITY PLANNING FOR

CHAPTER 2 HUD-ASSISTED MULTIFAMILY HOUSING

6\. FOCUSING MANAGEMENT\'S ROLE. As illustrated in Figure 1,

Management\'s normal role in the three types of security action

described in subparagraph 5c above is as follows:

a\. Management\'s Role in \"Check\" Actions. Within the overall

context of a comprehensive approach, Management\'s role should

focus primarily upon direct protective measures (\"Check\"

actions). Measures of this type are fundamental requirements

for good security, tend to be susceptible of relatively

short-term implementation, and are closely related to other

aspects of Management operations.

b\. Management\'s Role in \"Treat\" Actions. Although actions to

address the surface causes of crime and vandalism (\"Treat\"

actions) are a secondary focus for Management\'s role, there

is usually much that Management can accomplish in this area

and positive results can often be achieved within a short- to

medium-term time span. However, outside resources and

coordination with other key participants (especially local

social services agencies) become more important for \"Treat\"

actions.

c\. Management\'s Role in \"Cure\" Actions. Management ability to

attack the root causes of crime and vandalism (\"Cure\"

actions) will vary greatly among different Management

operations. Some large Management concerns (especially large

LHAs) have in-house capabilities for delivering some types of

services which go to the roots of criminal behavior, but in

most instances primary reliance must be placed upon local

social services agencies to provide such relevant programs as

job training and placement, educational opportunities, family

counselling, offender rehabilitation, health care,and help

for the emotionally disturbed. Nevertheless, in one

important type of \"Cure\" action \--improving residents\'

attitudes and standards\--Management can and should take a

very strong role (see Chapter 6, paragraph 38 below). Long-

term effort is usually necessary before measures of this type

produce significant results, but all experts in law

enforcement and criminal behavior agree that they offer the

only really satisfactory solution to problems of crime and

vandalism.

7\. MANAGEMENT\'S ROLE IN PLANNING AND COORDINATION. Whatever role is

developed for a particular Management with respect to the types

of security actions discussed in paragraph 5 above, there are two

areas of prime Management responsibility in connection with the

security of its project. These are as follows:

4/74 Page 6

SECURITY PLANNING FOR

HUD-ASSISTED MULTIFAMILY HOUSING CHAPTER 2

a\. Overall Planning Responsibility. Management should take the

initiative in planning a security program for the project,

and should exercise primary responsibility for carrying out

the overall planning effort. Because of its controlling

role, daily involvement,and long-term interests in the

project, Management is in a unique position to take the lead

in security planning. The plain fact is that, if Management

does not assume this responsibility, none of the other key

participants is likely to be willing or able to do so.

b\. Overall Coordination. Management should take primary

responsibility for overall coordination of the project\'s

security program. The same imperatives cited in subparagraph

7a above apply here. This does not mean that Management

ought to attempt to perform, or even supervise, all measures,

but rather that it should monitor the functions of all key

participants on a continuing basis, and initiate such actions

as may from time to time become necessary to assure

coordination of those functions.

8\. REQUIREMENTS OF STATE AND LOCAL LAWS. The laws of certain State

and local jurisdictions impose upon Management special legal

responsibilities for security, aside from HUD policy or other

Federal requirements. These laws differ greatly from locality to

locality, and are thus not susceptible to uniform description.

Applicable State and local law may impose such special

responsibilities, and such responsibilities (or their absence)

constitute one important factor to be considered in defining

Management\'s role in project security. Each Manager must consult

its own legal counsel to determine the possible applicability of

the following kinds of State and local requirements:

a\. Housing Codes. State and local codes regarding requirements

for elements of residential properties must be considered.

Fire and safety codes sometimes prohibit measures which might

be desirable from the standpoint of security alone. A few

local jurisdictions have adopted codes setting minimum

security standards, and this appears to be a growing trend.

b\. Management Liability. In certain jurisdictions, the courts

have held Management liable for damages attributed to its

failure to provide protection against crime within the

project. While there is great jurisdictional variation in

the law on this issue, here again there seems to be a trend

to greater Management responsibility for security in

multifamily housing.

9\. SUMMARY. The criteria for determining Management\'s proper role

in project security can thus be summarized as follows:

Page 7 4/74

CHAPTER 2

a\. Management\'s role should be defined within the context of a

comprehensive approach to project security.

b\. The coordinated involvement of the four key participants

specified in subparagraph 5e above is essential to an

effective residential security program, and Management\'s role

must be assessed in relation to the roles of the other three

key participants.

c\. Management\'s heaviest involvement should be with direct

protective measures (\"Check\" actions), with important but

lesser degrees of involvement in measures which attack the

deeper causes of crime and vandalism (\"Treat\" and \"Cure\"

actions).

d\. Management should take primary responsibility for planning

the project\'s comprehensive security program, and for

coordinating all of the elements of the program throughout

the implementation phase.

e\. State and local laws may impose legal constraints and

responsibilities upon Management, affecting its security role

to an important degree.

4/74 Page 8