MENU TITLE: Crime Prevention Through Environmental .
Design and Community Policing                 
Series: NIJ Research in Action
Published: August 1996
10 pages
18,758 bytes

--------------------------------------

National Institute of Justice
Research in Action
Jeremy Travis, Director
August 1996

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and
Community Policing

by Dan Fleissner and Fred Heinzelmann, Ph.D.

Highlights

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
(CPTED) and community policing can be viewed as
part of a comprehensive crime prevention strategy. 

CPTED and community policing emphasize a problem-
solving approach to crime prevention as well as
close cooperation between police and residents in
reducing both crime and fear of crime. Because
CPTED emphasizes the systematic analysis of crime
in a particular location, it directly supports
community policing by providing crime prevention
strategies tailored to solve specific problems.

Police, citizens, and government have a role to
play in preventing crime under the CPTED/community
policing approach:

o Police involvement within neighborhoods can
include both foot patrol and working with community
groups to strengthen citizens' sense of security
and solve neighborhood problems that contribute to
crime and fear of crime.

o Residents can work together to improve
neighborhood appearance and deter criminals.

o Government can use building codes and inspection
power to increase environmental security and
discourage drug use and other criminal activities.

--------------------------------------------------

Crime prevention today benefits from two strategies
for protecting neighborhoods from crime and the
fear of crime--Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) and community
policing. CPTED programs, through design and
management of the physical environment of
buildings, residential neighborhoods, and business
areas, increase public safety and reduce fear of
crime. Community policing programs, by making
police more visible and familiar to the people and
with the physical environment of their beats,
reinforce these efforts and promote police-citizen
partnerships to prevent crime and disorder. This
Research in Action suggests several ways in which
CPTED and community policing initiatives can be
coordinated and integrated in a comprehensive
approach to community security.

Basic principles of CPTED include target hardening
(controlling access to neighborhoods and buildings
and conducting surveillance on specific areas to
reduce opportunities for crime to occur) and
territorial reinforcement (increasing the sense of
security in settings where people live and work
through activities that encourage informal control
of the environment).

Most community policing models include the
decentralization of police services, the
collaboration of police departments with other city
agencies (such as parks or utility departments) to
resolve problems, and regular police-citizen dialog
about perceived problems.

Historical overview

Over the past 20 years, the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ) has been sponsoring crime prevention
research focusing on ways to make neighborhoods
safer, using environmental design, police-community
problem solving, block watch, and other
neighborhood-based strategies common to CPTED and
community policing. During the 1970s, NIJ pioneered
studies demonstrating that the proper design and
effective management of a physical environment can
control and even prevent crime.[1,2] During this
time, NIJ initiated research on foot patrol, which
had been virtually abandoned because it was
considered too costly and less effective than
mobile patrols and more likely to promote the type
of corruption that characterized the political-era
style of policing (see "Three Eras of Policing").
Nevertheless, foot patrol experiments indicated
that this model lessened a community's fear of
crime and improved a community's perception of the
police in general.[3]

NIJ researchers have also examined the settings in
which crimes were committed. Blighted and rundown
neighborhoods invite civil disorder and crime and
lead to a general fear of crime, according to the
"broken windows" theory espoused by George Kelling
and James Q. Wilson in 1982. This fear, often
unrelated to the actual level of crime or risk of
becoming a victim, then becomes a self-fulfilling
prophecy as residents withdraw into their homes,
abandon their neighborhoods, and become passive
concerning their community's plight.[4]

The law enforcement response to this situation has
been to conduct joint police-community efforts to
clean up decayed neighborhoods, such as organizing
graffiti paint-outs, removing abandoned vehicles,
and installing adequate lighting around homes and
businesses. Whether labeled CPTED or community
policing, these problem-solving efforts help reduce
the fear of crime and increase a community's sense
of control. Other responses include block watch
programs, which began in Seattle over 20 years ago
and have now become citywide citizen efforts in
business and residential areas alike. Experience in
such programs has shown that such joint activities,
which build trust and cooperation between police
and neighborhood residents, form the foundation for
further partnerships to promote problem solving and
increase residents' control of their neighborhoods.

--------------------------------------------------

Three Eras of Policing

The 19th and 20th centuries saw three specific
periods of policing: the political era, the
professional era, and the community policing
era.[5]

Prior to 1900, the police were controlled by local
politicians. This period of policing, known as the
political era, had its strengths. The police were
familiar with their neighborhoods and maintained
order in them. However, this period was also
characterized by abuse of immigrants' civil rights
and was marked by widespread corruption.

In the professional era (1900-1970), the police
relied heavily on new technology, such as radios,
911 emergency telephone systems, and automobile
patrols to respond to calls for help from citizens.
This is a period when police dealt only with crime;
other community problems were seen as the
responsibility of other city agencies.

In the 1970s, the beginning of the community
policing era, police departments began to address
some of the problems that had developed under the
professional-era style of policing. The reactive,
rapid response to all 911 calls--regardless of
their urgency--was viewed as a poor use of
resources because it allowed too little time for
indepth investigations. In addition, the passive
role of citizens had resulted in the loss of police
ties with the people who typically had the
information needed to solve crimes.

In the late 1970s, researchers saw the need for a
problem-solving approach to crime prevention. One
researcher's structured and systematic step-by-step
process attempted to find the underlying causes of
crime by identifying situations that generated many
calls for service to police or other governmental
agencies.[6]

---------------------------------------------------
Partnerships key to CPTED and community policing

The Community Policing Consortium Project--a
project initiated by the Bureau of Justice
Assistance and continued by the Office of
Community-Oriented Policing Services that involved
the International Association of Chiefs of Police,
the National Sheriffs' Association, the Police
Executive Research Forum, the National Organization
of Black Law Enforcement Executives, and the Police
Foundation--recently underscored community
partnerships and problem-solving processes as the
two core components of community policing.[7]

Both CPTED and community policing rely on
partnerships with community, government,
educational, and social agencies in order to
implement crime prevention strategies. Both
programs also use the SARA problem-solving model as
a key part of their approach. The Newport News
Police Department, under the sponsorship of NIJ and
the Police Executive Research Forum, created this
four-step model:[8]

o Scanning--identify the problem.

o Analysis--study the problem and identify possible
solutions.

o Response--implement a custom-designed response.

o Assessment--evaluate the action taken.

This problem-solving model provides an easy and
understandable framework for developing the broad
partnerships necessary for CPTED and community
policing initiatives to succeed.

Decisions regarding the use and management of the
physical environment can have an even broader
effect on security throughout a neighborhood. For
example, environmental strategies that are designed
to reduce crime and fear (such as closing drug
houses and using traffic diversion and control to
promote neighborhood cohesion) can also increase
informal social control and enhance the quality of
neighborhood life.[9] In Hartford, Connecticut,
police and community residents used a comprehensive
CPTED/community policing strategy that gave back to
residents control over their neighborhood (see
"CPTED and Community Policing in Hartford").
Another example concerns enhancing security in a
public housing development by reducing the number
of families using a specific building entrance.
This action increased residents' sense of
responsibility for controlling who entered their
building.

What police and residents can do

Thus, police agencies, community residents, and
local officials all have roles to play in
implementing a comprehensive CPTED/community
policing strategy to promote public safety in
private neighborhoods, business areas, and public
housing.[10]

Police can:

o Conduct security surveys for residents and
provide security improvements such as adequate
lighting and locks.

o Conduct park patrols and patrols of other public
spaces to eliminate crime and drug use.

o Use their substations to inform residents of
high-risk locations in the neighborhood.

o Work with urban planners and architects to review
the designs and plans in order to enhance community
security.

o Prepare educational materials for building owners
and managers to deal with problem tenants and
enhance the livability and security of rental
units. These materials are useful because they
address not only the manner in which the physical
environment is designed but also how the
environment can be managed more effectively to
enhance public safety.

o Control traffic flow to reduce the use of streets
by criminals and enhance neighborhood cohesion and
resident interaction. Streets can be closed or
traffic diverted to create residential enclaves
that give residents greater control of their living
environment.

Residents can improve their neighborhoods by: 

o Engaging in cleanup programs to remove trash or
graffiti.

o Carrying out programs to improve the appearance,
safety, and use of public spaces.

o Conducting their own patrols to identify
neighborhood problems. 

o Joining an organized block watch program. 

Specific crime prevention activities

Security in parks. Parks can be refurbished,
lighting installed, and opening and closing times
scheduled to improve security. Adopt-a-park
programs can be used to involve residents in
cleaning up trash and litter and providing
information to police about illegal activities
being carried out in recreational areas.
Recreational events can be scheduled to increase
the community's informal social control of these
places.

Building regulations. Local governments can be
encouraged to use building codes as well as
inspection and enforcement powers to increase
environmental security. The owners of deteriorated
or abandoned buildings can be required to repair,
secure, or demolish them. Provisions related to
security can also be incorporated into the city
building code. These provisions include target
hardening tactics (e.g., locks, strengthening of
doors, and lighting) as well as security standards
for the design of the structure and site.

Civil remedies. Civil actions can be used against
building owners or tenants to control criminal
activity or the inappropriate use of property.
These actions may include the following:

o Obtaining title to abandoned property by
community improvement associations.

o Using nuisance abatement along with inspections
by public works, building, fire, housing, or
utility authorities to control criminal behavior or
drug use in specific buildings or settings.

o Encouraging model leases to control illegal
activities of tenants.

o Enforcing liquor laws to control violence and
disorderly behavior around bars or liquor stores
(especially at closing times).

o Using anti-trespassing laws to control unwanted
loitering. 

Trends

One general trend has been for CPTED and community
policing strategies to reinforce each other as they
focus on comprehensive problem solving, the
promotion of working relationships with the
community, and the development of education and
orientation programs that can assist residential
and business groups as they address specific
neighborhood problems--especially those dealing
with crime and the environment.

The development of these initiatives affects
various factors such as the level of communication
and cooperation among police, city staff, and
residents; the type, amount, and use of community
education and orientation programs; and the methods
by which crime prevention programs are described,
measured, and evaluated. Currently, these factors
apply more to law enforcement agencies because
modifying a community policing model may require
changes of significant magnitude. However, as CPTED
evolves, its extension from just looking at the
manmade environment to looking at how the natural
setting is used and managed will also entail
significant change for other public agencies
involved in promoting safer and more livable
communities.

Although community policing seems to be producing
positive results and offers a promising new
approach, rigorous monitoring and evaluation over
the long term are needed to determine its
effectiveness and economic advantages. Moreover,
questions about the optimum conditions for
influencing the design and management of the
physical environment and barriers to the use of
CPTED remain pertinent. Another question that needs
additional study is how best to institutionalize
CPTED for private as well as public development
(e.g., as part of building codes). CPTED and
community policing together offer comprehensive
approaches that hold promise for effectively
solving problems of crime and crime prevention.

-------------------------------------------------

CPTED and Community Policing in Hartford

NIJ research in Hartford, Connecticut, provides a
useful demonstration of a comprehensive
CPTED/community policing approach to
neighborhood crime prevention. This program
successfully incorporated resident initiatives,
CPTED (in the form of traffic diversion and the
development of neighborhood enclaves), and
community policing. CPTED strategies were also
critical in helping residents gain more control
over their neighborhood.[11] These included a focus
on citizen patrols, increased lighting, greater
control of juvenile activities, and the use of
cleanup campaigns to enhance the quality of
neighborhood life. These efforts influenced the
residents' use of their neighborhood and the level
of interaction and social control exercised by
citizens in that setting.

---------------------------------------------------

Notes

[1] Heinzelmann, F., 1981, "Crime Prevention and
the Physical Environment," In D. Lewis (ed.)
Reactions to Crime, Beverly Hills, California:
Sage.

[2] Crowe, T., 1991, Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design: Applications of Architectural
Design and Space Management Concepts, Boston:
Butterworth-Heinemann. See also Gardiner, R., 1982,
Design for Safe Neighborhoods, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice. Also Wallis, A., and D.
Ford, 1980, Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design: An Operational Handbook, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice.

[3] Kelling, G., et al., 1981, "The Newark Foot
Patrol Experiment," Washington, D.C.: Police
Foundation.

[4] Wilson, J.Q., and G. Kelling, 1982, "Broken
Windows," The Atlantic Monthly, March.

[5] Kelling, G., and M. Moore, 1988, "The Evolving
Strategy of Policing, Perspectives on Policing,"
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice.

[6] Goldstein, H., 1979, "Improving Policing: A
Problem-Oriented Approach," Crime and Delinquency,
25:236-258.

[7] Understanding Community Policing: A Framework
for Action, 1994, U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Assistance.

[8] Eck, J., and W. Spelman, 1987, "Problem
Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport
News," Police Executive Research Forum (also
reported in the NIJ Research in Brief "Problem-
Oriented Policing," Spelman and Eck, January 1987).

[9] Greenberg, S., et al., 1985, Informal Citizen
Action and Crime Prevention at the Neighborhood
Level, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice.

[10] Titus, R., 1994, "Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design at the National Institute of
Justice," Administrative Report, U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice.

[11] Fowler, F., and T. Mangione, 1982,
Neighborhood Crime, Fear and Social Control,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

-------------------------------------------------

Dan Fleissner is manager of Community Policing
Research and Grants Management for the Seattle
Police Department. Fred Heinzelmann, Ph.D., was a
staff member (1970-1994) of the National Institute
of Justice, where he served as director of the
Crime Prevention and Enforcement Division. 

This study was performed under NIJ grant 91-IJ-CX-
KO22, awarded to the American Institute of
Architects. Findings and conclusions are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice.

NCJ 157308

The National Institute of Justice is a component of
the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes
the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims
of Crime.