U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Solving Crime Problems in

Residential Neighborhoods:

Comprehensive Changes in Design,

Management, and Use
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

633 Indiana Avenue N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

John C. Dwyer

Acting Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson

Assistant Attorney General

Jeremy Travis

Director, National Institute of Justice

Justice Information Center

World Wide Web Site

http://www.ncjrs.org
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Solving Crime Problems

in Residential Neighborhoods:

Comprehensive Changes in Design,

Management, and Use

by

Judith D. Feins, Ph. D.

Joel C. Epstein, Esq.

Rebecca Widom

April 1997

Issues and Practices in Criminal Justice is a publication series of the National Institute of

Justice. Each report presents the program options and management issues in a topic area,

based on a review of research and evaluation findings, operational experience, and expert

opinion on the subject. The intent is to provide information to make informed choices in

planning, implementing, and improving programs and practice in criminal justice.
National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis

Director

John Spevacek

Samuel C. McQuade

Program Monitors

Prepared for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice by Abt Associates Inc.,

under contract #OJP-94-C-007. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of

the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of

Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the

Office for Victims of Crime.

Advisory Panel

NCJ 164488

Ronald Clarke, Dean

Rutgers University

School of Criminal Justice

15 Washington Street

Newark, NJ 07102

Dan Fleissner, Manager

Research and Grants

Seattle Police Department,

Community Policing Bureau

700 Third Avenue, Room 540

Seattle, WA 98104

Severin Sorensen, President

SPARTA Consulting Corporation

7313 Woodmont Avenue

Bethesda, MD 20814

Stephen Tise

Tise, Hurwitz, and Diamond, Inc. Architects

370 Washington Street

Brookline, MA 02146
Page

Page

Foreword .................................................................................................................................................... vii

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. ix

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. xi

Chapter 1: Crime and Place: What Do We Know?............................................................................ 1

Objectives and Audience ....................................................................................................... 1

Overview of theReport .......................................................................................................... 1

What Is Place-Specific Crime Prevention? ........................................................................... 3

Displacement of Crime or Diffusion of Benefits? ...................................................... 3

Need for Continuing Research .................................................................................... 4

Introduction to Selected Programs ........................................................................................ 5

Public Housing Development: Lockwood Gardens, Oakland, California ................. 5

Private Rental Complex: Castle Square Apartments, Boston, Massachusetts .......... 6

Urban Neighborhood: Genesis Park, Charlotte, North Carolina ............................... 6

Suburban Community: The Village of Oak Park, Illinois ......................................... 7

Other Sites Contacted by Telephone .......................................................................... 7

Chapter 2: Crime and Place: Defining the Problem .......................................................................... 11

Involving Key Players ........................................................................................................... 11

Enlisting Police Involvement ...................................................................................... 11

Building on Existing Relationships ............................................................................ 12

Organizing the Community ........................................................................................ 12

Obstacles to Coordination and Cooperation ............................................................... 13

Resident Involvement in Crime ........................................................................... 13

Past Tensions ........................................................................................................ 13

Fear of Retaliation ................................................................................................ 13

Population Changes .............................................................................................. 13

Negative Press ...................................................................................................... 13

Defining the Crime Problem ................................................................................................. 14

Gathering Information About Crime and Disorder .................................................... 14

Linking Crime to Location ......................................................................................... 15

Identifying Key Physical Features .............................................................................. 15

Identifying Managers and Potential Managers of an Area ................................................... 19

Why Is Management Important? ................................................................................ 19

Table of Contents
Page

Who Are the Managers? ............................................................................................. 20

Analyzing Current Management ................................................................................. 21

Analyzing Current Use Patterns of an Area .......................................................................... 21

Who Lives Here? ........................................................................................................ 22

Who Works Here?....................................................................................................... 22

 Drug Dealers and Organizations ........................................................................... 23

 Gangs .................................................................................................................... 24

Who Else Uses the Area?............................................................................................ 24

Chapter 3: Planning for Change: Program Design .......................................................................... 27

A Primer of CPTED Strategies and Tactics .......................................................................... 27

Selecting Approaches that Work for Your Community ............................................. 30

Maintaining a Menu of Approaches ........................................................................... 31

Identifying Resources............................................................................................................ 31

Types of Resources ..................................................................................................... 31

Priority or Key Resources ........................................................................................... 32

First Steps: Where to Begin .................................................................................................. 34

Enhanced Security ...................................................................................................... 34

Resident Organization................................................................................................. 35

Choosing Where to Begin ........................................................................................... 36

Getting Ahead of the Problem .................................................................................... 37

Chapter 4: Making Changes: Program Implementation ................................................................... 39

Changing the Physical Environment ..................................................................................... 39

Changing Management: Who’s in Charge Here? ................................................................. 47

Making Changes in Security Management ................................................................. 47

 Policing ................................................................................................................. 48

 Private Security ..................................................................................................... 49

 Residents ............................................................................................................... 50

Making Changes in Property Management ................................................................ 51

Chapter 5: Putting the Pieces Together: Results and Lessons Learned ........................................... 59

Changing Uses of an Area: Results of Place-Specific Crime Prevention ............................. 59

Taking Back the Turf .................................................................................................. 59

Reducing Crime and Keeping It Down....................................................................... 61

 Genesis Park.......................................................................................................... 61

 Lockwood Gardens ............................................................................................... 62

 Oak Park................................................................................................................ 62

 Castle Square Apartments ..................................................................................... 62

 Five Oaks .............................................................................................................. 62
Page

Were the Changes Just Displacement? ....................................................................... 63

Lessons Learned .................................................................................................................... 64

Changing Attitudes ..................................................................................................... 64

Managing Security ...................................................................................................... 65

Maintaining Communication ...................................................................................... 65

Securing the Right Kinds of Funding ......................................................................... 65

Taking Advantage of Technology .............................................................................. 66

Avoiding the Pitfalls of the Past ................................................................................. 66

Crime and Place Revisited .................................................................................................... 67

Appendix A: Glossary of Acronyms ........................................................................................................... 69

Appendix B: Review of the Research Literature ........................................................................................ 71

Appendix C: Guidelines and Checklists for Place-Specific Crime Prevention Programs ......................... 83

Appendix D: Sources of Information, Training, and Technical Assistance ............................................... 91

Appendix E: Summary of Program Characteristics for 11

Place-Specific Crime Prevention Programs .......................................................................... 97

Appendix F: Crime Statistics for Selected Sites ........................................................................................ 109
Foreword vii

Foreword

Can residential neighborhoods be designed—or redesigned—

to promote safety? This Issues and Practices report is

intended to inform law enforcement officials, urban planners

and architects, multifamily housing managers, and public

housing administrators about place-specific crime prevention—the diverse array of coordinated environmental design, property management, and security strategies that can

be employed to reduce crime and fear of crime in urban and

suburban neighborhoods. Practical lessons gleaned from a

varied set of sites that blend physical design changes and

management changes are presented. These approaches are

consistent with and support the community-oriented and

problem-oriented policing models being implemented by

many law enforcement agencies across the United States.

Today’s place-specific crime prevention approaches supersede earlier theories about environmental design, drawing on

more active strategies and management techniques yet retaining a focus on specific locations. Municipalities, public

housing authorities, private developers, and community organizations in city and suburban neighborhoods can choose

from a variety of strategies to strengthen their own particular

crime prevention efforts. This report emphasizes that local

leaders of the groups or agencies initiating change—together

with residents, local law enforcement administrators, and

government and community leaders—are the people best

suited to determine the most appropriate place-specific crime

prevention approaches. Also underscored is the importance

of improving management practices and using culturally

sensitive policing strategies in combination with environmental design or redesign solutions.

Housing developments—both public and private—are being

renovated in many parts of the United States. As this report

shows, pairing physical design changes with management

changes that support, facilitate, and reinforce their preventive effects on disorder and illegal activity can be a highly

effective strategy for combating criminal activity. This report builds on prior National Institute of Justice research

efforts, including Partnerships for Neighborhood Crime

Prevention and other research conducted during the past 20

years. Many of these publications and related documentation

are available from the National Institute of Justice.

Place-specific crime prevention may involve opening up a

public space to create better natural surveillance, shutting

down a crack house, modifying leases and tenant screening

practices, training residents to patrol their own buildings, or

creating on-site police substations or security offices. The

most effective place-specific crime prevention strategies

take into account the geographic, cultural, economic, and

social characteristics of the target community. Thus, the

selection of place-specific crime prevention tactics and

elements should be made in close collaboration with the

community, after sustained observation of its current patterns of use.

By emphasizing that crime prevention is not a “one size fits

all” effort, and that some neighborhoods or communities will

require more attention and ingenuity than others in crafting

effective strategies, this report stresses the importance of a

thorough analysis of local problems and needs, as well as

ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the place-specific

strategies selected and their effectiveness in reducing crime

and disorder.

Jeremy Travis

Director

National Institute of Justice
Acknowledgements ix

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the many individuals in the study sites who

patiently answered our questions and provided us with

materials about their efforts to prevent crime and increase

security in residential settings. In particular, we thank the

hosts and lead respondents at each site we visited:

• Mr. Arthur Winn (Winn Development Company) and

Ms. Deborah Backus (Castle Square Tenants Organization, Inc.), Boston, Massachusetts;

• Ms. Patricia Garrett (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing

Partnership) and Mr. John Hayes (Charlotte Housing

Authority), Charlotte, North Carolina;

• Lieutenant David Krauss (Oakland Housing Authority

and Oakland Police Department), Oakland, California;

and

• Mr. Frank Pond (Rehabilitation Supervisor, Village of

Oak Park), Oak Park, Illinois.

We hope that these respondents will convey our thanks to the

many others from their sites with whom we met or spoke

during the course of this research. In addition, we thank the

individuals from the 11 other sites whom we contacted by

telephone for extensive information-gathering about their

place-specific crime prevention efforts.

The four advisory board members for this project provided

very useful guidance during a one-day meeting in Washington, DC, as well as through periodic phone consultations and

reviews of the draft report. We extend our thanks to Dr.

Ronald Clarke of the Rutgers University School of Criminal

Justice; Mr. Dan Fleissner, Manager of Research and Grants

for the Seattle Police Department; Mr. Severin Sorensen,

President of SPARTA Consulting Corporation; and Mr.

Stephen Tise, principal of Tise, Hurwitz, and Diamond, Inc.

(architects).

A number of other individuals participated in the advisory

meeting in June 1995 and provided valuable suggestions for

shaping this work. We thank Dr. Adele Harrell (Urban

Institute), Dr. Harold Holtzman (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development

and Research), and Mr. Robert Langworthy (National Institute of Justice [NIJ]) for their interest and contributions.

John Spevacek, program manager for the development of

this report at NIJ, provided support and beneficial advice to

the project. We thank Richard Titus, NIJ’s crime prevention

specialist, for inspiring us to take a new look at crime

prevention through environmental design (CPTED) in the

1990’s and for guiding and assisting us throughout the

project. Cheryl Crawford, the contracting officer’s technical

representative at NIJ, and Virginia Baldau, director of NIJ’s

Program Development Division, Office of Development and

Dissemination, provided helpful suggestions for improving

the report.

At Abt Associates, Theodore Hammett’s technical review

brought about important improvements to our drafts. Jon

Norman ably assisted us in completing the project. MaryEllen Perry and Myraida Rivera masterfully coordinated

production of the report, and Karen Minich and Wendy

Sanderson expertly prepared the final publication. We thank

them all.

Judith D. Feins

Joel C. Epstein

Rebecca Widom

Abt Associates Inc.
Executive Summary xi

Executive Summary

This publication examines place-specific crime prevention:

making changes for security and crime prevention in urban

and suburban neighborhoods. Place-specific crime prevention refers to programs of physical design changes, public

and private management changes, and use-pattern changes

that are targeted to a particular place and its crime problems.

The goal of this report is to inform law enforcement officials,

urban planners and architects, multifamily housing managers, and public housing administrators about the diverse

array of coordinated environmental design and management

strategies that can be employed to reduce crime and fear of

crime in housing complexes and residential neighborhoods.

This approach works well with the community-oriented and

problem-oriented policing models being implemented by

law enforcement agencies across the United States.

Place-specific crime prevention approaches go beyond narrow theories about environmental design or defensible space.

The integration of strategies to modify the use and management of places has strengthened environmental design or

redesign as a practical approach to crime prevention in

varied settings. Place-specific crime prevention builds on

crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED,

physical changes) and draws on the results of research on

active crime prevention tactics (such as community policing

and community crime prevention) to emphasize modification of design, use, and management of a specific place to

prevent and reduce crime.

This report presents practical lessons gleaned from a varied

set of sites operating security and anticrime programs that

combine physical design changes and management changes.

Efforts by municipalities, public housing authorities, private

developers, and nonprofit organizations in city and suburban

neighborhoods are the focus. The information presented

should prove useful to practitioners and agencies creating

their own place-specific crime prevention programs. The

findings in this report stress that the nature and configuration

of the place-specific crime prevention approach are best

determined by local leaders of the groups or agencies initiating change, with the cooperation and participation of other

government and community leaders, local law enforcement

administrators, and residents. The importance and efficacy

of improved management practices and culturally sensitive

policing strategies, in combination with environmental design or redesign solutions, are also stressed.

This publication is based on a combination of information

from programs around the country, a review of the literature,

and consultation with experts in the field. Visits were made

to four sites, each representing a different place-specific

crime prevention approach:

• Castle Square Apartments, a private rental housing

complex in Boston, Massachusetts;

• Lockwood Gardens, a development of the Oakland

Housing Authority in East Oakland, California;

• The central city Genesis Park neighborhood in Charlotte, North Carolina, and

• The suburban village of Oak Park, Illinois.

Telephone interviews with 11 other sites provided additional

examples of place-specific interventions. In addition to a

diversity of CPTED approaches, the selected sites display a

range of innovative policing and housing management strategies; most have achieved measurable success in reducing

crime.

Examples of place-specific crime prevention approaches

from the study sites include: closing pedestrian tunnels and

opening up hidden areas to resident and management view

(Castle Square Apartments, Boston); shutting down a crack

house through civil lawsuits (Clinton Hill neighborhood,

Brooklyn, New York); fencing and gating the community

(Lockwood Gardens, Oakland; Mar Vista Gardens, Los

Angeles, California; Diggs Town, Norfolk, Virginia); rerouting traffic and limiting vehicular access to a community

(Genesis Park, Charlotte, North Carolina; Oak Park, Illinois;

Bridgeport, Connecticut; Five Oaks, Dayton, Ohio); installing high-technology pan-tilt-zoom cameras as the centerpiece of a three-development surveillance system (Grant

Manor, Boston); creating on-site police substations or security offices (Lockwood Gardens, Oakland; Oak Park, Illinois); and organizing the community to approve a special tax

assessment for better street lighting and other public improvements (El Cortez Heights, Tucson, Arizona).

The most effective place-specific crime prevention strategies are those that take into account the geographic, cultural,

economic, and social characteristics of the target community. Thus, the selection of place-specific crime prevention
xii Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

strategies and tactics should be made in close collaboration

with the community, after sustained observation of its current patterns of use. The experiences of the study sites reveal

two major lessons:

• Physical design modifications, management changes,

and changes in use should be tailored to specific locations and coordinated in their planning and implementation.

• The most effective security and crime prevention efforts

are those that involve a coalition of different players

working together to define the problem and then seek

solutions.

By emphasizing that crime prevention is not a “one size fits

all” effort, and that some communities may require more

attention and ingenuity than others in crafting effective

strategies, this report stresses the importance of a thorough

analysis of the problems and needs of a given community, as

well as ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the placespecific strategies selected.

The varied examples presented in this publication demonstrate that physical design changes and management

changes—enhanced security, improved property management, and greater resident involvement—can be combined

effectively to combat criminal activity, reduce disorder,

improve safety, and enhance the quality of life in a variety of

urban and suburban residential settings.
Crime and Place: What Do We Know? 1

Chapter 1

Crime and Place: What Do We Know?

This chapter presents an overview of place-specific crime

prevention: coordinated programs of physical redesign and

public and private management changes targeted to a particular community and its crime problem. The first section

sets out the objectives and organization of the report and

provides a brief discussion of the sites studied. The next

section gives an overview of the report’s organization. The

third section discusses the sources of place-specific crime

prevention and the issue of crime displacement and diffusion

of crime control benefits. The final section introduces the

array of sites from which data and examples will be drawn

throughout the report.

Objectives and Audience

The goal of this publication is to inform law enforcement

officials, urban planners and architects, multifamily housing

managers, and public housing administrators of the diverse

array of coordinated environmental design and management

strategies that can be employed to reduce crime and fear of

crime in urban and suburban neighborhoods. The placespecific crime prevention approach is consistent with and

supports the community-oriented and problem-oriented policing models being implemented by many law enforcement

agencies across the United States. This publication emphasizes the importance and efficacy of improved management

practices and culturally sensitive policing strategies in combination with environmental design or redesign solutions.

In preparing this report, the authors have built on prior

research efforts, including Partnerships for Neighborhood

Crime Prevention1 and other research sponsored by the

National Institute of Justice during the past 20 years.2 The

report also incorporates practical lessons gleaned from the

efforts of municipalities, public housing authorities, private

developers, and nonprofit organizations in city and suburban

neighborhoods to operate security and anticrime programs

that combine physical design changes and management

changes.

The nature and configuration of these place-specific crime

prevention approaches were determined by local leaders of

the groups or agencies initiating change, with the cooperation and participation of residents, local law enforcement

administrators, and government and community leaders.

Overview of the Report

Chapter 1 describes place-specific crime prevention and

briefly describes the sites and programs from which information for this publication is drawn. Chapter 2 identifies

techniques for defining and analyzing the crime problem in

a particular locale. It considers the physical features of an

area that influence crime and public safety, discusses the

concept of place management and ways of determining the

stakeholders, and helps the reader think about how an area’s

use—by residents and others—influences security. Chapter

3 describes how the study sites have designed their interventions and draws lessons from their experiences. Program

design includes not only selecting strategies and tactics but

also mobilizing available resources and knowing where and

how to start initiating change.

Chapter 4 describes program implementation. The first

section examines how to bring about changes in the physical

environment through design and/or redesign and renovation.

The second section discusses options for changing management—including policing, property management, and the

role of residents—in order to solidify and sustain the security

features of the redesign.

In conclusion, chapter 5 presents an examination of results—

what sites claim to have achieved through their security and

crime prevention efforts. The results discussed in the first

section include “taking back the turf” (reclaiming the area for

legitimate use by residents and others), reducing crime and

keeping it down, and dealing with any issues of crime

displacement. The second section summarizes a number of

lessons shared by the diverse set of communities profiled in

this report. The chapter ends with a recapitulation of the

major points of the publication.

Several appendixes provide additional material, ideas, and

contact information for the resources needed to implement

place-specific crime prevention programs:
2 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

Sources of Information

This report is based principally on telephone interviews with 11 programs across the United States and site visits

to four locales, each representing a different place-specific crime prevention approach. The sites visited were:

1. Castle Square Apartments, a private rental housing complex in Boston, Massachusetts.

2. Lockwood Gardens, a development of the Oakland Housing Authority in East Oakland,

California.

3. The central city Genesis Park neighborhood in Charlotte, North Carolina.

4. The suburban village of Oak Park, Illinois.

In addition to representing diverse crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) approaches, the

selected sites displayed a range of innovative policing and housing management strategies; most have

achieved measurable success in reducing crime in the target areas.

The visited sites were selected from an initial pool of over two dozen that were identified in the literature or by

experts in the field as representing the best recent examples of place-specific crime prevention at work. In

selecting programs to visit, rough demographic and geographic distributions were sought. The four distinct

settings were included to show their shared experiences and to make the report relevant to the largest number

of practitioners.

Sites not selected for this report should not be viewed as less exemplary or important. Rather, the decision to

limit site visits to four locations and to conduct telephone interviews with another 11 programs reflects the

inevitable constraints of time and budget. In acknowledgement of this limitation, efforts were made, wherever

possible, to draw from the literature other examples of innovative CPTED approaches, management, and

policing techniques and programs. Summary descriptions of the programs that provided information by phone

for the study are included in appendix E.

A literature review and telephone interviews with experts in the fields of CPTED and situational crime prevention

were also conducted. Experts interviewed included theoreticians as well as practicing architects and site

administrators. The advisory board (see acknowledgements) and other experts, including staff of the National

Institute of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, also provided information and

advice.

Appendix A contains a glossary of the acronyms and terms

used in this report.

Appendix B consists of a review of the research literature

on place-specific crime prevention, covering such subjects

as defensible space, CPTED, community- or problem-oriented policing, rational offender theory and routine activities

theory, situational crime prevention, and community or

neighborhood crime prevention.

Appendix C provides useful checklists and similar material

for program planning and implementation.

Appendix D offers information on sources of training and

technical assistance for place-specific crime prevention

efforts.

Appendix E summarizes information on the 11 sites contacted but not visited for the study.
Crime and Place: What Do We Know? 3

Appendix F contains crime statistics for sites highlighted in

this report.

What Is Place-Specific Crime

Prevention?

The term place-specific crime prevention refers to coordinated programs of change—specifically, physical design,

security, and property management changes—that are targeted to a particular place and its problems. The term

combines the concept of redesign with management changes,

which require public managers (such as police, parks departments, or housing authorities) and private managers (such as

property owners or private security companies) to rethink

their roles in creating and maintaining public safety.

Coining a new term can present a problem, as it lacks reader

recognition, requires special explanation, and runs the risk of

expanding jargon rather than understanding. However,

when existing terms are too specific to convey the full scope

of the concept being addressed, or when—as in this case—

multiple data from research and practice, which may be

classified under a variety of names, come together to form a

whole, a new term is needed.

In this report, the term place-specific crime prevention

refers to approaches that go beyond narrow theories about

environmental design, drawing on more active strategies and

techniques yet retaining a location-centered focus. In its

emphasis on management, place-specific crime prevention

seeks to improve on CPTED, which relies on physical

modifications to influence human behavior. As noted by

Reiss and Roth,3

The reason for the inconsistent and temporary

effects [of a CPTED demonstration project in

Hartford] appears to be that crime and violence

arise from interactions between the social environment and the physical environment, which

cannot be controlled entirely through manipulations of the physical environment. The communal feeling of territoriality and mutual protection,

on which the defensible space concept rests,

apparently failed to materialize.

Place-specific crime prevention addresses the interaction

between social and physical environment by changing the

design, management, and use of a place. (See components of

place-specific crime prevention in exhibit 1.) The theories

and practices contributing to the definition of place-specific

crime prevention used here are detailed in exhibit 1. One

particularly important concept is the notion of situational

crime prevention, which, although combining some of the

same elements, has not generally made the link to management changes and changes in resident role that are included

in place-specific crime prevention.4

 (See appendix B for a

more extensive review of the literature.)

Displacement of Crime or Diffusion of Benefits?

The possibility of crime displacement is one of the major

challenges raised when place-specific crime prevention efforts are proposed. Many practitioners express concern that

place-specific programs will simply move or displace crime

from the target area to other areas or other victims, without

reducing the overall crime level. As noted by Clarke and

Weisburd, “under this view, situational changes [can] affect

the pattern of crime but not its volume: the latter [is] determined by motivational factors.”5

While law enforcement officials and other practitioners

appear to accept crime displacement as a common occurrence, there has been relatively little research on the subject.

Despite the potential for different types of displacement (not

just in time or space but by target, method, crime type, or

perpetrator), research on what situations give rise to varying

types and levels of displacement, and why, is lacking. (A

review of the limited research literature on displacement is

contained in appendix B.)

One review of published articles on crime prevention began

to address the question of displacement by classifying studies by type of intervention strategy used and other factors.6

 A

high proportion of the studies showing no displacement

examined interventions that increased the effort needed to

commit a crime, involved combinations of preventive measures rather than single measures, and implemented preventive measures throughout the jurisdiction (neighborhood,

city, county, or country).7 This analysis suggests that external factors do affect the potential for and patterns of crime

displacement.

Researchers contend that the view of displacement as automatic and widespread is based on questionable assumptions

about criminal motivation, most notably that the impetus to

commit a crime comes completely from within the offender

and is not affected by external factors. They argue that

rational offender theory (see appendix B) better explains

when and why displacement may occur.8 Distinctions also
4 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

have been made between benign and destructive displacement.9

 If there is displacement of criminal activity

to more serious offenses, or to already heavily victimized

areas or populations, then it would seem that displacement does pose a significant concern. However, if

interventions more evenly distribute victimization among

different neighborhoods or populations, if they redirect

activity to less serious crimes, or if they displace only a

portion of the initial amount of crime, there is a net

benefit.

Rational offender theory would also suggest that crime

prevention measures may produce diffusion of benefits

rather than displacement of crime. This would occur if

offenders experience increased fear of detection (that is,

they perceive that the risk of committing a crime has

increased) and/or decreased likelihood of gain (that is,

they perceive that the reward of crime is reduced) beyond

the actual scope of the intervention. Diffusion of benefits

is defined by Clarke10 as “the spread of the beneficial

influence of an intervention beyond the places which are

directly targeted, the individuals who are the subject of

control, the crimes which are the focus of intervention, or

the time periods in which an intervention is brought.”

When potential offenders are deterred (by increased fear

of detection and greater actual or perceived risk of arrest)

or discouraged (by reduced actual or perceived rewards

of crime) beyond the degree merited by the preventive

measures taken, diffusion of benefits will occur. Exhibit

2 shows how these possible secondary effects of crime

prevention differ. Clearly, practitioners should seek to

design interventions that reduce the total amount of crime

and/or that displace activity to less serious crime or to less

victimized populations. Better still would be the design

of interventions whose effects reach beyond their target

and thus produce diffusion of benefits.

Need for Continuing Research

Although several fields of crime prevention theory and

research contribute to the definition of place-specific

crime prevention and several evaluations of promising

place-specific crime prevention programs have already

been conducted (see appendix B), further research evaluating these strategies is essential. Methodological and

practical difficulties, such as the variety of possible

outcome measures, the complexity of the interventions,11

and the limits to generalization that accompany programs

designed for specific local configurations and conditions,

have made comprehensive evaluation so challenging and

costly that full studies are few. Thus, only far-fromExhibit 1. Place-Specific Crime Prevention

Components and Sources

Components

Physical design changes

• Target-hardening

• Controlling access

• Increasing opportunities for surveillance

• Targeting crime “hot spots”

• Improving image

Management changes

• Revamping security (including policing)

• Altering property ownership and/or management

• Expanding the role of residents

Use changes

• Increasing use at different times of the day and night

• Increasing the variety of business uses

• Increasing use by residents and others for leisure activities

Sources (Theories and Practices)

Physical crime prevention

• Defensible space

• Symbolic barriers (delineating public vs. private space)

• Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED)

Understanding criminal behavior

• Rational choice theory

• Routine activity theory

Recent developments in crime prevention theory

• Situational crime prevention (combines physical and other

 means of reducing crime opportunities)

Developments in local crime prevention practice

• Community crime prevention

• Neighborhood crime prevention

Recent developments in local law enforcement practice

• Community-oriented policing (COP)

• Problem-oriented policing (POP)

• Call management/police response analysis (MIS/GIS)

• Expansion of law enforcement role (better coordination

 with other agencies)

• Neighborhood-based planning and service approaches
Crime and Place: What Do We Know? 5

offenders perceive and react to the ever-changing criminal

opportunity structure.”

Introduction to Selected Programs

This section presents a brief synopsis of the place-specific

crime prevention efforts in the four sites visited. The sites

represent four diverse settings in which place-specific crime

prevention might be implemented: public housing developments, private rental complexes, urban neighborhoods, and

suburban communities.

Public Housing Development: Lockwood

Gardens, Oakland, California

Lockwood Gardens is a family public housing development

of 371 units, on a single site in East Oakland, California.

Owned and managed by the Oakland Housing Authority

(OHA), the site is completely residential, with grassy open

spaces among the buildings, which consist of one-story

bungalows containing two side-by-side units, and two-story

walk-ups with individual entrances. Residents of Lockwood

Gardens are extremely poor; as of March 1993, the mean

income was just over $8,000, compared to a citywide mean

income of over $25,000. Eighty percent of the families are

headed by women, and children ages 12 years and younger

make up 41 percent of the residents.

Between 1991 and 1993, Abt Associates Inc. studied the

OHA’s efforts (under a U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development [HUD] Public Housing Drug Elimination Program grant) to reduce crime and fear at Lockwood

Gardens.15 Crime data from that period show a major

concentration of drug activity accompanied by intimidation,

harassment, burglary, and theft. Three people were murdered on or adjacent to the site in late 1991. The OHA’s early

anticrime efforts, which involved only prevention programming, were unsuccessful in reducing crime or improving the

quality of life for residents.

Working with residents, the OHA subsequently developed a

more active and comprehensive anticrime strategy that combined design changes, security patrols, and management

changes. The entire site was attractively fenced in 1993 and

1994, with entrances initially guarded 24 hours a day. The

OHA security force, reorganized under a lieutenant from the

Oakland Police Department, acquired a mobile substation

and used it at Lockwood for a sustained period. In addition,

the OHA decentralized its management and maintenance

Exhibit 2. Displacement of Crime or

Diffusion of Benefits?

Destructive displacement shifts criminal

activity

• to more serious offenses

• to already heavily victimized areas or populations

• outside of primary targets

Benign displacement shifts criminal activity

• to less serious offenses

• to areas with a lower incidence of crime

• with victimization distributed among different

 neighborhood or populations

Diffusion of benefits shifts criminal activity

• to areas with a lower incidence of crime

• beyond primary targets

definitive evidence exists to determine whether place-specific crime prevention works, how it works, and under what

conditions.12

Continued research about the factors shaping displacement

of crime and diffusion of benefits is especially necessary.

Displacement poses a significant challenge to the design of

crime prevention research, since no empirical study can

conclusively show that displacement has not occurred. Crime

can be displaced to different activities, locations, times

(day/night, weekend/weekday), and populations of potential

victims. Considering all of these possibilities would generate an infinite list of outcomes, and measuring these outcomes would require an infinite (and impossible) amount of

data collection.

By and large, evidence about displacement has therefore

been a by-product of crime studies, and evidence of diffusion

of benefits is rare.13 Evaluation research needs to be designed even more carefully if diffusion of benefits is to be

detected and measured rather than misinterpreted. In urging

the recognition and pursuit of benefit diffusion when designing crime control programs, Clarke and Weisburd14 point out

that “to extract the maximum benefits from the techniques [of

situational crime prevention], they need to be pursued in

tandem with an active program of research into the ways that
6 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

operation to the site level, to improve tenant relations and to

increase both interior and exterior maintenance at Lockwood

and other public housing developments in the area.

Private Rental Complex: Castle Square

Apartments, Boston, Massachusetts

This private, affordable housing development represents a

crime-infested area reclaimed through changes in design,

use, and management. The previous owner of Castle Square

Apartments (CSA) had allowed the property to deteriorate

severely, and a private real estate developer originally sought

to buy it, with the intent of waiting for the use restrictions

(requiring that it house a partially low-income population) to

expire. However, the residents had other ideas. After a long

process of legal and financial negotiations involving the

previous owner, the residents, the prospective buyer, and

several governmental agencies, CSA has emerged as a significant improvement in its South End neighborhood.

The new owner—a partnership of the private developer and

the residents—brought in an architect to plan rehabilitation

with an eye to security. The buildings at CSA are stacked

duplexes (two-floor unit above two-floor unit) and sevenstory elevator buildings containing one- and two- bedroom

units. The street front was redesigned with harder security

elements for the commercial spaces. Fencing and landscaping were added to the site, and a gate system, which is locked

after 9 p.m., was installed. The open stairwells and lobbies

of the elevator buildings were enclosed and controlled.

Believing that these design features had proven their worth,

the architect was applying them in other local sites when this

report was being researched. The Boston police, who

coordinated an intensified patrol schedule with the physical

renovation of CSA, have since scaled back the number of

area patrols. Since the place-specific crime prevention and

management changes were implemented at Castle Square,

the number of police calls for service from the apartments—

a common measure of the level of crime in a community—

has declined sharply. Children are out in the playgrounds

again, and an adjacent park once frequented by drunks and

derelicts has been reclaimed by the residents.

CSA had an active residents’ organization with a significant

security agenda. The development’s prospective buyer,

Arthur Winn, also had strong ideas about management and

security for central city housing. The partnership forged

between Winn and the residents played a central role in the

planning for a renewed Castle Square. This site provides an

example of a private rental complex in a center-city area that

by all accounts has been turned around through a combination of design, use, and management changes.

Urban Neighborhood: Genesis Park, Charlotte,

North Carolina

Now known as Genesis Park, this inner-city Charlotte neighborhood was until recently the worst eight square blocks of

the city in terms of crime and drug activity. The area, and the

adjacent Charlotte Housing Authority’s (CHA’s) Fairview

Homes development, had long been a center of heroin

trafficking. The CHA’s anticrime efforts in Fairview Homes

had documented positive effects in the early 1980’s,16 but the

adjoining neighborhood continued to be dangerous, with 21

murders on the two main thoroughfares between 1988 and

1993. The deteriorated dwellings and overgrown yards

contained many squatters and numerous drug and shot houses

(where liquor is sold by the drink). The streets were open-air

markets for a variety of drugs.

In 1993, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing Partnership (a

nonprofit organization with extensive city and private-sector

support) quietly began to purchase properties in the neighborhood. Coordination with the Charlotte Police Department enabled the Partnership to target shot houses and drug

houses for acquisition. With extensive rehabilitation, the old

rental duplexes were converted into affordable single-family

homes, many of which are now being sold to low-income

families in conjunction with the CHA’s programs to foster

self-sufficiency among public housing residents. The Partnership assists prospective buyers in resolving credit problems and also provides homeownership classes and followup support in the form of a residents’ association. In addition

to the housing rehabilitation, which has been carried out with

careful attention to security features, traffic barriers were

installed to create a more complex traffic pattern and to

prevent drug traffic from cutting through the area. The name

of the neighborhood and the names of its most notorious

streets were officially changed. A community-policing

program is in place, and the Partnership works actively with

other property owners and managers in the neighborhood to

address any remaining problems of disorder or crime.

Genesis Park provides an example of a complex intervention

in a troubled, low-income neighborhood, with the goal of

reducing crime and improving the quality of life for residents. The housing is private, and both private and public

organizations have contributed to the changes. According to

police statistics, crime in Genesis Park dropped by 74

percent from 1993 to 1994, and the neighborhood moved
Crime and Place: What Do We Know? 7

from number 1 to number 41 in a ranking by neighborhood

of violent crime rates in the city.

Suburban Community: The Village of Oak Park,

Illinois

Oak Park, a middle-class suburb of Chicago that borders on

the city’s West Side (one of the highest crime areas in the

United States), takes pride in being an open and diverse

community with excellent schools and a high quality of life.

The village has many points of interest, including the Frank

Lloyd Wright Home and Studio, two historic districts, and

the Ernest Hemingway birthplace and museum. Oak Park’s

housing consists of 45 percent multifamily and 55 percent

single-family dwellings. A community known for its racial

diversity assurance program, in 1968 Oak Park made a

commitment to open housing with the passage of an ordinance guaranteeing equal access in the sale and rental of

homes and apartments. The village—which is only 9 miles

or 20 minutes from Chicago’s Loop via mass transit or the

Eisen-hower Expressway—has excellent public transportation and automobile access.

Over the past 30 years, Oak Park has vigorously sought to

maintain and enhance the quality of life for all its residents.

The village has enacted ordinances, created programs, formed

coalitions, built organizations, and analyzed and reanalyzed

itself, in order to build strength through diversity and unity.

As part of its long-term proactive strategy, Oak Park has

experimented with CPTED and other place-specific crime

prevention techniques, including cul-de-sacs and improved

lighting. Oak Park’s Security Improvement Grant (SIG)

Program for multifamily building owners is an important part

of the village’s crime prevention strategy, as about one-third

of Oak Park’s population lives in small, older apartment

buildings, many of which need to be made secure. Under

SIG, the village offers multifamily building owners a free

security inspection by Oak Park police, who make suggestions for changes to the property. If the owner elects to make

all of the proposed changes, the Village of Oak Park reimburses the owner for 40 percent of the cost. If the owner

elects to make only some of the proposed improvements,

Oak Park covers 20 percent of the cost.17

With burglary by far the greatest crime problem in Oak Park,

burglary reduction is the primary goal. The improvements

proposed by the police usually involve target-hardening and

access-control strategies such as locks, gates, and fencing.

Many of these interventions have been implemented in the

eastern third of the village, the part closest to the Austin

neighborhood of Chicago’s West Side. Aside from SIG, Oak

Park has implemented some physical design changes, including the creation of cul-de-sacs at many locations throughout the village. The street closings are designed to reduce

traffic, improve safety, and strengthen neighborhoods. To

facilitate police protection (as well as street cleaning and

snow removal), village law also forbids overnight parking on

most streets.

Oak Park’s single-family areas have a 20-year history of

block parties, which bring neighbors together and encourage

them to look out for each other. In these single-family

neighborhoods, the village is often able to close off streets or

reroute traffic on the day of a block party. Oak Park police

also employ a variety of strategies; in the context of community policing, the department uses specially trained crime

prevention officers and regularly schedules community meetings to bring officers and neighborhood residents together to

discuss local problems.

Other Sites Contacted by Telephone

In addition to conducting visits at the four sites described

previously, telephone interviews were conducted with 11

programs that have implemented significant, coordinated

environmental design and management changes with the

goal of reducing crime. At each of the telephone sites, two

interviews were conducted with key contacts familiar with

the local program and conditions. Information obtained by

phone was supplemented, if possible, by written materials

provided by these sites.

The opportunity to visit programs and inspect the changes

made greatly increased the level of nuance and detail available for analyzing the four primary study sites. However,

these 11 sites improved our knowledge of place-specific

crime prevention efforts around the United States, and they

are widely cited in the remainder of the report. A synopsis

of the most salient features of these sites and their programs

is presented in appendix E.

Endnotes

1. J.D. Feins, Partnerships for Neighborhood Crime Prevention (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, June 1983).

2. See for examples: R.A. Gardiner, Design for Safe

Neighborhoods: The Environmental Security Planning

and Design Process (Washington, DC: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 1980); A.
8 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

Wallis and D. Ford, eds., Crime Prevention Through

Environmental Design: The Commercial Demonstration in Portland, Oregon (Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,

1980); A. Wallis and D. Ford, Crime Prevention Through

Environmental Design: An Operational Handbook

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, 1980). More recent work in this field

sponsored by NIJ is summarized in R. Titus, Crime

Prevention Through Environmental Design at the National Institute of Justice (unpublished report, May 1994).

3. A.J. Reiss and J.A. Roth, “Perspectives on Violence,” in

Understanding and Preventing Violence, (Washington,

DC: National Research Council, 1993): 148.

4. One exception to this statement may be the work of S.L.

Sorensen and E. Walsh, Crime Prevention Through

Environmental Design and Situational Crime Prevention in Public Housing: Workshop Curriculum, HUD

Crime Prevention and Security Division, Technical

Assistance Workshop(s) (Bethesda, MD: SPARTA Consulting Corporation, March 1995).

5. R.V. Clarke and D. Weisburd, “Diffusion of Crime

Control Benefits: Observations on the Reverse of Displacement,” in Crime Prevention Studies, v. 2, ed. R.V.

Clarke (Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 1994):

167.

6. Overall, 22 of the studies identified no displacement,

whereas 33 reported some form of displacement (no

instance of complete displacement; most instances quite

limited). See R.B.P. Hesseling, “Displacement: A Review of the Empirical Literature,” in Crime Prevention

Studies, v. 3, ed. R.V. Clarke (Monsey, NY: Criminal

Justice Press, 1994): 197–230.

7. Ibid., 217.

8. R. Clarke and D. Cornish, “Situational Prevention,

Displacement of Crime and Rational Choice Theory,” in

Situational Crime Prevention: From Theory to Practice,

ed. K. Heal and G. Laycock, (London: Her Majesty’s

Stationery Office, 1986): 1–16.

9. R.V. Clarke, ed., Situational Crime Prevention:

Successful Case Studies, (New York: Harrow and Heston,

1992): 22–27.

10. Ibid., 169.

11. “Where there are various approaches to reducing crime

in public housing, it is tempting to advocate an ‘integrated’ or comprehensive approach, acting on the full

range of variables which might be implicated. Such a

solution may well at first sight make sense, and it will

certainly placate those unhappy about ‘underlying’ problems. However, we have some reservations. A comprehensive approach is costly and difficult to implement;

more important—at least as far as evaluation goes—it

runs the danger of fudging the issue of what works best.”

—P. Mayhew and R.V.G. Clarke, “Crime Prevention

and Public Housing in England,” in Crime and Public

Housing: Proceedings of a Workshop Held in September 1980, ed. M. Hough and P. Mayhew (London: Her

Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1982): 6.

12. In a wide-ranging review article, Barry Poyner offers an

interesting approach to answering these questions. Surveying 122 evaluations of crime prevention projects and

scoring each study by the strength of the findings, Poyner

examines the evidence for using different crime prevention measures against different types of crimes. See B.

Poyner, “What Works in Crime Prevention: An Overview of Evaluations,” in Crime Prevention Studies, v. 1,

ed. R. V. Clarke (Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press,

1993): 7–33.

13. According to one researcher, there are two reasons for

the latter fact. First, if displacement has received only

peripheral attention, benefit diffusion has hardly even

been recognized as an explicit possibility. Second,

researchers’ common use of nearby areas as a basis for

comparison in detecting changes in crime incidence (i.e.,

a nonequivalent control group design) means that—if

diffusion of benefits also reduces crime in these areas—

the intervention being studied will be reported to have

had little or no impact, instead of the extra impact of

benefit diffusion being recognized. See J.E. Eck, “The

Threat of Crime Displacement,” Criminal Justice Abstracts, v. 25 (1993): 539–540.

14. R.V. Clarke and D. Weisburd, “Diffusion of Crime

Control Benefits: Observations on the Reverse of Displacement,” in Crime Prevention Studies, v. 2, ed. R.V.

Clarke (Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 1994):

179.
Crime and Place: What Do We Know? 9

15. T.M. Hammett, J.D. Feins, T. Mason, and I. Ellen, Public

Housing Drug Elimination Program Resource Document, vol.1 (Final Report) and vol.2 (Case Studies)

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development, July 1994).

16. J.G. Hayes, The Impact of Citizen Involvement in Preventing Crime in Public Housing: A Report of the

Fairview Homes Crime Prevention Program.

17. Oak Park recently decided to decrease the percentage of

the cost it pays per building, thereby increasing the

number of building owners it can assist. The percentages

were originally 50 percent (rather than 40) for full

improvements and 25 percent (rather than 20) for partial

improvements. There is a ceiling for reimbursement at

$400 per unit and $16,000 per building.
Crime and Place: Defining the Problem 11

Chapter 2

Crime and Place: Defining the Problem

Defining the problem is a critical step in planning for change.

This chapter examines how to define and analyze crime

problems in urban and suburban neighborhoods. It opens

with a discussion of how to involve key players in the effort

to analyze the crime problem and identifies obstacles that

may be encountered along the way. It then reviews the

physical features of an area that can influence crime and

public safety; the concept of management and how it can be

analyzed in a specific area are also discussed. The chapter

concludes with an examination of how an area’s use—by

residents and others—may affect the crime problem. Working together to analyze physical features, management, and

use, the key players can define the problem, which is the first

step toward solving it.

Involving Key Players

The most effective crime prevention efforts are those that

involve a coalition of different players who cooperate to

define the problem and then seek solutions. Although it may

seem more logical or more convenient to work only with the

police when analyzing a crime situation and then later to

involve other players in designing the solution, such an

approach has two drawbacks. First, it will not produce the

comprehensive, detailed, and geographically targeted analysis required for designing effective place-specific interventions. Second, it will not give the other key players a sense of

ownership in the definition; because they were not consulted

initially, they may not agree with the proposed definition or

with its implications for how to improve security in the area.

Even before the renovation of Boston’s Castle Square Apartments, several residents from the Castle Square Tenants

Organization (CSTO) had been involved in the local Police

Captain’s Advisory Board, which met monthly with the

South End’s police commander to discuss community concerns. The prospective private buyer for the complex, Winn

Development Company, needed to know the nature of the

environment and how it would affect managing the site in the

future. A number of other individuals and organizations also

played important roles in defining the crime problem for

Castle Square.

At Mar Vista Gardens, a public housing development in Los

Angeles, residents, staff of the housing authority, police, and

nearby homeowners’ associations were involved from the

start in examining the crime problem in the development;

these discussions served as background for crime prevention

proposals and options for the complex. Neighbors, like

residents, often have a critical perspective on a community’s

crime problem. Spillover of drug selling and gang activity

into the surrounding community was widely recognized at

Mar Vista, and Mar Vista Gardens’ neighbors complained

frequently to the police about a high level of drive-by drug

selling at the development. These neighbors were able and

willing to help define the problem.

Enlisting Police Involvement

Obtaining police support and involvement is an essential

first step in defining and analyzing a particular area’s security and crime problem, for at least two reasons:

1. Because of their familiarity with crime problems in the

area, local law enforcement personnel can serve as a

source of information and a foil against which to check

possible interventions such as design changes.

2. Enlisting police involvement from the start demonstrates to law enforcement officials that those initiating

the security and crime prevention effort acknowledge

the primacy of the police role in making and keeping the

community a safe place to live. This can also help break

down barriers and improve relations between residents

and police by providing them with a nonconfrontational

reason to sit down together.

After being alerted by East Bridgeport residents, the police

department of Bridgeport, Connecticut, conducted a rigorous analysis of crime and calls-for-service data and found

that traffic patterns on the city’s east side—particularly its

location along Interstate 95—made the area vulnerable to

drug activity. The civilian employee of the department who

analyzed the problem—an enthusiastic exponent of crime

prevention through environmental design (CPTED)—was
12 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

put in charge of developing a response.1 He sought the

involvement of a local architect, who drew up plans for

rerouting traffic throughout the area. The Bridgeport Fire

Department also became involved early on, out of concern

about access to the area for fire and other emergency vehicles. The involvement of area residents and business

people was not sought until the implementation of the Bridgeport program, which came to be known as the Phoenix

Project, was underway. Ultimately, residents’ and business

owners’ concerns led the city to alter its ambitious traffic

modification plan.

In the 1980’s, Five Oaks in Dayton, Ohio, was a small

neighborhood in transition from mostly middle-class white

to working-class white and African-American residents.

Concerned about the racial and economic changes taking

place there and about a rising crime rate, a community

group—the Five Oaks Neighborhood Improvement Association (FONIA)—began working to organize residents and

to make the neighborhood’s needs a priority with city agencies. At the request of the Dayton Police Department, architect and CPTED expert Oscar Newman was brought to

Dayton to discuss general neighborhood stabilization issues,

and he became involved in the analysis of the Five Oaks

situation.2

 Police sweeps and vigorous law enforcement in

1992 helped raise police awareness of the situation and got

the neighborhood back under control.

Building on Existing Relationships

For many communities, the battle against crime is not new.

Individuals and organizations involved in past anticrime

efforts may prove to be key players in examining the current

situation.

As noted previously, problem assessment at Castle Square

Apartments in Boston was facilitated by the prior involvement of several residents in the local Police Captain’s Advisory Board. Similarly, existing relationships in Oak Park,

Illinois, have played an important role in developing the

suburban community’s proactive anticrime stance. For 30

years, the village has experimented with a variety of methods

to attract new residents, ensure diversity, and maintain public

safety. The village’s planning department, the Austin Boulevard Alliance, the police department, the Housing Programs

Advisory Committee, and the Oak Park Regional Housing

Center are currently active, and the long history of coalitions

and cooperation provides a strong foundation for their

efforts.

Organizing the Community

Enlisting the involvement of community residents in analysis

of crime problems is indispensable. While calls for service

and other police records detail reported criminal activity,

building residents can describe hidden drug selling in a highrise stairwell or the inner courtyard of a building. Outreach

to these residents through anonymous tip lines and other

confidential means of communicating information to the

police may turn fearful and reluctant people into key informants in the definition of a community’s crime problem.

Furthermore, there is great potential power in the collective

voices and actions of local residents who have organized to

work on community issues. Prior research and experience

suggest that those interested in crime prevention should

make use of established neighborhood organizations, rather

than seek to start a new organization.3

 If no such organization

exists, bringing together a group to define and tackle the

public safety problem may be difficult. Residents may want

to enlist the involvement of skilled community organizers

who bring to the effort an appreciation of the issues around

which the community can best be organized. Community

organizers can also help pace a neighborhood’s efforts by

helping to pick its approaches and its battles.

The Citizens Committee for New York City (CCNYC)

recommends gathering a small group of concerned people to

brainstorm about who might be able to help address the

problems being discussed and how group members might

involve these people or groups. In Brooklyn, CCNYC not

only facilitated the organization of the Clinton Hill Block

Association (CHBA) but also helped to keep its efforts

focused on preventing drug dealing in vacant buildings, a

problem with which many area residents could identify.

CCNYC helped CHBA keep its initial goals modest and

achievable.

The sense that outsiders are the primary source of the crime

problem provides a unifying theme for resident organizing.

In Bridgeport, Connecticut, the police exploited the finding

that much of east Bridgeport’s drug trade was supported by

drive-by suburban purchasers who accessed the area via

Interstate 95. Similarly, neighbors of the Mar Vista Gardens

housing development in West Los Angeles came together

with development residents out of their common concern

about drug activity, much of which seemed to be generated

by wealthy outsiders driving into the community and the

development. However, organizing crime prevention efforts

based on these ideas can run the risk of reinforcing existing
Crime and Place: Defining the Problem 13

social divisions (by race or class), and communities targeting

“outsiders” should take care not to support de facto segregation.

Obstacles to Coordination and Cooperation

Communities may face a variety of obstacles when seeking

increased coordination and cooperation, even for purposes

of defining the crime problem. Awareness is the first step

toward dealing with such obstacles and can ensure that the

effort to define and address security problems in a neighborhood is not derailed.

Resident Involvement in Crime. Blaming outsiders for the

crime problem may be useful for organizing, but it often

oversimplifies the situation. There may be residents who are

part of the problem, either as customers for drug dealers or

as offenders. In addition, some residents may—as a result of

intimidation or by virtue of personal ties—permit illegal

activities in their apartments; it is extremely difficult to get

accurate information on such involvement. It is also hard to

draw distinctions among residents, who may know all too

well each others’ family members or problems. Rather than

asking people to inform on others, an indirect means can be

found to signal that criminal involvement will no longer be

tolerated.

Past Tensions. A history of failure, tensions, or outright

animosity may make many residents reluctant to work with

the management, the police, or the municipality. In addition,

past tensions between minority groups—or between one

group and the police—may require that these groups or

organizations reconcile themselves before they attempt to

define the crime problem, much less plan or implement

place-specific security changes.

In the largely African-American Clinton Hill neighborhood

of Brooklyn, a history of poor community relations with the

police department and district attorney (DA) had to be

overcome before residents could view the police and DA as

their allies. Initial police and DA reluctance to assist the

Clinton Hill Block Association in its efforts to shut down

business at a known drug location was a further obstacle to

reconciliation.

Fear of Retaliation. Fear of retaliation is a well-known

deterrent to crime prevention activity by citizens. Understandably, both residents and area business owners may be reluctant to become involved with crime prevention initiatives out

of fear of physical retaliation by neighborhood drug dealers

and others.

However, it is also true that engaging in collective action

makes participants less fearful and more optimistic about the

prospects for the neighborhood.4

 Local churches and other

institutions can help community residents overcome fear by

restoring a sense of community. In North Portland, Oregon,

a variety of churches and community leaders, as well as a

youth gang task force, have helped residents overcome the

sense of despair created by the perception that their neighborhood is unsafe.

Population Changes. Population changes can make it

difficult to involve key players in defining a neighborhood’s

crime problem. Simple turnover of residents—ordinary

movement in a mobile society or increased turnover due to

negative neighborhood conditions—can undermine existing

organizations and remove actual or potential local leaders

from the scene. In addition, shifting racial demographics or

the socioeconomic mix can leave old and new residents

uncertain about how to affect the local situation. In the view

of the supervisor of the Crime Prevention Unit of the Dayton

Police Department, changing demographic patterns in an

area have a lot to do with the fear of crime. When speeding

cars, gun shots at night, and “open-air drug markets” coincide with shifting demographics, all contribute to residents’

sense that things in their neighborhood are out of control.

Stabilizing the community (and stemming “white flight”)

appears to have been a large part of the goal of organizers in

Five Oaks (Dayton, Ohio) and in Oak Park, Illinois. In Five

Oaks, crime rates were highest along the southeastern and

eastern borders of the neighborhood, areas with higher

concentrations of rental residential property, generally poorer

residents, and more people of color. The connection between

fear of crime and white flight, while sad, is quite clear. In Oak

Park, the village’s affirmative and proactive programs to

ensure diversity have been coordinated with crime prevention efforts, and white flight has not ensued. Thus, in both

communities, efforts have been made to stabilize the population without excluding people of color; improving

security and preventing crime have become part of the more

general objective of improving quality of life and encouraging current residents to stay and seek positive change.

Negative Press. Negative press coverage can reinforce fear

and discourage efforts to analyze and then address security

problems. Negative perceptions created by the media can

even produce a self-fulfilling prophecy, as residents and

property owners withdraw from caring for their properties in

particular neighborhoods.
14 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

Because of the media’s central role in influencing the public’s

perception of crime, communities may want to involve local

newspapers or other media outlets in addressing the crime

problem. It is possible for the press to help mobilize key

players. In Charlotte, North Carolina, a series of articles in

the Charlotte Observer entitled “Taking Back Our

Neighborhoods” thoroughly documented crime problems in

various parts of the city. Rather than being a negative,

discouraging depiction of the community, these articles were

written as a call to action for citizens and organizations

concerned about quality of life.

Defining the Crime Problem

Defining the relationship between crime and place is a

critical step in determining how best to increase security and

prevent crime in a particular neighborhood or housing development. Defining the problem involves several activities:

• Gathering information about crime and disorder.

• Combining this information with geographical data to

map specific locations where one or more offenses have

occurred.

• Assessing the physical layout and features that could be

contributing to vulnerability in these locations.

In collecting and analyzing this information, it is important

to take into account the perceptions of the key players, who

are likely to have different points of view and also real

differences in knowledge about local crime conditions. At

Castle Square Apartments (CSA) in Boston, for instance, the

police were acutely aware of problems generated by an “old

drunk” location that was the site of daily brawls, noisy

arguments, and frequent stabbings. In contrast, CSA residents were far more concerned about the muggings and

break-ins within the development, and the prostitutes and

drug dealers carrying their business into the backyards and

parking lots.

Gathering Information About Crime

and Disorder

Whether it is a particular incident or a long-standing pattern

that has mobilized key players to address security issues, it

is vital to gain a more complete picture of crime in the area

before changes can be made. Police department records,

including calls for service and incident reports, are the most

obvious source for information on reported crime. It may not

be easy to obtain aggregate (tabulated) data for the specific,

narrowly defined neighborhood or housing development.

Calls or incident data may only be available in raw form by

address, which would require considerable time and effort to

gather and analyze. Indeed, the early involvement of police

officials may be necessary to gain access to such information.

At such an early stage, it is also useful to look at crime data

more widely, putting the specific area in the context of one

or more police beats or quadrants. If, like Oak Park, the area

of concern borders another jurisdiction, data must be gathered from the adjoining city or town for its specific adjacent

beat(s) or quadrant(s). A working relationship between the

police in the two jurisdictions can facilitate access to these

data.

Police crime data have limitations, however, particularly

where fear and/or friction may inhibit reporting of crime.

Fear—even apart from actual victimization—influences residents and can contribute to fostering undesirable conditions.

For example, if fear keeps some people off the streets or out

of common areas during the evening, the lack of foot traffic

may increase residents’ perceived or actual vulnerability to

being mugged. Further, signs of disorder play a recognized

role in security problems but are not covered in police

statistics.5

 For these reasons, and also to take advantage of

the knowledge and observations of residents and others who

regularly use the area, it is important to gather additional

information about patterns of crime and disorder through

various methods, including:

• Interviewing or surveying residents about their perceptions and experiences, considering both actual victimization and fear.

• Making observations about local conditions, using a

windshield survey, a block-face checklist, or similar

instrument.

• Interviewing police officers assigned to the local area

for their informal observations and impressions.

• Convening focus groups of residents or people who

work in the area for a guided discussion of crime and

fear.

• Simply gathering accounts of incidents or conditions

that are observed and associated with fear and crime by

residents.
Crime and Place: Defining the Problem 15

Such information can be extremely useful, even if it is more

anecdotal than systematic, particularly if gathered in a way

that makes it readily linked to specific locations.

Linking Crime to Location

For defining the security problem in a neighborhood or

housing complex, the link between crime and location should

be as detailed as possible. Ideally, crime data by type of

offense and disorder data by type of problem (e.g., abandoned cars, graffiti, trash) could be mapped against a threedimensional representation of the area, showing not only the

particular block or street address but also the corner of the

parking lot or the level of the stairwell where an incident or

problem occurred.

For a number of the sites studied for this report, community

policing officers proved to be the critical source for detailed

information linking crime and disorder to particular locations within the site. In Charlotte, community policing preceded the effort to revitalize the area. As one respondent

said, “The police department was already out here with

community policing, knew everyone by name, before CMHP

[the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing Partnership] came on

the scene. Pat and Mike [the two community policing officers] and their captain were already there in the neighborhood.” CMHP worked closely with the police to identify

drug and liquor houses, thus targeting potential property

acquisitions.

In Oakland, California, the Oakland Housing Authority’s

(OHA’s) planning department first became involved in the

analysis of crime problems in the late 1980’s, when fencing

was needed to cut the escape route from 14th Street along the

rear boundary of Lockwood Gardens. As their experience

broadened, the designers and architects began to look at

other OHA sites and their crime statistics. As a result, the

housing authority acknowledged the vulnerability of various

sites and began redesigning them for enhanced security.

Exhibit 3 shows a sketch of one OHA site’s design problems.

Simple pin maps (with one pin for each police call for

service) have long been used to facilitate identifying locations with high crime rates or “hot spots.” Advances in

computer mapping, a technique increasingly used among

law enforcement agencies, make identifying hot spots, managing detailed information, and processing specific inquiries

easier.6

 Indeed, such computer maps begin to make causal

analysis a possibility. For example, in San Diego, computer

mapping revealed that robberies were clustered in two different areas. In the midst of each area was a convenience store;

the robberies were clustered around these locations in the

neighborhood.7

 The existence of these crime hot spots and

the ability to identify what causes them are an effective

argument for place-specific crime prevention.

In San Diego, computer mapping revealed that

robberies were clustered in two different areas. In

the midst of each area was a convenience store;

the robberies were clustered around these locations in the neighborhood. The existence of these

crime hot spots and the ability to identify what

causes them are an effective argument for placespecific crime prevention.

In some jurisdictions, there are efforts underway to achieve

a high level of locational detail by putting new technology in

the hands of patrol officers. For example, the CharlotteMecklenburg Police Department and the Charlotte Housing

Authority (CHA) are jointly experimenting with the use of

handheld global positioning system (GPS) devices to record

precise locations of crime in terms of latitude and longitude.

For multistory buildings, experimental report formats for

gathering information in the field using laptop computers

require detail about the floor from which the call originated.

Even with less sophisticated techniques, detailed mapping

can be created to help define the security problem. Largescale street maps showing building outlines (footprints)8

 can

be annotated to show other features, such as an underpass

through a building into the site interior, a vacant corner

overgrown with trees, or a bank of pay telephones next to a

store. The specific locations of crimes and signs of disorder

can then be coded on the maps (using pins, stickers, cut-outs,

or markers of different colors) to provide a basis for assessing how the physical layout and features of the neighborhood

or housing complex are related to the security problems

there. Discussing the maps with all interested parties (including police officers familiar with the area, residents, housing

owners and managers, neighbors, and people employed

nearby) may well provide further information about crime

and fear and help with analyzing current use patterns of the

area (as discussed in more detail later in this chapter).

Identifying Key Physical Features

Linking crime and disorder data to location should produce

different results in different settings. While a number of

sound generalizations about physical features underlie

CPTED, these generalizations do not predict the specific

patterns of crime in particular places, because the local
16 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods Exhibit 3. Redesign for Security: Oakland Public Housing

Insert Floor Plan
Crime and Place: Defining the Problem 17

patterns result from the confluence of many more factors

than physical characteristics. Examples from a number of

communities show what was learned from linking crime and

location information.

The Lockwood Gardens development in East Oakland, California, is surrounded almost entirely by industrial and commercial facilities, except for an adjoining elderly housing

complex also owned and managed by the OHA.9 Analysis by

the OHA and the observations of staff and residents showed

the following patterns of crime and disorder relative to the

development’s physical layout and features:

• An open-air drug market existed along 65th Avenue in

the middle of the development. The major concentration

of activity was at the curve of the street, where lookouts

could be posted to watch traffic turning in from East

14th Street and from Fenham Street.

• The liquor store, car wash, and check-cashing operation

on the East 14th Street border of Lockwood Gardens

were independent magnets for problems. The primary

escape route from police actions at these establishments

was along the back fence inside Lockwood Gardens,

until the OHA closed off access.

• Drug dealers used the front porches of the bungalows

along 65th Avenue for hanging out and conducting

business, terrorizing those who lived in the apartments.

Some of the buildings were perpetually vacant because

the dealers would harass and frighten any new tenants

into fleeing. The dealers even used attack dogs (pit bulls

and Rottweilers) to threaten and intimidate residents,

keeping them off the street.

• The interior of the development contained vacant buildings that served as hiding places for drugs. The playlots

were places for dealers and users to congregate. From

time to time, apartments would be taken over by the

dealers for use as crack houses.

This analysis suggested that automobile and pedestrian access to the site, as well as conditions in the complex’s

interior, contributed to a situation in which the residents were

virtually unable to leave their apartments. Two murders at

Lockwood Gardens in 1991 and threats of bodily harm to the

OHA’s district manager the same year confirmed the need

for sweeping interventions.

Conditions in the area of Charlotte, North Carolina, that

became known as Genesis Park were somewhat similar to

those at Lockwood Gardens in 1991. The area was called

Kenney/Gibbs/Wayt, and it was known as Charlotte’s biggest drug market. The neighborhood was built up around

1950 and is entirely residential, except for a supermarket and

laundromat directly across Oaklawn Avenue. Populated by

very low-income renters (many on fixed incomes), as well as

by drug dealers, liquor sellers, and squatters, the area was

dense with dilapidated houses and overgrown yards. Between 1984 and 1989, there were increasing vacancies on

Kenney and Gibbs Streets and more deterioration of the

housing.

Until the early 1980’s, Fairview Homes (a public housing

development adjacent to the neighborhood) was reputed to

be the center of heroin distribution for the southeast United

States. Because dealers continuously moved back and forth

between Fairview Homes and Kenney/Gibbs/Wayt (depending on where the police and the clients were), the CHA built

an 8-foot concrete wall between the two areas during a

modernization project in 1983 and 1984. The wall cut the

traffic between the public housing site and the neighborhood,

which enabled the problem to be divided and tackled in two

separate pieces. At Fairview Homes, a community crime

prevention program started by the CHA showed strong

positive results.10 According to some observers, the wall

made it possible to reduce and keep crime levels down at

Fairview Homes. To some extent, the wall also made it

possible for the private sector to take on the problems of

Kenney/Gibbs/Wayt some years later.11

Problem-Solving With SARA

The SARA (Scanning, Analysis, Response, Assessment) problem-solving model can facilitate the

process of creating, evaluating, and modifying

interventions. The steps in SARA are scanning

(initial gathering of data), analysis (examining the

data gained from scanning to understand the

problem[s] to be addressed), response (implementing and intervention), and assessment (analyzing data gathered through and after the intervention to measure its success). These steps do

not need to be mutually exclusive, or clearly

linear in time, but rather indicate the importance

of ongoing research and evaluation of problems

and solutions.
18 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

An analysis conducted by the community policing officers

and the observations of a local pastor and others showed the

following patterns of crime and disorder relative to the

neighborhood’s physical layout and features:

• In 1984, Fairview Homes and Kenney/Gibbs/Wayt were

the most active violent crime areas in the city and the

worst street drug markets. Cocaine was sold on Kenney

Street, heroin on Gibbs Street and Oaklawn Avenue, and

marijuana and liquor at the far ends of the streets. Crack

cocaine arrived in the mid-1980’s and surged in late

1985–1987; Kenney Street switched to a crack cocaine

market. Dealers routinely flagged down any cars that

came through and offered drugs for sale.

• The neighborhood’s western boundary, Interstate 77,

played an important role in the drug traffic. Clientele

came from other parts of North Carolina and from South

Carolina to buy drugs.

• The neighborhood was a scene of loitering, disorder,

fights, stabbings, and shootings. The headquarters of the

Mustang gang, which trafficked in guns and drugs, was

located on Gibbs Street. Murders were attributed to the

presence of the Mustang gang and to the other drug

activity.

• In addition to the open-air drug market, the area had

many drug houses (shooting galleries) and liquor houses

(unlicensed sellers of liquor by the drink). Both residents and outsiders frequented these establishments.

This analysis suggested that both street activity and illegal

use of residential properties needed to be addressed. Because of considerable involvement in illegal activity by area

residents, the housing partnership was careful about renewing leases for existing tenants in houses bought by the

CMHP.

Castle Square Apartments in Boston, Massachusetts, is a

500-unit housing development containing a mix of housing

types. The complex also contains commercial space along

Tremont Street and a supermarket and parking garage along

Herald Street (the site’s northern edge). There is automobile

access to the parking lots within the development from two

streets. CSA’s immediate surroundings are largely commercial and institutional. The highway on one side, a telephone

company facility on Shawmut Avenue, and the Area D police

station across Tremont Street separate CSA somewhat from

the rest of the South End neighborhood, which “came back”

from considerable decay to renovation and gentrification in

the 1970’s and 1980’s.12

CSA was originally developed in 1965 under a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) program

that made the rents affordable by providing a mortgage at

below-market interest rates. When the original developer

decided to sell it in 1987, CSA was being badly neglected, yet

it was an attractive property because its mortgage could be

prepaid and the use restrictions (requiring low-income occupancy) would soon expire. A good location (close to downtown) and gentrification in the South End made the complex

attractive for investment, either as market-rate rental housing

or for conversion to condominiums.

When residents began to organize the Castle Square Tenants

Organization (CSTO) in 1987, in response to the rumored

sale, physical conditions were poor and signs of disorder

widespread. By the time the property actually changed hands

in early 1992, conditions had worsened. Specifically:

• There were frequent muggings within the site (with

prowlers hiding behind trash cans in the front yards or

under the open stairs or up the stairs). There were firstfloor window break-ins, and fourth floor break-ins via

the rooftops. The hallways were the locale for drug buys

and drug use, mainly by nonresidents.

• Major prostitution activity along the parking garage side

of the site frequently spilled over into the backyards of

the duplexes. A bank of pay phones was heavily used for

the drug trade (before the advent of cellular phones).

• Drug traffic and loitering characterized the site day and

night. The parking lots could be used by anyone.

Condoms, broken bottles, and used needles littered the

grounds.

• The park on the corner of East Berkeley and Tremont

Streets, known as “Indian Park” because it was used by

many Micmac Indians from the South End area, was the

site of daily brawls, noisy arguments, and stabbings.

This analysis suggested to the new owners—a partnership

between Winn Development Company and CSTO—that

intervention was required on many fronts to address the

problems of crime and disorder at CSA, because the problems within the housing site were compounded by problems

beyond its boundaries involving other organizations and

populations.
Crime and Place: Defining the Problem 19

For the village of Oak Park, Illinois, problems of crime and

disorder were anticipated as spillover from Chicago, which

it borders. The denser, eastern part of Oak Park—an area

with much affordable housing—abuts rough Chicago neighborhoods: Austin to the east and Galewood to the north. The

older small apartment complexes in eastern Oak Park are

similar to the housing just across the boundaries.

In the late 1960’s, Chicago’s Austin neighborhood saw

classic blockbusting. “Previously, racial lines in Chicago’s

neighborhoods had been firmly drawn. Until the late 1960’s,

Austin had been 100 percent white,” according to one

observer. As Austin underwent rapid property turnover and

racial change, its character changed, with disorder and decay

resulting from the blockbusting and other unscrupulous real

estate dealings that took advantage both of whites’ fear and

of blacks’ pent-up demand for decent housing.

The analysis of Oak Park’s situation carried out by the

village at the time found the following:

• Poor management of properties seemed to be spreading

to Oak Park. Along Austin, Harrison, and other streets

with multi-family buildings, there were large numbers

of vacant apartments and considerable deterioration.

• Burglary was by far the greatest crime threat, and

burglary prevention and/or reduction was the obvious

goal. Sometimes there was a little spillover of gang

activity and graffiti.

• Funneling east/west traffic on the village’s eastern

border (and north/south traffic on the village’s northeastern boundary) into several major corridors might

enable police to better control access to Oak Park from

adjacent Chicago neighborhoods.

This analysis suggested that intervention was required to

address not only the security problems but also the actual or

potential decline of the rental properties in the eastern part of

the village. Further, it appeared that changes in traffic

patterns could enhance the effectiveness of other changes.

Identifying Managers and Potential

Managers of an Area

Once the patterns of crime and disorder and their relationship

to the physical features of the place have been analyzed, it is

time to consider who currently manages the area. In its

broadest sense, management means the responsibility for

maintaining order in one or more aspects of a place.13 Who

are all the parties that currently take some responsibility for

the neighborhood or housing complex? Are there aspects of

the place for which no one is currently responsible? What

other parties could or should take some responsibility, and

for what aspects?

Why Is Management Important?

Management is a critical factor in improving security and

preventing crime, both of which are essential to bringing

about and sustaining positive changes in a neighborhood or

housing complex. Perhaps the most important lesson learned

from the sites examined for this study is that changes in

management must accompany and reinforce the physical

design changes in order for there to be greater security over

the long term.

What makes management so important? First, its absence

results in physical deterioration and disorder, which in turn

creates conditions that attract criminal activity to an area.

This is the familiar “broken windows” syndrome in which

visible, physical signs of neglect (such as abandoned vehicles left on the street or graffiti left on walls) suggest that

disorderly or criminal behavior will not be curbed.

Second, if no person or organization exercises “ownership”

of a space, then there is no enforcement of community norms.

Whether outside or inside buildings, anonymous public

spaces encourage the users to withdraw into themselves and

treat all others as strangers. Eyes are averted, thoughts

elsewhere; people mind their own business and do not

observe, much less challenge, the behavior of others. These

conditions do not encourage active crime prevention.

Third, and more positively, management can implement

changes for security, sustain the improvements, reconstruct

social accountability, and lead to further positive change.

Indeed, some might argue that there are effective strategies

that can be used by management, exclusive of physical

changes, to reduce crime and fear. But physical changes

without management’s persistence in reinforcement are unlikely to succeed. For example, the Macon Housing Authority management’s persistence in repeatedly replacing broken

bulbs (at considerable cost) convinced drug dealers they

were not going to win and it was time to move on.
20 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

Who Are the Managers?

Broadly understood, management encompasses:

• Both formal and informal exercise of responsibility;

• Both conventional and alternative management entities,

and

• Both public and private entities.

Formal management is exercised by persons or organizations officially charged with responsibility for an area. In the

public sector, the official management of cities and towns

and their neighborhoods lies with local government. Thus,

the conventional managers are the line departments that

carry out executive functions, such as public safety, streets

and sanitation, city planning, health, social services, and the

like. In this sense, local police departments are the primary

managers of security for their jurisdictions.

Beyond Crime and Disorder: Other Contributors to

Community Problems

As progress is made in “defining the problem,” aspects of a local area other than crime or signs of disorder

per se may be identified as contributing to the problem. Nonsecurity issues cited by respondents as important

to the formation of their security programs include the following:

• The deterioration in rental property conditions in Oak Park and in Charlotte’s Kenney/Gibbs/Wayt

neighborhood.

• For Castle Square Apartments, the loss of businesses—and especially of the A&P supermarket—

that had occupied commercial space along the front of the complex.

• For Lockwood Gardens in Oakland, Mar Vista Gardens in Los Angeles, and other public housing

developments, the level of hopelessness and apathy among the residents, their isolation from

each other, and their sense that the neighborhood did not belong to them. Also the pattern of

residents letting outsiders live with them or even subleasing their units to drug dealers.

• The proximity of “nuisance” businesses, such as liquor stores and check-cashing operations, with

spillover of traffic and disorder into residential areas (Clinton Hill in Brooklyn, New York; Lockwood

Gardens) and the related effects of commercial and industrial zoning on nearby residential

neighborhoods (Bridgeport, Connecticut).

• Lack of recreational programs and facilities for youth, as well as limited educational and

job opportunities, leading to self-destructive behavior such as gang and drug involvement, teen

pregnancy, and exposure to HIV (Castle Square; Lockwood Gardens; Mar Vista; Macon,

Georgia; Bridgeport).

• The physical appearance of conventional public housing in many places—its starkness, uniformity, relatively high density, and lack of amenities or embellishment (Pitts Plaza in San Francisco;

Diggs Town in Norfolk, Virginia; Fairview Homes in Charlotte, North Carolina).

• The proximity of major interstate highways, bringing drug traffic, gang organizing, and other

problems from bigger cities or even from other states (Bridgeport, Charlotte, Oakland).

Because they can significantly affect the success of interventions to reduce crime and disorder, it is important

to identify issues and conditions that may limit options, or suggest certain strategies, or that may need to be

addressed through other means at the same time that security interventions are undertaken.
Crime and Place: Defining the Problem 21

Although they are usually independent local authorities

rather than line units of city government,14 public housing

agencies (PHAs) are another example of public sector managers. In this case, they are the owners of property and have

responsibility for operation of the housing and other facilities they own. Most PHAs directly manage their housing

developments, although a number have experimented with

private or resident management (as discussed later in this

chapter).

In the private sector, formal management of neighborhoods

and housing complexes is largely the responsibility of property owners and their designees. Ranging from the homeowner who keeps the grass and shrubs trimmed, to the

landlord who makes regular repairs, to the large management

company with maintenance and grounds crews for a whole

development, private management is the locus of responsibility for at least the physical condition of buildings and any

surrounding open areas. Further, for rental property, it is

private owners and managers who decide who shall live

there, exercising more or less care in tenant screening and

selection.

Most neighborhoods and many housing complexes contain

nonresidential land uses, such as commercial or office space,

institutional facilities (e.g., schools or churches), and recreational facilities (e.g., parks or playgrounds), or industrial

property. These land uses bring other private managers into

the picture, such as business owners, shop managers, corporations, and religious or educational organizations.

Aside from these formal managers, a variety of alternative

or innovative management entities are increasingly found in

urban and suburban neighborhoods. Examples include local

business and property owners’ associations, neighborhood

or residents’ organizations, community coalitions, housing

partnerships, community development corporations, and

resident management corporations.15 These generally have

their origins in private, voluntary organizations—groups of

owners or residents coming together for a shared purpose.

They may become formally organized and incorporated

nonprofit organizations. Some coalitions and partnerships

have public entities (such as city agencies) as members or

components.16 Exhibit 4 shows examples of organizations

that played important management roles in the security and

crime prevention programs studied for this report.

Analyzing Current Management

Keeping in mind this broadened concept and these varied

examples of management, analysis of current management

in a neighborhood or housing complex should be fairly

straightforward. What individuals, agencies, or organizations own or manage residential property in the area?17 What

corporations or institutions own or manage commercial or

industrial facilities, and institutional or recreational features? What agencies of local government are responsible

for the maintenance of security, sanitation, and public infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, lighting)?

Are there associations of residents, local businesses, or

property owners that have a vested interest in the area? Even

if they are already involved as key players, these groups can

now be considered in terms of the role they currently play—

or could play in the future—in managing the neighborhood

or housing complex. The absence of alternative or innovative

entities may suggest the need for organizing particular groups

(such as residents or local businesses) or for establishing a

coalition or partnership involving public and private entities

with a stake in the security and future of the area.

Local properties and facilities should also be examined to

identify which management entities have security responsibilities. It may be helpful to create a list of major local

features and separately identify general management and

security management. This might show, for example, that an

office complex with well-staffed maintenance and a private,

interior security force depends entirely on the police department for exterior security. Or, it might reveal that a group of

businesses have joined together to hire private guards to

patrol their commercial block during certain times of the day

or days of the week, supplementing police coverage.

Analyzing current management may also identify the jobs

that are not being done (for example,which owners or agencies are not meeting maintenance needs, or which areas are

not being secured either by the police or by owners). The

results of this analysis may well coincide with problem areas

or “hot spots” identified in the examination of key physical

features and how they relate to problems of crime and

disorder (see previous section). If not, it is particularly

important to go back and make sure that the known problem

areas are examined in terms of current and future potential

management responsibility.

Analyzing Current Use Patterns of

an Area

The final aspect of the local picture to be analyzed involves

current use: who lives in the neighborhood or housing
22 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

complex, who uses it daily for work, and who else is drawn

there for other purposes. Answering these questions can

provide additional insight on crime or disorder problems and

also suggest certain strategies for improving security and

preventing crime.

Who Lives Here?

Understanding who lives in the community is an essential

part of defining the problem, because place-specific crime

prevention solutions designed without an understanding of

the needs and habits of the population are doomed to failure.

It is also vital to ascertain—to the greatest extent possible—

how much the current residents may be involved in the area’s

drug or crime activity. This is another question that may be

best answered through informal observation by others living

or working in the area. When the cleanup of the Genesis Park

neighborhood of Charlotte got under way, CMHP maintained low rents for the acceptable tenants (who paid their

rent, maintained their homes, and did not engage in any

criminal or nuisance activities) in properties purchased by

the partnership. However, problem tenants were evicted, and

residents engaged in illegal activity were arrested.19

However, it may take changes in management (as in the

Charlotte example) before problems with current residents

can be addressed. That is one reason why (with appropriate

constitutional limits on the power of the police to question

people on the street) tactics like fencing, gating, and other

forms of access control seem so appealing. The ability of a

private or public housing development to limit access, except for (1) those who live there, (2) those with legitimate

business there, and (3) guests of actual residents, can mean

the difference between control of the site and a community

run by outsiders engaged in illicit drug selling or other

criminal activity.

Who Works Here?

The working population of an area can have a significant

influence on its safety, and local employers can play an

important management role. Legitimate businesses potentially increase foot traffic and other uses of public space.

Site Official or Formal Managers Alternative or Innovative Managers

Tucson, AZ

Brooklyn, 

New York City, NY

Oak Park, IL

Mar Vista Gardens, 

Los Angeles, CA

Bridgeport, CT

Genesis Park, 

Charlotte, NC

Castle Square

Apartments, 

Boston, MA

Tucson Police Department

NYC Police Department, District

Attorney’s Office

Village of Oak Park, Oak Park

Police Department 

Housing Authority of the City of Los

Angeles, Los Angeles Police

Department

City of Bridgeport, Bridgeport Police

and Fire Departments

City of Charlotte, CharlotteMecklenburg Police Department

Winn Management Company, 

Boston Housing Authority, 

Boston Police Department 

El Cortez Neighborhood Association

Clinton Hill Block Association, Citizens’

Committee for NY

Oak Park Building Owners Management

Association, Austin Boulevard Alliance,

Oak Park Regional Housing Center,

Housing Programs Advisory Committee

Mar Vista Housing Development

Corporation

East Bridgeport Community Council,

Bridgeport Neighborhood Housing

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing

Partnership,18 Genesis Park Residents

Association

Castle Square Tenants Organization

Exhibit 4. Examples of Management Entities at Selected Study Sites
Crime and Place: Defining the Problem 23

Employers may be asked—either by employees or by key

players in the neighborhood—to get involved in crime prevention and security efforts. Local companies can also be a

source of volunteers for community improvement.

However, the working population of a site often takes on a

different character after normal business hours. As if one

shift were ending and another beginning, illegitimate operations often start up after normal business hours. Drug dealers

tend to arrive and set up shop during the mid- to lateafternoon. Drug dealers and gang members must be counted

among the people who work in a neighborhood, and analyzing area use by dealers and gangs is critical for purposes of

improving security.

Seemingly legitimate activities may serve as covers for drug

dealing and other illegal behavior. At one public housing

development in Woonsocket, Rhode Island, drug dealers

disguised their work by pretending to do automobile repairs.

A raised car hood signaled to buyers that the dealers were

open for business, while an opened trunk sent the message

that police were watching and buyers should come back later.

Similarly, in Charlotte, North Carolina, one drug dealer in

public housing stashed his for-sale drugs in the clothes of the

baby that he pushed around in a carriage during his work

day.20

Sometimes, local businesses are part of the problem affecting the neighborhood. One of the hardest areas to patrol

around Lockwood Gardens in Oakland is 14th Street near

65th Avenue. The cluster of liquor stores, check-cashing

outlets, and car wash attracts many nonresidents who loiter

and drink there. The car wash is thought to be a moneylaundering front for profits from weapons and drugs (which

are sold out of a shack at the rear of the property). On one

occasion, an OHA security officer confiscated five weapons

from the car wash, but the court case against the owner was

lost when the witness disappeared.

Drug Dealers and Organizations. Drug markets have characteristics in common with other forms of local business, but

their advertising is often perceived by residents as a sign of

disorder in the neighborhood. Common forms of

advertising for dealers include cars being repaired on the

street (as noted previously, with hoods and trunks up or down

to designate the product or to indicate whether the coast is

clear) and graffiti to mark the turf of different sales organizations. In Bridgeport, Connecticut:

. . . Stylized graffiti “tags” written on fire hydrants,

sidewalks, or the wall of a building at the selling

Who Lives Here?

The sites used as examples in this report have an

extraordinary range of population mixes.

Castle Square Apartments, in Boston’s South End,

is home to 1,500 people of diverse racial and

ethnic backgrounds. Roughly half the residents

are Chinese or from other countries in Asia, while

20 percent are African-American, 15 percent are

white, and 5 percent are Hispanic. Most tenants

have low incomes. The site is also home to several

hundred elderly residents.

El Cortez Heights is a desirable neighborhood

centrally located on the north side of Tucson,

Arizona. Consisting primarily of single-family homes,

El Cortez Heights has one apartment building that

was not supposed to be built there but somehow

“slipped in.” “It’s just a real nice neighborhood,”

according to a long-term resident. Predominantly

populated by the elderly back in 1971, now there

are also younger professional people, mostly without children. The area is ethnically mixed; while

predominantly African-American 20 years ago, it

is now home to people from a variety of backgrounds.

Oak Park, Illinois, is a middle-class Chicago suburb

with a population that is 75 percent white, 18

percent African-American, and 7 percent other

races. In the eastern third of the village, there are

more low-income individuals. But even there, Oak

Park is a long way from a site such as Oakland’s

Lockwood Gardens, where the entire population

is extremely poor.

Lockwood Gardens’ population is 82 percent

African-American, 16 percent Asian, and 2 percent white. Almost half the development’s residents are below the age of 18. Some 80 percent of

the occupied units have female heads of houselocation indicate the product sold. Drug shoppers

can identify a specific dealing spot by the graffiti .

. . . STP stands for Silver Top Posse and BTP for
24 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

Black Top Posse, the “products” [crack vials] sold

by local crews.21

The East Bridgeport community is economically depressed

with little legitimate employment. When conditions were at

their worst there, the illicit drug trade appeared to employ

large numbers of local youths. In the afternoons and evenings, boys and young men could be seen working the

corners, steering customers’ cars to sales locations, selling,

or working as lookouts and spotting police patrols.

Gangs. Gangs are highly structured organizations that work

in specific areas, some with a headquarters location and a

regular workforce. Gang activity can be highly disruptive to

the life of a neighborhood. Today, community concerns

about gangs involve their connection to drug activity and

rising gun violence. Parents across the United States express

concern about the spread of violent big-city gangs—even in

small cities that are not generally plagued by drugs and

violence.

At Iris Court, a public housing development in Portland,

Oregon, the proximity of a high school appears to have

contributed to the level of gang activity. While some gang

members live in the development, others are attracted by the

school and by the fact that Iris Court sees a great deal of foot

traffic by all sorts of youth. In addition, on most nights there

is a lively presence of nonresidents who come to the apartments to party and to deal, buy, and use drugs.

Though a city without a notable gang problem in 1989, by

1994 Macon, Georgia, had a number of offshoots of West

Coast gangs including the Insane Crips from Los Angeles

and Folks from Chicago. Relatively innocuous “wanna be”

gangs were then taken over by out-of-town recruiters and

became much more involved with drug selling and money.

Drug activity and violence increased, and organized crime

from Miami—the Jamaican Posse and the Florida Boys—

established itself in Macon.

Considerable evidence confirms that gangs are spreading,

recruiting members in new cities and neighborhoods around

the United States. Acknowledging gangs to be organized,

structured, and often rather disciplined organizations will

help in understanding their ability to adapt to changing

conditions. Unlike freelance drug dealers, for example,

gangs may be able to sit out a police crackdown, only to

return in force once the law enforcement initiative has

waned. This limits the effectiveness of intensified drug

enforcement and underscores the importance of placespecific crime prevention combining environmental and

management changes.

Who Else Uses the Area?

People come to a community for a variety of reasons.

Developing an appreciation of the legitimate reasons to use

the area—and distinguishing them from illicit aims—is an

essential part of the process of defining the crime problem.

A new supermarket at Castle Square joins the businesses on

the Tremont Street side of the apartment complex in attracting neighborhood residents. These businesses and their

patrons have benefited from the improved security at the site.

By contrast, the bank of telephones outside the old supermarket was frequently used by suspected prostitutes; removing

the phones helped remove this activity from the site.

Accurately identifying both legitimate and illicit uses of an

area will help ensure that a program of place-specific crime

prevention strategies does not unduly burden legitimate

users and businesses. Respecting the needs of these entities

will pay off when it comes time to seek their cooperation in

implementing proposed changes. Respecting the needs of

businesses is an important step toward gaining their involvement in defining the local problem and developing the placespecific solution.

Accurately identifying both legitimate and illicit

uses of an area will help ensure that a program of

place-specific crime prevention strategies does

not unduly burden legitimate users and businesses. Respecting the needs of these individuals

will pay off when it comes time to seek their

cooperation in implementing proposed changes.

Respecting the needs of businesses is an important step toward gaining their involvement in

defining the local problem and developing the

place-specific solution.

Endnotes

1. Thomas Rebollar, who has since past away, conceived

the project.

2. Evaluation of the Five Oaks Neighborhood Stabilization

Plan (Dayton, OH: Office of Management and Budget,

City of Dayton, January 1994): 3.
Crime and Place: Defining the Problem 25

3. J.D. Feins, Partnerships for Neighborhood Crime Prevention (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, June 1983): 25.

4. W.G. Skogan and M.G. Maxfield, Coping with Crime:

Individual and Neighborhood Reactions (Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage Publications, 1981): 233.

5. See J.Q. Wilson and G.L. Kelling, “Broken Windows:

The Police and Neighborhood Safety,” The Atlantic

Monthly (March 1982).

6. F. Taxman and J.T. McEwen, Interagency Workgroups:

Geographical Tools to Develop Crime Control Strategies, DRAFT prepared for NIJ, August 30, 1994; F.

Taxman and J.T. McEwen, The Drug Market Analysis

Project: Defining Markets and Effective Law Enforcement Practices, DRAFT prepared for NIJ, September

13, 1994; F. Taxman and J.T. McEwen, “Applications

of Computerized Mapping to Police Operations,” prepared for Crime Prevention Series: Crime, Place and

Police, ed. J. Eck and D. Weisburd (Nov. 8, 1994): 4. See

also T.F. Rich, “Research in Action: The Use of Computerized Mapping in Crime Control and Prevention

Programs,” (Washington, DC; U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1995).

7. F. Taxman and J.T. McEwen, “Applications of Computerized Mapping to Police Operations,” prepared for

Crime Prevention Series: Crime, Place and Police, ed.

J. Eck and D. Weisburd, (Nov. 8, 1994): 3.

8. Such maps are widely available, either through the city or

county tax assessor’s office or through private companies serving the real estate industry.

9. For background on Oakland’s drug situation and earlier

efforts to control it, see C.D. Uchida, B. Forst, and S.O.

Annan, “Controlling Street-level Drug Trafficking: Evidence from Oakland and Birmingham,” Research in

Brief, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, June 1992); also C.D.

Uchida, B. Forst, and S.O. Annan, “Modern Policing and

the Control of Illegal Drugs: Testing New Strategies in

Two American Cities,” Research Report (Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of

Justice, Police Foundation, May 1992)

10. J. G. Hayes, The Impact of Citizen Involvement in

Preventing Crime in Public Housing: A Report of the

Fairview Homes Crime Prevention Program (Charlotte,

NC: City of Charlotte, 1982).

11. However, according to CMHP, the wall—or perhaps the

proximity of public housing on the other side of the

wall—is now contributing to difficulties in marketing the

rehabilitated homes on the adjacent street.

12. More generally, the gentrification of the South End has

involved substantial displacement of poor people of

color, with middle-class gay men the principal group of

new occupants. Political controversy has, of course,

accompanied these changes.

13. In the language of routine activity theory, managers are

capable guardians able to prevent disorder and violence.

L.E. Cohen and M. Felson, “Social Change and Crime

Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach,” American

Sociological Review 44 (1979): 588–608.

14. Public housing authorities (PHA’s) are largely creatures

of state law, with the same type of legal status as public

transit or turnpike authorities, convention and tourism

authorities, and the like. While most PHA’s across the

United States have jurisdictions coterminous with local

government, some members of the Boards of Commissioners for PHA’s are often appointed by nonlocal

officials, particularly by state governors. There may also

be local mayoral appointees and/or locally elected members.

In some places, PHA’s have been remade into line

agencies of local government, often to make them more

responsive to local needs. These experiments have not

shown any clear advantage; there are highly successful

examples (such as Madison, WI) where there is mutual

support between the housing agency and other branches

of local government, and there are obviously unsuccessful examples (such as Washington, DC) where the

housing agency became responsive to mayoral patronage rather than the needs of residents.

15. On the effects of resident management in public housing,

see ICF, Incorporated, Evaluation of Resident Management in Public Housing (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, December

1992).
26 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

16. The growth of these alternative management entities

around the United States is attributable to several factors: the theme of citizens’ participation fostered by

Federal social programs of the 1960’s and 1970’s (such

as Model Cities and the Community Action Program); a

resurgence of grass-roots organizing, with labor movement origins but focusing now on poor and minority

residents of declining urban areas; the fiscal crisis of

many cities, which has brought a greater focus on mobilizing private resources; and the tax limitation movement

in various States, which has put fiscal constraints on local

government in smaller cities and suburbs, so that mobilizing private resources becomes a means of sustaining

facilities and programs in these areas as well.

17. It can sometimes be difficult to identify the actual owners

of property if blind trusts or other legal vehicles are used

to mask ownership. In this situation, there are published

guides to title searching as well as local organizations

that can help you gain maximum information. Legal

advice can also be sought, through public agencies or a

private attorney.

18. As CMHP acquired properties in the neighborhood, it

arguably became an official manager. However, the role

it has taken has gone far beyond management of its

properties.

19. Now the area is occupied by low- to moderate-income

working families and a few renters.

20. See S.L. Sorensen and E. Walsh, Crime Prevention

Through Environmental Design and Situational Crime

Prevention in Public Housing: Workshop Curriculum,

HUD Crime Prevention and Security Division, Technical Assistance Workshop(s) (Bethesda, MD: SPARTA

Consulting Corporation, March 1995): 8.

21. J. Epstein and S. Sifre, “Bridgeport: Cutting Off Access

by the Suburban User” (Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc., February 1994): 7.
Planning for Change: Program Design 27

Chapter 3

Planning for Change: Program Design

This chapter discusses some important considerations in

planning a place-specific security and crime prevention

program. It opens with an inventory of the numerous crime

prevention through environmental design (CPTED) strategies and tactics that have been used to improve the security

of the physical environment. With examples from the study

sites, it then addresses how to identify and mobilize program

resources. The common problem of not knowing where to

start when tackling a complex problem is also addressed,

with examples and advice from the sites.

A Primer of CPTED Strategies and

Tactics

Once a community has defined and analyzed its crime

problem, it is time to begin planning for change. Selecting the

strategies and tactics to be implemented at a site involves the

same careful analysis needed to understand the crime problem. While bricks and mortar and razor ribbon may be an

effective means of keeping a problem out, a fortress appearance sends a negative message. Creating an environment that

is both attractive and functional is important, because people

live there and because improving the image of an area

contributes to crime prevention.

This section draws heavily from a curriculum on placespecific crime prevention techniques created for the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s)

Crime Prevention and Security Division, which, in 1995, was

presented in a series of technical assistance workshops on

CPTED and situational prevention in public housing.1

 Strategies applicable to a wide range of neighborhoods and

housing complexes are described and illustrated with site

examples; exhibit 5 summarizes the major categories of

strategies.

Target hardening includes improvements that make unauthorized access more difficult. Installing strong doors, locks,

and window screens, reinforced glass, and alarms can significantly reduce the chance that criminals will gain access to

the structure. In Macon, Georgia, the housing authority has

improved the building exteriors in most of its developments

by installing foam-core steel doors, dead-bolt locks, and

marine glazing windows (which make climbing through

broken windows very dangerous).

Access control can be achieved by keeping doors and gates

locked and interior common spaces fenced off from public

access. Establishing visitor check-in booths and guard houses,

reducing the number of entrances and exits, and issuing pass

cards can help management maintain control of a site.

Emergency stairwells can be restored to their intended purpose by equipping them with alarm-connected panic bars and

removing exterior door handles. Roof-top access doors at

Castle Square Apartments were converted into emergencyexit-only doors, to reduce burglar access to upper-floor

apartments.

Checking resident identification can be a particularly effective means of controlling crime in both public housing

developments and private apartment complexes. Buzzer and

intercom systems, security check-in booths, resident identification, and metal detectors can be used to ensure that only

residents and legitimate visitors are entering a building.2

 In

Macon, Georgia, housing authority employees and elderly

residents are issued a credit card–like key that activates

entrances through motion rather than insertion (which can be

difficult for elderly or disabled residents). A scanner reads

the card from the carrier’s pocket or purse when she or he

approaches the door; if the carrier’s code is recognized as

valid, the door opens. Limiting the number of apartments

sharing a corridor or entrance and creating key access to

laundry rooms (and even elevators) are other means of access

control. Even simple changes like assigning parking spaces

and requiring parking permits can make a big difference in

controlling use of the environment.

Deflecting offenders involves broadcasting a message that

sale or use of drugs and other illicit activity will not be

tolerated in the area. By changing the traffic patterns, closing

streets, and making problem areas into “No Parking” or “No

Standing” zones, offenders can be moved along, if not

removed altogether. Even the positioning of a litter container

or the relocation of a bus stop can help achieve the desired

effect. In Oak Park, Illinois, signs in residential areas on the

village’s perimeter warn drivers that the rear alleys are not

for through traffic. Drivers caught using these routes are
28 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

Target hardening

Strong doors (magnetic locking,

foam-core steel)

Locks (dead bolt)

Window screens

Reinforced glass (marine glazing)

Alarms

Closing crack houses and

repairing “broken windows”

Garbage-strewn lots cleaned up

Abandoned cars towed

Abandoned houses boarded up

24-hour graffiti removal

Improving natural

surveillance

Improved street and interior lighting

Non-see-through fencing and

 barriers removed

Trees and hedges pruned

Alcoves and other interior blind

 spots removed

Vulnerable areas redesigned or

 relocated

Adapted from R.V. Clarke, S.L. Sorensen, and J. Fagan, “Situational CPTED Matrix for Public and Indian Housing” (see appendix C). The matrix appears in S.L. Sorensen and E. Walsh, Crime Prevention Through Environmental

Design and Situational Crime Prevention in Public Housing: Workshop Curriculum, HUD Crime Prevention and Security Division, Technical Assistance Workshop(s) (Bethesda, MD: SPARTA Consulting Corporation, March 1995): 13.

Exhibit 5. Summary of CPTED Strategies and Tactics

Deflecting offenders

Traffic patterns changed

Streets and alleys closed

“No Parking” or “No Standing”

 zones created

Surveillance by employees

Housing authority staff

Bus drivers

Crossing guards

Mail handlers

Utility company workers

Social services staff

Signage and bans on use

“Drug-Free Zones”

Posted guest and visitor policies

“No Trespassing” signs

Access control

Doors and gates locked

Interior areas fenced off

Visitor check-in booths

Guard houses

Number of entrances and exits

 reduced

Pass-card system in use

Key access to laundry rooms and

 elevators

Indoor and outdoor spaces divided

 into smaller, easily identifiable areas

Resident IDs checked

Buzzer and intercom systems

[Metal] detectors

Assigned parking places

Parking stickers

Cameras and other formal

surveillance

Closed-circuit television

Portable camera systems

Police call boxes

Trained resident patrols

Police substations

On-site security offices

Kobans (mini-stations)

Removing inducements to

crime

Vacant apartments rented

Overnight street parking banned
Planning for Change: Program Design 29

ticketed, reinforcing the message that these are not through

streets to be used for covert access or to avoid traffic along

busy North Avenue.

Closing crack houses and repairing “broken windows”

means recognizing the signs of physical disorder or of a

deteriorating situation before they get out of control. Criminals can be deprived of the loci of their trade, whether it be

a drug house where users can consume the product or other

drug market enablers. Garbage-strewn lots offer dealers a

place to hide their drugs; if lots are cleaned up, other stashes

must be found. Removing old couches and mattresses from

a park next to Castle Square Apartments in Boston and

shutting down a crack house in Clinton Hill in Brooklyn

helped residents regain control of their neighborhoods.

Cameras and other formal surveillance are means for direct

observation of the site to ensure that no illicit activity goes

unnoticed. Closed-circuit television, portable camera systems, and police call boxes are potentially useful aids to

formal surveillance. The closed-circuit TV cameras and

monitor installed at Grant Manor in Boston are the center of

a surveillance system for three housing complexes in close

proximity.3 One security company is monitoring all three

sites (via remote cameras), requiring fewer personnel than

would have been needed without the cameras and thus

making more efficient use of security funds.

The closed-circuit TV cameras and monitor installed at Grant Manor in Boston are the center of

a surveillance system for three housing complexes in close proximity. One security company

is monitoring all three sites (via remote cameras),

requiring fewer personnel than would have been

needed without the cameras and thus making

more efficient use of security funds.

Trained resident patrols are an effective means of mobilizing residents’ vested interest in safety as well as a means of

formal surveillance. At the Chicago Housing Authority,

resident patrols have been successfully mounted under extreme conditions of disorder and violence in family high-rise

developments; among other effects, the patrols have improved communication among the residents and given participants a sense of control over their environments.4

 Police

substations or security offices can be created on-site at a

housing development (as was done at Lockwood Gardens) or

at an automatic bank teller facility, as was the case in Oak

Park, Illinois.5

Surveillance by employees involves enlisting individuals

who work in the target area—such as housing authority staff,

bus drivers, or crossing guards—to help identify problem

locations and individuals. This strategy asks those who are

already at a location to be an extra set of eyes and ears for

safety. Surveillance by employees, paired with greater vigilance by residents, can exponentially increase a community’s

capacity to monitor itself.

Improving natural surveillance can take the form of improved street and interior lighting, removal of non-seethrough fencing and barriers, and even pruning of trees,

shrubs, and hedges. Removing alcoves and other interior

blind spots, and redesigning vulnerable exterior areas such

as unattended parking lots or covered walkways, can also

improve opportunities for natural surveillance by residents

and others (see photo, this page). Relocating vulnerable

areas such as playgrounds to locations near sources of natural

surveillance is also effective.

With the goal of improving natural surveillance, the Macon

Housing Authority employees and residents, together with

power company employees, regularly tour the developments

At Castle Square Apartments, interior blind spots were

eliminated by adding a curtain wall at the street front (to

enclose open, recessed stairwells) and improving interior

lighting.

Photo 3-2

Improved Natural Surveillance Through

Redesign
30 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

at night to identify where new lighting might be installed.

When the Castle Square Apartments in Boston were rehabilitated, pedestrian tunnels from Tremont Street and Shawmut

Avenue into the site were closed, and a covered walkway

alongside the old supermarket was opened up to light, air,

and surveillance.

Removing inducements to crime may take the form of keeping a building’s apartments rented (as vacant units tend to be

targets for vandalism and run the risk of being turned into

drug houses), or banning overnight street parking (as has

been done in Oak Park).6 In Cleveland, Ohio, the police have

taken things a step further by housing officers who volunteer

for the program (on a rotating basis) in newly renovated

houses that had previously been abandoned.7

Signage and bans on use, sometimes known as symbolic

barriers, can be an effective means of controlling the environment. Strategies such as “Drug-Free Zones” and posted

guest and visitor policies or “No Trespassing” signs do,

however, rely on a level of enforcement adequate to maintain

their credibility. When such policies are not enforced, offenders quickly learn to ignore them. In Charlotte, there is

formalized cooperation between the police department and

the Charlotte Housing Authority (CHA). One or two officers

per district go through training with the CHA and become

“designated agents” of the housing authority who enforce

bans against individuals and generally enforce loitering and

trespassing regulations.

Selecting Approaches That Work for Your

Community

The most effective place-specific crime prevention strategies are those that take into account the geographic, cultural,

economic, and social characteristics of the target community. Thus, the selection of CPTED tactics and elements

should be made in close collaboration with the community,

after sustained observation of its current patterns of use, and

after the other steps in defining and analyzing the problem

have been accomplished (see chapter 2).

Environmental design solutions should be respectful of the

habits and behavior of law-abiding area residents. Restricting dealer access while preserving the area (or providing

alternative outdoor spaces) is preferable to removing

benches or removing trees and bushes if many residents will

miss the chance to sit outdoors. The community park at

Castle Square Apartments, a neighbor of the Villa Victoria

complex, was designed by a local architect with considerable

input from Chinese-American and other residents. The enclosed space has elements of an oriental garden. Now people

of all ages come to sit or play in an area that was once a

favorite hangout for derelicts and drunks. It is an oasis that

brings residents of all ethnic backgrounds together (see

photo this page). Villa Victoria, a housing development in

Boston’s South End that is home to a large Puerto Rican

population, was constructed around a central square, as is

often found in the Spanish Caribbean. Small shops and play

areas line the plaza, and on warm days older men and women,

as well as young families, sit out in the square. Over time, the

design has generally proven effective at giving residents a

sense that they live in a community. The goal, of course, is to

make the environment safe, but not at the expense of those

legitimately living or working in the community.

The community park at Castle Square Apartments, a neighbor of the Villa Victoria complex,

was designed by a local architect with considerable input from Chinese-American and other

residents. The enclosed space has elements of an

oriental garden. Now people of all ages come to

sit or play in an area that was once a favorite

hangout for derelicts and drunks. It is an oasis

that brings residents of all ethnic backgrounds

together (see photo this page).

A Community Park Replaces an Eyesore

Photo 3-3

The serene park at Castle Square occupies a site formerly

known for derelicts and drunken brawls.
Planning for Change: Program Design 31

Villa Victoria, a housing development in Boston’s

South End that is home to a large Puerto Rican

population, was constructed around a central

square, as is often found in the Spanish Caribbean. Small shops and play areas line the plaza,

and on warm days older men and women, as well

as young families, sit out in the square. Over time,

the design has generally proven effective at giving

residents a sense that they live in a community.

Maintaining a Menu of Approaches

The primer provided previously is not a comprehensive list

of every possible CPTED intervention, but it is designed to

offer an overview of strategies and tactics communities may

wish to employ in implementing their own place-specific

crime prevention approaches. Because some neighborhoods

have considerably more difficult or complex crime problems

than others, these communities may require more attention

and ingenuity in crafting effective strategies than the less

troubled ones. While the primer offers lessons for the broadest possible range of community types, the applicability of

these lessons to a particular site will vary considerably.

In acknowledgement of the fact that crime prevention is not

a “one size fits all” exercise, the Citizen’s Committee for

New York City has prepared a manual that lists “menus” of

different crime prevention strategies for use in different

situations. (Contact information for the Citizen’s Committee

is provided in appendix D.)

Identifying Resources

Assistance with security and crime prevention can come

from a variety of sources, and a wide range of them should be

considered in the program planning process. Communities

require access to a variety of skills in order to plan and

implement place-specific crime prevention strategies. Professionals such as architects, planners, and contractors may

be needed to work with the residents, managers, and police

on physical design changes. Experienced housing managers

can make a significant contribution to planning for management changes. And, of course, local law enforcement officials should play a role in planning security features of the

program.

In taking an inventory of resources, it makes sense to be overinclusive rather than narrowly focused. Fiscal austerity and

ever-increasing demands on law enforcement budgets (as on

city government more generally) are two central reasons for

widening the net; these are the same reasons suggested in

chapter 2 for using a broadened concept of place management that brings other players into the game. Thus, in

focusing attention on the roles of management and resident

organizations, this report suggests a number of less obvious

places to look for assistance in making neighborhoods and

housing complexes safer places to live.

Types of Resources

In all communities, there are untapped groups, individuals,

and even sources of funding that should not be overlooked in

planning a place-specific crime prevention program. The

major types of resources are training and technical assistance, funding, in-kind contributions, professional skills,

and institutional involvement. In scouting potential resources,

those planning a local program will want to consider these

questions:

• What is their relationship with local community-based

organizations, potential funding sources, local media,

police, and city government?

• How are relations between the target community and the

rest of the city generally?

• Are there issues on which residents have worked with

others in the past?

• Are there issues of concern to others in the community

with which they can assist? In other words, can a quid

pro quo be worked out?

• Are there pro bono or low-cost professional services

that can be relied on (such as advisors or researchers

from a local university)? If so, what sorts of services

should be obtained this way?

• Are any local businesses willing to contribute materials

and/or labor to assist with the physical redesign or

renovation (e.g., by donating dead-bolt locks, building

and construction labor, landscaping materials and tools,

or the like)?

In Oak Park, Illinois, the Austin Boulevard Alliance (a local

block association), the public/voluntary Housing Programs

Advisory Committee (HPAC), and the Oak Park Building

Owners/Managers Association all contribute to the village’s

effort to prevent and address problems with burglary and
32 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

related crime. All three groups serve as important sounding

boards against which the village has been able to try out ideas

like the Security Improvement Grant program.

Castle Square Apartments in Boston’s South End presents an

unusual example of a community in which all of the sometimes competing forces came together to create something

greater than the sum of its parts. A demonstration of the

breadth of the resources and expertise brought together in the

Castle Square negotiations is the fact that professional support and advisors to the Castle Square Tenants Organization

(CSTO), and to the project generally, included senior staff

from the state’s Community Economic Development Assistance Corporation, a Greater Boston Legal Services attorney, the police department’s Area D Deputy Superintendent,

Boston Redevelopment Authority staff, and State and Federal housing agency officials. Also involved in the Castle

Square project was the Massachusetts Housing Finance

Agency, which holds a $25 million purchase money mortgage on the property. With Community Development Block

Grant money and a city tax break, residents spearheaded

economic growth in the neighborhood by attracting a new,

neighborhood-oriented, independent supermarket to the site.

From the mid-1980’s, the Macon Housing Authority (MHA)

recognized the need for a comprehensive crime prevention

program in its public housing developments. The agency

consulted at length with the HUD regional administrator

about resident involvement, lease enforcement, tenant screening, greater police involvement, youth development, drug

education, and at-risk youth intervention programs. However, a $225,000 HUD demonstration project grant was not

enough to pay for the comprehensive approach everyone

wanted. The need for additional funding and expertise

prompted the housing authority to build a broader community coalition that included other city agencies and local

social service providers, thereby accessing expertise on drug

prevention and related services for residents. According to

the director of the MHA, “People have to trust you in order

for the program to work.” But it took trust coupled with

office space (in which to house social services and an on-site

police substation) to recruit agencies such as the Macon Arts

Alliance, the Family Counseling Center, and the Central

Georgia Center on Family Violence into the program. In

addition, Federal public housing modernization funding

enabled the MHA to create or rehabilitate on-site community

rooms for resident use, which in turn made it much easier to

get the residents involved.

In Tucson, the El Cortez Heights community has received

assistance from university students in horticulture classes

and from junior high students (who have joined in neighborhood and yard cleanups); artists and individuals with experience in construction have also volunteered their time. “If

you just ask, people are more than willing to help out,” notes

a Tucson organizer. As for area residents themselves, “They

just have to want it and work for it, and contact the right

people in their town to help them and give input. It’s hard

work, and people can help. You have to meet and organize

and decide what problems you want to deal with.”

Exhibit 6 shows the various types of resources used in

selected study sites. A number of the larger programs at other

sites (including Lockwood Gardens, Mar Vista Gardens,

Commonwealth, and Pitts Plaza) involved major redevelopment efforts under HUD funding for public housing modernization. The Comprehensive Grant Program is one source of

continuing support for large-scale physical redesign and

management improvements.

Priority or Key Resources

While Castle Square’s good fortune may not be typical of all

communities’ experiences with obtaining professional and

in-kind resources, local program planners need to think

creatively about resources that may be available to them in

their own communities. According to most respondents, four

resources in particular are indispensable to a community’s

crime prevention efforts:

• Police. For the Director of Anti-Crime Activities at the

Citizens Committee for New York City, police are a

particularly important resource because they can help

organize the community (as they often have money to do

so) and can help communities gain access to other

government agencies.

• Staff time from a nonprofit community-based organization (CBO). The CBO can serve as a catalyst in organizing the neighborhood, and the benefits of enlisting a

professional community organizer should not be underestimated.

• Volunteer time. While paid staff may be doing a great

job, without the residents’ involvement the project is far

less likely to succeed.

• Media. Media coverage to publicize victories and hold

politicians accountable is essential. The media should

be enlisted at the outset and can be kept informed of

local efforts through press releases and guided tours of

the target area. Specifically, the Citizens Committee for
Planning for Change: Program Design 33

New York City (CCNYC) encourages communities to

“. . . send press advisories. Talk to an editorial board.

Make this a broad issue that appeals to the media. Stress

the involvement of a core group of organizers, including

law enforcement and social service experts.”

Despite prior resident efforts, the Phoenix Project in Bridgeport, Connecticut, would never have gotten off the ground if

it were not for the enthusiastic support of the city’s police

chief and mayor. Both leaders threw themselves behind the

plan without reservation. In particular, their statements to the

local and Statewide press about Bridgeport’s problem—and

its solution—garnered much-needed interest and support for

the effort. Efforts to recruit in-kind support from the state

highway department and a local contractor directly benefited

from the public proclamations and behind-the-scenes encouragement that the mayor and police chief gave to the

project.

Elsewhere, priority or key resources that initially may not

have appeared all that special may, in fact, have been the

long-sought impetus behind a program. In Los Angeles, anticrime activities in the city’s public housing developments

started with a HUD Public Housing Drug Elimination Program (PHDEP) grant, which was later supplemented by

housing authority operating budget support. Despite this,

however, participation from other agencies was lacking. It

was not until a community center was constructed at the Mar

Vista Gardens development that service providers came

knocking. Residents and the Housing Authority of the City of

Los Angeles (HACLA) found that, once they had one service

provider on board, others wanted to be involved. At Mar

Vista Gardens, residents undertook a major effort to recruit

local providers. Companies and institutions donated goods,

services, and information to events.

No matter how valuable the contributions of professionals

and institutions recruited to help a program, they do not

Site

Training and

Technical

Assistance

Funding

Sources

In-Kind

Resources

Professional

Skills

Institutional

Involvement

El Cortez Heights

(Tucson, AZ)

Tucson Police

Department, NCPI

(CPTED)

Resident funds

for lighting,

Tucson Police

Department

Resident

volunteer labor

(door-to-door

survey)

Community

organizing

DPW Parks and

Recreation 

Five Oaks

(Dayton, OH)

Oscar Newman

(CPTED)

City of Dayton

CDBG funds

Resident

volunteer labor

Urban planning

and design 

FONIA, Traffic

Engineering

Department, DPW

Clinton Hill

(Brooklyn, NY)

Citizens Committee

for NYC

(CCNYC)

City of New

York CDBG

funds, CCNYC

mini-grant

Resident

volunteer labor,

residents as

plaintiffs

In-house

community

organizer,

Americorp, student

interns, legal skills

Police Department,

Brooklyn DA’s

Office, Department

of Housing Preservation and

Development

Phoenix Project 

(Bridgeport, CT)

Police Department

(CPTED)

Police

Department

discretionary

fund, drug

enforcement

mini-grant 

Jersey barriers

(Governor’s

Office), asphalt

finishing (local

contractor),

resident

volunteer labor

Architect, local

business/

community council

Highway

Department,

DPW, at-risk kids

initiative

CDBG = Community Development Block Grant; DPW = Department of Public Works; FONIA = Five

Oaks Neighborhood Improvement Association; NCPI = National Crime Prevention Institute.

Exhibit 6. Examples of Types of Resources Used at Selected Study Sites
34 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

outweigh the contribution of the residents themselves. The

knowledge, time, effort, dedication, and energy of residents

mobilized to improve their own housing complexes or neighborhoods are the most valuable resources of all for placespecific crime prevention efforts, particularly over the long

term. When the changes stop seeming new and the police

begin to focus on another neighborhood, the residents are

still there and still care.

First Steps: Where to Begin

Once a community’s crime problem has been defined and

analyzed, two different first steps are commonly taken to

begin a security program that combines design, management, and use changes. Some programs start with enhanced

policing and/or other security; others start with resident or

community organizing. In this section, the advantages of

each are examined, and some considerations are offered for

deciding where a specific local program should begin and

how it should proceed.

Enhanced Security

Among the study sites, both Lockwood Gardens (Oakland)

and Genesis Park (Charlotte) began with enhanced security.

In the Charlotte neighborhood, the first step was a community policing effort that began in 1991. It was a rather limited

effort at first, but it tackled an area with an entrenched

problem, an area that had made the transition from the worst

heroin to the worst crack cocaine market in Charlotte.

Previously, the police typically went into Kenney/Gibbs/

Wayt with 2- to 3-car backup (and 3 to 4 cars for a drug

sweep). With community policing, two Charlotte Police

Department officers went door-to-door in the neighborhood

during the daytime, meeting residents and gaining familiarity

with all the legal and illegal activity, the drug market patterns, and the drug and shot houses. The payoff for taking the

initial step with community policing includes the following:

• The officers developed a fine-grained and locationspecific familiarity with all the problems of crime and

disorder and identified a substantial number of hot

spots.

• Insights were gained about the relative roles played by

area residents (including squatters) and nonresidents in

the crime and disorder. The officers could predict which

illegal activities would move out under pressure and

which would need to be rooted out through changes in

property ownership and management.

• Area residents became familiar with the two community

policing officers and learned to rely on their presence.

As trust developed, so did information the police could

use to arrest dealers, seize guns and stolen goods, and

trigger housing code enforcement. Small improvements

began to take hold.

In this way, community policing set the stage for the initial

purchases of property by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing Partnership (CMHP). The police put up traffic barriers to

stop drive-throughs and escapes when CMHP became the

principal property owner. Then, the Drug Interdiction Unit

began using CMHP houses for stakeouts and strictly enforced antiloitering and trespassing statutes. When these

actions shifted drug buyers to other markets, the sellers,

following their customers, began to move out. Control had

been reestablished, and public safety became a possibility

again in the neighborhood.

At Lockwood Gardens, the Oakland Housing Authority

(OHA) had tried harsh policing tactics to combat crime and

drugs, but the agency’s security operation had been tainted

by civil liberties violations and corruption in 1989 and 1990.

As a result, when OHA received its initial PHDEP grant from

HUD in 1990, no security component was funded.8

 Under

this grant, some CPTED elements were implemented (primarily improved lighting), as well as extensive youth programming and an effort to organize a residents’ association.

But, according to the Oakland Police Department (OPD)

lieutenant who came (on loan) to head the OHA’s security

program in 1991, “For an entrenched drug and crime

presence, you need more than physical or prevention programming.” Perhaps it was no surprise, then, when an

evaluation of the early PHDEP efforts at Lockwood Gardens

showed that there had been no change in the blatant and

serious drug and crime activity, that intimidation and harassment of residents by the dealers continued, and that the high

level of fear among residents remained.9

A new and different approach was clearly needed. As the

OPD lieutenant built a more professional security operation

with stricter recruitment and training, he also worked within

the OHA to reanalyze the situation at Lockwood. The idea of

fencing the site—first suggested by a security consultant—

became part of a new PHDEP grant application in 1991.

However, even while the grant was funded by HUD and the

OHA began serious work with residents and designers on

physical changes, the OHA security department chose a

community policing effort as a fresh start to enhance security

in the development. One officer was assigned to Lockwood

full-time and spent his shifts walking, meeting people, and
Planning for Change: Program Design 35

going door-to-door to introduce himself to the residents.10

This occurred at the same time that, according to another

officer, the Oakland police generally needed two cars to

drive through the site: “You couldn’t leave a police car on

the street and walk in [when answering a call]; you drove up

on the lawn to get as close as possible to where you were

going. OPD wouldn’t come through here without three cars!

They were shot at; bottles and rocks were thrown.” As in

Charlotte, community policing in this drug-ridden and dangerous site had several important payoffs, including improved information, the beginning of resident trust, and some

reduction in resident fear and pessimism. According to the

OHA’s district manager for East Oakland, community policing was needed to build bridges with the residents, to enable

the police to be seen as part of the solution rather than part of

the problem (a hard sell after the security scandal): “Community policing creates an atmosphere of communication

and respect; you don’t treat residents as the problem (as

police did in the past) but emphasize the partnership of police

and residents. You build trust.”

With the completion of an attractive perimeter fence around

Lockwood in early 1994 came an intensive coordinated

security effort combining sworn OHA officers with private

security guards. There was one officer on-site 24 hours a day,

supervising three to four guards. The kiosks at the entrances

to the sites were manned, and every car coming through was

stopped. This high-visibility effort was sustained for 7 months,

with substantial visible impact on the level of street drug

activity and intimidation.11 Changes in OHA management

and maintenance occurred at the same time, and resident

participation began to increase.

It obviously matters what form the initial enhanced security

takes. Lockwood Gardens and Genesis Park started with

community policing, which had particular advantages much

appreciated by both residents and managers. By contrast, in

Norfolk’s Diggs Town public housing development, the

initial security step took the form of focused patrol. Some

residents saw the police crackdown (without prior communication from the police department) as heavy-handed. The

negative reaction to this policing mode lasted for some time.

Further, the police crackdown did not rid the area of drugs for

long, since it was believed that “the police just [drove] by as

an exercise.” Some dealers were soon back standing on

corners. Later improvements in Diggs Town were attributed

not to security activity but to increasing cooperation among

residents, the housing authority, the school board, and social

service agencies.

Resident Organization

Several of the sites studied for this report chose resident or

community organizing as their first step in place-specific

crime prevention. Castle Square Apartments (CSA) in Boston, Clinton Hill in New York City, and El Cortez Heights in

Tucson all began with a grass-roots effort and incorporated

security, physical, and property management changes later.

The former president of the CSTO moved into the complex

in 1980 and remembers how she saw it slide downhill. An

initial, unsuccessful effort to organize the tenants was made

in 1985, when condominium conversion was widespread in

Boston and rumors of CSA being on the market first surfaced. In 1987, when the threat of sale became real, organizing was tried again, and this time a strong response led to the

formation of CSTO. With support from many residents, and

with encouragement and technical assistance from a number

of public and private agencies, CSTO played from a very

strong hand as negotiations of the sale proceeded.

From the prospective buyer’s point of view, in 1987 the

Castle Square property was clearly being neglected, and yet

it was attractive for upgrading as rental property or conversion to condos. The buyer negotiated a 3-year option to

purchase. During a period of extended negotiations with

HUD, the residents made their voices heard; for example,

they were able to obtain a substantial cash settlement from

the seller, on the grounds that management neglect had made

their living circumstances unhealthy and dangerous. This led

to a meeting between CSTO and the buyer and ultimately to

development of a legal partnership between them. The deal

covered acquisition, rehabilitation, and long-term management of the complex (using a “seamless design/build/manage approach”), with both partners fully involved in all

aspects. At the end of 15 years, CSTO will come into full

ownership of the development.

One element of the Castle Square story does resemble that of

sites starting their crime prevention programs with enhanced

security. Three months before the sale of CSA to the partnership became final, a drug dealer pulled a knife on the leader

of the residents’ group, and the property owner did not

respond even to this example of violence at the site. The

incident convinced the buyer to put a security force in place

then and there, even before legal ownership. A paid security

force and a paid Boston Police Department detail were

assigned to CSA for some months, while new management

took over and the property was rehabilitated; the detail was

gradually phased out and the level of security was reduced

once site control was regained.
36 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

In the Clinton Hill area of Brooklyn, the crime prevention

program started in 1992, when there was a string of murders

in the neighborhood; the death of a shopkeeper who was

known and liked by many residents was the final straw,

according to one resident activist. The residents formed the

Clinton Hill Block Association (CHBA). When contacts

with the police produced no cooperation or crime data,

CHBA moved forward on its own, with advice and assistance

from CCNYC. Sure that the murders were related to heavy

drug dealing in the neighborhood, residents used their own

experience and knowledge of local conditions to determine

the type of crime they wanted to target: the problem of

abandoned buildings housing drug markets.

Involving the police and DA’s office was a long and difficult

process, but finally the police did identify 1000 Fulton

Avenue as a particularly active drug house. Members of the

CHBA then brought individual civil suits alleging nuisance

against the owner of that building. (The CHBA was afraid to

bring suit in its own name against the owner, out of fear of

potential retaliation). The organization had to convince the

DA’s office to pursue the cases and convince the police to

give them information to support the claim that this building

was a menace. Considerable time was then spent going to

court to follow the case through. The judge eventually ruled

that the building would have to be securely boarded up (in the

short term) and later remodeled to allow police access and

legal use. After this first victory, police and resident relations

improved, as police began to trust residents more and residents felt more empowered. Unfortunately, the landlord did

not make appropriate renovations, and in a second round, the

court ruled that the building had to be permanently boarded

up.

The first steps taken in Tucson’s El Cortez Heights neighborhood were similar to those in Clinton Hill: organizing the

residents. However, in this case, the police played an important role in helping the neighborhood get mobilized. The

Tucson Police Department (TPD) had operated Safe by

Design (a CPTED program) and Crime-Free Multihousing

programs with grant funds, and they were ready to assist El

Cortez Heights residents with crime data and with organizing

advice. According to one neighborhood association member, residents started by meeting with the police officers,

obtained assistance from them, and then formed a community action team that went door-to-door in the area, asking

people about problems in the neighborhood. Organizing a

neighborhood watch, they obtained statistics from the TPD

on a variety of felonies and misdemeanors (aggravated

assault, burglaries, car theft, malicious mischief, domestic

violence, weapons, prostitution, narcotics violations, juvenile violations). While it appeared that most of the crime was

committed by people coming from outside the neighborhood, there were also a few undesirables living there. Residents then discussed the results of the crime analysis and

problem survey at a larger community meeting in order to

clarify each problem, suggest solutions, and set priorities.

According to one resident,

[We] formed a neighborhood association recognized by the

city, with a political voice. The police were initially aggressive in enforcement, and they also did neighborhood watch

and community-based work. They [the residents’ association] needed to get people involved, and fortunately they did,

because they saw some good things happen fairly soon, and

that inspired them to keep with it.

Choosing Where to Begin

The experiences of these sites and the related literature

suggest that the choice of starting point for a place-specific

crime prevention program should be made based on answers

to the following questions:

• Are residents of the housing complex or neighborhood

too frightened or too embattled by crime and drugs to

come out and participate in anticrime efforts or community organizations?

• Is there no existing community organization that could

add security and crime prevention to its issue agenda?

• Are the police unused to working directly with citizens’

groups or unresponsive to residents’ requests for information or assistance?

• Is the police department operating in a reactive rather

than proactive mode, primarily responding to calls for

service rather than moving toward community policing

or problem-oriented policing?

If the answer to the first two questions is “yes”—that is, if

residents are too frightened and isolated by the level of crime

and disorder in the neighborhood and if there is no existing

community organization that can take on the issue from a

resident base—then experience argues for starting with

enhanced security. The police department should be part of

this effort, although (if the department’s means or willingness are limited) it may be necessary to find resources for

private security as well.
Planning for Change: Program Design 37

On the other hand, if the answer to the last two questions is

“yes”—that is, if the situation is characterized by an unresponsive and/or reactive police force—then it may be necessary to organize residents first, even though this can be

difficult under severe conditions. Finding allies—through

the process of identifying and enlisting key players (as

discussed in chapter 2)—will be all the more necessary in

such cases, as the support of these allies can encourage and

reassure residents in their efforts to organize. At the same

time, if a public agency, such as the housing authority or the

mayor’s office, can supply the impetus and pressure needed

to evoke a police response, this action will probably prove

critical to initiating changes to improve security and prevent

crime.

Getting Ahead of the Problem

Another option—most appropriate for communities where

the crime problem is incipient rather than entrenched—is to

be proactive. By bringing police and residents together

before the problem grows, a broad-based place-specific

crime prevention program can be more easily designed and

implemented. Of the four main sites examined for this report,

only Oak Park could really get ahead of the crime problem.

In fact, by being proactive, Oak Park has been able to prevent

neighborhood deterioration, encourage racial diversity without resegregation, and largely avoid the kinds of security

problems experienced by other sites.

Endnotes

1. S.L. Sorensen and E. Walsh, Crime Prevention Through

Environmental Design and Situational Crime Prevention in Public Housing: Workshop Curriculum, HUD

Crime Prevention and Security Division, Technical Assistance Workshop(s) (Bethesda, MD: SPARTA Consulting Corporation, March 1995).

2. To maximize the effectiveness of intercoms and buzzer

systems, residents should be trained in their proper use.

3. These are all privately owned complexes with mortgages

from the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency

(MHFA). That agency is now spending $3 million annually on security for some 9,000 units in three Boston

neighborhoods. The MHFA looks on the security expenditure as wise asset management, as the security program

protects a multimillion dollar investment.

4. T. Hammett, J. Feins, T. Mason, and I. Ellen, Public

Housing Drug Elimination Program Resource Document: Final Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Housing and Urban Development, n.d.), 95, 124, 128;

see also S.J. Popkin et al., An Evaluation of the Chicago

Housing Authority’s Anti-Drug Initiative: A Model of

Comprehensive Crime Prevention in Public Housing

(Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc., October 1995).

5. O.P. Burden, “Promoting a Bright Idea from Abroad,”

Law Enforcement News, February 14, 1995. In Japan,

the koban (mini-station) brings a police presence into

every neighborhood and village. Borrowing from the

Japanese model, several U.S. cities (including Los Angeles, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and San Juan, Puerto Rico)

have established kobans.

6. In 1995, the overnight parking ban was relaxed in some

areas to provide more parking, helping landlords compete with other areas for good tenants.

7. The program is one component of Cleveland’s Youth

Firearms Violence Initiative, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice.

8. The OHA applied for security funding, but HUD did not

approve it because of the recent widely publicized security abuses.

9. T. Hammett, J. Feins, T. Mason, and I. Ellen, Public

Housing Drug Elimination: Program Resource Document: Final Report: 115, 124. See also the accompanying volume of case studies (Public Housing Drug Elimination Program Resource Document: Case Studies):

251–83.

10. Officer Jerry Williams received a special citation from

Attorney General Janet Reno for his innovative and

entrepreneurial approach to police work.

11. Discussing his year on the graveyard shift at Lockwood

Gardens, one officer said that at those hours of the night,

the people he encountered were mostly nonresidents. He

would stop and query everyone he met; after

2 months, there was no one around within the development. He then extended his foot patrol beyond the

boundaries and cleared an area two blocks around the

site.
Making Changes: Program Implementation 39

Chapter 4

Making Changes: Program

Implementation

In this chapter, the implementation of place-specific crime

prevention programs is discussed from two perspectives:

changing the physical environment and changing the management structure or practice. Changes in use and the results

that sites have achieved are examined in chapter 5.

Changing the Physical Environment

Changing the physical environment in a neighborhood or

housing complex may involve a wide range of applications

of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED)

strategies and tactics. As discussed in chapter 3, the changes

may involve reconfiguring the relationship between interior

and exterior space (e.g., by altering the shape or appearance

of the common areas, controlling access to the area or

building through fencing or gates, target hardening through

the installation of sturdy doors, locks, or grills). The changes

may redefine the boundaries between private and public

space (e.g., by creating private yards or individual unit

entrances), or they may open up hidden areas and create the

possibility of surveillance where there was none before. In

most of the instances described here, the physical redesign

involves a number of physical changes grouped together in

a way that addresses place-specific problems of crime and

disorder.

Further, at all of the sites visited for this report, physical

design changes have been coordinated with changes in site

management and use. Involving residents in street cleanups

or planting trees and flower beds to signal ownership and

care are actually hybrid activities that involve changing both

the physical environment and management practice in a

community. Because of this inevitable overlap, some hybrid

practices are included in this section, even though they could

have been discussed in the next section or in chapter 5. The

hybrid practices described in this section are not repeated in

later sections.

In Oakland, California, the place-specific crime prevention

strategy pursued at Lockwood Gardens included improved

site lighting, the addition of perimeter fencing and security

gates, the repair of building exteriors, and new landscaping,

including entrance signs announcing the Lockwood Gardens

Community (see photo this page). The perimeter fences are

8 and 12 feet in height, while waist-high fencing was installed

along 66th Avenue to restrict access to the front yards of units

facing that street. There are new security gates at 65th

Avenue and East 14th Street, at both ends of Fenham, and at

Eastlawn and 66th Avenue. The Fenham gates are padlocked, and the other two gates are designed to provide

access through a magnetic card/keypad opening system

(exhibit 7).1

The fencing and gates make it difficult for fleeing suspects to

run into Lockwood Gardens from East 14th Street to hide, or

for drug dealers to do business from apartments in the

development.2 The kiosks at the gates imply regular surveillance, although they are no longer staffed full-time by security guards. Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) staff know

that the access control would be much more effective if the

The new entrance sign and guard kiosk signal the physical

and management changes in Lockwood Gardens.

New Lockwood Gardens Entrance and Fencing

Photo 4-1
40 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods Exhibit 7. Lockwood Gardens Site Plan with Security Improvements
Making Changes: Program Implementation 41

gates were kept shut. Presently, however,

they stay open, because these are public

streets and the Oakland City Attorney has

ruled that OHA would have to take them

over (as private streets) in order to keep the

gates closed. This would mean assuming all

financial responsibility for infrastructure and

street repairs and replacements, responsibilities the OHA cannot afford.3

At Castle Square Apartments in Boston’s

South End, numerous security-related physical changes were made to the complex during an extensive renovation of the buildings

and site (exhibit 8). Among the four programs visited for this report, Castle Square

undoubtedly represents the most thorough

and careful physical redesign for security

and crime prevention.

Oak Park, Illinois, has made extensive use of

cul-de-sacs in an effort to control traffic,

improve safety, strengthen neighborhoods,

and enhance property values. Cul-de-sacs

also help to address the problem of burglary, which the

village views as its primary crime concern. Numerous culde-sacs have been created on the northern and eastern

boundaries of the village. These street closings along Austin

Boulevard and North Avenue limit access from Chicago (on

Oak Park’s north and east sides) to selected traffic corridors.

Automobile use of the alleyways behind residences is restricted to individuals who live there or have legitimate

business in the area. Other cars, trucks, or pedestrians

traveling the alleys are viewed with suspicion and can be

stopped and ticketed.

To soften their appearance, plantings and trees have been

placed at the traffic barriers that create the cul-de-sacs.

According to one Austin Boulevard landlord and resident,

“The cul-de-sacs add resident parking and beauty and keep

people and cars away. A cul-de-sac at my block was a

consideration, a plus in my decision to buy the property. Culde-sacs can add to value and help me to know my neighbors.”

Today, cul-de-sacs are created only by request of area

residents. Those that do get approved are subject to an initial

trial and review process, through which the village assesses

their likely effectiveness.

Oak Park’s Security Improvement Grant (SIG) program—a

cost-sharing program run by the village to improve building

security—is the other major element of the village’s strategy

for changes in physical design. Once an application for the

program has been processed, an officer from the Oak Park

Police Department’s Crime Prevention Unit conducts an

inspection of the candidate building. The inspections, which

routinely take about 1 hour, focus on access control, target

hardening, lighting, and other tactics for making older buildings less vulnerable to contemporary criminal methods.

Traditional target-hardening tactics and improved lighting

on the outside of the property (as well as for basements and

other interior common areas) have been emphasized. SIG

inspections also often propose the pruning of landscaping

that can provide cover for burglars or others.

The portion of Oak Park with the highest population density

is a stretch of Austin Boulevard. More than 50 percent of

Austin Boulevard’s buildings have received SIGs since the

program was started in late 1990. On this street, some

building owners have sought to overcome the public perception of a local crime problem by changing building addresses—e.g., from Austin Boulevard to an east/west street

name. Others have gated and fenced the Austin Boulevard

side of their properties, moving the building entrance to the

east/west street (see photo this page).

Exhibit 9 shows the elements of the SIG inspection in Oak

Park. For each item, the inspector indicates either an [S] for

Secure or a [U] for Unsecured. The inspector also prepares

New Entrance for an Apartment Building in Oak Park

Photo 4-4

The new side-street entrance for this building, as well as fencing and

other physical improvements, were partially funded by a Security

Improvement Grant from the Village of Oak Park.
42 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

Exhibit 8. Elements of Physical Design Changes

at Castle Square Apartments

Access control

• Mid-rise buildings have full buzzer/intercom/closed-circuit TV systems so residents can control access.

For security reasons, no names appear next to the buzzers (on the assumption that visitors know where

their friends and family live).

• At the rear of mid-rise buildings, the back stairs can no longer be accessed; they are screened closed

and extra paths through the back have been cut off.

• Roof-top porches have been removed to prevent access, and remaining fire exits are only for leaving

the building.

• Perimeter fencing and gates have created a complex pattern of closed areas and multiple gates, with

no access to certain areas and ample access to others.

• The gate at the rear of the development is locked from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Security has the keys.

• Bollards (thick posts) were added to block automobile access to the alleyway next to the supermarket.

• Several tunnels running between Shawmut Avenue and Tremont Street and the interior of the complex

have been closed. Previously, these areas were forbidding for residents and tempting for muggers.

• The basketball court and play yards remain largely open, but users now need to enter the play areas from

inside the development.

• At the second level of the duplexes, there are now locked entry and bells for the upper apartments.

• The corner of Shawmut Avenue and East Berkeley Street had been a major hangout location. Now

fenced off, the corner has been attractively landscaped, still retaining its large semicircular stone

bench, but access is now only from inside the site.

• The parking garage on Paul Place is now leased to New England Medical Center, with a condition that

150 resident spaces plus 24-hour security (even though employees are not there at night) be maintained

by the medical center.

• Buzzer systems, surveillance cameras, and other security devices have been installed at the Castle

Square Tenants Organization (CSTO) office and at the management office. The complex also has a keycard system.

Defensible space

• Along the front of the complex, lighting was added, and a fresh paint job has brightened the walkway,

so that residents and neighbors feel safe walking along this side of the block.
Making Changes: Program Implementation 43

Exhibit 8. Elements of Physical Design Changes

 at Castle Square Apartments (continued)

• What had been a dark, roofed walkway (often used as a driveway) next to an A&P supermarket

adjacent to the housing along Tremont Street has been opened up: the roof was removed, the walkway

redone with plantings, lighting improved.

• The backyards of the duplexes are individually fenced, with space for each unit.

• The entryways of mid-rise buildings, which had open stairs recessed from the street and insufficient

lighting, have been redesigned. Entryways are now enclosed (by a curtain wall aligned with the

storefronts), and tenants can look into the well-lit entrance halls before entering.

• Throughout the site, the duplexes formerly had wooden fenced areas (next to the front walks) to hide

residents’ trash barrels. Prowlers hid there, too. In the redesign, the fences were removed and the areas

attractively landscaped.

• At the Boston Housing Authority (BHA) development for the elderly that shares the site, redesign has

opened up the elevator lobby to view.

• Old cloudy Plexiglas around the duplex stairs has been replaced with clear glass, and extra lighting has

been added to stairwells.

• Parking lots were redesigned to give more residents spaces within the site. They have camera

surveillance and are regularly monitored for illegal parking or abandoned cars. The security office is

located in a small office, accessible through the Village Court parking lot.

Target hardening

• New secure mailboxes were added to the BHA elderly development.

• Uniform, sturdy gates have been installed on all of the commercial storefronts along Tremont Street.

Deflecting the offender

• A row of pay phones along the side of the supermarket has been removed; the phones were often used

by prostitutes frequenting the area.

• Enclosing the mid-rise building entrances has reduced loitering in the entrances by nonresidents.

• One basketball court has had its hoop removed because nonresidents were playing and drinking there.

• The corner of Tremont and East Berkeley Streets used to be littered with old mattresses and sofas and

had become a major loitering location where the homeless would sleep. Now fenced in, the location

has been turned into an oriental-style garden based on a plan that residents developed with the

landscape architect.
44 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

a narrative description of what can be done to remedy

problems and improve security. To illustrate the kinds of

changes made under the program, two buildings treated

under SIG are described below.

The first is a multifamily building on the southern boundary

of the Eisenhower Expressway in Oak Park. Most of the SIG

changes that have been made to the building involve targethardening, as follows:

• New locks and window latches have been installed on

outer doors, and the buzzer system has been moved from

an indoor alcove to the outside of the building.

• New, secure mailboxes have been installed, and—for

security reasons—only last names are used on the boxes.

• New fluorescent lighting fixtures have replaced many of

the old incandescent bulbs, and lighting throughout the

building is on timers. New lights have been installed in

the apartments, and there is new lighting in the building’s

basement and on the interior stairs. Where incandescent

lighting remains, protection has been provided around

the bulbs.

• Plexiglas covers have been secured over the basement

windows, with glass blocks used on the boiler room

window and the laundry room windows (which require

ventilation).

• A jimmy-proof lock has been installed on the basement

door, and a 24-hour light has replaced incandescent

lighting in the basement. Illumination of the public area

in the basement has been an important change.

• New storm doors with dead-bolt locks have been installed on the rear entry of apartments that are accessible

at the ground floor. Lock stops have been placed on all

apartment windows (the village code requires working

windows), and Plexiglas panels have been placed over

the glass section of rear apartment doors. The transoms

on these doors have also been reinforced.

According to the building’s manager, since the SIG renovation, “tenants who leave doors and windows opened are now

our biggest source of problems. This is a problem even

where targets have been hardened.”

The second building that illustrates SIG is a 1960’s vintage

multi-family building in a very pretty section of Oak Park.

Because of the building’s open but obscured courtyard and

waist-high plate glass windows, the property was highly

burglary-prone. The building’s most significant safety improvements include:

• A 6-foot wrought iron fence has been installed across the

front of the apartment complex. Access is now through

a locked gate in the center of the fence. Visitors can be

buzzed-in by apartment residents.

• Sturdy metal grating has been placed over low groundfloor windows around the sides of the building. These

grates can be released/opened from inside the apartments.

• A problem identified at this property and many others

involves unsecured air conditioners; these can be easily

removed to offer thieves access to apartments (as well as

to the air conditioners themselves). The SIG inspections

always suggest that air conditioners be secured from

inside the apartment, so that they can neither be pushed

inside nor pulled out.

• Other scheduled security improvements include the

installation of storm window inserts on outer bathroom

windows and replacement of the mailboxes.

Simple ideas that often get overlooked can make a difference

as well. The officer who conducts most of Oak Park’s SIG

inspections always recommends putting signs to label the

doors leading to the boiler room (and other equipment) to

prevent people from thinking there is something in the room

worth stealing. Similarly, he advises building owners to

avoid inadvertently advertising that property is there for the

taking by keeping building, garage, and shed doors closed

when not in use.

Owner-occupants tend to be the Oak Park building owners

who follow the officer’s suggestions most diligently, perhaps

because they have the greatest stake in keeping their areas

crime-free. According to the village’s rehabilitation supervisor, those most likely to take advantage of the SIG program

and “the best building owners and managers tend to be locals

and others who believe or buy into Oak Park’s philosophy

about crime prevention and diversity.”

A final element of Oak Park’s focus on physical changes to

reduce crime and disorder concerns auto theft. Under the

Beat Auto Theft (BAT) program, the Oak Park Police

Department offers village residents a free rear-window sticker

that allows police to stop their cars between the hours of

1 a.m. and 5 a.m. The purpose of the sticker is to prevent auto
Making Changes: Program Implementation 45

Exhibit 9. Elements of Security Improvement Grant Program Inspection

Oak Park, Illinois

theft, by warning that the drivers of stickered cars will be

obliged to produce valid drivers’ licenses and auto ownership papers when stopped by police. If drivers do not

produce the documents, they will be detained until the car’s

ownership is verified. The sticker reads as follows:

In Genesis Park, traffic modification through the installation

of barriers on Brewton Drive (formerly Wayt Street) has

created a cul-de-sac on a once crime-plagued street. The

change has stopped drivers from turning left onto Eureka and

peeling out, while barriers on Peaceful Way and Tinnin

prevent cars from circling the block. Requests have been

made for improvements to the fence that divides the interstate from the neighborhood.

Although not expressly a physical crime prevention strategy,

addressing the “broken windows” syndrome through the

clean-up of area lots, the boarding-up of vacant houses, and

the repair of streets, sidewalks, and curbs may deter those

who select their targets by looking for signs of neglect in a

community (see photo, page 46).4 A new sign at the entrance

to the area and new landscaping (trees and flowers) help send

the message that Genesis Park is a cared-for community.

Commonwealth Apartments is a 12-acre public housing

development in the Brighton section of Boston that originally consisted of 600 apartments. Before Commonwealth

was redesigned, its interior hallways, building lobbies,

entryways, and parking areas were widely feared by residents and neighbors alike. The buildings’ courtyards, a

nearby park, and a walkway leading to Brighton High School

were also feared as being crime-ridden. Stolen cars would

routinely turn up in the parking lots, and drug use was

common in building hallways. Lighting, where it existed,

was inadequate; lights would often be shot out.

Oak Park Police

Auto Theft Program

WARNING

This vehicle can be stopped by any authorized

law enforcement officer in Illinois between

the hours of 1 - 5 a.m.

En tr an ce /lobb y Lights Apartments Rea r entrance Basement and

laundry

Outer do or

Intercom

Inner doo r

Hinges

L ock (s)

L ock gu ard(s)

D oo r jamb

M ailboxes

Name on bell

C ellar entrance

O utside door

Lobby

Sta ir w ay

Door

V iew er s

Hinges

M ortise lo ck

Rim loc k

L ock gu ard

D oo r jamb (stop 

 strip )

Transom

W indow s (w or king 

 lock s and stops)

M ounted air 

 c onditioner

D oo r(s) p er im eter

L ock /latch

Por ch /stair

L ighting

Ap artment door

Locks

W indow s

Transom

A ddr ess visible

Door(s)

Hinges

L ock (s)

W indow s

 (protected/secured )

L ock er s secure

O the r

Basement

(Residential)

G arage O ther

Door/front

Door/rear

D oo r/sid e

Hinges

Locks

W indow s

W alls

O the r

D oo r/sid e

Doo r/over head

L ighting

Hinges

L ock (s)

W indow s

S kylights

A ir cond itionin g

 op ening

Shrubbery

Roo f access

Bicy cle ID
46 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

The redevelopment reworked the existing structures substantially. The most striking change was probably the shift

from common-entryway buildings to townhouses. For the

architects charged with redesigning Commonwealth Apartments, creating defensible space required reducing the population density, increasing the amount of living space indoors

and outside, and placing the playgrounds and tot lots within

view of the townhouses. The number of units was reduced

to 392 (114 of which are reserved for the elderly). Lighting

and locks were improved. The management office was

relocated to a place from which the entire development can

be monitored. (The old office was in the basement and

offered little opportunity for natural surveillance.) Discussing Commonwealth, a professor of planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology explained:

Even the worst of large, concentrated housing projects can be

rejuvenated. Boston’s Commonwealth development is now

arguably the single greatest success story in the country of

turning around a severely distressed development. It took a

determined—and $30 million—effort by the housing authority, the project’s tenant organization, and a private

developer to make it happen, but the result is not just a tenant

population that has the highest employment rate among

public housing residents in the city, it is a housing project

where suburbanites actually park their cars before taking

public transit downtown.5

At Grant Manor, another private complex in Boston’s South

End neighborhood near Castle Square, a new camera system

was installed on the first floor of the development’s high-rise

building. The eight pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) cameras can see at

night, and on clear days they can see for almost a mile.

Cameras were also installed in the hallways and elevators.

Secured side doors with stronger doors and locks (connected

to an alarm system, so that if someone exits, the alarm sounds

and the camera is activated) supplement the efforts of a single

security officer who roams the development 24 hours per

day. Motion sensors in the upper hallways and on rooftops,

improved lighting, and keeping trees pruned to improve

visibility for the cameras are other strategies being employed

at Grant Manor.

Even the worst of large, concentrated housing

projects can be rejuvenated. Boston’s Commonwealth development is now arguably the single

greatest success story in the country of turning

around a severely distressed development. It took

a determined—and $30 million—effort by the

housing authority, the project’s tenant organization, and a private developer to make it happen,

but the result is not just a tenant population that

has the highest employment rate among public

housing residents in the city, it is a housing project

where suburbanites actually park their cars before taking public transit downtown.

— Lawrence Vale, Massachusetts

 Institute of Technology

Grant Manor is part of a program being run by the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (MHFA), with funding from

HUD. This program strives to return former HUDforeclosed properties to private ownership, with the resident

involvement and physical improvements needed to make the

housing viable in the long run. The properties are to be sold

to resident-based organizations. MHFA holds the permanent mortgage for Grant Manor and considers the security

program necessary to protect that investment.

At Grant Manor, several months of working with residents

preceded the security improvements. The whole process was

resident-centered, so that residents knew the security plan,

knew how things would work, and got what they wanted. One

result is that resident calls to security and the police are now

Even vacant houses awaiting rehabilitation by the

CharlotteBMecklenburg Housing Partnership (CMHP)

have neat yards cleared of trash and overgrown foliage.

Signs of New Management in Genesis Park

Photo 4-6
Making Changes: Program Implementation 47

much more specific and helpful, so that officers can more

easily respond to emergencies and make arrests.

Important components of the Grant Manor program are

resident education and participation in a coalition that includes the Boston Police Department. MHFA also trains all

the private security guards on cultural diversity and tries to

hire bilingual officers (Spanish- or Creole-speaking). At this

private housing complex, where many residents are of Haitian descent, understanding Haitian norms is important if the

guards want to build trust among residents, who are likely to

distrust police due to experiences in their native country.

Changing Management: Who’s in

Charge Here?

The changes made in the management of housing complexes

and neighborhoods bear a vital connection to the physical

changes examined previously. Management changes support, reinforce, and maintain the preventive effects of CPTED

modifications on disorder and illegal activities. Indeed,

some argue that physical changes by themselves—without

management reinforcement—will not bring about the desired improvements in public safety and quality of life.

Chapter 2 of this report offered a broadened definition of

management: the responsibility for maintaining order in one

or more aspects of a place. Under this definition, a variety of

participants have actual or potential roles in the management

of specific places. As important as the need to link physical

redesign to a detailed analysis of the relationship between

crime and place is the need to make management changes

that recognize and build on the particular context. By

keeping in mind the contrast between management practices

before and after the security and crime prevention initiatives,

it becomes obvious how many different aspects of the housing complexes and communities were addressed, and how

the various management changes were interconnected and

reinforced one another.

Management changes designed specifically to improve security are discussed first. Security changes involve police,

private security guards, and residents, and affect how each

group understands its responsibilities for order and safety

and how it carries them out. The section concludes with a

review of the elements of changed property management

practices.

Making Changes in Security Management

In the place-specific crime prevention context, improving

security may involve making changes in policing, in private

security arrangements, and in the role residents play in crime

prevention. Each of these management changes is addressed

here; the four visited sites are discussed first followed by a

wider set of site examples.

The prevailing conditions at Oak Park, Lockwood Gardens,

Genesis Park, and Castle Square Apartments that led key

players to initiate security and crime prevention changes at

these sites have been described previously. Physical redesign addressed a range of factors that contributed to crime

and disorder in these neighborhoods and housing complexes,

such as easy access and exit from the site, anonymous open

spaces, unlit public areas, and passageways used for hidden

transactions. The changes in physical design were careful

and thorough, as described in the previous section. The

changes in security management were equally careful and

thorough; they are summarized in exhibit 10.

In the Kenney/Gibbs/Wayt neighborhood of Charlotte, security management had been the sole responsibility of the

police. The Charlotte Police Department was in a totally

reactive policing mode, responding in force to calls for

service from the area but absent otherwise. The changes in

security for Genesis Park—which began with community

policing and continued with police assistance (e.g., escorts

for workers during the first 9 months)—were critical to the

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing Partnership’s (CMHP’s)

success in recruiting the initial homebuyers. They also enabled homebuyers to finish the rehabilitation of their units

with “sweat equity” (their own labor). When the first few

residents moved in, CMHP bought beepers for the community police officers. Residents had the community police

officers’ beeper numbers and could signal them if trouble

was brewing. The police always called back from “clean”

phones (not their car phones), so no one could intercept the

call and retaliate against the reporter. As CMHP continued

to acquire and shut down the drug houses and shot houses,

disorder was reduced, enabling the new residents’ presence

to be felt in the neighborhood. Police were given the key to

the model home and could use it at night, stopping to make

a call, grab some coffee, or do some paperwork. CMHP also

bought bicycles so the police could ride in the neighborhood

(which attracted attention when houses were being shown).

The streets were brought under control, one by one, through
48 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

this combination of security, public and private management, and resident action.

A combination of community policing, private security, and

paid police details was needed at Castle Square Apartments

during the period in which the partnership of developer and

residents acquired the complex and carried out the redesign

and rehabilitation. Before the new partnership took over,

there was no communication between management and the

police, no monitoring or enforcement of loitering or trespassing regulations, no restrictions on parking by nonresidents, and no real effort to maintain public safety. In

contrast, the new management company supervises the private security force and coordinates its activities with the

police, who have shifted their predominant mode to community policing. The police enforce trespass bans and also use

the Massachusetts statute that increases penalties for drug

offenses committed within 1,000 feet of a school.6

 (There are

four schools near CSA.)

In Oak Park, the security management changes were less

dramatic, since the village was primarily being proactive.

While the main crime prevention initiatives taken by the

village focused on target hardening and access control, they

have been accompanied by more vigorous enforcement of

traffic and parking regulations. In recent years, Oak Park has

coupled these efforts with a shift to a community policing

model.

At Lockwood Gardens, the management changes may seem

less dramatic than the significant changes in physical design,

particularly the fencing of the site. Yet, there were sweeping

security and property management changes, even though the

OHA continued to own and operate the development. Chapter 3 describes the combination of community policing and

additional security that the OHA initiated to regain control of

Lockwood Gardens. Sworn officers and private guards

worked together to provide enhanced security through the

construction period and staffed the two kiosks for a number

of months after the construction’s completion.

Exhibit 11 summarizes experiences with enhanced security

at the four visited sites and other sites. Included are changes

in policing, in private security, and in the role of residents.

Each of these items is examined in greater detail in the

following pages.

Policing. The shift to community policing or problemoriented policing has been an element of many place-specific

crime prevention programs, but various observers of these

efforts have noted that an essential component is the longterm assignment of specific officers, particularly at the

beginning of the community policing effort. Continuity of

assignment ensures that the officers will be able to develop

thorough familiarity with the area, including all those who

frequent it around the clock and across the seasons.7

 Even

more important, continuity of staffing gives the residents

Site Security Management Before Security Management After

Genesis Park, 

Charlotte, NC

Police reactive, entered neighborhood

with multiple back-ups 

Community policing; removal of drug

houses and shot houses; resident 

association neighborhood surveillance

and mutual help

Castle Square Apartments,

Boston, MA

No private security operation; police

reactive except for initial

neighborhood committee

Community policing; private security

force reporting to management 

coordinates with police; extensive use of

trespass and drug-free school zone 

statutes

Oak Park, IL Burglaries in eastern part of village;

police reactive

Community policing; Security

Improvement Grants prevent burglaries

in older rental properties

Lockwood Gardens,

Oakland, CA

Police reactive; OHA security force 

unclear about role and boundaries;

open drug dealing 

Careful combination of community

policing and private security force;

controlled access to development 

Exhibit 10. Changes in Mangement of Security
Making Changes: Program Implementation 49

time to develop comfort in communicating with the officers

and ultimately to develop trust.

Community policing assignments can be very intense, especially when neighborhoods are undergoing major changes.

As a result, officers may experience burnout. When police

staffing does change, there should be ample time allowed for

overlapping assignments, so that the familiar officer can

introduce the new one to the residents and the area. When

community policing assignments changed in Genesis Park

and Lockwood Gardens—as they did after 2 years or more—

it was difficult for both residents and program staff to accept

the loss of their initial community officers and adapt to the

new personnel.

Maintenance of a regular police presence in the community,

even after it is visibly more orderly and the residents feel less

fear, is another important element of security changes in

many study sites. Whether it is a mini-station or an ongoing

community policing assignment, it needs to last; if it is a

mobile command station, it needs to return with some frequency to the neighborhood. Oak Park has addressed the

need for a regular police presence in two ways: (1) by

creating satellite police stations and (2) by encouraging

officers to live in the districts and work from their homes.

Private Security. A common theme of security changes is

the establishment of working relationships between police

and other members of the community, including property

owners and managers, resident groups, business associaPolicing

• Shift to community policing or problem-oriented policing, including long-term assignment of

personnel to permit development of communication and trust

• Maintenance of regular police presence, even after area has “quieted down”

• Recognition of partners, including property owners/managers and residents

• Involvement in planning of security-oriented physical design changes

• Use of satellite police mini- or substations (also mobile command stations) in residential areas

• Clear delineation of responsibilities relative to private security; working relationship with private

 security

• Work with management to enforce trespass and restraining orders for residents

• Enforcement of drug-free school zone statute

• Strict enforcement of traffic modifications designed for enhanced security (e.g., ban on use of

 alleys for through-traffic)

Private security

• Used to help enforce property management rules and keep order

• Trained and supervised personnel, operating under control of property manager

• Clear delineation of responsibilities relative to police; working relationship with police

• Work with management to enforce trespass and restraining orders for residents

• Shared surveillance equipment and private security monitoring among nearby housing

complexes

 Role of residents

• Tenant patrols monitoring activity and promptly reporting problems to security guards and/or police

• Neighborhood or block watches organized for surveillance and reporting of disorder or criminal

activity

• Resident association serving as the “eyes of the neighborhood”—letting everyone know that they

are there and watching

• Use of civil liability suits to require that landlords provide safe and secure premises, including screening

of tenants and removal of tenants involved in criminal activity

Exhibit 11. Elements of Improved Security
50 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

tions, and private security guards. Regular communication,

joint planning, and periodic joint action serves to strengthen

these relationships. In terms of private security guards—

who are often disdained by police due to their lack of training

and narrower focus on a site (among other factors)—it is

particularly important to have a mutually recognized, clear

delineation of responsibility. This was the case in Oakland,

where the domains of the OHA security personnel and the

OPD officers were differentiated by type and severity of

offense and by physical location on or off public housing

authority property.

A working relationship among police, private security, and

property managers has multiple advantages. The private

security personnel are there to enforce management rules

(such as resident-only parking) and to keep order (for example, keeping resident teens from noisily congregating in

the parking lot late at night). The police are there to reinforce

these missions and to act if disorder leads to illegal activity.

Use of trespass statutes brings the police role closer to that of

private security. Some public and private property managers

have made considerable use of these laws with the direct

involvement of the police. In Charlotte, there is formalized

cooperation between the police department and the Charlotte

Housing Authority (CHA). One or two police officers per

district go through training with the CHA and are made

“designated agents” of the housing authority, with power to

enforce bans and loitering/trespassing regulations. If a

police officer (responding to a call) goes into a public

housing unit and finds unauthorized people, and if they do

not cooperate, they can be arrested on the spot. Officers can

also take immediate arrest action against anyone banned

from CHA property.8

 Similarly, the CMHP posts “No

Trespassing” signs on vacant property they own in Genesis

Park; with police as designated agents, trespassers can be

sent directly to jail without a warrant. The housing authority

invites judges and the district attorney to an annual meeting

at the agency to talk about problems and issues between the

CHA and the legal system. This is an open forum with CHA

residents to let the judges and DA see how serious tenants are

about safety and order. CHA staff feel that as a result, the

court is now taking trespass cases more seriously and is no

longer voluntarily dismissing them.

Residents. Vital security changes can be made by involving

residents. Neighborhood, block, and lobby watches are now

widely used to increase surveillance and crime reporting

without putting individuals at risk. Resident patrols monitor

activity and report problems to security guards and/or the

police.9

 More generally, active community associations seek

to maintain a visible presence and “eye on the neighborhood”

in order to warn anyone potentially involved in disorder or

illegal activity that they will be observed and reported. At

Castle Square Apartments in Boston’s South End, residents

are centrally involved in management, as committees of the

Castle Square Tenants Organization (such as Training and

Security) set policies through the partnership and monitor

management performance. CSTO will come into full ownership of the complex in 2006, only 10 years from now, and

the residents are determined to be ready. In 1995, festivities

organized by residents at Castle Square, part of the National

Night Out, served as a sort of “going away party” for crime

and drugs.

Use of civil liability suits by residents appears to be a

growing trend in the area of residential security. This may

be done through an organized campaign—as in Clinton

Hill—or by individuals harmed through owner or manager

neglect of security. Residents may well find they are not

alone in their quest to improve the quality of urban life by

attacking nuisances such as crack houses and drug sale

locations. In New York City, attorneys with the police

department’s Civil Enforcement Initiative (CEI) act as an inhouse law firm, providing advice and problem-solving services to the department. In 1995, by using real property laws,

the CEI enabled the police to confiscate 150 drug-infested

buildings. CEI has also helped the police seize the vehicles

of patrons soliciting prostitutes.10

In what may be the first time a landlord has been held liable

for the actions of a tenant that caused the death of a police

officer in the line of duty, in 1995 a Massachusetts Superior

Court jury awarded $1.5 million to the family of a Boston

police detective shot to death by drug dealers.14 According

to lawyers for the deceased detective’s family, the decision

will have a far-reaching impact on landlords, putting them on

notice that they cannot turn a blind eye to the criminal

activities of their tenants: “As a matter of public policy,

landlords can no longer avoid the obvious if they know their

tenants are dealing drugs. If you know your tenant is selling

drugs, you’ve got to take steps to evict them.”15 The impact

of this ruling on cases in which building residents allege

landlord negligence or breach of a contract or duty to

maintain safe and secure premises remains to be seen.

However, in recent years a clear trend toward tenant suits

against building owners has emerged.16

In another Massachusetts case, the state’s highest court ruled

that public housing tenants have a right to sue housing

authorities for failing to abate drug-related crime in their

housing developments.17 The high court’s decision partially
Making Changes: Program Implementation 51

reversed a 1990 ruling that dismissed a lawsuit on behalf of

two tenants who claimed that drug-related crime in their

developments was so bad that they were afraid to leave their

apartments. The 1994 ruling says that a trial should be held

to determine whether the housing authority is complying

with its responsibility as a landlord to provide tenants with

the peaceful enjoyment of their apartments. This decision

also means that residents must be given a chance to prove that

the housing authority violated a Massachusetts law requiring

that landlords aggressively identify and prosecute nontenants who commit crimes on their property.18

In a 1993 California case, an appeals court ruled that the

owners of an apartment complex who failed to remove a

drug-dealing operation on the premises were liable to neighbors for creating a nuisance.19 The action was brought in

small claims court by 75 plaintiffs against owners of a

Berkeley apartment building that was alleged to be frequented by drug dealers, drug users, and prostitutes.20 This

is another way in which resident or neighbor collective

action can be effective in bringing about management changes

for improved security.21

In a 1993 California case, an appeals court ruled

that the owners of an apartment complex who

failed to remove a drug-dealing operation on the

premises were liable to neighbors for creating a

nuisance. The action was brought in small claims

court by 75 plaintiffs against owners of a Berkeley

apartment building that was alleged to be frequented by drug dealers, drug users, and prostitutes.

Making Changes in Property Management

Like security changes, property management changes support, facilitate, and reinforce the preventive effects of CPTED

modifications on disorder and illegal activities. The major

participants in the area of security changes were the police,

private security guards, and residents. Concerning property

management, the major participants are the owners and

managers (whether public or private) of residential property

in the community and the residents themselves.

Exhibit 12 shows the interrelated management changes made

at the four sites visited for this report. In the area that became

Genesis Park, ownership of nearly all residential property

was by absentee landlords, with the result that the neglected

and overgrown conditions of the housing were ignored as

long as the rent payments came in. The dilapidated apartments housed poor families who did not have the means to

move elsewhere. Some of the houses had been abandoned

and were occupied by squatters. The city did not enforce

building codes or provide many public services. Drug

dealers “owned” the streets, and residents lived in fear.

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing Partnership’s involvement in the area began with the premise that opportunities for

moderate-income homeownership were scarce relative to

the need. If this area’s neglected rental units could be

rehabilitated into quality homes and sold at moderate prices,

it was believed that the area could be stabilized by encouraging resident organization and supporting resident efforts to

maintain the community. CMHP would work with the city to

bring in needed infrastructure improvements and would

Operation Crackdown:

Using Public Nuisance Laws

To Fight Drug Dealing

In Washington, D.C., the Young Lawyers Section

of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia

recently launched “Operation Crackdown,” a

public service initiative that uses the district’s public nuisance law to rid residential neighborhoods

of crack houses and street dealers.11 An attorney

involved with the program stresses the importance of community involvement:

To file suits we need plaintiffs. The community

groups make perfect plaintiffs because their lives

are being affected. In working with the pro bono

attorneys we provide, they keep logs that detail

the disturbances—the number of people coming

and going, the late night noise, the number of

police visits, and so forth.12

Lawyers from Operation Crackdown use the information provided by the community groups to go

to court and obtain injunctions requiring the building owners to take remedial action. Such actions

may include tenant evictions and installing high

intensity lights (to illuminate dark alleys or vacant

lots).13
52 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

Exhibit 12. Changes in Property Mangement and the Role of Residents.

Site Property Management and Residents’

Roles Before Change

Property Management and

Residents’ Roles After Change

Genesis Park, 

Charlotte, NC

Private property: absentee land-lords;

houses neglected and overgrown; some

abandoned and occupied by squatters; lack

of code enforcement

Public spaces: streets out of control with

open drug dealing; city infrastructure

deteriorating

Residents: embattled and frightened; some

illegal squatters; active gang with weapon

and drug involvement

Private property: strict code

enforcement; CMHP clean-up and

securing of empty properties;

rehabilitation; homeowner acquisition;

houses “adopted” by civic organizations

and businesses

Public spaces: infrastructure

rehabilitated by city; public spaces

maintained by city and residents;

neighborhood entrances labeled and

landscaped

Residents: owners replacing renters;

organized, ongoing support from

CMHP (Pathways Program)

Castle Square 

Apartments,

Boston, MA

Private property: maintenance neglected;

tenant screening in doubt; apartments

“bought” under the table

Public spaces: uncontrolled access;

unkempt conditions; park given over to

loitering

Residents: frightened and victimized;

initial organizing effort unsuccessful

Private property: professional company

answers to partnership of developer and

residents; careful tenant screening 

Public spaces: access controlled and

monitored; grounds carefully tended 

Residents: partner in ownership;

receiving management training; active

in shaping management policies 

Oak Park, IL Private property: deterioration of rental

housing; vacancies increasing

Public spaces: routine patrol

Residents: threatened by changes in

adjacent Chicago neighborhood and early

signs of decline in eastern Oak Park

Private property: owners/managers

organized; improved conditions and

maintenance; more resident managers;

Residence Corporation rehabilitates and

manages at-risk buildings

Public spaces: increased enforcement

of traffic and parking regulations

Residents: participate in neighborhood

organization and in village initiatives

Site Property Management and Residents’

Roles Before Change

Property Management and

Residents’ Roles After Change

Genesis Park, Private property: absentee land-lords; Private property: strict code
Making Changes: Program Implementation 53

work with the CHA’s programs encouraging economic selfsufficiency for residents (as well as developing a selfsufficiency program of their own). Thus, the program as

planned involved changes in private property ownership and

management, public management, and resident action. The

photos on page 54 show the difference before and after

renovation and conversion to homeownership.

The management changes at Castle Square Apartments also

involved changes to private management, public management, and resident roles. The former owner’s haphazard and

neglectful leasing and maintenance practices, which had

contributed greatly to the decline of the complex, were

replaced by strict, professional management practices. Thorough tenant screening, constant monitoring of conditions,

attentive care of buildings and grounds are all evident at

CSA; the management company is responsible to the partnership for the results. Ongoing communication with the

police and with other public agencies has meant that the

complex receives the needed public services and has obtained some public improvements. In addition, the partnership has taken over site control from the city, so that it has

greater control over security, snow removal, tree pruning,

sidewalk repairs, and parking within the development.

In Oak Park, the conditions of the late 1960’s—particularly

in the eastern part of the village—testified to declining rental

property maintenance. Public services were adequate, but

residents still felt threatened and frightened by the early signs

of deterioration, disorder, and diminished quality of life.

Over the years since then, the village has initiated a range of

management changes addressed to private property owners,

including the Security Improvement Grants program and

licensing multifamily building owners as businesses (with

required training in fair housing and CPTED, as well as

mandatory attendance at community meetings).

The Residence Corporation, an independent nonprofit organization founded in 1966, also plays an important role in Oak

Park’s strategy. The Corporation buys multifamily buildings

in bad physical condition and rehabilitates them. It manages

the reoccupied buildings (as well as some others that are

privately owned), and it supports the village’s policy of racial

and economic diversity in all these buildings. It may buy

Site Property Management and

Residents’ Roles Before Change

Property Management and

Residents’ Roles After Change

Lockwood Gardens

(Oakland, CA)

Private property: OHA not fully in

control of development; tenant

screening centralized and limited;

minimal lease enforcement

Public spaces: taken over by dealers

and users; barren and uninviting;

open access from streets and outside

neighborhood

Residents: frightened, intimidated;

some chased out and units taken

over for drug houses; efforts to

form residents association meet little

response

Private property: neighborhood

entrances labeled and

landscaped; lease provisions and

trespass statute enforced;

management and maintenance

based at site (decentralized)

Public spaces: some privatized;

extensive gardening

Residents: resident association

formed and becoming more

active in planning for

development’s future

Exhibit 12. Changes in Property Mangement and the

Role of Residents. (continued)

Site
54 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

One of the neat, single-family homes of Genesis Park.

single-family homes that are in foreclosure and sell them for owneroccupancy. By limiting the number of vacant buildings, the Residence

Corporation reduces the likelihood that they will be stripped or used by drug

dealers or squatters. Finally, the village’s policies and performance are

monitored by influential resident bodies such as the Housing Programs

Advisory Committee.

At Lockwood Gardens, on the property management side, the following changes were

initiated by the housing authority:

• Housing management, assisted by roundthe-clock observations of the community policing officers, identified problem tenants and evicted a number of

people. Where unauthorized persons

were living in the units, the leaseholders

were offered the choice of putting them

on the lease or getting help to remove

them (such as through a restraining order). Women are often battered in situations where their boyfriends are dealing drugs; the community policing officers helped enforce restraining orders.

(The OHA also performed some transfers for resident safety.)

• The management and maintenance operations of the housing authority were

decentralized to Lockwood Gardens.

Residents now go to the on-site satellite

office for everything but paying rent.

There are two managers, a management

aide, and a maintenance crew stationed

there to serve three large developments,

which add up to 650 public housing

units in a small area.

• A new emphasis on strong lease enforcement was introduced.

• Applicant screening is still done centrally, but site managers show the units

to people sent from the central office.

As the site manager at Lockwood Gardens meets applicants and shows them

around, he watches for signs of trouble—

e.g., needle tracks or other physical signs

of substance abuse. If he thinks this will

not be the right environment for someone, he can hold out the referral until a

more appropriate spot for the individual

becomes available.

OHA management also took important steps

to involve the residents in the changes at

Lockwood Gardens. The community services department was restructured into

Photo Exhibit 4-10a

A partially vacant rental duplex in Kenney/Gibbs/Wayt, before

Genesis Park

Before

Photo Exhibit 4-10b

After
Making Changes: Program Implementation 55

Resident and Community Services, which has outreach workers and resident advisors. This helped foster relationships

that made the resident council a reality. Community policing

also led to identification of resident leadership. Management began to work with Resident and Community Services

on resident leadership and organizing; the resident council

received training pertaining to lease rights and responsibilities.

Finally, in a seemingly symbolic change that has proven to be

of real significance, site management began to encourage

residents to use the outdoor space at Lockwood as if it were

their own. Gardens have proliferated and flourished, not

only in the privatized back yards, but also around the fronts

of buildings and along the walks. Neighbors have also

started to garden together, crossing racial and ethnic boundaries.22 Thus, even in a situation where the same agency

continued to own and manage the development, a constellation of vital management changes was implemented in conjunction with the physical redesign for security and crime

prevention.

Exhibit 13 summarizes the initiatives that the larger group of

sites have taken to make changes in property management.

Changing property ownership is a rather drastic intervention,

yet one that appears to be used in a variety of settings. It is

widely believed that homeowners have a greater stake, both

financially and emotionally, than renters and therefore take

better care of their homes and communities. This is not

necessarily true, however, as this report has offered examples of renters gaining a vital stake in the care and

management of their communities (examples include Castle

Square Apartments and Commonwealth Apartments). However, this belief is one of the key assumptions that led to

CMHP’s interventions to convert Genesis Park to a neighborhood of homeowners.23 It is also widely observed that

rental properties generally receive better care when their

owners reside there or very nearby; it is too easy for absentee

landlords to be ignorant of—or to ignore—both physical and

human problems in their buildings. Shifts in ownership were

a keystone of the changes brought about in Genesis Park and

Castle Square Apartments. In Oak Park, the Residence

Corporation has taken steps to acquire certain residential

and commercial properties in order to prevent their deterioration or conversion to inappropriate uses. (These properties

may remain in Residence Corporation ownership and continue in rental or commercial use, or they may be resold.)

Also included in the category of changes in public management are all initiatives that public agencies have taken to

improve security and prevent crime in various study sites.

Some of these changes concern public-sector responsibilities and services, such as code enforcement, trash pick-up,

street cleaning, and the like. Others involve public-sector

investments, such as the City of Charlotte’s work to:

• Diagnose the drainage/flooding problems that plagued

the Genesis Park area (due to old clay pipes and broken

concrete pipes) and provide proper drainage;

• Repair and repave streets;

• Install new sidewalks on the major streets;

• Install or repair curbs, and

• Improve street lighting (working with Duke Power and

the Department of Transportation).24

Public sector initiatives like these generally help to signal

that a community is cared for and valued; more specifically,

they may prevent or correct a “broken windows” situation.

Other public management changes that have supported anticrime programs include funding neighborhood improvement efforts (as in Bridgeport, Connecticut) and licensing

multifamily building owners as businesses (as in Oak Park,

to improve the owners’ understanding and compliance with

local ordinances). Even the attention of community policing

officers to problem properties—whether hot spots or eyesores—is a form of public management in support of crime

reduction and prevention.

Because housing authorities are public agencies, their actions to change property management to improve safety also

fall under the category of public management. In exhibit

13, a large number of improvements made in public housing

were identified in Charlotte, Oakland, Macon, Norfolk, Los

Angeles, and San Francisco.

Many improved housing authority practices have parallels in

private property management. Stricter tenant screening,

lease revisions and resident training to understand the rights

and responsibilities created by the lease, increased use of

parking regulations and other posted rules, use of written

notices and mediation procedures to deal with tenant problems, and willingness to evict or use trespass statutes when

necessary have all been used by both private and public

property managers to restore order and reduce crime in their

complexes.

Residents are a vital force in changing property management,

and there are roles that individual residents can play to
56 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

Exhibit 13. Elements of Changed Property Management and Residents' Roles

Property ownership

• Acquisition and rehabilitation of abandoned and deteriorated properties by nonprofit organizations

• Shift from absentee landlords to resident landlords

• Shift from rentals to ownership

• Acquisition and rehabilitation of deteriorated property by partnership of developer and residents

• Acquisition and rehabilitation of deteriorated property by local government

Public management

• Strict and even-handed building code/sanitary code enforcement 

• Attention to maintenance of facilities and open space in neighborhoods, including trash collection,

 sidewalk- and street-cleaning

• Decentralization of public housing management and maintenance, to site or district level, with better 

 coordination between them; manager given decision-making authority for community

• Establishment of expedited eviction processing for drug-related cases in public housing

• Revisions to public housing tenant lease emphasizing mutual rights and responsibilities of residents

 and management

• Site manager provided a role in screening tenants for vacancies

• Licensing of multifamily building owners as businesses, with requirements for training on local

 ordinances and participation in community meetings

• Fair housing, open housing, and diversity assurance programs to assist all racial and ethnic groups in

 taking advantage of the full range of housing opportunities

• Role in identifying problem properties (“ hot spots”) and focusing owner/manager attention on them

• Support for neighborhood improvement efforts, in the form of technical assistance and/or funding 

 and/or coordination of public departments

Private management

• Strict but constitutionally permissible tenant screening (possible assistance from police)

• Written notices and discussions (about nuisances, unauthorized residents, or other problems) with 

 tenants involved, before any legal action taken

• Willingness to evict problem tenants when other approaches fail; prompt eviction action when drugs or

 violence involved

• Use of trespass statutes, enforcement by private security (if present) with oversight

• Training of managers in mediation, to facilitate win-win solutions to problems with residents

Role of residents 

• Being trained for management, in context of resident ownership or of hiring residents for management

 positions

• Resident “property monitor, ” assisting with after-hours and weekend monitoring and emergency

 assistance

• Resident association serving as the “ eyes of the neighborhood”—letting everyone know that they are

 there and watching 

• Participation in social service planning, with training for residents to assume staff positions

• Involvement with tenant screening, establishment of house rules in addition to lease, role in training

 new residents 

• Tenant patrols monitor condition of buildings and grounds and promptly report problems to 

 management
Making Changes: Program Implementation 57

improve management of their developments and neighborhoods. However, most of the entries in exhibit 13 represent

ways that resident organizations can contribute to management improvements. Tenant patrols, screening committees,

and management and security oversight committees all provide impetus and input to make effective property

management a means to achieve improved quality of life.

Endnotes

1. The new physical design, paired with the OHA’s community policing strategy and the enhanced on-site security patrols, are an expensive solution, although it is

widely believed in Oakland that the conditions here

warranted it. The gating and fencing were quite costly

(some $556,000), and private security runs about

$260,000–$270,000 per year. Sworn officers cost the

city more than $100,000 per year. A PHDEP grant from

HUD has paid the cost of keeping on the sworn officers,

but the private security guards have been terminated.

Funding for the officers ended in early 1997.

2. Metropolitan areas with a high concentration of privately

operated gated communities include Miami, Los Angeles, San Diego, Chicago, New York City, Houston, and

Phoenix. See “Where the Gates Are,” Governing (December 1995): 14.

3. At OHA’s Tassafarango development, the housing authority did work out with the city a system for closing the

gates without taking ownership of the streets. However,

negotiations over the Lockwood situation have been

suspended, and the housing authority’s Director of Security is concerned that, without use of the gates, the

resident security program will not be able to hold the line

after the site-dedicated officers are gone.

4. See S.L. Sorensen and E. Walsh, Crime Prevention

Through Environmental Design and Situational Crime

Prevention in Public Housing: Workshop Curriculum,

HUD Crime Prevention and Security Division, Technical Assistance Workshop(s) (Bethesda, MD: SPARTA

Consulting Corporation, March 1995).

5. Professor Lawrence Vale, cited in “Cover Story/Housing,” Governing (August 1995): 17, 19.

6. Mass. Gen. Laws, chapter 94C, Section 32J, Possession

of Controlled Substances Within School Boundaries.

7. Of course, police administrators need to be aware that

long-term assignments have the potential for increasing

corruption.

8. The CHA ban process is based on crime analysis (patterns of repeated calls for service) and on identification

of people in the home who do not belong there and are

causing trouble. The Probation and Parole program

sends the CHA’s security coordinator a list of their

subjects who live legally or illegally in CHA housing.

9. S. Sorensen, “Resident Patrols,” Model Program Briefs

2 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development, HUD 1444-PIH-RP).

10. “Aiming a Civil Weapon at Criminal Offenders,” Governing (November 1995): 35–36.

11. “Young Lawyers Section of Bar Association of D.C.:

Cracking Down on Crack Houses,” D.C. Bar Report

(October/November 1995): 15.

12. Ibid., citing William Lawler, Esq., of the American

Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities.

13. Ibid., 15.

14. K. Cullen, “Landlords Told to Pay $1.5m in Police

Death,” Boston Globe, September 13, 1995.

15. Ibid.

16. With many suits against property owners settled out of

court, there are few reliable figures available. However,

while a 1984 study by a Washington security expert

turned up 186 suits in the 25 years from 1958 to 1982, a

more recent update of the study found 267 cases from

1983 through 1992 — an increase of 266 percent a year.

See C.H. Deutsch, “Returning to the Scene of the Crime,

to Sue the Owner,” New York Times, June 3, 1994, citing

a 1994 study by Norman Bates, President, Liability

Consultants Inc, of Framingham, Massachusetts.

17. J. Ellement, “Tenants Gain Legal Tool in War on Drug

Crime,” Boston Globe, March 15, 1994.

18. Ibid. Also see M. Grunwald, “Family of Boy Killed at

Roxbury Project Sues Landlord,” Boston Globe, November 1, 1995.
58 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

19. S.B. Goldberg, “Bad Neighbors—Landlord Liable for

Drug-dealing on Premises,” ABA Journal, (February

1994): 95.

20. Ibid. The case, Albert G. Lew v. The Superior Court of

Alameda County, involved the appeal of a trial court

judgment awarding $218,325 in damages to the plaintiffs. The defendants had appealed the judgment arguing

that landlords were not responsible for the tortious acts

of third parties. Citing the leading case of Martinez v.

Pacific Bell, the appeals court found that the basis for

imposing liability on the owners of the Berkeley building

was “on a theory of active fault on the part of petitioners

[the defendants] in the management of their property.”

During the trial, the plaintiffs had presented testimony by

a local police sergeant who had made 260 drug-related

calls to the site over a period of a year and a half. A city

manager also testified that the building was a “fortress”

for the sale of drugs and that the problem could have been

alleviated through “cooperative and aggressive management.” See Albert G. Lew v. The Superior Court of

Alameda County, No. AO58265 (California Court of

Appeals, November 30, 1993). See also Martinez v.

Pacific Bell, 225 Cal. App. 3d 1557 (1990).

21. For a broader discussion of applying civil remedies, see

P. Finn and M.O. Hylton, Using Civil Remedies for

Criminal Behavior: Rationale, Case Studies, and Constitutional Issues (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department

of Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 1994).

22. This development is discussed further in chapter 5.

23. The terms of the first mortgages made to the new

homeowners in Genesis Park give CMHP the right of

first refusal when the house is resold. In this way, CMHP

will continue to have some leverage for maintaining the

neighborhood.

24. Of course, the lighting changes are also physical changes

for crime prevention.
Putting the Pieces Together: Results and Lessons Learned 59

Chapter 5

Putting the Pieces Together:

Results and Lessons Learned

This chapter discusses the results of place-specific crime

prevention efforts in sites around the United States and

considers the lessons that planners, police, public and private

managers, and residents have learned from their local efforts.

Examining both the changes achieved by these programs and

the problems that still need resolution, the chapter synthesizes the lessons learned to aid those planning new initiatives

or modifying existing ones.

The chapter begins with a discussion of how the physical

design changes and management changes may have affected

patterns of use at various sites. Changes in use include

differences in the kinds of activities taking place (particularly resident activity), changes in the levels of crime and

disorder, and the issue of displacement in specific sites.

The following section discusses the significant lessons local

respondents identified as they examined their programs and

modified or fine-tuned them to work better. The need for

program monitoring and feedback is clear, yet formal feedback mechanisms are rarely built into local efforts. Even

without formal review, thoughtful program operators seek to

strengthen and sustain the results they have achieved by

learning from experience.

Changing Uses of an Area: Results

of Place-Specific Crime Prevention

In this report, a variety of programs have served as examples

of how physical design changes and management changes

can be combined to reduce disorder and improve safety.

What have these programs achieved? What kinds of outcomes have been observed or documented?

Taking Back the Turf

In many of the neighborhoods and housing developments

considered for this report, restoring the community to its

intended purpose has allowed residents to take back the turf

from drug dealers, muggers, prostitutes, derelicts, and other

offenders and nuisances. A positive change in the manner in

which a playground, street corner, or building lobby is used

is the reward for successful efforts to alter the physical

environment and change the management of a disorderly or

crime-ridden community.

Place-specific physical changes for crime prevention combined with changes in management have contributed to new,

legitimate patterns of resident use of outdoor space at

Lockwood Gardens, the public housing development in

Oakland. According to several respondents, the physical

changes there have had considerable positive impact on

residents’ quality of life. In general, many more people are

using the outdoor areas of the development. In the evenings,

residents bring card tables and chairs outside, to sit and chat

with each other while children play around them. A community gardening effort has resulted in neighbors of different

ethnic and racial backgrounds working together to grow a

wide variety of flowers and vegetables (see photo, page 60).

The former president of the Castle Square Tenants Organization (CSTO) in Boston emphasizes that the goal of the site

redevelopment was to make Castle Square a decent and safe

place to live again. Neighbors used to cross over from the

Castle Square side of Tremont Street to avoid the dark block

with tunnels leading from the complex’s interior. Security

improvements—including new lighting—and a face-lift have

encouraged area residents to seek out the Castle Square side

of Tremont Street. The cleanup and redevelopment of the

park on the corner of East Berkeley and Tremont Streets have

also dramatically transformed the use of the site. Where

homeless people once drank, fought, and slept, AsianAmerican and other Castle Square residents now pose for

graduation photos in a graceful oriental-style garden. People

who work nearby come to have lunch in the garden. With an

influx of new stores in the area, the neighborhood around

East Berkeley and Washington Streets has also greatly

improved from a business standpoint.

In Oak Park, Illinois, a commitment on the part of the village

and the efforts of the Austin Boulevard Alliance (ABA)

helped to bring the village’s eastern corridor back from the

brink of residential decline. Now, most of Austin Boulevard’s

apartments are rented, and the streets in the commercial area

are busy with customers.
60 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

In Genesis Park in Charlotte, drug-related traffic through the

area has declined considerably with the shutdown of the

neighborhood’s numerous drug and shot houses. Nonresidents are a far less frequent sight in the neighborhood, and

cars no longer pull over along Interstate 77 so that buyers can

come through the fence to purchase drugs. Instead, a newly

formed local youth group is planning activities while seeking

greater involvement from area parents. There is also a youth

choir and new community gardens. The area’s First Baptist

Church West is interested in starting an enrichment program

for local children, and the neighborhood association will

soon have its own building for meetings.

At Mar Vista Gardens in Los Angeles, the fear of crime may

have actually been greater than the crime itself, but the new

fencing has clearly given residents a greater sense of security. The changes in behavior are unmistakable: previously,

residents did not leave their apartments or let their children

out to play; now they freely use the streets and grounds.

According to a captain with the police department of the

Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, “You can get

the feeling of a community by driving through it and seeing

the number of kids out playing, and that is how to measure

community environment. [In Mar Vista Gardens,] the parents [now] feel safe.” Drug dealers have proven that Mar

Vista’s new fencing is only effective so long as it is maintained by the housing authority. Shortly after installation,

dealers cut holes through the fence in strategic places, facilitating their flight from police during chases. Despite this, restricting

access to the development has helped reduce dealing targeted to drive-by drug purchasers who used to come from other parts

of the city and region.

At the Iris Court development in Portland,

Oregon, a cul-de-sac created as part of placespecific crime prevention changes is closed

to traffic for an annual street fair. At the fair,

social service agencies set up information

booths; the event also features a barbecue,

live music, and games for children. With

many police in attendance, the fair is a

combination street party and public relations activity. In 1996, the residents of Iris

Court worked with the police to plan the

fair, which in earlier years had just been

police-sponsored.

Of course, the physical and management changes in these

sites are not without some problems. Commenting on the

attractive porches that are large enough for families to sit on,

one resident of Diggs Town in Norfolk noted, “I love the

porches, but in some areas it just means that the drug dealers

have a place to stand to get out of the rain.” In Oak Park, the

village’s many cul-de-sacs have made it difficult to travel by

car from east to west (Chicago to Oak Park) in residential

areas, because very few streets go through. According to a

member of the Oak Park Housing Program’s Advisory

Committee, “The motivation for the cul-de-sacs was fear of

crime and of racial change, not just concern about traffic.”

Others complain that the traffic barriers are put up in a

piecemeal manner. “They’re put up on public streets. Do

residents own that street?”

Those using an area for illegal or disorderly activities sometimes offer clear resistance to the changes being made. When

the new site lighting was installed at Lockwood Gardens in

Oakland, the wires were cut repeatedly and the lights shot

out, but the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) repaired

them every day. Even earlier, when the escape route from

14th Street across the rear of the site was blocked, the

housing authority kept strengthening the fence materials

(starting with strong steel picket, then welding on crossbars,

then adding dense wire mesh) until the attempts to cut

through it were definitively thwarted and “the bad guys gave

up.”

photo 5-1

Resident Gardens Reflect Positive Changes at Lockwood

Gardens

A flower garden next to a front door exemplifies greater resident use of

outdoor spaces and renewed pride in the community.
Putting the Pieces Together: Results and Lessons Learned 61

Well-conceived place-specific physical design strategies

and innovative management policies can help turn around

problem neighborhoods and housing developments, changing their use from illegal to legitimate activities and improving the quality of life for residents. At the same time, it is

clearly important to stay on top of a problem through attentive property management. Letting down one’s guard, however briefly, can mean a return to trouble.

Well-conceived place-specific physical design

strategies and innovative management policies

can help turn around problem neighborhoods

and housing developments, changing their use

from illegal to legitimate activities and improving

the quality of life for residents. At the same time,

it is clearly important to stay on top of a problem

through attentive property management. Letting

down one’s guard, however briefly, can mean a

return to trouble.

Reducing Crime and Keeping It Down

A common objective of all the sites discussed in this report

was to reduce crime in the targeted areas. Official crime data

are available for the four visited sites. In addition, the City of

Dayton examined crime data in its evaluation of the neighborhood stabilization efforts in Five Oaks. However, police

crime data have recognized limitations, particularly in their

sensitivity to rates of reporting. As residents become more

familiar and trusting of police efforts in an area, crime

reporting may increase early in a place-specific crime prevention program. Police crime data can be useful for examining trends, but it is also helpful to access other sources that

confirm, contradict, or at least help interpret the patterns

revealed.1

Another important caveat concerns the difficulty of attributing observed changes in crime to the effects of crime prevention efforts. Without rigorous research, the sites examined

cannot demonstrate a causal connection between the design

and management changes made and the crime trends tracked.

Thus, although both police and residents believe they have

brought about reductions in crime and violence, the trends

are suggestive of impacts, not proof of them.2

 Official crime

data from the following five sites appear to substantiate the

observations of local respondents on the success of their

place-specific crime prevention programs. In each of the

neighborhoods or housing complexes, there were substantial

reductions in reported crime after the interventions, compared to the levels of violent and property crime before the

changes in physical design, security, property management,

and resident roles were made. Conditions improved, and

police and residents attribute the improvements to the crime

prevention efforts, although causality cannot be proven.

Genesis Park. An analysis of trends in reported offenses for

the Genesis Park neighborhood was prepared by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD).3

 (The data

are shown in appendix F, exhibit F-1.) Due to the sophisticated geographical information system being implemented

by the CMPD, the boundaries of the reporting area corresponded directly to those used by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Housing Partnership (CMHP) and the residents when they

refer to Genesis Park. The Genesis Park crime data show that

the number of reported offenses in the neighborhood generally increased from 1984 to 1989, then declined in 1993

(after the start of community policing, CMHP property

acquisition, and neighborhood cleanup), and declined even

further in 1994. Overall, the drop from 1989 to 1994 was 78

percent for violent crimes, 39 percent for property crimes,

and 63 percent for all Part I offenses combined. Part II

offenses—which are of interest because they include drug

violations and vandalism—show a similar pattern, with a

decrease of 73 percent from 1989 to 1994. There were no

homicides in Genesis Park in 1994, although there were

more rapes reported than in the previous year.

Respondents familiar with Genesis Park corroborate this

picture. Some of the positive results they cite include: (1)

that elderly women (who lived in the neighborhood for years

but were hostages in their own homes) are now willing to

come outside during the day; (2) that many organizations

other than CMHP are now claiming credit for the idea and/

or the changes made in Genesis Park; and (3) that home sales

are increasing and marketing the homes is getting easier.

Says the residents’ association president, “We’ve come a

long way from the time when people wouldn’t come to visit.”

Respondents noted that there had been some increase in

crime beginning early in 1995. (Exhibit F-2 shows data from

CMPD comparing the first 6 months of 1995 with the same

months of 1994.) The data confirm respondents’ reports;

they show an increase in property crime as well as in Part II

offenses. CMHP and the residents’ association are also

aware of some recent problems with drugs in two of the

houses built by Habitat for Humanity in Genesis Park. The

neighborhood is concerned, and the residents’ association

invited the police captain and the executive director of
62 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

Habitat to a community meeting about it. Despite these

problems, CMHP’s president recognizes some positive benefit, specifically the response of the residents when the

problems arose.

Lockwood Gardens. Due to prior research on Lockwood

Gardens, it was possible to examine the levels of reported

crime in Lockwood Gardens over a 4-year period (1991–

1994) and to examine whether these levels had changed

relative to the surrounding area.4 (The data are shown in

exhibit F-3.) The 4 years of crime data span the following

changes at the development:

• Implementation of an initial “drug elimination” program with prevention components only, in 1991 and

1992;

• Beginning of community policing in early 1993;

• Construction of the perimeter fence beginning in mid1993, with completion of landscaping and kiosks in

early 1994, and

• Concentrated deployment of private security guards and

OHA security officers, coinciding with the construction

and lasting until spring 1995.

As exhibit F-3 shows, there were no reported homicides or

rapes in Lockwood Gardens in 1993 or 1994. The number of

robberies in Lockwood Gardens was much reduced from the

prior 2 years, and they accounted for a smaller percentage of

the robberies in the area. Felony assaults also showed some

reduction in number within Lockwood, in contrast to increasing numbers in the area as a whole. Thus, despite the

likelihood that the rate of crime reporting increased when

community policing began, the reported violent crimes at

Lockwood Gardens accounted for just 5.4 percent of such

crimes in the surrounding area in 1993 and 4.8 percent in

1994. (By contrast, Lockwood generated 12.2 percent of the

reported violent crimes in 1991 and 9.9 percent in 1992.)

The pattern of changes for reported Part I property crimes

was less uniform than for violent crimes. Even so, reported

property crimes in Lockwood Gardens were 4.5 percent of

the area’s in 1993 and 4.0 percent in 1994, compared to 5.5

percent and 4.6 percent in 1991 and 1992, respectively.

Taking all these reported Part I offenses together, the proportion occurring in Lockwood Gardens was clearly reduced in

the period after security was increased and physical design

changes were initiated. By 1994, total Part I crimes (except

arson) had decreased by 46.5 percent from the 1991 level and

had also fallen in relation to reported offenses in the surrounding area. These data support the observations of respondents and the changes in behavior reported for residents

of the development, although they do not prove a direct

causal link between the program and these results.

Oak Park. The data available to examine crime changes in

Oak Park were much less detailed than those for Lockwood

Gardens and Genesis Park. (Exhibit F-4 shows the numbers

of Part I offenses for the entire village; however, the placespecific crime prevention changes we have described—

including traffic modifications and the Security Improvement Grants [SIGs]—were focused primarily on the eastern

part of the village.) In the period between 1989 and 1994,

there were reductions in robberies, aggravated assaults, and

arson, while murders, sexual assaults, and thefts (including

motor vehicle thefts) fluctuated without long-term change.

The SIG program was targeted to burglary reduction in

particular, but (relative to 1989) there were large numbers of

burglaries in 1992 and 1993; the drop in 1994 cannot be

assumed to be the start of a trend. Thus, perhaps because they

are village-wide, the Oak Park crime data do not clearly

indicate improvements in the levels of offenses targeted by

the local program.

Castle Square Apartments. Boston Police Department

(BPD) data on Part I offenses (except arson) were made

available for the Castle Square Apartments (CSA) for 1990

through 1994. (The data are shown in Exhibit F-5.) Enhanced security began at CSA in February 1992, with renovations and other changes following; thus, the BPD data span

the period of change. The data show notable percentage

declines over the 4 years in nearly all crime categories, with

violent crimes dropping more than property crimes. The

property offenses of burglary and motor vehicle theft fluctuated; even in these categories, however, the incidences in

1993 and 1994 represented a reduction compared to earlier

years. There was a 58 percent decline in the overall number

of Part I offenses between 1990 and 1994. Between 1992 and

1994, the overall improvement was slightly lower, but total

Part I offenses were still reduced by almost half.

Five Oaks. The Five Oaks neighborhood of Dayton experienced a decline in building conditions between 1990 and

1992, with average sales prices for homes also decreasing

during that period. Further, a sharp upward turn in both

violent and property crime from 1991 to 1992 led to the

formation of a Dayton Police Department Five Oaks “Strike

Force” as a temporary response, increasing arrests for prostitution and drug offenses.5

 The Neighborhood Stabilization

Plan, designed by the city and the Five Oaks Neighborhood
Putting the Pieces Together: Results and Lessons Learned 63

Improvement Association (FONIA) with the help of architect and planner Oscar Newman,6

 consisted of:

• 35 street closures to divide Five Oaks into minineighborhoods (completed between July and November 1992).

• 26 alley closures to reinforce the traffic changes (completed between October 1992 and January 1993).

• Targeted loans for exterior property improvements under the city’s Real Estate Assistance Challenge (REACH)

program, to address deteriorating physical conditions

(begun in December 1992).

An evaluation of the Neighborhood Stabilization Plan, conducted by the City of Dayton, examined changes in crime

from 1989 to 1993 as one of the indicators of program

effects.7 (Exhibit F-6 shows the crime data reported in the

Five Oaks evaluation.) The numbers make it clear how sharp

an increase there was in both violent and property crimes

between 1991 and 1992, leading FONIA and the police

department to take action. Violent crimes increased by 44

percent and nonviolent/property crimes by nearly 12 percent

between 1991 and 1992. However, in the 11 months of 1993

after the crime prevention changes were implemented, property crimes fell by 52 percent, and all tabulated offenses fell

by 26 percent. On examining a longer time period, it was

discovered that in 1993 Five Oaks was dealing with lower

numbers of serious offenses than at any time in the previous

5 years. Thus, the City of Dayton concluded that the Five

Oaks neighborhood stabilization effort achieved its goals.

Were the Changes Just Displacement?

As chapter 1 noted, the issue of displacement is often raised

to challenge both the objectives and perceived successes of

place-specific crime prevention. If criminals are intent on

committing offenses, according to this critique, then they

will find a place to commit them; deflecting offenders from

one location simply produces victims elsewhere. There have

been strong theoretical challenges to this model of offender

behavior, as well as empirical studies that document diffusion of benefits and not simply displacement of crime.

Further, the distinction made between destructive displacement (to more serious offenses or to already heavily victimized populations) and benign displacement (to less serious

crimes, at lower incidence, or toward a more even distribution across communities or population groups)8

 should be

kept in mind as the displacement question is addressed

relative to the study sites.

When asked whether they had noticed changes (either diffusion of benefits or displacement of crime) in the surrounding

areas following the modifications in physical design and

management made by their programs, respondents offered a

variety of views. In Charlotte, a staff member of CMHP

noted possible displacement from Genesis Park to Druid

Hills (about 2 miles away) and Cummings Avenue, saying,

“The pockets already in place grow; they offer the least

resistance.” An officer in the Planning Unit of the CharlotteMecklenburg Police Department made this observation,

“The dead-end streets, the pockets next to highways and

other nonresidential uses are the ideal places for drug activity. These physical features are isolating, and the lack of

access creates or increases vulnerability.” Because CMHP

works in other neighborhoods, the organization is considering broad alliances with many different groups, all working

together at neighborhood watches and similar efforts. An

official at the Charlotte Housing Authority (CHA) agrees

that as community policing widens and target-hardening

spreads, fewer communities will be available for drug trafficking.

In Oakland, the police lieutenant in charge of OHA’s security

department believes that the changes in Lockwood Gardens

did displace some criminal activity. Initially, the “bad

actors” were pushed out onto 14th Street, the bordering

commercial area; in fact, one dealer was killed because he

moved onto someone else’s turf there. Dealers still frequent

the liquor store near the corner of 65th Avenue, but they do

not venture onto Lockwood Gardens property and never

enter the property in a group as they did in the past. As crime

has been displaced from Lockwood, the Oakland Police

Department (OPD) has dealt with more crime in the surrounding commercial area. Thus, in a sense, OHA security

efforts forced the OPD response. There were scattered

complaints about displacement in the first few months of

concentrated security at Lockwood Gardens, but now area

merchants have made more positive adjustments; for example, one liquor store will call the OHA security office

when drug dealers reappear there. Considering the question

of displacing drug-related crime more broadly, the lieutenant

noted:

Some of the market was resident demand, and

now they go elsewhere to buy. If the market is

there, someone else will move in to serve it if

the initial dealer is arrested or removed. Demand reduction is necessary to prevent this

from happening. But the enforcement strategy

is necessary to turn the community around,

change their attitude.
64 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

In Boston, the area commander for the Boston Police Department sees displacement from Castle Square of the drug

dealers and prostitutes, who move between the Combat Zone

and the South End, as well as of some homeless people. In

Tucson, considering the changes in El Cortez Heights, a

crime prevention officer said:

Some [crime] has been displaced and some

eliminated. Let’s assume that you won’t get rid

of it all, but we can get rid of a lot and manage

the rest. People in next-door neighborhoods

got more involved and didn’t complain to the

police more. They said, “How can we get

involved?” They started doing similar community things; not all of [the strategies], but some.

Perhaps the most eloquent response to displacement came

from the president of the East Bridgeport Community Council. Although she did not see any evidence of crime displacement from the changes made in her neighborhood, she said,

“. . . Displacement is a stupid misconception. Because if it

were true, it’s like saying, ‘Let’s leave the crime in one

specific area. That’s better for everyone else.’ No, it’s better

in someone else’s backyard!” She also spoke about working

with other resident organizations in the city, helping them

write grants, and working together to mobilize city hall. This

and other cooperative efforts among nearby communities

represent an important—albeit indirect—diffusion of benefits from efforts to reduce crime and improve safety in these

communities.

Lessons Learned

What did the various sites learn through informal and formal

monitoring and analysis that helped them improve their

place-specific crime prevention programs? The lessons fall

into six categories: (1) changing attitudes; (2) managing

security; (3) maintaining communication; (4) securing the

right kind of funding; (5) taking advantage of technology;

and (6) avoiding the pitfalls of the past. In considering these

lessons, program planners may wish to think about building

a feedback loop into their place-specific crime prevention

programs. The value of feedback and the need for monitoring

and evaluation to strengthen operating programs cannot be

overstated.

Changing Attitudes

Changes in the attitudes of key players were noted as a

significant result of the place-specific crime prevention

programs studied for this report. Residents, police, and

property owners/managers all learned from their involvement in anti-crime efforts, and the lessons most often had to

do with the value of their partners or the possibility of

bringing about real change in community conditions.

Resident support is critical for implementing place-specific

crime prevention programs, and resident involvement and

input in shaping the changes is even more important. However, a change in resident attitudes is often required for the

necessary support and involvement to be forthcoming. At

Mar Vista Gardens in Los Angeles, the president of the

Resident Management Corporation (RMC), a long-term

resident, learned that it takes time for people to realize that

they can do something about a problem. Many people at Mar

Vista Gardens believed that the police would not do anything

about crime caused by people from outside the development.

The RMC president learned that it is necessary to push

government to care, but that organized residents can succeed

in getting the response they need. Describing the process at

Robert B. Pitts Plaza, a redeveloped public housing development in San Francisco, an architect with the housing authority’s

modernization department explained, “[Changing a community] takes a lot of work and commitment, and the commitment has to come from the housing authority and residents.

The onus mostly lies with the residents. They have to take

some responsibility and stand up for themselves.”

Police attitudes have changed as law enforcement officials

have learned to recognize the impact of crime prevention

programs and residents’ vital role in them. The local Boston

Police commander sees the redesign of Castle Square Apartments as a major improvement for that part of the South End

community. Management vigilance (including much greater

resident reporting than before) and well-lit parking areas

have kept the outside dealers out, reducing the need for some

of the vigorous traffic and drug enforcement previously

required in the area. Thus, such efforts can effectively reduce

the load on local police departments.

Involvement in place-specific crime prevention can also

change the attitudes of property owners or managers. Making place-specific changes to the physical environment and

to management can be a win-win proposition when a private

developer and a tenant organization work together. The

initiative at Castle Square Apartments in Boston’s South End

taught the developer and head of the private management

company that “You can make money and do good at the same

time. You can work with residents as partners and respect

them fully.” The collaborative effort at Castle Square also

demonstrated to residents that the interests of the two sides
Putting the Pieces Together: Results and Lessons Learned 65

were not necessarily in conflict. The joint venture showed

that residents could work together with a private developer

for everyone’s benefit.

Finally, it can be difficult to make inroads in the attitudes of

people who are not involved in an area’s changes. In Charlotte, the CMHP at first did not have a good marketing

program to attract prospective buyers. The reputation of the

old Kenney/Gibbs/Wayt neighborhood caused many prospective buyers to decline an invitation to see the newly

renovated homes in Genesis Park. In addition to hiring an

experienced real estate broker to head the marketing effort,

CMHP quickly learned that it helped if one of the required

homeowner classes for first-time buyers was held in the

Genesis Park model house, so that people preparing to buy

could see the positive changes in the area; those who have

been to Genesis Park are far more likely to consider buying

a house there.

Even with their success in selling Genesis Park homes

(nearly 60 were occupied at the end of 1996), CMHP knows

more attitudes remain to be changed. While the partnership’s

overall goals for Genesis Park are broad—making it a decent

place to live by creating affordable homeownership opportunities for hard-working, low-income families with ambition—a more immediate goal is simply to get pizza delivery

in the neighborhood, which will be a symbol that the general

public considers Genesis Park to be a safe area.

Managing Security

At Castle Square Apartments, the CSTO and Winn Management Company found that implementing changes taught

them how to phase out paid police details and reduce paid

security staffing gradually as they regained control of the

site. In their experience, it was important to sustain a strong

security presence for some time after crime reductions suggested this was no longer necessary. This strategy guarded

against the expectations of drug dealers and prostitutes that

enforcement would be short-lived, which would have allowed them to return to the site shortly after the burst of

security activity was over; apparently, this lesson had been

learned from years of dealing with traditional police deployment rather than community policing and resident involvement in crime prevention.

Lessons about managing security have also been learned at

Lockwood Gardens in Oakland. Unable to sustain financially the commitment of high levels of staff and private

security guards to the site, OHA phased out the private

guards in early 1995. In addition, OHA security has been

experimenting with changing the number of officers assigned to the community policing shifts (also sometimes

skipping the graveyard shift) and with parking the mobile

command center on 65th Avenue at irregular intervals, to

keep the drug dealers and other offenders off their guard.

Maintaining Communication

In Genesis Park in Charlotte, CMHP construction organizers

have found that work proceeds in a smoother fashion when

communication and coordination with the Charlotte Police

Department and other organizations is maintained on a daily

basis. The experience with Genesis Park taught CMHP staff

the importance of working partnerships with other organizations. Teamwork certainly makes everything easier, but

effective teamwork depends on frequent communication.

This lesson was brought home vividly to the coordinator of

the neighborhood reinvestment program for the Charlotte

Engineering Department: On his first day of work in Genesis

Park in 1990, as he began diagnosing the chronic drainage

problems in the area, he was caught in the midst of gunfire

and a police action. That convinced him of the need to

coordinate his actions with the police department on a daily

basis.

For the long term, all the organizations involved in the

revitalization of Genesis Park have representation on the

project committee, which meets twice a month for mutual

updates and planning. The reporting is very detailed, the

assignments concrete, and the work moves ahead.

Securing the Right Kinds of Funding

Voicing a sentiment widely expressed among respondents in

all study sites, the commander of Area D for the Boston

Police Department noted that funding for physical crime

prevention is essential. Given the scarcity of funding available for any public-nonprofit ventures these days, creativity

about funding is indeed essential for community organizations, housing authorities, and other organizations engaged

in the redesign of neighborhoods and buildings for safety.

Lockwood Gardens in Oakland has benefited considerably

from a paid private security detail, plus extensive gating and

fencing. The physical changes were paid out of OHA

Comprehensive Grant Program (CGP) funds, which may be

used for housing modernization and, to a limited degree, for
66 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

certain management improvements. CGP funding is still

being made available by the U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development (HUD) for upgrading public housing

around the United States. The Lockwood security guards are

paid from a Public Housing Drug Elimination Program grant

that will expire in 1997. Residents of the once crime-plagued

development are deeply concerned about security at the

development once funding expires, as the housing authority

does not anticipate being able to continue carrying the cost

of the private security detail. Many at the development fear

that it is only a matter of time and money before they lose all

of the ground they only recently gained against offenders at

Lockwood Gardens.

Both the Castle Square Apartments redevelopment deal and

the CMHP property purchases in Genesis Park were made

possible by masterful assemblies of equity funds and credit

from a wide variety of public and private sources. For

CMHP, however, the most important funding has come from

Charlotte’s Innovative Housing Fund; although not the largest amount, this is funding with few strings attached, and it

has enabled the partnership to buy and hold Genesis Park

houses in inventory while rehabilitating other parts of the

community. On Gibbs and Kenney Streets, the first of the

streets to be tackled, it was quite difficult to sell the renovated

houses because of continuing problems in the rest of the

neighborhood, especially along nearby Wayt Street. The

solution was to buy the entire 2000 block of Wayt; rehabilitation of these houses is scheduled for 1997. Without the

Innovative Housing funds, it is unlikely the partnership could

have made the project work as well as it has.

Oak Park makes creative use of Community Development

Block Grant (CDBG) funding and Village Housing bonds

for its broad strategy. The Residence Corporation’s revolving acquisition fund (for buying deteriorating or foreclosed

properties) comes from interest-free CDBG loans, and its

rehabilitation money comes from bond funds. The Housing

Bonds also provide the SIG rehabilitation grants to owners

implementing security improvements.

Taking Advantage of Technology

Several technologies hold great promise for improving security at sites like those visited for this report. A sergeant with

Area D of the Boston Police Department reported that

cameras at Castle Square Apartments moved the dealers

away from the front of buildings. In Macon, Georgia, the

successful use of electronic card keys at a Macon Housing

Authority development for the elderly has sparked consideration of their use at other developments. Similarly, positive

results with eight pan-tilt-zoom (PTZ) cameras at Grant

Manor in Boston (which allow a single staff person to

monitor outdoor and indoor activity in three developments

both day and night) have encouraged another property manager, the Boston Housing Authority, to consider their use at

public housing developments in the city. Other examples of

potentially cost-saving technology at use in some sites include the magnetic card/keypad opening system on the gates

in Lockwood Gardens (which could help substitute for

private security guards, if agreement could be reached with

the city about closing the gates) and use of the mobile

security van at OHA developments in lieu of permanently

stationed officers.

Avoiding the Pitfalls of the Past

Not all of the changes made at the studied sites are accepted

as obvious progress. In San Francisco, an architect involved

in the redesign of the Robert B. Pitts Plaza believes that cities

are doomed to failure as long as poor people continue to be

concentrated together. He is vocal in his opposition to the

large concentrations of public housing in particular parts of

the city. In this view, even reducing the density of poor

people to the level achieved at the Pitts site is not enough.

Crime around Pitts Plaza has remained constant. The social

aspects that contribute to crime in the community have

stayed the same or intensified, and the actual situation may

not have improved at all. The architect noted, “Because Pitts

is a new development filled with new people, things haven’t

gotten as apparent or as bad. [But] we still have two sister

projects [in the neighborhood] that are basically the same as

Yerba Buena Plaza West [the predecessor of Robert B. Pitts

Plaza] was, and they cause most of the problems in that

neighborhood.”

Another pitfall concerns the materials used to implement

some of the place-specific design changes. Public housing

construction has tended to use extremely durable—but also

extremely cold and institutional—materials. Now efforts are

being made to blend renovated developments with the style

and materials of other housing in the area. At the Diggs Town

development in Norfolk, and at Pitts Plaza in San Francisco,

however, some of the construction materials used proved to

be of inadequate quality or durability for the sites. In Norfolk, for example, some of the new porches are already

falling apart, and shoddy wooden construction in San Francisco may need to be replaced in only a few years. In no time

at all after the Diggs Town light fixtures had been installed,

vandals had broken into the control boxes at the base of the

outdoor fixtures and cut the wires on a number of strategi-
Putting the Pieces Together: Results and Lessons Learned 67

cally placed poles. These fixtures, installed to improve

opportunities for surveillance at prime drug dealing locations, were temporarily rendered useless by the vandalism.

The Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority (NRHA)

learned from the vandalism that all of the regular screws used

to close the control boxes needed to be replaced with tamperproof screws.

The tendency to blame all crime and disorder on outsiders,

creating divisions where coalitions could be built, is yet

another pitfall to be avoided. Some would argue that the

crime prevention strategies used in Oak Park rest on the

premise that most criminals active in Oak Park come from

Chicago. In the view of many village residents, the source of

crime still resides there, and Chicago police are viewed as

well-intentioned but lacking the resources to tackle the

problem. Crime prevention in Oak Park, including the use of

cul-de-sacs and the SIG program, is believed to have greatly

reduced the opportunity for Chicago troublemakers to commit crimes in Oak Park.

For Oak Park’s residents however, this “us and them” philosophy in no way contradicts the village’s commitment to

diversity, strict code enforcement, and remaining a good

place to live. Perhaps the most important lesson that efforts

like Oak Park’s and the program at Mar Vista Gardens in Los

Angeles (another site in which financially better-off residents pointed a finger at a poorer community as the source of

the problem) have taught the larger communities is that their

woes are, in fact, metropolitan or even regional concerns.

Whatever the desires of some Oak Park and West Los

Angeles residents, neither community will ever be able to cut

itself off from crime entirely. Instead, the initiatives have

taught both communities the importance of collaboration

with others, whether it be the housing authority, city government, or a nearby residents’ association.

Crime and Place Revisited

With the exception of Oak Park—for which only villagewide statistics were available—the crime statistics presented

here clearly show that crime in the communities was reduced

overall. The decline in the number of offenses committed in

most crime categories suggests (although it does not prove)

that the strategies and design changes the sites implemented

have had positive impacts on the quality of life for residents

in these communities. Close observers indicate that, even if

there was some displacement (particularly of drug sales, as

demand reduction was not addressed in these programs), it

was by no means complete. In fact, for Lockwood Gardens

(where data were available on crime trends in the surrounding area), reductions were seen for the area as a whole in

1994. This may indicate that some diffusion of benefits

occurred from the wide range of changes made at Lockwood

Gardens, although the scope and methods of this study do not

allow a firm conclusion to be drawn on this point.

In addition, the changes made appear to have contributed to

improved day-to-day relationships among residents, law

enforcement, nonprofit organizations, and other relevant

local community members. The process of working together

to implement the place-specific crime prevention programs

has helped foster greater familiarity and better understanding

among the groups. As a result, the communities now have a

track record and experience to build from as they seek to

tackle further problems together.

The overall achievements of the place-specific crime prevention programs in Charlotte, Oakland, Boston, and Oak

Park can be summarized as follows:

• Planning and execution of a well-conceived set of physical redesign elements, based on close analysis of the

ways the built environment was being used;

• Implementation of wide-ranging changes in the management of private and public property in each community, with the involvement of private owners and managers, public agencies, and residents;

• Expansion or reorientation of security efforts, involving

a shift to community policing and (in some cases) the

coordinated use of private security forces;

• Strengthening of the role of residents in addressing

community conditions, through the development of

communication and cooperation with law enforcement

officials, private owners and managers, and other local

players; and

• Reduction in crime and other improvements in the

quality of life in the community, as indicated by police

data and by observers and participants in the local

programs.

In addition, there were two major lessons learned from the

sites visited:

• Physical design modifications, management changes,

and changes in use should be tailored to specific

locations and coordinated in their planning and imple-
68 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

mentation.

• The most effective security and crime prevention efforts

are those that involve a coalition of different players

working together to define the problem and then seeking

solutions.

Through this research, the importance of selecting approaches

that work for a particular community has become clear. As

noted in chapter 3, the most effective place-specific crime

prevention strategies are those that take into account the

geographic, cultural, economic, and social characteristics of

the target community. It is also important that place-specific

strategies respect the habits and behavior of area residents.

Crime prevention is not a ““one size fits all” effort, and some

communities may require more attention and ingenuity than

others in crafting effective strategies. Thorough analysis of

the problems and needs of a given community, as well as

ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the place-specific

strategies selected, are vital.

The report’s many site examples demonstrate how the physical environment can be altered by changing the shape or

appearance of the common areas, controlling access to the

site and buildings, and improving natural surveillance opportunities. Redefining the boundaries between private and

public space, opening up hidden areas, and target-hardening

are all important place-specific crime prevention strategies.

If management is defined as the responsibility for maintaining order in one or more aspects of a place, then a variety of

participants have an actual or potential role in the management of specific places. Pairing physical design changes with

management changes that support, facilitate, and reinforce

their preventive effects on disorder and illegal activities can

be highly effective. Indeed, place-specific crime prevention

seems to hold potential for addressing current security and

safety problems in many residential areas in ways that are

durable and flexible enough to meet future needs.

Endnotes

1. Two recent studies that have used a combination of

methodologies to improve interpretation of police crime

data are T. Hammett et al., Public Housing Drug

Elimination Program Resource Document (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, June 1994) and S. Popkin et al., An Evaluation

of the Chicago Housing Authority’s Anti-Drug Initiative: A Model of Comprehensive Crime Prevention in

Public Housing (Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc.,

October 1995). The Hammett study of the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program used qualitative, quantitative, and ethnographic data to examine program impacts. The Popkin study used resident survey data on

crime victimization (as well as on perceptions of local

conditions) in combination with official offense counts.

2. The difficulties of evaluating crime prevention efforts

are discussed in appendix B.

3. The police forces of the City of Charlotte and

Mecklenburg County were consolidated over a period

of 2 years, culminating in combining patrol responsibilities in March 1995. Thus, it was the Charlotte Police

Department that had jurisdiction over community policing and responding to service calls in Genesis Park until

March 1995. At that time, a change in police districts

related to the consolidation was the reason for reassignment of Genesis Park’s two original community policing officers.

4. The area is defined as Oakland Police Department Beats

29 and 30. The beat counts are inclusive of Lockwood

Gardens counts.

5. Evaluation of the Five Oaks Neighborhood Stabilization Plan (Dayton, OH: Office of Management and

Budget, City of Dayton, January 1994): 5.

6. See the entry for the Institute for Community Design

Analysis in appendix D.

7. Evaluation of the Five Oaks Neighborhood Stabilization Plan (Dayton, OH: Office of Management and

Budget, City of Dayton, January 1994).

8. R. Clarke, ed., Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (New York: Harrow and Heston, 1992):

22–27.
Appendix A 69

Appendix A

Glossary of Acronyms

AA Alcoholics Anonymous

ABA Austin Boulevard Alliance, Oak Park, Illinois

ADI Anti-Drug Initiative of the Chicago Housing

Authority, Chicago, Illinois

AFDC Aid to Families with Dependent Children

BHA Boston Housing Authority, Boston,

Massachusetts

BOMA Building Owners/Managers Association, Oak

Park, Illinois

BPD Boston Police Department, Boston,

Massachusetts

BRA Boston Redevelopment Authority, Boston,

Massachusetts

CBO Community-based organization

CCNYC Citizens Committee for New York City, New

York, New York

CCTV Closed-circuit TV

CDBG Community Development Block Grant

Program, U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development

CDC Community development corporation

CEI Civil Enforcement Initiative, New York City

Police Department, New York, New York

CGP Comprehensive Grant Program, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

CHA Charlotte Housing Authority, Charlotte, North

Carolina

CHBA Clinton Hill Block Association, Brooklyn,

New York

CHPC Citizens Housing and Planning Council, New

York, New York

CMHP Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing Partnership,

Charlotte, North Carolina

CMPD Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department,

Charlotte, North Carolina

COP Community-oriented policing

CPD Charlotte Police Department, Charlotte, North

Carolina (prior to consolidation with county

police)

CPTED Crime prevention through environmental

design

CRDA Community Response to Drug Abuse Demonstration Program

CSA Castle Square Apartments, Boston,

Massachusetts

CSAP Center for Substance Abuse Prevention

CSTO Castle Square Tenants’ Organization, Boston,

Massachusetts

DEED Diggs Town Economic Empowerment

Demonstration, Norfolk, Virginia

FONIA Five Oaks Neighborhood Improvement

Association, Dayton, Ohio

GED Graduate equivalency diploma

GIS Geographical information system

GPS Global positioning system (satellite locating

system for nonmilitary use)

HACLA Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles
70 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

HPAC Housing Programs Advisory Committee, Oak

Park, Illinois

HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development

LAPD Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles,

California

MHA Macon Housing Authority, Macon, Georgia

MIS Management information system

MHFA Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency,

Boston, Massachusetts

NA Narcotics Anonymous

NCPI National Crime Prevention Institute, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky

NIJ National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department

of Justice

NRHA Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing

Authority, Norfolk, Virginia

OHA Oakland Housing Authority, Oakland,

California

OPD Oakland Police Department, Oakland,

California

PHA Public housing agency or authority

PHDEP Public Housing Drug Elimination Program,

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development

POP Problem-oriented policing

PTZ Pan-tilt-zoom (camera)

RICO Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

RMC Resident management corporation/council

SARA Scanning, analysis, response, assessment

SFHA San Francisco Housing Authority, San

Francisco, California

SIG Security Improvement Grant Program, Oak

Park, Illinois

TPD Tucson Police Department, Tucson, Arizona

UCLA University of California at Los Angeles
Appendix B 71

Appendix B

Review of the Research Literature

Several methods of research and practice, from defensible

space to community policing, have addressed relationships

between crime and place. Together, these methods result in

“place-specific crime prevention.” One constant aspect of

place-specific crime prevention approaches has been the

creation or modification of the physical environment to

prevent crime. However, the integration of strategies to

modify the use and management of sites has strengthened

environmental design or redesign as a practical approach to

crime prevention in varied settings. Place-specific crime

prevention builds on crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED; physical changes) and draws on the

results of research on active crime prevention tactics (such as

community policing and community crime prevention) to

emphasize modification of design, use, and management of

a specific place to prevent crime. The evolution of placespecific crime prevention has created a need for information

on both the implementation and outcomes of these interventions. The theories underlying these techniques, as well as

practical how-to manuals that were developed to foster their

use are discussed in this appendix.

Part of the theoretical basis for many place-specific crime

prevention strategies is the assumption that many offenders

are rational and will not commit crimes where they perceive

the risks to outweigh the potential benefits. In contrast to

earlier assumptions that offenders are motivated solely by

personality, genetics and/or upbringing, rational offender

theory assumes that individuals choose criminality based on

perceived benefits, risks, and degrees of difficulty in committing a crime or choosing a particular target.1

 For placespecific crime prevention strategies, rational offender theory

suggests that making the commission of a crime difficult

and/or risky enough will convince the majority of potential

offenders not to commit the crime in that specific place. If

rational offender theory and its premise (that the offender is

an opportunist who weighs the criminal opportunity against

the risk of being apprehended) are correct, the potential

offender would not necessarily look for another setting or

more convenient opportunity for committing the crime.

Thus, there may be overall reductions in crime as a result of

place-specific interventions.

Physical Crime Prevention:

Defensible Space and CPTED

There is a long tradition of research on the relationship

between physical design and crime. We owe to Jane Jacobs

an understanding of urban life that incorporates attention to

the physical design and human use of spaces in a theory of

urban viability. Jacobs argued that increased citizen surveillance, or “eyes on the street,” would help to maintain vitality

and reduce crime in inner-city neighborhoods.2

 Architect

and planner Oscar Newman soon tested and refined this idea,

thereby describing defensible space. Focusing on individual

buildings and public housing developments rather than city

blocks or neighborhoods, Newman claimed that increased

visibility and separation of space into areas assigned to

smaller groups of residents would encourage residents’

sense of territoriality and improve their feeling of ability to

control that space, as well as their willingness to do so.3

Presumably, potential offenders would perceive this attitude

and the resulting greater level of ordinary activity, and would

be discouraged from committing crimes within those spaces.

Research on defensible space led to the recognition of related

physical strategies for crime prevention, such as targethardening (use of dead-bolt locks, steel-core doors, and so

on). The field known as CPTED, including work on defensible space and additional physical crime prevention strategies, has been applied to a wide range of sites and facilities,

from public housing to luxury estates, from office buildings

to parking structures, and from amusement parks to museums.4

Timothy Crowe summarizes CPTED as the practice that

comes from the assumption that “. . . the proper design and

effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction

in the fear of crime and the incidence of crime, and to an

improvement in the quality of life.”5 According to CPTED

theory, properly designed spaces encourage or allow expression of a sense of territoriality among the users of the space

by providing opportunities for crime prevention. CPTED

interventions have included design features such as:

• Target-hardening (use of tamper-resistant materials such

as polycarbonate windows, steel doors, stronger locks).
72 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

• Access control (gates, traffic barriers, and guarded

entrances).

• Means for surveillance (ranging from windows on outdoor public spaces to closed-circuit televisions).

• Territoriality (fencing, gating, and other strategies to

identify physical spaces with smaller groups of users).6

Some CPTED practitioners also make efforts to include

community representatives in the design process in order to

tailor specific physical changes to the needs of the users of

the space. However, even with resident input, CPTED

theorists tend to focus on design changes alone, without

consideration of either accompanying or coordinating the

physical changes with strategies to alter management or use.

Some CPTED strategies, particularly access control, can

encourage discrimination. The California Supreme Court

recently upheld a lower court’s decision against allowing

gates to limit access to public streets in Los Angeles’s

Whitley Heights district.7

 The legal basis for the appellate

court decision rested on the state vehicular code, which

provides that “local authorities may not place gates . . . on any

street which deny or restrict access of certain members of the

public to the street, while permitting others unrestricted

access to the street.”8 Although in some situations much of

the crime may appear to be committed by people from

outside the area, CPTED practitioners must be careful to

avoid creating de facto segregation due to assumptions that

any outsider is a criminal. For example, in order to stimulate

business and decrease crime in Oak Park, Illinois, streets in

a commercial area were closed to cars, and planners designed

limited and predictable access and egress routes. This design

intervention reduced shoplifting and vandalism, yet all people

still had equal access to the public streets.9

Another example, which is striking because of the community context (an extremely impoverished neighborhood of

south-central Los Angeles), is the Vermont-Slauson fenced

and gated shopping center. CPTED practitioners have

praised Vermont-Slauson for several reasons: (1) it is attractive; (2) crime rates are quite low; (3) many of the stores are

minority owned, providing good role models for children

and residents; and (4) profits from the mall have been

reinvested into affordable housing in the surrounding neighborhood.10 The Vermont-Slauson shopping center also

emerged relatively unscathed after the 1992 riots in Los

Angeles.

Active Crime Prevention:

Community Policing and

Community Crime Prevention

An emerging awareness that police departments alone cannot prevent or punish all of the criminal behavior in our

society has led to research in active community-based crime

prevention. First discussed as problem-oriented policing,

the field of community policing is the contemporary locus of

widespread efforts to improve police practice. Community

policing does not derive from the type of causal theory about

criminal behavior previously described for CPTED. Rather,

it entails a coordinated or partnership approach to solving

problems and suggests new tools for policing. Rosenbaum

and Eck believe that community and problem-oriented policing strategies attempt to improve the efficiency, equity, and

effectiveness of police practice, through problem-solving

and evaluation.11 Although some expect that community

policing can fix everything, in practice community policing

programs usually employ only a subset of available strategies.12 The following are strategies that have been included

in community-policing programs to a greater or lesser extent:

• Problem-oriented policing focuses on patterns of crime

and uses research and cooperation, sometimes with

other agencies and/or citizens’ groups, to find a response or solution.

• Public relations strategies can include advertising campaigns and walking or bicycle patrols to improve community relations. Moderating the public’s expectations

of police performance is one public relations goal. Also,

police agencies have become more conscious of racism,

both actual and perceived, in their ranks. Rosenbaum

and Eck note that the word “community” (in community

policing) is often used euphemistically for communities

of color or others outside the mainstream.13 Ideally,

police departments would actively address racism beyond the realm of public relations.

• Softening rigid hierarchies in police departments is

intended to improve police efficiency. This follows a

trend in management toward total quality management,

emphasizing teamwork and collective responsibility

rather than rigid positions and divisions of labor.

• Formal partnerships between police, community members, and other public agencies can be developed to
Appendix B 73

identify problems, improve relations, and plan strategies for prevention. Unfortunately, fear of crime or

retaliation may discourage citizens from participating in

such partnerships. Also, police officers need to educate

themselves about racial and cultural differences in order

to establish and maintain such a partnership with

communities of color.

• Assigning officers to foot or bicycle patrols and opening neighborhood substations is meant to improve

police visibility and accessibility, and thus improve

responses to residents’ concerns. Informal interaction

between residents and police officers has different advantages and disadvantages than the more formal community partnerships; however, the success of both depends on the interest of all parties in communicating and

cooperating.

Community or neighborhood crime prevention programs

differ from community policing in that they tend to be

initiated by community organizations rather than police

departments. In some ways, neighborhood crime prevention

is the predecessor to and grass-roots counterpart of community policing. Both sets of strategies share the assumption

that crime prevention must involve citizens and police, but

they differ in available resources and strategies. The following are widely used neighborhood crime prevention tactics:14

• Neighborhood, block, or apartment watches.

• Identifying and inventorying valued property with engraved numbers, and placing stickers in windows to

alert potential burglars that all valuables are traceable.

• Home security surveys (examining homes and suggesting physical changes, such as target-hardening and

expanded lighting, to improve security).

• Resident street or building patrols.

• Crime reporting projects.

• Resident-initiated and implemented physical environment changes (such as pruning trees in parks or painting

over graffiti).

• Police-community boards.

• Home security improvements.

• Escort services.

Neighborhood crime prevention projects can have the multiple benefits of reducing crime, empowering residents, and

strengthening community institutions and organizations.

Place-Specific Crime Prevention:

Combining Design and Active

Strategies

Although advocates of defensible space have clearly recognized the importance of user participation in defensiblespace interventions,15 they have not emphasized strategies to

ensure that defensible space is actually defended. Research

in the field of community crime prevention has shown that

designing or redesigning defensible spaces is only a starting

point. Greenberg and colleagues16 studied links between

crime rates, physical characteristics, land use, and residents’

sense of territoriality in neighborhoods in Atlanta. They

found that boundary characteristics (such as traffic on boundary streets, socioeconomic status of surrounding neighborhoods, and insulation from through-traffic) and land use

(such as purely residential versus mixed residential and

commercial) distinguished high- and low-crime neighborhoods. The researchers developed a household survey to

measure territoriality but found that high- and low-crime

neighborhoods did not significantly differ on this measure.

Thus, assuming the accuracy of their measure, even if physical (re)design does directly influence informal territorial

control, territoriality does not appear to be related to neighborhood crime rates. It appears that a sense of territoriality

must be accompanied by specific land use and boundary

characteristics, and perhaps by more formal active crime

prevention strategies.

Many have criticized CPTED and defensible space theories

and the research supporting them.17 The assumption that

people are “naturally” territorial may be naive, particularly

in contemporary urban settings. Racial, ethnic, language,

and class divisions may make a sense of neighborhood

identity difficult to establish. Further, defensible space and

territoriality are difficult to quantify, making conclusive

evaluations difficult.18 As noted previously, a sense of

informal territoriality among residents is not sufficient to

affect crime rates.19 Finally, users’ and potential users’ fear

of victimization or retaliation, whether or not they are closely

related to the realities of crime in the area, also have a notable

dampening effect on both individual and collective behavior.20 Thus, strategies to address and reduce fear may need

to be implemented before the crime prevention benefits of

spatial (re)design can be realized.
74 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

Situational crime prevention developed in Britain on a

course parallel with the development of CPTED in the

United States. However, in response to the perceived limitations of the theory supporting CPTED, situational crime

prevention theorists emphasize legal and management issues

in addition to design concerns. According to Ronald Clarke,

a leading exponent of situational crime prevention:

Because it encompasses the entire range of

environments (and objects) involved in crime

and because it encompasses legal and management as well as design solutions, situational

prevention is . . . broader than CPTED (which

tends to be focused on design of the built

environment).21

Still, although the theory emphasizes these multiple solutions, the practice of situational crime prevention has lagged

somewhat. Clarke’s book of successful case studies includes

few examples of projects integrating design, use, and management strategies.22

In this report, the term place-specific crime prevention is

used to refer to approaches that go beyond more narrow

theories about environmental design, drawing on more active strategies and techniques yet retaining a locationcentered focus. Place-specific crime prevention seeks to

improve on CPTED’s exclusive reliance on physical modifications to influence human behavior. As Reiss and Roth

note:

The reason for the inconsistent and temporary

effects [of a CPTED demonstration project in

Hartford] appears to be that crime and violence arise from interactions between the social environment and the physical environment, which cannot be controlled entirely

through manipulations of the physical environment [emphasis added]. The communal

feeling of territoriality and mutual protection,

on which the defensible space concept rests,

apparently failed to materialize . . ..23

Place-specific crime prevention addresses this interaction by

intervening in the social environment as well as the physical

environment of a place, thereby analyzing and altering the

interactions among design, use, and management.

Although the term may be new, concepts supporting placespecific crime prevention are not. The works of Richard

Gardiner, Allan Wallis, and Daniel Ford from the late 1970’s

and early 1980’s suggest place-specific crime prevention

principles. Wallis and Ford’s evaluation of a CPTED

demonstration project in Portland, Oregon, emphasized the

importance of going beyond defensible space and including

community organizations and police.24 Gardiner has long

advocated integrating urban village (community crime prevention), urban fortress (access control and target-hardening), and defensible space models for crime prevention.25

Circulation, public facility location, open space, zoning,

parking and other urban support systems must support legitimate use of the area for effective crime prevention. For

example, in Freeway Park in Seattle, Washington, a lack of

foot traffic combined with design flaws allowed criminals to

take over. Although the police used extensive resources to

remove illegitimate users from the park, the lack of legitimate park users and active management allowed criminal

activity to return after police shifted their attention elsewhere. In contrast, skateboarders’ legitimate use drove drug

dealers out of Skateboard Park in Portland, Oregon.26

More recently, Taylor and Harrell have written an extremely

cogent examination of the evolution of place-specific crime

prevention approaches and of the evidence supporting their

use.27 They identify assumptions about offender behavior

that underlie manipulation of physical features for crime

prevention. In particular, they believe that offenders consider the following factors when deciding to commit a crime:

1. How likely and easy is it to enter the area?

2. How visible, attractive, and vulnerable are the targets in

the area, once entrance is gained?

3. What are the chances of being seen committing the

crime?

4. If seen, what are the chances that others will intervene?

5. Whether seen or not, how quickly and directly can the

area be left after the crime is committed?28

Notice that these factors point directly to the interrelationship of physical design (items 1, 3, 5), management (items 1,

3, 4, 5), and use (items 2, 3, 4) of a specific place.

Similarly, Fleissner and Heinzelmann advocate integrating

attention to physical characteristics and crime with analysis

of the activities of the people who use a given space.29

CPTED techniques can control access, facilitate surveillance, and increase users’ sense of security; community

policing can prevent fear of crime from becoming isolating
Appendix B 75

and self-fulfilling. Fleissner and Heinzelmann argue that

CPTED and community policing can and should complement each other.30

The theoretical work on routine activities also points to

design, use, and management of places as all being critical to

crime prevention. If crime results when motivated offenders

and vulnerable targets converge in space and time in the

absence of a capable guardian,

31 then prevention requires:

1. Making access to the area more difficult for motivated

offenders, through design changes and ongoing management.

2. Making targets less vulnerable, by encouraging more

users to be present and by teaching users basic safety

practices (for example, to prevent purse-snatching, an

older woman should carry her purse out of sight or with

the strap across her chest, not over one shoulder).

3. Ensuring that the area is suitably guarded, through a

combination of encouraging legitimate users and making it clear that the area is managed.

If these three steps are taken, neither users nor managers

should fear to act if they see an offense being committed.

The requirement of active management of places may be

criticized as unrealistic in an era of austere public budgets

and lean private business operations. It therefore seems

important to clarify here what is meant by the managerial

component (although it is discussed more fully in chapter 2).

The management of places has both formal and informal

aspects. Formally, we look to public services—including not

only policing but also planning, public works, and sanitation—for the management of our public spaces. Attention

was drawn most vividly to the need for management of public

spaces by Wilson and Kelling’s 1982 article “Broken Windows.”32 The authors describe the potent effects of signs of

disorder—such as abandoned cars, graffiti, and broken windows—on the residents of urban neighborhoods and the

users of public streets and sidewalks. Removing and preventing such signs of disorder as they occur on public

property is the responsibility of police and other public

sector agencies. These agencies must work in concert to

avoid the fear-generating and use-dampening effects of

disorder on urban and suburban neighborhoods.

However, active management also includes informal components, such as residents taking responsibility for the street

in front of their homes. All evidence reviewed here points to

the likelihood that active formal management will encourage

and strengthen informal management, so that suitable and

capable guarding of spaces—from disorder as well as from

crime—becomes a shared responsibility and a more potent

force against crime.

Evaluation Research and Findings

In the evaluation literature on community or neighborhood

crime prevention, community-oriented policing, and designbased crime prevention programs, both the findings and the

programs themselves vary significantly. Programs differ in

tactics, goals, participants, locations, and available resources.

Evaluations and their results differ by methods of analysis,

measures of success (outcome measures), and interpretations of findings. Measurement problems in this field are

well known. For example, the crime level may look very

different if one study measures it using the number of calls for

service and another uses conviction rates.33 Similarly, a

higher count of convictions might mean that police and

prosecutors are doing a better job, or that there have been

more crimes overall.

Few interventions and even fewer evaluations make use of

the full range of place-specific crime prevention strategies.

Accordingly, only a few exemplary evaluations are discussed here, bearing in mind that the emergence of placespecific crime prevention has created a compelling need for

further, more integrated studies.

In 1973, the Hartford Neighborhood Crime Prevention Program targeted burglary, robbery, and purse-snatching in two

neighborhoods by integrating the efforts of police, citizens,

and CPTED. In one neighborhood, there was additional

policing and citizen organizing to prevent crime, while in the

other, those interventions were combined with modifications

of the physical space. One study found that the Hartford

program significantly reduced theft crimes in both neighborhoods,34 but another study concluded that these results were

short lived.35

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded three early

CPTED demonstrations in the late 1970’s. One project

focused on a mixed commercial and residential area in

Portland, Oregon, and incorporated the efforts of community

organizations and the police department in addition to design

modifications. The Portland project was the most successful, clearly reducing some types of crime.36

A rare and early instance of an evaluation addressing the full
76 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

range of place-specific crime prevention strategies is the

study of crime reduction in Fairview Homes (a public housing development in Charlotte, North Carolina).37 The crime

prevention program combined physical design changes,

management improvements, resident organizing, and partnerships between public agencies and private neighborhood

organizations. The study showed that “the two goals of the

program—increased reporting of crime and reduced incidents of victimization—were not only met but exceeded.”38

The Chicago Housing Authority has implemented a program

called the Anti-Drug Initiative (ADI), which includes building sweeps for guns, drugs, and illegal occupants; improved

security through guards and lobby access control; eviction of

unauthorized tenants; improved responses to residents’ service and maintenance needs; and drug prevention and intervention programs. The ADI has involved police officers,

public housing management, residents, and social service

providers. An early evaluation of this program found evidence that it was fairly successful in reducing crime and

drugs in public housing; the study suggested that tenant

stability and community base were essential to the ADI’s

success.39

Other evaluations have examined elements of place-specific

crime prevention rather than comprehensive efforts. Several

have focused on patrols and policing. At the New York City

Housing Authority (NYCHA), resident patrols involve 15,000

participants, and housing developments with active patrols

appear to experience less crime and vandalism and more

social cohesion than those without active patrols.40 However, the causal relationship here has not been established;

greater social cohesion may well be a prerequisite for, rather

than a result of, effective resident patrols.

Also in New York City, police bicycle patrols operating in

public housing developments achieved more arrests (particularly drug arrests), fostered better community relations,

and gathered more intelligence than the previous policing

mode, in which cruisers were assigned to the same neighborhood.41 A community policing and access control project in

Lawrence, Massachusetts, improved resident/police relations but did not significantly affect drug-related crime.42

The Seattle Police Department has implemented a particularly successful community policing program focused on

building partnerships among citizens, police, and other public agencies. Evaluations of this project have concluded that:

• Traditional policing and community policing must be

combined.

• Crime and fear of crime are lower in neighborhoods

where territoriality or neighborhood pride is expressed

through the appearance of the neighborhood.

• Community policing may create turf conflicts among

police and other agencies unaccustomed to partnerships.

• As much of the police department as possible should

cooperate on a coordinated community policing effort.

• Community policing may increase the number of less

urgent citizen calls for service.

• Community policing requires skills different from those

needed for traditional policing.

• Successful partnerships should expand membership (including more agencies and citizen groups) and goals

(considering the needs of more, and more varied, populations).43

A recent process evaluation of the Community Responses to

Drug Abuse (CRDA) demonstration, designed by the National Training and Information Center and the National

Crime Prevention Council, found that local community organizations accomplished a great deal, including creation of

partnerships, changes in police-community relations, and

enhanced capacity to mobilize anticrime and antidrug

resources.44

An evaluation of interventions operated by public housing

agencies (PHA’s) and funded by the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through the Public

Housing Drug Elimination Program (PHDEP) examined

both the implementation and impact of these local antidrug

and anticrime efforts.45 Local agencies designed the programs (which could include physical improvements, security

activities, drug prevention, and/or drug treatment) on the

basis of conditions and needs in specific targeted public

housing developments. This study employed a variety of

research methods and assessed effectiveness on a range of

possible impacts, including reductions in drug-related crime,

improvements in resident quality of life, increased resident

empowerment, establishment of linkages with other organizations, and creation of broader neighborhood effects. The

study found some diminution of open-air drug activity in 10

of the 15 sites that received intensive study, as well as

increased resident feelings of safety and freedom of movement, some increases in resident empowerment, and some

improved linkages with external agencies and groups.46 Data
Appendix B 77

are also available from the study on the nationwide use of

PHDEP funds for security-related physical improvements.

Another body of research related to place-specific crime

prevention has focused on the role of management in maintaining livable communities in subsidized housing developments and has called effective managers the “saints” of urban

neighborhoods.47 A recent evaluation of the effects of

community development corporations (CDC’s) on their neighborhoods found that poverty, crime, and gang activity are

major factors affecting property management and that property managers can create safer conditions for their residents

by using a range of techniques, including:48

• Screening prospective tenants.

• Setting and enforcing rules (in addition to lease requirements) designed to protect the physical property and the

safety, privacy, and peace of residents.

• Using for-cause eviction to remove problem tenants

(after other means of resolving the problems did not

succeed), to demonstrate that rules must be followed

and illegal behavior will not be tolerated.

• Maintaining secure premises and keeping the properties

clean and in good repair to benefit both residents and the

surrounding neighborhood.

• Providing security coverage, where necessary, through

use of private guards (through contracted services or an

in-house security force).

Another recent study of the management challenge for nonprofit managers of affordable housing found “many examples of non-profit doing good jobs under these conditions

[widespread unemployment, poor maintenance, vandalism,

drug dealing, and gangs].”49 Quoting one site manager, the

report tied some management difficulties to design problems: “This development is a suburban dream. The problem

with the dream and the very cozy layout with the many

corners and crannies is that it is not built for security and

defensible space.”50 The study documented improvements

made to overcome this design flaw, including target-hardening and access control, but noted that these changes were

costly.

These two studies are limited by their lack of impact analysis.

While both used indicators of building condition and gathered data on resident satisfaction, they did not examine crime

data or focus on whether security measures reduced crime

incidence, victimization, or fear of crime in the housing

complexes, buildings, or surrounding areas. Indeed, the lack

of analysis demonstrating program impacts will prove characteristic of a number of sites used in this report. While there

are data to suggest that each program highlighted in this

report has achieved positive results, there is a great need for

further research in this field despite the methodological and

practical difficulties.

Displacement of Crime or Diffusion

of Benefits?

The possibility of crime displacement is one of the major

challenges raised when place-specific crime prevention efforts are proposed. Many practitioners express concern that

place-specific programs will simply move (or displace)

crime from the target area to other areas or other victims,

without reducing the overall crime level. Put more formally,

“under this view, situational changes [can] affect the pattern

of crime but not its volume: the latter [is] determined by

motivational factors.”51

While law enforcement officials and other practitioners

appear to accept crime displacement as a common occurrence, relatively little empirical research has focused directly

on this phenomenon. Two fairly recent surveys of the crime

control literature have examined the existing studies that

address displacement and analyze the evidence they contain.

A 1993 review of 33 studies (covering a wide range of crimes

and settings) found that only 3 showed evidence of much

displacement, 12 others found evidence of some displacement, while the remaining 18 found no such evidence.52

Perhaps more important, despite the potential for different

types of displacement (not just in time or space but by target,

method, crime type, or perpetrator), there is a notable lack of

research on what situations give rise to varying types and

levels of displacement and why.53

A more recent review of 55 published articles on crime

prevention began to address the question of displacement by

classifying studies based on the type of intervention strategy

used and other factors.54 Overall, 22 of the studies identified

no displacement, while 33 reported some form of displacement (none of the studies found complete displacement;

most instances were quite limited). A high proportion of the

studies showing no displacement examined interventions

that increased the effort needed to commit a crime, involved

combinations of preventive measures rather than single

measures, and implemented preventive measures throughout

the jurisdiction targeted.55 This analysis suggests that
78 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

external factors do affect the potential for and patterns of

crime displacement.

Some researchers persuasively contend that the perception

of displacement as being automatic and widespread is based

on questionable assumptions about criminal motivation,

most notably that the impetus to commit a crime comes

completely from within the offender and is not at all affected

by external factors. They argue that rational offender theory

better explains when and why displacement may occur.56

Distinctions also have been made between benign and destructive displacement.57 If there is displacement of criminal

activity to more serious offenses, or to already heavily

victimized areas or populations, then it would seem that

displacement does pose a significant concern. However, if

interventions more evenly distribute victimization among

different neighborhoods or populations, if they redirect

activity to less serious crimes, or if they displace only a

portion of the initial amount of crime, there is a net benefit.

Rational offender theory would also suggest that crime

prevention measures may produce diffusion of benefits

rather than displacement of crime. This would occur if

offenders experience increased fear of detection (i.e., they

perceive that the risk of crime has increased) and/or decreased likelihood of gain (i.e., they perceive that the reward

of crime is reduced) beyond the actual scope of the intervention. Hesseling 58 notes evidence that “some crime prevention measures have the unexpected and beneficial effect of

reducing crime in adjacent control areas or for other targets,”

and Clarke and Weisburd59 argue that “recent evidence leads

to the conclusion that the latter process [diffusion of benefits]

may be no less common than the former [displacement of

crime].”

Diffusion of benefits is defined by Clarke60 as “the spread of

the beneficial influence of an intervention beyond the places

which are directly targeted, the individuals who are the

subject of control, the crimes which are the focus of intervention, or the time periods in which an intervention is brought.”61

Two processes underlie diffusion: deterrence (through increasing the fear of detection and thus the actual or perceived

risk of arrest) and discouragement (through reducing the

actual or perceived reward of crime).62 When potential

offenders are deterred or discouraged beyond the degree

merited by the preventive measures taken, diffusion of

benefits will occur. Clearly, practitioners should seek to

design interventions that reduce the total amount of crime

and/or that deflect activity to less serious crime or to less

victimized populations. Even better would be the design of

interventions whose effects reach beyond their target and

thus produce diffusion of benefits.

Publications for Practitioners

Several manuals on design and active crime prevention

strategies have been published. (Those currently available

are listed in appendix D, with information on how to obtain

them.)

NIJ and HUD have each published information on implementing active crime prevention strategies. HUD has produced brief pamphlets with information on successful resident patrols and community policing programs, in addition

to resources for more information on starting similar programs.63 HUD also published a series of case studies of antidrug programs in public housing64 and a guide for community

groups dealing with street drug markets.65 Most recently,

HUD published an expanded monograph on Oscar Newman’s

defensible space work.66 NIJ funded a more extensive

manual on community crime prevention, with information

on successful programs and tactics, and resources for information and evaluation.67 Sparrow, Moore and Kennedy

discuss police coalitions with community groups and government agencies, describe success stories, and argue for

building such partnerships.68

Prior to this publication, only two texts have addressed the

need to combine an analysis of design, use, and management

to optimize crime prevention strategies. The earlier of the

two is Wallis and Ford’s work from the Portland, Oregon,

CPTED demonstration project. To its credit, this text

emphasizes the importance of ongoing evaluation and the

inclusion of existing community groups. Wallis and Ford

emphasize that the environment includes more than buildings, and that successful interventions depend on the active

support of the users of a space: “In the CPTED approach,

then, ‘environment’ includes not only the physical aspects of

the setting, but social programs, managerial approaches, and

law enforcement efforts as well.”69 The more recent text was

directed at public housing but has wider applicability. This

text—actually a workshop curriculum prepared for HUD’s

Crime Prevention and Security Division in 1995—formed

the basis for technical assistance workshops with local

officials and planners. It offers a variety of examples within

a framework grounded in the literature of situational crime

prevention.70
Appendix B 79

Endnotes

1. Rational choice or rational offender theory is now

widely accepted for a variety of reasons discussed in

“Editorial,” Crime Environments and Situational Prevention: European Journal of Criminal Policy and

Research v. 3, no. 3 (1995): 1. See also D. Cornish and

R.V. Clarke, The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice

Perspectives on Offending (New York: Springer Verlag,

1986).

2. J. Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities

(New York: Random House, 1961).

3. O. Newman, Design Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space (Washington, DC: National Institute of Law

Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement

Assistance Administration, April 1976).

4. Secure and Livable Communities: Crime Prevention

Through Environmental Design, Paper Abstracts and

Speaker Biographies (Washington, DC: AIA/ACSA

Council on Architectural Research and National Institute of Justice, 1993).

5. T. Crowe, Crime Prevention Through Environmental

Design: Applications of Architectural Design and Space

Management Concepts (Boston: National Crime Prevention Institute, 1991): 1.

6. L. Curtis and I. Kohn, “Citizen Self-help and Environmental Design: The Theory and Practice of Crime

Prevention in American Subsidized Housing” in Crime

and Public Housing: Proceedings of a Workshop Held

in September 1980, ed. M. Hough and P. Mayhew

(London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1982): 12.

7. “Neighborhood Anti-crime Plan Gets the Gate: Court

Rejects L.A. Community’s 10-Year Effort to Control

Access,” Law Enforcement News, (July 20, 1994): 5.

The California Supreme Court refused without comment to hear an appeal of the state appellate court

decision.

8. Ibid.

9. R. Gardiner, Design for Safe Neighborhoods: The Environmental Security Planning and Design Process

(Washington, DC: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 1978): 77.

10. R. Titus, “Security Works: Shopping Enclaves Bring

Hope, Investment to Blighted Inner-City Neighborhoods.” Urban Land (Jan. 2, 1990).

11. D. Rosenbaum and J. Eck, “The New Police Order:

Effectiveness, Equity, and Efficiency in Community

Policing,” in The Challenge of Community Policing:

Testing the Promises, ed. D. Rosenbaum (London:

Sage Publications, 1994): 3–23.

12. Ibid.; H. Goldstein, The New Policing: Confronting

Complexity (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, December 1993).

13. D. Rosenbaum and J. Eck, “The New Police Order:

Effectiveness, Equity, and Efficiency in Community

Policing,” in The Challenge of Community Policing:

Testing the Promises, ed. D. Rosenbaum (London:

Sage Publications, 1994): 11.

14. J. Feins, Partnerships for Neighborhood Crime Prevention (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, June 1983): 15–18.

15. Oscar Newman defined defensible space as “a term used

to describe a residential environment whose physical

characteristics—building layout and site plan—function to allow inhabitants themselves to become the key

agents in ensuring their own security. However, a

housing development is ‘defensible’ only when residents choose to adopt this intended role—a choice that

is facilitated by the development’s design. Defensible

space therefore is a sociophysical phenomenon.” O.

Newman, Design Guidelines for Creating Defensible

Space (Washington, DC: National Institute of Law

Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement

Assistance Administration, April 1976): 4. Emphasis

added.

16. S. Greenberg, W. Rohe, and J. Williams, “Safe and

Secure Neighborhoods: Physical Characteristics and

Informal Territorial Control in High and Low Crime

Neighborhoods,” unpublished paper submitted to the

National Institute of Justice (September 1981).

17. P. Mayhew, “Defensible Space: The Current Status of a

Crime Prevention Theory,” The Howard Journal of

Penology and Crime Prevention, 18 (1979):150–159.

Cited in R.V.G. Clarke, Situational Crime Prevention:

Successful Case Studies (New York: Harrow and Heston,

1992).
80 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

18. D. Dingemans, “Evaluating Housing Environments for

Crime Prevention.” Submitted for publication in Crime

Prevention Review.

19. S. Greenberg et al., “Safe and Secure Neighborhoods.”

20. F. DuBow, E. McCabe, and G. Kaplan, Reactions to

Crime: A Critical Review of the Literature (Washington, DC: National Institute of Law Enforcement and

Criminal Justice, November 1979).

21. R.V.G. Clarke, Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (New York: Harrow and Heston,

1992): 7.

22. Ibid.

23. A.J. Reiss and J.A. Roth, “Perspectives on Violence,”

Understanding and Preventing Violence, (Washington,

DC: National Research Council, 1993): 148.

24. A. Wallis and D. Ford, eds., Crime Prevention Through

Environmental Design: The Commercial Demonstration in Portland, Oregon (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1980).

25. R. Gardiner, Design for Safe Neighborhoods: The Environmental Security Planning and Design Process

(Washington, DC: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, September 1978): 16.

26. Ibid.

27. R. Taylor and A. Harrell, “Physical Environment and

Crime,” NIJ Research Report (Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,

NCJ157311, 1996).

28. Ibid., 3–4.

29. D. Fleissner and F. Heinzelmann, “Crime Prevention

Through Environmental Design and Community Policing,” Research in Action (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,

NCJ157308, 1996).

30. Ibid.

31. R.V.G. Clarke, ed., Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (New York: Harrow and Heston,

1992): 10.

32. J.Q. Wilson and G.L. Kelling, “Broken Windows: The

Police and Neighborhood Safety,” The Atlantic Monthly

(March 1982).

33. Many argue that more weight should be given to incident

data of calls for service; these are less manipulable than

conviction rates, which can be influenced by the level of

commitment to prosecution.

34. R. Gardiner, Design for Safe Neighborhoods, p. 67.

35. A.J. Reiss and J.A. Roth, eds., “Perspectives on Violence,” in Understanding and Preventing Violence

(Washington, DC: Research Council, 1993): 148.

36. A. Wallis and D. Ford, Crime Prevention Through

Environmental Design: The Commercial Demonstration in Portland, Oregon (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1980).

37. J. Hayes, The Impact of Citizen Involvement in Preventing Crime in Public Housing (Charlotte, NC: Fairview

Homes Crime Prevention Program, 1982).

38. Ibid., i.

39. S. Popkin, L. Olson, A. Lurigio, V. Gwiasda, and R.

Carter, “Sweeping Out Drugs and Crime: Residents’

Views of the Chicago Housing Authority’s Public Housing Drug Elimination Program,” Crime and Delinquency, 41, no. 1 (January 1995): 73–99.

40. S. Sorensen, “Resident Patrols,” Model Program Briefs

2 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development, HUD-1444-PIH-RP).

41. S. Sorensen, “Bicycle Patrols,” Model Program Briefs

1 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development, HUD-1444-PIH-BP).

42. Ibid.

43. “Community Policing in Seattle: A Model Partnership

Between Citizens and Police,” Research in Brief (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, August 1992).

44. D. Rosenbaum, S. Bennett, B. Lindsay, and D. Wilkinson,

Community Responses to Drug Abuse: A Program
Appendix B 81

Evaluation (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, February 1994): 24–

27.

45. T. Hammett, J. Feins, T. Mason, and I. Ellen, Public

Housing Drug Elimination Program Resource Document (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development, 1993).

46. Ibid., Executive Summary, pp. vi-ix.

47. L. Keyes, Strategies and Saints: Fighting Drugs in

Subsidized Housing (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press, 1992).

48. M.L. Sullivan, More Than Housing: How Community

Development Corporations Go About Changing Lives

and Neighborhoods (New York: Community Development Research Center, New School for Social Research,

1993), Chapter 5.

49. R. Bratt, L. Keyes, A. Schwartz, and A. Vidal, Confronting the Management Challenge: Affordable Housing in

the Nonprofit Sector (New York: Community Development Research Center, New School for Social Research,

1994): 11.

50. Ibid., 125.

51. R.V. Clarke and D. Weisburd, “Diffusion of Crime

Control Benefits: Observations on the Reverse of Displacement,” in Crime Prevention Studies, v. 2, R.V.

Clarke ed. (Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 1994):

167.

52. See J.E. Eck, “The Threat of Crime Displacement,”

Criminal Justice Abstracts v. 25 (1993): 529.

53. Ibid., 527–28.

54. R.B.P. Hesseling, “Displacement: A Review of the

Empirical Literature,” in Crime Prevention Studies, v.

3, Ronald V. Clarke ed. (Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice

Press, 1994): 197–230.

55. Ibid., 217.

56. R. Clarke and D. Cornish, “Situational Prevention,

Displacement of Crime and Rational Choice Theory,”

in Situational Crime Prevention: From Theory to Practice, K. Heal and G. Laycock, eds., (London: Her

Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1986): 1-16.

57. R.V. Clarke, ed., Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies, pp. 22–27.

58. R.B.P. Hesseling, “Displacement: A Review of the

Empirical Literature,” p. 217.

59. Ibid., 217.

60. R.V. Clarke and D. Weisburd, “Diffusion of Crime

Control Benefits: Observations on the Reverse of Displacement,” in Crime Prevention Studies, v. 2, ed. R.V.

Clarke (Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 1994):

179.

61. Ibid., 169.

62. Ibid., 173.

63. S. Sorensen, “Resident Patrols,” Model Program Briefs

2 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development, HUD-1444-PIH-RP); and S.

Sorensen, “Bicycle Patrols,” Model Program Briefs 1

(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development, HUD-1444-PIH-BP).

64. T. Hammett, J. Feins, T. Mason, and I. Ellen, Public

Housing Drug Elimination Program Resource Document, vol. 3: Case Studies (Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1993).

65. American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities, The

Winnable War: A Community Guide to Eradicating

Street Drug Markets (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1991).

66. O. Newman, Creating Defensible Space (Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, April 1996).

67. J.D. Feins, Partnerships for Neighborhood Crime Prevention (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 1983).

68. M. Sparrow, M. Moore, and D. Kennedy, “Partnerships,” in Beyond 911: A New Era for Policing (New

York: Basic Books, 1990): 172–196.
82 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

69. A. Wallis and D. Ford, eds., Crime Prevention Through

Environmental Design: An Operational Handbook,

p. 4.

70. S.L. Sorensen and E. Walsh, Crime Prevention Through

Environmental Design and Situational Crime Prevention in Public Housing: Workshop Curriculum, HUD

Crime Prevention and Security Division, Technical

Assistance Workshop(s) (Bethesda, MD: SPARTA

Consulting Corporation, March 1995).
Appendix C 83

Appendix C

Guidelines and Checklists for PlaceSpecific Crime Prevention Programs

Exhibit C-1. Situational CPTED Matrix for Public and Indian Housing

Exhibit C-2. Worksheet: Increasing the Effort Needed to Commit Crime

Exhibit C-3. Worksheet: Increasing the Risks Associated with Crime

Exhibit C-4. Worksheet: Reducing the Rewards of Crime

Exhibit C-5. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)

Exhibit C-6. Home Security Checklist
84 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

Increasing the Effort 

Needed to Commit Crime

Increasing the Risks 

Associated with Crime Reducing the Rewards of Crime

___ 1.1 Target-hardening

___ a. locks

___ b. screens

___ c. toughened glass

___ d. steel doors

___ e. alarms

___ 2.1 Entry/exit screening

___ a. automatic gates and doors

___ b. security check-in booths

___ c. sensor booths (i.e., drug

vapor, metal detector, etc.)

___ d. resident ID checks

___ f. HA property tags

___ g. keypad systems

___ h. motion detectors

___ 3.1 Removing crime targets

from the premises

___ a. no cash policy in office

___ b. exact change vending

___ c. removable auto radios

___ d. remove parking meters

___ e. install phone card systems

___ 1.2 Access control

___ a. locked doors and gates

___ b. fenced yards and pedestrian

flo ws

___ c. parking lot barriers

___ d. entry phones

___ e. resident photo IDs and photo

badges

___ f. resident vehicle registration

and bumper stickers

___ g. PIN numbers

___ h. smart cards

___ i. turnstiles

___ 2.2 Form al surveillance

___ a. police patrols

(uniformed police,

narcotics enforcement)

___ b. security guards

___ c. informant hotlines

___ d. burglar alarms

___ e. CCTV systems

___ f. video cameras

___ g. still cameras

___ h. speciality cameras (night

vision, simulated)

3.2 Identifying and tagging

property

___ a. property marking

___ b. vehicle licensing

___ c. vehicle parts m arking

___ d. IDs for car radios

___ e. IDs for hand-held radios

___ f. decals

___ 1.3 Removing or deflecting

offenders

___ a. arcade locations

___ b. bus stop locations

___ c. recreational space locations

___ d. curb and gutter alterations

___ e. painting curbs

___ f. street flow alterations

___ g. graffiti boards

___ h. litter bins and refuse

containers

___ 2.3 increasing surveillance by

employees

___ a. HA administrators & staff

___ b. HA maintenance workers

___ c. HA security guards

___ d. HA occupancy personnel

___ e. bus coordinators

___ f. social services personnel

___ h. incentive schem es

___ i. badges

___ 3.3 Removing inducem ents for

crime

___ a. 24-hour graffiti removal

___ b. rapid repair

___ c. vacancy reduction

___ d. gender-neutral phone lists

___ e. off-street parking

___ 1.4 Closing windows to crime

facilitators

___ a. control spray-can sales

___ b. remove instruments of

delinquency and crime

___ c. round up shopping carts

___ d. secure vacant units

___ e. to w abandoned autos

___ f. weapons control

___ 2.4 Improving natural

surveillance

___ a. pruning hedges

___ b. “eyes on the street”

___ c. lighting up physical

obstructions

___ d. street lighting

___ e. defensible space

___ f. neighborhood watch

___ g. enhanced 911

___ h. resident patrols

___ 3.4 Boundary and rule setting

___ a. antiloitering

___ b. bannings and trespass

___ c. curfews

___d. drug-free housing zone

___ f. drug-free workplace

___ g. enforced evictions policy

___ h. nuisance abatements

___ i. applicant training

___ j. recertification screening

___ k. sym bolic barriers (signs)

Increasing the Effort 

Needed to Commit Crime

Increasing the Risks 

Associated with Crime Reducing the Rewards of Crime

___ 1.1 Target-hardening

___ a. locks

___ b. screens

___ c. toughened glass

___ d. steel doors

___ e. alarms

___ 2.1 Entry/exit screening

___ a. automatic gates and doors

___ b. security check-in booths

___ c. sensor booths (i.e., drug

vapor, metal detector, etc.)

___ d. resident ID checks

___ f. HA property tags

___ g. keypad systems

___ h. motion detectors

___ 3.1 Removing crime targets

from the premises

___ a. no cash policy in office

___ b. exact change vending

___ c. removable auto radios

___ d. remove parking meters

___ e. install phone card systems

___ 1.2 Access control

___ a. locked doors and gates

___ b. fenced yards and pedestrian

flo ws

___ c. parking lot barriers

___ d. entry phones

___ e. resident photo IDs and photo

badges

___ f. resident vehicle registration

and bumper stickers

___ g. PIN numbers

___ h. smart cards

___ i. turnstiles

___ 2.2 Form al surveillance

___ a. police patrols

(uniformed police,

narcotics enforcement)

___ b. security guards

___ c. informant hotlines

___ d. burglar alarms

___ e. CCTV systems

___ f. video cameras

___ g. still cameras

___ h. speciality cameras (night

vision, simulated)

3.2 Identifying and tagging

property

___ a. property marking

___ b. vehicle licensing

___ c. vehicle parts m arking

___ d. IDs for car radios

___ e. IDs for hand-held radios

___ f. decals

___ 1.3 Removing or deflecting

offenders

___ a. arcade locations

___ b. bus stop locations

___ c. recreational space locations

___ d. curb and gutter alterations

___ e. painting curbs

___ f. street flow alterations

___ g. graffiti boards

___ h. litter bins and refuse

containers

___ 2.3 increasing surveillance by

employees

___ a. HA administrators & staff

___ b. HA maintenance workers

___ c. HA security guards

___ d. HA occupancy personnel

___ e. bus coordinators

___ f. social services personnel

___ h. incentive schem es

___ i. badges

___ 3.3 Removing inducem ents for

crime

___ a. 24-hour graffiti removal

___ b. rapid repair

___ c. vacancy reduction

___ d. gender-neutral phone lists

___ e. off-street parking

___ 1.4 Closing windows to crime

facilitators

___ a. control spray-can sales

___ b. remove instruments of

delinquency and crime

___ c. round up shopping carts

___ d. secure vacant units

___ e. to w abandoned autos

___ f. weapons control

___ 2.4 Improving natural

surveillance

___ a. pruning hedges

___ b. “eyes on the street”

___ c. lighting up physical

obstructions

___ d. street lighting

___ e. defensible space

___ f. neighborhood watch

___ g. enhanced 911

___ h. resident patrols

___ 3.4 Boundary and rule setting

___ a. antiloitering

___ b. bannings and trespass

___ c. curfews

___d. drug-free housing zone

___ f. drug-free workplace

___ g. enforced evictions policy

___ h. nuisance abatements

___ i. applicant training

___ j. recertification screening

___ k. sym bolic barriers (signs)

Reprinted from: S.L. Sorensen and E. Walsh, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and Situational Crime Prevention in Public Housing: Workshop Curriculum, HUD Crime Prevention and Security Division,

Technical Assistance Workshop(s) (Bethesda, MD: SPARTA Consulting Corporation, March 1995), 13. Matrix developed by R.V. Clarke, S.L. Sorensen, and J. Fagan.

Exhibit C-1. Situational CPTED Matrix for Public and Indian Housing
Appendix C 85

Exhibit C-2. Worksheet: Increasing the Effort Needed to Commit Crime

YES NO Preventive Measure

Target-hardening

Locks adequate

Window screens adequate

Toughened glass

Steel doors

Exterior doors

Access control

Locked doors and gates

Fenced yards and pedestrian flows

Parking lot barriers

Entry phones

Resident photo IDs

Resident vehicle registration and bumper stickers

Personal identification numbers (PIN)/pass cards

Removing or deflecting offender opportunities for crime

(or availability of deflectors)

Arcade locations

Bus stop locations

Recreational space locations

Curb and gutter alterations

Painting curbs

Steel flow alterations

Graffiti boards

Litter bins and refuse containers

Closing windows to crime facilitators

Control spray-can sales

Remove instruments of delinquency and crime

Round up shopping carts

Secure vacant units

Tow abandoned autos

Weapons control

Automobile entry/egress pathways

Reprinted from: S.L. Sorensen and E. Walsh, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and Situational Crime Prevention in Public Housing: Workshop Curriculum. HUD Crime Prevention and Security Division, Technical

Assistance Workshop(s) (Bethesda, MD: SPARTA Consulting Corporation, March 1995), 39.
86 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

Exhibit C-3. Worksheet: Increasing the Risks Associated with Crime

YES NO

Entry/exit screening

Automatic gates and doors

Security check-in booths

Sensor booths (i.e., drug vapor, metal detector, etc.)

Resident ID checks

Resident vehicle checks

Housing A uthority (H A) property tags

Formal surveillance

Police patrols

Uniformed Patrol

Narcotics enforcement

Security guards

Informant hotlines

Burglar alarms

Closed-circuit TV systems

Curfew decals

Increasing surveillance by employees

HA administrators and staff

HA maintenance w orkers

HA security guards

HA occupancy personnel

Bus conductors

Social services personnel

Pay phone locations

Incentive schemes

Improving natural surveillan ce

Pruning hedges

“Eyes on the street”

Lighting up physical obstructions

Street lighting

Defensible space

Neighborhood watch

Enhanced 911

Resident Patrols

Reprinted from: S.L. Sorensen and E. Walsh, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and Situational Crime Prevention in Public Housing: Workshop Curriculum. HUD Crime Prevention and Security

Division, Technical Assistance Workshop(s) (Bethesda, MD: SPARTA Consulting Corporation, March 1995), 40.
Appendix C 87

YES NO

Removing crime targets from the premises

No-cash policy in office

Exact change vending

Removable auto radios

Remove parking meters

Install phone card systems

Pay by check or money order

Off-site food stamp distribution

Identifying and tagging property

Property marking

Vehicle parts marking

IDs for car radios

IDs for hand-held radios

Removing inducements of crime opportunity

Enforced weapons policy 

24-hour graffiti removal

Rapid repair

Vacancy reduction

Plywood road signs

Gender-neutral phone lists

Off-street parking

Boundary- and rule-setting

Antiloitering

Banning and trespass

Curfews

Drug-free zones

Drug-free workplace

Enforced evictions policy

Nuisance abatement

Screening of applicants and recertification

Symbolic barriers (signs)

Site inspection surveys by public housing authority

Exhibit C-4. Worksheet: Reducing the Rewards of Crime

Reprinted from: S.L. Sorensen and E. Walsh, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and Situational Crime Prevention in Public Housing: Workshop Curriculum. HUD Crime Prevention and Security

Division, Technical Assistance Workshop(s) (Bethesda, MD: SPARTA Consulting Corporation, March 1995), 41.
88 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

I. What is the Need for CPTED?

a. Crime

b. Fear of crime

c. Improve the quality of life in the neighborhoods and

the workplace

II. Society’s Response to Crime

a. Public sector

b. Private sector

c. Criminal justice system

d. Self-help type programs

III.Crime Concepts

a. “Urban Fortress Model”

This model represents a view of crime prevention

which places sole reliance on securing buildings and

areas so outsiders cannot gain access without

approval.

—Isolate the resident from an environment which is

perceived to be hostile.

—Designed to be effective against burglary and other

crimes against residences.

b. “Defensible Space Model”

This model promotes that the design of the physical

environment has the capacity to either deter or

facilitate crime by enhancing the resident’s ability to

monitor and control his own environment.

—Based on the public housing projects conducted by

Oscar Newman, he identified the following variables:

—Territoriality

The capacity of the physical environment to create

for each individual perceived zones of territorial

influence that results in a proprietary interest and felt

responsibility.

—Design elements such as building placement, heights,

and size limitations.

—Natural surveillance

The capacity of physical design to provide surveillance opportunities for residents.

—The defensible space concept proposed that if

territoriality is achieved, it will help to eliminate or

reduce the vulnerability to crime and, therefore, aid

in deterring possible offenders.

c. “Urban Village Model”

It identifies social disorganization as a primary cause

of crime, defining it as the breakdown in the mechanism that fosters personal relationships, cooperation,

recognition, and morale.

—The urban village model depends primarily on social

homogeneity.

IV. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

CPTED advocated that with the proper design and

effective use of the building environment it will lead to

a reduction in the incidence of crime and the fear of

crime.

— For several thousand years, an awareness of how

the environment shapes behavior has been used by

architects, city planners, and residential dwellers to

elicit desired behaviors.

— CPTED promotes a positive change in the attitude

of the citizens.

— There are three Basic CPTED Strategies

a. Access control

This is a design concept directed at decreasing

crime opportunity. Access control strategies are

typically classified as:

— Organized (guards, receptionists, etc.)

— Mechanical (locks, physical security)

— Natural (spatial definition)

— An objective of access control is to deny access to

a crime target and to create a perception of risk in

offenders.

b. Surveillance

This is a design concept directed primarily at

keeping intruders under observation. Therefore,

the primary thrust of a surveillance is to facilitate

observation.

Surveillance strategies include:

— Patrol (security, police, citizens)

— Mechanical (lighting, CCTV)

— Natural (windows, street observations)

c. Territoriality

This concept suggests that physical design can

contribute to a sense of territoriality. Thus, the

physical design can create or extend a sphere of

influence so that users develop a sense of

proprietorship, and potential offenders perceive

that territorial influence.

— At the same time, it was recognized that natural

access control and surveillance contributed to a

sense of territoriality, making it effective for crime

prevention.

d. “Three-D” Approach

“Three-D” approach to space assessment provides

a simple guide in determining how the space is

designed and used.

Exhibit C-5. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
Appendix C 89

— All human space has some designated purpose.

— All human space has social, cultural, legal or

physical definitionsthat prescribe the desired and

acceptable behaviors.

— All human space is designed to support and control

the desired behaviors.

e. CPTED planning

— Crime analysis

— Demographics

— Land use

— Observations

— Interviews

— Coordination and communication

— Crime analysis

— Police

— Reported crime

— Trends and patterns

— M.O.

— Demographics

— City planning, census bureau

— Nature of the population

— Land use

— City planning, zoning, engineering

— Describe the physical allocations and

use of land

— Observations

— Go out into the neighborhoods

— What is happening, where, when, how

why

— Interviews

— People’s perceptions

— Survey

— Coordination and communication

— Between policy, security, planners,

architects, engineers

f. How policy and security can use CPTED

— Police

• Organize neighborhoods and business

• Neighborhood watch, business watch, citizen

patrols, security surveys

• Community and business organizing

• Enabling legislation

— Private

• Problem identification

• Building construction with CPTED

• Crime prevention programs

• Employee and citizen participation

g. Optimizing CPTED

— Communication

— Security, architects, planners, engineers, and

community

— What is the “State-of-the-Art”

— Evaluation and maintenance

— Reduce liability and improve the quality of life

Prepared by Timothy Crowe.

Source: L.J. Fennelly, ed., Effective Physical Security: Design, Equipment, and Operations (Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1992), 16–17.

Reprinted by permission of Butterworth Publishers, Newton, MA.
90 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

Exhibit C-6. Home Security Checklist

YES NO

  Are all exterior doors strong enough to withstand excessive force?

  Are all exterior doors secured with a dead-bolt lock that has a minimum one-inch throw?

  Are all strike plates and frames for exterior doors anchored to the home’s main

construction?

  Do all exterior doors fit snugly against the frame and are all frames free of warping,

cracks, and other signs of wear and tear?

  Is there a wide-angle (180 degrees) viewer/peephole on the main entrance door?

  Are sliding glass doors and windows secure against forcing the locks or from being lifted

completely out of the frame?

  Are high-risk windows (basement, garage, ground-level, partially or totally secluded,

latched, etc.) secured sufficiently enough to discourage or impede possible intrusion?

  Are double-hung windows secured with pins or extra locks to discourage prying?

  Are trees and shrubs trimmed to allow visibility along the perimeter (particularly entries)

of the house?

  Have you installed timers (both interior and exterior) to activate lights in your absence?

  Are all entrances (doors and windows) to your home lit at night?

  Is your address posted on your house and clearly visible from the street both night and

day?

If you answered NO to any of these questions, you have a security problem. To correct any of the above deficiencies,

refer to the Home Security section of this packet.1

Reprinted from: Seattle Police Department, Crime Prevention Division, Community Crime Prevention Division, Community Crime Prevention Block Watch Packet (Seattle, WA: Seattle Police Department, undated), 13.

1 Packet available from the Seattle Community Crime Prevention Division on request.
Appendix D 91

Appendix D

Sources of Information, Training, and

Technical Assistance

Information Sources (Publications)

American Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities

Suite 1112

1725 K Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 785-7844

The Winnable War: A Community Guide to Eradicating

Street Drug Markets, by Roger Conner and Patrick Burns,

is one of the most recent publications of the American

Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities (AARR). This

publication offers detailed advice on how to combat drugs

in urban areas and provides insight through examples.

AARR is a nonprofit membership organization working

primarily in three areas: drug and alcohol abuse; the rights

and responsibilities of families; and the security of public

spaces. AARR works to find solutions that balance rights

and responsibilities in public policy questions. The group

works to find legal and operational solutions to problems

facing urban areas and also works to defend legislated

solutions that are challenged in court.

American Institute for Architectural Research

Attn: Pradeep Dalal, Research Associate

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006-5292

(202) 879-7753

(202) 626-7425 (Fax)

dalalp@aia.org (e-mail)

Founded in 1995 in cooperation with the Association of

Collegiate Schools of Architecture, the American Institute

for Architectural (AIA) Research’s mission is to support

architectural research and design excellence by identifying

the research needs of the architectural discipline. AIA

Research advocates research that:

• Addresses compelling societal needs to which the

professional and educational architectural communities can contribute knowledge and skills.

• Contributes to architecture as a learned and knowledgebased discipline.

• Demonstrates ways to integrate research as part of the

design process and to utilize design as part of the

research process.

• Builds on and extends prior knowledge.

• Engages in interdisciplinary collaboration, both within

and beyond the design and building professions.

In pursuit of these goals, in 1996, with support from the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, AIA Research convened a national forum on the role of environmental design in reducing crime in public housing. Four monographs were developed as follow-up activities to a similar

conference held in 1995:

D. Fleissner and F. Heinzelmann, Crime Prevention

Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and Community Policing ($2.50; also available through the National Criminal Justice Reference Service).

M. Smith, CPTED in Parking Facilities ($2.50).

W. Brill and C. Gordon, The Expanding Role of CPTED

in Premises Liability ($2.50).

R.B. Taylor and A.V. Harrell, Physical Environment,

Crime, Fear, and Crime-Related Problems: Implications for Prevention and Community Viability ($2.50;

also available through the National Criminal Justice

Reference Service).

To order any of the above documents, send payment to AIA

Research, 1735 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20007. Payment may be made by check (payable to AIA) or

by Visa or MasterCard.

Cadwalader, Wickersham, and Taft

Marketing Department

100 Maiden Lane

New York, NY 10038

(212) 504-6000
92 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

A Civil War: A Community Legal Guide to Fighting Street

Drug Crime is an informational guide intended to help

community groups understand how civil measures (in addition to criminal ones) can be used to combat drug-related

problems within their community. The book focuses on five

areas:

1. Using common law actions, such as small-claims actions, as alternatives to criminal procedures.

2. Seeking help from government agencies regarding revocation of permits and licenses to individuals and/or

businesses who allow illicit drug-related activities.

3. Using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) or similar state laws to dismantle crack

houses.

4. Having the government use forfeiture/seizure laws to

seize drug-related areas and materials.

5. Combating drug activities in housing units.

To obtain copies of A Civil War: A Community Legal Guide

to Fighting Street Drug Crime, write to Cadwalader,

Wickersham, and Taft. The book is available free to New

York State residents and for $5 (to cover postage) for all nonresidents. (At this writing, only 800 of the original 8,000

copies are left.)

Center for Community Change

Carol Juergens, Publications

Center for Community Change

1000 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20007

(202) 342-0567

(202) 342-1132 (fax)

The Center for Community Changes (CCC) offers a variety

of useful publications on improving public housing in the

United States including these:

How to Save and Improve Public Housing: An Action

Guide

The HOME Program: A Basic Guide for Community

Organizations.

These manuals emphasize practical methods of transforming

urban areas into more livable spaces. CCC also publishes

Community Change (a quarterly on issues involving housing

projects).

Citizens Housing and Planning Council

218 West 40th Street, 12th Floor

New York, NY 10018

(212) 391-9030

(212) 391-9033 (fax)

The Citizens Housing and Planning Council (CHPC) has

published an informative short booklet by Timothy Vance,

entitled How to Get Drug Enterprises Out of Housing.

CHPC is a nonprofit, public-interest organization concerned

with housing, planning, and urban development in New York

City. Since 1937, CHPC has been dedicated to developing

sound housing policy for low- and moderate-income families, and rational, realistic, and fair city planning. CHPC

serves the public as a watchdog, civil resource, educator, and

advocate.

Crime Prevention Coalition

National Crime Prevention Council

1700 K Street, N.W., 2nd Floor

Washington, DC 20006

The Crime Prevention Coalition publishes Crime Prevention in America: Foundations for Action, a short book

detailing principles for communities to use in preventing

crime. The guide relates general ideas and specific examples

of how individual communities have implemented them.

The Crime Prevention Coalition works for individual, community, and law enforcement cooperation and coordination

to help prevent crime.

National Criminal Justice Reference Service

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20850

(800) 851-3420

The National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)

was created to provide research findings from the U.S.

Department of Justice to criminal justice professionals,

prosecutors, and criminal justice researchers. Most recent

publications are available from NCJRS at no charge. They

include:

• F. Earls and A. Reiss, “Breaking the Cycle: Predicting

and Preventing Crime,” Research Report (1994).
Appendix D 93

• P. Finn and M. O’Brien Hylton, “Using Civil Remedies

for Criminal Behavior—Rationale, Case Studies, and

Constitutional Issues,” Issues and Practices (October

1994).

• D. Fleissner, N. Fedan, D. Klinger, and E.

Stotland,“Community Policing in Seattle: A Model

Partnership Between Citizens and Police,” Research in

Brief (1992).

• D. Fleissner and F. Heinzelmann, “Crime Prevention

Through Environmental Design and Community Policing,” Research in Action (1996).

• H. Goldstein, “The New Policing: Confronting Complexity,” Research in Brief (1993).

• T. Rich, “The Use of Computerized Mapping in Crime

Control and Prevention Programs,” Research in Brief

(1995).

• J. Roth, “Understanding and Preventing Violence,”

Research in Brief (1994).

• R. Taylor and A. Harrell, “Physical Environment and

Crime,” Research Report (1996).

• C. Uchida, B. Forst, and S.O. Annan, “Controlling

Street-Level Drug Trafficking: Evidence from Oakland

and Birmingham,” Research in Brief (1992).

• C. Uchida, B. Forst, and S.O. Annan, “Modern Policing

and the Control of Illegal Drugs: Testing New Strategies in Two American Cities,” Research Report (1992).

• B. Webster and E. Connors, “The Police, Drugs, and

Public Housing,” Research in Brief (1992).

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

451 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20410

(202) 708-1197

HUD USER (800) 245-2691 (for publications’ availability)

The Office of Public and Indian Housing, U.S. Department

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), publishes some

useful materials on crime prevention for public housing

practitioners.

• H. Cisneros. Defensible Space: Deterring Crime and

Building Community (1995).

• “Community Policing,” Model Program Briefs 9 (HUD1444-PIH-CP).

• T. Hammett, J. Feins, T. Mason, and I. Ellen, Public

Housing Drug Elimination Program Resource Document (1993).

• O. Newman, Creating Defensible Space (1996).

• S. Sorensen, “Bicycle Patrols,” Model Program Briefs 1

(HUD-1444-PIH-BP).

• S. Sorensen, “Resident Patrols,” Model Program Briefs

2 (HUD-1444-PIH-RP)

Technical Assistance and Training

American Association of Retired Persons: Criminal Justice

Services

601 E Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20049

(202) 434-2277

The American Association of Retired Persons, Criminal Justice Services division, provides crime prevention training

manuals and multi-media presentations as a public service.

The organization also offers a structured course on helping

law enforcement officers deal more effectively with senior

citizens.

Citizens Committee for New York City

Felice Kirby, Director

Crime Activities Committee

Citizens Committee for New York City (CCNYC)

305 7th Avenue, 15th Floor

New York, NY 10001

(212) 989-0909

(212) 989-0982 (fax)

Founded in 1975 by the late Senator Jacob Javits, the Citizens

Committee for New York City (CCNYC) supports community-based action to improve conditions in urban neighborhoods through a variety of institutes, projects, and grants.

CCNYC offers training in and technical assistance for community leadership, organizing neighborhood antidrug and

crime prevention initiatives, and community policing. The

CCNYC is developing a manual about crime prevention

activities targeting housing developments and residential

neighborhoods.
94 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

Civil Enforcement Initiative

Attn: Robert Messner, Managing Attorney

Civil Enforcement Unit

New York City Police Department

2 Lafayette Street, 5th Floor

New York, NY 10007

(212) 374-2546.

(212) 374-2735 (fax)

The New York City Police Department’s Civil Enforcement

Initiative (CEI) is an in-house law unit that provides legal

advice and problem-solving services to the department.

CEI’s goal is to improve the quality of life of city residents

by making use of the law to confiscate drug-infested buildings and by helping the police seize vehicles of patrons

soliciting prostitutes.

General Federation of Women’s Clubs: Crime Prevention

Program

Johnie Ruth Sturgeon

709 N. Oak Street

Vidalia, LA 71373

(318) 757-4151

The General Federation of Women’s Clubs (GFWC) supports women’s clubs across the country in a variety of

activities. The GFWC Crime Prevention Program focuses

on three areas: violence against women, violence against

children/youth, and community crime prevention. In its

pursuit of crime prevention, GFWC works to:

• Study and raise awareness of crimes prevalent within

given communities.

• Support and/or form crime prevention partnerships with

local law enforcement agencies as well as with neighborhood associations.

• Participate in and/or organize crime prevention events

in the community.

GFWC works toward informing and activating communities

to fight crime cooperatively.

Institute for Community Design Analysis

Oscar Newman

383A Round Hill Road

Hensonville, NY 12439

(518) 734-4482

The Institute for Community Design Analysis, founded by

Oscar Newman, is a nonprofit research corporation that

formulates housing policies for Federal, State, and local

governments. The organization offers consulting and design

services to address local problems.

The Institute for Criminal Justice Studies

Canyon Hall

Southwest Texas State University

San Marcos, TX 78666

(512) 245-3030

The Institute of Criminal Justice Studies conducts a broad,

year-round curriculum of crime prevention courses for the

Texas law enforcement community and for crime prevention

practitioners nationwide. It also distributes a variety of

brochures and course manuals.

Midwest Academy

225 Ohio Street

Suite 250

Chicago, IL 60610

(312) 645-6010

Midwest Academy provides training and consulting services

for organizations of low- and moderate-income people in

areas such as organizing, planning, staffing, and fundraising.

National Association of Town Watch

P.O. Box 303

Wynnewood, PA 19096

(610) 649-7055

National Association of Town Watch serves as a clearinghouse for community groups to exchange crime prevention

techniques and tips and to disseminate local crime prevention news. The program seeks to provide national affiliation

and recognition for local crime prevention efforts. It offers

fundraising programs, promotional materials, training guides,

and technical assistance. It also sponsors the annual “National Night Out Program,” which involves 8,800 communities across the country, to encourage greater bonds between

neighbors and better relations with local law enforcement

agencies.

The National Criminal Justice Association

Suite 618

444 North Capitol Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

(202) 624-4620
Appendix D 95

The National Criminal Justice Association gives assistance

in the development and implementation of statewide crime

prevention programs. In particular, it offers management,

administration, and organizational training for these programs.

National Crime Prevention Institute

University of Louisville

Louisville, KY 40292

(502) 852-6987

(502) 852-6990 (fax)

training@ulkyvm.louisville.edu (e-mail)

NCPI offers both a basic and an advanced course on crime

prevention through environmental design (CPTED). The

institute will soon offer on-site training to communities.

NCPI strives to make crime prevention the primary goal of

all police officers in the United States.

Operation Crackdown

Attn: Young Lawyers Section

Bar Association of the District of Columbia

1819 H Street, N.W., 12th Floor

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 223-6600

(202) 293-3388 (fax)

The Young Lawyers Section of the Bar Association of the

District of Columbia has launched “Operation Crackdown,”

a public service initiative that uses the District’s public

nuisance law to rid residential neighborhoods of crack houses

and drug dealers. Operation Crackdown lawyers employ the

information provided by community groups and others to go

to court and obtain injunctions against landlords, requiring

them to take remedial action, such as tenant evictions and

installing high-intensity lights to illuminate dark alleys or

vacant lots.

Project for Public Spaces, Inc.

Fred I. Kent III, President

153 Waverly Place

New York, NY 10014

(212) 620-5660

Project for Public Spaces (PPS), Inc., was founded in 1975

to improve the livability of urban areas and to enhance the

quality of life in cities. PPS seeks to develop public spaces

that benefit all users. The organization specializes in translating research into planning and design, particularly for

community revitalization, with the emphasis on:

• User analysis.

• Programming and community consensus building.

• Conceptual design and guidelines.

• Design review.

• Master planning/urban design.

• Management programs.

• Amenity and art selection.

PPS offers technical assistance in the form of workshops,

publications, and films. A listing of publications and films

is available from the above address.

SPARTA Consulting Corporation

Attn: Ellen Walsh

7313 Woodmont Avenue

Bethesda, MD 20814

(301) 656-6600, Ext. 12

(301) 656-6770 (fax)

SPARTA Consulting Corporation is a Social Political Analysis, Research, and Technical Assistance firm that provides

state-of-the-art technology integration of social and political

policy analysis, evaluations and research, technical assistance and training, geographic data analysis, and analytical

services.

SPARTA Consulting Corporation has been awarded funding

to conduct technical assistance and training for Public and

Indian Housing (PIH) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). The purpose of this grant is to

provide state-of-the-art CPTED training and technical assistance to housing authority staff, residents, resident councils,

resident management corporations, housing authority security directors, local law enforcement officials, local government officials, architects, and other community leaders.

SPARTA will meet these needs by providing the following

services to the housing community:

• A national architectural CPTED redesign round table

conducted with the American Institute of Architects.

• Three regional CPTED workshops.

• On-site technical assistance.
96 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

• Multi-site video conferencing with CPTED experts.

• A series of crime prevention publications.

• Electronic dissemination of CPTED resources through

the World Wide Web and Internet.

• Immediate hard-copy dissemination via fax-back services.

For further information on SPARTA’s offerings (including

the architectural round table, CPTED workshops, and other

crime prevention information), please contact Ellen Walsh at

the address shown above.
Appendix E 97

Appendix E

Summary of Program Characteristics for

11 Place-Specific Crime Prevention

Programs

Appendix E graphics not available.
Appendix F 109

Appendix F

Crime Statistics for Selected Sites

Exhibit F-1. Reported Offenses, Genesis Park Community (1984–1994)

Exhibit F-2. Reported Offenses, Genesis Park Community (January–June, 1994–1995)

Exhibit F-3. Reported Offenses, Lockwood Gardens (Compared to Surrounding Beats)

Exhibit F-4. Reported Offenses, Oak Park, Illinois (1989–1994)

Exhibit F-5. Reported Part I Offenses, Castle Square Apartments, Boston (1990–1994)

Exhibit F-6. Reported Offenses, Five Oaks Neighborhood (January–November, 1989–1993)
110 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

Offense 1984 1989 1993 1994

Percent change

1984–1994 1989–1994 1993–1994

Homicide 2 2 2 -0- –100% –100% –100%

Rape 2 -0- 2 4 100% — 100%

Armed robbery 15 16 9 3 –80% –81% –67%

Strong–arm robbery 3 4 6 -0- –100% –100% –100%

Assault 64 89 30 -17- –73% –81% –43%

Violent Index 86 111 49 24 –72% –78% –51%

Residential burglary 26 34 17 16 –38% –53% –6%

Commercial burglary 3 -0- 6 1 –67% — –83%

Larceny/theft 27 28 16 23 –15% –18% 44%

Vehicle theft 3 7 5 3 0% –57% –40%

Arson 2 1 -0- -0- –100% –100% —

Property Index 61 70 44 43 –30% –39% –2%

Part I Offenses 147 181 93 67 –54% –63% –28%

Offense 1984 1989 1993 1994

Percent change

1984–1994 1989–1994 1993–1994

–100% –100% –100%

Violent Index

Residential burglary

Property Index

Part I Offenses

Source: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Exhibit F-1. Reported Offenses,

Genesis Park Community

(1984-1994)
Appendix F 111

Exhibit F-2. Reported Offenses, Genesis Park Community

(January-June, 1994-1995)

January–June

Offense 1994 1995 Percent Change

Rape 4 1 –75%

Armed robbery 3 2 –33%

Strong–arm robbery -0- 2 —

Assault -9- 12 33%

Violent Index 16 17 6%

Residential burglary 13 16 23%

Commercial burglary -0- 2 —

Larceny/theft 12 28 133%

Vehicle theft 1 3 200%

Property Index 26 49 88%

Part I Offenses 42 66 57%

January–June

Offense 1994 1995 Percent Change

Rape 4 1 –75%

Violent Index

Residential burglary

Property Index

Part I Offenses

Source: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, Charlotte, North Carolina.
112 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

Type of Offense/Location 1991 1992 1993 1994

Part I Crimes Reported

Homicides

Lockwood-65th 2 0 0 0

Lockwood-66th 0 0 0 0

Lockwood-Fenham 1 0 0 0

Lockwood-East Lawn 0 0 0 0

Lockwood Total 3 0 0 0

Beat 29 2 10 4 6

Beat 30 9 4 4 4

Neighborhood Total 11 14 8 10

Lockwood as a percent of neighborhood 27.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Rape

Lockwood-65th 0 2 0 0

Lockwood-66th 1 0 0 0

Lockwood-Fenham 1 0 0 0

Lockwood-East Lawn 0 0 0 0

Lockwood Total 2 2 0 0

Beat 29 11 14 5 5

Beat 30 10 10 9 7

Neighborhood Total 21 24 14 12

Lockwood as a percent of neighborhood 9.5% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0%

Robbery

Lockwood-65th 7 6 1 3

Lockwood-66th 5 8 3 0

Lockwood-Fenham 1 2 0 0

Lockwood-East Lawn 0 1 0 0

Lockwood Total 13 17 4 3

Beat 29 117 109 88 72

Beat 30 81 93 68 49

Neighborhood Total 198 202 156 121

Lockwood as a percent of neighborhood 6.6% 8.4% 2.6% 2.5%

Felony Assault

Lockwood-65th 20 11 9 9

Lockwood-66th 9 6 10 3

Lockwood-Fenham 2 1 1 2

Lockwood-East Lawn 1 3 1 1

Lockwood Total 32 21 21 15

Beat 29 75 73 138 97

Beat 30 105 92 147 133

Neighborhood Total 180 165 285 230

Lockwood as a percent of neighborhood 17.8% 12.7% 7.4% 6.5%

Violent C rimes Index

Lockwood Total 50 40 25 18

Neighborhood Total 410 405 463 383

Lockwood as a percent of neighborhood 12.2% 9.9% 5.4% 4.8%

Burglary

Lockwood-65th 24 14 7 12

Lockwood-66th 16 15 15 15

Lockwood-Fenham 1 1 0 4

Exhibit F-3. Reported Offenses, Lockwood Gardens

(Compared to Surrounding Beats)
Appendix F 113

Type of Offense/Location 1991 1992 1993 1994

Burglary (continued)

Lockwood-East Lawn 2 0 2 1

Lockwood Total 43 30 24 32

Beat 29 284 308 577 417

Beat 30 186 166 310 299

Neighborhood Total 470 474 887 716

Lockwood as a percent of neighborhood 9.1% 6.3% 2.7% 4.5%

Theft/larceny

Lockwood-65th 21 15 25 10

Lockwood-66th 20 13 9 5

Lockwood-Fenham 1 2 8 4

Lockwood-East Lawn 3 4 7 3

Lockwood Total 45 34 49 22

Beat 29 651 639 376 367

Beat 30 450 331 248 180

Neighborhood Total 1101 970 624 547

Lockwood as a percent of neighborhood 4.1% 3.5% 3.5% 4.0%

Vehicle theft

Lockwood-65th 6 9 9 4

Lockwood-66th 10 8 3 6

Lockwood-Fenham 3 5 2 3

Lockwood-East Lawn 2 0 1 0

Lockwood Total 21 22 15 13

Beat 29 267 293 290 250

Beat 30 133 152 148 147

Neighborhood Total 400 445 438 397

Lockwood as a percent of neighborhood 5.3% 4.9% 3.4% 3.3%

Property Crimes Index

Lockwood Total 109 86 88 67

Neighborhood Total 1971 1889 1949 1660

Lockwood as a percent of neighborhood 5.5% 4.6% 4.5% 4.0%

Total Part I Crimes (except arson)

Lockwood-65th 80 57 51 38

Lockwood-66th 61 50 40 29

Lockwood-Fenham 10 11 11 13

Lockwood-East Lawn 8 8 11 5

Lockwood Total 159 126 113 85

Beat 29 1407 1446 1478 1214

Beat 30 974 848 934 819

Neighborhood Total 2381 2294 2412 2033

Lockwood as a percent of neighborhood 6.7% 5.5% 4.7% 4.2%

Source: Oakland Police Department, Oakland, California.
114 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

Offense 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Percent change

1989–1994 1992–1994

Murder 0 2 1 -1- -2- -1- — 0%

Criminal sexual assault 11 10 13 18 13 11 0% –38.9%

Robbery 308 276 295 284 209 202 –34.4% –28.9%

Aggravated assault/ battery 72 31 69 65 32 46 –36.1% –29.2%

Violent Index 391 319 378 368 256 260 –33.5% –29.3%

Burglary 863 629 859 871 749 609 –29.4% –30.1%

Theft 2471 2186 2715 2484 2352 2397 –3.0% –3.5%

Motor vehicle theft 344 292 292 339 305 361 +4.9% +6.5%

Arson 12 13 10 6 13 5 –58.3% –16.6%

Property Index 3690 3120 3876 3700 3419 3372 –8.6% –8.9%

Part I Offenses 4081 3439 4254 4068 3675 3632 –11.0% –10.7%

Offense 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Percent change

1989–1994 1992–1994

— 0%

Violent Index

Burglary

Property Index

Part I Offenses

Exhibit F-4. Reported Offenses,

Oak Park, Illinois (1989-1994)

Source: Crime in Illinois, Illinois State Police.
Appendix F 115

Offense 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Percent change

 1990–1994 1992–1994

Murder 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0%

Rape 3 1 1 0 0 –100% –100%

Robbery 39 22 15 5 3 –92% –80%

Felony assault 12 8 4 7 3 –75% –25%

Violent Index 54 31 20 12 6 –89% –70%

Burglary 4 10 6 9 7 +75% +17%

Theft/larceny 59 48 70 31 29 –51% –59%

Vehicle theft 27 15 20 16 18 –33% –10%

Property Index 90 73 96 56 54 –40% –44%

Total 144 104 116 68 60 –58% –48%

Offense 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Percent change

 1990–1994 1992–1994

Murder 0 0 0 0 0

Violent Index

Burglary

Property Index

Total

Exhibit F-5. Reported Part I Offenses

Castle Square Apartments, Boston

(1990-1994)

Source: Office of Research and Analysis, Boston Police Department, Boston, Massachusetts.
116 Solving Crime Problems in Residential Neighborhoods

Violent Crimes* 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Percent change

1989–1993 1992–1993

Homicide 1 2 1 0 1 0% +100%

Rape 8 5 5 6 11 +27% +83%

Robbery 30 31 34 60 29 -3% -52%

Aggravated assault 22 20 37 45 15 -32% -67%

Subtotal 61 58 77 111 56 -8.2% -50%

Nonviolent/property crimes

Other assaults 156 198 196 207 182 +17% –12%

Burglary 126 114 153 169 104 –17% –38%

Larceny 222 196 205 234 177 –20% –24%

Vehicle theft 55 74 54 58 36 –35% –38%

Arson 3 8 7 12 2 –33% –83%

Vandalism 195 186 124 171 138 –29% –19%

CCW 5 3 6 6 7 +40% +17%

Prostitution 30 10 22 10 8 –73% –20%

Narcotics 15 12 16 13 6 –60% –54%

Intoxication 2 2 -0- 7 -0- –100% –100%

Miscellaneous 70 60 74 82 81 +16% –1%

Subtotal 879 863 857 969 741 –16% –24%

Total 940 921 934 1080 797 –15% –26%

Exhibit F-6. Reported Offenses,

Five Oaks Neighborhood

(January-November, 1989-1993)

*

*Violent crimes are defined as those reported by the F.B.I. in the Uniform Crime Report: they are homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Note: Crime statistics may be affected by officer-initiated activity involving proactive enforcement of crimes, such as prostitution, intoxication, and carrying a concealed weapon.

Source: Evaluation of the Five Oaks Neighborhood Stabilization Plan, City of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio.