U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

www.cops.usdoj.gov

Using Crime Prevention 

Through Environmental 

Design in Problem-Solving

by

Diane Zahm

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Solving Tools Series

No. 8
www.PopCenter.org

Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing web site at 

www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help you deal 

more effectively with crime and disorder in your community, 

including:

• Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides

• Interactive training exercises

• Online access to research and police practices

• Online problem analysis module.

Designed for police and those who work with them to address 

community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great resource in 

problem-oriented policing.

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice.

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
Diane Zahm

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#2004CKWXK002 by the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions 

contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. References to specific companies, 

products, or services should not be considered an endorsement 

of the product by the author or the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion 

of the issues.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 1-932582-81-9

August 2007

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Solving Tools Series

Guide No. 8

Using Crime Prevention 

Through Environmental Design 

in Problem-Solving

About the Problem-Solving Tools Series i

About the Problem-Solving Tools Series

The problem-solving tool guides are one of three series of 

the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. The other two are the 

problem-specific guides and response guides. 

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police summarize knowledge 

about how police can reduce the harm caused by specific 

crime and disorder problems. They are guides to preventing 

problems and improving overall incident response, not 

to investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. 

The guides are written for police—of whatever rank or 

assignment—who must address the specific problems the 

guides cover. The guides will be most useful to officers who:

• understand basic problem-oriented policing principles and 

methods

• can look at problems in depth

• are willing to consider new ways of doing police business

• understand the value and the limits of research knowledge

• are willing to work with other community agencies to find 

effective solutions to problems.

The tool guides summarize knowledge about information 

gathering and analysis techniques that might assist police at 

any of the four main stages of a problem-oriented project: 

scanning, analysis, response, and assessment. Each guide:

• describes the kind of information produced by each 

technique 

• discusses how the information could be useful in problemsolving 

• gives examples of previous uses of the technique

• provides practical guidance about adapting the technique to 

specific problems
ii Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving

• provides templates of data collection instruments (where 

appropriate)

• suggests how to analyze data gathered by using the 

technique

• shows how to interpret the information correctly and 

present it effectively

• warns about any ethical problems in using the technique 

• discusses the limitations of the technique when used by 

police in a problem-oriented project

• provides reference sources of more detailed information 

about the technique

• indicates when police should seek expert help in using the 

technique. 

Extensive technical and scientific literature covers each 

technique addressed in the tool guides. The guides aim to 

provide only enough information about each technique to 

enable police and others to use it in the course of problemsolving. In most cases, the information gathered during a 

problem-solving project does not have to withstand rigorous 

scientific scrutiny. Where police need greater confidence in 

the data, they might need expert help in using the technique. 

This can often be found in local university departments of 

sociology, psychology, and criminal justice. 

The information needs for any single project can be quite 

diverse, and it will often be necessary to use a variety of data 

collection techniques to meet those needs. Similarly, a variety 

of analytic techniques may be needed to analyze the data. 

Police and crime analysts may be unfamiliar with some of the 

techniques, but the effort invested in learning to use them can 

make all the difference to the success of a project. 
Acknowledgments iii

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, whose officers are 

Michael S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate 

Director) and Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director). 

While each guide has a primary author, other project team 

members, COPS Office staff and anonymous peer reviewers 

contributed to each guide by proposing text, recommending 

research and offering suggestions on matters of format and 

style. 

The project team that developed the guide series comprised 

Herman Goldstein (University of Wisconsin Law School), 

Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), John E. Eck (University 

of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott (University of Wisconsin Law 

School), Rana Sampson (Police Consultant), and Deborah 

Lamm Weisel (North Carolina State University.) 

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and 

Savannah, Georgia police departments provided feedback on 

the guides’ format and style in the early stages of the project.

Cynthia E. Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS Office. 

Research for the guide was conducted at the Criminal Justice 

Library at Rutgers University under the direction of Phyllis 

Schultze. Katharine Willis edited this guide.

v

contents

About the Problem-Solving Tools Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

What is Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Responding to Crime and Other Problems Using CPTED: 

The Process for Problem-Solving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Defining and Understanding the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Creating a Plan to Improve Environmental Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Engaging Stakeholders in Problem-Solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Keeping Tabs on Progress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

CPTED and the Problem-Solving Process:

Re-Examining the Three Introductory Cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Appendix A:

Using CPTED for Problem-Solving at a Building or Facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Appendix B:

Using CPTED for Problem-Solving in Multifamily Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Appendix C:

Using CPTED for Neighborhood Problem-Solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Contents
vi Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Introduction 1

Introduction

Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) is an 

approach to problem-solving that asks, what is it about this location 

that places people at risk, or that results in opportunities for crime? 

In other words, why here? Three case examples will illustrate this 

point:

Case #1

Custodial workers routinely find evidence of smoking, drinking, and 

vandalism in a high school lavatory.

Why here? The lavatory is in an isolated area of the building, 

adjacent to a ticket booth and concession stand that are active 

only during athletic events. The school’s open lunch policy allows 

students to eat anywhere on campus, while monitors are assigned 

only to the cafeteria.

CPTED response: A lock is installed on the lavatory door, and 

it remains locked unless there is an athletic event. The open lunch 

policy has been revised: students are still allowed to leave the 

cafeteria but must eat in designated areas, and a faculty member is 

charged with patrolling these areas during lunch periods.
Case #2

The back wall of a building in an office center is repeatedly 

tagged with graffiti.

Why here? The taggers have selected an area that is out of 

the view of passers-by: a rear corner location where two 

buildings come together at the end of a poorly lit service lane. 

Visibility is further reduced by hedges at the site’s perimeter. 

Businesses in the office center are open from 9 AM to 5 

PM during the week; however the tagged building is next 

to a roller skating rink where activity peaks at night and on 

weekends.

CPTED response: Hedges are trimmed and wall-mounted 

light fixtures installed along the service lane, with motion 

detection lighting in the problem area. The skating rink agrees 

to change to a “no re-admission” policy to keep skaters inside 

the building and away from the office property.

Case #3

ATM patrons at a bank are being robbed after dark.

Why here? The bank is situated along a commercial strip 

in a neighborhood with vacant properties and abandoned 

businesses. The ATM is in the front corner of the bank 

building, and the drive-through teller windows are at the side 

of the building, around the corner from the ATM. Robbers 

hide in the darkened drive-through teller area and attack 

unsuspecting ATM users after they complete a transaction.

CPTED response: The bank installs a fence at the corner 

of the building, creating a barrier between the ATM and the 

drive-through teller area.

2 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving
Introduction 3

In each of these case examples, asking why here? reveals that 

opportunities for crime and other problems arise out of a 

variety of environmental conditions related to the building, 

the site, and the location and how the place is used. Solving a 

problem thus requires a detailed understanding of both crime 

and place, and the response should consider one of the three 

objectives of crime prevention through environmental design: 

control access, provide opportunities to see and be seen, or 

define ownership and encourage the maintenance of territory.

This guide is a resource for understanding and using crime 

prevention through environmental design as a problemsolving tool. The guide explains the basic principles of 

CPTED and outlines a process for identifying problems, 

evaluating the physical environment, and identifying strategies 

that will remove or reduce opportunities for crime. 

What is Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design? 5

§ For a more detailed introduction 

to CPTED, see Crowe (2000), Crowe 

and Zahm (1994), and National 

Crime Prevention Council (1997).

§§ Herman Goldstein’s book, ProblemOriented Policing (1990) offers greater 

detail on these and other aspects of 

POP.

What is Crime Prevention Through 

Environmental Design?

Crime prevention through environmental design is an approach 

to problem-solving that considers environmental conditions 

and the opportunities they offer for crime or other unintended 

and undesirable behaviors. CPTED attempts to reduce 

or eliminate those opportunities by using elements of the 

environment to (1) control access; (2) provide opportunities to 

see and be seen; and (3) define ownership and encourage the 

maintenance of territory.§

CPTED is unusual when compared with other crime 

prevention or security measures because it specifically focuses 

on aspects of the design, while the other measures tend 

to be directed at target hardening, i.e., denying access to a 

target using locks and bars, or using sensors and cameras to 

detect and identify an offender, supported by security guards. 

CPTED is unusual also when compared to some police 

activities. This is because CPTED encourages prevention and 

considers design and place, while policing has traditionally 

valued an efficient and effective response to incidents, and the 

identification and arrest of offenders.

CPTED may be distinctly different from traditional policing, 

yet it is very consistent with problem-oriented policing, in four 

ways:§§ 

1. It considers a broad array of problems, not just crime.

2. It requires a systematic analysis of crime events and the 

conditions and factors that contribute to opportunities for 

crime.

3. It results in a set of programs or strategies that are 

proactive and tailored to the problem and the location.
4. It engages an array of citizens, government agencies, 

and local institutions, each of which has a role to play in 

defining the problem and deciding upon an appropriate 

solution, as well as some accountability for long-term 

improvements.

Crime prevention through environmental design is a relatively 

new term, but the use of design for safety and security is not. 

Caves and cliff dwellings, and castles and moats are good 

historical examples. Requirements for street lighting grew out 

of a need to distinguish legitimate travelers from outlaws and 

thieves. 

Contemporary approaches, including CPTED, emerged out of 

research on the relationship between crime and place, theories 

known variously as environmental criminology, situational 

prevention, rational choice theory, or routine activities theory, 

among others.§ Each theoretical approach focuses on the 

crime event and how a criminal offender understands and 

uses the environment to commit a crime. Like CPTED, this 

research asks, why here? The research reveals:

crime is specific and situational

the distribution of crimes is related to land use and 

transportation networks

offenders are opportunistic and commit crimes in places 

they know well

opportunity arises out of daily routines and activities

places with crime are often also places without observers 

or guardians.

Crime prevention through environmental design examines 

crime problems and the ways in which various features of 

the environment afford opportunities for undesirable and 

unwanted behaviors. CPTED attempts to remove or reduce 

these opportunities by changing various aspects of the 

building, the site, the location, and how that place is used.

•

•

•

•

•

6 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving

§ See also Newman (1972), Jeffery 

(1971, 1977), Brantingham & 

Brantingham (1981, 1984), Clarke 

(1980, 1992), Cohen & Felson (1979), 

and Cornish & Clarke (1986).
What is Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design? 7

These changes are directed toward three basic objectives, each 

of which is described briefly below, including examples of 

CPTED strategies:

1. Control access by creating both real and perceptual 

barriers to entry and movement. The environment must 

offer cues about who belongs in a place, when they are 

supposed to be there, where they are allowed to be while 

they are there, what they should be doing, and how long 

they should stay. Users/guardians can also serve as access 

control if they pay attention to people and activities and 

report unwanted behaviors to the appropriate authorities.

Examples:

fences, tree lines, hedges, or berms define the boundaries 

of a site

drives, sidewalks, paths, and gardens guide movement 

through a site

gates and doors limit points of entry to a site or building

•

•

•

This is exactly how NOT to do CPTED! 1. It is dreadfully 

ugly; 2. the walls around the portable bathroom make it 

impossible to observe undesirable and unwanted behaviors.

Ronald Clarke
8 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving

signs direct movement, provide information, define 

appropriate activities and schedules, and identify intended 

users (e.g., “Employees Only”)

consistent use of colors or materials – in buildings, 

pavers, light fixtures, and landscaping – create an identity

design features may be supported by locks, and enhanced 

with alarm systems or guards, depending on the situation.

2. Take advantage of design to provide opportunities 

to see and be seen. This includes opportunities to see 

from adjacent properties or the site perimeter onto the 

site, and possibly to see parking areas and buildings; 

opportunities to see from one part of the site to another; 

and opportunities to see parking, walkways, and other 

areas of the site from various locations inside the building. 

These design elements need to be supported by potential 

observers (they actually need to look for and then report

unusual behavior), and by policies and procedures, for 

example, related to landscape maintenance.

Examples:

lighting improves the ability to observe activity and 

identify individuals

windows afford views from inside to outside and outside 

to inside

building location and orientation can create or remove 

views

proper selection of trees, shrubs, and other plant species, 

combined with regular maintenance, can minimize the 

conflict between lighting and landscaping and ensure that 

views on, off and around the site are preserved over the 

long-term

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
What is Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design? 9

furniture arrangements, window treatments and other 

interior design elements can support observation and 

encourage guardianship

design features may be supported by physical security, 

CCTV, or guards when circumstances require them.

3. Use design to define ownership and encourage 

maintenance of territories. As mentioned previously, 

the design should provide cues about who belongs in a 

place and what they are allowed to do. Administrative 

support in the form of rules and regulations about use 

and maintenance can be critical to the success of various 

design applications. 

Examples:

fences, hedges, tree lines, or planter boxes separate spaces

changes in elevation or variations in paving or flooring 

materials define transitions from public to private spaces

gardens, artwork, and furniture individualize spaces and 

show that someone cares and is paying attention

•

•

•

•

•

This ATM is placed well, using good CPTED features and 

has an unobstructed view from the street and patrolling 

police.

Randy Atlas
signs establish ownership and any limits on use

buildings, yards, gardens, sidewalks, and other features are 

well maintained, clean and in working order, which is a 

sign of guardianship

design features may be supported by locks, alarm systems, 

CCTV, guards, or other security measures in some 

situations.

Note that while CPTED is a crime prevention program, it 

focuses on design, not safety, and on productive use, not 

security. Design features are “supported” by locks, guards and 

alarms. Target hardening and security measures are not the 

primary means for improvement. Note, too, that although 

CPTED is frequently considered the responsibility of police, 

many of the tools and techniques are things that fall outside 

the purview of policing. This is why CPTED is a team effort, 

one that officers participate in but do not necessarily control. 

•

•

•

10 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving
Responding to Crime and Other Problems Using CPTED: The Process for Problem-Solving 11

Responding to Crime and Other Problems 

Using CPTED: The Process for ProblemSolving

The problem-solving process used in crime prevention 

through environmental design is a series of steps designed to 

answer four questions:

What is the problem?

Why here?

What can be done to solve the problem?

How well are we doing?

Each question represents a phase in the SARA process: 

scanning, analysis, response, and assessment.§ SARA serves 

as a framework for action; while SARA is a good place to 

start, the process may need to be modified and adapted to 

the specific location and circumstances. The actual process 

depends on a variety of factors. For example, in the case 

of a very specific crime problem in a single location, the 

process need not include time to define or refine the problem. 

Analysis focuses on a single type of crime and, because crime 

data are already available for the problem site, the analysis can 

begin immediately.

Additional time is required as issues become more complex, 

and impact larger geographic areas and greater numbers of 

stakeholders. In such instances it takes time to organize a 

problem-solving team and to collect data. It is also more 

difficult to find a solution that both addresses the problem 

and satisfies all stakeholders.

1.

2.

3.

4.

§ For more information on the 

SARA process, see www.popcenter.

org/about-SARA.htm. 
12 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving

One of the key constraints may be the cost of 

implementation. Although many CPTED strategies are 

relatively cost-free and easy to accomplish in a short time 

frame (for example, changes to policies), other projects 

may require significant investments of capital and phased 

implementation over several years.

A general description of the four SARA phases and the 

steps that might be included as part of a CPTED problemsolving process are outlined in Table 1. Each phase addresses 

one or more aspects of the environment that are critical for 

employing CPTED strategies to solve the problem. Additional 

detail on the process is included in later sections of this guide.
Responding to Crime and Other Problems Using CPTED: The Process for Problem-Solving 13

The SARA Process Table 1: Problem-Solving with 

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

SCANNING

1. Identify, define and investigate an existing or emerging problem.

2. Identify the stakeholders who should be engaged in problem-solving.

3. Decide on the combination of meetings and activities that will be 

necessary for problem-solving and create a schedule for working through 

the process.

ANALYSIS

4. Meet with stakeholders to clarify the problem and to define the goals and 

objectives for the process.

5. Collect and analyze data and information about the problem.

6. Evaluate any connections or relationships between the problem(s), and 

environmental conditions.

RESPONSE

7. Establish the goals to be achieved through the implementation of crime 

prevention through environmental design or other strategies.

8. Identify alternative strategies for achieving the implementation goals.

9. Evaluate the social, political, legal, financial, or technological feasibility of 

implementing each strategy.

10. Select the most promising strategies, and create and adopt a plan for 

improvement that identifies specific strategies, defines financial and other 

resource requirements, assigns responsibility for implementation and 

oversight, outlines a schedule for plan implementation, and establishes 

indicators of success.§

11. Put the most promising and feasible measure(s) into place. A combination 

of immediate responses, short-term improvements, and long-term 

investment may be required.

ASSESSMENT

12. Monitor progress relative to the indicators of success specified in step 

#10.

13. Decide if the process needs to be repeated due to lack of progress or the 

emergence of new problems.

§ In A Manual for Crime Prevention Through Planning and Design, Kruger, Landman, and Liebermann (2001) suggest a 

plan based on (1) urgency or need; (2) the likelihood for success; (3) the potential for positive impacts in other areas; 

(4) cost; and (5) resource availability.

15 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem Solving

Defining and Understanding the Problem 

One unique aspect of using CPTED for problem-solving 

is the array of data and information that must be gathered 

and analyzed. While crime, fear and victimization are critical 

considerations, an environmental evaluation needs to include 

information that is neither law enforcement-based nor related 

to crime, for example, land use and zoning, housing code 

or health code violations, or traffic volumes and pedestrian 

activity. Quality of life issues such as trash and litter, weeds, 

vacant lots, and declining property values are also considered, 

as these problems often have a more debilitating impact on a 

community on a day-to-day basis. They can also be symptoms 

of, or precursors to, crime.

The purpose of the environmental evaluation is two-fold: 

It is required in order to precisely define the problem.

Data analysis results in a better understanding of 

the building, site, or neighborhood context — the 

environmental conditions in which the problem is 

situated.

The intricacy of the analysis ultimately depends on three 

conditions, which are described in greater detail below:

First, data and information requirements will be 

determined by the circumstances surrounding, 

and the setting of, an existing or emerging crime 

problem. 

1.

2.

•

Defining and Understanding the Problem 15
Defining and Understanding the Problem

Table 2 considers the various types of information that 

might become part of an environmental evaluation. Much 

of the data and information on the list is available from 

existing sources and agency records; however, significant 

and necessary pieces of information can sometimes only be 

obtained through interviews, surveys and observations. Safety 

audits and security surveys need to be specifically tailored to 

the facility, the site, or the neighborhood, and in most cases, 

must be handled by someone who is knowledgeable about 

locks, lighting, or other aspects of security.

The list of data elements in Table 2 is a general one, and not 

all of the items will be necessary for every problem-solving 

activity. The overall goal is to inventory existing conditions 

and document emerging trends related to a specific problem 

in a specific location — to answer the question, why here? Four 

types of scenarios are possible, and each suggests a different 

kind of data collection strategy:

1. A specific crime or other problem is occurring at a single 

location (e.g., the school vandalism, graffiti, and ATM 

robbery cases), or a crime problem at a specific type of 

facility (e.g., robbery at several convenience stores).

2. A specific crime or other problem is limited to a defined 

geographic area.

3. A general crime problem or an array of problems is 

experienced by residents and businesses in a particular 

geographic area.

4. The potential for future problems emerges as an outcome 

of proposed development or facility redesign.

16 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving
Second, the amount of data that can be collected and 

analyzed is a function of the amount of time allotted 

for the analysis. 

Data collection and analysis can be a time consuming process, 

and adequate time is not always available. In some instances, 

public or other, pressures for an immediate response to the 

problem will strip away any opportunity for analysis. In such 

cases, evaluation becomes even more critical, to understand 

the impact of the intervention and to give greater definition to 

the original problem or any other issues that emerge as a result 

of the decision to intervene.

Third, support resources like staff and funding must 

be available for the analysis.

Table 2 is also a reminder that crime prevention through 

environmental design is best undertaken by a team of 

departments and individuals in collaboration with community 

representatives. Experience has shown that CPTED strategies 

are most effective when those who are impacted by the 

problem are engaged in problem-solving and take ownership 

for the solution. The entire problem-solving process is 

enhanced when stakeholders are included early on, for 

example, by organizing a CPTED task force or by using 

community volunteers to help with data collection. 

•

•

Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem Solving Defining and Understanding the Problem 17
18 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving

Table 2: Understanding the Problem

Data and Information Commonly Used in an Environmental Analysis

Examples of Information Collected: Rationale Source(s), Availability and Responsibility

Crime Data

calls for service

reported crime:

total crime

crime rate

crime type

crime trends

spatial distribution:

crime location(s)

“hot spots”

temporal distribution:

times of day

days of the week

seasonal changes

MO (modus operandi, or how the 

crimes are carried out):

target characteristics

victim characteristics

offender characteristics

Analysis of calls for service and 

crime incidents gives greater 

clarity to the problem and also 

some direction with regard to 

the other types of data and 

information that will need to be 

collected.

Crime data is collected and maintained 

by the police agency (records division or 

crime analysis unit) or by the locality’s 

management information systems 

department.

Crime mapping and geographic 

information systems (GIS) may be the 

responsibility of the police agency, or may 

be handled by another department, e.g., 

planning, engineering, or utilities.

Population 

Characteristics

age and gender

race and ethnicity

family or household size and 

composition

family or household income

Community characteristics 

are helpful for thinking about 

routines and activities and the 

potential for victimization. They 

may also suggest a focus for crime 

prevention programs or other 

interventions.

Population demographics are available 

through the U.S. Census (see www.census.gov), 

which is regularly updated for larger localities 

through the American Community Survey. 

Smaller communities or neighborhoods must 

be updated using surveys unless another 

agency has already undertaken this work.
Defining and Understanding the Problem 19

Institutional 

and 

Organizational 

Relationships

neighborhood association/

homeowners’ association

block watch/neighborhood watch 

group

churches, clubs, public/private 

schools, hospitals, community 

centers or other neighborhoodbased institutions

local development corporations 

and other nonprofits engaged in 

work in the neighborhood

Community organizations and 

local institutions play several roles 

related to the problem-solving 

process and the implementation 

of crime prevention through 

environmental design strategies:

they represent stakeholders, 

and may be able to gather input 

from individuals who would 

otherwise be unavailable

they have access to data and 

information

their members and/or staff may 

be able to assist with surveys 

and interviews

the institutional facilities can 

serve as sites for meetings

they may have resources to 

commit to solving the problem.

•

•

•

•

•

Locating complete lists for community 

associations and nonprofit organizations is 

often difficult; however, several opportunities 

are available. The neighborhood planning 

unit should maintain a list of neighborhood 

associations, and the police agency should 

have information about Neighborhood Watch 

groups in the community. Information about 

community centers and other institutions 

may be found through an Information and 

Referral Service or an online locator (e.g., 

www.GuideStar.org). Other options include 

the local interfaith council or ministerial 

association, a volunteer center, or the social 

services department.
20 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving Examples of Information Collected: Rationale Source(s), Availability and Responsibility Land Use and Development Patterns land use: type and mix of land uses # residential buildings/dwelling units # office/commercial buildings/ spaces or total square feet of leasable space # businesses by business type major facilities, landmarks or attractions, e.g., parks, schools property ownership (public/ private) natural resources and attractive nuisances, e.g., lakes, rivers, streams, rocks development rules and regulations outlined in zoning, subdivision, landscaping or other ordinances neighborhood stability:

housing or building condition

tenure (owner-renter mix)

occupancy/vacancy rates

turnover (new sales, new leases, 

new vacancies)

property values:

average rent

average sales price

assessed value

The mix of uses determines the 

kinds of activities that take place 

in a building/site/area, when 

and where they happen, and 

who participates in them.

Items such as housing condition 

or turnover do not cause 

problems, but are symptoms 

or outcomes of issues. They 

are indicators of reinvestment 

or disinvestment in the 

neighborhood, or a general 

lack of care, and disrespect 

for property and community.

Information on existing land use and 

future development is the responsibility of 

the planning department (comprehensive 

planning unit, long-range planning, zoning 

administration, development review).

Property data is housed with the assessor. 

Some statistics, such as turnover or average 

rent, may be gathered from real estate 

advertisements or local agents. The U.S. 

Census (www.census.gov) also collects data 

on housing costs.

Business information may be handled 

by either the planning or economic 

development departments.

Many localities now have online GIS 

systems that include information on land 

use, zoning, ownership, assessed value and 

other property characteristics. The system 

may be administered by a single person or 

organization (possibly even a consulting 

firm), or multiple departments may be 

responsible for maintaining data related to 

their areas of responsibility. 

Permits and violations are handled by 

zoning administration, codes enforcement, 

or the public health agency.
Defining and Understanding the Problem 21

development activity:

construction permits

demolition permits

occupancy permits

violations and citations:

building code

housing code

health code

Traffic, 

Transportation 

and Transit 

Systems

transportation networks:

interstate and other highways

major intersections

local and regional connector 

routes

pedestrian and bike ways 

(sidewalks, trails, greenways, etc.)

site circulation, ingress and egress

on- and off-street parking 

spaces/lots/garages

traffic:

common origin/destination sites 

and travel routes

daily/weekly volumes

peak (rush hour) loads

accidents

transit system:

ridership and user characteristics

routes and schedules

transit stops/shelters/centers

transfer locations

neighborhood complaints:

speeding

cruising

loitering

Patterns of crime and other 

problems are often related to 

patterns of movement that bring 

people to and through sites, 

neighborhoods, localities and 

regions.

Road and traffic information for most 

localities is a function of the state 

transportation department. Regional 

transportation planning agencies should also 

have this information.

Neighborhood- or site-related traffic issues 

will require new studies, local data collection 

and observations of traffic flows, turning 

movements, or other traffic-related activity.

The transit company should maintain 

information on its system and operations.

Most complaints are wagered with the police 

agency.
22 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving Examples of Information Collected: Rationale Source(s), Availability and Responsibility Resident/User Surveys or Stakeholder Interviews§ define and explain the problem (real or perceived) victimization: reported unreported reasons for not reporting fear: where people are afraid why people are afraid schedules and activities during an average day/week/month/season concerns, attitudes, opinions and suggestions about neighborhood 

quality of life

The purpose of interviews 

and surveys is to gain insight 

into circumstances and 

conditions that are otherwise 

undocumented, for example, 

unreported victimization and 

fear.

Interviews and surveys are generally 

undertaken by the individual tasked with the 

problem-solving process, possibly with the 

assistance of others engaged in the process, 

e.g., neighborhood residents. Additional 

support may also be available through local 

colleges and universities. The survey process 

can elicit information about when and where 

problems are occurring, and this may reduce 

the need for on-site observations.

All require the development of, and training 

on, data collection protocols to ensure 

validity and reliability.

§ Also refer to the Bureau of Justice Assistance (1993) monograph, A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their Environment. Available at www.popcenter.org/

Library/RecommendedReadings/Surveying%20Citizens.pdf.
Defining and Understanding the Problem 23

On-site 

Observations

problem behaviors:

loitering

vandalism and graffiti

public drinking

drug sales or drug use

gang activity

legitimate play or other activities

distribution of activities:

when activities are most likely 

to occur

where activities take place

user characteristics:

age, gender, race/ethnicity

resident, owner, staff/employee, 

patrons, invited visitors, others

consistency between reported 

behaviors and observed activities

Observations should reinforce 

the results of surveys and 

interviews (when the observed 

activities are consistent with 

reported behaviors), and 

should offer support for crime 

statistics and other data and 

documentation.
24 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving Examples of Information Collected: Rationale Source(s), Availability and Responsibility Safety Audits and Security Surveys building and site characteristics: floor plans site design and layout ingress/egress, circulation and parking plant materials and landscape elements lighting crime prevention and security measures: locking systems and key control lighting and illumination CCTV security maintenance and repair emergency operations plans security policies and procedures operations: staffing activities and schedules rules, regulations, policies, and 

procedures

Audits and security surveys 

provide details the other 

sources of information do 

not, specifically with regard 

to building or site conditions, 

target hardening and security 

measures, etc. They also begin to 

expose connections between the 

problem and staffing or policy.

Security surveys may also reveal 

gaps or weaknesses in data 

collection or data availability, and 

therefore suggest that improved 

information should be one of 

the goals for the future.

Depending on the location and the type of 

problem, police personnel (crime prevention 

unit) may be able to train homeowners 

and business managers to perform their 

own evaluations. Generally though, when a 

security survey is warranted, this should be 

handled by a knowledgeable professional.
Creating a Plan to Improve Environmental Conditions 25

Creating a Plan to Improve 

Environmental Conditions

This is a critical point in problem-solving because it is time 

to make decisions about what to do. Stakeholders should be 

engaged in developing the plan and are likely to have very 

concrete ideas about what they want and why. Opportunities 

for input are important because broad community support 

for the plan enhances the potential for success during plan 

implementation.

Plan development is not an isolated activity, but one that 

comes near the end of a potentially very long process. It is 

focused on solving a well-defined problem. It uses the data 

that have been collected and the analyses that have already 

been completed. It relies on previous input from stakeholders 

and asks for more advice along the way. (In fact the plan 

should include regular opportunities for stakeholders to offer 

their opinions on how well things are going.)

The process can be organized into five steps.

1. Identify the full range of options available to solve the 

problem, which may include:

physical improvements

o alterations in the building design, floorplan, room 

layouts

o changes to site layout

o new or improved site amenities like lighting and 

landscaping

security enhancements

additional target hardening measures

modifications to uses or activity schedules

changes to laws, rules, regulations, or policies governing 

use and behavior

•

•

•

•

•
26 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving

community empowerment and institutional support

changes to area land uses or to laws and regulations 

governing development.

Not all of these alternatives should be included for every 

problem. The actual list depends on the problem and the 

setting.

2. Narrow the list to include programs and strategies most 

likely to have an impact.§ 

3. Decide which of these should be included in the plan for 

improvement, and in what order of priority, giving due 

consideration to:

criticality of need

ease of implementation

cost

legality

technical feasibility

positive and negative externalities

client or community support.

One question that frequently arises during this step is whether 

programs with popular support should be included, even 

if they hold little potential for addressing the problem or 

improving environmental conditions. Decisions about tradeoffs and the relative weight given to the community’s priorities 

are also situational, and best handled on a case-by-case basis. 

But it is important to be prepared for such controversy.

4. Develop the plan document, with details on funding 

and staffing resource requirements, responsibilities, 

implementation (immediate, short-term, long-term 

schedules), and indicators of success, tied to the evaluation.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

§ For examples, see the ProblemSpecific Guides on Graffiti, Robbery 

at Automated Teller Machines, and 

School Vandalism and Break-ins, among 

others, available at www.popcenter.

org. 
Creating a Plan to Improve Environmental Conditions 27

5. Implement the strategies in the plan using the schedule 

and responsibilities outlined in the plan document. Though 

community support for the plan should be in place, some 

attention may need to be given to community education, 

participation and input, and other strategies to engage 

stakeholders and garner support for the plan. 

Engaging Stakeholders in Problem-Solving 29

Engaging Stakeholders in Problem-Solving

It has been noted in previous sections that stakeholder 

involvement is an important aspect of the environmental 

analysis. “Stakeholders” are individuals, departments, 

organizations and agencies impacted by the problem; with 

resources to commit to understanding and solving the problem; 

who make decisions about funding or other priorities; or that 

have some interest in the outcome (see box). The array of 

stakeholders actually included in any problem-solving process 

will depend on the problem, its location, and the circumstances 

in which the problem is situated.

Choices about which stakeholders will participate and how 

they will be engaged in problem-solving will depend upon 

the complexity of the problem, the size of the impacted area, 

availability of resources, and the existence of established 

community organizations.

CPTED Stakeholders

Neighborhood

homeowners

non-resident property owners

tenants

Community association representatives

from the study neighborhood

from adjacent neighborhoods

from adjacent or localities

Business community

business owners and managers

employees

business association representatives

Institutions

schools (public and private)

places of worship

clubs

cultural facilities (theatre, art gallery, museum)

Nonprofit organizations

community development corporations

social services providers

Government

elected officials

administration and management

police

community/neighborhood planning 

and, depending on the issue, 

traffic and transportation, transit, 

parks and recreation, housing 

and redevelopment, economic 

development, etc.
30 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving

Remember that area residents and employees are familiar 

with the place and the problem. They frequently recognize 

crime-environment relationships, and can explain events 

and anticipate trends that will not be revealed through data 

analysis. They bring critical information to the process. They 

also represent critical data collection resources and can serve 

as the line of communication with the rest of the community.

If the neighborhood has no network of communication 

among tenants and property owners, homeowners, or 

local institutions and the clients they serve, the plan may 

need to include community organizing and programs like 

Neighborhood Watch.

Owners, residents, visitors and others must be engaged in 

problem-solving so they understand CPTED, and can make 

or recommend legitimate design, security and policy choices. 

Lack of agreement — even outright controversy — can stall 

progress. 

Stakeholder involvement is an important aspect of the 

environmental analysis. Groups such as area residents 

and employees can bring critical information to the 

process. They also represent critical data collection 

resources and can serve as the line of communication 

with the rest of the community.

Genesis Group
Keeping Tabs on Progress 31

§ Goldstein (1990) and Eck and 

Spelman et al. (1987) include “the 

problem has been successfully 

removed from police consideration.” 

Because CPTED engages a variety 

of organizations and agencies on a 

problem-solving team — including 

police officers — the problem 

may never actually be “removed” 

from police consideration, even if 

it becomes the responsibility of 

another team member.

Keeping Tabs on Progress

The last step in the problem-solving process is not a single 

step, but an on-going program of monitoring and evaluation. 

Evaluation is an on-going activity because change sometimes 

occurs in small increments so that measurable improvements 

take a long time to emerge; because immediate change 

may be an outcome of engagement in the process that 

disappears over time as interest and attention wane; because 

the improvement plan is likely to include short-term projects 

as well as long-term investments, and all of them must be 

evaluated; and because programs and strategies will need to 

evolve as environmental conditions change.

The purpose of the evaluation is to decide whether:

the problem has been eliminated, either temporarily, or 

permanently

the problem is occurring less frequently

the impact of the problem has been reduced (i.e., fewer 

victims, less violence, smaller losses)

fewer problems are noted in areas adjacent to the 

problem location

the problem has moved to another location

a new or different problem is emerging

the problem remains, unchanged.§

If the assessment shows the problem has been eliminated 

or reduced in its frequency or severity, then no additional 

measures are necessary. The other results, though, suggest it 

is time for a new problem-solving process linked to new or 

different outcomes and approaches.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
32 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving

An earlier section of this guide outlined eight categories of 

data that are used to establish goals and indicators of success 

linked to those goals. Many police programs rely on indicators 

such as crime, victimization and fear, or response times or 

clearance rates. These measures continue to be important, 

but other indicators may prove equally useful depending on 

the problem, the setting and the circumstances. A return to 

the eight categories of data offers some perspective on the 

options available. Each is discussed in greater detail below, 

including an estimated time before noticeable and measurable 

change might be evident.

Crime data. In most cases, reductions in calls for service 

and reported crime are the goal; however, this is not true 

in all instances. Some communities may instead be working 

toward an improved relationship with police, or for greater 

participation in programs like Neighborhood Watch. Increases 

in calls for service or reported crime are legitimate outcomes 

under those circumstances.

It is also possible that the number of incidents will not 

decrease, but the types of incidents that take place are less 

violent, involve fewer victims, and result in fewer losses, 

leading to the perception that conditions have improved.

Alternatively, the evaluation may show that the distribution 

of incidents has changed either temporally or spatially. These 

changes may mean the crimes are more easily observed, that 

the police agency can respond more quickly, or that there are 

fewer complaints about the problem.

It is also possible that when strategies are successfully 

implemented at the problem site or location, areas 

surrounding the site also experience reductions in crime. 

These types of circumstances suggest the need for broad 

geographic coverage during both data collection and during 

the evaluation.
Keeping Tabs on Progress 33

Population characteristics. A neighborhood improvement 

program may be focused on increasing the diversity of 

residents with regard to age, gender, race, ethnicity or income; 

creating a more stable population base indicated by an 

increasing number of family households; improving resident 

quality of life by increasing household income; or establishing 

an enclave for a specific racial or ethnic community; etc. 

But in some cases the goal may be to support the existing 

population and see that its characteristics do not change.

Institutional and organizational relationships. Indicators 

of success in this category might include active community 

groups with widespread participation; an increase in the 

number of associations/organizations/institutions working 

with the community; an increase in property investment; or an 

increase in support services targeted to residents. Each of the 

support services may have its own set of indicators — and 

the organizations involved should participate in, or be linked 

to, the CPTED evaluation.

Land use and development patterns. Land use and 

neighborhood stability are very much related. Indicators of 

stability include:

constant, or increasing, property values and rental rates

a higher proportion of owner-occupied property (rather 

than rental property)

fewer vacant lots, dwelling units or commercial spaces, 

and/or increases in construction or rehabilitation activity

a more compatible mix of uses, or a more diverse mix of 

uses

fewer building, fire, health, and zoning code violations

reduced turnover time (time for property to sell or rent)

increasing contributions of taxes or fees.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
34 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving

Traffic, transportation, and transit systems. Speeding 

and traffic enforcement are common issues in problem 

neighborhoods. Evidence of increased enforcement, through 

the number of citations issued, leading eventually to fewer 

complaints about speeding problems, is one possible 

indication of improvement.

When a plan includes changes to traffic patterns through 

street closings or traffic calming measures, indicators of 

success are required for the target neighborhood, and also 

for surrounding communities that may be impacted by new 

travel patterns.§ This can include numbers of complaints or 

numbers of accidents, changes in traffic volumes or turning 

movements, etc. Alternatively, the evaluation may consider the 

number of pedestrians, bicyclists or others using sidewalks, 

trails and greenways.

Transit ridership is an important aspect of that system’s 

successful operation. Real and perceived safety during travel 

to and from stops or while waiting for or riding the bus 

or train can be critical. Increased ridership, a more diverse 

user population, and ridership that is more distributed 

geographically may be indicators of a successful campaign to 

improve transit safety. Alternatively, the goal may simply be to 

increase ridership and the perception of safety for one transit 

stop or along one route.

Resident or user surveys, and stakeholder interviews.

Reductions in fear and victimization are critical, but are not 

the only opportunities for improvement in this category. 

For example, one goal for the program might be a better 

relationship with police, so that increased reporting of 

victimization, or greater cooperation during investigations, are 

the ideal outcomes. Additionally, look for changes in activities 

and schedules showing that people are less afraid to use 

various places and spaces, or an improved opinion about the 

overall quality of life in the community.

§ For further information, see the 

Problem-Specific Guide on Speeding 

in Residential Areas and the Response 

Guide on Closing Streets and Alleys to 

Reduce Crime.
Keeping Tabs on Progress 35

On-site behavioral observations. The evaluation should 

show a reduction in problem behaviors and more widespread 

activity by a critical mass of “good” users. As with other 

categories, greater diversity with regard to age, race, income, 

etc., can be important.

Safety audits and security surveys. Follow-up safety 

audits and security surveys should reveal that critical 

recommendations have been implemented. This allows for 

testing or evaluation of the results of those implementation 

activities, which might include changes to policies and 

procedures such as key control; modifications to building 

layout or site landscaping; additional security measures like 

locks or CCTV; etc. For example, one indicator of success 

might be better record keeping, resulting in better information 

and a quicker and more targeted response to emerging 

problems.

What should become clear from this summary is that 

indicators of success absolutely must be tied to program 

goals, because different goals equate to different results for 

some measures. What is also clear is the need for quality data 

collection and analysis during the early phases of problemsolving, so that baseline measures are available and the data 

afford an opportunity to understand the true impacts of 

program implementation.

The problem is that evaluation is frequently ignored, 

overlooked or under-appreciated. Three possible reasons for 

this are:

1. For many participants, the goal of the problem-solving 

process is to “do something.” Once a program, project or 

strategy is in place and underway, they are satisfied. They 

see the process as complete.
2. Evaluation can be time consuming and costly. Other tasks 

such as those related to implementation, are given higher 

priority.

3. Problem-solving using crime prevention through 

environmental design can result in multiple programs or 

projects. In a setting where many other circumstances and 

conditions are constantly changing, it is often difficult to 

determine which changes are the outcomes of specific 

CPTED initiatives or of CPTED generally, and which 

changes are produced by other factors in the environment.

Given its role in the problem-solving process, evaluation is 

an essential and valuable tool for decision making. It affords 

an opportunity to understand what is working, where it is 

working and why it is working (or is not working). Evaluation 

aids in recognizing change, and information from one 

evaluation can be used as part of the problem-solving process 

somewhere else. This means that data collection and analysis 

need adequate time and attention early in the process, and 

evaluation needs adequate time and attention later on.

Additional information on methods for data collection and 

evaluation are available at the POP Center web site, www.

popcenter.org.

§

 

36 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving

§ For example, see Crime Analysis 

for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps

and Assessing Responses to Problems: An 

Introductory Guide for Police ProblemSolvers, both available at www.

popcenter.org.
CPTED and the Problem-Solving Process: Re-Examining the Three Introductory Cases 37

CPTED and the Problem-Solving Process:

Re-Examining the Three Introductory 

Cases

The introduction of this guide used three cases to illustrate 

the potential applications of crime prevention through 

environmental design as a problem-solving tool. The guide 

then offered an overview of CPTED principles and a guide 

for problem-solving, including data collection, stakeholder 

participation, and the evaluation of crime-environment 

relationships. This section returns to those three original 

cases as a way to examine the process in greater detail. As a 

reminder the three problems are:

Case #1: Smoking, drinking and vandalism in a high school 

lavatory.

Case #2: Graffiti on the back wall of an office center.

Case #3: Robbery of nighttime ATM patrons.

Table 3 examines each of these cases in greater detail. The 

table is divided into four rows, one for each step of the SARA 

process, and each row is divided into the steps of a CPTED 

analysis. For example, scanning includes understanding the 

problem, identifying stakeholders, and deciding on a process 

to engage stakeholders in problem-solving. While items like 

stakeholder interviews are consistent across the three cases, 

each case has its own unique set of stakeholders. The high 

school case could also make use of a CPTED task force for 

problem-solving.
38 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving

The analysis row offers some detail on the kinds of data that 

could and should be collected. In the first two cases (both of 

which are about vandalism), maintenance reports rather than 

crime reports are critical. Population data are not necessary 

for the school case because this problem involves only the 

high school students, faculty, staff, and administrators. The 

two other cases consider user populations rather than the 

more general community. Community involvement would 

only be appropriate if these problems were spread over a 

larger geographic area.

Policies and procedures are an important consideration in 

all three cases. More types of policies appear relative to the 

high school lavatory case, as this problem involves lunchtime 

cafeteria and building use, faculty monitoring assignments, 

and school rules regarding student behaviors like smoking and 

drinking.

The response row is divided into three additional segments 

that distinguish between the three CPTED strategies of 

natural access control, natural surveillance, and territorial 

reinforcement. Note that some of the strategies listed on the 

table were not actually employed as responses to the problem 

(based on the descriptions in the introduction), possibly 

because they were too expensive, would take too long to 

implement, or were otherwise unacceptable.
CPTED and the Problem-Solving Process: Re-Examining the Three Introductory Cases 39

The assessment row lists a variety of outcomes that might be 

experienced as a result of strategy implementation. The goal 

is to remove or reduce crime and other problem behaviors, 

but it is also possible for problems to move to a new location 

or change in character as a result of an intervention. In the 

worst case scenario, the problem continues, even after the 

strategies have been put into place.

The table is provided as a way to organize thinking about 

problems and problem-solving using CPTED. It demonstrates 

why each problem deserves its own detailed examination, 

one that focuses on the unique circumstances in which that 

problem is situated. When intervention strategies are specific 

to the problem they are more likely to be successful.
40 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving

Table 3

CPTED and the Problem-Solving Process

Three Case Examples

Case #1 Case #2 Case #3

Problem smoking, drinking and vandalism in a high school lavatory reported by 

custodial workers

tagging and graffiti at the back of 

an office center noted by property 

managers

nighttime ATM patron robberies 

reported to police

SCANNING

Stakeholders

students

faculty

staff (includes custodial workers)

administration

police/SRO

parents

•

•

•

•

•

•

property owner

property management

tenant businesses

police

adjacent property owners 

and managers (depending on 

outcome of analysis)

tenants and patrons of adjacent 

businesses (depending on 

outcome of analysis)

traffic engineering or transit

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

robbery victims

other bank and ATM patrons

bank management

bank employees

corporate security

police

property owner or management 

(if different from the bank)

adjacent property owners and 

management (depending on 

outcome of analysis)

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Process

small group meetings (faculty 

group, student group, custodial 

group), OR

CPTED task force

stakeholder interviews

•

•

•

small group meetings (property 

management, tenants, 

adjacent property owners, and 

managers)

stakeholder interviews 

•

•

stakeholder interviews •

Crime Data

number of incidents (from 

maintenance records related to 

vandalism)

temporal distribution of problem

typical scenario or MO

similar problems and their 

locations elsewhere in school

•

•

•

•

number of incidents (from 

maintenance records)

temporal distribution of 

problem

offender characteristics based 

on analysis of graffiti and 

tagging

•

•

•

number of incidents reported to 

police

other reports or indications of 

“unusual” behavior

temporal distribution of incidents

offender characteristics from 

victim reports and CCTV tapes of 

robberies

•

•

•

•

ANALYSIS
CPTED and the Problem-Solving Process: Re-Examining the Three Introductory Cases 41

Population 

Characteristics

N/A • residents, employees, patrons, 

and visitors to the area

• area residents, employees, patrons 

and visitors

•

Land Use and 

Development 

Patterns

N/A • adjacent land uses

activity patterns and use 

schedules

•

•

adjacent land uses

activity patterns and use 

schedules

•

•

ANALYSIS

N/A • traffic volumes and travel 

patterns

pedestrian routes (sidewalks, 

greenways, trails, and informal 

paths)

parking lots/garages and loading 

facilities

transit routes, stops, or transit 

centers

•

•

•

•

traffic volumes and travel patterns

pedestrian routes (sidewalks, 

greenways, trails, and informal 

paths)

parking lots/garages and loading 

facilities

transit routes, stops, or transit 

centers

•

•

•

•

custodial workers, students, faculty, 

and administrators

known and perceived problems

offender identification

strategy recommendations

•

•

•

•

property management 

interviews

surveys of tenant businesses

•

•

victim interviews

corporate security interviews

•

•

lunchtime “movement” (use of 

cafeteria and other locations on 

campus); multiple days in the case 

of changing schedules

activity and use of lavatory during 

remainder of school day

activity and use of lavatory during 

sporting events

•

•

•

after-hours use and nighttime 

movement, both weekday and 

weekend, and both on-site and 

to/from adjacent properties

• N/A •

Traffic, 

Transportaion 

and Transit 

Systems

Resident or 

User Surveys, 

Stakeholder 

Interviews

On-Site 

Behavioral 

Observations
42 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving Case #1 Case #2 Case #3 Safety Audits and Security Surveys ANALYSIS Opportunities to Control Access close cafeteria and campus (no one leaves), which requires changes to lunch schedules install lock on lavatory door install barricade, removing access to gym/sport area(s)

•

•

•

perimeter fencing, removing 

access to the site

graffiti-resistant paint/surface 

treatment on problem areas

•

•

remove ATM completely, or move 

it to another location (including 

automobile access rather than 

walk-up)

change hours of operation and 

availability of ATM

install fence between ATM and 

drive-through bank lanes 

•

•

•

Options for 

Providing 

Opportunities 

to See and Be 

Seen

change faculty monitoring 

assignments

install CCTV

change lavatory design to improve 

visibility

•

•

•

increase light levels

install CCTV

trim or remove vegetation

increase police patrol (through 

site as well as around site)

hire private security to patrol

•

•

•

•

•

increase police patrol or hire private 

security

increase lighting around the 

building, especially in the drivethrough area

•

•

RESPONSE

building floor plan

room/space assignments

class, cafeteria, and sporting event 

schedules

locking systems and CCTV

maintenance and repair policies 

and procedures

cafeteria policies and procedures

hallway monitoring policies and 

procedures

student code of conduct 

(application, enforcement, 

consequences, etc.)

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

building design

site layout and landscaping 

(e.g., fencing), and relationship 

to adjacent properties and 

nearby land uses

lighting and CCTV

maintenance policies and 

procedures

hours of operation for tenant 

businesses

•

•

•

•

•

building design and any related 

corporate policies

ATM location and design

site layout, including relationship 

to adjacent properties and nearby 

land uses

CCTV and lighting

security policies and procedures

hours of operation and staffing

•

•

•

•

•

•
CPTED and the Problem-Solving Process: Re-Examining the Three Introductory Cases 43

Opportunities 

to Define 

Ownership 

and Use, and 

Encourage 

the 

Maintenance 

of Territory

limit the area available for lunch 

outside the cafeteria

change lavatory available during 

lunch periods to one in an area 

that is more easily supervised

immediately repair and 

replacement of damaged fixtures, 

etc.

consistently enforce school 

policies and consequences for 

policy violations

•

•

•

•

negotiate alternative use 

strategies with neighboring 

property owners (e.g., “no 

readmittance” policy to keep 

skaters inside the building)

immediately repaint when 

graffiti is installed

•

•

N/A •

Possible 

Scenarios to 

Look For 

Over the 

Long-Term

there is no evidence of smoking, 

drinking, or vandalism in the 

lavatory, OR

the problem occurs infrequently 

and only during sporting events 

when the lavatory is unlocked, OR

changes to lunchtime monitoring 

have resulted in fewer behavioral 

problems in other areas near the 

cafeteria, not just in the problem 

lavatory, OR

the problem appears in another 

lavatory or another location at the 

school, OR

the problem has changed, e.g., 

the problem is now bullying, not 

vandalism

•

•

•

•

•

there is no evidence of tagging 

or graffiti on the site, OR

the amount and/or frequency 

of graffiti is reduced, OR 

“hanging out” and other 

problems at the skating 

rink have been reduced or 

eliminated, OR

graffiti problems shift to 

another location on this site or 

elsewhere in the neighborhood, 

OR

graffiti continues to be a 

problem, OR

the problem has changed, e.g., 

the problem now includes 

vandalism to lighting

•

•

•

•

•

•

the robbery problem is 

eliminated, OR

the adjacent commercial strip 

is seeing new investment and 

increases in patronage, OR

ATM patrons are now robbed at 

their cars, OR

ATM robberies move to another 

bank, OR

other types of robbery are 

emerging in the neighborhood

•

•

•

•

•

ASSESSMENT

Appendix A 45

Appendix A

Using CPTED for Problem-Solving at a Building or 

Facility

This appendix outlines a process for completing an 

environmental evaluation when the problem is limited to a 

single building or facility. The process is divided into three 

phases related to a site visit and period of observation.

Activities before the site visit are focused on understanding 

the problem and the situation. This includes an examination 

of crime data, plans and policies, and organizational 

structures, all of which lead to the identification of key 

stakeholders who need to provide information and advice.

The site visit includes an orientation period, with a “tabletop” 

review, using a floor plan and site plan to review the structure 

of the facility and to identify the problem location(s) as 

well as safe and unsafe places. Facility tours are conducted 

with stakeholders and then the CPTED evaluator observes 

behavior and use independently for several days, at various 

times of the day and several days during a week to address 

changing activity schedules.

The process concludes with the development of 

recommendations and a report documenting the site visit and 

the findings.

Although the process as it is outlined here implies the work 

can be completed by a single person, most buildings and 

facilities are large enough to warrant a team approach.
46 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

Facility SARA Process

BEFORE

THE

SITE VISIT

REQUEST AND REVIEW INFORMATION

administrative organization (to identify appropriate contacts)

relevant statutes, ordinances, codes, policies, and procedures

site and facility background (maps, plans, manuals, design/

development review and approval processes, maintenance 

procedures, etc.)

police/security CFS and crime data

DEVELOP AN EVALUATION STRATEGY AND SCHEDULE 

APPOINTMENTS

•

•

•

•

DURING

THE

SITE VISIT

OWNER/MANAGER ORIENTATION TO CPTED AND THE 

EVALUATION PROCESS

EVALUATOR ORIENTATION

overview of the organization

“tabletop” review of location, site, and facility (assignment of 

spaces, activities, and schedules, etc.), noting problem areas

CONSTITUENT/STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS AND FACILITY 

TOURS

INDEPENDENT FACILITY EXAMINATION (without 

stakeholders)

morning, afternoon, evening, and night

multiple weekday and weekend visits

[BREAK – to organize materials, analyze data, identify information 

needs, document the process, and reflect on observations, if needed]

[RETURN VISIT – to fill gaps in data and information, to reconsider 

the findings from an earlier visit, to evaluate the facility during an 

alternate schedule, etc., if needed]

CLIENT DEBRIEF

•

•

•

•
Appendix A 47

FOLLOWING

THE

SITE VISIT

REVIEW DATA AND OTHER MATERIALS (photographs, floor 

plans, notes)

DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS

changes to physical design and layout

modifications to laws, rules, regulations, policies and procedures

target hardening/security enhancements

community and social programs and activities

crime prevention education and awareness

DRAFT THE REPORT

introduction to the problem and report overview

description of methods (data collection and analysis, survey and 

interview protocols, site and facility evaluation activities, dates and 

times)

discussion of issues and findings

recommendations for future action (including additional or followup evaluation)

supporting documentation in appendixes

disclaimer**

SUBMIT DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT 

(specifically, for factual accuracy)

REDRAFT, RE-REVIEW, AND REWRITE

PRESENT AND DELIVER FINAL REPORT

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

** EXAMPLE DISCLAIMER: The recommendations outlined in this report are based on research and 

experience that suggest certain design and policy approaches can be adopted to reduce opportunities for crime. 

It is not possible to guarantee that actual crime will be reduced or eliminated if these recommendations are 

implemented.

Appendix B 49

Appendix B

Using CPTED for Problem-Solving in Multifamily 

Housing

Appendix B outlines a CPTED planning process for a 

multifamily housing community. One of the goals of this 

process is to maintain communication between the team of 

experts and the residents. Because rental properties often 

have low rates of participation, the process includes the 

distribution of flyers to every unit after every meeting. These 

flyers include a description of the overall project and an 

introduction to CPTED, plus information about the results of 

the last meeting and plans for the future.
50 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

Multifamily Housing/Public Housing SARA Process

Pre-project Resident Meetings

(conducted by Resident Council members)

PROJECT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

SAFE AND UNSAFE PLACES

Resident Council Meeting

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT

ORIENTATION TO THE COMMUNITY

tabletop review of safe/unsafe maps from pre-project meetings with residents

facility walk-through

identification of problems and issues

FUTURE PLANS

activities, schedules, and deliverables

roles and responsibilities

Invitation to Participate and Meeting Announcement (to all residents)

Resident Meeting #1

OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT

INTRODUCTION TO CPTED

RESIDENT INPUT ACTIVITY [Exhibit 2]

orientation to the housing community and the surrounding neighborhood

review and discussion of safe and unsafe places

identification of priority problems and issues

Project Flyer and Meeting Summary

PROJECT OVERVIEW

what is this project about?

what is next for the project?

CPTED OVERVIEW

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•
Appendix B 51

MEETING RESULTS

what did we do?

what did we learn?

what is next? (residents, resident council, and CPTED team tasks and responsibilities)

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INPUT

team contact information

date/time of next meeting

Resident Meeting #2

REVIEW OF PRIORITY PROBLEMS AND ISSUES

ANALYSIS RESULTS

ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY IDENTIFICATION

Project Flyer and Meeting Summary

Resident Meeting #3

REVIEW AND COMMENT ON DRAFT PLAN

NEXT STEPS (comment period, plan adoption)

Project Flyer and Plan Summary

PROJECT OVERVIEW

CPTED OVERVIEW

REVIEW OF THE PLANNING PROCESS

PLAN AND PROPOSED STRATEGIES

REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT

STEPS TO PLAN ADOPTION

•

•

•

•

•

Appendix C 53

Appendix C

Using CPTED for Neighborhood Problem-Solving

The process outlined here is intended for a mixed use 

neighborhood with a diverse population and multiple issues. 

The problem-solving process in this case is tied to a broader 

neighborhood planning process; the CPTED plan must 

ultimately be adopted by elected officials.

The process is carried out by an interdisciplinary CPTED 

team of city officials with a neighborhood CPTED task 

force. This group collects and analyzes data and makes 

recommendations, which are carried back to the broader 

community for input and advice before the recommendations 

are incorporated into a plan for improvement. Staff provide 

organizational support for the process, which includes 

information packages, data analysis, copying, and mailing, etc.
54 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving

Planning Task Force Meeting #1: Project Scoping

ORIENTATION AND GROUND RULES

roles and responsibilities of the task team, agency staff, consultant(s)

rules of order and engagement

meeting schedules and tentative agendas

INTRODUCTION TO CPTED AND NEIGHBORHOOD EVALUATION

overview of CPTED concepts and strategies

group work – neighborhood features, safe and unsafe places, etc. [see Exhibit 2]

Planning Task Force Meeting #2: Presentation of Data and Information

CRIME ANALYSIS

COMMUNITY/VICTIMIZATION SURVEY RESULTS

EXISTING CONDITIONS (population, land use, housing, transportation, etc.)

NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS AND FUNDING 

OPPORTUNITIES

IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES [see 

Exhibit 3]

Neighborhood Meetings

conducted independently by task force representatives to agree on strategies and priorities

Planning Task Force Meeting #3: Plan Development

ACTION PLAN WORKSHEETS

project goal(s)

data and information (existing, needed)

tasks and activities

roles and responsibilities

resource requirements

target date(s)

FEEDBACK FROM AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES ON FEASIBILITY OF THE 

ACTIONS IDENTIFIED

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

Neighborhood SARA Process
Appendix C 55

Neighborhood Meetings

conducted by task force representatives to review tasks, schedules, and responsibilities

Planning Task Force Meeting #4: Plan Revisions

(based on community feedback) and Plan Approval

Plan Adoption

NEIGHBORHOOD OWNER/RESIDENT APPROVAL

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION

ADOPTION BY ELECTED OFFICIALS/GOVERNING BODY

TRANSITION FROM PLANNING TO IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation Team Meeting #1:

REVIEW AND REFINE SCHEDULES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND RESOURCE 

NEEDS

DEFINE PERFORMANCE MEASURES

BEGIN IMPLEMENTATION

Additional Implementation Team Meetings

scheduled as appropriate to discuss progress and results, issues and concerns, or the need 

for a new or modified plan

References 57

References

Brantingham, P.L., and P.J. Brantingham (1981). “Notes on 

the Geometry of Crime.” In P.J. and P.L. Brantingham 

(eds.), Environmental Criminology. Beverly Hills (California): 

Sage, pp. 27-54.

Brantingham P.L., and P.J. Brantingham (1984). Patterns in 

Crime. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Clarke, R.V. (1980). “Situational Crime Prevention: Theory 

and Practice.” British Journal of Criminology 20(2):136-147.

Clarke, R.V. (ed.) (1992). Situational Crime Prevention: Successful 

Case Studies. Albany (New York): Harrow and Heston.

Cohen, L., and M. Felson (1979). “Social Change and Crime 

Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach.” American 

Sociological Review 44(4):588-608.

Cornish, D., and R.V. Clarke (1986). The Reasoning Criminal: 

Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending. New York: Springer 

Verlag. Available at www.popcenter.org/Library/reasoning.

htm. 

Crowe, T. (2000). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. 

2nd ed. Boston (Massachusetts): Butterworth-Heinemann.

Crowe, T., and D. Zahm (1994). “Crime Prevention Through 

Environmental Design.” Land Development, Fall: 22-27.

Eck, J., and Spelman, W. (1987). Problem-Solving: Problem 

Oriented Policing in Newport News. Washington, D.C.: 

Police Executive Research Forum.
58 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving

Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-Oriented Policing. New York: McGraw Hill.

Jeffery, C. R. (1971, 1977). Crime Prevention Through 

Environmental Design. Beverly Hills (California): Sage.

Kruger, T., K. Landman and S. Liebermann (2001). Designing 

Safer Places: A Manual for Crime Prevention Through Planning 

and Design. Pretoria, South Africa: CSIR Building and 

Construction Technology and the Department of Safety 

and Security.

National Crime Prevention Council (1997). Designing Safer 

Communities: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 

Handbook. Washington, D.C.: NCPC.

Newman, O. (1972). Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through 

Urban Design. New York: Macmillan.

Police Executive Research Forum (1993, October). A Police 

Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their Environment. Bureau 

of Justice Assistance, Washington, D.C. (NCJ143711). 

Available at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/polc.pdf (accessed 

March 31, 2006).
About the Author 59

About the Author

Diane Zahm

Diane L. Zahm, Ph.D., AICP, is Associate Professor and Associate 

Director for Undergraduate Programs in Urban Affairs and Planning 

at Virginia Tech. Her teaching and research examine local policy 

and decisions regarding land use, site layout and facility design, and 

their long-term impact on crime, fear and neighborhood viability. 

Dr. Zahm’s academic and professional background includes both 

community development and criminal justice experience, in New 

York, Kentucky, Florida, and Virginia. She staffed the Florida 

Attorney General’s Crime Prevention Through Environmental 

Design Program and is a founding member of the Florida CPTED 

Network. Presently, Dr. Zahm serves as the international chair of the 

International CPTED Association.

Recommended Readings 61

Recommended Readings

• A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their 

Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This 

guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners 

to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying 

public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It 

provides guidance on whether and how to conduct costeffective surveys.

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An 

Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers,

by John E. Eck (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide 

is a companion to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series. 

It provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing 

problem-oriented policing efforts.

• Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel 

(Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with 

accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic 

pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The 

document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.

• Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 

(Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of 

volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing 

opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of 

initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems.
62 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving

• Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing: The 

1999 Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This 

document produced by the National Institute of Justice 

in collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum 

provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the 

annual award program that recognizes exemplary problemoriented responses to various community problems. A 

similar publication is available for the award winners from 

subsequent years. The documents are also available at www.

ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

• Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime 

Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office 

Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and 

describes the factors that make problem-solving effective 

or ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in 

England and Wales.

• Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory 

for Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. 

Clarke (Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98, 

1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity 

theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory 

have practical implications for the police in their efforts to 

prevent crime.

• Problem Analysis in Policing, by Rachel Boba (Police 

Foundation, 2003). Introduces and defines problem 

analysis and provides guidance on how problem analysis 

can be integrated and institutionalized into modern 

policing practices.
Recommended Readings 63

• Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein 

(McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990). 

Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented 

policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses 

how a police agency can implement the concept.

• Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention, 

by Anthony A. Braga (Criminal Justice Press, 2003). 

Provides a thorough review of significant policing research 

about problem places, high-activity offenders, and repeat 

victims, with a focus on the applicability of those findings 

to problem-oriented policing. Explains how police 

departments can facilitate problem-oriented policing by 

improving crime analysis, measuring performance, and 

securing productive partnerships.

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the 

First 20 Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

2000). Describes how the most critical elements of 

Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have 

developed in practice over its 20-year history, and proposes 

future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report 

is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

• Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in 

Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman 

(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the 

rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the 

problem-solving process, and provides examples of 

effective problem-solving in one agency.
64 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing 

Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving 

Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott 

Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 1998) (also available at www.cops.usdoj.

gov). Provides a brief introduction to problem-solving, 

basic information on the SARA model and detailed 

suggestions about the problem-solving process.

• Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case 

Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 

(Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and 

methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over 

20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives.

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: 

Case Studies in Problem-Solving, by Rana Sampson 

and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000) (also available 

at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case studies of effective 

police problem-solving on 18 types of crime and disorder 

problems.

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook 

for Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for 

police to analyzing problems within the context of 

problem-oriented policing.

• Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement 

Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G. 

LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains 

many of the basics of research as it applies to police 

management and problem-solving.
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 65

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides series:

1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-02-9

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. 

Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-04-5

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

ISBN: 1-932582-05-3

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 

2001. ISBN: 1-932582-07-X

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. 

Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-11-8

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-14-2

16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-15-0

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-16-9

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002.

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5
66 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly.

Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-30-4

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. 

Anthony A. Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2

24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-33-9

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-35-3

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glesnor and 

Kenneth J. Peak. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-36-3

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-39-8

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 

2004. ISBN: 1-932582-42-8

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-43-6

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos 

and Mike Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel 

Johnson. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-47-9

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-50-9

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 

2005. ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis 

B. Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6

37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1932582-56-8
38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. 

Newman. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2

39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. 

Eck. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6

40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-63-0

41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley 

and Stephen Smallbone. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-65-7

42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-67-3

43. Burglary at Single-Family House Construction 

Sites. Rachel Boba and Roberto Santos. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

44. Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. Rob Guerette. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-72-X

45. Domestic Violence. Rana Sampson. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-74-6

46. Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and 

Driveways. Todd Keister. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-76-2

47. Drive-By Shootings. Kelly Dedel. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-77-0

48. Bank Robbery. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-78-9

49. Robbery of Convenience Stores. Alicia Altizio and 

Diana York. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-79-7

Response Guides series:

• The Benefits and Consequences of Police 

Crackdowns. Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

• Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should 

You Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

• Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns.

Emmanuel Barthe. 2006 ISBN: 1-932582-66-5

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 67
68 Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving

• Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 2005.

ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

• Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 

2006 ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

• Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. 

Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7

• Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police ProblemSolving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5

• Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm 

Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1

Partnering With Businesses To Address Public Safety 

Problems. Sharon Chamard. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-62-2

Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke and 

John E. Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-75-4

Implementing Responses to Problems. Rick Brown 

and Michael S. Scott. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-80-0

Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental 

Design in Problem-Solving. Diane Zahm. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-81-9

•

•

•

•
Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Abandoned Vehicles

Bicycle Theft

Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues

Child Abuse

Crime and Disorder in Parks

Traffic Congestion Around Schools

Transient Encampments

Problem-Solving Tools

Designing a Problem Analysis System

Displacement

Response Guides

Enhancing Lighting

Sting Operations

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 

Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call 

the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit 

COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 69
www.cops.usdoj.gov

For More Information:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below.

e0807391 Date: August 2007

ISBN: 1-932582-81-9