www.cops.usdoj.gov

Dealing With Crime and 

Disorder in Urban Parks

Jim Hilborn

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Response Guides Series

No. 9

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Response Guides Series

Guide No. 9

Dealing With Crime and 

Disorder in Urban Parks

Jim Hilborn

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#2006CKWXK003 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(s) or 

the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are used to 

supplement discussion of the issues.

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of 

July 2009. Given that URLs and web sites are in constant flux, 

neither the author nor the COPS Office can vouch for their 

current validity.

© 2009 Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Inc. The U.S. 

Department of Justice reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and 

irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and 

authorize others to use, this publication for Federal Government 

purposes. This publication may be freely distributed and used for 

noncommercial and educational purposes.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 1-932582-92-4

May 2009

About the Response Guides Series i

About the Response Guide Series

The Response Guides are one of three series of the Problem-Oriented 

Guides for Police. The other two are the Problem-Specific Guides and 

Problem-Solving Tools. 

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. Neither do they cover all of the 

technical details about how to implement specific responses. 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 Response Guides summarize knowledge about whether police 

should use certain responses to address various crime and disorder 

problems, and about what effects they might expect. Each guide:

•	 Describes the response 

•	 Discusses the various ways police might apply the response 

•	 Explains how the response is designed to reduce crime and 

disorder 

•	 Examines the research knowledge about the response 

•	 Addresses potential criticisms and negative consequences that 

might flow from use of the response 

•	 Describes how police have applied the response to specific crime 

and disorder problems, and with what effect.
ii Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

The Response Guides are intended to be used differently from the 

Problem-Specific Guides. Ideally, police should begin all strategic 

decision-making by first analyzing the specific crime and disorder 

problems they are confronting, and then using the analysis results to 

devise particular responses. But certain responses are so commonly 

considered and have such potential to help address a range of 

specific crime and disorder problems that it makes sense for police 

to learn more about what results they might expect from them. 

Readers are cautioned that the Response Guides are designed to 

supplement problem analysis, not to replace it. Police should analyze 

all crime and disorder problems in their local context before 

implementing responses. Even if research knowledge suggests that 

a particular response has proved effective elsewhere, that does not 

mean the response will be effective everywhere. Local factors matter 

a lot in choosing which responses to use.

Research and practice have further demonstrated that, in most 

cases, the most effective overall approach to a problem is one that 

incorporates several different responses. So a single response guide 

is unlikely to provide you with sufficient information on which to 

base a coherent plan for addressing crime and disorder problems. 

Some combinations of responses work better than others. Thus, 

how effective a particular response is depends partly on what other 

responses police use to address the problem. 

These guides emphasize effectiveness and fairness as the main 

considerations police should take into account in choosing 

responses, but recognize that they are not the only considerations. 

Police use particular responses for reasons other than, or in addition 

to, whether or not they will work, and whether or not they are 

deemed fair. Community attitudes and values, and the personalities 

of key decision-makers, sometimes mandate different approaches 

to addressing crime and disorder problems. Some communities 
About the Response Guides Series iii

and individuals prefer enforcement-oriented responses, whereas 

others prefer collaborative, community-oriented, or harm-reduction 

approaches. These guides will not necessarily alter those preferences, 

but are intended to better inform them.

The COPS Office defines community policing as “a philosophy that 

promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic 

use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively 

address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety 

issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.” These guides 

emphasize problem-solving and police-community partnerships in 

the context of addressing specific public safety problems. For the 

most part, the organizational strategies that can facilitate problemsolving and police-community partnerships vary considerably and 

discussion of them is beyond the scope of these guides.

 These guides have drawn on research findings and police practices 

in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New 

Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. Even though laws, 

customs and police practices vary from country to country, it is 

apparent that the police everywhere experience common problems. 

In a world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, it is 

important that police be aware of research and successful practices 

beyond the borders of their own countries.

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the research 

literature and reported police practice, and each guide is 

anonymously peer-reviewed by a line police officer, a police 

executive and a researcher prior to publication. The review process 

is independently managed by the COPS Office, which solicits the 

reviews. 

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide 

feedback on this guide and to report on your own agency’s 

experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your agency may have 
iv Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

effectively addressed a problem using responses not considered in 

these guides and your experiences and knowledge could benefit 

others. This information will be used to update the guides. If you 

wish to provide feedback and share your experiences it should be 

sent via e-mail to askCOPSRC@usdoj.gov.

For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit the 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at www.popcenter.org. 

This web site offers free online access to:

•	 The Problem-Specific Guides series

•	 The companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools series 

•	 Special publications on crime analysis and on policing terrorism

•	 Instructional information about problem-oriented policing and 

related topics

•	 An interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise

•	 An interactive Problem Analysis Module

•	 Online access to important police research and practices

•	 Information about problem-oriented policing conferences and 

award programs. 
Acknowledgments v

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.

Debra Cohen, Ph.D. and Cynthia Pappas oversaw the project for 

the COPS Office and research for the guides was conducted at the 

Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University by Phyllis Schultze. 

Suzanne Fregly edited this guide.

Contents vii

Contents

About the Response Guides Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v

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

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

The Place, Sense of Place, and Place-Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

The Urban Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

The “Safe” Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

The “Risky” Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

A Park’s “Criminal Career” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Stage 1: Onset: The Threat of Disorder and the Rise of Fear . . . . . . . .12

Stage 2: Diversification and Escalation: Whose Park Is It? . . . . . . . . . .13

Stage 3: Risk and Danger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Stage 4: Assuming Guardianship: Taking Back the Park . . . . . . . . . . . .14

The Importance of Natural Guardians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Design and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

The Park’s Physical Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

The Park’s Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Gathering Needed Information About Your Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Walking in the Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

The Physical Environment’s Risk and Protective Features . . . . . . . . . .26

Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Sight Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Movement Predictors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Entrapments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 

Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Activity Generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Usage Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Formal Surveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Park Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
viii Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

Planning and Evaluating the Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Appendix A: Problem-Oriented Policing in an Urban Park: Checklist 

of 10 Key Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Appendix B: Urban Parks – Problem-Oriented Policing Projects . . . . . . . . . .39

Appendix C: Recommended Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

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

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Introduction 1

Introduction

Urban parks are often difficult to police. Compared with 

streets and buildings, their boundaries are complex and 

ill-defined. Often the police don’t have accurate data on 

exactly what crime and disorder is occurring in the urban 

park, or where. Parks are also difficult to patrol, they’re 

hard to lock up, and it is difficult to install alarm systems 

in them. Natural vegetation, especially in parks with more 

naturalistic settings, often inhibits surveillance, and closedcircuit television (CCTV) is unlikely to be able to cover the 

whole park.1

 There is usually a police response only when 

the “problems” in a park have gotten so bad that the public 

has demanded a visible police reaction. Until there is such a 

“crisis,” the urban park isn’t usually a policing priority. 

Several of the Problem-Specific Guides provide valuable 

ideas for dealing with many of the antisocial and criminal 

acts that occur in urban parks, including the following 

guides:

•	 Disorderly Youth in Public Places 

•	 Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets 

•	 Graffiti 

•	 Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places 

•	 Panhandling 

•	 People With Mental Illness 

•	 Underage Drinking 
2 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

This Response Guide doesn’t emphasize specific crimes; rather, 

it emphasizes reducing crime and disorder in parks as a whole. 

It is intended to help police take an important leadership role in 

§For example, “New Yorkers for reclaiming an urban park from crime and disorder and ensuring 

Parks,” www.ny4p.org produces that its facilities can once again benefit a broad spectrum of publications such as The Report 

Card on Parks 2007, to pressure citizens. Though each individual park will need its own planned 

New York City to maintain, intervention, this guide looks at how a park’s design, maintenance, 

and even increase, the park and policing can affect its crime and disorder problems. To do this, budget; and Tracking Crime in 

New York City Parks, to demand it seeks to answer two questions:

that the New York City Police •	 What do police know about park design, planning, and Department provide moredetailed information about park maintenance that can explain how a park can come to be 

crime. perceived as “risky,” “bad,” or unsafe?

•	 What can the police do to make the “risky” park become 

perceived as a safe and desirable place that is important for the 

local community? 

This guide’s core assumption is that the key to reducing crime and 

disorder in urban parks is for police to engage the local community 

in all stages of the problem-solving process, to ensure that (1) 

there will be a dominant legal use of the park, and (2) that local 

community members will act as natural guardians. The police must 

balance the legitimate demands of local politicians, city officials, 

urban planners, parks department personnel, etc., and deal with the 

different advocacy groups,§ as well as listen and respond to the local 

community’s concerns and hopes for the park. There will always 

be many diverse and sometimes competing stakeholders, each with 

their own interests in the policing of an urban park. Despite this, 

there are many examples of police working effectively to reclaim 

urban parks, as seen in Appendix B, which contains summaries of 

some of these projects.
Definitions 3

Definitions

The Place, Sense of Place, and Place-Making

To understand the urban park, one should start with the concept 

of place. At its most basic, place refers just to a location. In crime 

analysis,2 place is defined as “a very small area, such as an address, 

street corner, or block face.” A hot spot is simply a place with 

a “geographic concentration of crime.” The recent advent of 

geographic information systems has made it possible to be quite 

precise in locating concentrations of crime and disorder, even in 

public open space such as an urban park. Thus place becomes a very 

small area with a precise geographical location and boundary. 

But place is much more than just a location. Places can acquire 

meaning. People develop their own sense of place.3 Potential users 

can see a park as either a place of safety or a risk to be avoided. A 

potential offender can see the park as an attractive place of criminal 

opportunity. It is critical to understand both the local community’s 

and the offender’s perceptions, because that will determine their use 

of the park. 

Any place has a myriad of meanings attached to it—some widely 

shared and some idiosyncratic...When these different senses of place 

are both public and (to some degree) shared, there often is conflict 

over what the appropriate meaning of a place may be.4

Without such a personal sense of place, there is little investment in 

a location; instead, people see it as just a space, with no meaning 

or value. Without personal meaning there is little motivation to 

get involved in crime prevention or to cooperate with the police. 

In response, organizations such as the Project for Public Spaces in 

the United States, and the Commission for Architecture and the 

Built Environment in the United Kingdom, have been developing 

a model of place-making. 5 This is a community-organizing 

process that involves local people in the design and planning of 
4 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

the environment, to develop a positive sense of place. Policing the 

urban park is in many ways a “battle for the hearts and minds” over 

the particular park’s meaning to potential users (whether social or 

antisocial). 

When police involve the local community in the reduction of 

crime and disorder in a park, they are engaged in a problem-solving 

process at a very specific time and place; they are also promoting 

community safety and strengthening the local community’s sense 

of place. Thus there can be both an immediate crime reduction 

and also a more general and lasting community benefit. There is 

even evidence that, if people can access a safe green space such as an 

urban park, then there will be less crime and disorder in the local 

area.6 

The Urban Park

The first modern urban park was designed in the United Kingdom 

in the 1890s as a solution to the social problems generated by 

mass urbanization. Today the park serves a wide variety of social 

purposes. An urban park is defined here as follows:

A bounded area of public open space that is maintained in a 

“natural” or semi-natural (landscaped) state and set aside for a 

designated purpose, usually to do with recreation. Parks are often 

enclosed by a boundary barrier, which may be permeable or semipermeable (a hedge, fence, or wall). An urban park is as much a 

designed space as an urban shopping mall or a recreational complex 

such as Disneyland. 

In understanding an urban park, it is important to look at the 

following:

•	 The original design and planned purpose for the park, and 

present maintenance

•	 How the park is now being used, and by what groups

•	 Any issues of crime and disorder

•	 Whether the local community sees the park as risky, or as a safe 

and desirable place.
Definitions 5

 The local community is defined here as people who live within 10 

minutes’ walk of a park, since this population is most likely to use 

the park regularly and to act as the park’s natural guardians. Users 

from farther away are less likely to develop a strong place identity 

with the park. 

The “Safe” Park

A “safe” urban park is defined here as follows:

A dynamic place where the design, maintenance, and 

policing of the park work together so that the general 

public perceives the park as a safe place, wants to go to 

the park regularly, and spends their optional time in the 

park engaged in valued activities. Crime and disorder is 

limited, and diverse usage of the park by different groups is 

tolerated. Legal activities are the dominant activities in the 

park. Because the local community values the park, it has a 

sense of “ownership” of it, and there are sufficient numbers 

of users who act as “natural guardians” to ensure informal 

social control. They also support formal interventions by 

park management and police when such interventions are 

necessary. 

These are signs that people consider a park safe: 

•	 Parents take children there

•	 Females go there as often as males

•	 Elderly people regularly visit the park

•	 Workers have lunch or take breaks there.
6 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

The “Risky” Park

A “risky” urban park is defined here as follows:

§The term “dog fouling” is used in the 

United Kingdom. Leaving your dog’s A place where crime and disorder has become the norm to the 

solid waste is more than just littering; it’s degree that local users consider the park unsafe, try to avoid a health issue. being in the park, and limit their time in the park to necessary 

activities. Crime and public disorder such as vandalism, 

littering, dog fouling,§ alcohol and drug abuse, and public sex 

have become the dominant activities in the park. 

It is important to remember that most parks don’t become 

problematic places. As an example, the following chart shows the 

concentration of crime risk in 28 parks in Chula Vista (California). 

Most of the parks have a low number of violence/disorder calls. 

Only a few parks have become “risky facilities”7

 or are seen by the 

public as being “bad” or unsafe. Though all could be classified as 

parks, only a few places were risky. These few were very different

places. 
Definitions 7

Crime Risk in 28 Chula Vista Parks (Over Two Acres)

earYr epre cAr epls lCar rdeose/DicnioleV

The concept of risky facilities is a new theory of crime 

concentration that further develops the idea of a hot spot. Bars, 

drugstores, convenience stores, certain neighborhoods, and parks 

are examples of places that people have often seen as likely hot 

spots. But the reality is that only a small proportion of any specific 

type of facility will account for the majority of crime and disorder 

problems experienced or produced by the group of facilities as a 

whole, as shown in the Chula Vista park system.

What makes some facilities more risky than others? The following 

factors can help explain the differences between safe and risky 

parks:

Size: The park is large and attracts many users, some of whom 

become victims.

Suitable targets: The park contains a lot of things particularly 

vulnerable to theft or vandalism.

Location: The park is close to an area with a high crime rate.
8 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

Repeat victims: The park attracts a few victims involved in a large 

proportion of crimes.

§See Problem-Solving Tools Guide Crime attractor: The park attracts many offenders or a few high-

#10 Analyzing Crime Displacement rate offenders.

and Diffusion. Washington, D.C: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office Poor design: The park’s physical layout makes offending easy, 

of Community Oriented Policing rewarding, or risk-free. Services. 

Poor management: Management practices or processes enable or 

encourage offending.

The park will affect the local community. The park’s crime 

attractors and generators can elevate the perceived neighborhood 

crime and incivilities, and thereby increase the local community’s 

fear of crime. An exploratory analysis of parks and crime in 

Philadelphia (Pennsylvania)8 suggests the following:

•	 Parks can be crime generators. Crime, especially violence and 

disorder, clusters in parks and on immediately surrounding 

streets.

•	 Parks with more activity generators, especially sport fields, 

experience less crime. This may result from higher guardianship 

levels and natural surveillance. This relationship is stronger 

for larger parks, perhaps because their size draws in even more 

people for more guardianship.

•	 Parks in residential neighborhoods experience higher crime 

levels than in other neighborhoods. This may result from a 

retreat from informal control or from lower surveillance.

Parks, like other public open spaces, have a much greater positive 

or negative impact than previously recognized. The “risky” park 

should be a high policing priority.

If the “risky” park is large enough, then there may even be several 

distinct hot spots or unsafe places within the park as a whole. 

Several different crime problems may exist at each location, 

requiring a separate problem-solving process. However, it is also 

possible that diffusion will spread a successful intervention into 

other parts of the park.§
Definitions 9

A “bad” place or risky facility sends out cues inviting crime and 

disorder. An important part of place-level problem-solving is to 

identify these cues and then change the message to one that invites 

civility and order. The messages in a public space tell how people are 

actually using it. These are signs that indicate whether people see the 

park as risky: 

•	 People go through the park as quickly as possible

•	 Drunken people hang out there

•	 Young males dominate the setting

•	 It is littered with syringes and beer bottles

•	 Younger children don’t play there. 

Successful policing of parks is a deliberate combination of 

community policing and problem-oriented policing. Successful 

prevention in a park will usually involve (1) experimenting with 

different design, maintenance, and policing strategies until the 

right combination for that specific park and its crime and disorder 

problems is found, while (2) working with the different groups that 

use the public space to promote the active community participation 

necessary for long-term crime prevention and community safety. 

A Park’s “Criminal Career” 11

A Park’s “Criminal Career” 

Places can change over time and become either better or worse. The 

concept of a criminal career can be applied to a place. There is a 

four-stage model of a park’s criminal career that is based on a study 

of crime in U.S. and Canadian national parks.9 This model can help 

police assess a park and provide the correct response to the stage. 

This four-stage model is shown here as a cycle of decline and 

renewal since the potential for either increased crime and disorder 

or recovery is always present. Parks are dynamic systems, and change 

is the only given.

Stage 1: 

Onset

Stage 2: 

Diversification

Stage 4: 

Assuming Guardianship 

Stage 3: 

Risk and Danger
12 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

Stage 1: Onset: The Threat of Disorder and the 

Rise of Fear

In the majority of the parks studied, problems started with what 

the researchers called “visible signs of depreciative behavior.” Such 

depreciative behavior and related disorder are often seen as being 

“soft crimes” because of the relatively minor or nonserious nature of 

the offense. However, one can argue that if unchecked, then these 

gateway offenses lead to a spiral of more-serious crime and disorder 

by causing discomfort—even fear—in legitimate park users. 

This version of the broken windows thesis§ may explain how parks 

can fall into disorder and crime if no one regularly maintains 

them. Poor maintenance sends cues that can encourage a potential 

offender. The would-be offender sees graffiti, vandalism, dog 

fouling, and litter as signs that no one cares or is in charge. It is 

a question of the perceptions of the potential offender and other 

park users. Inaction by park management may lead to increased and 

potentially more-serious offenses. 

It is critical that the park management and police pay attention to 

the signs of disorder, the potential for increased crime and disorder, 

and the community concern about such issues. The fear of crime 

is often more about the perception that there is an increase in crime 

and disorder than it is about a real increase. 

Jim Hilborn 

Poor maintenance and conditions such as litter, graffiti and vandalism 

send cues to would-be offenders that the park is uncared for or that no 

one is in charge.

§The term broken windows is a metaphor. 

Briefly, it argues that just as a broken 

window left untended is a sign that 

nobody cares and invites more broken 

windows, so disorderly behavior left 

unaddressed is a sign that nobody cares 

and leads to fear of crime, more-serious 

crime, and, ultimately, urban decay 

(Kelling and Coles 1996).
A Park’s “Criminal Career” 13

As mentioned, successful park crime-and-disorder policing is a 

deliberate combination of community policing and problemoriented policing. There should be a balance, since too vigorous 

a focus on order maintenance can damage police and community 

relationships. Having a good working relationship with the local 

community is critical for crime prevention and community safety in 

the park. 

Stage 2: Diversification and Escalation: 

Whose Park Is It?

Public space such as a park will always be a “contested space.” For 

example, a dog owner wants his dog to run freely, but a runner or 

a mother with small children wants the dog on a leash. And no 

one likes dog fouling. Such conflicts are inherent to the park: dog 

owners versus runners, the old versus the young, drinkers versus 

nondrinkers, etc. Policing crime and disorder in a park usually 

involves negotiation with a wide range of users to arrive at a 

mutually acceptable solution or solutions. If the conflict isn’t going 

to be resolved peacefully, then one side or another must lose. Park 

management and police must pay attention to conflict between 

users and/or complaints from users. Such information can be a clear 

signal that the park’s ownership, along with its use, is starting to 

change. 

As legal use declines, the park can head toward a “tipping point” 

from safe to unsafe. The escalation of crime and disorder generally 

ends with a high-profile public incident that formally defines the 

park as a dangerous place. 

It is clear that if park management and police don’t sufficiently 

act to preserve the perception of the park as a safe place, then lawabiding users’ perception can change, with the park no longer seen 

as safe. The perception that the park is becoming risky can quickly 

become a reality. The loss of trust in the park management and 

police can then lead to legitimate users’ abandoning the park. It is 

important to avoid this by responding to people’s concerns as soon 

as possible. 
14 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

Stage 3: Risk and Danger

People usually voluntarily go to a park. The local community as 

well as “outsiders” visit the park. As people’s perceptions, or sense of 

place, change from feelings of attachment and belonging to negative 

emotions such as unease and fear, the park usage decreases. 

While there may be hot spots of criminal and antisocial activity, 

the perception of risk will often exceed the actual level of crime and 

risk in the park as a whole. People’s perceptions of crime and the 

associated fear will not only prevent them from using parks, but 

also the negative sense of place can accelerate the speed of the park’s 

abandonment as well. 

Maintaining local people’s trust and confidence in the police and 

park management is critical in preventing the park from being seen 

as unsafe. The negative perception and fear of crime are as critical as 

the reality. Indeed, the negative perception can be a risk factor that 

increases the probability that the reality of the park will become as 

bad as people feared. 

Once people lose trust in the park management and police, the 

potential legitimate users will tend to avoid the park unless it is 

necessary. This avoidance will continue until people see evidence 

that the park management and police are reclaiming it from 

illegitimate users. The police and park management must regain 

people’s trust before legal activities become the park norm again. 

Stage 4: Assuming Guardianship: 

Taking Back the Park

In Stage 4 of the model, the police and park management take back 

control of the park. This involves (1) reestablishing guardianship, 

and (2) actively recruiting legitimate users to lessen the park’s 

vulnerability to crime. 
A Park’s “Criminal Career” 15

There are both passive and active measures that help to restore 

control. 

Passive efforts focus on blocking access to the park or removing 

the physical elements that facilitate crime. Changes in design 

and maintenance remove criminal opportunities. In Boston’s 

(Massachusetts) Franklin Park, for example, motor vehicles had 

almost unlimited access. Public safety began to improve only after 

the parks department blocked some of the old carriage entrances and 

protected the park’s internal spaces from vehicular traffic.10 In other 

places, public areas used for illicit sex or for drug-related activity were 

opened up to natural surveillance through landscape management 

techniques.

Active techniques involve direct intervention by motivated people, 

such as legitimate users and/or park personnel, who organize the 

take-back effort. These people choose to become natural guardians of 

their park. The message now being sent to offenders is that “someone 

cares.” 

Boston’s Franklin Park Coalition has worked to bring multiple 

law enforcement officials together to coordinate their coverage 

of the park and to share ideas and information. As a result, the 

local community no longer sees Franklin Park as dangerous.11 The 

coalition works to ensure that there is police response and park 

maintenance. 

Deploying uniformed personnel to confront illegitimate users is 

the most common tactic used to take back an unsafe park. There 

must be a demonstration of the jurisdiction’s willingness to confront 

people engaged in crime and disorder, and to use sanctions. The 

reclamation of New York’s Central Park involved the development 

of park enforcement patrols and an urban park ranger program both 

to confront crime and disorder and to establish the highly visible 

symbols of police uniforms.

The Importance of Natural Guardians 17

The Importance of Natural Guardians

Policing a park is as much, or even more, about working to promote and 

increase legal and acceptable activities as it is about working to reduce or 

eliminate antisocial and unacceptable activities. The American advocate of 

public open spaces, William H. Whyte, put it best: “So-called undesirables 

are not the problem. It is the measures taken to combat them that [are] the 

problem... The best way to handle the problem of undesirables is to make 

the place attractive to everyone else.”

Source: www.pps.org/info/placemakingtools/placemakers/wwhyte.

Vandalism and litter easily destroy the pleasure of being in a “natural” 

park setting. This is the fundamental reason why a majority of users 

engaged in legal activity is so critical to the park’s continued viability. 

Natural guardians can help to ensure park safety. These guardians 

are just ordinary citizens going about their daily routines in the 

park. A guardian is someone whose presence serves as a reminder 

to potential offenders that someone is noticing. The guardian’s 

behavior also communicates that antisocial behavior is unacceptable. 

Potential offenders know that such guardians are ready to involve 

the park wardens/rangers or police, if necessary. A local guardian 

can be anyone who values and uses the park, and who decides to take 

on the responsibility of safeguarding it. A guardian can be almost 

anyone—one’s age, gender, faith, ethnicity, education, or ability isn’t 

critical. The key is for the person to choose to be socially responsible. 

Police will never have the resources or time to provide such intensive 

guardianship. Local guardians will have to “protect” a safe park and 

police can encourage them to do this by educating them about their 

role (see Box, “Helping to Take Back a Park”). 
18 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

It can require a lot of police time and effort to regain people’s 

trust and deal with their fear. People’s fear of crime isn’t going to 

disappear by telling them that they’re safe, especially when they 

aren’t, or feel they aren’t. Fear of crime requires that the police and

park management are very honest about the real risks, provide 

as much objective data as possible, offer constructive suggestions 

for personal safety, and show people that the police and park 

management are concerned and will do whatever is necessary and 

legal to regain control of the park. Once people are no longer too 

afraid, then some will choose to become guardians.
The Importance of Natural Guardians 19

Helping To Take Back a Park: A Concerned Citizen’s Guide

Be patient; reaching the “tipping point” takes time.

It can take time and lots of hard work before an abandoned park reaches the “tipping point,” where it 

shifts from being frightening and dangerous to safe and full of life. At some point, there will be a critical 

mass of positive activity, and the “feel” of the park will shift. Don’t give up if it doesn’t happen right away. 

Don’t put yourself in danger.

Drug dealers and other criminals who inhabit your park can be dangerous. Don’t unnecessarily risk your 

safety by confronting them directly. There are many other effective strategies for making your park safer.

Don’t go it alone.

Your police precinct is your most important resource for fighting crime, but developing relationships 

with the police takes time and work. Get to know the beat cops, your precinct’s community affairs 

officer, and your precinct’s commander. Go to the monthly meeting of your local police precinct 

community council, and let them know about the issues that matter to you.

Be the “eyes and ears” of the police. 

Neither the police nor the park enforcement patrol can be in your park all the time. You can help by 

reporting any problems you see. The more you report problems, the more likely the police are to help 

you, as their distribution of resources is determined by the number of complaints they receive. You 

should also report problems about parks by calling 311, the city’s information line, at any time.

Be specific about the problems. 

Look for patterns and report them. Is there a particular time when kids hang out, when people sell or use 

drugs, or when dealers walk their pit bulls? Are there “regulars” who make trouble? More details make it 

easier for the police and park enforcement patrol to focus on the problem people, times, and places.

Get on the agenda. 

Go to every monthly meeting of your local police precinct community council. Bring others with you. 

There is no better way for the police to know about the issues that matter to you. Also attend meetings of 

your community board’s parks committee, and of local block, tenants, and merchants associations. Don’t 

forget elected officials, too.

Think about organizing a safety committee/patrol. 

When done properly, having a group focused on safety issues and/or a patrol can prove a good 

supplement. But you must organize such groups carefully, and in full consultation with the park 

enforcement patrol and the police, if they’re to be successful and appropriate.

Source: Adapted from Partnerships for Parks, a joint program of the City Parks Foundation and the New 

York City Parks & Recreation Department.12 

Design and Maintenance 21

Design and Maintenance

Until now, this guide has discussed the part that police and natural 

guardians play in efforts to rehabilitate a park. This section deals §CABE (www.cabe.org.uk) is a very 

with design and maintenance, two other critical factors in restoring good resource for anyone seeking a 

better understanding of urban design a park for community use. and parks.

The Park’s Physical Design

Physical design will either be a risk or a protective factor. In fact, it 

may be difficult to do much about some of the risk factors, which 

can result from decisions made many decades ago when the park 

was originally laid out. Until recently, designers and planners didn’t 

consider crime prevention as part of the design or planning process. 

But that is no longer true. In the United Kingdom, the Commission 

for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE)§ has prepared 

several detailed reports on park design and maintenance to reduce 

crime and disorder. Much of the crime prevention and planning 

literature, and the U.K. police experience with programs such as the 

Design Against Crime and Secured by Design, can also apply to 

parks.13 The planning department in the U.K.’s city of Nottingham14

has two graphics in its Design Guide for Community Safety in 

Residential Areas that illustrate the problematic and good design of 

two hypothetical parks occupying the same public open space. Here 

are some problematic design features the graphics identify:

•	 Narrow, unobserved footpaths hemmed in between high solid 

fences and dense planting 

•	 Dense tree and shrub planting that obscures the view of open 

spaces from adjacent houses

•	 Footpaths that converge in hidden spaces, leaving no option to 

avoid the secluded areas

•	 Secluded areas that encourage misuse, posing threats to 

pedestrians using footpaths and adjoining property

•	 Children’s play areas hidden from view

•	 Footpath alignments and dense planting that obstruct sight lines 

along routes to the exit
22 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

•	 Houses whose backs face the park and don’t allow useful 

surveillance of the area

•	 Pedestrian routes that include unobserved areas blocked by high 

fences.

Nancy Leach

Dense tree and shrub planting that obscures the view from open spaces 

may encourage misuse and pose threats to pedestrians using footpaths.

In contrast, here are some good design features the Nottingham 

graphic identify: 

•	 Railings around the park that prevent vehicle access and keep 

children away from roads

•	 No secluded spaces on key footpath routes or against house 

boundaries

•	 Traffic-calming measures on residential distributor roads or throughroutes, including speed control bumps, surfacing changes, etc.

•	 Trees planted on the perimeters, selected and spread out to allow 

views across the park

•	 Perimeter roads that provide increased visibility and alternative 

safer routes for pedestrians at night

•	 Adjacent housing fronted onto the park that provides good 

surveillance, a sense of ownership, and benefits from the view

•	 All pedestrian routes feeding into the park being located on wellobserved streets.
Design and Maintenance 23

Nancy Leach

Gates preventing vehicle access to the park after hours can help to 

reduce crime and disorder. 

Park Maintenance 

Good maintenance and adequate staffing protect the park 

over time. In Decent Parks? Decent Behavior? CABE asserts the 

following:

The case studies in this publication link the decline in the 

condition of the park and the loss of facilities, with a decline 

in use and an increase in vandalism. This is no chicken-andegg conundrum; it appears quite clear which came first. 

The parks were in decline and failing to meet customer 

expectations long before antisocial behavior started to 

become the dominant characteristic (2005:24).

The research clearly shows that a decline in a park’s condition creates 

the opportunity for antisocial behavior to become dominant. Therefore 

CABE’s first answer to crime and disorder in parks is to prioritize the 

staffing and maintenance of these important public spaces. 

According to CABE, the decline in the condition of many urban 

parks was basically the result of a series of cutbacks made over 

several decades. Park budgets became vulnerable to cutbacks during 

times of fiscal crisis and often weren’t a high-priority item for either 

local government or the police. Closing buildings and eliminating 

staff positions resulted in immediate savings. The long-term 

negative results were unintended but also very predictable. Police 

and park personnel couldn’t respond to problems of vandalism, 

graffiti, and littering as quickly as in the past. The decline in 

park maintenance and staffing conveyed the message that no one 
24 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

really cared about the park and such “soft crimes.” Negative park 

experiences led to reduced legitimate use, and increased crime 

and disorder filled the gap. As a result, by the early 1980s, people 

perceived many parks as dangerous, “no go” areas. The perception 

became the reality.

Then, usually because of serious crime and residents’ complaints, 

park conditions became a political issue. Sustainability, smart 

growth, and urban livability were also becoming important on 

the political agenda. Research had started to document the social, 

health, economic, and even crime-prevention benefits of safe parks 

and other “green spaces.” 

In response to public pressure, local governments started to reinvest 

in park maintenance and staffing. New private-public partnerships 

such as New York’s Central Park Conservancy became a critical 

source of additional funding, grassroots energy, and innovative 

ideas. In New York more than 20 large park partnerships and dozens 

of smaller ones help to fill the gaps between public needs and park 

budgets. Even cities with generous park budgets embraced the 

concept of private groups’ supporting the parks.

Today, local advocacy groups who argue that some recent privatepublic agreements don’t adequately represent the local community’s 

interests are challenging those agreements. Some agreements have 

given special interests too great a control over the park and have 

restricted the local community’s use of the park. The solution 

should be a compromise between the competing interests. As 

mentioned before, the park is a contested space.

There are several excellent guides on how to deal with park 

problems.15 The key questions about park maintenance and staffing 

include the following:

•	 Do the city management and the police now see the importance 

of early detection and intervention? 

•	 Will the city ensure that there are sufficient resources and 

staffing? 

•	 Will the police allocate the necessary resources to policing the 

park? 
Gathering Needed Information About Your Park 25

Gathering Needed Information 

About Your Park

Every problem-oriented policing project is unique, and you should 

adapt this guide to address the specific problems your park poses. 

You should answer questions about its design and maintenance, 

as well as the “who,” “what,” “when,” “where,” “why,” and “how” 

regarding its current use. 

Walking in the Park

Understanding the park’s physical design and layout as a whole 

helps to identify its risk and protective factors. For larger parks, 

there are maps and aerial photos, but it is usually necessary to walk 

around the area, looking at it from potential users’ and abusers’ 

perspectives. It is important to understand people’s reactions. 

There is no good substitute for literally being in the park. 

“Walking the beat” is how police officers get to know their local 

community; the same applies to parks. 

In doing so, it is necessary to ask a series of “what if I was” 

questions to explore the park’s potential impact on diversity issues 

such as gender, culture, age, race, etc. As an example, a male police 

officer may need to consider how a female or older person might 

perceive the park both during the day and at night. Different users 

have different opinions about the park and its appropriate use. 

Identifying these differences is critical to finding and involving 

natural guardians from the local community. It is important to 

talk with offenders, victims, users, and local nonusers to determine 

what the park means to them. 
26 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

The Physical Environment’s Risk 

and Protective Features 

§Some useful guides include the City of 

Edmonton, Canada’s Design Guide for You should audit the park’s crime-prevention-througha Safer City (1995) and its Safety Audit environmental–design (CPTED)§ features to identify those factors 

Guide for Crime Prevention (2000); the that increase the probability of crime and disorder. These can be City of Nottingham’s Design Guide for 

Community Safety in Residential Areas static (such as the geographic location, or offenders’ age and sex) 

(1998); and material from the city of or dynamic (such as the maintenance quality or the offenders’ Toronto, available from the Project for 

Public Spaces. Also see Wekerle and attitudes). The audit can help to identify the factors you can change, 

Whitzman (1995). as well as those that you should protect. The factors that can 

promote crime include those below.

Lighting

•	 Is lighting adequate enough for a person to get a good look at 

someone else from a reasonable distance (12 to 15 feet away)?

•	 Are landscaping elements chosen and maintained so that they 

don’t block the light?

•	 Are lights placed in areas where nighttime activity is appropriate, 

and not placed in inherently unsafe areas not intended to be used 

at night?

•	 If the park is intended for night use, then how well does the 

lighting illuminate pedestrian walkways? Is it __very poor, __ 

poor, __ satisfactory, __ good, or __ very good?

•	 Are there scheduled nighttime activities (e.g., baseball games or 

evening nature walks) that bring people into the park after dark?

•	 In parks where nighttime activities such as tennis or evening 

walks are scheduled, are the activities clustered and properly lit?

•	 Are nighttime activity areas near restaurants, movie theaters or 

other buildings used by the public?

•	 Are principal access routes to nighttime activity areas properly 

identified, and is their use encouraged? Are they properly lit so 

that potential hiding areas are visible?
Gathering Needed Information About Your Park 27

•	 Are nighttime routes made more visible by improving sight lines 

to them and by giving priority to patrols?

•	 Is there a buddy system or jogging club to ensure nighttime 

joggers’ safety? This depends on the number of users, which may 

be greater in larger parks.

Sight Lines

Clear sight lines are important as they let people see, without 

interference, what lies ahead.

•	 Is it possible to see most of a small park or play area from the 

street?

•	 Do housing or commercial establishments overlook small parks 

or the edges of larger parks?

•	 Do paths have unimpeded sight lines, especially where they 

curve or change grade, so that people can see into and out of an 

area?

•	 Are landscape materials chosen and maintained so that they 

don’t block sight lines from the street or along paths?

Movement Predictors

Movement predictors are those lanes, paths, or tracks that follow 

a predictable pattern. People can easily be trapped on movement 

predictors if there aren’t clearly visible escape routes. 

•	 Do people have a choice of routes to and from areas of the park?

•	 Is there more than one entrance or exit, especially when there is a 

fence around a play area or a small park?

•	 Are there activity anchors located near movement predictors, 

where appropriate?
28 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

Entrapments

Entrapments are spaces usually concealed from view that offenders 

can use to hide, trap unwary people, and/or conceal crimes. 

•	 Do paths have a border of low-lying or high-branching 

vegetation, as opposed to trees and bushes that offenders can 

easily use as entrapment spots?

•	 Are children’s play structures designed to minimize entrapment 

spots in the play equipment or within a fenced area?

•	 Are toilets designed to eliminate hidden corners or entrapment 

areas?

Signs

•	 Do park entrance signs provide clear directions to major points 

of interest?

•	 Do signs clearly indicate—using words, international symbols, 

and maps—the location of telephones, toilets, isolated trails, 

heavily used routes, and park activities?

•	 Are signs located at decision points, such as the intersection of 

two major paths?

•	 Do area locators have a map with an enlargement of the 

immediate area to indicate where people are in the park and 

where the closest park headquarters and exit routes are? 

•	 Do signs indicate where and how people can get help and report 

maintenance problems? 

•	 Are the park’s hours of operation clearly posted?

•	 Do park telephones have prominently displayed identification 

numbers known to police and park personnel?
Gathering Needed Information About Your Park 29

Activity Generators

Activity generators are features that tend to create (or generate) 

activity. The activity may be positive or have negative consequences 

if it is inappropriate or a nuisance to others.

•	 Are activities either located along park edges or clustered 

together?

•	 Are children’s playgrounds located near other activity generators 

such as refreshment stands?

•	 In smaller parks or miniparks, does the design allow space for 

refreshment stands?

•	 Does the park have flexible seating to give people choices?

•	 Are restrooms and/or portable toilets located near telephones? 

People tend to use either one or both.

•	 Do park planners site new toilet facilities near existing activities?

•	 Can park personnel easily move isolated portable toilets?

Maintenance

•	 Is there a clear party responsible for park maintenance?

•	 Are there signs of physical disorder (e.g., garbage or graffiti)?

•	 Do mown edges of three to four feet along paths or near plants 

and trees indicate that these areas are naturalized through intent 

rather than neglect?

•	 Where an area has deteriorated because its capacity has been 

exceeded, can planners design the environment to be more 

resistant to deterioration, or can they move activities to other 

sites to allow regeneration?

•	 Are there signs and garbage cans to encourage community 

responsibility?
30 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

Usage Diversity

•	 Do larger parks provide recreational opportunities beyond team 

sports and children’s play—e.g., community gardens, small zoos 

or farms, puppet shows and plays, and seniors’ activities—to 

encourage a diversity of users?

•	 Do park activities and design encourage a diversity of users, or do 

some users take over the park and drive out other users?

•	 Are downtown parks designed to accommodate a range of 

activities (e.g., space for street vendors, street entertainers, 

concerts, picnics, food services, and green markets), even if they 

are intended primarily for passive use?

•	 Do scheduled park activities accommodate a range of interests 

and park users?

Formal Surveillance

•	 Do either the police or park personnel provide formal park 

surveillance?

•	 Do park personnel know how to respond to various types of 

emergencies?

•	 Do park personnel receive security training?

•	 Is there a park safety plan that incorporates printed matter, signs, 

and interpretive programming?

•	 Does the parks department have an officer responsible for safety 

throughout the parks system?

Isolation 

People often decide to go to the more “wild” areas of the park to 

be alone with nature, seeing only trees and shrubs and hearing only 

birds chirping. But isolation and reduced visibility also increase the 

risk of crime. 

In Safe Cities: Guidelines for Planning, Design, and Management,, 

Wekele and Whitzman (1995) argued that planners should site 

activity areas near park perimeters, to enhance street surveillance. 

An active edge encourages use and creates a park surveillance 
Gathering Needed Information About Your Park 31

perimeter. Instead of creating an active edge, planners often site 

major park activity nodes in the park’s interior, not visible from the 

outside, and thus with little natural surveillance from the street.

There are more aspects to isolation that you should investigate 

while walking through the park:

•	 Could anyone hear you if you shouted for help?

•	 Do shrubs and fences enclose the park so that passersby cannot 

see into it?

•	 Is the park above or below grade and hidden from the street?

•	 Is there a visible “active edge” that attracts activity and allows use 

without penetrating the park’s interior?

•	 How far away is the nearest person to hear a call for help? 

•	 How far away is the nearest emergency aid, such as an alarm, 

security personnel, or crisis telephone? 

•	 Are there emergency telephones in isolated areas, including 

along trails?

•	 Can you see a telephone or sign directing you to emergency 

assistance?

•	 Does anyone patrol the area? If so, how often?

Park Users

In formulating interventions, police and park staff need detailed 

information about who is and isn’t using the park. The ability to 

give a number rather than saying “some” or “many” is critical for 

program design. If possible, you should gather the information in 

active collaboration with the park management and other interested 

stakeholders. 

You should obtain the information through interviews, focus 

groups, or surveys. You should also try to include offenders in 

the interviews.16 Since the park is a public space intended to be 

accessible to all, identified offenders should always be welcome 

back if they are going to behave appropriately and be considerate 

of others. In one park CABE studied, by involving youths in the 
32 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

park’s redesign and renovation, they committed less vandalism, 

they contained (legal) graffiti to designated areas, and less conflict 

occurred between them and the older users, since each group now 

had its own distinct activity area 17 .

In conducting an on-site survey of park users,§

 here are some key 

points to remember: 

(1) A survey should take only 10 to 12 minutes, at the most.

Pretest the survey to be sure it works within this time frame. At 

first, the interviewers may take 15 minutes to finish administering 

the survey, but after several days, they should take only 10 to 12 

minutes. If not, then revise the survey. 

(2) Begin with demographics. 

Interviewers may be tempted to fill in many demographic points, 

such as age, race, and disability, but for accurate record keeping, 

they should ask respondents to provide this information. They will 

need to ask respondents where they live. 

(3) Each survey should contain only a few questions related to a 

key theme. 

Typical safety questions include the following: 

•	 What are your favorite areas of the park? 

•	 Are there places you don’t feel comfortable going to, and if so, 

why? 

•	 Does the park have any special meaning to you? 

•	 Has the park changed since you first started going there? 

•	 Would you like to change anything about the park? 

(4) Do exit rather than entrance surveys. 

As they leave, people may be willing to reflect on what they did, and 

you can ascertain both what they were planning when they came to 

the park, and then their feedback about what they actually did. Ask 

them where they went, and have them point out the locations on a 

precoded map. 

§See guides such as Conducting Community 

Surveys: A Practical Guide for Law 

Enforcement Agencies (Weisel 1999), or 

Surveying Communities: A Resource for 

Community Justice Planners (Paik 1995) for 

suggestions.
Gathering Needed Information About Your Park 33

(5) Ask everyone what they did at least three times to determine 

the full array of their activities. 

When interviewees tell you what they did, ask, “What else did you 

do?” Be sure to probe, especially so you hear about so-called passive 

uses. To “I played ball,” ask, “What else did you do?” and you might 

hear, “Well, I took a walk.”

(6) Look at local versus regional use. 

People who live near a park use it the most. They are used to the 

park, and have a sense of which areas are safe and how to handle 

themselves. So when they hear that a bad incident happened in the 

park, they tend to think of it as unusual rather than routine, and 

they keep going there. People who live farther away aren’t as familiar 

with the park, and vote with their feet by not going there after its 

safety is put into question.

(7) Consider asking people how they find out about park 

activities. From fliers? From posters? From the media? 

The responses will help you gear your communication strategies to 

the appropriate audience(s). 

About 35 percent of the interviewees in a 1995 New York City 

Central Park survey had such deep, positive feelings about the 

park that they said they were willing to volunteer for it, and 

gave the interviewer their name, address, and phone number.18 

Such motivated people will become the core of the community 

involvement necessary for long-term park safety. 

Planning and Evaluating the Response 35

Planning and Evaluating the Response

In terms of the SARA model, this guide emphasizes the scanning 

(collecting information) and analysis process. The response and the 

assessment (evaluation) of the response will be unique to each park 

and local community. 

The detailed audit and the interviews, focus groups, or surveys obtain 

valuable information that you should provide to the local community, 

potential offenders, and other stakeholders. If information is power, 

then targeted communication is the key to crime reduction in urban 

parks. Law enforcement is just one tool police use to let potential 

offenders know that police will no longer ignore or tolerate certain 

targeted behaviors. The three-part goal is to:

•	 Reduce or eliminate crime and antisocial behavior in park

•	 Encourage everyone to use parks legally and to respect other 

users’ rights

•	 Encourage the local community to take ownership of the park, 

to provide natural guardians to manage conflicts, and to involve 

formal controls, when appropriate.

The evaluation needs to assess all three dimensions. A reduction in 

recorded criminal and antisocial incidents is only one part of the 

evaluation. Is there also evidence of a change in the way people are 

using the park, so that legitimate use is dominant? Is there evidence 

of increased optional and social use of the park? Is there evidence 

that the local community is actively ensuring that there is less crime 

and disorder in the park?

Direct observation and interviews, focus groups, and community 

surveys should provide documentation of the community change. 

Appendix A lists key questions that will help in the evaluation 

and that may also suggest future activities to maintain the 

improvements. 

Appendix A 37

Appendix A: 

Park Problem-Oriented Policing: 

Checklist of 10 Key Questions

Trying to answer the following questions will help you determine 

whether you understand the park and its problems and have a 

realistic intervention plan. 

1. Where is the park in its four-stage criminal career? What 

evidence do you have for that judgment?

2. What is the park’s purpose? Does the original design still meet 

current needs?

3. Can you describe the park as a whole? Do you have the 

necessary information from maps, pictures, etc.? Is the 

information sufficiently comprehensive, accurate, and timely? 

Are you clear about the park’s location in terms of the wider 

environment?

4. Can you identify the physical environment’s risk and 

protective features? Can you link the park design to identified 

hot spots? Can you see ways to change the design to reduce 

crime and disorder? Have you done a detailed safety audit?

5. Do you have accurate information about the park’s current 

and potential users? Do you have information on intergroup 

conflicts and potential offenders and victims? Are you 

maintaining ongoing communications with all the groups, 

including the community, offenders, and victims? Do you have 

a media strategy?

6. Have you sufficiently involved the local community 

in collecting data, selecting and planning tactics, and 

implementing and evaluating interventions? Are you 

operating within the community’s perspective? Are you dealing 

with the concrete issues that are important to and in the selfinterest of the community? Do you have the community’s trust 

and support? 
38 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

7. Have you been working in partnership with the local 

government, park management, and allied professionals 

such as urban planners so that (1) interorganizational and 

interprofessional conflicts are contained; and (2) outcomes 

are SMART (specific, measurable, agreed, realistic, and 

timely)? Have you identified adequate resources (physical, 

financial, and human) and allocated them to the park and its 

crime and disorder problems? 

8. Is the partnership committed to experimenting with 

different tactics until it finds the ones that are effective, 

efficient, humane, and just, and that also fit the community? 

The best measures of whether there has been a successful 

taking back of the park are (1) a decrease in reported crime and 

disorder, and 2) an increase in legitimate visitors’ park usage?

9. Have you identified, recruited, trained, and supported 

a critical number of natural guardians from the local 

community? Is long-term support in place? Can they trust you 

for the long term?

10. Is there political commitment for the long term, with the 

necessary resource allocation to allow police and park 

management to identify and intervene at the early stages of 

crime and disorder in the future? Do all the interested parties 

sufficiently understand that keeping the park safe is an ongoing, 

long-term process? 
Appendix B 39

Appendix B: 

Urban Parks—Problem-Oriented Policing 

Projects (summaries of submissions 

for the Herman Goldstein Award for 

Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing, 

prepared by Joshua Henze)

Anaheim (California) Police Department—Parolee-Free Parks 

(1998)

Parole-Free Zones was an initiative to deal with crime and disorder 

problems in three of Anaheim, California’s, worst parks: La Palma, 

Pearson, and Twila Reid. Police sent letters to convicts with 

narcotics violations in Anaheim. Police informed them that, as a 

new condition of their parole, police would immediately arrest 

and incarcerate the convicts if they found them in parks. Calls 

for service for all three parks fell 72 percent within the first year. 

Displacement proved minimal. www.popcenter.org/library/awards/

goldstein/1998/98-02.pdf

Appleton (Wisconsin) Police Department—The Park Rescue 

Project (2001)

Wisconsin’s Appleton Police Department developed the Park 

Rescue Project in partnership with local residents, politicians, and 

government agencies to deal with citizen complaints regarding 

drunken transients in the city’s parks. First, they enacted a local 

city ordinance to restrict park alcohol use. Second, they initiated 

a multiagency transient eviction program. Third, social services 

agencies collaborated with the police and park services to exchange 

information on transients regularly. Finally, they implemented 

CPTED principles by changing the park’s natural surveillance and 

territorial reinforcement. In the affected parks, alcohol-related calls 

decreased 89 percent, and general police calls for service dropped 38 

percent. The project improved safety and quality of life in the parks, 

as the community regained its sense of ownership, and the parks 

became safe places to visit and enjoy. www.popcenter.org/library/

awards/goldstein/2001/01-01.pdf
40 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

Baltimore County (Maryland) Police Department—Patterson 

Park Outreach Program (1997)

The Baltimore County Police Department’s Patterson Park 

Outreach Program involved the creation of a communitypolice board and public forums to deal with problems in a local 

community park. Local residents, the police, the city attorney’s 

office, and other city agencies worked together on specific problem 

issues/areas in Patterson Park and surrounding neighborhoods. 

Those involved used traditional and nontraditional methods, 

including law enforcement, nuisance abatement, and active 

citizen participation, to address problem tenants, litter, and drug 

trafficking. The project resulted in increased confidence and 

optimism among neighborhood residents. In the following year, 

burglaries decreased 35 percent, robberies decreased 17 percent, and 

larcenies decreased 15 percent. www.popcenter.org/library/awards/

goldstein/1998/98-06.pdf

Broward County (Florida) Sheriff ’s Office—Sheriff ’s Targeted 

Anticrime Response Team (2000)

The Broward County Sheriff ’s Office developed the Sheriff ’s 

Targeted Anticrime Response Team (START) project in response 

to an extreme quality-of-life deterioration and an increase in 

crime and drug trafficking in an urban park and surrounding 

neighborhoods of Dania Beach, Florida. START encompassed a 

four-phase, multidimensional approach that involved the police, 

local residents, community leaders,and state and federal task 

forces. Phase 1 consisted of an initiative to build trust and support 

through residential surveys and informal interviews, environmental 

assessments using CPTED strategies, and establishment of a 

community-based information-sharing network. Phases 2 and 

3 involved traditional policing through criminal investigation 

and multiagency enforcement operations. Phase 4 encompassed 

program assessment and maintenance through a community-based

advisory group.Along with large-scale arrests and asset forfeitures, 

the initiative had a positive impact within the community. Dania 

Beach’s overall crime rate dropped 24.7 percent, and the overall 

clearance rates increased 46 percent. www.popcenter.org/library/

awards/goldstein/2002/02-04.pdf
Appendix B 41

Bryan (Texas) Police Department—Summer Sundays at Sadie 

Thomas Park (2003)

Summer Sundays at Sadie Thomas Park began as a result of 

citizen feedback received through a mail-in community survey 

and informal door-to-door police visits regarding 15 years of 

youth-related crime and disorder in a Bryan, Texas, local park. 

Conventional policing through uniformed patrols and presence 

hadn’t reduced homicides, assaults, illegal drug sales and use, 

littering, loud noise, and traffic congestion. To resolve the problem, 

the police held meetings with local residents, community leaders, 

and city officials. They subsequently developed a two-step, 

community-based response. Step 1 consisted of police collaboration 

with the park service and transportation department to improve 

lighting, obtain trash cans, and post signs that stated, in part, no 

glass containers and no alcoholic beverages. Step 2 consisted 

of police collaboration with 15 local churches, community 

volunteers, and local media. The effort resulted in the creation 

of a rotational Sunday church-service initiative centered on 

worship and community events. Recreational use by families, 

senior citizens, and youth sports teams increased. Police calls for 

service significantly decreased. www.popcenter.org/library/awards/

goldstein/2003/03-03.pdf

Chicago (Illinois) Police Department—Gill Park Project (1997)

Gill Park, located on Chicago’s north side, had been plagued 

by gang activity, drug dealing, shootings, and prostitution for 

generations. Parents had stopped letting their children play there. 

The park was revitalized through a multiagency and community 

partnership, and the application of Chicago’s Alternative Policing 

Strategy. Residents of the affected beat cooperated with the police 

and neighborhood groups to develop potential solutions. They 

concluded that the park’s layout invited crime, and the principal 

response was to modify the layout using funds from public and 

private donations and volunteer labor assistance. People trimmed 

foliage to improve natural surveillance and installed high-quality 

lighting in the park’s isolated areas. A new baseball diamond 

replaced secluded areas and a problem concrete pool. Police 
42 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

officers started to conduct foot patrols of the park at strategic 

times to enforce city curfew and loitering ordinances. Gang-related 

crime and disorder in the park decreased, while parents’ and 

children’s usage increased. Reported offenses during peak warmweather months dropped from 928 to 802 between 1995 and 

1996, a 14 percent decrease. www.popcenter.org/library/awards/

goldstein/1997/97-08.pdf

Colorado Springs (Colorado) Police Department—Acacia Park 

Police Service Center (2003)

Colorado’s Acacia Park is located in the heart of downtown 

Colorado Springs. The park had a 40-year history of being a 

crime magnet and staging area in the downtown and surrounding 

vicinities. This inhibited city-based redevelopment initiatives, 

impacted local businesses, and made the place undesirable for 

parents and children. Traditional policing methods of patrol and 

undercover operations achieved only short-term improvements. 

To make a longer-term impact, interested parties adopted a variety 

of traditional and nontraditional approaches. These included new 

ordinances, business-based partnerships, a CPTED survey, and the 

creation of a park police service center. Police calls for service inside 

the park decreased 55.25 percent, and calls in the surrounding 

area decreased 14.17 percent. www.popcenter.org/library/awards/

goldstein/2003/03-08.pdf

Delray Beach (Florida) Police Department—Merritt Park 

Neighborhood (1997)

Florida developers laid out Merritt Park in the early 1960s to 

provide neighborhood recreation for children living in the 

immediate area. Subsequently, the surrounding neighborhood began 

to deteriorate, with a resulting increase in crime. Conventional 

police attempts to combat the rising crime through special 

enforcement teams, drug sweeps, and surveillance met with limited, 

short-term successes. The police then led a three-prong initiative 

that consisted of redesigning the park, collaborating with a local 

homeowners’ association and a men’s advocacy group, and creating 
Appendix B 43

a police park task force. One year later, there was an 87 percent 

decline in police calls for service to the park. Neighborhood parents 

and children now freely use Merritt Park. www.popcenter.org/

library/awards/goldstein/1997/97-11.pdf

El Paso (Texas) Police Department—San Jacinto Park 

Renovation Action Plan (1996)

Beginning in the 1980s, El Paso’s San Jacinto Park transformed 

from a desirable, historical Texas site to visit, to a place plagued 

with continual crime and disorder. Citizens began to avoid the park 

at all times. During the 1990s, the situation intensified to the point 

that the city, commercial businesses, and police came together to 

resolve the crime and disorder problems. The measures included 

renovating restrooms and recruiting a citizen advisory board, 

citizen volunteer patrols, and liaison police area representatives. A 

community reassessment survey the next year indicated that fear of 

crime had substantially declined. Area crime decreased 63 percent, 

while park use and tourism increased. www.popcenter.org/library/

awards/goldstein/1996/96-11.pdf

Georgetown (Texas) Police Services Division—Blue Hole Park 

Project (1995)

Blue Hole Park is a historical site in the heart of Georgetown, 

Texas. What was once a place of special memories for citizens 

and tourists had been ruined by alcohol-related crime, accidents, 

litter, and other problems when summer tourists used the park. An 

analysis revealed that a mix of alcohol, park geography, and outof-town residents accounted for most of the problems. In a joint 

intervention, the police, community organizations, city council, 

parks department, and city attorney’s office implemented a zerotolerance policy reinforced by signs and new city ordinances that 

addressed parking and traffic congestion. As a result, the park again 

became family-oriented. Police service calls, litter accumulation, 

accidents, and traffic congestion significantly decreased. Pedestrians 

could safely walk, fish, swim, and enjoy the natural beauty of the 

park’s landscape without fear. www.popcenter.org/library/awards/

goldstein/1995/95-24(W).pdf
44 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

Hamilton (Ontario) Police Service—Van Wagner’s Beach Plan 

(2004)

Hamilton’s Van Wagner’s Beach, also known as “The Beach Strip,” 

is a popular recreational area situated along the coast of Lake 

Ontario. Over time, youths took over parking lots and roads on 

the beach strip for drag racing, drinking, and using drugs. This 

increased local residents’ and other lawful users’ level of fear. After 

an unruly mob swarmed a police squad car, the police coordinated 

a response among city agencies, community-based groups, and 

local businesses. Recommendations implemented included using 

private security guards; CPTED measures to redesign parking 

lots, walkways, lighting, and access routes; and zero-tolerance 

enforcement of all criminal and provincial statutes. The Van 

Wagner’s Beach Plan resulted in an overall 26 percent decrease in 

service calls, and the beach became family-friendly once again. 

www.popcenter.org/library/awards/goldstein/2004/04-14.pdf

Los Angeles County (California) Sheriff ’s Department— 

Operation Outreach (1996)

In 1995, there were an estimated 200 to 500 transients in West 

Hollywood, California. After years of providing free services, city 

officials and community activists began to experience “compassion 

fatigue.” The gradual elimination of social service programs left 

only a 45-bed rehabilitation center, and hundreds of transients 

who loitered, slept, and drank alcohol in full view soon inundated 

parks and other public places. The Los Angeles County Sheriff ’s 

Department established a special unit, Operation Outreach, to 

develop a community-based response to the transient-related 

crime and disorder. First, the unit started trading information with 

city government agencies and various community-based social 

advocacy groups. Second, government social workers rode along 

with deputies responding to transient-related calls. When no crime 

had occurred, police offered transients new options of shelter and 

social assistance. Third, deputies responded to loitering complaints 

by obtaining a “Letter of Agency,” which authorized them to 

arrest trespassers without the owner being present to sign a citizen 

arrest form. Homeless shelter workers soon reported increased 

transient participation in social service programs designed to get 
Appendix B 45

them off the streets. Citizen complaints decreased, and county 

personnel removed 377 abandoned shopping carts from the streets. 

Operation Outreach was an effective, nontraditional initiative 

that addressed transient-related crime and disorder in community 

parks and other public places. www.popcenter.org/library/awards/

goldstein/1996/96-26.pdf

Los Angeles (California) Police Department—Barry White 

Project: Newton Crime Surveillance Team (2006)

Barry White Park, situated in Los Angeles’ South Central area, 

had been neglected, and gangs and drug dealers overran it. The 

local response to the problem consisted of the creation of a police 

surveillance team and the installation of five surveillance cameras to 

record park images. One officer would monitor the camera system 

for crime and then coordinate with other police officers to arrest 

the offender(s) and locate any further evidence of the crime. Direct 

communication with the district attorney’s office and a new open 

line of communication between police officers, park maintenance 

crews, and recreation staff was established. The project resulted 

in a 25 percent reduction of overall crime in the park and its 

surrounding perimeter, a 27 percent reduction of calls for service, 

a 45 percent increase in arrests, and positive feedback from the 

surrounding community. www.popcenter.org/library/awards/

goldstein/2006/06-28.pdf

Los Angeles (California) Police Department—MacArthur Park 

Revitalization Project (1996)

Thirty-two acre MacArthur Park lies in the heart of one of Los 

Angeles’ most criminally active areas. Crime and disorder, gang 

activity, transient encampments, and pervasive blight plagued the 

park. Faced with this situation, the Los Angeles Police Department 

implemented a community policing project targeting quality of 

life in the park in partnership with local agencies and community 

members. The police used foot, bicycle, and vehicle patrols in the 

area, while developing rapport and trust with local residents, park 

visitors, and area merchants. Various city agencies worked to remove 

graffiti, improve the environmental design, and mitigate narcotics 

and gang activity. A public education campaign was also a key 
46 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

element in the revitalization process. Gang- and narcotics-related 

problems decreased significantly. Overall, the target-area crime has 

decreased 24 percent. The true indicator of the project’s success has 

been children’s and families’ increasing park use. www.popcenter.

org/library/awards/goldstein/1998/98-38.pdf

Mesa (Arizona) Police Department—South Grand and Rotary 

Park Project (1999)

Rotary Park is a small community site located in an older, lowerincome Hispanic neighborhood in Mesa, Arizona. Over the 

years, it transformed into a location for drug dealing, a meeting 

place for local gangs, and an encampment for more than 100 

transients. Local residents no longer entered the park, even during 

the day. In October 1996, the Mesa Police Department initiated 

a revitalization project in the South Grand and Rotary Park area. 

They collaborated with other government agencies and social 

organizations, as well as concerned citizens. Citizens formed a 

neighborhood committee, as well as a block-watch and citizenpatrol group. A nonprofit organization removed or renovated older 

homes. Citizens organized neighborhood cleanups, and the local 

Boys & Girls Club initiated a neighbor-helping-neighbor program. 

The police established a prosecution project with the city attorney’s 

office to deal with repeat offenders. Police targeted drug dealers 

and criminal transients through traditional policing and a gang 

intervention initiative. Due to this coordinated and multifaceted 

response, calls for service significantly decreased, and Rotary Park 

was returned to local residents. www.popcenter.org/library/awards/

goldstein/1999/99-39.pdf 

Montreal (Quebec) Urban Community Police Service—Carré 

St-Louis (1995)

Carré St-Louis is a public park in a downtown Montreal residential 

area. For some time, the park had been occupied by “troublemakers,” 

who got drunk, sold drugs, urinated in public, and engaged in a 

variety of other crimes and misbehaviors. The police had responded 

cyclically and conventionally. Media pressure and police meetings 

with interest groups resulted in increased police presence and largescale sweep-up operations. Once the police withdrew, the problems 
Appendix B 47

would reemerge. In a new approach, the police met with city 

officials to explore specific park problems. They also held public 

forums with local residents to draft an action plan comprising 

diverse strategies to address each park problem separately. Police 

received training in problem-solving and community policing; 

social service agencies provided free medical and health assistance; 

city maintenance workers addressed neglect and decay; police held 

citation mediations with perpetrators; and residents regularly held 

community-based events in the park to encourage visitors and 

solidarity. A survey revealed that 90 percent of local residents were 

pleased with the initiative, and Carré St-Louis was transformed into 

a safe place for workers, families, and senior citizens to visit. 

www.popcenter.org/library/awards/goldstein/1995/95-48.pdf

Newport Beach (California) Police Department—Talbert 

Regional Park (2000)

California’s cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa had 

experienced recurring transient-related crime in Talbert Regional 

Park, a 97-acre undeveloped preserve. Jurisdictional issues arose 

each time police agencies responded to service calls because the 

park was located between two municipalities and owned by county 

government. The Newport Beach Police Department decided to 

respond to citizen complaints about a specific group of homeless 

people trespassing on private property and using unsecured 

restrooms. Collaborative meetings with the three primary police 

agencies, social services, and community-based groups resulted in 

the implementation of short- and long-term plans. Park security 

improvements consisted of putting new locks on restroom doors. 

The police agencies formally established a call-for-service protocol 

agreement. They strategically relocated transients to shelters 

through three phases: notice, citation, and physical removal. Once 

they relocated the homeless, a massive cleanup effort ensued. A 

follow-up study showed that from mid-October 1999 to midMarch 2000, there was only one call for service in the park area.

www.popcenter.org/library/awards/goldstein/2000/00-23.pdf
48 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

Ontario Provincial Police—Project: Yogi Bear (1995)

Project: Yogi Bear was developed to reduce problems for visitors 

to Ontario’s Bronte Creek Provincial Park. Random bicycle patrols 

had significantly reduced antisocial behavior during the park’s busy 

summer, but calls for services and car thefts increased during the 

winter, when Project: Yogi Bear wasn’t in effect. In response, the 

police, community members, and Canada’s Ministry of Natural 

Resources expanded Project: Yogi Bear from a seasonal initiative to 

a year-round crime prevention program. It included a communityoriented police service center in the park, a structured community 

volunteer program, police bicycle patrols, and the development of 

“Community Park Watch.” The program reduced the problems and 

contributed to all visitors’ enjoyment of the park. www.popcenter.

org/library/awards/goldstein/1995/95-57.pdf

Plano (Texas) Police Department—Taking Back Friday Nights at 

Haggard Park (2006)

For six tumultuous years, a semi-organized group of gothic Texas 

teens created crime and disorder on Friday nights in Plano’s 

downtown Haggard Park. Consequently, local residents avoided 

the park on weekends. After traditional policing and church-based 

initiatives failed to solve the problem, the police took several steps 

to make the park an undesirable place for the teens to hang out. 

With the aid of local government and the parks department, the 

police closed Haggard Park for six months for renovation. At the 

same time, the police gained legal authority to issue criminal trespass 

warrants in the park. The teens held their Friday night meetings at 

another city location and subsequently moved their activities out of 

town. Today, some teenagers still pass through the park; however, 

they don’t loiter and commit crime. Citizen complaints and police 

calls for service have decreased, and local residents now feel safe to 

use Haggard Park on Friday nights. www.popcenter.org/library/

awards/goldstein/2006/06-37.pdf
Appendix B 49

Redondo Beach (California) Police Department—Redondo 

Beach Gang Project (1996)

In late 1995, local residents began to complain about intimidation, 

gunfire, drug dealing, and drunken gatherings at all hours of the 

night in and around Redondo Beach’s Perry Park, in California. It 

became clear that the park was serving as an informal headquarters 

for the North Side Redondo (NSR) gang, many of whose members 

lived in adjacent dwellings. A preliminary legal injunction was 

granted and upheld through (1) police collaboration with the city 

council and city attorney’s office, (2) hundreds of sworn testimonies 

and documented incidents of NSR-related crime and disorder in 

the park from police and local residents, and (3) the support of 

local citizens, media, and county, state, and federal authorities. The 

police legally prohibited NSR members from conducting specific 

activities in Perry Park and the surrounding 24-block area. As a 

result, the area has experienced a 38.58 percent decrease in gangrelated activities. More importantly, local residents’ perceptions of 

safety in the community have increased. Citizens now freely use the 

park for recreational activities. www.popcenter.org/library/awards/

goldstein/1996/96-42(F).pdf

San Diego (California) Police Department—Lewd Conduct at 

San Elijo Lagoon and I-5 Viewpoint (1996)

Beginning in 1994, the San Diego police received many complaints 

from local residents, motorists, and county park rangers about illicit 

sexual activity around the San Elijo Lagoon and I-5 viewpoint. Gay 

men were having sex in public and leaving used condoms, soiled 

toilet paper, and matted grass in the area. The police decided to 

address the problems strategically and collaboratively. First, with 

the cooperation of the district attorney’s office, undercover sex 

stings successfully netted offenders for solicitation, along with 

traffic, weapons, and controlled-substance violations. Second, 

with the help of mainstream and alternative media, the police 

tried to gain the general public’s and the gay community’s support. 

Local newspapers and television networks ran stories about illicit 

sexual activity and about police undercover operations. Local 

gay and lesbian associations supported police efforts through 
50 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

public declarations and publication of health-risk material 

intended to discourage the gay community from using the sites 

for sexual activity. Third, the state transportation department 

and park personnel collaborated with the police to transform 

the environment by trimming vegetation, removing litter, and 

installing new lights, signs, and fences. Service calls and complaints 

decreased, but the police continue to monitor the area to prevent a 

resurgence of illegal activities. www.popcenter.org/library/awards/

goldstein/1996/96-51.pdf

San Diego (California) Police Department—Marian Bear Park 

(1994)

San Diego police initiated the Marian Bear Park project due to a 

long history of complaints about lewd sexual activity in there. It had 

once been a nature preserve for picnicking, hiking, and bicycling, 

but over time, it evolved into a location for illicit sex as a result 

of its secluded bushes and restrooms, its lack of electricity, and its 

official listing as a “cruising spot” in national gay publications. A 

combination of traditional and nontraditional police responses, 

along with the help of the city attorney, park committee, local 

residents, and gay community, reduced lewd sexual conduct in the 

park. First, the police videotaped everyone entering and leaving the 

park to eliminate the sense of anonymity the illegitimate park users 

enjoyed. Second, one of the two main gay publications stopped 

listing the park as a “cruising spot” upon receiving a written request 

from the police. Third, police posted signs around the park to 

discourage lewd sexual acts. Fourth, undercover police implemented 

solicitation sting operations to effect arrests and discourage 

illegitimate activities. As a result, illicit sexual activity decreased 80 

percent, while families and youth groups have increased their park 

usage. www.popcenter.org/library/awards/goldstein/1994/94-

15(F).pdf
Appendix B 51

Santa Ana (California) Police Department—Santiago Park 

Project (2001)

California’s Santiago Park encompasses 23 acres of heavy bushes, 

trees, and recreational facilities. For 20 years, local residents 

knew that gays were using the park’s restrooms, trails, parking 

lots, and playgrounds for homosexual solicitation and illicit sex. 

Traditional policing tactics had failed as long-term solutions to 

the problem and, in response to political pressure, the police 

developed a strategic plan that combined conventional policing 

and problem-solving. Those involved in the initiative included 

the district attorney’s office, community organizations, and the 

park and recreation department. Deterrence and reform tactics 

consisted of undercover stings, uniformed patrols, a hidden 

video camera, “stay-away” orders for convicted perpetrators, 

environmental modifications within the park, changes in the park’s 

operating hours, and written communication on a solicitation 

internet website to announce police enforcement efforts. Since the 

initiative’s implementation, police patrolling the park have noted a 

significant decrease in illicit sexual behavior. A community survey 

revealed a 78 percent decrease in lewd activity. www.popcenter.org/

library/awards/goldstein/2001/01-64.pdf

Vancouver (British Columbia) Police Department—Showdown 

at the Playground (2000)

Vancouver, British Columbia’s, Grandview Park is in an area 

that drug use and dealing had plagued. Few children used the 

park’s playground, and local residents walked around the park, 

not through it. Intelligence reports to the Grandview-Woodland 

Community Policing Center indicated a substantial increase in 

hard-drug sales and drug use in the park. As a result, the center 

declared a state of emergency in the park. To restore the park for 

community use, the police adopted an array of traditional and 

nontraditional responses with the assistance of local residents, 

an animal shelter, and community groups. Revitalization tactics 
52 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

consisted of police undercover stings, police surveillance operations, 

animal enforcement, the establishment of a volunteer citizen 

patrol program, and a community-based initiative that focused on 

restorative justice. After the response, the drug trafficking fell, police 

service calls decreased 80 percent, parents began bringing their 

children to the playground, and area residents returned to the park.

www.popcenter.org/library/awards/goldstein/2000/00-32(F).pdf
Appendix C 53

Appendix C: Recommended Web Sites

American Planning Association: www.planning.org

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing: www.popcenter.org

Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE): 

www.cabe.org.uk

Design Trust for Public Space: www.designtrust.org

ENCAMS Environmental Campaigns: www.encams.org

Geography and Public Safety: www.cops.usdoj.gov

New Yorkers for Parks: www.ny4p.org

Project for Public Spaces: www.pps.org

Resources for Urban Design Information: www.rudi.net

Smart Growth: www.smartgrowth.org

Trust for Public Land: www.tpl.org

Endnotes 55

Endnotes

1Burgess (1994).

2Clarke and Eck (2005).

3Carmona et al. (2003).

4Cresswell (2004).

5See Project for Public Spaces (2000).

6American Planning Association (2003). 

7Clarke and Eck (2007). 

8See McCord and Ratcliffe (2007); McCord and Groff (2008).

9See Pendleton and Thompson (2000).

10See Heart of the City, ksgaccman.harvard.edu/hotc.

11www.franklinparkcoalition.org/park-safety.

12See resources at www.partnershipsforparks.org.

13See Town, Davey, and Wootton (2003); Colquhoun (2004);

Schneider and Kitchen (2007); Zahm (2007). 

14City of Nottingham, Design Guide for Community Safety in Residential 

Areas (1998), www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk

15See Allen (2006); Christiansen (1983); ENCAMS (n.d.a); 

ENCAMS (n.d.b). 

16See Decker (2005). 

17See CABE Space (2005).

18www.pps.org/parks_plazas_squares/info/parkuse. 

References 57

References

Allen, D. (2006). Fighting Graffiti: An Investigation of Causes and 

Solutions. Minneapolis: Standish-Ericsson Neighborhood 

Association (SENA).

American Planning Association (2003). Create Safer Neighborhoods. 

City Parks Forum, Briefing Paper 4. Washington, D.C.: 

American Planning Association.

Burgess, J. (1994). The Politics of Trust: Reducing Fear of Crime in 

Urban Parks. Gloucester (England): Comedia; London: Demos.

CABE Space (2005). Decent Parks? Decent Behaviour? The Link 

Between the Quality of Parks and User Behaviour. London: 

CABE Space.

Carmona, M., T. Heath, T. Oc, and S. Tiesdell (2003). Public 

Places, Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. 

London: Architectural Press.

Christiansen, M. (1983). Vandalism Control Management for Parks 

and Recreation Areas. State College (Pennsylvania): Venture 

Publishing.

City of Edmonton (2000). Safety Audit Guide for Crime Prevention. 

Edmonton (Canada): City of Edmonton.

______ (1995). Design Guide for a Safer City. Edmonton, Canada: 

City of Edmonton.

City of Nottingham (1998). Design Guide for Community Safety in 

Residential Areas. Nottingham (England): City of Nottingham.

Clarke, R., and J. Eck (2007). Understanding Risky Facilities. 

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police, Problem-Solving Tools Series, 

Guide No. 6. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Community Oriented Policing Services.

______ (2005). Crime Analysis for Problem-Solvers: In 60 Small 

Steps. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services.
58 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

Colquhoun, I. (2004). Design Out Crime: Creating Safe and 

Sustainable Communities. Amsterdam: Architectural Press/

Elsevier.

Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A Short Introduction. Oxford 

(England): Blackwell. 

Decker, S. (2005). Using Offender Interviews To Inform Police 

Problem-Solving. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police, 

Problem-Solving Tools Series, Guide No 3. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services.

ENCAMS (n.d.a). Dog Fouling and the Law. Wigan (England): 

Environmental Campaigns. 

Guerette, Robert T. (Forthcoming, 2009) Analyzing Crime 

Displacement and Diffusion. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services.

______ (n.d.b). Litter and the Law. Wigan (England): 

Environmental Campaigns. 

Kelling, G., and C. Coles (1996). Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring 

Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities. New York: 

Touchstone.

McCord, E., and E. Groff (2008). “Urban Parks: Are They 

Amenities or Nuisances?” Presentation at Environmental 

Criminology and Crime Analysis Symposium, Anchorage, 

Alaska, July 24.

McCord, E., and J. Ratcliffe (2007). “A Micro-Spatial Analysis of 

the Demographic and Criminogenic Environment of Drug 

Markets in Philadelphia.“ The Australian and New Zealand 

Journal of Criminology 50(1):43–63.

New Yorkers for Parks, The Arthur Ross Center for Parks and Open 

Spaces (2008). The Report Card on Parks 2007 (May 2007, 5th 

annual report), Tracking Crime in NYC Parks.
References 59

Paik, L. (1995). Surveying Communities: A Resource for 

Community Justice Planners. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

 Pendleton, M., and H. Thompson (2000). “The Criminal 

Career of Park and Recreational Hot Spots.” Parks & 

Recreation 35(7):56–63.

Project for Public Spaces (2000). How To Turn a Place Around. 

New York: Project for Public Spaces.

Schneider, R., and T. Kitchen (2007). Crime Prevention and the 

Built Environment. New York: Routledge.

Town, S., C. Davey, and A. Wootton (2003). Design Against 

Crime: Secure Urban Environments by Design: Guidance for 

the Design of Residential Areas. Salford (England): University 

of Salford, Design & Innovation Research Group.

Weisel, D. (1999). Conducting Community Surveys: A Practical 

Guide for Law Enforcement Agencies. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 

Wekerle, G., and C. Whitzman (1995). Safe Cities: Guidelines 

for Planning, Design, and Management. New York: Van 

Nostrand Reinhold.

Zahm, D. (2007). Using Crime Prevention Through 

Environmental Design in Problem- Solving. ProblemOriented Guides for Police, Problem-Solving Tools Series, 

Guide No. 8. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

About the Author 61

About the Author

Jim Hilborn

Jim Hilborn is the founder of the Baltic Crime Prevention 

Practitioners Association. He is based in Tallinn, Estonia, where he 

promotes evidence-based policy and practice in the Baltic Region. 

His recent projects include Harm Minimization in the Night-Time 

Economy: Reduction of the Opportunity for Alcohol Related Harm

(2006) for the Cheltenham CADA Partnership in the United 

Kingdom, and a review of crime prevention approaches for the 

Estonian Ministry of Justice (2007). He is co-author with Dr. 

Robert Ross of Rehabilitating Rehabilitation: Neurocriminology for 

Treatment of Antisocial Behaviour (2008). He is now working on an 

integration of situational prevention with the healthy prison model. 

He is also preparing an alcohol treatment manual for the Estonian 

Ministry of Justice. He has a master’s of environmental studies from 

the Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Canada.

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 63

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
64 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

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
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 65

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

50. Traffic Congestion Around Schools. 

 Nancy G. La Vigne. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-82-7

51. Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities. Justin A. Heinonen and 

John E. Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-83-5

52. Bicycle Theft. Shane D. Johnson, Aiden Sidebottom, 

and Adam Thorpe. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-87-8

53. Abandoned Vehicles. Michael G. Maxfield. 2008.

ISBN: 1-932582-88-6

54. Spectator Violence in Stadiums. Tamara D. Madensen and 

John E. Eck. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-89-4
66 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

Response Guides series:

1. The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns. 

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

2. Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should 

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

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

3. Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

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

ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

4. Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 2006 

ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

5. Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns. 

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

6. Sting Operations. Graeme R. Newman with assistance of 

Kelly Socia. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-84-3

7. Asset Forfeiture. John L. Worall. 2008

ISBN: 1-932582-90-8 

8. Improving Street Lighting to Reduce Crime in Residential 

Areas. Ronald V. Clarke. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-91-6

9. Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks. 

Jim Hilborn. 2009. ISBN: 1-932582-92-4

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

1. Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 

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

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

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

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

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

4. Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1

5. Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety 

Problems. Sharon Chamard. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-62-2
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 67

6. Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke and John 

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

7. Implementing Responses to Problems. Rick Brown and 

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

8. Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 

in Problem-Solving. Diane Zahm. 2007. 

 ISBN: 1-932582-81-9

9. Enhancing the Problem-Solving Capacity of Crime 

Analysis Units. Matthew B. White. 2008. 

ISBN: 1-932582-85-1

Special Publications:

Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps,

Ronald V. Clarke and John Eck, 2005. 

ISBN:1-932582-52-5

Policing Terrorism: An Executive's Guide, 

Graeme R. Newman and Ronald V. Clarke, 2008

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Child Abuse and Neglect in the Home

Homeless Encampments

Street Robbery

Stolen Goods Markets

Thefts from Cafés and Bars

Aggressive Driving

Theft of Scrap Metal

Problem-Solving Tools

Displacement

Response Guides

Assigning Police Officers to Schools

Special Publications

Effective Policing and Crime Prevention: A Problem-Oriented 

 Guide for Mayors, City Managers, and County Executives

Intelligence Analysis and Problem-Solving
68 Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

series and other COPS Office publications, call the COPS Office 

Response Center at 800.421.6770, via e-mail at askCOPSRC@

usdoj.gov, or visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 
Center for Problem-Oriented Policing

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:

•	 Recommended readings in problem-oriented policing 

and situational crime prevention

•	 A complete listing of other POP Guides

•	 A listing of forthcoming POP Guides.

Designed for police and those who work with them to address 

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

problem-oriented policing.

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office).
Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks reviews how a 

park’s design, maintenance, and policing can affect its crime and 

disorder problems. This guide also makes recommendations to 

help police take an important leadership role in reclaiming an 

urban park and ensuring that its facilities can once again benefit a 

broad spectrum of citizens.

For More Information:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS Office programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov

May 2009

e050919203

ISBN:1-932582-92-4