random'research'sorta

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)

2009-03-31T18:27:00.000-07:00

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
(CPTED)
not final draft
JMattson
MET-UA301
Dec2007

“Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a multi-disciplinary approach to reducing crime and increasing perceived safety” (cpted page, n.d). “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) has many facets and recommended strategies” (Russell, 2002). Most urban planners and scholars ignorantly combine all crime prevention strategies relating to environmental design together, when in fact CPTED, defensible space, rational choice, and other models vary in practice (Robinson, 1996). The different forms of CPTED that have developed prove to be misleading for planners, agencies, and the community. Because of this, CPTED has had mixed results and implementation. This paper intends to examine perspectives of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design by investigating the concepts developed by Oscar Newman, C. Ray Jeffrey, and other CPTED scholars over the past 30 years to help clarify some of the confusion of the origin and intentions of various CPTED perspectives.

“Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a multi-disciplinary approach to reducing crime and increasing perceived safety” (The cpted page, n.d). By manipulating the built environment and the quality of life, the reduction of the incidence of crime is achieved (Moore, 1999). “CPTED focuses on the built environment, with a view as to how space is used. CPTED assumes that there are two types of users of space: normal; those who have legitimate purpose and intent; and abnormal; users who do not act according to our laws, policies, and social norms. CPTED helps make the normal user feel at ease and welcome while making the abnormal user feel very nervous about engaging in inappropriate behavior”(Dorn, 2005). CPTED is achieved by incorporating measures of territorial reinforcement, maintenance, natural surveillance, and natural access control (Moore, 1999). CPTED is about changing and altering the environment in order to subtly; if not subconsciously encourage certain behaviors and decisions of offenders and the community (The cpted page, n.d.).

Defensible space is less about the offender’s behaviors and thoughts, and more about the physical built environment and the public’s perception of it (The cpted page, n.d). “[Defensible space should not be combined with all disciplines of CPTED because] it ignores another entire dimension of CPTED - -i.e. the internal environment” (CPTED-history:enclyclopedia II). “Defensible space refers to two features: adjoining land-use and the influence of surrounding activities on a place; and how a site can be protected by specific design styles “(Saville, 1997). Proper designs incorporate the concepts of territoriality, natural surveillance, image, and milieu (Parnaby, 2006). Defensible space is concerned with design standards that improve security; architecture, land use, and lighting (Robinson, 1996). Defensible space includes a range of dimensions used to bring the environment into the control of the residents (Atlas, 2003) There is a large focus on residents becoming territorial in order for it to be effective and this has implications in itself (Robinson, 1996).

The two perspectives of CPTED formulated by Newman and Jeffrey are diverse for several reasons. Oscar Newman’s research into urban design planning happened concurrently with Jeffrey’s CPTED theory. Newman’s “Defensible Space- Crime prevention through urban design” was published in 1972, 1 year following Jeffrey’s study. Jeffrey and Newman were both deeply influenced by Jane Jacob’s but went into two very different and lacking directions (Parnaby, 2006). Jeffrey’s contribution was taken less seriously for several reasons. Newman failed to recognize the importance of the internal environment by focusing on just the built external environment (Saville, 1997). Jeffrey recognized the importance of the environmental, biological, and psychological factors but failed to develop a framework that people could understand, attempt, and utilize. This resulted in 2 different and often confused methods of crime prevention (Parnaby, 2006) (Russell, 2002). The following is some background on CPTED and how it came about and is understood as today.

In the 1960’s environmental design ideologies began to recognize the link between crime and disorder (Parnaby, 2006). “Social order in a world of strangers has always been an underlying issue in the examination of city life” (Hutter, 2006:221). Environmental design approaches began to get recognition because of the works of Jane Jacobs and Elizabeth Woods. “Jane Jacob’s ideas have influenced the heart and soul of urban culture… and how urban culture depends on the relationship between personal interaction and public space” (Gottdiener, Huthinson, 2006:331-332). Jane Jacob’s influential 1961 study “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” inspired the future CPTED approaches of both Oscar Newman and C. Ray Jeffrey. Jane Jacobs recognized the ignorance of urban planners to include the neglect of space and city culture (Gottiender & Hutchinson, 2006: 331-332). She was unimpressed with urban planning and the lack of consideration for spatial patterns, diversity, and how physical and social factors affect urban interactions (Hutter, 2006:117). Jacob’s focused on land use and functions of residential, commercial, institutional and leisure importance. She urged for studies to be undertaken that address perception of crime being different than actual crime and the importance of both demographic and social variables (Schweitzer, Kim, & Macken, 1999).

C. Ray Jeffrey’s CPTED perspective developed from his interest and influence of B. F. Skinner’s behavioral learning theories and experimental psychology (Robinson, 1996). “Jeffrey’s CPTED approach emphasized the role of the physical environment in the development of pleasurable and painful experiences for the offender that would have the capacity to alter behavioral outcomes…his original CPTED model was a stimulus-response (S-R) model positing that the organism learned from punishments and reinforcements in the environment” (Robinson, 1996). Hence the negative offender experience can alter behavioral outcomes. “… [and by] removing the reinforcements of crime will make it not occur” (Robinson, 1996).

For his second edition in 1977, Jeffrey revised his flawed empty organism approach which by then had evolved into the ‘integrated systems’ model of human behavior (Robinson, 1996). The 2nd edition of Jeffrey’s “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design” built upon his original theory and what was lacking to develop the foundation for his behavioral model including both internal and external factors (CPTED-history:encyclopeda II, 2004). Jeffrey emphasized that the brain needs to be recognized and any model of crime prevention had to include the environmental factors that influence behavior through the brain (Robinson, 1996).Genetic and brain differences affect who the offender is and how a criminal is affected by defensible space and other CPTED measures (Robinson, 1996). Most of the CPTED theories that have been implemented ignore the internal environment of the offender (Saville, 1997). Jeffrey insists that you can not treat each offender the same, each offender approaches situations uniquely and to do so would result in failed CPTED attempts (Robinson, 1996).

Jeffrey’s CPTED approach is not just an abstract social concept that minimizes the physical environment such as social learning and social disorganization. Jeffrey strives to take into account both concrete physical environmental and internal organism environmental factors (Robinson, 1996). Any CPTED theory that fails to address both internal and external environmental factors is severely lacking. Unfortunately the majority of early CPTED initatives did just that, and because scholars and the government largely ignored Jeffrey’s contribution it is unknown whether his model would have been effective (Robinson, 1996).
When defensible space support began to lag because of its limits and simplicity to address crime, the common notion of CPTED was already starting to be deemed ineffective and Jeffrey’s ideas of behavioral factors dismissed (Robinson, 1996). Defensible design proved to only be effective in public housing and even that could have benefited from a Jeffrey perspective. Typically the types of people that live in public housing are affected by poverty, violence, nutritional issues, and so on. “No amount of defensible space or situational crime prevention will overcome the effects that such behaviors have on human behavior (Robinson, 1996).

Jeffrey’s contributions were largely ignored in the 70’s because “…the world wanted prescriptive design solutions, his work presented a comprehensive theory…to identify a wide range of crime prevention functions that should drive design and management standards “but no identifiable framework in which to implement it (CPTED-history; encyclopedia II, 2004). Newman on the other hand presented a more thorough approach with guidelines that people could utilize and understand (Robinson, 1996).

Newman’s “Defensible Space” took into account what Jeffrey lacked and within two years of its publication received federal funding to build upon the concepts (CPTED-history: encyclopedia II). Government agencies, academia, urban planners, architectural designers, and businesses largely ignored Jeffrey’s original study. They were more interested in the external features that focused on target hardening (Robinson, 1996). Jeffrey also did not receive government support because in both his 1971 and 1977 publications he expressed an anti-criminal justice attitude towards courts, corrections, and law enforcement (Robinson, 1996).

For the most part, the field of Criminology as a whole dismisses biological factors (Robinson, 1996). Jeffrey’s theory seemed unrealistic, it is impossible to know what each offender in a situation would do. There is too many financial, ethical, legal, and political issues involved for agencies to even begin to comprehend a working model (Robinson, 1996). Rationality and specific offender variables can not be empirically tested or observed (Robinson, 1996). Jeffrey focuses on influencing motivations “This would entail testing for brain damage, nutritional defects, heavy metal contamination, neurological problems and might lead to altercation of nutrition factors, environmental pollutants, drug treatment, and so forth “(Robinson, 1996). Jeffrey’s interdisplinary organism environment model for policy and crime prevention could never be realistically implemented (Robinson, 1996). It is impractical to think you can test individual morality and reward punishment assumptions for each offender.

CPTED approaches tend to not be effective for several reasons. One of the most important aspects to understanding and implementing CPTED and defensible space strategies is that it can only be truly effective when all involved are committed. This is including environmental designers, planners, architects, land managers, residents, owners, and law enforcement. Even if one of these important elements is missing from the CPTED equation it will prove to be less effective than intended (The CPTED page, n.d).Another problem with implementation is the fact that there is no set approach for each project. Each project is different and varies in uniqueness. This makes it difficult for policy makers and the public to understand the concept as a whole (Gips, 2003).

It is also practical to keep in mind that financial resources is sometimes difficult to accumulate especially in poverty stricken areas where CPTED is most needed (Atlas, 2003). Though the website “The CPTED page” claims the principles can be applied to both building and remodeling easily and inexpensively it is clear that modification is both expensive, politically challenged, and requires broad support from the community (Wikipedia, 2007).

It is important to recognize that CPTED should not be used as a total solution. Treat CPTED as a comprehensive and inclusive approach with other crime prevention measures (Dorn, 2005). “The biggest problem occurs when CPTED is used in a vacuum. As long as CPTED is kept in perspective as a piece of the larger picture and is supported by other measures, it is a viable and powerful concept” (Dorn, 2005). There is also some possible disadvantages in the design techniques which result in other safety concerns, including weather vulnerability and accidents especially in buildings where glass is used for natural light and for ‘extra eyes on the street’ (Dorn, 2005).

Even still, by the 1980’s it was clear that CPTED has had varied success and effectiveness. Residential areas prove to be the most successful. Changes continue to be made to CPTED such as the combining of several approaches (CPTED-history: encyclopedia II, 2004). “As of 2004, elements of the CPTED approach have gained wide international acceptance due to law enforcement’s attempt to embrace it” (CPTED-history encyclopedia II, 2004). If nothing else, it is at least an excellent contribution to campus constructions and safe learning environments (Dorn, 2005). The marginal effective outcomes has resulted in Newman and others to expand upon the defensible space perspective resulting in “second generation CPTED” (CPTED-history, 2004) finally taking into account the importance of looking beyond the physical design aspect (Saville, 1997). 2nd generation CPTED includes influences from the ‘broken windows’ theory, “the four dimensions of crime”, situational crime prevention approaches, and criminologist Tim Crowe’s training programs (CPTED-history: encyclopedia II).It is still very conceivable that our general lack of knowledge and incompleteness of projects will continue to hinder CPTED efforts (Atlas, 2003). The future implementations of the social ecological, psychological, biological, and sociological aspects beyond the built environment as well as 2nd generation CPTED will continue to transform the theory of CPTED (CPTED-history; encyclopedia II, 2004).

References

Atlas, R. (2005). How are criminals using CPTED? Security Management. pNA.

Crime prevention through environmental design-history: Encyclopedia II. (2004). Oneness Commitment: co-creating a happy world. Retrieved December 6, 2007 from http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/crime_prevention_through_environmental_design_history/id/4887517.

Dorn, M.S. (2005). Safety and design (crime prevention through environmental design).College Planning & Management, v8 i18 p16.

Gips, M.A.(2003).CPTED still the exception. Security Management, v47 i10 p12(2).

Gottiender, M. & Hutchinson, R. (2006). The New Urban Sociology. (3rd ed). Massachusetts: Westview Press. p330-332.

Hutter, M. (2007). Experiencing Cities. Massachusetts: Pearson Education, Inc.

Moore, D. (1999). Designing safer schools. School Planning and Management, v8 i8 p12.

Parnaby, P.F. (2006). Crime prevention through environmental design: discourses of risk, social control, and neo-liberal context. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice.v48 i1 p1(29).

Robinson, M.B. (1996). The theoretical development of ‘CBTED’: 25 years of responses to C. Ray Jeffrey. Advances in Criminological Theory, v8.

Russell, J.S. (2002). Conceptual ways of looking at crime. Designing for Security:Guidance from the Art of Commission of New York.pNA.

Sarkissian, W. (2002). What is crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED)? Retrieved December 6, 2007 from

Saville, G. (1997.).2nd Generation CPTED: an antidote to the social Y2K virus of urban design. Retrieved December 6, 2007 from http://www.pac2durham.com/resources/schools.pdf+defensiblespace+vs+cpted&hi=cink&cd=178ql=us

Schweiterzer, J.H. Kim, J.W. & Mackin, J.R. (1999). The impact of the built environment on crime and fear of crime in urban neighborhoods. Journal of Urban Technology,v6 n3 p59-73.

Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia (2006). Crime prevention through environmental design. Retrived November 26, 2007 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPTED.

What is “CPTED”? (n.d). The CPTED Page. Retrieved November 26, 2007 from http://www.thecptedpage.wsu.ed/faq.html.

The Blue Curtain

2009-03-30T18:28:00.000-07:00

The Blue Curtain

J Mattson
March 22, 2006
Prepared for
Professor Tom Nolan
Police and Society
CJ 251

All occupations are defined by the cognitive, routine, and behavioral responses developed by the individuals in their particular roles. Through routine and common experience, they develop a way to see and respond to the world that they work in (Newburn, 2005). The occupational comradeship that results from the complex career of policing creates “the blue curtain” of isolation, secrecy, and brotherhood (Senna, 2001). Structural, cultural, and traditional conditions influence officers in their work. It is about loyalty, trust, acceptance, and understanding (Newburn, 2005). All jobs have formal and more importantly, informal social and behavioral practices. The police are no different and the nature of their job makes their subculture even more so unique (Newburn, 2005).

“The blue curtain” or subculture of policing is loosely defined but widely acknowledged (Newburn, 2005). As Waddington observes, “[Subculture has purpose in] giving meaning to experience and sustains occupational self-esteem” (Newburn, 2005, pg. 374). It is almost unavoidable and universal crossing beyond jurisdictions and diverse social, political, economic and legal circumstances (Newburn, 2005). The blue curtain is not necessarily law enforcement’s fault. The job is too diverse to have it explained in a rule book or laid out scientifically. Reliance on personal experience, colleagues, and how it has always been is expected. It is not just war stories and mythology but simply the way it is (Newburn, 2005). The “vocabulary of precedents” may seem exaggerated and ridiculous but at the same time it is warranted (Newburn, 2005). The subculture is described as informal but just the fact that it is understood by all makes it formal. Daily life for an officer is more about ‘the code’ than any formal rule (Newburn, 2005).

‘The police mandate’ and ‘citizens in uniform’ are oxymorons. The impossible mandate has left the police to do their job how they see fit and to keep up ever changing appearances. Appearances for the higher ups, the community, politicians, and the criminals they control (Newburn, 2005).This intensifies the subculture, officers must stick together in appearing as if they uphold the mandate which is defined by everyone else but them (Newburn, 2005). Police are big on avoidance and dealing with immediacy. They usually have to set aside their goal which is unobtainable anyways (Newburn, 2005).

Cultural values, socialization, and shared understanding mold the officer. This comes from constant exposure to peers and the larger organization. The officer must learn the system. They must learn how to act and react to superiors, the public, the mayor, and their environment (Newburn, 2005). The only way to survive on the force is to become part of the culture. Officers are continually socialized through experience, warnings, stories, and observation. It takes rookies years to be accepted, trusted, and molded by veteran officers. If you don’t abide by the code you are prone to criticism and sanctions imposed by fellow officers (Newburn, 2005).

Many factors contribute and intensify the subculture. Less than great salary, ridiculous hours, rotating shifts, boredom, fear, inadequacy, repeated exposure to danger and possible use of force all lead to the tendency for particular personalities to develop. The only people that understand are others who share in the experience (Reiser, 1972, Senna, 2001). The police see human behavior at its worst and feel the weight of the world on their shoulders to appear efficient (Newburn, 2005). They must play the role of tough guy, therapist, crime fighter, and perfect all in the face of a public that expects too much from them and doesn’t understand or appreciate them or the job (Senna, 2001).

As Ianni observed, “The cop’s code links the formal and informal structures by allowing degrees of freedom within which officers have discretion” (Newburn, 2005, pg 307). Discretion gives the police broad power and authority over the public which reinforces their isolation. They are the regulators of the public, in charge of maintaining order and integrity. As Maanen states, “…Police are both representatives of the moral order and part of it” (Newburn, 2005, pg 285). The officer takes to heart his moral responsibility. Law enforcement have an autonomous feeling of a ‘right’ to do as they please as far as dictating and handling situations. The police are the authority of the state with wide discretion and room to play out what he feels is right, just, and necessary (Newburn, 2005).

Police have a sense of mission. It is okay to taint evidence and beat out confessions; as long as the bad guy gets caught, the police have done their job (Newburn, 2005). Police may go off on a person using street justice, using demeaning names and lame arrest reasons. “[To the officer that person represents] …all that remain out there, untouched, untaught, and unpunished” (Newburn, 2005, pg 293). By using extra legal means to demonstrate their role they exert their authority to not just the citizen but also themselves (Newburn, 2005).
The crime fighting aspect of police work can not be overemphasized concerning officer self-image and morale. “Real police work” is what satisfies the officer. Sometimes authority can be overexerted just to get satisfaction. He is the tough guy with the power. Even in minor traffic stops, crime fighting is law enforcement’s legitimatization. They must reaffirm this to the public constantly. Officers must dwell on their tasks of violence and heroism to affirm them of the ‘real job.’ The public does not help with this skewed image. We label them crime fighters and expect them to do just that. They barely have the opportunity or the resources to, but we intensify their fragile alienated image (Newburn, 2005).

The relationship between society and the police is strained by a lack of understanding. Once a person puts on the police uniform they are no longer a peer but an ‘amorphous symbol’ (Reiser, 1972, pg 22). They are the visible symbol of the unjust and oppressive government: the perfect scapegoat and brunt of resentment (Reiser, 1972). The public’s view of police is very simplistic. The public does not understand the vast array of duties that law enforcement is responsible for. From dog catching, resolving conflict, to traffic and crime scenes, the public just doesn’t get it. No other job description is as exciting and boring at the same time. Police can be bored and routine at one moment to being in danger and dependent on a split decision in the next (Senna, 2001, Newburn, 2005)). The public belittles the police authority by chastising them over traffic stops when they could be catching criminals; this reinforces isolation (Newburn, 2005).

The police, on the other hand, have tunnel vision when it concerns citizens (Senna, 2001). Suspicion is deeply integrated, the police are in constant situations that cause him to label and identify specific aspects of society for safety and control. Police are concerned with fixing disorder and do not have time to delve into the psyche of people to figure out the why, the job is about the what and apprehension (Newburn, 2005). The public offers no respect, cooperation, or understanding. Citizens are demanding and unforgiving. The police know they are hated and needed at the same time. Even those that don’t hate, avoid (Newburn, 2005). As Maanen states, “[Police, while remaining suspicious, must also approach the public with a] polished, efficient, and courteous performance” (Newburn, 2005, pg 282).The public after all are their clients. It is a vicious circle, law enforcement labels the public and citizens constantly label the police. It is natural for people to have a sort of resentment towards authority. Exaggerated reactions to authority help make people that have issues with it more comfortable. At the same time, cops overzealous tough guy routine makes the officer more comfortable in the situation (Reiser, 1971).

It is difficult for the police to make friends with other members of society. They feel guarded around non-police and the public feels guarded around them. It becomes lonely to the point that when not in uniform, police usually will not admit to being a cop (Newburn, 2005). Law enforcement is responsible for restraining individuals. They are the face of arrest, force, initiation, and so on. The handling of danger, violence, disruption, and anything unpleasant, not only defines them but alienates them (Newburn, 2005). Even if never arrested, the public holds on to the fact that they have the power to ‘bother’ them for ‘stupid’ infractions: being drunk, not wearing a seatbelt, being too loud (Newburn, 2005). The police are responsible for upholding a moral and conservative community. If not hypocritical, it can be difficult for the police. They need the solidarity of fellow officers to feel at ease around. With fellow officers they can let go of the façade (Newburn, 2005). Whether the police come into the job with an authoritative personality or the job creates it, it gives them the power to look down on the society that doesn’t understand. It may be lonely, but the police constantly thicken the thin blue line. Police form a family. Relying on and trusting each other. This dependency and loyalty is the most important aspect of the code. It serves as a means of protection: don’t tell on other officers, take the fall if one gets caught, don’t make others look bad, know your territory, don’t leave work for the next shift, and so on (Newburn, 2005).

Positives of the police subculture include good morale and trust. Both are incredibly important in the career of policing (Newburn, 2005). The police subculture is for the most part functional. The bond and solidarity offers reassurance, understanding, and protection. Some of the negatives include the obvious vulnerability for the breeding of corruption. The subculture makes reform impossible by creating a roadblock too deeply enforced to work through (Newburn, 2005). There are severe implications health wise that plaque officers. It is a high stress career. As Iaani observed, “[Police are prone to high stress because of] the frequent provocation to anger and aggression, which is complicated by added stress of continuous exposure to real and perceived danger…” (Newburn, 2005, pg 312). Physical and mental health ailments, high suicide rates, and especially alcoholism and marital problems all weigh heavily on law enforcement (Newburn, 2005). Occupational support is important but cops are still ultimately alone. A huge negativity of the subculture is the reinforcing of masculinity and the resistance to seek help. Even when officers seek mental health assistance they often clash personality wise with the therapist, even in house therapists are really of no help. Officers are resistant to let down their image of strength and are somewhat distrustful of therapy (Reiser, 1972). Therapists are forgiving, permissive, and concerned with why. Officers are practical, realistic, and pessimistic with a lack of foresight when it comes to healing their personalities (Reiser, 1972, 65-67).

The police subculture has been of interest to many authors for over 40 years. They don’t all agree on the importance and aspects of the culture but no one can deny it does exist. Some think it is more about talk then actual action and others realize it is both. Chan believes it is not by socialization but it is more of a tool kit. Anything extra legal is necessary and legitimate. Waddington feels that subculture explains little, where to me and to most, it explains everything (Newburn, 2005).

The subculture effect on justice is obvious because discretion, cynicism, and tradition can lead to many injustices but we cannot take away discretion, we cannot arrest everyone by the book, and there cannot be exact rules and guidelines to handle and police all situations. The subculture is expected and useful. If anything, you cannot eliminate informal rules or make formal rules stricter; it is unrealistic (Newburn, 2005). Actually defining a mandate and making the police accountable is one thing but professionalism will just distance the police more so (Newburn, 2005). Some things, especially in management have changed. Minority recruits, court decisions, and better education have definitely made changes affecting goals and experience, but at the core is still the unity of the blue curtain. It is inevitable in this line of work. The force would literally have to be rebuilt from the ground up, having no one with experience in it.

References

Newburn, T. (2005). Policing key readings. Portland, Oregon. Willan., 192,194, 203, 224,264-266, 269, 270-273, 276, 282-285, 290, 293-94, 297, 300-301, 307-309, 311, 312, 320, 323, 330, 339-340, 343, 351-352, 360, 366-367, 372-377.

Reiser, M. (1972). The police department psychologist. Springfield, ILL., Thomas., 22, 24, 35, 65, 67, 86.

Senna, J.J., & Siegal, L. J. (2001). Essentials of criminal justice. 3rd Edition. Belmont, CA. Wadsworth., 167, 174, 182, 183.