Crime PreventionThroughEnvironmental Design:The School Demonstrationin Broward County, Florida

Executive Summary

Allan WallisDaniel FordEditors

November 1980

U. S. Department of JusticeNational Institute of Justice

S i

Abstract

The Broward County CPTED School Demonstration was anexperimental program designed to reduce crime and the fear ofcrime in suburban high schools. The program included tacticsinvolving physical modifications, police and security force ac-tivities, school administrators, teachers, and student organi-zations.

The School Demonstration was part of a larger programintended to develop and demonstrate the utility of a multi-strategied approach to crime prevention, known as Crime Preven-tion Through Environmental Design. The other demonstrationsin the program were a commercial demonstration in Portland,Oregon, and a residential demonstration in Minneapolis, Minne-sota. The CPTED program also included the development of man-uals for the analysis of crime problems and the implementationof prevention programs.

The site of the School Demonstration was four highschools in Broward County, Florida. Over the period of the dem-onstration, incidents of theft and assault were significantlyreduced.

iii

Acknow1edgements

The planning and evaluation of the Broward CountyCPTED School Demonstration was funded by the National Instituteof Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, under contract numberJ-LEAA-022-74. The work was carried out by a consortium offirms headed by the Westinghouse National Issues Center. Theoriginal reports on the project were developed by Howard M.Kaplan, Leonard Bickman, Edward Pesce, and Ronald Szoc. Thepresent report was edited by Allan Wallis and Daniel Ford.

Other key members of the Westinghouse staff wereRobert A. Carlston, Project Manager for the first phase of theproject; Timothy D. Crowe, principal developer of the SchoolDemonstration Plan; Larry Bell; Lewis F. Hanes; W. AnthonyWiles; and Joseph W. Fordyce. Key consultants included Dr.James Tien, Dr. John Zeisel, Thomas Reppetto, Dr. CharlesWellford, Richard Gardiner, W. Victor Rouse, and Dr. GeorgeRand.

Appreciation is expressed to the many individuals fromBroward County who helped in executing the demonstration. Fore-most among these are Joseph I. Greeley, local director of theCPTED Demonstration; Leon Alford, local CPTED coordinator;James Mauer, Superintendent of Broward County Schools; EdwardJ. Stack, Chief of Broward County Police; and Ralph Turlington,Commissioner of the Florida Department of Education.

IV

INTRODUCTION

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design is anattempt to reduce crime and fear in a particular setting byreducing criminal opportunity, while simultaneously fosteTingpositive social interaction. CPTED develops solutions througha careful analysis of a) the pattern of criminal behavior inthe area and b) the behavior and perceptions of its legitimateusers.

A principal sieans by which CPTED attempts to achieveits goal is by modifying the physical environment- e.g., light-ing grounds, providing activity areas, and adding windowsPhysical changes can have a significant effect on achieving theCPTED goals when they are designed and executed with the con-sent and active support of the users of the setting, CPTED,however, does not rely exclusively on physical strategies. Italso incorporates social tactics which, for example, enablethe residents of a neighborhood to become better acquaintedwith one another; managerial tactics, such as economic incen-tives for complying with security recommendations; and law en-forcement tactics. CPTED, in short, does not advocate a sin-gle tactic for a particular crime problem. Rather, it offersa range of tactics for reducing criminal opportunity at a site.Moreover, the approach attempts to select tactics which willinteract positively with each other to produce a greater neteffect .

There are four basic dimensions of the crime opportu-nity structure which the CPTED approach attempts to manipulatethrough its specific tactics:

* Movement control.. This dimension concerns the easewith which an offender" can move through a site. It consistsof such things as limiting the use of grounds, paths: and cor-ridors to specified users. Real and symbolic barr iers may beemployed to inform outsiders that a particular environment isrestricted. Movement control may also be achieved by control,ling access through hardware such as gates and locks Regard-less of its form, the objective of mr>vemenr control is to put

the offender at greater risk of detection and apprehension ifhe or she should attempt to engage in a crime.

* Surveillance. The objective of these tactics is toput the offender under threat of being observed, and thereforeidentified and apprehended. Surveillance may be conducted ina formal manner, as when police or other security personnelperform routine checks of an area. Surveillance may be aidedby mechanical means, as when CCV-TV is used in school grounds,corridors, and classrooms. It may also be informal or natural,as when students or teachers take note of strangers and eveninquire as to their business.

* Activity support. These tactics reinforce existingactivities or introduce new activities in a setting enablingthe legitimate users to become acquainted with each other andtherefore to be in a better position to distinguish strangersfrom legitimate users. Activity support may consist of activ-ities directly concerning crime prevention. It may also con-sist of activities supporting social interaction which, inturn, creates a better environment for the implementation ofpreventive activities.

* Motivational reinforcement. This dimension involvesactivities which enhance the desire of students to engage incrime prevention activities. Motivation may take the form ofsocial incentives, such as offering additional privileges tostudents who support crime prevention activities.

In addition to being an experiment in a multi-strate-gied approach to crime prevention, the CPTED program was inten-ded to develop a method for project implementation which wouldinvolve broad local participation.

THE CPTED DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

The CPTED approach is experimental. For the most part,crime prevention programs have tended to focus on a singleproblem and a single solution. Insofar as physical modifica-tions were advocated as part of a preventive program, the em-phasis was on target hardening. In the late 1960s a new atti-tude toward the role of the physical environment in crime pre-vention emerged. The work of Elizabeth Woods, Jane Jacobs,and Schlomo Angel helped bring about this new understanding.Perhaps most significant was the work of Oscar Newman, whosetheory of "defensible space" -- and demonstration projectsbased on it -- showed that the physical environment could pro-mote improved surveillance, enhance "neighboring," and estab-lish clear territorial control of areas in a site. The role ofthe physical environment in crime prevention was thus seen not

only as increasing the effort necessary to perpetrate a crime,but also as promoting the kind of social environment whichwould increase surveillance and mutual aid.

In 1974, the National Institute of Law Enforcement andCriminal Justice (now the National Institute of Justice) award-ed a contract to a consortium of firms headed by Westinghousefor the development of the CPTED approach. As initially con-ceived, the approach was to demonstrate the applicability ofthe "defensible space" concept in a number of typical urbansettings. Newman s work had focused primarily on public.hous-ing projects; the CPTED demonstrations were to be applied inschools, commercial settings, private residential neighborhoods,and mass transportation. The expectations for the program du-ring its first two years were overly optimistic. Early in theeffort it became apparent that the scientific knowledge uponwhich the program could be based was inadequate to the task.Then, too, the Westinghouse project team found the concept of"defensible space," as defined in Oscar Newman's early work,to be too limited for direct application in the program envi-ronment. Indeed, Newman himself was beginning to seek ways togo beyond the physical-environment focus of his earlier work.The degree to which physical design alone could generate strongproprietary attitudes among the users of public environmentswas very questionable. For example, no design directives exis-ted that could hope to develop territorial feelings in thethousands of individuals briefly passing through a subway sta-tion. As a partial result of this realization, the transporta-tion demonstration was removed as one of the components of theCPTED program.

Three projects were executed under the program: theschool demonstration in Broward County, Florida, which is re-ported here; a commercial demonstration in Portland, Oregon(reported in Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design:The Commercial Demonstration in Portland, Oregon); and a resi-dential demonstration in the Willard-Homewood neighborhood inMinneapolis, Minnesota. At the same time, the Hartford Centerfor Criminal and .Social Justice conducted a similar demonstra-tion in Hartford, Connecticut (see Reducing Crime and Fear:The Hartford Neighborhood Crime Prevention Program, 1979).

The purpose of the demonstration was twofold: first,to test the CPTED approach in a variety of different sites;and second, to develop and disseminate information on the proc-ess involved in planning and implementing similar programs.The results of the latter objective of the program are report-ed in Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design: an Opera-tional Handbook ~

The results of the demonstration do not. conclusivelyvalidate the CPTED approach. The Portland commercial

demonstration was relatively successful. The schools in thedemonstration achieved a reduction in crime and fear, but theresults were more modest than those achieved in Portland. Fi-nally, the residential demonstration failed to achieve its an-ticipated effect. However, the simultaneous Hartford demon-stration showed that the basic CPTED approach advocated couldbe successfully implemented in a residential neighborhood.

The purpose of reporting on the demonstrations is notsolely to document where they were successful. It is also toshare the difficulties involved in engaging in such programs.It is hoped that future attempts will be able to avoid some ofthe pitfalls and extend the possibility of success.

SITE SELECTION

School crime is a national problem causing increasingconcern. This concern has been voiced by Congressional, gov-ernmental, school, public, and media representatives. Analysisof existing data -- especially the 27-school district surveyconducted by the National Association of School Security Di-rectors (see table 1) and data from the National Crime Panelsurveys -- indicates that burglary, vandalism, assault, robbe-ry, and extortion are all of serious magnitude. Other sourcesindicate that theft is a widespread problem. While the prob-lem of fear has been less studied, current research efforts sug-gest that fear of crime is also a debilitating influence on theschool population. An article in a national education journal,Today's Education, stated that "there is fear of danger andviolence in regard to school yards, school halls, and schoolrooms. Our respondents, to a high degree, report an atmosphereof fear (and) teachers may also have some of these feelings...Under these conditions, given the best good will, the besttechniques and the ideal curriculum learning would be minimalin such an atmosphere." (February 1979)

In assessing the applicability of CPTED to a schooldemonstration, the consortium used crime-related, environment-related, and program-related criteria. The following pointswere considered to be particularly relevant:

* The target site should have a sufficient level ofcrime and fear to justify a CPTED effort arid must be amenableto the program's time and cost factors.

* The crime problems found within the target site shouldbe those that can be alleviated by CPTED.

* There should be readily available crime and environ-ment data. Generally, the delineation of crime-environment

Enrollment

Under 25,000

25-50,000

50-75,000

75-100,000

100-200,000

Over 200,000*

Total

Aver.Incidence

Burglary

No. ofOffenses

194

590

918

1,402

4,989

789

8,882

PerBldg.

1.37

2.60

2.14

1.99

3.56

2.31*

2.74

Armed Robbery

No. ofOffenses

0

136

12

29

130

3

310

Per1000Stud.

0

1.06

0.04

0.06

0.13

0.01

0.12

Assaults '

No. ofOffenses

114

149

200

407

2,328

1,984

5,182

Per1000Stud.

2.30

1.16

0.75

0.90

2.40

2.43

1.93

Sex Offenses

No. ofOffenses

7

51

54

41

61

24

238

Per1000Stud.

0.14

0.40

0.20

0.09

0.06

0.03

0.09

Vandalism ($)

Total (inthousands)

232.2

220.9

349.7

275.3

1,051.2

1,135.3

3,264.6

Per1000Stud.

4,693

1,717

1,310

612

1,084

1,389

1,217

PerBldg.

1,635.9

973.1

815

391.6

749.8

1,145.6

838.4

NOTE: Not all school districts included in the sampling reportedcrimes for the entire base year.

*Burglary incidents were only reported for one district with 341 schoolsburglary per bldg. figure reflects this discrepancy.

The

1 - Survey of Crime in Schools (1973)

probltrns involves analyzing the relationship between variousaspects of crime problems and physical, social, and economicvariables.

* The selected site should provide strong support andintert3t from school decisionmakers. There should be an agree-ment-in-principle with a local school official (e.g., the su-perintendent or a board of education member) who is willing andable to be an advocate for the program. In addition, variouspublic or private organizations and agencies should be commit-ted to improvements in the site area.

* Supporting programs should be underway or planned forthe target site. These programs could provide funding assis-tance and expand the scope of CPTED strategies.

* The site selected and the model designed should beamenable to evaluation.

* Lessons learned from the CPTED evaluation should betransferable to other school systems; therefore the site selec-ted should to some extent be typical.

Based upon crime data and the selection criteria, pub-lic secondary schools were selected for the demonstration. Bothinner-city and suburban sites were considered. Although theyhad the most severe crime problems, inner-city schools wereeliminated primarily because their typically older, two- tothree-story construction was deemed less likely to be the modelfor new construction, and therefore less likely to provide re-sults that could be incorporated in design recommendations.Also, their location in a high-density environment, with itsgreater number of non-school variables impinging on day-to-dayactivities, would make the development of a demonstration witheven quasi-experimental controls more difficult.

After the choice of suburban high schools had been ap-proved by NILECJ, and after several site visits and other commu-nications, the consortium identified the Broward County, Florida,system as the prime candidate. The site offered several signi-ficant advantages. Its pattern of growth was characteristic ofsimilar suburban communities. The Florida Safe Schools Act andthe Standard School Facility Construction Act provided oppor-tunities for the widespread replication of successful CPTEDstrategies. Numerous people on both the State and local levelhad expressed interest and pledged support for the demonstra-tion effort. In addition, the school system maintained a su-perior crime reporting system and data base.

6

THE BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOLS

The Broward County school system has an elected boardand a superintendent. It is divided into four geographic are-as, each headed by an assistant superintendent and supportedby an advisory committee of students and parents who partici-pate in goal-setting and program development. The school sys-tem has a Department of Internal Affairs (responsible for se-curity and safety) and numerous other departments and programsthat could support the CPTED Schools Demonstration. Its oper-ating budget in 1974-75 was over $162 million.

The schools in the system reflected design featuresincorporated in most U.S. schools. They were of two types: theopen or "tropical" style, consisting of a one-story structure;and the standard two-story structure with double-loaded corri-dors and internal stairways. Twenty-one new schools were pro-posed for construction, including three middle and four highschools.

Broward County and Fort Lauderdale, its principal city,were areas of increasing crime, with person-to-person crimesgrowing faster than the State average and property crimes beingthe largest contributor to total offenses. Crimes in theschools were well-documented, with recent data computerized.The Internal Affairs department of the school system handled3,092 incidents in 1974-75, an increase of 77 percent over1971-72.

Four of the twenty Broward County high schools wereselected as demonstration sites on the basis of representative-ness, crime severity, and potential cooperation.

Deerfield Beach High School

This school is located in a mixed residential areanear the western boundary of the city of Deerfield Beach. Thearea is composed of lower and lower-middle class families whoprovide the majority of the high school population. The stu-dent body in June 1977 was 1 percent American Indian, 26.1 per-cent black, 2.9 percent Hispanic, and 70.8 percent white.*Among Broward County high schools, Deerfield Beach ranks six-teenth in percentage of attendance. The number of suspensionsin 1976-77 was 388. Total student population was 2,380.

* In this and later breakdowns, the percentage figuresfor "black" and "white" students both exclude those of Hispanicancestry.

As measured by a national standard achievement test,the school's academic standing is below average (-.7 for ninthgrade, -.4 for tenth grade, and -.6 for eleventh grade). Forthe ninth grade, results stayed the same between 1976 and 1977;for the tenth grade, scores were higher in 1977; and for theeleventh grade, scores dropped by .2. The school budget in1977 was $2,556,153.

South Plantation High School

South Plantation High School is located near the south-ern border of the city of Plantation. It is bordered on threesides by highways and separated from a residential area on thefourth side by a distance of nearly two city blocks. The stu-dent body comes primarily from middle- to upper-class families,and the student achievement level is above average. SouthPlantation High School reported an enrollment of 2,579 studentsin June 1977, comprised of *. 3 percent Asian, 18.9 percent black,1.4 percent Hispanic, and 79.4 percent white students. Rankingeighth in percentage of attendance among high schools in BrowardCounty, South Plantation has an average daily total of 91.8 per-cent in attendance, with whites attending slightly more oftenthan blacks. In the 1976-77 school year, 178 students weresuspended.

The ninth grade students scored .6 higher than the na-tional averages on standardized achievement tests, while thelOth-graders scored .9 higher and the llth-graders scored 1.4higher. Of the four project schools, only South Plantation1saverages were above the national average. Ninth and tenthgrades dropped slightly in their test scores between 1976 and1977, while the 11th grade scores remained the same. The bud-get for South Plantation in 1977 was $2,496,422.

Boyd Anderson High School

Boyd Anderson is located in the city of LauderdaleLakes. The high school shares its site with a middle schooland an elementary school. The main access is through the coun-ty property housing the three schools, thereby isolating morethan half of the Boyd Anderson High School fron natural surveil-lance. The side and rear portions of the high school are bor-dered by mixed residential housing inhabited by lower to lower-middle class families that supply most of its students. Theschool has a student body of 2,413.

Among all 20 Broward high schools, Boyd Anderson rankseighteenth in student attendance. Blacks had better attendancerecords (90.4 percent) than whites (87.9 percent). Boyd Ander-son emphasizes curriculum in the basic skills to ninth, tenth,

baseball

track

stadium

Hollywood Boulevard

open walk Figure 2, Typical Tropical School Master Site Plan

Figure 3. Typical 'New' School Master Site Plan covered walk T corridor

10

and eleventh graders, in vocationally and career-oriented pro-grams. The student body is comprised of over 30 percent blacks,a small percentage of other minorities (.8 percent Hispanic,.3 percent Asian), and 68 percent whites. The school's academ-ic standing is slightly below average for the eleventh grade(-.2), drops further for the tenth grade (-.4), and is -.6 be-low average for the ninth grade. From 1976 to 1977, the testresults for ninth and tenth grades dropped, while for the elev-enth grade, scores remained the same. In 1977 the budget was$2,394,720.

Boyd Anderson's advisory committee, comprised of pa-rents, teachers, and students, meets with the administrationeach month to encourage improvement in the relationship betweenschool and community and to support betterment of student rap-port.

McArthur High School

McArthur High School is located on the western boun-dary of the city of Hollywood. The twenty-five-year-old struc-ture is surrounded by residential areas on three sides and acommercial strip on the fourth. The majority of students atMcArthur come from middle-class homes within the immediate vi-cinity of the school. There has been a large growth in thestudent population since the facility was constructed.

The 2,453-person student body is comprised of 3 per-cent Asians, 11.2 percent blacks, 3.3 percent Hispanics, and85.2 percent whites. McArthur ranks second in the county inpercentage of attendance among high schools, with whites atten-ding slightly less than blacks. McArthur's administrationcredits their attendance project, initiated in 1975, with thesuccess of their ranking status. Grade 11 scored .5 less thanthe national average on grade scores, grade 10 scored .1 less,and grade 9 scored .3 less. The budget in 1977 was $2,683,456.

In summary, each of the four project schools is atten-ded by over 2,300 students and has a high percentage in atten-dance (91.32 percent average). Whites comprise the greatestpercentage of students (76 percent average), and achievementtest averages are slightly lower than the national average forBoyd Anderson, Deerfield Beach, and McArthur, but slightlyhigher for South Plantation.

11

PROJECT INITIATION PHASE

The project initiation phase of the Broward Countydemonstration was concerned with assessing crime-related prolems and issues; developing a concept plan; and assessing po-tential resources, support programs, and personnel. The ini-tiation phase got underway in September 1974.

ASSESSMENT OF CRIME-RELATED PROBLEMS AND ISSUES

The Internal Affairs Division of the Broward CountySchool System is responsible for handling crimes within theschool system. During the four academic years from July 1971to June 1975, the number of security matters was 1,750, 1,960,1,922, and 3,092 respectively. The total dollar loss attri-buted to vandalism for these years exceeded $250,000, theftsexceeded $450,000, and dollar loss from arson or suspected ar-son was approximately $340,000.

Data for one academic year (1974-75) were examined todetermine the school system's overall experience regardingCPTED-related offenses. Table 4 compares reported offenses tor1973-74 and 1974-75 regarding vandalism, breaking and entering,thefts, assaults, and extortion. Substantial increases occurredin all categories. Approximately 800 of these incidents werefurther examined to identify their sub-environmental locations,in order to facilitate the development of a CPTED plan for tnedemonstration schools.

* Vandalism. Most vandalism occurred on school grounds,but no precise information is available as to which portion orthe grounds was vandalized. The most costly vandalism occurredin multiple rooms (possibly associated with theft or breakingand entering), cafeterias, and classrooms. It is possible thatmuch of the exterior vandalism was unintentional or non-mali-cious property damage, but the data was not available to veri-fy this hypothesis. Nevertheless, visual examination of exter-nal areas of the selected demonstration sites provided insights

13

Offenses

Vandalism

Breaking andEntering

Thefts

Assaults

Extortion

Totals

1973-74

110

111

499

323

39

1,082

1974-75

183

318

740

484

51

1,776

Increase

66.4%

186.5%

48.3%

49.8%

30.8%

64.1%

4 - CPTED-Related Offenses for School System

(Reported by Internal Affairs)

on the areas susceptible to various kinds of vandalism or prop-erty abuse.

* Breaking and entering. Lockers, multiple rooms, andcafeterias were the most frequent targets for breaking and en-tering offenders. Parking lots and the school grounds werealso victimized frequently. Many of these locations containhigh-value personal property (such as stereo tape decks in cars)or school property (such as cafeteria machinery) which can beeasily removed and either fenced or used by the offenders. Thecafeteria also contains large quantities of food which can alsobe easily removed. Although most of the target areas are with-in the internal portion of the school complex, entry often mustbe gained through windows and doors of the main complex.

* Theft of personal property. High school parking lotswere frequent targets for theft of personal property. Stereoequipment, radios, tires, and other automobile accessories, aswell as bicycles, were prime targets. Within the school build-ing, most thefts occurred in the classrooms and the lockerareas. Items usually taken were purses and wallets or personalitems such as clothing. There appeared to be a close relation-ship between sub-environments for both larceny and burglary,suggesting that for preventive measures the two offenses couldbe handled in similar fashion.

* Theft of school property. A trend similar to breakingand entering can be observed in thefts of school property.

14

Again, most incidents occurred in high-value equipment areas,particularly in such locations as the audio-visual and the mu-sic rooms, where camera, speaker equipment, and band instru-ments were taken.

* Assaults. Assaults occurred most frequently at pointsof student congregation. Parking lots, classrooms, corridors,and school grounds (usually bus loading areas and athleticareas) were prime locations. The majority of assaults were stu-dent-student types. Frequently, these assaults were classifiedas "disturbances" severely disruptive to the routine of theschool. At these times, groups of students preempted an area,taking it over and instilling fear in passersby through verbalor physical assault.

* Other crimes• In addition to the selected indexcrimes, several other types of incidents received attentionbecause they seemed either to have an impact on index crimesor to exacerbate the fear problem in the schools. One suchproblem was trespassing since, according to school officials,individuals from outside the school sometimes helped to insti-gate disturbances and also may have been involved in on-campusdrug traffic and other offenses. The second problem, extor-tion, while not comprising a large number of incidents, createda fear-producing situation. It was intended that strategiesdesigned to address the major selected crimes also would alle-viate these other types of incidents.

The analysis of environmental location of selectedcrimes revealed such a strong pattern for thefts and burglar-ies that additional analysis was undertaken to determine pointsof entry and type and value of stolen property. Case recordsfrom each of the high-incident schools were analyzed to deter-mine these factors. In the majority of breaking and enteringoffenses in the examined schools, entry was gained through win-dows or doors (see table 5). Jalousies, plastic roof domes,and louvers on doors were removed to gain entry. Although thedata were limited, they suggested that the exterior of theschool buildings should be target-hardened.

Analysis of the equipment stolen during larceny andbreaking and entering incidents indicated a strong patterntoward loose, high-value equipment that could easily be fencedor used at home. The classrooms that were frequent targetsgenerally housed this type of equipment. The following listshows items that frequently were stolen during school crimesagainst property.

. Cafeteria equipment (meat slicers, etc.)

. Adding machines and calculators

15

etc. )

Typewr i ters

Athletic equipment

Industrial equipment (tools)

Media equipment (viewers, headsets)

Cassette equipment, tape recorders

Science equipment

Home economics equipment (microwave oven, coffee pots,

Portable televisions

Bicycles

Stereo equipment (from automobiles)

C ame r as

Entry

Roof (pias

Doors

Windows

Jalousies

Louvers on

Transoms

Other

Point

tic domes)

Doors

Number ofIncidents

2

21

16

3

1

5

% of TotalSample

3.77

39.63

30.19

9.43

5.66

1.89

9.43

100,00

Sample Points of Entry

This preliminary analysis suggested that six sub-

16

environments shouldthe school grounds,cycle thefts, breaklot, where assaultslism occurred; thetheft; the primarysault and extortionsault and theft.

be the focus of the demonstration's effortswhere the crime problems were assault, bi-ing and entering, and vandalism; the parking, breaking and entering, thefts, and vanda-locker room for breaking and entering andcorridor for assaults; the restroom for as-; and the classroom for the problems of as-

THE CONCEPT PLAN

The basis for the school demonstration was the con-cept that the proper design and effective use of the physicalenvironment could produce behavior which reduced crime and fear,thereby improving the quality of life and the educational expe-rience in school. On the one hand, this would be done by pro-viding activities and amenities which would increase the stu-dents identification with the school and selected areas in it;the assumption was that this enhanced territorial identificationwould lead the students to defend the school against intrudersand internal disturbances. On the other hand, the changes wereintended to increase perceived risk on the part of potentialoffenders (whether outsiders or students) that the CPTED schoolwas not a good target environment.

The educational function of schools and the attitudeof the Broward County students, faculty, and community weregenerally opposed to traditional target-hardening mechanismsfor crime prevention (e.g., gates, locks, and fences). Only inthe last resort were such fortress-like mechanisms to be uti-lized. Rather, the thrust was to be an open, natural environ-ment in which casual surveillance, enhanced activities, and im-proved motivation would provide the principal deterrents tocrime.

The approach to the perimeter of the building andgrounds was somewhat different. Here the emphasis would haveto be more on perimeter control through target hardening andother tactics that would increase the difficulty and risk tooffenders.

PROPOSED PARTICIPANTS AND FUNDING

The school environment, particularly that of BrowardCounty, contains a diverse group of knowledgeable individuals.Accordingly, it was recommended that most of the CPTED plan beimplemented by the county school system, with minimal assis-tance from other local agencies.

17

The process of identifying potential funding sourcesbegan at the start of the program, when contacts were made withpublic interest groups and professional organizations, and re-search was done into state and" federal acts and programs thatmight provide funding. When the school demonstration was nar-rowed to Broward County, more precise funding sources could beinvestigated. This type of investigation was expected to bean ongoing process, since funding is responsive to economic ac-tivity at all levels of government.

18

PROJECT PLANNING

The project planning phase involved an in-depth crime-environment analysis, the development of a strategic plan speci-fying the exact tactics to be employed in the demonstration,and specification of the management and work plans for imple-menting the program.

CRIME-ENVIRONMENT ANALYSIS

In the initiation phase, the crime pattern for allBroward County high schools was analyzed, and sub-environmentaltargets which the demonstration would focus on were identified.In the planning phase, a more detailed analysis of the crimepattern was conducted in the demonstration schools. It was ex-pected that the schools would differ in their crime patternsand that, consequently, the CPTED program would vary from oneschool to another. Nevertheless, sub-environments exhibitingthe same problems would be expected to receive the same treat- j-ment. ;|

For the crime-environment analysis conducted in thisphase, records were used for the period July 1973 to June 1975.In addition, interviews were conducted with school officialsand students to assess unreported victimization, and the fearand concern over crime. The conclusions are reported below.

Boyd Anderson High School

Boyd Anderson had experienced many crime problems,primarily assault, extortion, and vandalism. For the two years,the school accounted for 71 percent and 63 percent of the as-saults occurring in the four schools. These assaults occurred 'primarily on school grounds, in corridors, and in classrooms.Boyd Anderson also had the highest rate of extortion.

Severe racial disturbances were experienced when

19

bussing was implemented, but this problem subsided with thecoming of a new school administrator. Although the new admin-istration was strongly supervision-oriented, and had institu-ted many changes to increase school spirit and cohesiveness,the facility still reflected physical design impediments thatsupported the occurrence of criminal incidents.

Despite the control and supervision established by thenew school administration, there was still considerable concernexpressed by teachers and students for the problems of assaultand the fear of assault on school grounds, parking lots, exte-rior stairwells, and corridors. Thefts were high in the park-ing lots, locker rooms, and classrooms. Vandalism was also aclassroom problem.

Deerfield Beach High School

Deerfield's most serious crime problems were theft andbreaking and entering. The great majority of these crimes oc-curred in the automobile parking lot. Interviews with schoolofficials and students indicated that the theft problem wasgreater than officially reported, because a large number ofpetty thefts went unreported. These occurred primarily in thephysical education locker area.

There was a lower incidence of assault, extortion, andvandalism in Deerfield than in the other demonstration schools.The fear of assault in exterior stairwells, and trespassing tosell drugs or to vandalize the school grounds, were of concernto school officials and students. An examination of vandalismreporting procedures revealed that this offense also occurredmore frequently than was officially reported.

McArthur High School

McArth'ur had a moderately high crime rate. One of themajor contributing factors was the size and design of the site.McArthur covered nearly 40 acres of land, and the buildingssprawled over much of this area. The old "tropical" design wassimilar to a maze with many isolated and blind areas.

McArthur's main problem areas were the parking lots,school grounds, classrooms, and corridors. Theft and assaultswere the most prevalent problems in these areas. Additionally,from interviews with school officials, it was clear that majorconcern existed regarding fear of assault in the restrooms.

The administration at McArthur attempted to overcomesome of the design problems by establishing a zone system whereselected teachers would coordinate the handling of problems.Student patio areas were moved to areas with some natural

20

surveillance, and the school resource staff would take turnswatching the parking lots during lunch. However, the designproblems and distances were impossible to overcome in mostsituations.

South Plantation High School

South Plantation had a moderately high crime rate,with the most significant crimes being assaults, thefts of per-sonal property (including bicycles), breaking and entering,and vandalism. Students and administrators indicated a greatconcern for supervision problems. The administration pinpoint-ed the problems of cutting classes, overcrowding, and poorbuilding design as the causes of their supervision problems.

Students and faculty stated that student involvementand morale were increasing and that their contact and rapportwith the administration was strong. Students were receivingexcellent services from the guidance and counseling staff.

Careful reviews of the offense records, school inter-views, and maintenance reports showed that vandalism and pettytheft were probably much higher than officially reported. Thelow clearance rates and relatively low cost per offense forpetty thefts and vandalisms probably affected reporting andcoding decisions. Half the reportedwith breaking and entering or theft,high-value property damage. However,dicated many locations that sustainedin isolated or unsurveillable areas.

w

vandalisms were coincidentwith the remainder beinga sample site survey in-vandalisms, most of them

STRATEGIC PLAN

In finalizing the school demonstration plan, the char-acteristics of the school environment in Broward County werereexamined. These characteristics included the needs of stu-dents, faculty, and other users of the school environment; thenormal and expected role of the school within a specific neigh-borhood; and the behavior of users and offenders, based on ob-servations , interviews, and other available data.

The reexamination of the schools focused on the nume-rous opportunities for natural surveillance and access control,with activity support and motivational reinforcement strategiesplaying important roles as well. Specific strategies were de-veloped for each sub-environment. These strategies were to beimplemented in those demonstration schools where crime was aproblem in that particular sub-environment. The crime problemsand strategies are listed by sub-environment in tables 6-11.

21

Crime-Environment Problems

Design requirements forclassrooms produce iso-lation of individualclasses, resulting inhigh student to teacherratios and little exter-nal natural surveillance(real or perceived) whenclass is in session. As-saults occur. (Theftsoccur when class is empty.)

Location and design def-inition of multiple-pur-pose classrooms producesunclear transitional zones,decreases territorial con-cern, and decreases natu-ral surveillance. Theftsoccur.

Class shift procedures du-ring lunch hour produceunclear time transitionand definition of groups;decrease control and in-crease student to teacherratio (many classroomthefts are committed byclasscutters) .

CPTED Strategies

Remove obstacles to natu-ral surveillance to in-crease risk of detectionand to reduce perceptionof isolation.

Overcome distance and iso-lation by improving commu-nications to create rapidresponse to problems, theperception of rapid res-ponse, and more effectivesurveillance.

Extend the identity ofsurrounding spaces to mul-tiple-purpose space to in-crease territorial con-cern and natural surveil-lance .

Provide a functional ac-tivity in problem areas toincrease territorial con-cern and natural surveil-lance .

Revise class schedulingand movement procedures todefine time for classshifts making surveillanceand supervision of class-cutters easier.

6 - Classroom Problems and Strategies

22

Crime-Environment Problems

Location of restrooms nearexternal entrances andexits isolates them fromnormal school hour trafficflow and prohibits sur-veillance. Assaults occur.

Privacy and isolation re-quired for internal designprovides blind spots thatreduce surveillability onthe part of students andsupervisory personnel, i.e.,exterior door and anteroomwall. Assaults occur.

CPTED Strategies

Limit access to isolatedareas during specific timesfor access control and toreduce the need for sur-veillance.

Remove obstacles to natu-ral surveillance to de-crease fear, increase use,and increase risk of detec-tion.

7 - Restroom Problems and Strategies

Crime-Environment Problems

Design and use of lockers(by multiple assignment)disperses students through-out area, reduces surveil-lance and increases terri-tory for teacher supervi-sion. B&E and theft occur.

Similar design of lockerscreates confusion and de-creases natural surveil-lance by creating uncleardefinition of transitionalzones. B&E and theft occur.

Isolation of locker areawhile class is in gymna-sium or on playing fieldeliminates natural sur-veillance. B&E and theftsoccur.

CPTED Strategies

Redesignate use of spaceto increase territorial con-cern, to increase the de-fined purpose of space, andreduce area requiring sur-veillance.

Provide clear definitionof transitional zones anduse of space for easy rec-ognition of bonafide users.

Provide functional activ-ities in problem areas toincrease natural surveil-lance.

8 - Locker Room Problems and Strategies

23

Crime-Environment Problems

Design and use of corridorsprovide blind spots andisolated areas that prohi-bit natural surveillance.Assaults, threats andextortions occur.

Class scheduling promotescongestion in certain areasat shift changing that de-creases supervision capa-bilities and produces in-convenience. Assaults andconfrontations occur.Location of benches andother amenities in corri-dors creates misused spaceand congestion. Corridorlocations are lacking innatural surveillance be-cause of design. Assaultsand confrontations occur.Location and use of corri-dors for functions otherthan pedestrian passagesuch as smoking zones pro-motes preemption of spaceby groups and unsurveil-lable misused space. Thismisused space supports be-havior that attracts out-siders to the external cor-ridors designated as smok-ing areas. Assaults, con-frontations and other il-legal activity' occur.Design and definition ofcorridor areas do not sup-port a clear definition ofthe dominant function ofthat space (i.e., passage).Unclear transitional zonesproduce behaviors conduciveto assault and confrontation.

CPTED Strategies

Provide functional activ-ities (or redesignate use)in blind spots or isolatedareas to increase naturalsurveillance (or the per-ception thereof).Remove obstacles to natu-ral surveillance (increaseperception of openness).Revise class schedulingand management proceduresto avoid congestion, to de-crease supervision ratio,and to define time transi-tions.

Relocate informal gatheringareas to areas with natu-ral surveillance and thatare designed to supportthat activity.

Relocate activities andfunctions from misusedspace to areas designed tosupport these activitiesand to provide natural sur-veillance .

Provide clear definitionof the dominant function(and intended use of space)and clearly define transi-tional zones to increaseterritorial concerns andnatural surveillance.

9 - Corridor Problems and Strategies

Crime-Environment Problems

"Design of and procedures forbus loading areas prohibitteacher surveillance, in-crease supervision ratio,impede pedestrian trafficflow, and cause congestion.Confrontations, thefts, andvandalisms occur.

CPTED Strategies

Redesign bus loading zoneand revise procedures toincrease natural surveil-lance, control pedestrianflow, and decrease ratioof students to supervisors.

Location of informal gather-ing areas (natural and des-ignated) promotes the pre-emption of space, inter-feres with traffic flow, andprohibits natural surveil-lance. Assaults occur.

Relocate informal gatheringareas near supervision ornatural surveillance.Redesign informal gatheringareas to promote orderlyflow and breakup the pre-emption of space by groups.Provide functional activ-ities in unused or misusedproblem areas to promotenatural surveillance, in-crease safe traffic flow,and attract different typeof users.

Design, use, and locationof facilities has createdisolated and blind spotareas that are difficultto survey (due to designand/or nonuse because offear or avoidance). As-saults, thefts, and van-dalism occur.Design and border defini-tion of campus creates un-clear transitional zonedefinition. B & E, theft,and vandalism occur.

Provide clear border defi-nition of transitionalzones for access controland surveillance.

Location and positioning ofschool physical plant pro-hibit natural surveillance(off hours) by local resi-dents and passersby. B & E,theft, and vandalism occur.(One half of vandalisms areincident with B & E).

Proviae functional commu-nity activities on schoolcampus (off hours) to in-crease surveillance througheffective use of facili-ties.Overcome distance and iso-lation by improving commu-nications to create rapidresponse to problems (andits perception) and moreeffective surveillance.Redesign bicycle parkingareas to provide levels ofsecurity consistent withvariable access needs ofstudents.

Design, use, and location ofbicycle compounds or parkingareas on school grounds pro-hibit natural surveillanceand limit proper use becauseof students with variablehours. Thefts of bicyclesoccur.

10 - School Grounds Problems and Strategies

25

Crime-Environment Problems

Location and design of stu-dent parking near bus-load-ing areas without restrict-ing borders promotes unman-aged pedestrian use of park-ing areas, promotes preemp-tion of space by groups,and prohibits natural sur-veillance. Assaults, B & E,thefts, and vandalism occur(affected by bus-loadingprocedures).

CPTED Strategies

Relocate and/or redesignbus-loading and parking lotaccess procedures to reducenecessity for pedestrianuse of lot, reduce conges-tion in transitional zones,and support strict defini-tion of parking lot use.

Design and location of park-ing lots provide uncleardefinition of transitionalzones and unmanaged accessby vehicles and pedestrians,students, and nonstudents.B & E, thefts, and vanda-lisms occur. (Trespassingalso).

Provide natural border def-inition and limit access tovehicular traffic in stu-dent parking to clearlydefine transitional zones,to reroute ingress andegress during specifiedperiods, and to provide na-tural surveillance.

Location of informal gath-ering areas designated assmoking zones in open cor-ridors adjacent to parkinglots and visible from pub-lic thoroughfares prohibitsnatural surveillance, at-tracts outsiders, and is animpediment to school poli-cies restricting studentuse of parking lots duringschool hours. B & E, thefts,and vandalism occur.

Relocate informal gather-ing areas to places withnatural surveillance thatare isolated from the viewof public thoroughfaresand designed to support in-formal gathering activi-ties.

Isolation of student parkinglots (some locations) pro-hibits any natural surveil-lance. Variable studenthours limit use of fencingand gates. B & E, thefts,and vandalism occur.

Relocate student parking(or part of) to areas withnatural surveillance and/orrelocate safe activities injuxtaposition with studentparking to increase naturalsurveillance.Redesign parking lots toprovide levels of securityconsistent with variableaccess needs of students.

11 - Parking Lot Problems and Strategies

26

MANAGEMENT AND WORK PLANS

Approval of the preliminary plan by the Broward Coun-ty School Board, and their agreement to share costs throughmanpower and fiscal resources, led to a more intense effort toidentify funding sources. Initial contacts were establishedwith representatives of the Broward County Metropolican Plan-ning Unit, the Florida Bureau of Criminal Justice Planning andAssistance, the State Department of Education and Administra-tion, and the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. However, cir-cumstances prevented State-level financial support from beingcommitted during fiscal year 1975. Broward County's proposaloccurred late in the planning cycle, and the magnitude of therequest ($400,000) made it virtually impossible to divert fundsfrom any of the previously committed projects. As a result,the decision was made to seek other funding sources.

In January 1976, an application was submitted to theBroward County Criminal Justice Planning Council; the regionalLEAA office in Atlanta, Georgia; the Florida Department of Edu-cation; and the Broward County School Board. The LEAA requesttotalled $397,105, and $9,000 and $35,000 were requested fromthe State Department of Education and the County School Board,respectively. In February, the Department of Education endorsedthe application and committed its portion of the requested fundsIn March, the School Board committed its share. In June, aslightly revised version of the grant request was submitted tothe Broward County Criminal Justice Planning Council; the appli-cation was forwarded to the LEAA Regional Office, and funds wereawarded in July 1976.

Analysis indicated that the demonstration required adedicated staff to carry it out. As for the evaluation, itseemed desirable that it be performed by employees of the Bro-ward County School System, to save money and to utilize thetalents and experience of professionals in the school system'sOffice of Research. (Many of the data collection instrumentsand methods were already in operation as part of the ongoingefforts of that office.) Therefore, the Broward County SchoolsDemonstration was to be conducted primarily by school systempersonnel. Overall responsibility for implementing the planwas assigned to a project director. Since this individual wasalso director of the Office of Internal Affairs, he could pro-vide progress reports directly to the Superintendent of Schools.A project coordinator assisted him, and each of the four highschools had a local coordinator responsible for implementingstrategy at that school. The CPTED consortium providedtechnical and managerial assistance through an on-site repre-sentative; in addition, the consortium supported the evalua-tion activities and helped seek funds for implementation. Thework plan developed for the demonstration is shown in table 12.

27

Hire staff (exceptschool coordinators)

Evaluation plan

Develop victimizationand fear surveys

Administer surveys;collect baseline data

Draw up architecturalplans, specifications

Analyze findings;incorporate in plan

Issue subcontracts fordesign modifications

Hire school coordinators

Major designmodifications

Faculty workshops

Collect additionalbaseline data

Organize student-facultycommittees

Implement remainingdesign modifications

Collect info, forsecurity guidelines

Develop modelcrime reporting system

Collect post-test data

Administer post-tests

Analyze data; incor-porate In guidelines

Prepare final report

MAR

•

|

|APR

_•l_|

MAY

_•_• JUN_•• JUL_•• AUG•_• SEPL_•I OCTM NOV DECJin JAM| _ FEB MARnn APR1—L HAY_•• JUNJi_•_•I JUL AUG SEP

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

In theory, the method by which CPTED strategies becomeimplemented in a school system is straightforward. This proce-dure is outlined in figure 13, using the mini-plazas for illus-tration. The School Planning Division draws up a set of plans(for the mini-plazas, an original plan was submitted by West-inghouse) which are structurally sound and which comply withcity, State, and national building codes. A State-approved ar-chitect assures the soundness of the plans; they are approvedby the CPTED project coordinator and the school principals; anda bid proposal is prepared and sent to the Purchasing Depart-ment for advertising.

Designated School Planning Division personnel then re-view the bids and recommend to the School Board that the lowestacceptable bid be awarded. When the board accepts a particularbid, School Planning Division oversees construction, which isrequired to start within ten days after award of the contract.

Following is a description of this procedure as itapplied to the implementation of the specific design tactics:

Courtyard Renovations

The directives for the courtyards were to create amini-plaza in the interior courtyard area, and to organize astudent-faculty committee to assist designing and coordinatingmini-plaza activities. The courtyard was to begin in November1976 and to be completed by January 31, 1977. Designs forDeerfield Beach and South Plantation went from School Planningto the CPTED Project Coordinator for his approval on November20, 1976. On December 15, the principal of Boyd Anderson re-jected the plans for his school; new blueprints for Boyd An-derson's courtyard renovations were received on December 17.On December 15 and December 28, for the other three schools,the CPTED Project Coordinator asked that work begin on theplans, and gave his approval.

29

On April 12, 1977, the bids for the mini-plazas at allfour schools were received. Boyd Anderson requested and wasgranted exclusion from the mini-plaza plans; they wanted tocomplete their mini-plaza on their own, without the assistanceof the contractor, using some CPTED project funds. For theother three schools, bids were awarded on April 21. Construc-tion began soon afterwards, with the purchase order going outon May 4.

Approximately half the time from the start of thegrant to the completion of the courtyards was spent in plan-ning. There was relatively little time spent in advertisingand receiving the bids: except for Boyd Anderson, bids wereawarded and purchase orders were issued very rapidly. The ac-tual construction time for the three completed sites was ap-proximately eight and one-half months.

Special attention should be drawn to the renovationat Boyd Anderson. As of March 15, 1978, the Boyd Andersoncourtyard had not been totally completed. In addition, thetime taken to issue a purchase order for Boyd Anderson was al-most ten times that taken for the other three schools. Thesedelays were caused by a variety of factors, but primarily theycan be attributed to funding problems and the principal's insis-tence that Boyd Anderson's courtyard be developed to his speci-fications, utilizing student labor. This was the only schoolin which students actively participated in the planning andbuilding of the courtyard.

In summary, meeting the procedural requirements fordeveloping approved plans took most of the time in implementingthe courtyard strategy. Processing the plans, once they leftthe School Planning Division offices, was accomplished in twomonths. Overall, it took approximately the same amount of timeto complete the construction as it did to issue a requisition.Except for Boyd Anderson, student participation in planning andimplementing courtyards was minimal.

Bicycle Parking Compounds

To be implemented in all schools except Boyd Anderson,the bicycle parking compounds were originally designed for usewith bike locking cups. However, in December 1976, School Plan-ning rejected the plans for the cups; racks would be used intheir place.

Requisitions for the three bike compounds were issuedin February of 1977, approximately eight months after the grantwas funded. It then took approximately three months to awardthe bid. While there were some problems -- e.g., drainage prob-lems at McArthur High School — construction activities consisted

31

primarily of some paving, installing a fence, and installingand anchoring a bicycle rack, which took approximately sixmonths to complete (from April 1977 through October 1977). Asin the courtyards, half the time spent on this strategy was indeveloping and issuing the requisition.

Hallways and Exterior Stairwells

A variety of strategies were to be employed inside theschool buildings. The planning for these strategies took fromsix to eight months; the actual implementation, two to threemonths.

At Boyd Anderson, the original plans included instal-ling a window in the corridor wall adjoining the custodian'soffice (never implemented) and placing multi-colored graphicdesigns in corridors to define their intended functions. Basedon initial renderings by a Westinghouse architect, the actualwork would be done by students under the supervision of the artinstructor. By November 1977 — eighteen months after thestart of the grant -- the "supergraphics" were considered com-plete.

At South Plantation, the mock-up and mount for aPaladin (the school symbol), to be placed between the snack barand the patio, was completed by the end of January 1977. An-other tactic originally called for a teacher planning area ina corridor location where it would facilitate natural surveil-lance. However, when it became clear that teachers would notwant to use such an area, the plans were changed to the con-struction of a security office under a staircase in the mainschool corridor. The security office was one of the few con-struction projects to be completed over the summer vacation.Two other South Plantation corridor tactics were delayed by un-anticipated problems: at the request of the contractor, the re-construction of the cafeteria corridor was rescheduled untilthe mini-plaza was finished; a corridor door-and-wall additionwas postponed because of repairs necessitated by four separateincidents of student vandalism.

Exterior stairwell alterations were planned for allschools except McArthur. The tactic to install windows in allexterior stairwells was rejected as unsound by the structuralengineer; the tactic to install gates to close off hidden areasunderneath the exterior stairwells was ruled out as a potentialfire hazard. The plan was modified so that the areas would becompletely sealed off. Work was completed at South Plantationin February 1977; at Boyd Anderson in April; and at DeerfieldBeach in May.

32

Restrooms

Restroom renovations were unique to McArthur HighSchool. The plan originally called for the removal of doorsand their replacement by gates; this plan was rejected by theInternal Affairs Office. From a security standpoint, it waspreferred to leave the doors on so that they could be lockedin an open position during school hours and closed and lockedduring non-school hours, reducing their susceptibility to van-dalism. In addition, State law prohibits doorless restroomsnear food services areas, as would have been the case in SouthPlantation. Sixty-three percent of the restroom modificationswere completed as planned within three months of issuing therequisitions.

Parkins Lots

The parking lot changes were plagued with difficul-ties. At Deerfield Beach and South Plantation, the polegateswere not installed precisely so that they would lock with thehardware that had been ordered. At McArthur, neither the prin-cipal nor the students supported the idea of a transitionalsafety fence, designed to create a one-way zone; this necessi-tated the removal of a major part of the fence and the discon-tinuation of the secure parking lot.

At Boyd Anderson, the student parking lot was to havebeen exchanged with the driver education parking lot, to achievegreater surveillance. The principal of the school did not thinkthis was a good idea; thus, the tactic was not implemented. In-stead, the entire student lot was fenced and provided with ap-propriate gates. Primarily because of cost overruns in otherareas, a plan for providing special parking lots was never im-plemented.

School Grounds

Several different tactics were implemented to improvegrounds security. These included establishing a mini-policeprecinct at one school, constructing portable snack bars, chang-ing bus loading zones, landscaping, improving communicationswith remote locations in and around the school, and installingburglar alarms.

Boyd Anderson was the only school to receive funds forthe development of a school police precinct. Final drawingswere sent to CPTED on September 10, 1976. The job was completedby March 24, 1977, but because the local police department wasbeing merged with the County Sheriff's Office, occupancy didnot occur until several months later. Ultimately, a truancy

33

specialist and a police specialist from the Youth Services Di-vision were given space in the precinct.

A bus loading zone tactic was also implemented at BoydAnderson only. This job was to be done completely by SchoolPlanning, with directional signs provided by the MaintenanceDepartment. By September 1976, the bus loading zone policy wasimplemented but signs were still not delivered as of March 10,1978.

Portable ticket booths were constructed at McArthurand South Plantation, The requisition went out on November 15,1976, and the job was completed by the end of December. Alsoimplemented at McArthur was a project conducted by the Officeof Internal Affairs for improving communications with remoteareas of the school through the use of two-way radios. A re-quisition was sent out on June 7, 1976, and the work was com-pleted by August 26.

Border definition was a tactic implemented only atSouth Plantation and Deerfield Beach. School Planning receivedthe plans from their landscaping group in January 1977, but be-cause the cost escalation of the courtyard had priority, therequisition was not sent out until September 8 for DeerfieldBeach and September 23 for South Plantation. The job was com-pleted at Deerfield Beach on September 26; the contractor sub-mitted his invoice for work completed at South Plantation onOctober 11.

A final tactic to improve grounds security was instal-ling burglar alarms at South Plantation, McArthur, and BoydAnderson. On May 20, 1976, the School Board approved the plansfor the alarms; in January 1977, installation was completed.

Locker Rooms

Originally planned for Deerfield Beach, South Planta-tion, and Boyd Anderson, only Boyd Anderson received fundingfor locker room color-coding, and that was only for the boys'locker room. Had implementation occurred at all three schools,the budget would have been exceeded by 1,500 percent. Thiscost escalation was caused in part by repeated delays in planapproval. Once approved, however, the project was implementedfairly efficiently, falling less than one month behind itsscheduled completion date of January 1977.

It should be noted that locker rooms were not paintedin the fashion envisioned by the planners. Instead of paintingdifferent sections in different colors, the lockers were paint-ed by rows — that is, in a single column, the top locker waspainted one color, the second one a different color, and so on--

34

with an identifying color for each of six class periods. Ath-letic Department personnel felt that this was the best way toobtain increased surveillance opportunities without creatingcongestion.

Educational Tactics

There were no systematic attempts to educate the stu-dents about CPTED during the first eighteen months of theproject. There were some isolated student newspaper articlesabout the project, but from pre-test survey data, this did notraise the level of student awareness. On November 12, 1977, amorning workshop was held with approximately ten teachers fromeach of the four project schools. This workshop presented anoverview of CPTED, explained how the various tactics were re-lated to the construction, and suggested that the faculty andstudents of each school consider curricula units, essay orposter contests, or other avenues to involve the student bodyin CPTED efforts. A luncheon for student organization leadersfrom each of the project schools was held on December 6, 1977.The purpose was to inform student leaders about the CPTED proj-ects. In the fall of 1976, the advisory committee at SouthPlantation, and the faculty and administration of Boyd Anderson,each received a formal CPTED presentation. In February 1978,Deerfield Beach requested and received a similar presentation.

In an attempt to educate and inform greater numbersof students, handouts describing the CPTED project and high-lighting the importance of student involvement were deliveredto each school during the first week of February 1978.

COST ANALYSIS

Table 14 provides a breakdown of the costs under theLEAA Discretionary Grant to Broward County, through earlyApril 1978. It is clear that the major expenses were the autoparking lots, the courtyard construction and renovation, theschool policing precinct, the evaluation, and administration.Most tactics consumed less than 1 percent of the total projectcosts. That is, each tactic cost well under $4,400. Othertactics, such as the "supergraphics" and the radios, each ac-counted for approximately 2 percent of the total cost. Thebicycle parking compounds in the three schools accounted for4 percent of costs, while the evaluation expenses accountedfor approximately 4 percent of total project costs. The mostexpensive elements of the strategies utilized in the CPTEDproject were the auto parking lot and the school policing pre-cinct, each accounting for 8 percent; and the courtyard, whichaccounted for 26 percent of the total. Administration proved

35

to be the most expensive item: 43 percent of the cost of theproject. This cost did not take into account the time alloca-ted by the Broward County Research Department, a school archi-tect, and a facilities planner; the costs of these additionalpersons were estimated in the grant to be an additional $46,440

As noted earlier, the project suffered from cost over-runs in the construction of some of the major items. For exam-ple, the courtyards were estimated to cost $82,488; in actual-ity, they cost $114,956. Similarly, the policing precinct wasestimated to cost $18,000 and actually cost $34,654. Some ofthe other plans had to be modified to absorb these unantici-pated costs.

36

BOYD DEERFIELD SOUTHANDERSON BEACH MCARTHUR PLANTATION TOTAL

Auto Parking Lot

Bicycle ParkingCompound

Courtyard

Exterior Stairwells

Alarm System

Supergraphics

Snack Bar

Locker Rooms

School PolicingPrecinct

Border Definition

Corridor Windows

Restrooms

Ticket Booths

Radios

Security Office

Corridor Walls

$ 6,448

14,402

b50

1,215

9,077

2,529

34,664

TOTAL $68,985

Anticipated additional costs

$10,032

3,958

40,763

975

1,560

$57,288

through end

$ 6,857

4,833

25,828

1,239

1,650

1,190

1,978

7,300

$50,875

of contract

$12,437

3,958

33,963

650

1,255

250

2,360

3,950

790

$60,602

$ 35,774

12,749

114,956

2,275

3,709

9,327

2,360

2,529

34,664

1,560

1,650

1,190

1,978

7,300

3,950

790

$237,750

2,335

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS 240,085

Evaluation Costs

Estimated Administrative Costs

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS

15,400

188,515

$444,000

14 - Project Costs

37

PROJECT EVALUATION

The evaluation was designed to assess two aspects ofthe demonstration. The first objective was to test if theCPTED strategies had been properly and adequately implemented.(If the implementation was faulty, it would be difficult toconclude from the demonstration that the project proved or dis-proved the CPTED theory.) The second objective was to deter-mine whether the results of the project in fact support thetheory.

The evaluation model for the school demonstration isillustrated in figure 15. The model is based on the assumptionthat in order to evaluate the CPTED process — i.e., programsuccess -- one first had to know what effort had been expendedon the project. This included knowledge of the amount, cost,and timing of staff activities, as well as the activities ofother groups related to the environmental changes that had beendeveloped. It was hypothesized that the activities of the im-plementing groups would increase movement control, surveillance,activity support, and motivational reinforcement -- in otherwords, that project activities would change the crime-opportu-nity structure at the schools.

Changes in the opportunity structure constitute meas-ures of attaining the proximate goals of the project. The ul-timate goals of the CPTED approach are to reduce crime and thefear of crime and thereby to improve the quality of life inthe area. Depending on the specific environment, there may beother ultimate goals of a CPTED project. For example, in theschool demonstration an improvement in the general learningenvironment and school performance might be considered an ulti-mate goal.

Once the effort, the proximate goals, and the ultimategoals have been identified, one final consideration must be ad-dressed: extraneous variables. These are factors which may in-fluence the attainment of a project's ultimate goals but whichhave no relationship to specific project activities. For

38

*The four proximate goals are not mutually exclusive. Surveillanceincreases also serve to increase movement control; increased ac-tivity support promotes increased surveillance and movement con-trol; and increased motivation reinforcement provides support forincreases in the other three.

15 - CPTED Evaluation Framework

39

example, there may have been other special programs implementedat the schools at the same time as the demonstration. If theseprograms had objectives similar to the demonstration -- e.g.,improving attendance and student attitudes toward the school —it would be very difficult to identify the effect due to CPTEDand that caused by the other program.

EVALUATION DESIGN

Three different types of evaluation were involved: theassessment of effort, proximate goal attainment, and ultimategoal attainment. The type of data used and the way it was anal-yzed varied according to the type of evaluation.

The original design for the evaluation was to usefour "control" schools in Broward County, matched as closelyas possible to the "experimental" schools. Befote-and-aftermeasures and time series measures would be taken at both theexperimental and control schools to assess the impact of theCPTED tactics, and to determine if the observed differencescould appropriately be attributed to the CPTED effort. As fi-nally adopted, however, the evaluation plan used neither con-trol schools nor time series measures. Rather, it used a sim-ple before-after design, comparing the experimental schools withthe other sixteen high schools in Broward County. This evalua-tion design was relatively weak in its power to attribute caus-ality, especially where the anticipated effects would be smalland localized to particular sub-environments and tactics.

The evaluation design was based on a sub-environmentalapproach, in which each tactic implemented by a demonstrationschool was to be assessed by relevant data points. For exam-ple, one school had implemented changes in a number of rest-rooms. Survey data was to be examined to determine if therewere changes in student behavior or perceptions toward theserestrooms. Any such changes would be compared to attitudes andbehaviors in the other demonstration school restrooms, and inother county schools where data are available. This approachallowed the researcher to relate changes in the physical envi-ronment to changes in attitude and behavior. A total environ-mental analysis was also utilized, to compare extra-environmen-tal behavior (e.g., student morale, reporting of crimes) in theproject schools to that in the rest of the county.

The evaluation of effort involved documenting the num-ber, type, and quality of project activities and the time andcost involved in carrying them out. This documentation inclu-ded the cost of support activities, such as project planning,as well as the cost of direct activities, such as implementingphysical changes. The data used in the evaluation of effort

included project files, observations, and interviews with keypersons and area users.

The evaluation of proximate goals involved determin-ing if the project's effort or activities altered the opportu-nity for crime at the site by increasing movement control, sur-veillance, activity support, or motivational reinforcement.These dimensions of the crime-opportunity structure were meas-ured before and after the period of project implementation.Thus improvements were measured against a baseline of existingconditions in the project schools.

A key measure of proximate-goal attainment was a stu-dent attitude survey. This was distributed by the BrowardCounty Research Department in the winter of 1977 and 1978 andagain in the spring of those years. The attitudinal questionswere virtually identical in all four surveys. In addition, in-terviews were conducted with key persons, including administra-tors, faculty, and students.

Another measure of proximate-goal attainment was be-havioral observations. For example, the development of thepatios was designed to increase student use of the patio anddecrease the use of undesirable areas such as auto parking lotsand smoking corridors. The observer counted the number of stu-dents using the patio and the number using the undesirableareas, four times for each school; in similar fashion, the ob-server counted the number of groups in the patio, where groupswere defined as two or more students talking together. Allow-ances were made for school vacations and inclement weather.These observations began at the onset of the first lunch periodand ended with the finish of the last lunch period, but no datawas collected during the five-minute class change periods.

The ultimate goals of the project were a reduction incrime, a reduction in the fear of crime, and improvement of thequality of the educational environment of the schools.

Changes in the rate of crime were to be measuredthrough the computerized reports of the Department of InternalAffairs. Due to delays in project implementation and the ex-piration of the research contract, the report for 1977-78 wasnot available when the evaluation was to be completed. Datafor 1976-77, while available, would be confounded by the factthat various tactics were in the process of being implementedat this time.

In lieu of crime report data, therefore, the evalua-tion of project impact relied on the use of victimization sur-veys. Five surveys were distributed, as indicated on the fol-lowing page:

41

Distributed

4,800

2,000

2,000

2,000

2,000

Returned

2,772

1,428

1,483

1,416

1,264

Return Rate

57.8%

71.4%

74.2%

70.8%

63.2%

Spring 1976

Winter 1977

Spring 1977

Winter 1978

Spring 1978

The winter 1977 victimization survey had questionsidentical to the spring 1976 survey, but in different order.The spring 1977 survey differed from the previous surveys inthe following respects:

* Questions concerning extortion incidents and dollaramounts of theft and extortion were dropped.

* Questions dealing with fear of theft in various sub-environments were added.

* Questions to obtain overall theft and assault inci-dent rates were added.

* Scaled response for the fear of theft and fear of as-sault questions was changed from No/Yes to Never, Almost Never,Sometimes, and Most of the Time. In addition, the wording ofthe fear questions was changed from "Are you afraid,11 to Howoften are you afraid,11 thus altering the demand characteristicsof the question.

* The number of environments tapped was dropped fromthirteen to nine, of which two were completely new.

In summary, the evaluation of ultimate-goal attain-ment was severely hampered. Not all of the project tactics hadbeen implemented by the time of the evaluation, school crimereports were not available for the post-implemention period,and the victimization surveys did not maintain a uniform con-tent.

42

RESULTS

EVALUATION OF PROJECT EFFORT

Project effort consists of a) the adequacy with whichthe project was planned; b) documentation of the work carriedout (i.e., number, type, and quality of activities); and c) anassessment of the immediate changes in the school environmentas a result of the CPTED program, including the cost of thesechanges.

Table 16 summarizes the status of the planned tactics.The conclusions in this table are based on on-site observations,interviews with key persons, and examination of official rec-ords. The table indicates that most of the tactics were imple-mented essentially as planned. Nevertheless, the tactics thatwere not implemented as planned could limit the demonstration'simpact. Speci fically:

Cost overruns caused several tactics to be dropped.These included parking lot landscaping at the two schools forwhich it had been planned and locker room painting at threeschools. In addition, a restroom modification in South Planta-tion was not permitted because the restroom was close to afood-service area.

Two strategies were constructed according to specifi-cations but did not become functional: portable ticket boothsand the queuing lanes for South Plantation's snack bar. Accor-ding to the principals, the ticket booths were not taken outof storage because their heavy construction made them clumsyto handle; furthermore, they were fitted with wheels and it wasfeared that students would move them about campus without per-mission. The poles and ropes for the queuing lanes were notinstalled because it was felt that the poles were more hazard-ous than the congestion they were designed to alleviate.

Some tactics were implemented in modified form, with

16 - Summary of Implementation Status

(continued on following page)

44

16 - Summary of Implementation Status (continued)

varying implications for the anticipated impacts. For example,eliminating windows in the external stairwells (because of pos-sible building code violations) probably minimized that tac-tic's impact, while modifying South Plantation's teacher plan-ning area into a security office may have increased that tac-tic s impact on natural surveillance and movement control.

Another possible outcome is suggested by the imple-mentation of the Boyd Anderson locker-room tactic, where color-coding by area of the room was modified to color-coding by row.It is possible that this type of color-coding still enablesteachers or students to observe people at lockers where theyshould not be, but the dispersion almost certainly makes thisdiscrimination more difficult. On the other hand, by prevent-ing congestion, this modification may increase the tactic1svalue for preventing assaults.

In summary, the major problem with implementation,was the excessive time taken to complete a number of tactics.In spite of the delays, it is the judgment of the evaluatorsthat the effort goals of modifying the schools1 physical, so-cial, managerial, and law enforcement characteristics were, forthe most part, achieved as designed. Therefore the project canfairly be evaluated as a demonstration of the CPTED approach.

ATTAINMENT OF PROXIMATE GOALS

The success of CPTED in reducing crime and fear of

45

crime is predicated on attaining the proximate goals of gain-ing a greater degree of movement control, increasing surveil-lance and activity support, and reinforcing crime-preventionmotivation. In developing an evaluation plan, the evaluatorsidentified specific measurement points for the physical andsocial environment. The measurement points related to thephysical environment include:

* The physical security of the school environment (tar-get hardness).

* The surveillability of the school environment (howwell one can see or hear what is going on).

* The usability of the school environment (what is inthe physical environment and how it can be used by students) .

* Psychological dimensions of the school environment re-lated to CPTED design concepts (e.g., aesthetic quality, de-gree of personalization, and clarity of defined spaces).

Those measurement points associated with the socialenvironment are:

* The degree to which students are committed to watchfor suspicious or criminal activities, and the degree to whichthey report suspicious or criminal activities.

* Actual student crime reporting behavior.

* The extent of social networks and the degree of sqcialcohesiveness.

* The actual use of the school environment by students.

* Student identification with the environment (i.e.,to what extent there is a sense of belonging).

Insights into the degree to which the proximate goalswere attained -- for some of the sub-environments and overall--were drawn from structured observations, fear and victimizationsurveys, and staged suspicious incidents. Findings are repor-ted here by sub-environment.

Bus Loading Zone

The bus-loading zone was implemented before pre-testobservational data could be collected. After implementation,it was observed that drivers used the zone a high percentageof the time, and that students entered the zone in an orderlyfashion 100 percent of the time. However, in one-third of the

46

cases, students entered the buses outside the zone. Adult mon-itors were present at all observation periods; they directedbuses 33 percent of the time, and student loading 40 percentof the time. According to the observer, the adult monitors ap-peared to be aware of student behavior during the loading.

In summary, organized surveillance (via the monitors)and activity support (i.e., the revised zone loading policy)appeared to be controlling movement as well.

Bicycle Compounds

Fenced bicycle compounds were installed at McArthur,Deerfield Beach, and South Plantation high schools. Table 17indicates that South Plantation had a substantially smallerpercentage of bicycles parked within its compound than did theother schools. However, observer records indicate that therewas severe overcrowding in the bicycle compound at South Plan-tation; thus, the bike compound was not of sufficient size.If the bike compound tactic were to reduce bicycle theft, wewould expect that the reduction would be more obvious atMcArthur and Deerfield Beach than at South Plantation. Notethat practically all the bikes in each easily surveillable com-pound were locked.

School

South Plantation

Deerfield Beach

McArthur

Average Numberof Bicycles on

Campus

113

46

62

Percentage ofBicycles inCompound

47

96

80

Percentage ofBicycles Lockedin Compound

95

94

92

17 - Bicycle Compound Utilization

Courtyards

Courtyards or patios were constructed in all fourschools. The purpose was to attract students from other partsof the campus, where surveillance was difficult, to an easilysurveillable area where they would feel comfortable and be ableto gather in small groups. However, an unanticipated eventaffected the courtyards potential for fulfilling that purpose:in September 1977, a countywide policy was instituted forbiddingsmoking anywhere on campus.

47

The on-site observer recorded the following informationfor each courtyard: number of students, percentage of tablesand benches occupied, percentage of students using the newlyconstructed space, and the cleanliness of the area.

Figure 18 shows the number of students present duringobservation periods in the Boyd Anderson patio. This figuredoes not indicate a substantial increase in the number of stu-dents utilizing the patio; indeed, a major decrease occurredwhen smoking was banned. (It should be noted that, as of thelast observation period, the patio has not been completed.)Figure 19 does show an increase in the percentage use of thenewly developed area. This figure indicates that, prior toconstruction, there was very little use of the large area ofthe courtyard; as construction proceeded, 70 to 80 percent ofthe students used this area as opposed to other parts of thepatio. Figure 20 shows the percentage of new amenities usedby the students. This figure indicates that 100 percent of thetables and benches were being used during the last two observa-tion periods; the figure also demonstrates an increasing uti-lization rate for these amenities.

Figure 21 shows the number of students in the patioduring the evaluation period at South Plantation. There was adecrease in the number using the patio during the constructionperiod; subsequently, the number of students using the patioappears to have risen to the previous level. However, the num-ber of students using the patio did not exceed the pre-construc-tion usage.

One of the objectives of the patio construction wasto attract students away from less desirable areas, such as theoutside smoking corridor. To gauge this objective, the numberof students utilizing this corridor was measured. Figure 22shows the number of students in the smoking corridor during ob-servation periods: note the precipitous decrease associatedwith the September 1977 smoking ban.

The data from Deerfield Beach and McArthur paralleledthose from the other two schools, suggesting that, within thesevere limitations introduced by the smoking ban, the patio wassuccessful in attracting students into an easily surveillable,movement-controlled area. In addition, the fact that the com-pleted areas were being utilized by more students than theother areas suggests patios are motivation-reinforcing ameni-ties.

Hallways

A major tactic at Boyd Anderson was painting graphicdesigns in the hallways. Throughout the evaluation period,

48

rtcfD

aCfl

19 - Patio Observations at Boyd Anderson: Percentage of Students

50

20 - Patio Observations at Boyd Anderson: Percentageof Amenities Used

51

21 - Patio Observations at South Plantation: Number of Students

52

53

these graphics were judged to be in excellent or very goodcondition. The graphics were not defaced or vandalized duringthis time, indicating that this amenity had good potential formotivation reinforcement.

At McArthur, an enclosed hallway was altered by in-stalling four large windows in the walls between some of theclassrooms and the corridor, and by enlarging sixteen door win-dows. An average of twelve students walked by these windowsduring each observation period, with approximately 31 percentlooking into the classroom. During the observation periods,an average of 49 percent of the door windows were covered, ren-dering them ineffective. There appeared to be no trend overtime in percentage of windows covered. Data concerning thefour large wall windows indicated that teachers often blockedthese windows with movie screens and globes and other large ob-jects. Although there were attempts by the administration toremove objects from the wall and door windows, these were notalways successful.

Key-person interviews indicated that some teacherswere annoyed by this tactic. They felt that their privacy wasinvaded and that the classroom was disrupted by student activ-ity in the hallway. Their negative reactions indicate margi-nal utility for the tactic.

Student surveys provided additional data on hallwaystrategies. There was a significant increase in the perceivedlikelihood of identifying an interloper in the hallway atMcArthur, relative to the other county high schools over thedemonstration period. The final average perceived likelihoodwas on par with the rest of the county (F £1,5254} = 9.305,p < .002). It is interesting to speculate whether the re-ported difference would have been larger if the design direc-tive had been maintained more consistently.

As for the perceived likelihood of an interloper com-mitting a theft or an assault without being detected, the re-sults show a significant difference only for assault (F [1,5254^ =4.147, p < .042). One possible explanation is that tacticsto increase the surveillability of an environment only affectpeople's perceptions about assault and not theft, a distinctionthat heretofore was not made very explicit.

Student ratings of teachers' surveillance of the hall-way area show an increase at McArthur, reflecting the impactofCPTED on teacher surveillance (F Il,5254j - 14.376, p < .001)This contrasts with the ratings of students in the rest of thecounty, which show a decrease in the perceived quality of sur-veillance of the hallways by teachers.

The perceived difficulty of entry of an interloper

54

into a hallway increased significantly at McArthur relative toother schools in the county. Apparently the design directivefor the hallway was effective in achieving the proximate goalsof increased movement control as well as surveillance.

Restrooms

The doors to the restrooms at McArthur were locked inan open position throughout the evaluation effort. Thus, thistactic can be considered to have been implemented successfully.However, only two-thirds of the restrooms were modified.

To assess the impact of the restroom tactics on theidentification of someone in the restroom who did not belongthere, students were asked: "Suppose a person who did not be-long there was in the restroom area. How likely is it thatpeople would know he did not belong there?" An analysis ofvariance highlighted a significant difference between the "pre"and the "post" surveys. Students at McArthur perceived an in-crease in the likelihood of identifying an interloper, whilethe perceptions of the students in the rest of the countyschools stayed at the same level (F [1,5278] = 4.875, p < .027).The increase on the part of the McArthur students brought the !

mean level of their responses to the same level as that of the ,county. This result indicates that the crime problem in therestrooms at McArthur was perceived as being worse than in therest of the county and illustrates the effectiveness of CPTEDin creating a change in student perceptions.

In order to assess the possibility of crime detectionin the restrooms, students were asked: "How likely is it thata person could steal something in the restroom without beingseen?" and "How likely is it that a person could physically at-tack another person in the restroom without being seen?" Therewere no statistically significant differences.

The student assessment of teachers' surveillance wasthat the teachers did not watch what was going on in the rest-rooms very well. Depending on the survey, from 75 percent to91 percent of the students rated teacher surveillance as poor.

The proximate goal of movement control was measuredby asking the students: "How difficult is it for someone whodoes not belong there to get into the restroom?" Survey re-sults were encouraging. A pre-post difference was found forMcArthur in that the perceived difficulty of entry increased,and this difference was statistically significant (F [1,5254]-16.788, p < .001)-. This difference was not found in the restof the county.

OVERALL IMPACTS

Student Crime Reporting Behavior

An important aspect of crime prevention in schools isthe willingness of students to report questionable or illicitbehavior. Two questions were asked in the last four surveysabout student intentions regarding crime reporting. In addi-tion, a series of "suspicious events" were staged at each ofthe project schools to provide an indication of whether stu-dent intentions are consistent with their actions. The ques-tions were:

* If you saw someone stealing something at school, doyou think you would:

Do nothing, it is none of my business.

Do nothing, it would not do any good.

Do nothing, the trouble-maker might take it out on me.

Do nothing, I would not tell on another.

Try to stop it myself.

Report it.

* If you saw someone physically attack another studentat school, do you think you would:

Do nothing, it is none of my business.

Do nothing, it would not do any good.

Do nothing, the trouble-maker might take it out on me.

Do nothing, I would not tell on another.

Try to stop it myself.

Try to get other students to stop it.

Report it.

For both the project and control schools, the responsemost frequently given for the first question was "Report it."In the case of assault, it was "Report it" followed by "Try tostop it myself." In short, many students, and in some casesthe majority indicated they would get involved, rather than donothing. There were no consistent pre-post differences for ei-ther item.

56

Concepts Concerning the School and Social Responsibility

To assess the student's feelings about the school andhis or her sense of responsibility toward crime prevention, anumber of questions were included in the last four surveys. Theresults are presented in table 23.

The first question dealt with the student's opinionof the student body as a whole. It can be seen that the stu-dents are evenly split as to whether students help each otheror go their own way; there are no significant changes from sur-vey to survey. With respect to difference among schools, SouthPlantation, in three of the four surveys, was rated the lowest(i.e., a place where students tend to go their own way). Thisfinding is interesting, since this school demonstrated the mostconcern and collective action about a "thief" in the parkinglot during a staged incident.

The next question dealt with students' sense of ter-ritoriality within the context of the school; that is, whetherthey felt part of the school. A rank ordering of the schoolsagain showed South Plantation as the lowest by 20 to 30 per-cent.

A third question, dealing with student perceptions ofthe degree to which students in general are concerned with pre-venting crimes, did not result in statistically significant dif-ferences among schools or between surveys. However, Boyd An-derson and McArthur showed positive changes in the spring 1978survey (table 24).

For the students' rating of the crime-prevention ef-forts of teachers and other adults (table 25), there was asignificant difference in the spring survey data (F [4,22621 -2.807, p < .024), indicating a relationship between the CPTEDproject and perceptions of improved efforts in the projectschools. These improvements in attitudes, however, appear tobe limited to Boyd Anderson and McArthur.

The last three questions dealt with students' under-standing of the concepts underlying CPTED, such as their per-sonal efficacy in preventing crime and their perceptions ofwhether the offenders in a school environment were many of theother students or just a small group of "troublemakers." Moststudents agreed with the statement that there are certain areasin the school that made it easy for persons to commit crimeswithout being seen. The students were evenly split concerningwhether they as individuals could do anything to help stop theschool's crime problem. And most students agreed that a rela-tively small group of troublemakers was responsible for mostof the crime problems. However, with respect to these ques-tions, the statistical analysis showed no significant differ-ences among schools or between survey periods.

57

Question

In general, which kind ofschool would you say thisis mostly—one where moststudents help each otheror one where most studentsgo their own way?

Would you say that youreally feel a part ofthe school—or do youthink of it as justanother place to spendtime?

School

Pre-CPTED Post-CPTEDW1977 S1977 W1978 S1978

Percent "most students help each other"

BA

MA

SP

DB

CO

BA

MA

SP

DB

CO

60.7

59.7

44.9

60.0

58.4

Percent "

67.2

73.4

40.0

71.4

67.7

53.5

49.3

44.6

61.6

53.4

feel a part

64.4

60.8

53.7

80.2

65.5

49.2

57.1

54.9

51.5

58.0

of the

74.2

75.6

59.5

67.7

65.8

53.1

51.0

43.1

58.8

55.3

school"

59.7

66.7

46.6

65.3

66.1

23 - Student Survey: Feelings About the School and Sense of Responsibility

Question

How much do you thinkstudents at your schoolare concerned with pre-venting crimes fromhappening to otherstudents?

School

BA

MA

SP

DB

CO

Response

A Great DealSomewhat ConcernedNot Much Concerned

A Great DealSomewhat ConcernedNot Much Concerned

A Great DealSomewhat ConcernedNot Much Concerned

A Great DealSomewhat ConcernedNot Much Concerned

A Great DealSomewhat ConcernedNot Much Concerned

Pre-CPTEDW1977

10.351.737.9

5.158.236.7

7.556.336.3

11.965.522.6

21.250.828.0

S1977

20.354.125.7

14.547.438.2

5.947.147.1

14.851.134.1

13.455.131.5

Post-CPTEDW1978

6.556.537.1

11.551.337.2

16.959.623.6

10.864.524.7

11.458.330.2

S1978

21.758.020.3

13.459.826.8

8.861.429.8

11.560.128.4

11.856.731.4

24 - Student Survey Responses: Student Concern

Question

Overall, how wouldyou rate the job theteachers and otheradults are doing Inprotecting studentsfrom crime at yourschool?

School

BA

MA

SP

DB

CO

Response

Very GoodGood EnoughNot So Good

Very GoodGood EnoughNot So Good

Very GoodGood EnoughNot So Good

Very GoodGood EnoughNot So Good

Very GoodGood EnoughNot So Good

Pre-CPTEDS1976

(%)

20.832.147.2

9.734.755.6

9.246.244.6

11.049.339,7

14.445.440.2

S1977

(%)

11.138.950.0

7.138.654.3

9.342.648.1

13.353.033.7

9.645.644.9

Post-CPTEDW1978

16.042.042.0

12.239.248.6

12.750.636.7

7.944.747.4

11.647.341.1

S1978

22.049.228.8

14.538.647.0

8.529.861.7

9.749.341.0

11.347.241.5

25 - Student Survey Responses: Teacher Concern

Staged Incidents

To assess the actual crime reporting behavior of thestudents, at least at a qualitative level, "suspicious" inci-dents were staged at four project schools and two comparisonschools.

At Boyd Anderson, most of the students in the parkinglot where the incident was staged appeared to pay little or noattention. It was assumed that students would attempt to haltor report a suspicious person; instead, some students seemedwilling to assist the "intruder" by providing information onsecurity arrangements. The event took almost fifteen minutes--a great deal longer than anticipated. The parking lot monitoreventually did report the intruder to a school security offi-cer .

McArthur had a security system different from otherproject or county schools. There was a monitor on duty in thestudent parking lot during each lunch hour; this individualhad a specific procedure to follow if anything suspicious oc-curred. The procedure involved a telephone report to the mainoffice, which used radios provided by the CPTED program to con-tact campus security officers, who proceeded to the scene ofthe incident. For the staged event, the intruder entered thelot on foot through the front main entrance, which opens on apublic thoroughfare. The monitor spotted him immediately butwaited to observe further before reacting. Two students alsoobserved the suspicious person but took no action. Securityofficers arrived less than twelve minutes after the incidentwas reported by the monitor.

The staged incident was greatly embellished at SouthPlantation, including the use of a decoy car and the removalof a satchel from it by the purported thief. Substantial stu-dent interest was aroused and there was some attempt at inter-vention. In fact, further incidents could not be staged atthe school because knowledge of the event rapidly spread through'out the student population.

At Deerfield Beach, students had been warned to lookfor unusual activities around the campus. The evaluatorsthought that this might bias student reaction and increase thelevel of involvement in the staged event. However, DeerfieldBeach proved to be the most apathetic school in terms of stu-dent response. A decoy car was also used in this incident, andthe intruder and an observer both attempted to provoke studentreaction. One student eventually reported the incident; a num-ber of others obviously observed it and showed some concern,but never actually intervened or contacted school personnel.

The comparison schools showed even poorer results. At

61

Hollywood Hills, three students (two of whom were monitors) ob-served the event but none reported it. At Miramar, six studentsobserved the incident but did not report it. Security person-nel and administrators were dismayed by the apathy shown, par-ticularly since parking lot monitors saw the incidents at bothschools.

Table 26 shows the student reaction to the stagedevents, as recorded by an observer. The observer noted howmany students were in the lot, what percentage was judged tohave observed the theft, and the number that directly inter-vened or left the lot as if to report the thief. The number ofstudents in the lot ranged from sixteen to sixty-nine, with anaverage of fifty. The student parking lot at McArthur is far-thest from the main campus and thus had the fewest number ofstudents present.

An average of 39 percent of the students in the park-ing lot at the project schools apparently observed the theft,compared to 6 percent at the two comparison schools. Althoughthe sample of staged incidents is very small, it does appearthat the students at the project schools were more alert thanthe students at the county schools. At all schools exceptHollywood Hills (a control school) and Boyd Anderson, at leastone student was judged to have left to report the incident. AtSouth Plantation and at Miramar (a control school), one studentdirectly intervened.

The presence of more than one monitor seemed to havean inhibitory effect on reporting. At Miramar and HollywoodHills, three monitors were present, with none reporting the in-cident. At the other schools, the monitors were alone and didreport the theft. Interestingly, the one school without moni-tors, South Plantation, had the greatest involvement by thestudent population. As noted earlier, most of the studentsthere observed the theft and a great many reported it or at-tempted to intervene.

While the majority of the students indicated on thesurvey that they would report a crime, they did not do so withthese staged events. The increased student involvement in theproject schools, as compared with student reactions in the twocomparison schools, may be attributed to increased studentawareness as a result of CPTED's overall impact.

At both the sub-environment level and overall, therewere numerous indications that the CPTED demonstration proj-ect had impacted upon the proximate goals of movement con-trol, surveillance, activity support, and motivation reinforce-ment.

62

PRESENT INLOT

Observed"theft"

Left as ifto report

Directlyintervened

PRESENT INPERIMETER

Observed"theft"

Left as ifto report

Monitorspresent

Actuallyreported

DB

46

17%

1

0

45

13%

1

1

Yes(two)

DemonstrationSchools

MA

16

50%

1

0

0

--

—

1

Yes(monitorreported'

SP

69

68%

10+

i-i

110

55%

0

0

Yes(many)

)

BA

42

19%

0

0

50

6%

0

1

Yes(monitorreported)

ComparisonSchools

MI

69

7%

3

1

54

2%

0

3

HH

58

5%

0

0

35

0%

--

3

Observer Noreporteda stranger

26 - Student Reaction to "Suspicious Event'

ATTAINMENT OF ULTIMATE GOALS

This section examines the extent to which the ulti-mate goals of crime and fear reduction were attained in themodified restrooms and hallways and in the overall school en*vironment. The analysis is based on five student fear andvictimization surveys.* The surveys asked the respondent

*Due to the timing of the surveys or the wording chan-ges in the relevant items, survey data on the sub-environmentsother than restrooms and hallways is too ambiguous to justifyeven tentative analysis.

63

whether he or she had been physically attacked, hurt, or both-ered (assault), or had something stolen (theft), during thepast year. Fear was measured first by asking the respondenthow safe or unsafe he or she felt in the sub-environments, andthen to assess how safe or unsafe people were in general.

Restrooms

Since the modifications to the restrooms at McArthurwere completed after the spring 1977 survey, the first threesurveys (spring 1976, winter 1977, and spring 1977) can betreated as pre-data points and the last two (winter 1978 andspring 1978) as post-data points. The spring comparison showeda substantial decline in theft in the restrooms (from 12.2 to2.1 percent). The winter comparison showed a smaller decline(from 7.6 to 5.1 percent). The assault rate, which ranged from3.1 to 5.4 percent for all five surveys, was too low to show asignificant difference.

The same analysis was made for the county schools withsomewhat contradictory results. The spring comparison showedno change in assault or theft, but the winter comparison showeda decrease in thefts (from 12.6 to 8.2 percent).

It seems reasonable to conclude that the restroom mod-ifications attained the ultimate goal of theft reduction, sincethe reduction in the county schools was much less.

The same analytic strategy was applied to the fearquestions. No statistically significant differences emergedfrom the three tests, indicating that the restroom treatmentsdid not reduce the students' perceived lack of safety in therestrooms.

Hallways

McArthur was the only school where windows were in-stalled between the corridor and the classrooms. Analysisshowed no significant change in theft or assault rates. Anal-ysis of fear revealed an increase in perception of safety fromassault in the hallway (see table 27) but no change in the per-ceived safety from theft. The fact that some teachers occasion-ally covered the windows with papers and posters may have attenuated the potential benefits of the strategy.

Overall Impact

In the last three surveys, students were asked the fol-lowing questions:

64

(Does not include Spring 1976 survey.)

Pre-CPTED Post-CPTED(%) (%)

Very Safe 5.7 14.3

Safe 40.7 41.5

Somewhat Safe 43.2 38.4

Not Very Safe 10.4 5.8

27 - Judgment of Safety from Being Assaulted in Hallway

* Overall, counting this year only, did anyone hurt,bother, or physically attack you at school?

* Overall, counting this year only, did anyone steal any-thing from you at school this year?

* Overall, how often are you afraid that any of the fol-lowing things might happen to you at school:

Someone might hurt, bother, or physically attack you.

Someone might steal something from you.

The victimization rates at the project and countyschools were as high as 33.3 percent for assault and 52.2 per-cent for theft. No specific area experienced a disproportion-ate amount of crime, with the exception of the relatively hightheft rates for restrooms.

For the sake of comparability, the pre/post examinationwas limited to the spring 1977 and spring 1978 surveys. Therewas a slight reduction in assaults at all but one school (in-cluding the county schools). However, the only notable changewas at Boyd Anderson, where the assault rate decreased from33.3 to 22.4 percent. This finding is consistent with the factthat Boyd Anderson received the largest CPTED effort.

There was a significant reduction in theft at theproject schools, ranging from 5 percent at Boyd Anderson to12 percent at South Plantation. Although there was also a re-duction for the county schools, it was not as large (4 percentmean); nor was it-statistically significant.

No statistically significant changes emerged with re-spect to student perceptions of safety. All schools showed ahigh percentage of students reporting that they were afraid of

65

assault and theft some or most of the time, with concern abouttheft more prevalent than concern about assault. The overallpercentages are much higher than those obtained for the sub-environments, thus indicating that perceived lack of safety isa problem throughout the school environment and not limited toa few locations.

No reliable conclusions could be drawn regarding theinstitutionalization of the CPTED concept.

66

DISCUSSION

Although there were problems and difficulties at eachstage, the demonstration project was, for the most part, imple-mented as designed if not as scheduled. There were moderateincreases in movement control, surveillance, activity support,and motivation reinforcement. The brief period available forassessing crime and fear reduction precluded extensive documen-tation of ultimate goal impacts. Nevertheless, some reductionin crime victimization was detected.

The following discussion highlights lessons learnedduring implementation of the various tactics and directives,and offers recommendations.

Funding Support

Major efforts were required to secure funding supportfor implementing the CPTED tactics. As a result, significantdelays were experienced.

Westinghouse began data collection in the fall of 1974.According to later key-person interviews, this resulted in anexpectation that the project would begin shortly and disappoint-ment when it did not. The initial interest and enthusiasm atthe schools was dissipated by the long delay which followed. Inaddition, a number of key participants — including two prin-cipals -- left the schools.

It was difficult to anticipate that it would take al-most two years to obtain funding. The attempt to develop totallocal funding was not successful, and LEAA ultimately providedthe direct support. It is recommended that implementation fundsbe included in the initial grant or contract for future demon-stration projects.

67

Bureaucratic Problems

The CPTED program did not exist independent of theschool system bureaucracy. Discussions with administrativeofficials in the system indicated that it was difficult to ini-tiate change — not unusual in a system as large and as complexas that in Broward County. A more realistic timeframe mighthave been developed if planners had studied the schedule of pre-vious construction projects handled through the School PlanningOffice.

It is recommended that schedules be developed based onthe previous performance of grantees, instead of being estab-lished to fit the proposed grant period.

Resistance to Change

There is some evidence that a "not invented here" syn-drome existed in the early stages of the CPTED project. Forexample, an outside architect provided the sketches and prelim-inary drawings for several tactics; this may have created someinitial resistance on the part of the individuals responsiblefor implementing these plans. A cooperative and well-coordi-nated relationship was never established between the Westing-house architect and the School Planning Office.

In future projects, a greater effort should be madeto have key local resource persons -- including students, facul-ty, and principals -- in decision-making roles. There is nosubstitute for highly visible local advocates in minimizing re-sistance to change.

Gaps in Experience

Based on conversations with the Director of SchoolPlanning, it appears that his office did not have extensive ex-perience with any program similar to CPTED. The developmentand supervision of many small projects, located in differentschools, was a relatively new experience. This lack of back-ground may have been partially responsible for the delays in im-plementation.

It is recommended that more attention be given to ca-pacity-building activities for personnel who have direct res-ponsibility for implementing CPTED tactics. Workshops andtraining sessions conducted by CPTED consultants should be con-sidered.

68

Input from Real Constituency

There was no local advisory committee with a strong,vested interest in seeing the Broward County CPTED project im-plemented in a timely and efficient fashion. The real consti-tuency for this program consisted of principals, teachers, andstudents, but no formal mechanism was developed to allow themto voice concerns about the progress of CPTED implementation.It is suggested that, in projects of this nature, a strong lo-cal input mechanism and continued interaction be programmed.

Assessing and Sustaining Priorities

It is the impression of the evaluators that crime inthe Broward County School System was not a high-priority con-cern. This judgment was derived from discussions with prin-cipals, the school superintendent, and other officials involvedin the CPTED project. A system facing a $10 million deficitand the potential dismissal of hundreds of teachers obviouslyhad other pressing concerns, especially since the crime problemin Broward was not extraordinary. If the assumption is correctthat the CPTED project did not have high priority within theadministration, it is understandable that implementation delayswere tolerated.

One individual in the School Planning Office was res-ponsible for CPTED implementation. This individual was even-tually dismissed, but poor administration of the project's con-struction phase was tolerated for a long period of time. This"benign neglect" adds support to the low-priority hypothesis.It is not clear whether the initial support for the project wasdissipated in the face of more severe problems or whether thatsupport was never really as strong as the CPTED planners hadassumed.

Determining the degree of local support before fundinga project is a difficult process. On paper, the Broward grantproposal appeared to have strong support by the administrationand the School Board. The grant proposal indicated that in-kind support would be forthcoming from the Research Departmentin the equivalent of one full-time person, at an estimated costof $32,000; similarly, the proposal indicated that a SchoolPlanning person would be provided, without cost, to help sup-port the project at a half-time load. Neither in-kind contri-bution met the anticipated level of effort.

There is no simple solution to this problem, but itis suggested that maximum attention should be given to elicit-ing widespread commitment to the project as a locally conceivedand locally run effort. In addition, attention should be given

69

to sustaining and enhancing the initial local commitment throughout the project.

Relationship of Tactics to Crime-Environment Problems

It was found that the demonstration plan had been de-veloped without several sets of crime and fear data, with theresult that the appropriateness of several tactics later seemedquestionable. It was expected that some of the data — notablythat from the initial fear and victimization survey -- wouldlead to modifications in the planned tactics. Funding delaysand scheduling requirements precluded this. Nevertheless,there never was a plan to incorporate new data on an ongoingbasis. Because issues of appropriateness, coordination, sched-uling, monitoring, and utilization are likely to arise in allCPTED-type projects, it is strongly, recommended that the proj-ect plan call for formative as well as summative evaluation.That is, there should be procedures for incorporating emerginginformation to improve the project as it develops.

70 "U S GOVERWENT PRINTIM OFFICE: 19*1 3*1-233/1870