CPTED in the Netherlands

Amsterdam, March 18. 1997 Paul van Soomeren Tobias Woldendorp

Contents

1

Introduction

2

The Netherlands: 15 million people flocking together below sealevel 3

3

Crime

4 Comprehensive environmental approach 4.1 The learning years 4.2 The years of elaboration and experimenting

1

4

6 6 8

5 5.1 5.2 5.3

The police label safe housing The manual Process Evaluation

6 6.1 6.2 6.3

Threats, challanges and possibilities 13 A process, not a product 13 Continual approvement through evaluation, analyses and offender research 13 A label for existing environments 14

7

An European initiative for standardization

References

10 11 12 12

15

16

Originally this paper was published in: Security Journal 7 (1996), p. 185-195 (Elsevier Science Ireland LTD) The following revised and expanded edition was reprinted for controlled circulation at the Euro Conference `Crime prevention towards an European Level'

(The Hague May 1997) and for the 2nd Annual International CPTED Association Conference, Orlando Florida USA, december 1997.

1 Introduction

In 1996, the Dutch `Police Label Safe Housing' was introduced nationwide. The primary objective of the Safe Housing Label is to reduce crime (mainly burglary, car related crime, theft, vandalism, nuisance) and fear of crime through environmental design, architectural measures, and target hardening. The label is awarded by the police to new dwellings/housing estates having good crime preventive and fear reducing features. Obviously this police certificate gives recipients a marketing advantage in selling or renting these houses. The national introduction of the Safe Housing Label was preceded by an experimental period in one police region (Hollands Midden) and the roots of the scheme date back more than a decade. The Dutch `Police Safe Housing Label' can hardly be called a spectacular initiative in an international perspective. In 1989, the South-East Region Senior Crime Prevention Officers Conference (SERSCPOC) in the UK introduced their `Secured by Design' (SBD) scheme which is nowadays operated by most police forces in England and Wales. Looking at the quick and robust dissemination of this crime prevention innovation, the UK-SBD initiative by SERSCPOC was a huge succes. `If you can't pronounce them, join them', the Dutch seem to have concluded seven years later introducing their Police Label Safe Housing. However, taking a closer look at both police labels, some striking and interesting differences are revealed. Though the packaging looks alike, the content of the Dutch police label is quite different. Using Alexander's pattern language (Alexander, Ishikawa and Silverstein, 1977), the Dutch label focuses more on urban planning and landscaping, embodies to a larger extent the offenders' perspective and can be used more flexibly in dealing with site specific problems and solutions. Evaluating the UK Secured by Design scheme Pascoe (1992;1993;1993a) recommends: "returning to greater flexibility, shown by some of the designers, at the creation of the scheme. We suggest that this and other studies have identified the situational cues that an offender uses in his decision making. It is now possible to construct a risk model combining different patterns of cues to give an actual risk value for burglary for each specific building type, location and lay-out." By criticizing the fixed format, SBD has taken in application in the UK and showing that the offender perspective differs substantially from the SBD fixation on simple lay-out and target hardening measures, Pascoe is actually promoting the Dutch approach taken in the Police Label Safe Housing. The different approach followed by the Dutch is rooted in cultural differences between both countries, but also in the different routes followed to elaborate an environmental approach in crime prevention.

1

In this paper the route taken by the Dutch in the last 25 years to develop an environmental approach to crime prevention will be explored. Starting with a sketch of the well-planned man-made environment called the Netherlands (2), we will focus on the crime-boom which flooded the Netherlands between 1975 and 1985 and the policy reaction to this increase of crime (3). One of the directions given by the policy makers was an environmental approach. We will explore the way in which the Dutch in the mid-eighties have laid the foundation of this approach (4). Based on this foundation the Police Label Safe Housing as one of the instruments will be discussed (5). The Dutch Police Label reflects the more comprehensive foundation the Dutch laid compared with the British approach. The article concludes by mentioning some issues which have to be dealt in the Netherlands with in the future (6) and a recent CEN initiative (European Committee for Standardization) to develop an European standard on the prevention of crime by urban planning and building design (7).

2

2 The Netherlands: 15 million people flocking together below sealevel

While the Netherlands is a small country in terms of land mass (about a half percent of the surface of the U.S.) and number of inhabitants (15 million), it wins the competition for the most densely populated country in the world. This goes especially for the western part of the Netherlands where the four largest cities are located (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, the Hague and Utrecht) and where about 7 million people live. This part of the Netherlands has another unique characteristic: situated below sea level it is a completely man-made environment. From the 15th century onwards the Dutch literally conquered their land from the sea. Step by step marshes and lakes were drained and transformed into environments suitable to occupy. Planning and maintenance, e.g., of dikes, are crucial in such an artificial environment; no wonder spatial and urban planning have always been hot topics in Dutch society. Like many European countries the Netherlands faced a huge building program after the second world war. Many dwellings and most of the Dutch infrastructure were badly damaged during the war and demographically speaking one of the first results of peace was a baby boom. Between 1945 and 1970, about 2 million dwellings were built, which is one third of the total number of dwellings existing nowadays. It was a difficult task and the townplanners, architects and housing associations1 encountered many problems. One problem they did not reckon with was crime. However, 20 years after the baby-boom, crime boomed in the Netherlands.

1 Public housing takes about 40% of the Dutch housing stock. Unlike many other countries these houses are of very good quality, both social and contructural. 3

3 Crime

From 1945 until the sixties, crime rates in the Netherlands were among the lowest in the world, probably because of the specific social organization of Dutch society. Society was organized in three religious `pillars'. From top to bottom, each pillar consisted of a well knit and socially integrated network, maintaining strict control of the social behaviour of individuals within each pillar. At the same time, Dutch society in general was very liberal. `Live and let live' was the credo of this small merchandising country. Between 1960 and 1970, the pillar structure of Dutch society began to crumble. Young people born after the Second World War were brought up in an increasingly rich and affluent society. These youngsters ceased to follow the old religious cheerleaders: they wanted to enjoy freedom. In the beginning, no one noticed that this new individual freedom also had its disadvantages. Crime was one of them. From the sixties onward crime rates increased: between 1970 and 1995, the total number of recorded crimes rose from less than 200 thousand to 1.3 million

This dramatic increase took place mainly between 1975 and 1985. After 1985, the number of recorded crimes was still growing but at a much slower pace. The number of crimes solved by the police has been more constant and has even slightly decreased in recent years. In the last few years about 250.000 crimes (20%) were reported solved. 4

Nationwide victim surveys which are carried out on a yearly basis since 1980 show more or less the same trend: a small rise in the total victim percentage (all crimes) between 1980 and 1985, followed by a stabilization in the next decade and very

5

recently the first signs of a decreasing number of crimes/victims. The strong increase in the Dutch crime rate between 1975 and 1985 was spectacular even in an international perspective. It has resulted in the Netherlands ranking somewhere in the middle between low crime countries like Japan and high crime countries like the USA (Van Dijk and Mayhew, 1996). The rising crime also had an effect on the levels of fear of crime. Though crime and fear of crime are not causally related, it is obvious that the enormous rise in crime also augmented levels of fear. Between 1960 and 1980, no one reacted to the emerging crime problem in the Netherlands. The problem was ignored and the first whistle blowers were ridiculed. Eventually, the response was simple and took two forms: 1 the political solution: more police trying to tackle crime in a repressive fashion; 2 the reaction of individual members of society was to reinforce their defences against crime, using locks, bars, bolts, alarms and other physical means. In the eighties the conclusion was reached that a more integrated approach was necessary. The old reactive (repressive) approach was merged with a pro-active (preventive) approach to the problem. Furthermore it was recognized that tackling crime was more than opening yet another container full of police officers. The origins of crime and the possibilities to prevent it involved nearly every sector of society: schools, youthwork, welfare and...housing, landscaping and urban planning. The governmental policy plan `Society and Crime' issued in 1985 gave three policy directions. 1 Modifying the physical design of urban environments to ensure that surveillance of potential offenders is facilitated and opportunities for crime are reduced. 2 Reintroducing in all vulnerable environments, (e.g., shopping malls, public transport, and high rise buildings), persons who, as part of their job, exercise surveillance (shop assistants, train and bus conductors, janitors, park wardens and others). 3 Strengthening the bonds between the younger generation and society, particularly through the family, the school, leisure activities, and employment. Pinpointing the built environment for crime prevention (see policy target 1) was undertaken in many countries. However, in most countries this resulted in a strategy essentially aiming at a stronger technical/physical defense of buildings. The Dutch answer was probably more comprehensive.

6

4

Comprehensive environmental approach

4.1

The learning years

In the beginning of the eighties, the Dutch departments of Housing, Urban Planning and the Environment, and Justice and Internal affairs joined in a number of studies and publications on crime and built environment, which finally resulted in the first policy aim mentioned above in the governmental policy plan `Society and Crime' (1985). First the experiences and theories developed in other countries (mainly USA, UK, Germany, France) were studied. These studies showed that there was an astonishing pile of research, experiments, theories and evaluation-studies published on the issue of environmental crime prevention. Probably even more astonishing was the fact that with a few exceptions (Rubenstein, et al., 1980; Motoyama, Rubenstein and Hartjens, 1980) this enormous mountain of knowledge was never summarized in a neat and understandable fashion. Probably this was due to the fact that the pile of literature strongly resembled a kind of 'Tower of Babel' manned by researchers and practitioners each speaking their own paradigmatical language. In an ultimate effort to learn from past and foreign experiences, a publication was issued in which seven theoretical streams/schools were distinguished (Van Soomeren, 1987). In 60 well illustrated pages every `school' - each consisting of several authors, researchers and experiences/evaluations - was explained and criticized2. The result is categorized in the scheme (see following page). A bird's-eye view of the literature summarized in the scheme shows that: 1 part of the literature takes an offender-oriented perspective (Chicagoschool/Geographical school) while others focus on the built environment itself (Romantic school, Oscar Newman, Rock Hard school); 2 within most of the literature/schools several scale levels are treated: • districts; • neighborhoods; • environment/public space; • building; • building elements (doors, windows, etc).

2 A summary was presented at the major crime prevention Conference organized by the CLRAE (Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe) in Barcelona in 1987. A slightly revised edition of this Barcelona paper will be available at the Euro Conference `Crime prevention towards an European Level' (May 12-14th, The Hague). 7

School:

Chicagoschool USA; 1920

Romantic school USA; 1961

Newman the Young USA; 1972

Newman the Purified USA; 1980

Situational approach UK; 1980

Spatial school USA; 1980

Rock hard school World wide since 10.000 B.C.

Authors:

Shaw and McKay

Jacobs, Wood

Newman

Newman

Clarke, Mayhew and others

Brantingham and Brantingham and others

Key work:

Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas

The Death and Life of Great American cities

Defensible space

Community of interest

Designing out crime

Area of interest:

Residence of juvenile offenders

Unsafe city streets. Crime site in relation to surrounding buildings.

Architectural design of unsafe estates. Physical possibilities for control.

The physical setting of social communities

Crime specific. Criminal acts resulting from offenders meeting or seeking opportunities. Physical and social environment.

Environmental criminology Analysis of the location of crimes, to sort out patterns in the `where, when and how' of crime

Physical strength of objects or parts of buildings

Main questions:

Where do Juvenile offenders live? Why do they live there?

How to give city streets good crime preventional qualities?

Does a different housing design gives residents possibilities for exercising informal control over their environment?

See: Newman 1972

How to reduce opportunities for offenders?

Where does crime occur? Why there?

How to prevent (by physical means) people from breaking or demolishing an object or a building

Answer/theory:

Where: Zonal model of Urban form (Burgess/Park). Highest number of delinquents living in the concentric zone adjacent to the central business district (zone of transition/slums). Rates declining with increasing distance outwards. Why there: Social disorganization. Youth learn criminal behaviour from peers.

1. A clear demarcation between public and private space 2. Eyes on the street (eyes of residents and eyes of people passing by). Buildings orientated to the street. 3. Streets must be busy and used continuously. Night shops, pubs, bars, etc. can create late hour activity.

Defensible space = natural surveillance coupled with residents feelings of territoriality

Informal control will flourish in a residential environment whose physical characteristics allow inhabitants to ensure their own security. Community of interest (grouping of life-styles)

Prevention strategies are different for each type or crime. In general: 1. Target hardening 2. Target removal 3. Removing the means to crime 4. Reducing the pay-off 5. Formal surveillance 6. Natural surveillance 7. Surveillance by employees 8. Environmental management

Without offenders no crime. Offenders make rational choices. Attention has to be paid to the decision making process of an offender This process however is time/ spatially constrained: offenders prefer to operate in areas they know. So crime risks are highest along movement paths of offenders (e.g. home leisure) and on borderlines of affluent districts (where a lot of offenders reside)

Target hardening and alarmsystems. Strength of the target has to keep pace with: - the offenders profit when he succeeds after all (Fort Knox high profit --> this target must be quite hardened) - time needed to react (police, neighbours, employees, etc.)

Critique/remarks:

Research in Europe showed totally different pattern of residence. Danger of ecological fallacy.

Research proved Jacobs 'safe streets' to be unsafe! More people = more trouble (especially pubs/ bars). Physical determinism. See also Newman critique

Changing the physical environment does not necessarily result in different response to crime. The offender is neglected: how does he perceive D.S.; there are always ways to avoid surveillance. Methodological errors in research.

Again: too much physical (or architectural) determinism. Offender still neglected. Strange: Newman 1980 causes little debate; is neglected or unknown in most European countries.

In the eighties the opportunity-focused Situational approach and the Spatial school become strongly intermingled. See e.g. Clarke and Cornish 1985 (Modelling Offenders' Decisions): Criminal behaviour is seen as the outcome of the offender's broadly rational choices and decisions (not only spatial choices and decisions!).

See: Situational approach

Displacement of crime. Creates Bunker environment. Target hardening can promote fear of crime.

Most useful application:

Preventing youngsters from initial involvement in crime

Reduction of fear of crime by promoting community life

Creating better possibilities for natural surveillance and thus reduce feelings of insecurity. Effects on offenders seem to be at best moderate

See: Newman 1972

Preventing a specific form of crime in a very practical (manageable) way. Fear of crime is hardly incorporated in the theory.

Predicting which areas or routes are at risk; modelling offender's decisions by physical environmental changes makes rational crime policy (displacement policy) possible.

Preventing victimization in particular case.

4.2

The years of elaboration and experimenting

Elaborating the physical possibilities for crime prevention was- as in many countries- of course, one of the topics from the mid-eighties onwards. Police crime prevention officers, security specialists, and building research institutes took the lead in detailing and elaborating target hardening. Many brochures and books were issued. Following a series of manuals issued by the Dutch Building Research Institute (Van Soomeren en Stienstra, 1995), target hardening was mostly approached in a site- or building-type specific fashion: dwellings, shops, offices, industrial buildings/estates, and schools. This approach makes it possible to base target hardening on scientific riskassessment research. The long Dutch tradition of several types of victim surveys (e.g. households, retailers, profit sector, schools) is, of course, a prerequisite for such an approach (Eijken and Meijer, 1995). However, one of the main conclusions drawn from the studies done in the `learning years' (see 4.1) was the importance of incorporating the offender perspective in an environmental approach. Taking this conclusion seriously, the National Crime Prevention Bureau started in the mid- eighties an action research program in collaboration with the police on burglary and burglars in dwellings. Besides fact-finding on burglary the main objective was to develop methods and techniques that can be used by the police to do local research on burglary (a `do it yourself research kit'). One part of the project consisted of interviewing apprehended burglars (by crime prevention officers). Following a pilot phase (38 interviews), an extensive questionnaire was developed including topics like background factors, initial involvement, desistance from burglary, selection of time, neighborhood, site, dwelling, entrance and tools, fencing and attitudes towards burglary, society, work etc. A total of 106 interviews was completed (Korthals Altes en Van Soomeren, 1989; Van Dijk, Van Soomeren en Partners, 1991). Again one can see the typical integrated Dutch approach in which the social and physical environment influencing offenders behaviour and perceptions are merged. From this research- which was later followed by offense/offender research on for example theft from cars (Hesseling, 1995) and commercial burglary (Kruissink, 1996)- the police officers doing the interviews learned straight from the horse's mouth how burglars operate, how they select their targets, and which cues and features they prefer or dislike. The knowledge gained from abroad combined with this type of practical action research learning was used in projects subsidized by the `Society and Crime funding.' Following the national policy plan `Society and Crime', a fund was established to subsidize promising demonstration projects. Between 1985 and 1990, more than 200 projects were mounted on all the topics mentioned in the policy plan. Several projects were aimed at crime prevention through environmental design. Having learned from experiences abroad (see scheme), nearly all of these environmental projects were of an integrated nature, that is to say, the offender perspective was seldom forgotten. The environmental crime prevention projects were deliberately aimed at the different scale levels which proved (see conclusion 2 drawn from scheme) to 9

be important in planning and designing the built environment. Looking back at this period of experimental projects, two approaches can be distinguished: • the checklist approach; • the counselling approach. In the checklist approach all energy was devoted to the production and testing of lists and booklets summarizing good and bad design features from the crime preventive and fear reducing point of view. Each checklist which was developed was then disseminated or even forced upon planners and designers. Often their reaction was negative because they had other priorities. Planners and architects often looked down on those pessimistic crime fighters speaking a completely different language of burglary, robbery, and fear. As in most countries, the checklist approach was successful as far as small scale and technical solutions like target hardening, and lighting were concerned. On the higher scale levels, like urban/district planning, neighborhood design and landscaping, it proved impossible to mould crime prevention into simple do's and don'ts. Here the counselling approach proved to be more successful. In this approach crime prevention counsellors with a strong academic and practical background in planning and architecture worked within the designers' teams. What they actually did was rather simple: always looking at the bright designs from the dark side of fear and offending, thus counterbalancing the creative optimism designers must have. This approach was costly though, because it absolutely needed flexible crime experts perfectly speaking design and planning language. Police officers trying to do this job lacked the knowledge and expertise to come up with new and better solutions from a crime preventive angle. They strictly held on to their checklists or training courses .... don't, don't, don't. Hence, this period of experimenting led to the conclusion that the checklistand counselling approach each had their strong and weak points, connected with the scale level and planning phase an approach was aiming at.The highest scale level and rather abstract phase of planning (town- or district planning) were served better by the flexible counselling approach. The smaller scale level (building design, construction) was better served by a clear and detailed checklist. The counselling approach spoke in terms of patterns, mental mapping (of offenders and victims), and geographical circulation, while the checklist approach stressed the importance of visibility/surveillance, accessibility, and vulnerability. By the end of this decade of elaborating and experimenting, it was recognized that one had to take both approaches into consideration to built an effective model for environmental crime and fear reduction. The building stones for this model were summarized by Van der Voordt en Van Wegen (1991) as: • the presence of potential offenders; • the presence of `social eyes', exercising surveillance and control; • visibility (e.g., lighting, layout of buildings, landscaping); 10

• involvement/responsibility of occupants; • esthetical attractiveness (beauty) of buildings and landscape for the inhabitants; • accessibility and escape routes used by offenders; • attractiveness of a potential target for offenders; • physical vulnerability of a potential target. So by the beginning of the nineties, the Dutch environmental approach to crime prevention and fear reduction had taken shape. It was certainly not a simple approach only focusing on easy target hardening and layout measures. Instead, the Dutch approach can be summarized as practical but also comprehensive, taking into account the offenders, victims, and people controlling the environment (from residents to police officers).

11

5 The police label safe housing

By the end of the eighties, an important change slowly became apparent: the enormous housing shortage which had existed since the Second World War gradually disappeared. So the suppliers' market in which private investors, housing associations, architects and planners sold and rented everything they designed, changed to a demand market in which residents could choose following their preferences. A safe and secure environment and dwelling proved to be one of the main preferences. Meanwhile a new generation of Dutch Crime Prevention Officers was searching for new remedies to find a way to bring in their special expertise on crime and crime prevention in the planning process. Dutch police officers went to the UK to contact Sussex Police, one of the initiators of Secured by Design. The Dutch police officers were interested in the SBD-initiative because, as it turned out, this system actually offered an incentive to secure designing and building. And in Holland police officers longed for a structural influence in planning processes. Translating Secured by Design into Dutch was considered. However, the approach taken in the UK looked a bit thin in the light of the Dutch experiences summarized in section 4. The SBD-scheme in the UK did not really incorporate the higher levels of urban, district, and landscape planning, the offender perspective was missing and the SBD-scheme was certainly not flexible enough to be used in a site- or environment specific way. In short the SBD-scheme did not fit Dutch planning practice and did not fit the experiences the Dutch crime prevention officers had. So it was decided to develop a new content using the packaging of the SBDlabel, which was essentially considered good and very valuable. In a joint effort the Steering Committee for Public Housing Experiments, the Ministries of Justice and Internal Affairs, and private consultants of Van Dijk, Van Soomeren en Partners backed the initiative taken by police officers from the police region `Hollands-Midden' (the triangle Rotterdam-Leiden and the Hague). The language of the architectural world was chosen to develop the guidelines for crime prevention and fear reduction. The mission was to develop guidelines for houses as well as guidelines for the environment; so both architectural and landscape/planning level. But the Dutch approach did not only differ from UK Secured by Design in this respect. Because a wider focus was used, a broader theoretical basis was needed. This basis was found in the research summarized in section 4 in combination with the pattern language developed by Christopher Alexander et al. in the seventies. This pattern language formed the structure for the Dutch Safe Housing label, while the knowledge drawn from the crime specific literature summarized in the scheme (see section 4) can be seen as the content. In one respect the UK and Dutch labels did not differ: the Dutch label - as well as the 12

British - is aimed at activating and supporting the client (from private investor and owner to housing association). In the end it has to be the client who demands safety and security to be produced as much as possible by architects and urban planners. The new label only helps to formulate these demands in a more clear and controllable fashion. In this respect the police label is only a means to improve communication between clients and architects/planners. 5.1

The manual

To compile the guidelines for the Safe Housing Label Manual (Korthals Altes en Woldendorp, 1994), 55 patterns of design elements were distilled out of Alexander's work that could have possible crime preventive and fear reducing effects. Crime as well as fear of crime are not isolated acts or feelings but can be seen as processes; a result of a series of spatial patterns. For the sake of analogy with the planning process, and after Alexander's example, the 55 patterns summarized in the manual have been arranged from the high to the small scale levels. So one can see the approach taken in the manual as a fall from a parachute: just after jumping one has a good overall view of the area, later on more and more details are revealed. In the manual there are five levels on which patterns are to be distinguished: 1 district planning (size of the district, density, height and scale, access to the district by car and bicycle); 2 building lay out (estates, semi-detached houses, single-family terraced houses in block allotment or strip allotment, inner grounds, enclosed squares); 3 specific functions within the residential environment (parking in open air, private garages, playing facilities, tunnels and subways busstops, backpassages etc); 4 residents' participation and responsibility (neighborhood management, home watch, maintenance, supervision, etc); 5 building design (orientation living rooms, low roofs, main entrance, target hardening, etc.). While jumping, the police officers can use the Safe Housing Label Manual as an automatic safety device which forces them to open their parachutes at the earliest time possible. Acting too late - e.g., only checking target hardening of the houses - makes it impossible to gather enough points to award the Safe Housing Label, because in descending through the five levels and 55 patterns, each pattern has to be checked (okee: 1 point; not okee: 0 points). Having landed on the ground, a fixed minimum of points must have been scored. In the manual every pattern is treated on one page using a very strict page format: • The pattern is explained: name, example (picture), type of offense the pattern is aiming at and key issue (as summarized by Van der Voordt and Van Wegen, see end of section 4). • The objective - `what is to be reached' - is given. • The objective is then elaborated in more concrete terms : `how to reach the 13

objective'. Here two columns are used. The first column gives the basic point and in a second colomn an extra point is given (`even better is ....'). Earning extra (bonus) points is important because it helps to reach the fixed minimum threshold. • At each page the relation with other patterns is indicated. This small but important detail makes it possible to look where and how compensation can be found. • Last but not least a distinction is made between patterns (pages) which have to be met for 100% (hence: obligatory requirements) and pages which in sum only need a 60% score. Hence, the manual is extremely structured but at the same time proves to be flexible in negotiations with architects and planners. 5.2

Process

When housing project developers or housing associations apply for a Police Label Safe Housing, their building project and its environment must meet certain requirements. The label, which actually is more a logotype, may be used only after the police has granted its permission. This permission cannot be given for a part of the project; it is all or nothing. Police officers are, of course, not designers: they are not supposed to make plans, but they have to check them for the patterns summarized in the manual. Therefore, police officers have to be trained to learn a flexible way of thinking, which is hard for a group that is famous for a rather rigid thinking pattern. Backed by the rigid structure of the manual, the police officers can negotiate with architects, planners and builders. Together they will find enough flexibility in the manual. This flexibility is generated by: • the combination of an objective (what) stated in rather broad terms and the concrete elaboration (how). When there is doubt on one of the elaborated guidelines it is always possible to return to the objective and find an alternative solution; • the system of basic points and extra (bonus) points which can provide compensation to reach the total score threshold; • the relation between different patterns/pages which is indicated in the manual thus opening the door to yet another way of compensating for weak features in a plan or project.

5.3

Evaluation

In 1995 the first version of the label was evaluated. The evaluation was based on the first projects which were built using the Safe Housing Label. This evaluation focused on questions like: • How do architects, urban designers, and project developers use the manual? • Are the requirements valid? 14

• Are there patterns missing or obsolete? • Can the label be introduced throughout the Netherlands in 1996? At first especially urban designers and architects were afraid of the consequences for the esthetic features of their designs. Now that they are acquainted with the manual and the labelling process, their fears have not only vanished, but even turned into acceptance and enthusiasm: in one of the first experiments the architect mentioned that his design even became more coherent after using the guidelines from the Police Label Safe Housing.

15

6

Threats, challenges and possibilities

6.1

A process, not a product

Seeing the Safe Housing Label as a good and finished product is probably the biggest threat. After the nationwide introduction the label will no doubt be successful and effective but after a few years the effect will begin to wane due to the fact that crime patterns, perceptions and working methods of offenders will change, not to mention the changes in planning, architecture, and building which will take place. Hence, like every product, a crime prevention initiative like the Safe Housing Label also follows a normal life cycle (Berry and Carter 1992). When the effects of an initiative have `bottomed out', police management will have to make a reasoned decision to extend the life of their product by measures as re-launching, inputting additional resources, or innovation of the Safe Housing Label. However, it would be even wiser to define the label and manual right from the start as a process instead of a finished product. The process consists of the structured negotiations between police officers and architect/planners aimed at combining the best of knowledge and efforts from both expert worlds to prevent crime and reduce fear. In this respect it is useful to keep the roots of the label and manual in mind (see section 4): • research on environmental crime prevention; • site- and building type specific crime analysis; • the incorporation of the offender's perspective and working methods (the `prevention interviews' of offender's by police officers).

6.2

Continual approvement through evaluation, analyses and offender research

The crime analyses and offender interviewing must be seen as an essential part to keep the Safe Housing Label up to date within a changing (criminal) environment. Hence, the big challenge is not only to `sell' more and more Safe Housing Labels but also to develop a system - a continual research process - by which systemized police knowledge on crime risks, offender perceptions, and offender working methods is used to constantly adapt the Safe Housing Label. Part of this system should be a careful and constant evaluation of the risks encountered by labelled houses/environments and non-labelled ones. The Safe Housing Label and the manual can be seen as the tip of an iceberg. Looking at the shining and impressive top, only few will realize that an even more impressive base below the surface is keeping the top afloat. This base consists of the continual analyses of crime risks and offenders.

16

One can seriously doubt if police management will in the long run be able to devote enough energy and expertise to develop the maintenance system sketched above needed to keep the label in gear with societal and criminal changes. However, in the years to come the future for the Dutch Police Label Safe Housing looks promising. The well structured label and manual proves to be working well as a means of communication between police- and housing/environmental experts. Furthermore, there is enough flexibility built into the manual to effectively adapt to local- and site-specific differences. 6.3

A label for existing environments

Based on the experience with the Safe Housing Label for new housing recently a second label was published for existing houses and neighborhoods along the same lines. This label will enable police officers to structure the negotiations on safety and security with the array of actors involved in the maintenance of existing houses/dwellings, estates, environments and neighborhoods. Because crime prevention in environments which already exists involves more actors having vested interests it was decided to break up the label for existing housing in three different certificates: Type of certificate 1 Dwelling 2 Complex/estate 3 Environment/neighbourhood

Main actor Household owning or renting a dwelling Housing association, group of owners Local authorities

Hence, for each scale level the most appropriate - or potentially motivated actor is given the possibility to apply for a certificate. Once all three certificates are obtained by 60% of all dwellings and 60% of all complexes in a neighbourhood the `Label for safe housing in a existing area' is awarded by the police. Like the Safe Housing Label for new housing/environments which is actively backed by all key actors (police, housing authorities and ministries) the label for existing housing/environments was published in a positive context of powerful support from all key actors. Probably this is the most striking difference when looking back 10-15 years. In 1980, the first whistle blowers who were pointing at the problem of crime were ridiculed: crime prevention and especially environmental crime prevention was a field explored by only a few, while nowadays Dutch experts, managers, politicians, and practitioners from all sectors and professions are working in the same direction to prevent crime.

17

7 An European initiative for standardization

The final declaration of an international conference on `the reduction of urban insecurity' (Barcelona 1987) organized by the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) stated: "There is a direct correlation between crime and housing, in terms of its layout, standards, maintenance and types of management. (.....) Yet despite this realisation, urban planning and design have until comparatively recently paid little attention to safety in cities and few professionals have any training or experience in planning and designing for safe and secure communities." "It should be appreciated that although city planning cannot influence the criminal intentions of people, it can play a role in shaping or cutting down the opportunities, e.g. through better streetlighting, better maintenance and choice of materials to avoid vandalism, better parking areas. There is a pool of untapped experience available among the agencies concerned with safety, police, fire brigade and social services, which could be utilised by the planning, housing, highway and transport authorities." (Barcelona, 1997) More or less the same recommendations were given in the final declaration following the CLRAE conference on `Crime and Urban Insecurity: the role and responsibilities of local and regional authorities' (Erfuhrt, 1997). One new recommendation was to "take particular steps to improve the physical urban environment (lighting, open space, reduction of graffiti, litter) in the belief that an unsatisfactory environment is one of the causes of crime; and prepare and distribute explanatory brochures for the public on such causal relationships". If local authorities, designers, police and housing experts follow this kind of recommendations all over Europe, it is of the utmost importance that these specialists have one set of assessment methods and requirements at their disposal. Recently the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) installed a technical committee (TC 325) for: "The preparation of European Standards on urban planning and building design to provide methods of assessment and performance requirements for the prevention of crime in residential areas at new and existing housing including local activities in order to ensure safety and comfort and to minimise fear of violence. Standards on building products and security devises are excluded. The standards will include their area of application, the corresponding security strategy, security levels, building layout, application of construction elements, roads an paths and crime preventive lighting." CEN/TC325 has three working groups covering terminology, urban planning 18

and building design. For all European countries it would be important to have an European standard on the prevention of crime by urban planning and building design. Such a standard would not only ease communication between all actors and countries on this topic; it would also make it possible to draw upon one standard body of knowledge, methods of assessment and performance requirements.

References

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S. and Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language. New York: Oxford University Press. Berry, G. and Carter, M. (1992). Assessing crime prevention initiatives: The first steps. London: Home Office, Crime Prevention Unit. Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, CLRAE (1987). Local Strategies for the reduction of urban insecurity in Europe. Barcelona, November 1987. Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, CLRAE (1997). Crime and urban insecurity in Europe: the role and responsibilities of local and regional authorities. Erfuhrt, February 1997. Eijken, T.W.M. and Meijer, R.F. (1995). Prevalence and prevention of crime against businesses in The Netherlands. Security J., 6(1), 37-46. Hesseling, R. (1995). Theft from cars: Reduced or displaced? European. J. on Crim. Policy and Res., 3(3), 79-92. Korthals Altes, H.J. en Van Soomeren, P. (1989). Modus operandi woninginbraken. Den Haag: Bureau Landelijk Coördinator Voorkoming Misdrijven. Korthals Altes, H.J. en Woldendorp, T. (1994). Handboek Politiekeurmerk Veilig Wonen. Rotterdam: Stuurgroep Experimenten Volkshuisvesting. (in december 1995 the police label was introduced throughout the country supported by all police forces and the Ministry of Internal Affairs). Kruissink, M. (1996). Commercial burglary: A survey of offenders, police reports and victimized establishments. Security J. (this issue) Motoyama, T., Rubenstein, H. and Hartjens, P. (1980). The link between crime and the built environment (Vol. II): Methodological reviews of individual crime-environment studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

19

Pascoe, T. (1992). Secured by Design: A crime prevention philosophy. Cranfield: Cranfield Institute of Technology. Pascoe, T. (1993). Domestic burglaries: The burglars view. Garston: Building Research Establishment (BRE Information paper 19/1993). Pascoe, T. (1993a). Domestic burglaries: The police view. Garston: Building Research Establishment (BRE Information paper 19/1993). Rubenstein, H., Murray, C. Motoyama, T., Rouse, W.V., and Titus, R.M. (1980). The link between crime and the built environment (Vol. 1). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Van Der Voordt, D.J.M. en Van Wegen, H.B.R. (1991). Sociaal veilig ontwerpen: Checklist ten behoeve van het ontwikkelen en toetsen van (plannen voor) de gebouwde omgeving. Delft: Technische Universiteit, Faculteit der Bouwkunde. Van Dijk, J.J.M. and Mayhew, P. (1996). Victimization by crime in an international perspective: Key findings of the International Crime Surveys 1988-1994. Amsterdam/New York: Kugler/Criminal Justice Press. Van Dijk, Van Soomeren en Partners (1991). Woninginbraak: Motieven en werkwijzen vanuit daderperspectief. Den Haag: Ministerie van Justitie, Directie Criminaliteitspreventie. Van Soomeren, P. (1987) Criminaliteit en Gebouwde Omgeving. Den Haag: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (VROM) Van Soomeren, P. en Stienstra, H. (1995). Beveiliging van gebouwen: eengezinswoningen, meergezinswoningen, winkels, kantoren, bedrijfsgebouwen en -terreinen, scholen, en wijkcentra (vols 1-7). Rotterdam: Stichting Bouwresearch. Van Soomeren, p. and Woldendorp, T. (1996). Secured by Design in the Netherlands. Security Journal, 7, 185-195.

20