Reevaluating SecuredbyDesign(SBD) Housing InWestYorkshire

March2009

APROJECTFINANCEDBYWESTYORKSHIREPOLICE, ACPOCPIANDTHEUNIVERSITYOFHUDDERSFIELD ANDCOORDINATEDBY:

ReportwrittenbyDr.RachelArmitageandLeanneMonchuk

APROJECTINPARTNERSHIPWITH WESTYORKSHIREPOLICEANDACPOSBD

Acknowledgements

MichelleRogersonSeniorResearchFellow(UniversityofHuddersfield). NeilHudsonIntelligenceAnalyst(WestYorkshirePolice). MichaelBrookeForceArchitecturalLiaisonOfficer(WestYorkshirePolice). TheSBDandnonSBDresidentswhotookpartinthesurvey.

Queensgate,Huddersfield,HD13DH Telephone01484422288 www.hud.ac.uk ThispublicationisthecopyrightoftheUniversityofHuddersfieldandmaynotbe reproducedinwholeorinpartwithoutpermissionfromtheuniversityand acknowledgementofthesource. CopyrightUniversityofHuddersfield2010

TableofContents
ExecutiveSummary Introduction Methodology ReviewofLiterature AnalysisofPoliceRecordedCrime ReevaluatingtheOriginalSample AnalysisofSelfReportedCrime VisualAudits Repeatvictimisation ReviewoftheLiterature SecuredbyDesign(SBD) EvaluatingtheEffectivenessofSBD SecuredbyDesigninWestYorkshire Repeatvictimisation Findings PoliceRecordedCrimeData SelfReportedCrime RepeatvictimisationandSecuredbyDesign VisualAudits ConclusionandRecommendations Appendices Appendix1:ResidentsSurvey Appendix2:VisualAuditSchedule Appendix3:ForceArchitecturalLiaisonOfficerLetter References

5 9 12 12 12 15 16 18 20 21 21 22 29 30 32 32 44 50 51 75 83 83 90 91 97

ListofFigures
Figure 1: Burglary Rate on SBD Estates as a Proportion of NonSBD MatchedPairs. Figure 2: Crime Rates for the Two Time Periods for Matched Pair One (Halifax) Figure 3: Crime Rates for the Two Time Periods for Matched Pair Two (Leeds) Figure 4: Crime Rates on Both Matched Pairs as a Proportion of Total Crime(1999/2000) Figure 5: Crime Rates on Both Matched Pairs as a Proportion of Total Crime(2007/2008)

10 40 41 42 43

Figure 6: The Sustainability of Crime Reduction on Both Matched Pairs (1999/20002007/2008). Figure7:TotalScoresforSBDandNonSBDSamples. Figure8:TotalScoresforeachofthe32Developments Figure9:MatchedPairOne Figure10:LitteroutsidetheSBDDevelopmentonRyburnStreetPart oftheSykeLaneDevelopment Figure11:DamsonClose(SBD)ShowingNoSignsofDisorder Figure12:MatchedPairTwo Figure13:MatchedPairThree Figure14:NapierApartments(SBD)ShowingEvidenceofLighting,No GraffitiorLitter Figure15:FirStreetTheNonSBDComparison Figure16:GaragesatthebottomofFirStreet Figure17:MatchedPairFour Figure18:FencingatLongfieldClose(NonSBD) Figure19:LongfieldClose(SBD) Figure20:MatchedPairFive Figure21:KismetClose(SBD) Figure22:CrossleyGardens(NonSBD) Figure23:MatchedPairSix Figure24:MatchedPairSeven Figure25:AlpineClose(SBDDevelopment) Figure26:MatchedPairEight Figure27:PartofJarvisWalk Figure28:MatchedPairNine Figure29:EvidenceofVandalism,GraffitiandDesertionattheNonSBD DevelopmentLongCloseLane,Leeds Figure 30: Many of the Dwellings on Long Close Lane had Bars on WindowsandGrillsonDoors Figure31:MatchedPairTen Figure32:MatchedPairEleven Figure33:LitterinGardensoftheSBDDevelopment(CranbrookStreet) Figure34:LitteroutsidetheNonSBDDevelopment(CranbrookStreet) Figure35:MatchedPairTwelve Figure36:PartofMarySeacoleCourt(SBD) Figure37:MatchedPairThirteen Figure38:PartofKestrelClose(SBD) Figure39:MatchedPairFourteen Figure40:MatchedPairFifteen Figure41:MatchedPairSixteen Figure42:EvidenceoflitterintheSBDDevelopment(FeatherBank)

44 53 54 55 56 56 57 58 58 59 59 60 60 61 62 62 63 64 65 65 66 66 67 67 68 68 69 69 70 70 71 71 72 72 73 74 74

ListofTables
Table1:StreetsincludedintheSameStreetAnalysis Table2:16SixteenMatchedPairs Table3:19992009MatchedPairs Table4:NumberofResponsesfromEachMatchedPair Table 5: Crimes recorded in New SBD properties (August 2007 July 2008) Table6:SummaryofSBDVersusWestYorkshireFindings Table 7: Crimes committed within the Same Street sample by month (August2007July2008) Table 8: Crime Categories recorded within the Same Street sample (August2007July2008) Table 9: Number and Rate of crimes Recorded in the Matched Pairs sample(August2007July2008) Table10:CrimeRatesonMatchedPairOne(Halifax) Table11:CrimeRatesonMatchedPairTwo(Leeds) Table12:CrimeRatesonSBDDevelopments19992009 Table13:SummaryofExperiencesofCrime Table14:FeelingsofSafetyamongstSBDandNonSBDRespondents Table15:WorryaboutCrimeandDisorder Table16:ProblemsofCrimeandDisorder Table17:TotalScoresforeachofthe32Developments Table18:SummaryofSBDVersusWestYorkshireFindings Table19:NumberandRateofcrimesRecordedintheMatchedPairs sample(August2007July2008) Table20:TotalScoresforeachofthe32Developments

14 15 16 18 32 34 35 36 38 39 40 42 46 47 48 50 54 76 77 80

ExecutiveSummary
This evaluation of SBD housing within West Yorkshire was conducted by the Applied Criminology Centre at the University of Huddersfield, yet marks a truly collaborative effort between the research team and the West Yorkshire Police Force Architectural Liaison Officer (Michael Brooke) and West Yorkshire Police IntelligenceAnalyst(NeilHudson). The evaluation was conducted entirely independently with the methodology, data collection, data analysis and write up conducted by independent academic researchers. However, this would not have been possible without the detailed data recording practices of the Architectural Liaison team, or without the provision of crimedatafromthePoliceIntelligenceAnalyst. The report presents the findings of a reevaluation of SBD housing within West YorkshireconductedbetweenJanuaryandMarch2009.Theresearchbuildsuponthe originalevaluationofSBDhousinginWestYorkshire,whichwasconductedin1999. The project utilised a variety of methods to collect the data presented within the report.Thesewere: AreviewoftheliteraturerelatingtoSBDandtheprinciplesuponwhichitis based; An analysis of police recorded crime on three separate samples. The aim of thissectionofthereportwastoestablishwhetherSBDestatesexperienceless crimethantheirnonSBDcounterparts. 1) SBD Versus West Yorkshire (16 SBD developments compared with WestYorkshireasawhole); 2)SameStreetAnalysis(11developmentswhichcontainedbothSBDand nonSBDproperties)and 3)MatchedPairsAnalysis(16SBDand16nonSBDmatchedpairslocated ascloseaspossibletoeachother. Ananalysisofselfreportedcrime,disorderandfearofcrimeon16SBDand 16nonSBDmatchedpairsinanattempttoestablishwhetherSBDresidents experiencelessselfreportedexperiences,fearsandperceptionsofcrimeand disorderthantheirnonSBDcounterparts. Visual audits at 16 SBD and 16 nonSBD sites in an attempt to establish whether SBD estates experience less visual signs of disorder than their non SBDcounterparts. Revisitingasampleoftwodevelopmentsfromtheoriginal(1999)evaluation to establish whether the performance of SBD has improved, deteriorated or remainedthesame. The results were extremely positive with the findings from each strand of the analysissuggestingthatSBDdevelopmentsoutperformtheirnonSBDcounterparts intermsofthereductionofcrime,fearofcrimeandvisualsignsofdisorder.Thekey resultsaresummarisedbelow.

 PoliceRecordedCrime SBDVersusWestYorkshire When comparing the SBD sample (16 developments) with the rest of West Yorkshire, the results revealed very positive findings. All crime categories werelower(asarateper1000properties)thanthenonSBDsampleandwith the exception of vehicle crime; these differences were all statistically significant. Therewere5.8burglarydwellingoffencesper1000propertieswithintheSBD sample.Thisiscomparedto22.7(per1000properties)withinWestYorkshire asawhole,aburglaryrate74.54%higherwithinthenonSBDsample. There were only two burglaries within the SBD sample and analysis of the modusoperandirevealedthatoneoftheseoffenceswascommittedthroughan insecurefrontdoor,thesecondwasanattemptinwhichitappearsthateffort wasmadetoforceopenasidedoor,however,theoffenderwasunsuccessful. SameStreetAnalysis The analysis of same street data comparing SBD properties with nonSBD properties which form part of the same street or development (11 developmentsintotal),againrevealedverypositivefindings. A total of 105 crimes were committed within the same street sample between August 2007 and July 2008. Of these 105 offences, 93 were committed against nonSBD properties and 12 were committed against SBD properties.Thisequatestoarateof262.7crimesper1000householdswithin the nonSBD sample and 118.8 crimes per 1000 households within the SBD sample.Thisdifferenceinrateswasstatisticallysignificant(WilcoxonSigned RanksTestp<0.05). NoburglarydwellingswererecordedagainsttheSBDpropertieswithinthis sample; however, five were recorded against the nonSBD sample. With the exception of criminal damage, rates for all crime categories analysed were higherwithinthenonSBDsample. MatchedPairsAnalysis The evaluation also analysed crime data on 16 matched pairs the 16 SBD developmentsbuiltin2006/07andtheirnonSBDmatchedpairi.e.theclosest nonSBDdevelopment.Again,theresultswereverypositive. The analysis revealed that a total of 44 crimes were committed within the SBD sample during the time period analysed, this produced a rate of 128.7 per 1000 properties. This compares to 42 crimes committed on nonSBD streets,ahigherrateof166per1000properties. Rates of burglary dwelling offences were lower within the SBD sample 5.9 per1000dwellingsascomparedto7.9,aswerecriminaldamage(23.4against 47.5)andotheroffences(26.3against75.1). When comparing these findings with the results of 1999 evaluation, the resultsareextremelypositive.TheburglarydwellingratefortheSBDsample (per1000properties)forthisrecentstudywas5.9.Inthe1999evaluation,for the oneyear period April 1999 to March 2000, the rate was 22.7. The total
6

crime rate for the SBD sample for this recent study was 128.7, for the 1999/2000period,thiswas187.9offencesper1000dwellings. AnalysisofOriginalSample Theevaluationalso includedananalysisoftwo randomly selected matched pairstakenfromtheoriginalevaluationofSBDwithinWestYorkshire(1999). TheaimwastoestablishwhetherthecrimereductioneffectsofSBDhadbeen sustainedoveratenyearperiod. Theresultswereextremelypositiveandrevealedthatforbothmatchedpairs theSBDdevelopmentwasperformingeitherthesameorbetterthanthenon SBDdevelopmentforthetwotimeperiods1999/2000and2007/2008. For matched pair one (Halifax), crime levels on both the SBD and nonSBD development were the same in 1999/2000, yet by 2007/2008 the SBD development was outperforming the nonSBD development with just one crimeintheSBDdevelopment(takenwithoutownersconsentTWOC)and eight in the nonSBD development (three criminal damage to dwelling offences,onecriminaldamagetomotorvehicle,oneinterferencewithmotor vehicle,oneTWOC,oneassaultandonetheftnonspecific). For matched pair two (Leeds) the SBD development performed better than thenonSBDdevelopmentforbothtimeperiods.In1999/2000therewasone crime on the SBD development and five on the nonSBD development. In 2007/2008,therewerethreecrimesontheSBDdevelopment(assault,criminal damagetoadwellingandother)andsixonthenonSBDdevelopment(one burglary dwelling, one theft of vehicle, one TWOC, one assault and two criminaldamagetodwellingoffences). SelfReportedCrime The evaluation also conducted a survey of residents living on the 16 SBD developmentsaswellasthe16nonSBDmatchedpairs.Residentswereasked abouttheirexperiences,fearsandperceptionsofcrimeanddisorder. Thesurveywashanddeliveredto595residentsat342SBDand253nonSBD properties.68residentsreturnedthesurveyaresponserateof11%. Intermsofexperiencesofcrimeanddisorder,theresultsrevealedthatforall crime categories, the proportion of SBD respondents experiencing the crime waslowerthanthenonSBDsample.Forexample: o ThreepercentofSBDrespondentshadexperiencedatheftofvehicle offencewithinthepreviousyear;thiswascomparedto6%ofnonSBD respondents. o SixpercentofSBDrespondentshadexperiencedatheftfromvehicle within the previous year; this was compared to 17% of nonSBD respondents. o Three per cent of SBD respondents had experienced a burglary dwellingoffencewithinthepreviousyear;thiswascomparedto6%of nonSBDrespondents. In terms of feelings of safety, a higher proportion of SBD respondents felt either very or fairly safe walking alone in their area in the daytime (85%), comparedtononSBDrespondents(77%).
7

A higher proportion of SBD respondents felt very or fairly safe when at homealoneatnight(85%),comparedtononSBDrespondents(77%). Only 6% of residents were aware that their house had been designed to the SBD standard, 85% were not. This is only a slight improvement on the 5% whowereawarethattheirpropertyhadbeendesignedandbuilttotheSBD inthe1999evaluation.

VisualAudits Visualauditswerecarriedoutatthe16SBDand16nonSBDmatchedpairs. Eachofthe16SBDand16nonSBDpropertieswereassignedascoreof0to 140based upon thepresence or absenceoffactorssuchasgraffiti,litterand vandalism.Zerorepresentsthemostpositivescore,140theleastpositive. When the scores for each sample of 16 SBD and 16 nonSBD developments weretotalled,givingapossiblescoreof02240,theSBDsamplescoredlower than the nonSBD sample (317 as compared to 388), suggesting that there werelesssignsofvisualdisorderwithinthissample. Of the 16 matched pairs, three pairs revealed SBD to be performing worse than the nonSBD counterpart, one matched pair showed that both the SBD andnonSBDdevelopmentsscoredthesame,and12ofthe16showedSBDto beperformingbetterthanthenonSBDmatchedpair. Ofthefiveworstperformingdevelopments,onlyonewasSBD.However,of thefivebestperformingdevelopments,allfivewereSBD. RepeatVictimisation This study examined the levels of repeat victimisation focusing upon the performanceofSBDagainstitsnonSBDcounterpartsbywayofreferenceto recordedcrimedataforthematchedpairsampleof16SBDand16nonSBD developments. The results revealed that repeat victimisation was higher within the SBD samplewith35.7%ofcrimesagainsttheSBDsamplerepresentingarepeat offence,ascomparedto27.3%ofthecrimesagainstthenonSBDsample. Closerscrutinyoftherepeatvictimisationdatarevealedthatthemaincrime type impacting upon this increased level of repeat victimisation was assault and that one address in particular had suffered a high number of repeat assaultcrimes. Excluding assaults from the data revealed that whilst the percentage of crimes experienced which were repeat offences remained at 27.3% for the nonSBD sample, the proportion of repeat victimisations within the SBD samplereducedfrom35.7%to11.9%.

Introduction
This report presents the findings of the reevaluation of SBD housing within West Yorkshire, conducted between January and March 2009. The research builds upon the original evaluation of SBD housing in West Yorkshire which was conducted in 1999. Therationaleforconductingthisevaluationwasthreefold.ThefirstwasthatinJune 2008,QuaverLaneinBradfordbecamethe10,000thSBDpropertytobebuiltinWest Yorkshire, making West Yorkshire the county with the largest number of SBD properties outside of London. Naturally, the meeting of this milestone led West Yorkshire Police toreassess their performance asanArchitectural Liaisonresource. Thesecondrationalewasthat2009markedthetenyearanniversaryoftheoriginal evaluation, which had received considerable attention because of its encouraging findings.Thefinalandmostsignificantrationalewasbasedontheneedtoupdate thefindingsoftheoriginalevaluationwhichhadutilisedasamplebuiltpriortothe introductionofkeychanges in thestandard ofSBD,aswellastheprocessthrough which it is managed and implemented. The original evaluation of SBD housing withinWestYorkshire(1999)lookedat: Whetheror not properties built to theSBD standardexperienced lesscrime thantheirnonSBDcounterparts. Whether or not residents living in SBD properties experienced less fear of crimethantheirnonSBDcounterparts. Whether SBD was simply displacing crime, for example, burglary within a dwellingmaybereducing,yetvehiclecrimeincreasing(asoffendersstruggle tosuccessfulbreakintoproperties). WhetherornottheSBDstandardwasimproving. The literature review outlines the findings of the original study in some detail, however it is appropriate at this stage to explain the basics of the methodology previously used. The analysis within the original evaluation included three major strands. The first looked at police recorded crime and compared SBD properties against nonSBD properties to establish whether there was a significant difference between the crime rates within these matched pairs. The second utilised the same sample, but instead of looking at police recorded crime, this utilised a survey of residentswhowerepersonallyaskedabouttheexperiences,fearsandperceptionsof crimeanddisorderwithintheirarea.ThefinalstrandlookedatwhetherSBDestates builtmorerecentlywereperformingbetterthanolderestates. Although the findings were extremely positive, one of the major weakness as time has progressed is that the sample of estates utilised in the study were all built between1994and1998.Thestudywasconductedin1999andresidentshadtohave been living within the developments for at least one year to ensure that there was sufficientcrimedatatovalidatetheanalysis.Therefore,developmentsbuiltpost1998 wereexcluded.Unfortunately,manychangesintheSBDstandardwereintroduced in1999.TheseincludethestandardsBS7950forwindowsandPAS24fordoors.The period post 1998 also saw many changes in the way that SBD was managed and

implemented both in West Yorkshire as well as nationally. This meant that even though the findings were extremely positive, they were reporting on the performance of the standard before it was improved (and therefore presenting a worstcasescenario). AswellasthechangestotheSBDstandard,thefindingsalsorevealedaninteresting pattern which suggested that the original evaluation was not presenting the most accuratepictureofSBDpost1999. In an attempt to establish whether the performance of SBD was improving, the burglaryratesofSBDestatesbuiltin1994throughto1998werecomparedwiththeir nonSBD matched pair. The burglary rate of each SBD pair was expressed as a percentage of its nonSBD matched pair. These percentages were then aggregated accordingtotheyearinwhichtheSBDestatewasbuilt,givingameanpercentagefor eachyearthisbeingthepercentageofburglarywithintheSBDsampleascompared to the nonSBD sample. The results revealed a year on year improvement in SBDs performance.ThemeanburglaryrateforSBDestatesbuiltin1994was171%ofthe burglary rate for NonSBD estates built in 1994 a disappointing comparison and one which suggests that SBD estates were not achieving any crime reduction benefits. The mean burglary rate for SBD estates built in 1995 was 130% of the burglaryrate forNonSBDestatesbuilt in 1995. For estates built in 1996, thefigure was 97%, for 1997 the figure was 51% and for SBD estates built in 1998, the mean burglary rate was 45% of the burglary rate for the NonSBD matched pairs. These results suggest that until 1996, the SBD estates were actually experiencing more burglarythantheirmatchedpairsinthecaseofestatesbuiltin1994,almosttwiceas much!Thegraphbelowillustratesthefindings.

Figure1:BurglaryRateonSBDEstatesasaProportionofNonSBDMatchedPairs.
SBD as an Evolving Standard

Burglary Rate on SBD E state as a Proportion of Rate on NonSBD M atched Pair

180%

160%

140%

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% 1994 1995 1996 Year Estate was Built 1997 1998

10

Given that the SBD scheme had improved so dramatically within that fiveyear period, it is anticipatedthat, post1999, thescheme will have continued to improve eitheratthesamerate,ormorelikely,atagreaterrategiventhechangesintroduced tothestandardpost1999. With this in mind, the 2009 study aims to replicate original methodology, yet to selectasampleofestatesbuiltin2006/2007themostrecentyeartoallowoneyear of crime data. The analysis will again look at both police recorded crime, self reportedcrime,andadditionally,visualauditsoneachofthematchedpairs.

11

Methodology
The project utilised a variety of methods to collect the data presented within the report.Thesewere: AreviewoftheliteraturerelatingtoSBDandtheprinciplesuponwhichitis based; Ananalysisofpolicerecordedcrimeonthreeseparatesamples: o 1)SBDVersusWestYorkshire(16SBDdevelopmentscomparedwith WestYorkshireasawhole); o 2)SameStreetAnalysis(11developmentswhichcontainedbothSBD andnonSBDproperties)and o 3) Matched Pairs Analysis (16 SBD and 16 nonSBD matched pairs locatedascloseaspossibletoeachother.Theaimofthissectionofthe reportwastoestablishwhetherSBDestatesexperiencelesscrimethan theirnonSBDcounterparts. Ananalysisofselfreportedcrime,disorderandfearofcrimeon16SBDand 16nonSBDmatchedpairsinanattempttoestablishwhetherSBDresidents experiencelessselfreportedexperiences,fearsandperceptionsofcrimeand disorderthantheirnonSBDcounterparts. Visual audits at 16 SBD and 16 nonSBD sites in an attempt to establish whether SBD estates experience less visual signs of disorder than their non SBDcounterparts. An analysis of crime data for both the 16 SBD and 16 non SBD sites to establishthelevelofrepeatvictimisation. Revisitingasampleoftwodevelopmentsfromtheoriginal(1999)evaluation to establish whether the performance of SBD has improved, deteriorated or remainedthesame.

ReviewofLiterature
ThereportincludesacomprehensivereviewoftheliteraturerelatingtoSBDandthe principlesuponwhichitisbased.ThisincludesanintroductiontotheSBDscheme and a review of the effectiveness and costeffectiveness of SBD. In addition, the review presents an indepth examination of the research relating to the impact of physical security upon offender decision making; the influence of natural surveillance upon offending and target selection; an explanation and review of territoriality;theimpactofaccesscontroluponoffendingandfinally,theinfluenceof managementandmaintenanceuponlevelsofcrimeanddisorder.

AnalysisofPoliceRecordedCrime
Theanalysisofpolicerecordedcrimedataincludedthreeseparatesamples.Thefirst sample SBD versus West Yorkshire, compared crime rates on the 16 SBD developments built in 2006/2007 (342 properties) with crime rates for the whole of WestYorkshire.TheperiodofanalysiswasAugust2007toJuly2008.Therationale for selecting the 16 SBD developments built in this period was that these were the mostrecentdevelopmentsbuiltstillallowingoneyearscrimedatafortheanalysis. Crimetotalswereconvertedintoratesper1000propertiesforboththeSBDandnon

12

SBD samples. It should be highlighted that the 16 matched pairs were selected independent of West Yorkshire Police or ACPO. The research team requested that the SBD sample should be properties built as close as possible to existing SBD standards, therefore, those that had been developed most recently. The nonSBD sample were selected by the research team as those most closely located to the 16 SBD developments. Although West Yorkshire Police were asked to ensure that the nonSBD matched pairs had not been certificated to SBD standards, they had no furtherinvolvementinthesampleselection. Theanalysisincludedthecrimecategories:Assault,criminaldamage,theft,burglary other,theftofavehicle,theftfromvehicle,burglarydwellingandother.Crimerates werecomparedfortheSBDandnonSBDsamplewithfurtheranalysisofstatistical significancepresented. Ininterpretingthefindingsfromthissectionoftheanalysis,severalfactorsshouldbe noted. The comparison area selected for this section of the analysis was West Yorkshireasawhole.Althoughthisallowsacomparisonofalargerdataset,itraises several issues. Firstly, the aggregated data for West Yorkshire will include crimes committedinlocationsotherthanresidentialareas,andthereforesomeofthecrime categories are not directly comparable to the SBD figures (which are taken from residentialareas).Forexample,vehiclecrimefiguresfortheSBDsamplewillinclude onlycrimescommittedonSBDestates/developments;however,thenonSBDsample will include car parks as well as town and city centres. Secondly, the nonSBD comparisonareaofWestYorkshireasawholealsoincludesSBDproperties(anideal scenario would be to analyse West Yorkshire minus SBD properties). However, as SBDpropertiesaccountformarginallyoveronepercentofthehousingstockinWest Yorkshire,itissuggestedthattheinclusionofthisnumberofpropertieswillnotbe sufficienttocreatealargeskewinthedata. The second level of analysis included SBD and nonSBD properties which were located on the same street Same Street Analysis. Analysis of the SBD sample revealed that several of the SBD developments (11) were located in developments which contained a mix of SBD and nonSBD properties. Where this occurred, this was often a large development (predominately nonSBD) that included a small proportionofSBDproperties(itisoftenarequirementofplanningconsenttoinclude asetproportionofsocialhousing,andthereforeSBD,properties).Inothercases,the SBDsectionofthesamplewasablockofapartmentslocatedon(orjustoff)astreet ofnonSBDproperties. Table1(below)displaysthestreetswhereitwaspossibletocompareSBDandnon SBDproperties.11streetswereincludedinthesamestreetanalysis.Theseincluded 455properties(101SBDand354nonSBD).
13

Table1:StreetsincludedintheSameStreetAnalysis
StreetName CranbrookStreet HansonLane JarvisSquare JarvisWalk RyburnStreet ScottStreet StAugustinesTerrace StansfieldClose YateholmDrive RyestoneDrive LongfieldWay TotalProperties SBDProperties 22 96 24 40 36 9 24 45 85 35 39 3 2 6 12 8 7 6 6 23 17 11 NonSBDProperties 19 94 18 28 28 2 18 39 62 18 28

Crime rates were analysed for all crime categories (but excluded incidents not categorised as crimes) for the SBD and nonSBD sample, with the statistical significance of any differences presented. The time period of analysis was again August2007toJuly2008(thesameastheprevioussectionofanalysis). The third level of analysis included a comparison of crime rates on 16 SBD developments as compared to 16 nonSBD developments which were selected as matched pairs Matched Pairs Analysis. The 16 SBD developments were the same sampleutilisedintheSBDVersusWestYorkshireanalysisi.e.theSBDdevelopments built in West Yorkshire during 2006/2007. The 16 nonSBD estates were selected based purely upon their location i.e. they were the nearest nonSBD estate to each SBDdevelopment. This methodology aims to replicate (as much as possible) the creation of matched pairs utilised in the 1999 evaluation. The original evaluation created matched pairs which were as similar as possible in terms of age, housing tenure and other environmentalfeatures.However,changesinhousingpolicybetween1999and2009 hasmeantthatitwouldnotbepossibletoselectnonSBDdevelopmentswhichwere the same tenure as the SBD sample as all housing association properties are now required to be built to the SBD standard. In 1999, this was not the case and many housingassociationdevelopmentswerestillnonSBD.Asitwasnotpossibletofind matched pairs that were the same in terms of tenure, age and environmental features, a decision was made to create matched pairs based upon location only. Therefore, eachofthe16SBD developmentswerevisitedby the researchteamand the nearest nonSBD development was selected as a control estate. Table 2 (below) displaysthesampleof16matchedpairs.

14

 Table2:16SixteenMatchedPairs
Matched Pair PairOne PairTwo PairThree PairFour PairFive PairSix PairSeven PairEight PairNine PairTen SBDdevelopment Numberof Properties Syke Lane development, 35 SowerbyBridge RystoneDrive,Halifax 16 Napier Apartments, Scott 13 Street,Todmorden Longfield Close, 23 Todmorden KismetClose,Halifax 9 StansfieldClose,Halifax 8 NonSBD development RyburnStreet, SowerbyBridge RystoneDrive, Halifax FirStreet, Todmorden LongfieldClose, Todmorden CrossleyGardens, Halifax CromwellTerrace, Halifax IllingworthGardens, Halifax SherwoodGreen, Wakefield LongCloseLane, Leeds StAugustines Terrace.Bradford CranbrookStreet, Bradford ElizabethStreet, Bradford CrakeDrive, Bradford NadenClose, Bradford BaldwinStreet, Bradford StavelyRoad, Keighley Numberof Properties 27 30 14 15 10 30 12 16 8 18 11 20 11 12 4 15

Alpine Close, Illingworth 13 Gardens,Halifax JarvisWalk,Wakefield 32 RichmondCourt,Leeds 41

St Augustines Terrace, 6 Bradford PairEleven CranbrookStreet,Bradford 3 Pair Twelve Pair Thirteen Pair Fourteen PairFifteen Pair Sixteen Mary Seacole Court, 40 Bradford KestrelClose,Bradford 6 YateholmDrive,Bradford Rowanberries,Bradford FeatherBank,Keighley 23 46 28

N.B.Theexactaddressesincludedwithintheanalysiscanberequestedfromtheauthors.

Again,allcrimecategorieswereanalysedforthesampleof16SBDand16nonSBD developments for the time period August 2007 to July 2008. Crime levels were analysedforthesampleasawholei.e.SBDversusnonSBDandforeachindividual matched pair i.e. Pair One SBD against Pair One nonSBD. The analysis compared crime rates per 1000 dwellings with any statistical significance in differences presented.

ReevaluatingtheOriginalSample
Thissectionofthereportaimedtoestablishtowhatextentdevelopmentsanalysedin the original evaluation had improved, deteriorated or remained the same over the tenyearperiod1999to2009.Aswasreferredtoearlier,the2009evaluationincluded

15

a different sample of developments to that used in the original evaluation. The rationale for this being that SBD has evolved greatly over the last ten years and properties built to the standard pre1998 (original sample) would not meet the criteria set in 2009. The sample of developments included within the present evaluationwerebuiltin2006/2007asopposedtopre1998(originalevaluation). The1999evaluationincluded25SBDdevelopmentsand25nonSBDmatchedpairs. Due to constraints on resources that meant that all 25 developments could not be revisited,adecisionwasmadetorandomlyselecttwoSBDdevelopments(andtwo matchedpairs)fromtheoriginalevaluationandtoanalyseandcomparecrimerates between1999and2009. TwoSBDdevelopmentsandtheirassociatedmatchedpairswererandomlyselected from the 25 SBD and 25 nonSBD developments. These were St. Georges Road (Halifax)andMoyhihanClose(Leeds).Itshouldbehighlightedthattheselectionof these two developments was entirely random. Although the University of Huddersfield research team were responsible for selecting the samples for the previous sections of the research, because this element of the research involved selecting developments included in the 1999 evaluation which was conducted and written by the author and lead researcher, it was felt that this sample should be selectedbyanindividualnotfamiliarwiththepreviousresearch.Forthatreason,the names of the original sample of developments used in the 1999 evaluation were presented to the West Yorkshire Police crime analyst. The developments were presentedalongsidethenumberofpropertiesoneachdevelopmentwithnofurther information that might influence the selection. The two matched pairs that were selectedaredisplayedinthetablebelow. Table3:19992009MatchedPairs SBDDevelopment Numberof NonSBDMatched Numberof Properties Pair Properties St.GeorgesRoad, 14 LincolnWay, 14 Halifax Halifax MoynihanClose, 22 AmbertonGarth, 28 Leeds Leeds Crime data for all crime categories was extracted from the original evaluation data for each of these developments and compared with crime data for the period of analysisforthisstudyAugust2007toJuly2008.Astheperiodofanalysisforthis presentstudywasafulloneyearperiod,itwasimportanttocomparelikewithlike. Therefore a one year period was selected from the original data to ensure a valid comparison.TheoneyearperiodextractedfromtheoriginalanalysiswasApril1999 toMarch2000(themostrecentoneyearperiodfromthatanalysis).

AnalysisofSelfReportedCrime
Asameansofgatheringdataonresidentsexperiencesandperceptionsofcrimeand disorderwithintheirarea,asampleof342SBDand253nonSBDresidents(fromthe

16

16 matched pairs) were invited to complete a survey (see appendix 1). The survey was based upon both the British Crime Survey and the survey utilised within the 1999evaluation,toensurethatcomparisonscouldbemade.Thesurvey,introductory letterandenvelopeweremarkedwiththeUniversityofHuddersfieldlogotoavoid any impact upon residents responses it was felt that a police brand may lead residents to believe that they should be concerned about crime and disorder. The researchteamalsowantedtostressthat,althoughtheresearchwasfundedbyWest Yorkshire Police and ACPO (as well as the University of Huddersfield), it was a completely independent study with the methodology, analysis and report writing completedentirelybyindependentresearchers. ThesampleofSBDestateswasthesameasthatutilisedwithintheanalysisofpolice recorded crime Matched Pairs analysis (see table 2 above). These were the 16 SBD estatesbuiltinWestYorkshireduring2006/2007thisequatesto342propertiesand the 16 nonSBD estates located as close as possible to these developments (253 properties). As was discussed above, in some cases the nonSBD estate was part of thesamedevelopment,inothersinwasaseparatedevelopmentlocatednexttothe SBDestate. Itshouldbenotedthatthereareweaknesseswiththismethodology.Inmanycases the matched pairs did differ in terms of tenure, age and other environmental features.Aswasmentionedabove,theoriginalevaluation(1999)wasabletomatch SBD and nonSBD pairs to ensure that they were the same age (less than ten years old),thesametenureandalsohadsimilarenvironmentalfeatures.Unfortunatelyfor thisstudychangesinhousingpolicyhave meant thatselecting nonSBD properties which were the same tenure as the SBD sample (housing association) was not possible.Althoughin1999manyhousingassociationpropertieswerestillnonSBD, makingtheselectionofcloselymatchedpairsmorefeasible,by2006/2007allhousing association properties built in West Yorkshire would be required to be built to the SBDstandard.Therefore,selectingnonSBDpropertiesofthesametenureastheSBD sample was not possible. Although this weakness should be highlighted, it is suggestedthatthemethodologyselectedwasthemostrobustforthepurposeofthis study. To reduce postage costs, surveys were hand delivered to all developments. This reduced costs as the researchers had to visit each site to conduct visual audits, therefore surveys were posted at the same time. This also allowed researchers to discuss the survey with residents who approached them whilst the visual audits weretakingplace.Residentsweregivenbetweenthreeandfourweekstoreturnthe survey (depending on when their estate was visited). In an attempt to increase the response rate, surveys also included a stamped addressed freepost envelope. Residentswerealsoinformedthattherewouldbeaprizeforthefirstsurveydrawn atrandomfromallresponsesreceived(150Sainsburyvoucher). 595 surveys were hand delivered to 342 SBD and 253 nonSBD properties. 68 residents returned the survey, giving a response rate of 11%. Thesurvey responses were inputted into SPSS (a computer statistical software package) and analysed to
17

establish whether there were any differences between experiences, fears and perceptions of crime and disorder amongst SBD and nonSBD residents. Comparisonsarealsomadebetweenthe1999evaluationaswellasthemostrecent BritishCrimeSurvey(publishedJanuary2009).Thetablebelowdisplaysthenumber ofsurveysreturnedforeachmatchedpair. Table4:NumberofResponsesfromEachMatchedPair
Matched Pair PairOne PairTwo PairThree PairFour PairFive PairSix PairSeven PairEight PairNine PairTen Numberof Responses SykeLane,SowerbyBridge 1 RystoneDrive,Halifax NapierApartments,Scott Street,Todmorden LongfieldClose, Todmorden KismetClose,Halifax StansfieldClose,Halifax AlpineClose,Illingworth Gardens,Halifax JarvisWalk,Wakefield RichmondCourt,Leeds 3 2 2 2 0 1 7 0 0 0 7 2 1 5 3 SBDdevelopment NonSBD development RyburnStreet, SowerbyBridge RystoneDrive, Halifax FirStreet, Todmorden LongfieldClose, Todmorden CrossleyGardens, Halifax CromwellTerrace, Halifax IllingworthGardens, Halifax SherwoodGreen, Wakefield LongCloseLane, Leeds StAugustines Terrace.Bradford CranbrookStreet, Bradford ElizabethStreet, Bradford CrakeDrive, Bradford NadenClose, Bradford BaldwinStreet, Bradford StavelyRoad, Keighley Numberof Responses 3 5 2 2 2 2 2 4 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 5

StAugustinesTerrace, Bradford PairEleven CranbrookStreet,Bradford Pair Twelve Pair Thirteen Pair Fourteen PairFifteen Pair Sixteen

MarySeacoleCourt, Bradford KestrelClose,Bradford YateholmDrive,Bradford Rowanberries,Bradford FeatherBank,Keighley

VisualAudits
Visual audits took place at the16 SBD and 16nonSBD developments displayed in table2.Theauditsweredesignedtomeasuresignsofcrimeanddisorderaswellas environmental features which research suggests can increase vulnerability to crime and disorder. Factors which were measured included signs of litter, graffiti and vandalism,brokenwindows,abandonedorburntoutvehicles,signsofshortorlong

18

term desertion, levels of through movement, potential places to hide, evidence of police/wardens or other authority figures, evidence of neighbourhood watch schemesandsignsthatfieldworkerswereobservedorconfrontedbyresidents.The visualauditschedulecanbeseenatappendix2. Visualauditstookplaceoverathreedayperiod,witheachmatchedpairvisitedon thesamedayandatapproximatelythesametime.Forexample,eventhoughthe16 pairswerevisitedonthreeseparatedays,eachpairi.e.pairone,two,threeetc.were alwaysvisitedonthesamedayandatroughlythesametimeoftheday.Toensure thatfieldworkersunderstoodthescheduleandthescoringsystem,theschedulewas first piloted at a development not included within the analysis. Any queries were resolvedandstatements/scoringsystemswererevisedtoimproveclarity. TwoUniversityofHuddersfieldfieldworkerseachindependentlycompletedavisual audit schedule for each of the 16 SBD and 16 nonSBD developments. The scores allocated to each development represent the mean score awarded by the two fieldworkers(i.e.scoresweretotalledanddividedbytwo).Itshouldbehighlighted againthatthissectionoftheresearchwascompletedindependentofWestYorkshire PoliceorACPO.TheresearchteamwererepresentingtheUniversityofHuddersfield andalthoughtheycarriedWestYorkshirePoliceidentificationtoverifytheiridentity and rationale for conducting the audits, the methodology, fieldwork and analysis wascompletedindependentofbothWestYorkshirePoliceandACPO. Whilst conducting the visual audits, fieldworkers also took photographs of each development.Thesecanbeusedasevidencetosupportthescoresallocatedtoeach development. In order to analyse the results of the visual audits, scores were compared both for eachmatchedpair(i.e.SBDPairOneagainstnonSBDPairOne)andalsofortheSBD andnonSBDtotalsamples.Scoreswereassignedonthebasisoflowbeingapositive andhighbeinganegative,forexample,vandalismtobuildingswouldbescoredas zerofornoevidenceofvandalismandfiveasahighlevelofvandalism.Therefore,a high overall score would represent a negative finding and a low score a positive finding.Thetotalscoreavailableforeachdevelopmentwas140(5multipliedby28 the total number of factors). The lowest score was zero. For the analysis of SBD versus nonSBD total score, the maximum score was 2240 (140 multiplied by 16 developments). The lowest score was again zero. For the three factors: Evidence of police on foot/cycle, evidence of police in patrol cars and other authority figures, it was not obvious whether a high presence would represent a positive or a negative result. In some instances, a high police presence could mean that the development has had high levels of crime; in other instances this could just be part of neighbourhood policing. For this reason, these three factors were scored, but were not included in the quantitative analysis. These factors were analysed using qualitativemethodsonly.

19

Repeatvictimisation
Repeat victimisation measures the concentration of crime this being the average numberofvictimisationspervictim(incidencedividedbyprevalence),asopposedto incidence(themorecommonmeasureofcrime)whichmeasurestheaveragenumber of victimisations per population at risk of victimisation. This study examined the levels of repeat victimisation focusing upon the performance of SBD against its nonSBD counterparts by way of reference to recorded crime data for the matched pairsampleof16SBDand16nonSBDdevelopmentsasdisplayedintable2.

20

ReviewoftheLiterature
SecuredbyDesign(SBD) SBDisaUKbasedinitiative,managedbyACPOCrimePreventionInitiatives(ACPO CPI), which aims to encourage thebuilding industry to design out crime. SBD was devisedin1989bypoliceforcesbasedwithintheSouthEastofEngland,withtheaim of countering the rise in household burglary (Pascoe and Topping, 1997). In an attempt to establish how far the SBD scheme was theoretically and empirically supportedatthetimeofitsinception,PascoeandTopping(1997)conductedareview of the available documentation as well as interviews with 15 police officers. They suggest that the scheme was influenced by both environmental criminology (including situational crime prevention and defensible space) as well as theories whichfocuseduponoffendersasdecisionmakers(includingrationalchoicetheory). SBDincludes boththeDevelopers Award and Licensed Products.The Developers Award is a certificate given to building developments which are built to the SBD standard.Thatis,followingconsultationwiththepoliceArchitecturalLiaisonOfficer (ALO)orCrimePreventionDesignAdvisor(CPDA)thedevelopmentisdeemedto conform to the appropriate ACPO guidelines. SBD guides exist for a variety of buildings and spaces including new homes, refurbishments, sheltered accommodation, multistorey dwellings, car parks, railway stations, caravan parks andplayareas. Although the SBD scheme requires the input of a variety of agencies such as local authorityplanningdepartments,registeredsociallandlords(RSLs)andarchitects,it ismanagedandpromotedprimarilybythepolice.Eachpoliceforcehasanumberof ALOs or CPDAs who work in consultation with planners, architects, developers, housingassociations(aswellasotheragencies)toensurethatasmanydevelopments as possible are designed and built (or refurbished) to the SBD standard. It is the responsibility of ALOs and CPDAs to assess planning applications from a security perspective and to work with developers to attempt to address any design weaknesseswhichemerge. TheprinciplesofSBDdrawlargelyuponthenewopportunitytheoriesofcrimeand upon crime prevention measures such as situational crime prevention and crime prevention through environmental design. These theories assume that crime is a response to opportunity, therefore removing the opportunity can reduce crime. An emphasis is also placed upon the role of the environment in creating or impeding theseopportunities.TheprinciplesofSBDfalllargelyintothefollowingcategories: Physical Security: SBD sets standards of physical security for each property anditsboundaries. Surveillance: SBD estates are designed to achieve maximum natural surveillancewithoutcompromisingtheneedforprivacy. Access/Egress: SBD estates are designed to include a minimum number of access/egresspointsinanattempttoavoidunnecessaryentryontotheestate bynonresidentsandpotentialoffenders.

21

Territoriality:Inanattempttoachievemaximuminformalsocialcontrol,SBD draws upon Newmans principles of Defensible Space (1973). If space has a clearlydefinedownership,purposeandrole,itisevidenttoresidentswithin theneighbourhoodwhoshould,andmoreimportantlywhoshouldnotbein agivenarea. Management and Maintenance: SBD estates should have a programmed managementsysteminplacetomaintainthearea.Thisincludestheremoval oflitterandgraffiti. EvaluatingtheEffectivenessofSBD Therehavebeen four publishedevaluations oftheeffectiveness ofthe SBD scheme (Brown,1999;Pascoe,1999;Armitage,2000,TeedonandReid,2009)eachconcluding thatSBDconfersacrimereductionadvantage. Using police recorded crime data, residents surveys and focus groups with local residents,Pascoe(1999)foundthatboththeresidentsperceivedlevelsofcrimeand the actual levels of crime had been reduced following modernisation to SBD standardsontenestates. AsecondevaluationofSecuredbyDesignHousingrevealedpositiveresultsinterms ofcrimereductionandprevention.ThisevaluationwascarriedoutinGwent,South Wales (Brown, 1999) and involved an analysis of police recorded crime data alongside structured interviews with police officers, housing association managers, architectsandtenants.TheresultsrevealedthatSBDpropertiesexperiencedatleast 40%lessburglariesandvehiclerelatedcrime,and25%lesscriminaldamagethanthe nonSBD properties. There was no evidence of crime switch (for example from burglarytovehicleoffences)however;therewasevidenceoftemporaldisplacement from daylight to nighttime, where surveillance was limited. The results from qualitativeinterviewsreflectedthefindingsfromthequantitativeanalysiswithfear ofcrimelowerandqualityoflifehigheronSBDasopposedtononSBDestates. Teedon and Reid (2009) present the interim findings from an evaluation of SBD in Glasgow.Itisimportanttohighlightthatalthoughthisispresentedasanevaluation of the SBD scheme, the sample only included properties refurbished to the SBD standard. Therefore, although the physical security may have been upgraded, in many cases the layout of the development (including the road, orientation of the buildings,accessandegress)willnothavebeenaltered.Thestudyalsoonlyreported on the impact of SBD upon housebreaking crime figures, without analysing the effects upon other acquisitive crimes (which may have been affected). The results revealedthattotalhousebreakingcrimereducedby61%followingtheintroduction ofSBD.Thisiscomparedtoareductionofjust17%inthecomparisonarea.Onearea where this study differs from other evaluations of the scheme is that the total housebreakingfigureismadeupofthethreecategoriesattemptedhousebreaking, housebreakingwithintentandtheftbyhousebreaking.Whenattemptsareremoved fromtheanalysis,thefigurereducesfroma61%reductionpostSBDcertification,to a55%reductionstillanextremelypositivefinding.
22

Although each evaluation has contributed new knowledge to the field of crime prevention through environmental design and helped to improve both the SBD standard and the process through which it is implemented, it is the evaluation of SBD in West Yorkshire which originally took place in 1999 (Armitage, 2000) which thisstudyseekstoreplicate. Armitage(2000)usedamixedmethodologytoestablishwhetherresidentslivingon SBDestateswereexperiencinglesscrimethantheirnonSBDcounterparts;whether residentslivingonSBD estateswereexperiencinglessfearofcrimethantheirnon SBDcounterparts;whetherSBDwassimplydisplacingcrime(forexampleburglary maybereducing,yetvehiclecrimeincreasing)andfinally,whethertheSBDscheme wasimproving. EstateswhichhadbeenrefurbishedtotheSBDstandard(thereweretwowithinthe sample)wereanalysedonabeforeandafterbasisasopposedtoselectinganonSBD matchedpair(newbuildproperties).Analysisofrecordedcrimelevelspreandpost certificationtoSBD,revealedthatforbothestates,totalcrimefellby55%relativeto thepreSBDperiod. For the analysis of newbuild properties, the25 SBD estates (660 dwellings) and 25 NonSBD estates (522 dwellings) were each assigned a matched pair. These were selectedtoensurethatpropertiesmatchedaccordingtoage,location,housingtenure andphysical/environmentalcharacteristics.Theresultsrevealedthatthemeancrime ratewithintheSBDsamplewas0.70.ThiswascomparedtoanonSBDrateof0.94. When excluding all crimes other than burglary in a dwelling, the results revealed thatthemeanburglaryratewithintheSBDsamplewas0.17;thiswascomparedtoa rateof0.29withinthenonSBDsample. Of the 36 crime categories that were analysed as part of the evaluation, the only crimes which were higher within the SBD sample were damage related offences, ABH and GBH. Although ABH and GBH were slightly higher within the SBD sample,furtheranalysisofthemodusoperandirevealedthatthiscouldnotbearesult of escalation (whereby an offender increases their use of violence during burglary offences due to the frustration at being unable to overcome security measures), as boththethreatofanduseofviolenceinburglaryoffencesweremuchlowerwithin theSBDsample.Thehigherlevelsofdamagerelatedoffencesmaybeexplainedby the fact that attempted burglaries were often categorised as damage offences, even thoughthemotivewasclearlyanattempttobreakin. Aswellastheanalysisofpolicerecordedcrime,aresidentssurveytookplaceasa means of measuring residents actual experiences of crime as well as their fears, perceptionsandconcernsregardingcrimeanddisorderwithintheirneighbourhood. 250 SBD and 250 nonSBD addresses were visited as part of the residents survey. Theresponseratewas47%.Theresidentssurveytookplacein1999,forthisreason, thefindingsfromthe2000BritishCrimeSurvey(whichmeasuresexperienceswithin 1999)wereusedasthenationalcomparison.
23

The results revealed that 2.9% of SBD respondents had been burgled within the previousyear;thiswascomparedto8.4%ofnonSBDrespondentsand4.3%ofBCS respondents.Intermsoffearofcrime,whenaskedhowsafetheyfeltwhenwalking alone after dark 11.4% of SBD respondents felt very unsafe compared to 19.1% of nonSBD respondents and 11% of BCS respondents. 3.8% of SBD respondents felt veryunsafeathomealoneatnightcomparedto7.6%ofNonSBDrespondentsand 2% of BCS respondents. 57.1% of SBD respondents felt safer in their present home than the previous house in which they lived compared to only 49.6% of nonSBD respondents. Interestingly,theresearchrevealedthatonly5%ofSBDrespondentswereawarethat their neighbourhood had been given an award entitled the SBD award because it had been designed and built to reduce opportunities for crime and disorder. This finding is extremely important and suggests that any feelings of enhanced security and safety are genuine emotions rather than the responses which respondents felt obliged to provide, given that they were residing in an estate designed to reduce crime. Aswellasmeasuringlevelsofcrimeandfearofcrime,anadditionallevelofanalysis tookplacetoestablishtheextenttowhichtheperformanceofSBDwasimproving. The burglary rate of each SBD pair was expressed as a percentage of its nonSBD matched pair. These percentages were then aggregated according to the year in which the estates were built, giving a mean percentage for each year. The results revealedayearonyearimprovementintheperformanceofSBD.Themeanburglary rateforSBDestatesbuiltin1994was171%oftheburglaryratefornonSBDestates builtin1994.ThemeanburglaryrateforSBDestatesbuiltin1995was130%ofthe burglary rate for nonSBD estates built in 1995. For estates built in 1996, the figure was 97%, for 1997 the figure was 51% and for SBD estates built in 1998, the mean burglary rate was 45% of the burglary rate for the nonSBD matched pairs. These results suggest that until 1996, the SBD estates were actually experiencing more burglarythattheirmatchedpairsinthecaseofestatesbuiltin1994,almosttwiceas much! Oneoftheprimarymotivationsforthis2009reevaluationofSBDinWestYorkshire isthatalthoughtheoriginalevaluationrevealedpositiveandinterestingresults,the sampleofestatesusedintheanalysiswereallbuiltbetween1994and1998.Thispre datestheintroductionofmanychangesintheSBDstandard(includingBS7950and PAS24)aswellaschangesintheprocessofimplementingSBD. In addition to evaluating the effectiveness of the scheme as a crime reduction measure,severalstudieshaveestablishedthattheschemeiscosteffective(Armitage, 2000; Association of British Insurers, 2006; Teedon and Reid, 2009). The ABI report concluded that implementing the scheme would yield benefits of over 1170 per household, a net saving of 540 (with the scheme costing an additional 630 per homes).TheABIalsosuggestthatoveraperiodof20years,theintroductionofSBD would generate more than 3.2 billion of savings to the economy as a whole. Armitage(2000)revealedthattheaverageadditionalcostofbuildingahousetothe
24

SBDstandardwasjust440.WhereestateshadbeenrefurbishedtotheSBDstandard as opposed to newly built, the costs were estimated at approximately 600 per dwelling, approximately one third more than the cost of designing and building to the SBD standard at the development stage. Considering the estimated costs of crimes such as burglary in a dwelling (2,300) and vehicle theft (890) 1 which evaluationshaveshownSBDconsistentlyreduces,anadditionalinvestmentof440 seems almost inconsequential. Teedon and Reid (2009) also reported a positive financial impact of the introduction of SBD in Glasgow Housing Association properties. They revealed that there had beena saving of18,304 in the study area due(insomepartatleast)totheintroductionofSBD 2. AswellasevaluationsoftheSBDschemeasawhole,therehasbeenanabundanceof literaturetoshowthattheprinciplesuponwhichSBDisbasedeachworktoreduce crime, disorder and the fear of crime. These include increasing physical security (Brown and Altman, 1983; Cromwell and Olson, 1991), minimising access (Brantingham and Brantingham, 1975, 1993, 2000; Brantingham et al, 1977; Brown andAltman,1983;Newlands,1983;GreenbergandRohe,1984;CromwellandOlson, 1991; Bevis and Nutter, 1997; MirleesBlack et al, 1998), increasing surveillance (Reppetto, 1974; Brown and Altman, 1983; Cromwell and Olson, 1991; Brown and Bentley, 1993) and managing and maintaining developments (Zimbardo, 1970; Finnie,1973;WilsonandKelling,1982andSkogan,1990).

PhysicalSecurityCanIgetin? AlthoughSBDdoesnotrelysolelyuponphysicalsecurity,thestandardssettowhich doors,windows,fencesetc.mustadhereto,suggestthatphysicalsecurityisviewed asacrucialfactor.Previousresearchintothissubjectismixed,withseveralstudies suggesting that the actual home breakin requires little in the way of technical sophistication and is a low priority for burglars when searching for targets (Reppetto, 1974; Maguire and Bennett, 1982). However, the majority of studies appear to suggest that with all other factors being equal, burglars would prefer to offendagainstpropertieswithlowerlevelsofphysicalsecurity.CromwellandOlson (1991)usedstagedactivityanalysis(interviewsandridealongs)withasampleof30 active burglars as a means of establishing which (if any) environmental cues influencedtargetselection.Althoughthemajorityofparticipantsinitiallystatedthat theywerenotdeterredbylocksoralarmsystems,duringburglaryreconstructionsit was discovered that given two potential sites, all other factors being equal, they wouldprefertooffendagainstpropertieswithlowerlevelsofphysicalsecurity.Over 90%ofthesamplestatedthattheywouldnotchooseatargetwithanalarmsystem and 75% of the sample stated that they would be deterred by a sign or a window stickerthatstatedthatthehousewasprotectedbyanalarmsystem. BrownandAltman(1983)studiedtheenvironmentalfeaturesof306burgledhouses on burgled blocks, nonburgled houses on burgled blocks and nonburgled houses on nonburgled blocks and found that when compared with nonburgled houses,
1
2

SeeBrandandPrice(2000). Notethatthisisaninterimfindingthefinalreportisyettobepublished.

25

thosewhichhadbeenburgledhadfewersymbolicbarrierscharacteristicofprimary territoriesandmoreindicatorsofpublicterritories(i.e.stopsigns).Theseproperties also had fewer actual barriers such as fences and locked gates protecting private territory from public access. Brown and Bentley (1993) studied a group of 72 incarceratedburglarswhowereeachshown10picturesofhomeshalfburgled,half nonburgled. They were asked to rate the properties on a number of risk factors as wellasjudgetheirburglarystatus.Acrossall10homes,housesjudgedasdifficultto enterwereperceivedasbeingnonburgled. SurveillanceIsAnybodyThere? SBD estates are designed to achieve maximum natural surveillance without compromising the need for privacy, this is achieved through a variety of methods. Housesarepositionedsothatentrancesfacethestreet,foliage,wallsandfencesmust notobstructsightlinesandwhereverpossible,estatesincludeamixofdwellingtypes suited to a variety of residents such as families, elderly and young couples, thus maximisingthelikelihoodthatatleastoneneighbourwillbeathomethroughoutthe dayandnight.Researchsuggeststhattheissueofsurveillanceiscrucialinoffender decisionmaking,withoccupancyorsignsofoccupancy,thelocationofneighbouring propertiesandtheleveltowhichtheycanremainanonymousinfluencingaburglars targetchoice. Offenders prefer to avoid confrontation with residents (Rengert and Wasilchick, 2000) and where possible, select targets which are unoccupied (Reppetto, 1974, Cromwell and Olson 1991). Reppetto (1974) found that the most common reason given by 97 convicted burglars for avoiding a particular target was that there were too many people around over a third of the sample gave this as a reason for avoiding a particular target. Cromwell and Olson (1991) found that over 90% of participants (n=30 active burglars) stated that they would never enter a residence that they knew to be occupied. Brown and Bentley (1993) asked 72 incarcerated burglars to assess from photographs whether or not properties had been burgled. Acrossalltenhomes,thehousesjudgedtobeoccupiedwereperceivedasbeingnon burgled. In determining whether or not a property is occupied, offenders look for clues or tracesofoccupancy.BrownandAltman(1983)studied306burgledandnonburgled propertiesandfoundthatburgledhousesshowedfewerindicationsoftheprobable presence of residents than nonburgled properties. These signs or traces included toysstrewnacrosstheyardorsprinklersoperatinginthegarden. As well as occupancy, the likelihood that offenders will be noticed by neighbours alsoappearstobecrucialinthedecisionmakingprocess.Reppetto(1974)foundthat over a fifth of the sample of 97 convicted burglars stated that the possibility of neighbours watching them deterred them from selecting a property. This research also suggests that burglars select locations where they feel less conspicuous race being a particularly importantfactorin thisdecision making process.In support of Reppettos findings, Brown and Altman (1983) found that burgled properties had

26

less visual access to immediately neighbouring properties than nonburgled properties. TerritorialityDoesAnybodyCare? The principles of SBD incorporate much of Oscar Newmans theory of Defensible Space (1973). Newman categorised space into public (i.e. the road in front of a property),semipublic(thefrontgarden),semiprivate(thebackgarden)andprivate (inside the property itself). He argued that all space should have a clearly defined ownership,purposeandrole(increasingthelevelofprivateandsemiprivatespace bydesignatingpublicareastoindividualfamilies)thusallowingresidentstodevelop proprietaryfeelingstowardsthespacewithin,andmorecrucially,surroundingtheir property. Newman argued that the physical design of a neighbourhood can either releaseorinhibitpeopleslatentsenseofcontroloverthespacesinwhichtheylive. SBD aims to encourage what Newman refers to as territoriality through ensuring that private and semiprivate space is maximised and public space is kept to a minimum.Frontgardensareboundedbyfencingnottophysicallyprevententry, butrathertoconveyamessagethatthisareaisprivate.Entrancestoestatesarealso narrowed with a change in road colour and texture to portray the impression to outsiders that they are entering a private area. Research relating to territoriality is mixed.Newman(1973,1995)foundthathousingestatesdesignedwithhigherlevels ofcommunalspaceandalackofcleardemarcationbetweenprivateandpublicspace experiencedhigherlevelsofcrimeanddisorder., Access/EgressEncounterversusEnclosure Oneofthemajorcurrentdebatessurroundingdesigningoutcrimewithinresidential housing is that of permeability (throughmovement). The debate centres upon the benefits of facilitating movement within an area weighed against the risks of potentially criminogenic design. Those who argue in favour of permeable housing believethatresidentialareasshouldencouragemovementandthusallowpassersby tocreateaninformalsurveillanceoractasguardiansforthatarea.Muchsupportfor theissue of permeable housing estatesemergedfollowingtheRio EarthSummit of 1992 (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 1992) and its productdocumentAgenda21whichencouragessustainabilitygettingpeopleout oftheircarsandontotheirfeetandbicycles.Incontrast,theprinciplesofSBDdraw uponresearchwhichsuggeststhatencouragingmovementthroughahousingestate allowsoffenderstoattachthatareatotheirawarenessspaceaswellasgivingthema legitimatereasontobewheretheyshouldnotbe.Forexample,ifahousingestateis permeablewithanabundanceoffootpaths,thisgivesanoffendertheopportunityto notice a vulnerable property enroute to school, work or leisure activities and to familiarise themselves with the daily routines of those living within the target property. As well as increasing the likelihood that an offender will notice the property, permeable estates give offenders an excuse to be within a given area. A residentlivingwithinapropertywhichhasafootpathrunningattherearoftheback garden may notice a stranger acting suspiciously, yet apprehension of that individual would likely be ineffective due to the possible legitimate nature of that individualsjourney.Putsimply,aresidenthasnorighttoapprehendanindividual whomtheyfeelmaybeconsideringtheirpropertyasapotentialtargetforburglary
27

becausethatindividualcouldsimplyreplythattheyareontheirwaytotheshopsor tovisitafriend. Severalresearchstudieshavesuggestedthatthroughmovementandpermeabilityis preferabletolimitedaccesswhenattemptingtoreducecrime(RudlinandFalk,1995; Hillier and ChiFeng Shu, 1998; ChiFeng Shu, 2000). In contrast, there exists an abundance of criminological research which suggests that crime is higher along major vehicular or pedestrian pathways as opposed to within closed estates which limitthroughmovement(BrantinghamandBrantingham,1975,1993,2000;Bevisand Nutter, 1997; Brantingham et al, 1977; Brown and Altman, 1983; Newlands, 1983; Greenberg and Rohe, 1984; Cromwell and Olson, 1991; MirleesBlack et al, 1998; RengertandWasilchick,2000).Therationalebehindthesefindingsfallslargelyinto thefollowingcategories: a) Permeableneighbourhoodsoffereaseofentryandescape; b) Offendersaremorelikelytobeawareofpotentialtargetsthattheypassona day to day basis. Therefore, crime will be higher along travel paths, both pedestrianandvehicular; c) Permeableneighbourhoodsofferincreasedanonymityforpotentialoffenders. Research supporting the first rationale that offenders prefer permeable neighbourhoodsduetotheeasetheyofferintermsofentry,throughmovementand escape, includes Taylor and Gottfredson (1987) and Poyner and Webb (1991). The second explanation for higher crime within permeable neighbourhoods, suggests thatoffendershavetobeawareofapropertysexistencebeforetheycanselectitasa target for crime. As offenders spend much of their time travelling between home, work,schoolorleisureactivities,thepropertiesthattheybecomeawareofarelikely tobealongthetravelpathsthattheyfrequent. Sinceburglarsare,inatimebudgetsense,primarilynonburglars, theiractivityspaces,orplacestheyusuallyspendtime,aremost likelysimilartotheactivityspacesofnonburglarsfromsimilar backgroundsandlivinginsimilarareas(Brantinghamand Brantingham,1984p.80). ResearchwhichsupportsthisperspectiveincludesthatofWilesandCostello(2000) whousedinterviewswithoffenders,policerecordedcrimedataandforensicscience data from the police DNA database as a means of investigating the distance which offenders will travel to offend. Their findings suggest that burglars are largely opportunistic, with the selection of a particular target taking place as they pass propertiesandnoticetheirsuitability. Offendersdonotinhabitaworldinwhichoffendingandnonoffending routinesarestraightforwardlydichotomised.Offending,therefore, fitsinwithotherroutinesasopportunities,needsortemptations presentthemselvesandroutinesthemselvescanincludebothdeviant andnondeviantbehaviour(WilesandCostello,2000p.40).
28

 Additional research findings which support the premise that offenders select properties as they take part in day to day activities include Letkemann (1973) who foundthatburglarsinterviewedinBritishColumbiastatedthattheygenerallykept theireyesopenfortargetsallofthetime.RengertandWasilchick(2000)foundthat convicted Philadelphia area burglars usually picked their targets within a limited distanceoftheirnormaltravelpaths,primarilyalongtheaxisoftheirusualhometo worktravelpath.Feeney(1986)andGaboretal(1987)foundthatindividualchoiceof robberylocationswasorientedordirectedtowardspersonallywellknownlocations. Beavon(1984)analysedpolicerecordedcrimesandfoundthatforalltypesofcrime (with the exception of bicycle theft) crime decreased the further the target was locatedawayfromhighlyaccessibleroads. The final rationale, that offenders prefer targets located within areas of high pedestrian movement due to the anonymity which this movement provides, is supported by Angel (1968), Suttles (1968), Brantingham & Brantingham (1975), TaylorandGottfredson(1987)andPoynerandWebb(1991). ManagementandMaintenance In recognition of research which highlights that antisocial behaviour can act as a catalyst for increased crime and disorder, higher levels of fear of crime and a reluctance by residents to engage in informal crime prevention activities (Skogan, 1990), SBD places a large emphasis upon management and maintenance. Several studieshavesuggestedthatiflowleveldisordersuchasvandalismandlitterarenot addressed,theycanactasacatalystformoreseriouscrimes.Skogan(1990)refersto this as the contagion theory, suggesting that the presence of vandalism stimulates morevandalism(p.39).WilsonandKelling(1982)refertothiscontagiouseffectas the broken windows theory (p.16). This suggests that an area with existing deteriorationsuchasgraffitiandvandalismconveystheimpressionthata)nobody caressoapprehensionislesslikelyandb)theareaisalreadyuntidysoonemoreact will go unnoticed. Because of existing deterioration, the area is not only an easy target, it is also viewed as fair game. This is supported by Zimbardo (1970) and Finnie (1973) who found that antisocial behaviour such as vandalism, rubbish or criminal damage leads directly to more antisocial behaviour. Taylor and Gotttfredson (1987) also found that physical incivilities indirectly influence offendersperceptionofriskinthattheyportrayaresidentslevelofcareorconcern fortheareainwhichtheylive,thusactingasanindicatorforthelikelihoodthatthey willinterveneiftheydetectanoffencetakingplace. SecuredbyDesigninWestYorkshire WhenaSecuredbyDesignapplicationisreceivedbyanALOinWestYorkshire,the Force ALO is subsequently informed. The Force ALO records details regarding the applicationandwillthenformallywritetotheapplicant(seeappendix3).Bywriting totheapplicant,WestYorkshirePoliceareableto: i) Inform theapplicant about the aim of the Architectural Liaison resource andtheSecuredbyDesignscheme;

29

ii)

iii)

iv) v)

Inform the applicant about the importance of a frequent and continued dialogue between the development team and the police during the developmentprocess; Provide information regarding the minimum standards outlined by the SecuredbyDesignGuides(namelytheNewHomesGuideandtheMulti Storey Dwellings Guide) and stipulate additional requirements that are specificallyrelatedtoproposeddevelopmentswithinthecountyofWest Yorkshire; IntroducetheapplicanttoSBDprebuildagreements; BeginthedatacollectionprocessforSBDresearchandevaluation.

TheletterinformstheapplicantthattheguidanceofferedbySecuredbyDesignisa setofminimumstandardsandthatadditional,oralternativemeasures,mayalsobe stipulatedbyWestYorkshirePolice.TheletterlistsanumberofSBDstandardsthat must be adhered to in order to achieve Secured by Design accreditation. Each standard contained within the letter is clearly crossreferenced with the corresponding paragraph and page number of the relevant Guide (either the New Homes Guide or MultiStorey Dwellings Guide). Where an additional, or a further requirement, has been stipulated by West Yorkshire Police, this is also clearly indicated. An example of an additional requirement requested by West Yorkshire Policerelatestodwellingidentification.Paragraph14.1ofSBDNewHomesstates: Clearnamingand/ornumberingofpropertiesisessential.Alongwithdoingthis,West Yorkshire Police further stipulate that all the address details, including full post codes must be forwarded to West Yorkshire Police before any certificate is issued. Anotherexampleistheprovisionofexternalwalkways.WithintheSBDMultiStorey Dwellings Guide, SBD states that external walkways should be eliminated wherever possible.AlthoughSBDsuggeststhis,WestYorkshirePolicestatethatanapplication for Secured by Design accreditation that features external walkways or open deck accesswillnotbesupportedbyWestYorkshirePoliceandwillberefused.

RepeatVictimisation
RepeatVictimisationExplained Repeatvictimisationistherecurrenceofcrimeinthesameplacesoragainstthesame people. The Home Office definition is that repeat victimisation occurs when the samepersonorplacesuffersfrommorethanoneincidentoveraspecifiedperiodof time (Bridgeman and Hobbs, 1997, cited in Pease, 1998 p. 1). As is outlined in the methodologysection,repeatvictimisationmeasurestheconcentrationofcrimethis being the average number of victimisations per victim (incidence divided by prevalence), as opposed to incidence (the more common measure of crime) which measures the average number of victimisations per population at risk of victimisation. Although there is little doubt that victimisation predicts further victimisation, it is important for crime reduction purposes to try to understand why repeat victimisation takes place. Pease (1998) explains repeat victimisation using two accountsRiskHeterogeneity(Flags)andEventDependency(Boosts).

30

 RiskHeterogeneitysuggeststhatcrimeflagsthepeopleandplaceswherecrimewas always likely to occur, for example, a property with poor levels of security which containsreadilyaccessible,highvaluegoods.Accordingtothistheory,thefirst,the secondandthethirdcrimesagainstthispropertycouldallbeexplainedthroughthe sameenduringattributes. Event Dependency would argue that the first crime boosts the likelihood of later crimes.Thefactthatanoffenderdidnottakeallvaluablegoodsonthefirstvisit,that theyarenowawareofthelayoutandthesecuritymeasureswithinthepropertyand that they can assume that the stolen valuable goods will be replaced through insurance,increasesthelikelihoodthattheoffenderwillreturntooffendagainstthe property.

31

Findings

PoliceRecordedCrimeData
SBDVersusWestYorkshire As was highlighted within the methodology section, this section of the analysis compared police recorded crimes within the SBD sample (SBD properties built in 2006/2007)withcrimesacrossWestYorkshireasawhole. Crimes were analysed for the oneyear period August 2007 to July 2008. This representsthemostrecentfullyeartoallowresidentstohaveresidedwithintheSBD properties(builtin2006/2007)foratleastoneyear. Aswashighlightedwithinthemethodology,interpretationoftheanalysisoftheSBD sample versus the rest of West Yorkshire has several methodological limitations. These are, firstly that the SBD sample contains only residential dwellings, yet the West Yorkshire sample will contain town and city centres, car parks, shopping centresetc. Secondly,theWestYorkshire sample (thecontrol sample) alsoincludes SBDproperties,soitisnotasolelynonSBDsample. CrimeinSBDproperties During the period of analysis, a total of 44 crimes were reported within the SBD sample,anaverageoffourcrimespermonth.Thiscanbeexpressedasarateof127 crimesper1000newSBDproperties,anaverageof11crimesper1000propertiesper month. Table5(below)revealsthatthemajorityofcrimesreportedwithintheSBDsample (nearly40percent)wereassaults.CriminalDamageaccountedforalmost14percent ofoffencesandTheftandBurglaryOtherfornearly7percenteach. Table5:CrimesrecordedinNewSBDproperties(August2007July2008) CrimeType Assault CriminalDamage Theft BurglaryOther TheftofVehicle(inc.TWOC) BurglaryDwelling TheftfromVehicle Other Total Frequency 17 9 5 3 3 2 2 3 44 Percent 38.6 13.6 6.8 6.8 4.5 4.5 4.5 2.3 100.0

A key finding which emerges from the analysis of the modus operandi field is that manyofthecrimeswhichaccountforalargeproportionoftheoffencesagainstSBD propertiesarecommittedbyacquaintancesorbythoselivingwithintheproperty.Of thefiveTheftoffences,threewerecommittedbyacquaintancestothevictimandtwo

32

weretheftsofitemsfromthegarden.Ofthe17recordedassaults,12wereclassedas domesticassaults,theremainingfiveoffenceswereclassedasacquaintanceassaults. AlthoughSBDimplementsmeasurestoprotectthepropertyanditsboundariesfrom offenders, its effectiveness is limited when offenders either reside within the property,orareacquaintancesofthevictim. BurglaryDwelling A total of 19,701 domestic burglaries were reported in West Yorkshire between August 2007 and July 2008. Only two burglary dwellings were committed against theSBDsample(SBDdwellingsbuiltin2006/2007)withinthistimeperiod.Burglary dwellingoffencesaccountedfor4.5percentofthecrimescommittedagainsttheSBD sampleduringtheperiodofanalysis. New SBD homes represent 0.04% of West Yorkshires domestic properties. In comparison,burglariesinthesehomesconstitutedadisproportionatelylow0.01%of West Yorkshire burglaries. The rate of burglaries in new SBD homes can be expressed as 5.8 burglaries per 1000 properties; this is considerably lower than the West Yorkshire rate of 22.7. The difference between burglary rates in new SBD properties and across West Yorkshire were found to be statistically significant (WilcoxonSignedRanksTestp<0.01onetailedtest). BothoftheburglariescommittedatnewSBDpropertieswerecommittedinOctober 2007. One of these burglaries was an attempt in which it appears that effort was madetoforceopenasidedoor.Theoffenderwasunsuccessful,noentrywasgained tothepropertyandnothingwasstolen.Thesecondburglarywascommittedthrough aninsecurefrontdoor. BurglaryOther Three burglary other offences were recorded in new SBD properties, a rate of 8.67 crimes per 1000 properties, all three of these were shed burglaries. The rate of burglary elsewhere offences for the nonSBD sample was 20 crimes per 1000 properties.ThedifferencebetweentherateofburglaryotheroffenceswithintheSBD sample and the rate of burglary elsewhere offences within the nonSBD sample is statisticallysignificant(p<0.01). OnecaveatwhichmustbeconsideredisthattheburglaryotheroffencesfortheSBD sample focus solely upon residential dwellings. However, for the nonSBD sample (West Yorkshire as a whole), this will include commercial properties and therefore more opportunities for offending to take place. There are also weaknesses in using thenumberofresidentialpropertiestocreatearateforburglaryotheroffences. CriminalDamage NineoffencesofcriminaldamagewererecordedagainsttheSBDsampleduringthe periodanalysed(sixtomotorvehicles,twotodwellingsandonenotspecified).This equatestoarateof26offencesper1000properties(comparedtotheWestYorkshire rateof58).ItshouldbeborneinmindthatthenonSBDsample(WestYorkshire)will includewidernonresidentialareassuchaspublicspaces,carparksandshops.
33

 The difference between criminal damage rates in new SBD properties and across West Yorkshire were found to be statistically significant (Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Testp<0.01onetailedtest). VehicleCrime FivevehiclecrimeswerereportedwithintheSBDsampleovertherelevantoneyear period. Three vehicles were stolen (including one TWOC) and two thefts from vehicleswerereported.Thisconstitutesarateof14.45offencesper1000properties. The nonSBD rate for the same period is 33.9 offences. Although this difference is substantial, the difference in vehicle crime rates between SBD properties and non SBDpropertieswasnotstatisticallysignificant(WilcoxonSignedRanksTestp>0.05 one tailed test). As was highlighted above, it should be noted that the nonSBD sample (West Yorkshire) will include town centre areas and car parks as well as residentialareas. TotalCrime Statisticalanalysisrevealsthatthedifferencebetweentherateoftotalcrimeswithin the nonSBD sample and the rate of crimes within SBD properties was found to be statisticallysignificant(WilcoxonSignedRanksTestp<0.01onetailedtest). Table6:SummaryofSBDVersusWestYorkshireFindings CrimeCategory SBDRateper1000 WestYorkshire Significant properties Rateper1000 Difference properties BurglaryDwelling 5.8 22.7 p<0.01 BurglaryOther 8.67 20 p<0.01 CriminalDamage 26 58 p<0.01 VehicleCrime 14.45 33.9 ns TotalCrime 127 259.43 p<0.01 SameStreetAnalysis Aswasdiscussedwithinthemethodology,theanalysisalsocomparedcrimerateson streets/developments which contained both SBD and nonSBD properties. In some cases this was a development where a proportion of the properties were SBD, usually where a development was required to include a percentage of housing association,andthereforeSBDproperties.Inothercases,theSBDsectionwasablock ofapartments(SBD)locatedwithinanothernonSBDstreet. This section of the analysis creates an additional nonSBD sample which compares samples which are similar in terms of location, as well as many environmental features. Although the tenure of the SBD and nonSBD samples is likely to differ with the SBD section usually housing association and the nonSBD section owner occupied, as these streets/developments are located directly next to each other, this createsanusefulsampleforanalysis.

34

Where SBD properties are located within a development of nonSBD properties, there are several potential possibilities regarding the potential impact upon crime. Thesearehighlightedheresimplytooutlinethepotentialimpacts.Itshouldbenoted thatthesearebynomeansguaranteedtotakeplace. 1) The nonSBD properties may be negatively affected by the displacement of crime from the SBD properties; for example, offenders are unable to successfully offend against the SBD properties, therefore choosing the weakestnearbyproperties.Again,itshouldbenotedthattheevaluationsof SBD detailed within the literature review have each found no evidence of displacement from SBD to nonSBD properties. However, this possibility shouldalwaysbekeptinmindwhilstevaluationcrimereductionschemes. 2) ThenonSBDpropertiesmaybepositivelyaffectedbyadiffusionofbenefits from the SBD properties; for example, offenders are aware of enhanced security measures on some properties. Not knowing exactly which are protected,theychoosetooffendelsewhere. 3) TheimpactofSBDmaybedilutedbythesurroundingnonSBDproperties thereforehavinganegativeimpactuponSBD.

A total of 105 crimes were committed within the same street sample between August 2007 and July 2008. Of these 105 offences, 93 were committed against non SBDpropertiesand12werecommittedagainstSBDproperties.Thisequatestoarate of262.7crimesper1000householdswithinthenonSBDsampleand118.8crimesper 1000 households within the SBD sample. This difference in rates was statistically significant(WilcoxonSignedRanksTestp<0.05).

Table 7: Crimes committed within the Same Street sample by month (August 2007July2008) Month Aug07 Sep07 Oct07 Nov07 Dec07 Jan08 Feb08 Mar08 Apr08 May08 Jun08 Jul08 Total NonSBD Number Rate 13 8 7 11 9 4 6 11 6 2 9 7 93 36.7 22.6 19.8 31.1 25.4 11.3 16.9 31.1 16.9 5.6 25.4 19.8 262.7 SBD Number Rate 0 2 1 2 1 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 12 0.0 19.8 9.9 19.8 9.9 9.9 0.0 19.8 29.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 118.8 Total Number 13 10 8 13 10 5 6 13 9 2 9 7 105

35

As table 8 (below) reveals, the most frequently recorded crime within the nonSBD sample was assault, followed by criminal damage. Criminal Damage was the most frequentlyrecordedoffencewithintheSBDsample. NoburglarydwellingswererecordedagainsttheSBDpropertieswithinthissample, however, five were recorded against the nonSBD sample. With the exception of criminaldamage;ratesforallcrimecategoriesanalysedwerehigherwithinthenon SBDsample. Table8:CrimeCategoriesrecordedwithintheSameStreetsample(August2007 July2008) CrimeType Assault CriminalDamage BurglaryOther BurglaryDwelling Theftfromvehicle Theftofvehicle+twoc Other Total NonSBD No. 24 12 7 5 7 3 35 93 Rate 67.8 33.9 19.8 14.1 19.8 8.5 93.2 262.7 SBD No. 0 4 2 0 0 0 6 12 Rate 0.00 39.6 19.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.4 118.8 Significant Difference p<0.05 ns ns p<0.05 p<0.05 ns p<0.05

As is revealed within table 8, the differences between the rates of crime within the SBD and nonSBD sample were significant for assault, burglary dwelling and theft fromavehicle(WilcoxonSignRankTestOneTailed). Astrong,statisticallysignificantcorrelationwasidentifiedbetweentheproportionof SBDhousesonastreetandtherateofcrimesrecordedthere(Spearmansrho.529 p<0.05 1tailed test). This correlation was negative, suggesting that the lower the proportionofSBDhomesonastreetthehighertherateofcrime. SimilarcorrelationswereidentifiedbetweentheproportionofSBDhousingandthe rateofburglarydwelling(.506),assault(.444)andcriminaldamage(.748),eachof thesecorrelationswasstatisticallysignificant(p<0.01).

MatchedPairsAnalysis As was highlighted within the methodology, each of the 16 SBD streets were matchedagainstanonSBDstreetgiving16matchedpairsofoneSBDandonenon SBD development. This methodology was based upon that used in the 1999 evaluation whereby matched pairs were created based upon location, tenure, age andotherenvironmentalfactors.Unfortunately,changesinhousingpolicyoverthe past ten years meant that it was not possible for this evaluation to select developments of the same housing tenure that were nonSBD. The SBD

36

developmentswerealleitherhousingassociationorlocalauthorityowned.Because housingassociationpropertiesarerequiredtobebuilttotheSBDstandard(thiswas not the case in 1999), finding a nonSBD matched pair of the same housing tenure was not possible. For this reason a decision was made to select the nonSBD development based upon location only. This meant that the SBD and nonSBD developmentswerelocatednexttoeachotherandinsomecases,formedpartofthe samedevelopment.Unfortunately,thisalsomeantthatinmanycases,thenonSBD section of the development was owner occupied (and in some cases extremely desirable properties). However, the SBD section of this development would be housing association owned. Although this is inevitable using the selected methodology,itdoesmeanthatthissectionoftheanalysisisnotcomparinglikewith like, and in many cases the comparison is between a desirable, high value, owner occupiednonSBDsampleandahousingassociationSBDsample. All crime categories were analysed for the sample of 32 developments for the time period August 2007 to July 2008. The results are summarised in Table 9 which presentsthetotalnumberofcrimesandcrimerateforeachcrimecategoryanalysed. Thecrimeratewascalculatedbytotallingthenumberofcrimeswithineachsample i.e. SBD and nonSBD and then dividing that total by the number of properties withinthesample. TotalCrime Atotalof44crimeswerecommittedwithintheSBDsampleduringthetimeperiod analysed, this produced a rate of 128.7 per 1000 properties. This compares to 42 crimescommittedonnonSBDstreets,ahigherrateof166.0.Ofthe16SBDstreetsin thesample,crimeswerereportedon11.ThesamewastrueofthenonSBDsample although the 11 nonSBD streets on which crime occurred were not necessarily matched to the 11 SBD streets on which crimes were reported. Although these figuresarepositiveforSBD,furtheranalysisrevealedthatthedifferencebetweenthe rates on the SBD and nonSBD sample were not statistically significant (the distribution of crime within the SBD and nonSBD samples was not normally distributedShapiroWilktestfornormalityofdistribution=0.01;Wilcoxonsigned rankstest=0.570). BurglaryDwelling Four offences of burglary dwelling were reported in the sample properties during the analysis period, two were located on the SBD streets and two on the nonSBD streets.TherateofburglarydwellingacrossthewholeSBDsamplewas5.9per1000 households.InthenonSBDsampletheburglarydwellingratewashigherat7.9per 1000 households Again, this is a positive finding, however, the difference between rateswasnotstatisticallysignificant(Wilcoxonsignedrankstest=1.000). Two burglary other offences were committed within the SBD sample; this is compared to one in the nonSBD sample. Consequently the total rate of burglary otherwashigherintheSBDsample(5.9),comparedtothenonSBDsample(4).As withburglarydwellingthedifferencebetweentherateofburglaryotheracrossthe matchedpairswasnotstatisticallysignificant(Wilcoxonsignedrankstest=1.000).
37

 Ratesofassault,theftofandtheftfromvehicleswerehigherintheSBDsamplethan the nonSBD sample, however, the rate of other crime was higher in the nonSBD samplealthough.Aswithalloffencesanalysedwithinthissectionofthereport,the differences between crime rates on the SBD and nonSBD samples were not statisticallysignificant. Table 9: Number and Rate of crimes Recorded in the Matched Pairs sample (August2007July2008) CrimeType NonSBD SBD Significant No. Rate(per1000 No. Rate(per1000 Difference properties) Assault Criminal Damage BurglaryOther Burglary Dwelling Theftfrom vehicle Theftof vehicle+twoc Other Total 7 12 1 2 1 0 19 42 27.7 47.5 4.0 7.9 4.0 0.0 75.1 166.0 17.0 8.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 9.0 44.0 properties) 49.7 23.4 5.9 5.9 5.9 8.8 26.3 128.7 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

These findings are largely positive for SBD and reveal that key offences such as burglary dwelling, as well as total crimes are lower within the SBD sample. When comparing these findings with those of the original 1999 evaluation, the results are also extremely positive. In this recent study, the burglary dwelling rate per 1000 dwellingsfortheoneyearperiod2006/2007was5.9fortheSBDsampleand7.9for thenonSBDsample.Whencomparingthistothefindingsfromthe1999evaluation whichshowedfortheoneyearperiodApril1999toMarch2000theburglaryratefor theSBDsamplewas22.7andforthenonSBDsamplewas38.3,theresultsreveala substantialimprovementintheperformanceofSBD(aswellasnonSBD)properties. Thefiguresfortotalcrimearealsopositive.The1999evaluationshowedthatforthe one year period April 1999 to March 2000, the SBD sample experienced 187.9 offences per 1000 dwellings, compared to the 203.1 experienced by the nonSBD sample.Inthisrecentstudy,therateoftotalcrimefortheSBDsamplewasjust128.7, with166per1000dwellingsforthenonSBDsample. Theanalysisofcrimeratesonmatchedpairsmusttakeintoaccounttheweaknesses withinthemethodology.The1999evaluationselected25matchedpairswhichwere matchedaccordingtoage,location,tenureandotherenvironmentalfactorssothatas

38

faraswaspossible,theonlydifferencebetweentheSBDandnonSBDdevelopment was that one was SBD and the other nonSBD. The sample utilised within this analysis tries to replicate the original methodology, however, changes in housing policy meant that selecting the same housing tenure for nonSBD properties would notbepossibleasallhousingassociationpropertiesandnowrequiredtobebuiltto SBD standards. Therefore, each of the 16 matched pairs were located next to each otherandweresimilarintermsofageandotherenvironmentalfactors,however,in most cases the analysis was comparing housing association owned SBD properties withowneroccupiednonSBDproperties.Bearingthisweaknessinmind,theresults remained largely positive for SBD. The total crime rate was lower within the SBD sample(128.7against166per1000properties).Criminaldamage,burglarydwelling andothercrimeswerealsolowerwithintheSBDsample.Crimesthatwerehigher withintheSBDsamplewereassault,burglaryotherandtheftofandfromvehicle. AnalysisoftheOriginalSample As was outlined within the methodology section, the analysis also included a comparison of crime rates on two randomly selected matched pairs that had been includedintheoriginal1999evaluation.Thisinvolvedcomparingthecrimeratesfor theoneyearperiodApril1999toMarch2000withtheoneyearperiodAugust2007 to July 2008. The extraction ofdataincluded allcrimecategoriesthat tookplaceon thesedevelopmentswithinthoseoneyearperiods.

Table10:CrimeRatesonMatchedPairOne(Halifax) Development Number Numberof CrimeRate Numberof CrimeRate of Crimes per1000in Crimes in Properties 1999/2000 1999/2000 2007/2008 2007/2008 St.Georges 14 1 71.43 1 71.43 RoadSBD LincolnWay 14 1 71.43 8 571.43 NonSBD Theanalysisrevealedthatformatchedpairone(Halifax)thecrimeratefortheSBD andnonSBDmatchedpairin1999/2000was71.43crimesper1000propertiesjust one crime on each development and an identical crime rate. The crime on the SBD development was a TWOC, the crime on the nonSBD development was a theft of pedal cycle. Analysing the crime rates in 2007/2008 for the same matched pair revealedthatalthoughthecrimerateontheSBDdevelopmenthadremainedexactly the same 71.43 crimes per 1000 properties (one crime), the crime rate on the matched pair had increased dramatically. For the 2007/2008 period there was one crimeontheSBDdevelopment(acrimerateof71.43per1000properties),however, therewereeightcrimesonthenonSBDdevelopment,acrimerateof571.43per1000 properties. The one crime which took place on the SBD development in 2007/2008 was again a TWOC the same crime as the 1999/2000 analysis. The crimes which took place on the nonSBD development were: Three criminal damage to dwelling offences,onecriminaldamagetomotorvehicle,oneinterferencewithmotorvehicle, oneTWOC,oneassaultandonetheftnonspecific.

39

Figure2:CrimeRatesfortheTwoTimePeriodsforMatchedPairOne(Halifax)
SBD Versus Non-SBD Matched Pair One (Halifax)
571.43
600

Crime Rate per 1000 Properties

500

400

300

200

71.43
100

71.43

71.43

0 SBD 1999/2000 NSBD 1999/2000 SBD 2007/2008 NSBD 2007/2008

Development

This analysis revealed that the SBD development has sustained levels of crime (or crimereduction).Thenumberofcrimes,andthecrime rate,remainedthesamefor theoneyearperiodof1999/2000and2007/2008.However,thematchedpairhadnot sustaineditscrimelevels,withonecrimein1999/2000andeightcrimesin2007/2008. Put another way, crime rates on the SBD developments for matched pair one increasedby0%,butforthenonSBDdevelopment,theyincreasedby700%. Table11:CrimeRatesonMatchedPairTwo(Leeds) Numberof CrimeRate Numberof CrimeRate Development Number of Crimes per1000in Crimes per1000 Properties 1999/2000 1999/2000 2007/2008 Properties in2007/2008 Moynihan 22 1 45.45 3 136.36 CloseSBD Amberton 28 5 178.57 6 214.29 GarthNon SBD Table 11 (above) displays the number and rate of crimes on matched pair two (Leeds). The analysis revealed that the crime rate for the SBD development in 1999/2000 was 45.45 per 1000 properties just one crime offence. On the nonSBD development,thecrimeratewas178.57per1000propertieswithfivecrimestaking placewithinthatoneyearperiod.ThecrimeontheSBDdevelopmentwasadamage to motor vehicle offence; the five crimes on the nonSBD development were: one burglarydwelling,onecommonassault,oneTWOCandtwodamagetoadwelling offences.Analysingthecrimeratesin2007/2008forthesamematchedpairrevealed thatthecrimerateontheSBDdevelopmentdidincreaseslightly,withthreeoffences

40

within the oneyear period a crime rate of 136.36 offences per 1000 properties. However,thecrimerateonthenonSBDdevelopmentalsoincreasedtosixoffences a crime rate of 214.29. The three offences on the SBD development were assault, criminal damage to a dwelling and other. The six offences on the nonSBD development were: one burglary dwelling, one theft of vehicle, one TWOC, one assaultandtwocriminaldamagetoadwellingoffences. Figure3:CrimeRatesfortheTwoTimePeriodsforMatchedPairTwo(Leeds)

SBD Versus Non-SBD Matched Pair Two (Leeds)

250

214.29 178.57

Crime Rate (Per 1000 Properties)

200 136.36 150

100 45.45 50

0 SBD 1999/2000 NSBD 1999/2000 SBD 2007/2008 NSBD 2007/2008

Development

ThisanalysisrevealedthattheSBDdevelopmentwasperforminglesswellinterms of reducing crime within the 2007/2008 period of analysis. The number of crimes increasedfrom onein1999/2000tothree in2007/2008 anincreaseof200%.Crime levels also increased on the nonSBD matched pair, from five to six crimes however,thiswasanincreaseofjust20%. TheresultsofthisanalysisrevealthatforbothmatchedpairstheSBDdevelopment wasperformingeitherthesameorbetterthanthenonSBDdevelopmentforthetwo timeperiods1999/2000and2007/2008.Formatchedpairone(Halifax),crimelevels were the same in 1999/2000, yet by 2007/2008 the SBD development was outperforming the nonSBD development with just one crime in the SBD developmentandeightinthenonSBDdevelopment.Formatchedpairtwo(Leeds) theSBDdevelopmentperformedbetterthanthenonSBDdevelopmentforbothtime periods.In1999/2000therewasonecrimeontheSBDdevelopmentandfiveonthe nonSBD development. In 2007/2008, there were three crimes on the SBD developmentandsixonthenonSBDdevelopment.

41

Table12:CrimeRatesonSBDDevelopments19992009 Development Numberof CrimeRate Numberof CrimeRatein Crimes per1000in Crimes 2007/2008 1999/2000 1999/2000 2007/2008 SBDSt. 1 71.43 1 71.43 GeorgesRoad NonSBD 1 71.43 8 571.43 LincolnWay SBD 1 45.45 3 136.36 Moynihan Close NonSBD 5 178.57 6 214.29 AmbertonGarth The figures below display how, for both 1999/2000 and 2007/2008, the SBD development of each matched pair was performing either the same, or better than the nonSBD development. In 1999/2000, both SBD and nonSBD properties accountedfor50%ofthecrimeformatchedpairone.Formatchedpairtwo,theSBD propertiesexperienced only20%of thecrime,comparedto thenonSBD properties thatexperienced80%ofthecrime. Figure 4: Crime Rates on Both Matched Pairs as a Proportion of Total Crime (1999/2000)

Crime on Both Matched Pairs - 1999/2000

100% 90% 80%

50% 80%

Proprtion of Crime

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Matched Pair One

NSBD SBD
50% 20%

Matched Pair Two

Matched Pair

42

This figure remained positive for the 2007/2008 analysis, with the SBD properties experiencing only 11% of the crime on matched pair one, and 39% of the crime on matchedpairtwo. Figure 5: Crime Rates on Both Matched Pairs as a Proportion of Total Crime (2007/2008)
Crimes on Matched Pairs One and Two - 2007/2008

100% 90% 80%

61% 89%

Proportion of Crime

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Matched Pair One Matched Pair Two

39% 11%

Matched Pair

Although these results are positive and show that SBD outperforms nonSBD for both time periods, there is concern regarding the sustainability of the crime reduction performance of SBD. For matched pair one, SBD sustained its crime reductionperformance,withthecrimerateremainingthesamein2007/2008asithad in 1999/2000. In contrast, the nonSBD matched pair performed poorly, with the crimerateincreasingby700%between1999/2000and2007/2008.Unfortunately,this pattern was not as positive for matched pair two where the crime rate on the SBD developmentincreasedfromonetothree(200%),whilstcrimeonthenonSBDonly increasedfromfivetosix20%.Figure6(below)displaysthesefiguresandshows howalthoughSBDperformedconsistentlybetterthannonSBDinmatchedpairtwo, thecrimeratedidincreasesloweronthenonSBDdevelopmentbetween1999/2000 and2007/2008.

43

Figure6:TheSustainabilityofCrimeReductiononBothMatchedPairs(1999/2000 2007/2008).

SelfReportedCrime
As was highlighted within the methodology section, a residents survey was hand deliveredto595residentsat342SBDand253nonSBDpropertiesthe32matched pairs. 68 residents returned the survey within the given time period 33 SBD residentsand35nonSBDresidents.Thisisaresponserateof11%. The responses were fairly evenly spread between SBD and nonSBD respondents with49%oftheresponsesfromSBDresidentsand52%fromnonSBDresidents. In terms ofage and gender, 29% (20) of respondents were male and 68% (46) were female. Reponses were received from all age categories, with 7% (5) of responses fromthoseinthe1624agegroup.Thirtyfourpercent(23)werefromresidentsaged 2544,25%(17)werefromthoseaged4564,12%(8)werefromthoseaged6574and 19%(13)werefromthoseaged75andover. Fortyonepercentofrespondents(28)werefromresidentslivinginpropertiesrented from a housing association, 32% (22) were from living in properties which were owneroccupied,10% (7)ofrespondentsrented from thelocalauthority and 3% (2) rentedfromaprivatelandlord.

ExperiencesofCrime Thesurveyaskedresidentswhethertheyhadbeenavictimofcertaincrimeswithin theprevious12monthperiod,andifso,howmanytimes.Theresultsrevealedthat only3%ofSBDrespondentshadbeenavictimoftheftofmotorvehicle,comparedto

44

twice as many nonSBD respondents (6%). When comparing this finding with the responsesfromthe1999evaluation,theresultssuggestthatfewerSBDrespondents had been avictim of theft of vehicle in 2009 (3%) as compared to 1999 (5%) even though the proportion of nonSBD victims remained the same (6%). In terms of attempt theft of vehicle, only 3% of SBD respondents had been a victim within the previousyear.Thisiscomparedto14%ofnonSBDrespondents. When asked whether they had been a victim of theft from vehicle, 6% of SBD respondentsrepliedyes,comparedto17%ofnonSBDrespondents.Onceagain,the percentage of SBD victims was higher in the 1999 evaluation (8%) than the 2009 evaluation (6%). Attempt theft from vehicle was also much higher within the non SBD sample with 11% of respondents reporting that they had been a victim of this crimewithinthepreviousyear,thisiscomparedtojust6%ofSBDrespondents. Analysis revealed that twice as many nonSBD respondents had been a victim of theftofbicyclewithinthepreviousyear(6%)thanSBDrespondents(3%).Again,this figure was much higher in 1999, with 10% of SBD respondents reporting that they hadbeenavictimofbicycletheft.SevenpercentofnonSBDrespondentshadbeena victim of attempt theft of bicycle within the previous year compared to 0% of SBD respondents. Three per cent of SBD respondents (1) reported having been a victim of domestic burglarywithinthepreviousyear.Thisiscomparedto6%ofnonSBDrespondents (2).TheproportionofSBDresidentsfallingvictimtothisoffenceremainedthesame (3%) over the previous ten year period. In terms of attempt burglary, 3% of SBD respondentsreportedhavingexperiencedthisoffencewithinthepreviousyear;this iscomparedto14%ofnonSBDrespondents. Theft of property from outside the dwelling was again higher within the nonSBD samplewith17%ofnonSBDrespondentshavingexperiencedthisoffencewithinthe previous year; this is compared to 9% of SBD respondents. Analysis of the 1999 residentssurveyrevealedthattheproportionofSBDrespondentsexperiencingthis offence has reduced dramatically over the past ten years. Sixteen per cent of SBD respondentshadexperiencedatheftofpropertyfromoutsidetheirdwellingin1999; thisiscomparedtojust9%in2009.Intermsofattempttheftofpropertyfromoutside thedwelling,11%ofnonSBDrespondentshadbeenavictimofthisoffencewithin thepreviousyear;thisiscomparedto0%ofSBDrespondents.
45

Table13:SummaryofExperiencesofCrime Crime Percentage Percentage Percentage Category ofSBD ofnonSBD ofSBD respondents respondents respondents 2009 2009 1999

Percentage ofnonSBD respondents 1999

Theftof 3%(1) 6%(2) 5% 6% Vehicle Attempt 3%(1) 14%(5) Theftof Vehicle Theft 6%(2) 17%(6) 8% 6% 3.4% from Vehicle Attempt 6%(2) 11%(4) Theft from Vehicle Theftof 3%(1) 6%(2) 10% 7% 1.6% Bicycle Attempt 0%(0) 7%(3) Theftof Bicycle Burglary 3%(1) 6%(2) 3% 8% 2.4% Dwelling Attempt 3%(1) 14%(5) 1% Burglary Dwelling Theftof 9%(3) 17%(6) 16% 24% Property from Outside Dwelling Attempt 0%(0) 11%(4) Theftof Property from Outside Dwelling FeelingsofSafety Residents of both SBD and nonSBD properties were asked how safe they feel walking alone in their neighbourhood during the day, walking alone in their neighbourhoodatnightandalsobeingaloneathomeatnight.Theresultsrevealed that 85% of SBD respondents felt very or fairly safe walking alone in their area

Percentage ofBritish Crime Survey Respondents (07/08) 0.6%

46

during the day; this is compared to 77% of nonSBD respondents. Only 6% of SBD respondents felt a bit unsafe or very unsafe compared to 20% of nonSBD respondents.ZeropercentofSBDrespondentsfeltveryunsafewhenwalkingalone intheirareaduringtheday;thisiscomparedto6%ofnonSBDrespondents. Whenaskedhowsafetheyfeltwalkingaloneintheirareaatnight,theresultswere very similar for both the SBD and the nonSBD sample. Thirty per cent of SBD respondentsfeltveryorfairlysafecomparedto45%ofnonSBDrespondents.Fifty sevenpercentofSBDrespondentsfeltveryunsafeorabitunsafecomparedto51% ofnonSBDrespondents.Althoughlesspositivethansomeoftheotherfindings,this question relates to the area surrounding the residents home and not to the home itself. Given that many SBD developments are either within a larger nonSBD developmentorlocateddirectlynexttoanonSBDdevelopment,itisnotsurprising thatresidentsfromSBDdevelopmentsdonotfeelsafewhenwalkingalonewithin theirareaatnight.Amorerelevantquestionishowsafedoyoufeelathomealone at night? The results reveal that 85% of SBD respondents felt very or fairly safe at homealoneatnight,thisiscomparedtojust77%ofnonSBDrespondents.Only12% of SBD respondents felt a bit or very unsafe, this is compared to 23% of nonSBD respondents. Only 3% of SBD respondents felt very unsafe at home alone at night compared to 6% of nonSBD respondents. This is also a slight improvement on the 1999findingswhere4%ofSBDrespondentsfeltveryathomealoneatnight. Table14:FeelingsofSafetyamongstSBDandNonSBDRespondents Question: Proportionof Proportionof Proportionof Proportionof Howsafedo SBDSample NonSBD SBDSample NonSBD youfeel whofeelVery Samplewho whofeelABit Samplewho orFairlySafe feelVeryor orVery feelABitor FairlySafe Unsafe VeryUnsafe Walkingalone 85% 77% 6% 20% inthisarea duringthe day? Walkingalone 30% 45% 57% 51% inthisarea afterdark? Athomealone 85% 77% 12% 23% atnight? WorryaboutCrimeandDisorder Whenaskedhowworriedthey were aboutcertain types of crime anddisorder, the responses from SBD and nonSBD residents were very similar. Fiftysix per cent of SBDrespondentswereveryorfairlyworriedaboutbeingthevictimofburglary;this iscomparedto54%ofnonSBDrespondents.FortytwopercentofSBDrespondents wereeithernotveryworriedornotatallworriedaboutbeingavictimofburglary; thisiscomparedto43%ofnonSBDrespondents.

47

In terms of theft of vehicle, 51% of SBD respondents were very or fairly worried about having their car stolen; this is compared to 43% of nonSBD respondents. Fortyfive per cent of SBD respondents were very or fairly worried about having something stolen from their car; this is compared to 46% of nonSBD respondents. Fortyeight per cent of SBD respondents were not very or not at all worried about having something stolen from their car; this is compared to 43% of nonSBD respondents. When asked about violent crime, 54% of SBD respondents were very or fairly worried about being physically attacked by strangers; this is compared to 57% of nonSBDrespondents.FortytwopercentofSBDrespondentswerenotveryworried or not at all worried about this crime; compared to 40% of nonSBD respondents. When asked about their worry about racially motivated violence, 27% of SBD respondentswereeitherveryorfairlyworriedaboutbeingthevictimofthisoffence; thisiscomparedto28%ofnonSBDrespondents.Amorepositivefindingwasthat 42%ofSBDrespondentswerenotatallworriedaboutthisoffence;thisiscompared tojust26%ofnonSBDrespondents. Table15:WorryaboutCrimeandDisorder Question: Proportionof Proportionof Proportionof Proportionof Howworried SBDSample NonSBD SBDSample NonSBD areyou whofeelVery Samplewho whofeelNot Samplewho about orFairly feelVeryor VeryorNotat feelNotVery Worried FairlyWorried allWorried orNotatall Worried Havingyour 56% 54% 42% 43% homebroken intoand something stolen? Havingyour 51% 43% 42% 46% carstolen? Having 45% 46% 48% 43% something stolenfrom yourcar? Being 54% 57% 42% 40% physically attackedby strangers? Beingthe 27% 28% 66% 66% victimof racially motivated violence?

48

ProblemsofCrimeandDisorder Whenaskedabouttheirperceptionsofproblemsofcrimeanddisorder,theSBDand nonSBDsamplesrevealedsimilarresults.27%ofSBDrespondentscomparedto26% ofnonSBDrespondentsfeltthatnoisyneighbourswereeitheraverybigorfairlybig problemwithintheirarea.Furtheranalysisofresponsesrevealsapositivefindingfor SBDwithonly9%ofSBDrespondentssuggestingthatnoisyneighboursareavery bigproblemcomparedto17%ofnonSBDrespondents.Thisisalsoanimprovement on the findings from the 1999 evaluation where 12% of SBD respondents felt that noisyneighbourswereaverybigproblem. Thefindingswerealsosimilarforpeopleusingorsellingdrugs,with42%ofSBD respondentsreplyingthatthiswasaveryorfairlybigproblem,comparedto48%of nonSBD respondents. Although aggregating the very and fairly big responses revealedasimilarfinding,furtheranalysisshowsthatonly21%ofSBDrespondents feltthatthiswasaverybigproblemcomparedto31%ofnonSBDrespondents. Theresultsweremuchmorepositiveforvandalism,graffitianddeliberatedamage as well as racially motivated violence. Only 15% of SBD respondents felt that raciallymotivatedviolencewasaveryorfairlybigproblem;thisiscomparedto20% of nonSBD respondents. Again, only 30% of SBD respondents felt that vandalism, graffiti or deliberate damage was a very or fairly big problem; this is compared to 46%ofnonSBDrespondents. A less positive finding for SBD relates to teenagers hanging around. Fiftyone per cent of SBD respondents felt that this was a very or fairly big problem; this is comparedto43%ofnonSBDrespondents.Althoughtheresponsestothisquestion arelesspositiveforSBD,theydorevealanimprovementfromthe1999evaluation. In199924%ofSBDrespondentsfeltthatteenagershangingaroundwereaverybig problem;by2009thisnumberhadreducedto18%

49

Table16:ProblemsofCrimeandDisorder Question: Proportionof Proportionof Howmuchof SBDSample NonSBD aproblem whofeltthat Samplewho is/are thiswasa feltthatthis VeryorFairly wasaVeryor BigProblem FairlyBig Problem

Proportionof SBDSample whofeltthat thiswasNota VeryBig Problemor NotaProblem atall

Noisy 27% 26% 69% neighboursor loudparties? Teenagers 51% 43% 45% 54% hanging around? Vandalism, 30% 46% 63% 51% graffitiand deliberate damage? Racially 15% 20% 75% 74% motivated violence? Peopleusing 42% 48% 48% 48% orselling drugs? BeingAwareofSBD As well as asking respondents about their experiences, fears and perceptions of crimeanddisorder,theSBDsampleofresidentswerealsoaskeda)iftheyhadheard of the SBD scheme or seen the SBD logo (they were shown both the new and old logos),andb)whethertheywereawarethattheirpropertyhadbeendesignedand built to the SBD standard. Nine per cent (3) of respondents had heard of the SBD schemeorhadseentheSBDlogo,85%(28)hadnot.Sixpercentofrespondents(2) wereawarethattheirhousehadbeendesignedtotheSBDstandard;again85%(28) were not. This is a very slight improvement from the 1999evaluation which found thatonly5%ofrespondentswereawarethattheirproperty/estatehadbeenawarded theSBDschemebecauseithadbeendesignedandbuilttoreducetheriskofcrime.

Proportionof NonSBD Samplewho feltthatthis wasNota VeryBig Problemor NotaProblem atall 74%

RepeatVictimisationandSecuredbyDesign
AswellasanalysinglevelsofcrimewithintheSBDandnonSBDsamples,thisstudy alsolookedatlevelsofrepeatvictimisationfocusingupontheperformanceofSBD againstitsnonSBDcounterparts.AlthoughthepreviousevaluationofSBDinWest Yorkshire(Armitage,2000)hadshownpositivefindingsregardingtheperformance of SBD as a crime reduction measure, the impact of the scheme on repeat victimisationappearedtobelessstraightforward.

50

 The original evaluation of 25 SBD and 25 nonSBD developments revealed that although the concentration (repeat victimisation) rate for total crime was higher within the nonSBD sample, levels of repeat burglary were higher within the SBD sample. Residents appeared to be protected against total crime and burglary, however,oncetheyhadexperiencedaburglaryoffence,theyweremorelikelythan theirnonSBDcounterpartstoexperienceasubsequentburglaryoffence.Thisfinding suggestedthat,althoughSBDismorelikelytopreventcrimetakingplace,oncethe offenderhasfoundaweakness,eitherwithinthedesignofapropertyortheresident residing within that property, they were exploiting that weakness and committing repeat burglaries at a rate higher than that experienced by the NonSBD matched pairs. At first glance these findings appear contradictory; however, once considered in more detail, they make intuitive sense and are supported by other criminological research (Ellingworth et al, 1997, Ashton et al, 1998). Offenders often select a target based upon external cues such as the ease of access and perceptions of risk and reward. However, once the offender has burgled the property, they can base their decisiontoreoffenduponinternalcuessuchaslifestyleandwealthsupportingthe EventDependencyexplanationforrepeatvictimisation. Bearing this in mind, it was important for this reevaluation of SBD within West Yorkshire to revisit the issue of repeat victimisation and to attempt to establish whether this finding was still valid or whether SBD had improved as a protective factoragainstrepeatvictimisation.Utilisingthematchedpairssampleof16SBDand 16nonSBDdevelopments,levelsofrepeatvictimisationwereanalysed.Theresults revealed that repeat victimisation was again higher within the SBD sample with 35.7%ofcrimesagainsttheSBDsamplerepresentingarepeatoffence,ascompared to 27.3% of the crimes against the nonSBD sample. As was discussed within the earlier section, although the SBD sample experienced lower overall levels of crime, somecrimetypeswerehigherwithintheSBDsampletheseincludedassault,theft ofandfromvehicleandburglaryother.Acloserscrutinyoftherepeatvictimisation data for the 2009 sample revealed that the main crime type impacting upon this increasedlevelofrepeatvictimisationwasassaultandthatoneaddressinparticular hadalargenumberofrepeatassaults.Furtheranalysisoftotalcrimedata(excluding assaults) revealed that whilst the percentage of crimes experienced which were repeatoffencesremainedat27.3%forthenonSBDsample(thesameaswithoutthe exclusionofassaults),theproportionofrepeatvictimisationswithintheSBDsample reduced from 35.7% to 11.9%. Although the high levels of repeat victimisation in particular repeat assault, remain crucial, this analysis suggests that additional interventionsfocuseduponoffencesagainstthepersonshouldbeimplementedto supplementthesituationalmeasuresincorporatedwithinSBD.

VisualAudits
As was referred to within the methodology section, the visual audits took place at eachofthe16SBDand16nonSBDdevelopmentsoveraperiodofthreedays.Each

51

matchedpair(i.e.SBDOneandnonSBDOne)werealwaysvisitedconsecutively,on the same day and roughly at the same time of day. The visual audit schedule measured factors such as levels of graffiti and vandalism, levels of litter, noise, brokenglassonpavements,brokenwindowsandalsolevelsoflightingandpresence ofschemessuchasNeighbourhoodWatch.Therewere31factorsintotal,however, three of these evidence of police patrol cars; evidence of police on foot and other authorityfigureswerenotincludedinthequantitativeanalysispresentedbelow. OverallTotalScore The first level of analysis involved presenting the total score for the whole SBD sample against the total score for the whole nonSBD sample. As was mentioned earlier,theauditmeasured28factors(forthequantitativeanalysis)andeachfactor scoredbetweenzeroandfive.Zerorepresentsthemostpositivescoreforeachfactor; five represents the most negative score. The maximum score for each development was140fivemultipliedby28(factors).Theminimumscorewaszero. When presenting the total scores, the maximum score for the whole SBD and non SBDsamplewas2240(140multipliedby16developments).Theminimumscorewas zero. Figure 7 (below) displays the total scores for the whole SBD and nonSBD samples. The total score for the 16 SBD developments was 317 out of a maximum scoreof2240andaminimumofzero.ThetotalscoreforthenonSBDdevelopment was388,againoutofamaximumof2240.ThenonSBDsamplescoredhigherthan the SBD sample, revealing that the 28 factors measured by the visual audits were worseonthenonSBDsample.ThisisapositivefindingforSBDandsuggeststhat, inrelationtothedisorderfactorsmeasuredbythevisualaudit,SBDperformsbetter thannonSBD.

52

Figure7:TotalScoresforSBDandNonSBDSamples.
Total Score - SBD Sample Versus Non-SBD Sample

2000

Score (0-2240)

1500

1000 317 500

388

0 SBD Total NSBD Total

Status

When analysing the total scores for the whole sample of 16 SBD and 16 nonSBD developments,itbecomesclearthat,ingeneral,thebestperformingestates(i.e.those withthelowestscores)areSBDdevelopments,andtheworstperformingestates(i.e. thosewiththehighestscores)arenonSBDdevelopments.Table17(below)displays thetotalscoresforeachofthe32developments. The table and graph below show the total scores for each development. Of the 16 matched pairs, three pairs revealed SBD to be performing worse than the nonSBD counterpart, one matched pair showed that both the SBD and nonSBD developmentsscoredthesame,and12ofthe16SBDtobeperformingbetterthanthe nonSBDmatchedpair.

53

Table17:TotalScoresforeachofthe32Developments MatchedPair SBDScore 23.5 PairOne 22 PairTwo PairThree 17.5 28 PairFour PairFive 24 PairSix 21.5 PairSeven 19 PairEight 15 PairNine 20 PairTen 22 PairEleven 24 PairTwelve 15 PairThirteen 12 PairFourteen 23 PairFifteen 11 PairSixteen 19.5

NonSBDScore 23 20.5 24.5 18 38 21.5 24.5 19 39 26 25 25 18 25 19 22

SBD versus Non-SBD - Full Sample

50

40

38

39

Score (0-140)

30

28 23.523 24.5 22 20.5 17.5 18 24 24.5 21.5 21.5 19 15 22 19 20 18 15 12 11 26 24 25 25 23 25 22 1919.5

20

10

0
1 4 6 3 SB D 5 SB D5 7 BD 9 SB D 10 N SB D 10 SB D 11 NS BD 11 SB D 12 N SB D 12 SB D 13 N SB D 13 SB D 14 N SB D 14 SB D 15 N SB D 15 SB D 1 NS 6 BD 16 SB D2 2 SB D SB D SB D SB D NS SB D SB D NS N N N N N N N 8 SB D9 7 1 3 SB D 4 SB D SB D SB D 6 SB D SB D BD 8

Status

Figure8:TotalScoresforeachofthe32Developments BestandWorstPerformingDevelopments The analysis revealed that, of the 32 developments, the worst performing five (i.e. those with the highest scores) were predominantly nonSBD (only one was SBD). These were: NonSBD 9 (Long Close Lane), NonSBD 5 (Crossley Gardens), SBD 4 (LongfieldClose),NonSBD10(SaintAugustinesTerrace),NonSBD11(Cranbrook Street), NonSBD 12 (Elizabeth Street) and NonSBD 14 (Naden Close) the final three all scored equal fifth. These developments scored between 39 (the worst

54

performing development Long Close Lane) and 25 (Cranbrook Street, Elizabeth StreetandNadenClose). The analysis revealed that, of the 32 developments, the best performing five (i.e. thosewiththelowestscores)wereallSBD.Thesewere:SBD15(Rowanberries),SBD 13(KestrelStreet),SBD12(MarySeacoleCourt),SBD10(St.AugustinesTerrace)and SBD 3 (Scott Street). These developments scored between 11 (Rowanberries) the bestperformingdevelopmentand17.5(ScottStreet).

IndividualPairs The following section outlines each individual matched pair, highlighting both the differencesinquantitativescores,aswellasanynoticeableissuesthatemerged. Matched Pair One consisted of a collection of SBD dwellings on Syke Lane, Hollyhock Close, Damson Close, Heather Court and Ryburn Street in Sowerby Bridge. NonSBD dwellings were on Ryburn Street. Overall, the analysis revealed thattheSBDestateactuallyperformedslightlyworsethanthenonSBDestatewith scoresof23.5versus23.Althoughtherewereveryfewissueswiththeseestates,both performing reasonably well, one of the SBD estates (Ryburn Street) did have some litterbothonthestreetsandinthegardens,theleveloflightingwaspoorandthere was no evidence of Neighbourhood Watch. However, in contrast, the SBD developmentonDamsonCloseshowednovisiblesignsofdisorder. Figure9:MatchedPairOne

Total Score - SBD 1 Versus Non-SBD 1 (Syke Lane Versus Ryburn Street)

140 120

Score (0-140)

100 80 60 40 20 0 SBD1 NSBD1 23.5 23

Status

55

Figure10:LitteroutsidetheSBDDevelopmentonRyburnStreetPartoftheSyke LaneDevelopment Litterinthe street Brokenglassinthe street Figure11:DamsonClose(SBD)ShowingNoSignsofDisorder MatchedPairTwowasRystoneDriveinHalifax.TheanalysisrevealedthattheSBD development performed slightly worse than the nonSBD development with scores of22versus20.5.Therewasverylittletonoteonthisestatewithnolitterorgraffiti
56

and no signs of desertion or abandonment. The only issues which were noted was thattherewereseveralpotentialhidingplacesandalsonosignsofNeighbourhood Watch. Figure12:MatchedPairTwo
Total Score - SBD 2 Versus Non-SBD 2 (Rystone Drive)

140 120 100 80 60 22 40 20 0 SBD2 NSBD2 20.5

Total Score (0-140)

Status

Matched Pair Three was Napier Apartments on Scott Street and Fir Street in Todmorden. The SBD development performed much better than the nonSBD development with scores of 17.5 against 24.5. The SBD development showed just a veryslightissueofvandalismtobuildings,butotherwisehadgoodlightingandno evidenceofeithergraffitiorlitter.ThenonSBDdevelopmenthadpoorlightingand therewere also a number ofpotential escaperoutes. AtthebottomofthenonSBD therewerearowofgarages,someshowingsignsofdisrepair.

57

Figure13:MatchedPairThree
Total Score - SBD 3 Versus Non-SBD 3 (Scott Street and Fir Street)

140 120

Score (0-140)

100 80 60 17.5 40 20 0 SBD3 NSBD3 24.5

Status

Figure14:NapierApartments(SBD)ShowingEvidenceofLighting,NoGraffitior Litter Evidence oflighting

58

Figure15:FirStreetTheNonSBDComparison Potentialescaperoute leadingtoanopen Potentialescaperoute field Figure16:GaragesatthebottomofFirStreet Matched Pair Four was Longfield Close in Todmorden. For this matched pair the SBD development performed much worse than the nonSBD development with scoresof28versus18.TheSBDdevelopmentshowedsignsofdesertion(bothshort andlongterm),litterandvandalism.AlthoughthenonSBDmatchedpairwaspart ofthesamestreet,itshowednosignsoflitter,graffitiorvandalismandappearedto
59

be well managed. In particular, the researchers noted the fencing around the non SBDdevelopmentthatwasusedtodemarcatepublicspaceandsemiprivatespace. Thisfencingappearedtoworkwell,butitshouldbenotedthatithasbeeninstalled retrospectively perhaps as a response to a recent crime problem. This was a development on which a nonSBD resident approached the fieldwork team to ask questions about the purpose of the research. The resident expressed concern about themanagementandmaintenanceoftheSBDdevelopmentanddiscussedproblems ofdruguseanddisorder. Figure17:MatchedPairFour
Total Score - SBD 4 Versus Non-SBD 4 (Longfield Close)

140 120

Score (0-140)

100 80 60 40 20 0 SBD4 NSBD4 28 18

Status

Figure18:FencingatLongfieldClose(NonSBD)

Fencingusedto demarcatepublicand semiprivatespace

60

Figure19:LongfieldClose(SBD) MatchedPairFivewasKismetCloseandCrossleyGardensinHalifax.Theanalysis for this development revealed that the SBD estate performed much better than the nonSBD estate with scores of 24 and 38. This SBD development did show signs of somevandalismtobuildings,graffitiwithinthedevelopmentandlitterbothonthe streets and in the gardens. However, this was much lower than the neighbouring CrossleyGardens.
61

Figure20:MatchedPairFive
Total Score - SBD 5 Versus Non-SBD 5 (Kismet Close Versus Crossley Gardens)

140 120

Score (0-140)

100 80 60 40 20 0 SBD5 NSBD5 38 24

Status

Figure21:KismetClose(SBD)

62

Figure22:CrossleyGardens(NonSBD) Matched Pair Six was Stansfield Close and Cromwell Terrace in Halifax. Both SBD and nonSBD developments scored the same and for each development there were veryfewvisualsignsofdisorder(21.5).SBDSixdidshowsomesignsofvandalism to buildings and low levels of lighting, however, this estate did appear to be well managed.
63

Figure23:MatchedPairSix
Total Score - SBD 6 Versus Non-SBD 6 (Stansfield Close Versus Cromwell Terrace)

140 120

Score (0-140)

100 80 60 21.5 40 20 0 SBD6 NSBD6 21.5

Status

Matched Pair Seven was Alpine Close and Illingworth Gardens in Halifax. The analysis revealed that SBD performed better than the nonSBD development with scoresof19and24.5.SBDSevenshowednosignsoflitter,graffitiorvandalismand the only issues of note were the low levels of lighting and no signs of NeighbourhoodWatch.

64

Figure24:MatchedPairSeven
Total Score - SBD 7 Versus Non-SBD 7 (Alpine Close Versus Illingworth Gardens)

140 120

Score (0-140)

100 80 60 19 40 20 0 SBD7 NSBD7 24.5

Status

Figure25:AlpineClose(SBDDevelopment) MatchedPairEightwasJarvisWalkandSherwoodGreeninWakefield.Thesewere bothextremelywellmanageddevelopmentswiththeSBDdevelopmentbeingoneof thebestperformingestateswithinthesample(15ascomparedto19).Therewereno issuesofnotewithnoevidenceoflitter,graffitiorvandalismandthiswasoneofthe few developments on which the fieldworkers were observed or challenged by

65

residents. Again, the only suggestion for improvement would be to attempt to encouragelocalstosetupaNeighbourhoodWatchscheme. Figure26:MatchedPairEight

Total Score - SBD 8 Versus Non-SBD 8 (Jarvis Walk Versus Sherwood Green)

140 120

Score (0-140)

100 80 60 40 20 0 SBD8 NSBD8 15 19

Status

Figure27:PartofJarvisWalk(SBD)

66

Matched Pair Nine was Richmond Court and Long Close Lane in Leeds. This SBD development scored extremely positively compared to the nonSBD development with scores of 20 against 39. There was very little to note about this SBD development, other than it was located in an area which had high levels of litter, graffiti,vandalismanddesertion. Figure28:MatchedPairNine

Total Score - SBD9 Versus Non-SBD 9 (Richmond Court Versus Long Close Lane)

140 120

Score (0-140)

100 80 39 60 20 40 20 0 SBD9 NSBD9

Status

Figure29:EvidenceofVandalism,GraffitiandDesertionattheNonSBD DevelopmentLongCloseLane,Leeds

67

Figure30:ManyoftheDwellingsonLongCloseLanehadBarsonWindowsand GrillsonDoors Grillonthe door Matched Pair Ten was St. Augustines Terrace in Bradford. The SBD development scoredbetterthanthenonSBDdevelopmentwithascoreof22against26.ThisSBD development did score better than its nonSBD counterpart, however, there was evidenceoflitterbothonthestreetsandingardensandalsopoorlevelsoflighting. Figure31:MatchedPairTen
Total Score - SBD 10 Versus Non-SBD 10 (St. Augustine's Terrace)

140 120

Score (0-140)

100 80 60 22 40 20 0 SBD10 NSBD10 26

Status

68

MatchedPairElevenwasCranbrookStreetinBradfordwheretheSBDdevelopment scoredslightlybetterthanthenonSBDdevelopment(scoresof24and25).ThisSBD developmenthadhighlevelsoflitterbothonthestreetsandparticularlyingardens. ThenonSBDdevelopmentalsohadhighlevelsoflitterinthestreet. Figure32:MatchedPairEleven

Total Score - SBD 11 Versus Non-SBD 11 (Cranbrook Street)

140 120

Score (0-140)

100 80 60 24 40 20 0 SBD11 NSBD11 25

Status

Figure33:LitterinGardensoftheSBDDevelopment(CranbrookStreet) Litterin gardens

69

Figure34:LitteroutsidetheNonSBDDevelopment(CranbrookStreet) MatchedPairTwelvewasMarySeacoleCourtandElizabethStreetinBradford.The SBD development performed much better than the nonSBD development with a score of 15 against 25. This development showed no signs of litter, graffiti or vandalismandwaswelllit. Figure35:MatchedPairTwelve
Total Score - SBD 12 Versus Non-SBD 12 (Mary Seacole Court Versus Elizabeth Street)

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Score (0-140)

25 15

SBD12

NSBD12

Status

70

Figure36:PartofMarySeacoleCourt(SBD) Matched Pair Thirteen was Kestrel Close and Crake Drive in Bradford. This SBD development was one of the best performing developments of the whole sample withascoreofjust12.ThenonSBDdevelopmentalsoscoredwellwithascoreof18. Thisdevelopmenthadnosignsoflitter,graffitiorvandalism,waswelllitandalso hadevidenceofaNeighbourhoodWatchscheme. Figure37:MatchedPairThirteen
Total Score - SBD 13 Versus Non-SBD 13 (Kestrel Close Versus Crake Drive)

140 120

Score (0-140)

100 80 60 40 20 0 SBD13 NSBD13 12 18

Status

71

Figure38:PartofKestrelClose(SBD) Matched Pair Fourteen was Yateholm Drive and Naden Close in Bradford. Again, theSBDdevelopmentscoredbetterthanthenonSBDmatchedpair,withscoresof23 and 25. This SBD development did have signs of vandalism to buildings and also litteronthestreetsandingardens. Figure39:MatchedPairFourteen
Total Score - SBD 14 Versus Non-SBD 14 (Yateholm Drive Versus Naden Close)

140 120

Score (0-140)

100 80 60 40 20 0
SBD14 NSBD14

23

25

Status

72

MatchedPairFifteenwasRowanberriesandBaldwinStreetinBradford.Thiswasa quietlocationandbothSBDandnonSBDdevelopmentscoredwell(SBDscored11 andnonSBD19).Rowanberriesshowednosignsoflitter,graffitiorvandalismand waswelllit. Figure40:MatchedPairFifteen

Total Score - SBD 15 Versus Non-SBD 15 (Rowanberries Versus Baldwin Lane)

140 120

Score (0-140)

100 80 60 40 20 0 SBD15 NSBD15 11 19

Status

Matched Pair Sixteen was Feather Bank and Stavely Road in Keighley. The SBD development showed lower signs of visual disorder with a score of 18 against the nonSBDscoreof22.Thisdevelopmentdidhowevershowsomeevidenceoflitteron the streets as well as in gardens. Again there was no evidence of Neighbourhood Watch.

73

Figure41:MatchedPairSixteen
Total Score -SBD 16 Versus Non-SBD 16 (Feather Bank Versus Stavely Road)

140 120

Score (0-140)

100 80 60 19.5 40 20 0 SBD16 NSBD16 22

Status

Figure42:EvidenceoflitterintheSBDDevelopment(FeatherBank)

Litteringarden

74

ConclusionandRecommendations

This report presents the findings of an evaluation of SBD housing within West Yorkshire.Thestudyaimstoreplicate,wherepossible,theoriginalevaluationofSBD conductedinWestYorkshiretenyearsago(Armitage,2000)andtoestablishwhether SBD has improved, maintained its performance or reduced its effectiveness as a crimereductionmeasure. The evaluation utilised a variety of methods in an attempt to establish whether residents living in SBD properties experience less crime than their nonSBD counterparts;whetherresidentslivinginSBDpropertieshavelowerlevelsoffearof crimethantheirnonSBDcounterparts;whetherSBDdevelopmentsshowlessvisual signsofdisorderandfinally,whetherSBDhasmaintaineditseffectivenessasacrime reductionmeasure. The evaluation was conducted by the University of Huddersfield and, with the exception of the provision of raw police recorded crime data, the methodology, analysisandwritingupwasconductedindependentlyofbothWestYorkshirePolice andACPO. Theevaluationincludedananalysisofpolicerecordedcrime,comparingasampleof SBD developments built in 2006/2007 (16 developments) with a) the rest of West Yorkshire,b)nonSBDpropertiesonthesamestreetandc)nonSBDmatchedpairs whichweredevelopmentslocatedascloseaspossibletotheSBDdevelopment. WhencomparingtheSBDsample(16developments)withtherestofWestYorkshire, theresultsrevealedpositivefindings.Allcrimecategorieswerelower(asarateper 1000 properties) than the nonSBD sample andwith the exception of vehicle crime, these differences were all statistically significant. There were only two burglaries withintheSBDsampleandanalysisofthemodusoperandirevealedthatoneofthese offenceswascommittedthroughaninsecurefrontdoor,thesecondwasanattempt in which it appears that effort was made to force open a side door, however, the offenderwasunsuccessful.

75

Table18:SummaryofSBDVersusWestYorkshireFindings Crime SBDRateper WestYorkshire Significant Category 1000 Rateper1000 Difference properties properties Burglary 5.8 22.7 p<0.01 Dwelling Burglary Other Criminal Damage Vehicle Crime 8.67 20 p<0.01

Percentage Difference 74.54%higherin WestYorkshire sample 56.65%higherin WestYorkshire sample 55.17%higher withintheWest Yorkshiresample 57.37%higher withintheWest Yorkshiresample 51.05%higher withintheWest Yorkshiresample

26

58

p<0.01

14.45

33.9

ns

TotalCrime 127

259.43

p<0.01

Furtheranalysisofmodusoperandidatarevealedthatmanyoftheoffencescommitted against or within the SBD sample were committed by acquaintances or by those living within the property. Of the five theft offences, three were committed by acquaintancestothevictimandtwoweretheftsofitemsfromthegarden.Ofthe17 recordedassaults,12wereclassedasdomesticassaults,theremainingfiveoffences were classed as acquaintance assaults. Although SBD implements measures to protect the property and its boundaries from offenders, its effectiveness is limited whenoffenderseitherresidewithintheproperty,orareacquaintancesofthevictim. The analysis of same street data comparing SBD properties with nonSBD properties which form part of the same streetor development (11 developments in total),againrevealedpositivefindings.Atotalof105crimeswerecommittedwithin thesamestreetsamplebetweenAugust2007andJuly2008.Ofthese105offences, 93werecommittedagainstnonSBDpropertiesand12werecommittedagainstSBD properties.Thisequatestoarateof262.7crimesper1000householdswithinthenon SBD sample and 118.8 crimes per 1000 households within the SBD sample. This differenceinrateswasstatisticallysignificant(WilcoxonSignedRanksTestp<0.05). NoburglarydwellingswererecordedagainsttheSBDpropertieswithinthissample, however, five were recorded against the nonSBD sample. With the exception of criminaldamage,ratesforallcrimecategoriesanalysedwerehigherwithinthenon SBDsample. The evaluation also analysed crime data on 16 matched pairs the 16 SBD developments built in 2006/07 and their nonSBD matched pair i.e. the closest non SBD development. This methodology aimed to replicate the 1999 evaluation that created 25 matched pairs of SBD and nonSBD properties that were as similar as

76

possible in terms of age, location, tenure and other environmental factors. Unfortunately,changesinhousing policybetween1999and2009meantthatitwas notpossibletofindnonSBDdevelopmentswhichwerethesamehousingtenureas the SBD sample (housing association) as all housing association developments are now required to be built to the SBD standard. For this reason, although the pairs werelocatedascloseaspossibletoeachother,inmanycases,crimerateswerebeing comparedbetweenhousingassociationproperties(SBDsample)andowneroccupied developments (nonSBD). Although this should be borne in mind, the findings remain positive and when accompanied by the data presented throughout this report,produceavaluablepictureofcrimeanddisorderwithintheSBDsample.The analysis revealed that a total of 44 crimes were committed within the SBD sample during the time period analysed, this produced a rate of 128.7 per 1000 properties. This compares to 42 crimes committed on nonSBD streets, a higher rate of 166.0. RatesofburglarydwellingoffenceswerealsolowerwithintheSBDsample5.9per 1000dwellingsascomparedto7.9,aswerecriminaldamage(23.4against47.5)and other offences (26.3 against 75.1). Rates of assault, theft of and theft from vehicles werehigherintheSBDsample. Table 19: Number and Rate of crimes Recorded in the Matched Pairs sample (August2007July2008) Significant CrimeType NonSBD SBD No. Totalrate(per No. Totalrate(per Difference 1000 properties) Assault Criminal Damage BurglaryOther Burglary Dwelling Theftfrom vehicle Theftof vehicle+twoc Other Total 7 12 1 2 1 0 19 42 27.7 47.5 4.0 7.9 4.0 0.0 75.1 166.0 17.0 8.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 9.0 44.0 1000properties) 49.7 23.4 5.9 5.9 5.9 8.8 26.3 128.7 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

When comparing these findings with the results of 1999 evaluation, the results are extremely positive. The burglary dwelling rate for the SBD sample (per 1000 properties) for this recent study was 5.9. In the 1999 evaluation, for the oneyear periodApril1999toMarch2000,theratewas22.7.ThetotalcrimeratefortheSBD sample for this recent study was 128.7, for the 1999/2000 period, this was 187.9 offencesper1000dwellings.

77

The analysis of police recorded crime also included analysis of two randomly selected matched pairs taken from the original evaluation of SBD within West Yorkshire(1999)toestablishwhetherSBDhadimproveditseffectivenessasacrime reduction measure, whether it had maintained its performance, or whether its effectivenesshaddeteriorated. The results were extremely positive and revealed that for both matched pairs the SBD development was performing either the same or better than the nonSBD development for the two time periods 1999/2000 and 2007/2008. For matched pair one (Halifax), crime levels on both the SBD and nonSBD development were the same in 1999/2000, yet by 2007/2008 the SBD development was outperforming the nonSBDdevelopmentwithjustonecrimeintheSBDdevelopmentandeightinthe nonSBD development. For matched pair two (Leeds) the SBD development performedbetterthanthenonSBDdevelopmentforbothtimeperiods.In1999/2000 therewasonecrimeontheSBDdevelopmentandfiveonthenonSBDdevelopment. In 2007/2008, there werethreecrimes on theSBD development andsixon thenon SBD development. In 1999/2000, both SBD and nonSBD properties accounted for 50% of the crime for matched pair one. For matched pair two, the SBD properties experienced only 20% of the crime, compared to the nonSBD properties that experienced 80% of the crime. This figure remained positive for the 2007/2008 analysis, with the SBD properties experiencing only 11% of the crime on matched pairone,and39%ofthecrimeonmatchedpairtwo. Inadditiontotheanalysisofpolicerecordedcrime,theevaluationalsoconducteda survey of residents living on the 16 SBD developments as well as the 16 nonSBD matchedpairs.Residentswereaskedabouttheirexperiences,fearsandperceptions ofcrimeanddisorder. Again the results revealed positive findings. In terms of experiences of crime and disorder, the results revealed that for all crime categories, the proportion of SBD respondentsexperiencingthecrimewaslowerthanthenonSBDsample.Threeper cent of SBD respondents had experienced a theft of vehicle offence within the previousyear;thiswascomparedto6%ofnonSBDrespondents.SixpercentofSBD respondentshadexperiencedatheftfromvehiclewithinthepreviousyear;thiswas compared to 17% of nonSBD respondents. Three per cent of SBD respondents had experiencedatheftofbicyclewithinthepreviousyear;thiswascomparedto6%of nonSBD respondents. Three per cent of SBD respondents had experienced a burglarydwellingoffencewithinthepreviousyear;thiswascomparedto6%ofnon SBD respondents, and 9% of SBD respondents had experienced a theft of property fromoutsidethedwellingwithinthepreviousyear;thiswascomparedto17%ofthe nonSBDsample. Intermsoffeelingsofsafety,thefindingswerealsopositive.Ahigherproportionof SBD respondents felt either very or fairly safe walking alone in their area in the daytime, compared to nonSBD respondents. Although a lower proportion of SBD respondents felt very or fairly safe walking alone in their area alone at night, a higherproportionofSBDrespondentsfeltveryorfairlysafewhenathomealoneat
78

night.ThissuggeststhatalthoughSBDrespondentsmaynotfeelsafewhenwalking around their neighbourhood at night, a larger proportion feel safer within the boundariesoftheirhomeatnight.GiventhatmanyoftheSBDdevelopmentswere locatedeitherwithin,ordirectlynexttoanonSBDdevelopment,thelowerfeelings of safety experienced by SBD residents when walking outside their development cannotbeattributedtoaweaknesswithinSBD. As well as being asked about their experiences, fears and perceptions of crime and disorder, residents were also asked if they had heard of SBD, if they had seen the logo (new and old) and whether they were aware that their property had been designedandbuilttotheSBDstandard.Only6%ofresidentswereawarethattheir house had been designed to the SBD standard, 85% were not. This is only a slight improvementonthe5%whowereawarethattheirpropertyhadbeendesignedand builttotheSBDinthe1999evaluation. Finally,visualauditswerecarriedoutatthe16SBDand16nonSBDmatchedpairs tomeasurevisualsignsofdisordersuchaslitter,graffiti,desertion,brokenglassor boarded up windows. The audits also measured levels of lighting, pedestrian movementandpotentialplacestohide. Theresultswereextremelypositive.Eachofthe16SBDand16nonSBDproperties wereassignedascoreof0to140baseduponthepresenceorabsenceoffactorssuch asgraffiti,litterandvandalism.Zerorepresentsthemostpositivescore,140theleast positive.Whenthescoresforeachsampleof16SBDand16nonSBDdevelopments were totalled, giving a possible score of 02240, the SBD sample scored lower than thenonSBDsample(317ascomparedto388),suggestingthattherewerelesssigns ofvisualdisorderwithinthissample. Whencomparingeachofthe16matchedpairs,theresultswerealsopositive.Ofthe 16matchedpairs,threepairsrevealedSBDtobeperformingworsethanthenonSBD counterpart, one matched pair showed that both the SBD and nonSBD developmentsscoredthesame,and12ofthe16SBDtobeperformingbetterthanthe nonSBDmatchedpair.
79

Table20:TotalScoresforeachofthe32Developments MatchedPair SBDScore NonSBDScore 23.5 PairOne 23 22 PairTwo 20.5 24.5 PairThree 17.5 18 PairFour 28 24 PairFive 38 PairSix 21.5 21.5 24.5 PairSeven 19 19 PairEight 15 39 PairNine 20 26 PairTen 22 25 PairEleven 24 25 PairTwelve 15 18 PairThirteen 12 25 PairFourteen 23 19 PairFifteen 11 22 PairSixteen 19.5 Ofthefiveworstperformingdevelopments(i.e.thosewiththehighestscores),only onewasSBD,however,ofthefivebestperformingdevelopments(i.e.thosewiththe lowestscores),allfivewereSBD.ThethreeSBDestateswhichperformedworsethan theirnonSBDmatchedpairwerePairOne(SykeLanedevelopmentinHalifax),Pair Two (Rystone Drive, Halifax) and Pair Four (Longfield Close in Todmorden). Pair One was a group of small developments which formed one estate. Unfortunately, although the majority of these small developments had very few signs of disorder, onesectionofthedevelopmentperformedpoorly(RyburnStreet),thusloweringthe average development score. SBD Pair Two performed slightly worse than the non SBDcounterpart,however,itshouldbehighlightedthatboththeSBDandnonSBD sections of this estate showed very few signs of disorder. However, SBD Pair Four wasapoorlyperformingestatewithhighlevelsoflitterandgraffitiaswellassigns of shortterm desertion. In comparison, the nonSBD development was well managedandmaintainedwithvisualsignsofdisorder. Overall, the findings of this research are extremely positive and there are very few recommendationsforimprovingSBDwithinWestYorkshire.Theoriginalevaluation of SBD within West Yorkshire revealed positive findings, and many felt that there was little point reassessing the effectiveness of SBD, given that the research had shown SBD to be effective.However, to be complacent about themeritsofSBD, or anycrimepreventionmeasure,wouldbetoignoretheevolvingnatureofcrimeand those who take part in it. As Ekblom (2002) suggests Knowledge of what works becomes a wasting asset that needs constant replenishment (p.38). To ensure that SBDcontinuestoevolvefasterthancriminalsabilitiestoovercomeit,researchwith an improvement orientation is essential. The reevaluation of SBD has shown that SBD has continued to reduce crime and the fear of crime. SBD developments included in the original evaluation have largely sustained their crime reduction
80

benefitsandcontinuetoexperiencelesscrimethantheirnonSBDcounterparts.The effectiveness of SBD developments built more recently has exceeded that shown in the original evaluation, with SBD developments outperforming their nonSBD counterpartsintermsofcrimereduction,visualsignsofdisorderandlevelsoffear amongst residents. In order to ensure that this success is maintained, it is recommendedthatWestYorkshirePolicecontinuetomonitorlevelsofcrime,fearof crimeandvisualsignsofdisorderamongstSBDdevelopments.Itissuggestedthata sample of developments from both the original evaluation (1999), this recent evaluation(2009)andnewdevelopmentsareassessedeveryfiveyears.Thefindings canbeusedto publicisesuccessand to highlightany weaknesses.Thiswill helpto ensurethattheschemewithinWestYorkshirecontinuestoevolve. Thefindingsfromthisevaluationareextremelypositiveanditisrecommendedthat thesebesharedwithkeyagenciessuchaslocalauthoritiesandhousingassociations aswellasresidentslivingwithinSBDproperties.Theresearchrevealedthatonly6% of residents living in SBD dwellings were aware that their property had been designedandbuilttotheSBDstandard(thisisaslightincreaseonthe5%revealedin 1999). It is suggested that a short briefing note is posted to residents living within SBDpropertiestoexplainthattheirpropertyhasbeendesignedtothisstandard,and that recent research has shown that they are less likely to experience crime and disorder than similar properties which have not been built to this standard. This would have the dual benefit of increasing awareness of the scheme as well as improvinglevelsofconfidenceandfeelingsofsafety. The findings from both the original evaluation and this reevaluation of SBD have practical implications for the reduction of repeat victimisation. In the original evaluation, the principles of environmental criminology upon which SBD is based appear to be restricted to preventing initial and not repeat victimisation. In this re evaluation, SBD appears to be protecting against repeat burglary but not repeat assault.IfSBDistoprovideacompletecrimereductionpackage,itmustaddressthis deficitbyintroducingmeasurestoreducerepeatvictimisationwhichextendbeyond the limits of design of the environment. Two suggestions for addressing these weaknessesincludeensuringthatSBDestatesareprioritisedinthedeliveryofrepeat victimisation packages which are already delivered by West Yorkshire Police, the second (directed at ACPO CPI) would be to incorporate repeat victimisation packagesintoSBDstandardsatanationallevel. Afindingthatmirroredthoserevealedwithinthe1999evaluationwasthatthemost frequentlyrecordedcrimewithintheSBDsamplewasassault.Thevastmajorityof theseoffenceswereclassedasdomesticoracquaintancesuggestingthattheywere committed inside the home by those living in or visiting the property. Although there is little that SBD can do to design out these offences, is suggested that these findingsaresharedwiththerelevantagenciestomaximisethelikelihoodofreducing theseoffences. Although this evaluation focuses solely upon West Yorkshire Police, making it difficult to comment upon other police forces, it is recommended that lessons be
81

learned from the practice adopted by West Yorkshire Police. In particular the attention paid to recording the details of SBD properties developed throughout the force. The detailed database provided by the force ALO, as well as the excellent working relationship between the ALO team and the Intelligence Analyst, made it possiblefortheresearchteamtoconductamethodologicallyvalidevaluation. The final recommendation relates to management and maintenance and is an issue thatwasraisedintheoriginalevaluation.Althoughthevastmajorityofthe16SBD developments showed little or no visual signs of disorder, several revealed issues relating to management and maintenance including litter, graffiti, vandalism and signsofdesertion.ItissuggestedthatWestYorkshirePolicerevisittheSBDestates shown to be performing worse than their nonSBD counterpart in terms of visual signs of disorder, as well as those which scored highly relative to the sample as a whole 3 to establish whether the issues are simply related to management and maintenance or whether retrospective improvements would benefit the development.ItisalsosuggestedthatWestYorkshirePoliceliaisewiththerelevant housingassociationstoestablishwhethertheseissuescanberesolved.

ItissuggestedthattheseshouldbePairOneSykeLanedevelopmentinSowerbyBridge,PairFourLongfield Close,Todmorden,PairFiveKismetCloseinHalifaxandPairFourteenYateholmDriveinBradford.

82

Appendices Appendix1:ResidentsSurvey DearResident, Thisquestionnaireispartofaresearchproject,conductedbytheUniversityof Huddersfield, designed to ascertain YOUR opinions on the levels of crime anddisorderinthisarea. PLEASEcouldyousparefiveminutestotellmeaboutYOURexperiencesof crime and disorder in this area and about YOUR feelings of safety in this houseandneighbourhood. The information that you give me will be treated as completely confidential andwillbeextremelyvaluableaspartofaprojectwhichcoversthewholeof WestYorkshire. Asawayofthankingyouforsparingthetimetocompletethisquestionnaire, wewillbeofferingaprizeofSainsburysvoucherstothevalueof150tothe firstnameselectedatrandomfromallresponses.Youdonothavetoprovide yournameandaddress,butyoucanonlybeenteredfortheprizedrawifyou do. PLEASERETURNTHISFORMINTHEPREPAIDENVELOPE PROVIDEDBYTHE17THAPRIL2009THISGIVESYOU APPROXIMATELYTWOWEEKS! If you want to be entered into the prize draw, please write your name and addressbelowandensurethatyoureturnthequestionnairebythe17thApril. Name: Address: THANKYOU

Section1:HouseholdDetails Q1 How many years have you lived at this address? (Please one box)

83

Less than one year One but less than two years Two but less than five years Five but less than ten years Ten years or more Q2 In the previous 12 month period, has anyone in this household owned or had regular use of a motorcycle, scooter or moped? (Please one box) Yes No Q3 In the previous 12 month period, has anyone in this household owned or had regular use of a car, van or other motor vehicle? (Please one box) Yes No Q4 In the previous 12 month period, has anyone in this household owned a bicycle? (Please one box) Yes No Section2:ExperiencesofCrime
The following questions concern crimes that you or your household have experiencedoverthepast12months.Thatis,betweenMarch2008andtoday.

Q5 During the last 12 months, have you or anyone else in your household had their van, motorcycle or other motor vehicle stolen or driven away without permission? (Please one box) Yes No Q6 If yes, how many times has this happened in that 12 month period? Q7 During the last 12 months, has anyone ever made an attempt to steal a motor vehicle belonging to you or anyone else in your household? (Please one box) Yes No Q8 If yes, how many times has this happened in that 12 month period? Q9 During the last 12 months, have you or anyone else in your household had anything stolen off their vehicle or out of it (e.g. parts of the vehicle, personal possessions)? (Please one box)

84

Yes No Q10 If yes, how many times has this happened in that 12 month period? Q11 During the last 12 months, has anyone ever made an attempt to steal from a motor vehicle belonging to you or anyone else in your household? (Please one box) Yes No Q12 If yes, how many times has this happened in that 12 month period? Q13 During the last 12 months, have you or anyone else in your household had a bicycle stolen? (Please one box) Yes No Q14 If yes, how many times has this happened in that 12 month period? Q15 During the last 12 months, has anyone made an attempt to steal a bicycle that belonged to you or somebody else in your household? (Please one box) Yes No Q16 If yes, how many times has this happened in that 12 month period? Q17 During the last 12 months, has anyone GOT INTO this house/flat without permission and STOLEN or TRIED to steal anything? (Please one box) Yes No Q18 If yes, how many times has this happened in that 12 month period? Q19 During the last 12 months, have you had any evidence that someone has TRIED to get in without permission to STEAL or CAUSE DAMAGE? (Please one box) Yes No Q20 If yes, how many times has this happened in that 12 month period?

85

 Q21 During the last 12 months, has anything that belonged to someone in your household been stolen from OUTSIDE the house/flat e.g. from the garage/shed or garden? Do not include milk bottle theft. (Please one box) Yes No Q22 If yes, how many times has this happened in that 12 month period? Q23 During the last 12 months, has anyone made an attempt to steal something from OUTSIDE your house/flat? (Please one box) Yes No Q24 If yes, how many times has this happened in that 12 month period? Section3:FeelingsofSafety Q25 How safe do you feel walking alone in this area during the day? (Please one box) Very safe Fairly safe A bit unsafe Very unsafe Q26 How safe do you feel walking alone in this area after dark? (Please one box) Very safe Fairly safe A bit unsafe Very unsafe Q27 How safe do you feel when you are alone in your home at night? (Please one box) Very safe Fairly safe A bit unsafe Very unsafe Section4:ConcernaboutCrimeandDisorder MostofusWORRYatsometimeorotheraboutbeingthevictimofacrime.

86

Using one of the following phrases, could you tell me how worried you are about certaincrimes.

Q28 How worried are you about having your home broken into and something stolen? (Please one box) Very worried Fairly worried Not very worried Not at all worried

Q29 How worried are you about having your car stolen? (Please one box) Very worried Fairly worried Not very worried Not at all worried

Q30 How worried are you about having things stolen from your car? (Please one box) Very worried Fairly worried Not very worried Not at all worried

Q31 How worried are you about being physically attacked by strangers? (Please one box) Very worried Fairly worried Not very worried Not at all worried

Q32 How worried are you about being subject to a physical attack because of your skin colour, ethnic origin or religion? (Please one box) Very worried Fairly worried Not very worried Not at all worried

Section5:PerceptionsofCrimeandDisorderwithinyourArea
Howmuchofaproblemdoyoufeelthatthefollowingissuesare?

Q33 How much of a problem are noisy neighbours or loud parties? (Please one box) Very big problem Fairly big problem Not a very big problem Not a problem at all

87

Q34 How much of a problem are teenagers hanging around on the streets? (Please one box) Very big problem Fairly big problem Not a very big problem Not a problem at all

Q35 How much of a problem is vandalism, graffiti and deliberate damage to property or vehicles? (Please one box) Very big problem Fairly big problem Not a very big problem Not a problem at all

Q36 How much of a problem is people being attacked or harassed because of their skin colour, ethnic origin or religion? (Please one box) Very big problem Fairly big problem Not a very big problem Not a problem at all

Q37 How much of a problem is people using or dealing drugs? (Please one box) Very big problem Fairly big problem Not a very big problem Not a problem at all Section6:Aboutyou Please complete these questions as they will help me to see if there are any differences between the views of different residents. All information you give will be kept completely confidential. Q38 Are you (please one box) Male Female Q39 How long have you lived at your current address? (Please one box) Less than 12 months 12 months to 5 years 5 10 years 10 + years Q40 How old are you? (Please one box) 16 - 24 25 - 44 45 - 64 65 74

88

75 + Q41 In which of these ways does your household occupy your current accommodation? (Please one box) Owner occupier Rent from council Rent from Housing Association/Trust Rent from private landlord Other ---------------------------------------------------- Section7:andfinally! Q42 Have you heard of Secured by Design or seen the following logo? (Please one box)

Yes No Q43 Were you aware that your house had been designed and built to the Secured by Design standard? (Please one box) Yes No THANK-YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME!

89

Appendix2:VisualAuditSchedule Name of estate/development: ---------------------------------------------------------------Date & Time of day:----------------------------------------------------------------------------Factor

People Presence of homeless/people begging Groups of people (youths) hanging around Pedestrian movement People under the influence of drink/drugs Buildings Derelict/empty properties Evidence of short term desertion (e.g. milk bottles left outside) Evidence of long-term desertion (e.g. untended garden/piles of letters, newspapers) Broken/boarded up windows Bars on windows Graffiti to buildings Vandalism to buildings SignsofNeglect Graffiti within development Vandalism within development Litter/rubbish on streets Litter/rubbish in gardens Dog dirt Evidence of drug, alcohol, solvent abuse Abandoned/burnt out vehicles Stray dogs Damaged/missing street signs/lights Broken glass on pavements GeneralEnvironmentalFeatures Level of lighting (0 = highest level of lighting, 5 = lowest) Overgrown shrubs/trees (places to hide) Other potential places to hide (e.g. alleyways) Noise level ControlSignals Evidence of police on foot/cycle* Evidence of police in patrol cars* Other authority figures (e.g. street wardens/concierge)* Neighbourhood Watch signs (0 = high level of signage, 5 = low level) Fieldworkers observed by residents (0 = high level of observation, 5 = low level) Fieldworkers questioned/confronted by residents (0 = high level of confrontation, 5 = low level)
Alldevelopmentstobescoredby2fieldworkersandmeanscoreassigned. Except where stated otherwise (i.e. lighting, neighbourhood watch, observed/confronted by residents), scores are from05(0beinglowestpresenceoffactor,5beinghighestpresenceoffactor). For factors highlighted with a *, score 0 as no patrols and 5 as high patrols; however, do not include numbers in analysis as it is not clear whether a high level of patrols would indicate a good or a bad sign. For these factors, analysisshouldbequalitative.

Rater 1: Rater ------2: ------

Mean score and comment

90

Appendix3:ForceALOLetter
Force Architectural Liaison Officer West Yorkshire Police, Admin 4, Laburnum Road, Wakefield, WF1 3QP. Tel: 01924 292389 Fax: 01924 292900 michael.brooke@westyorkshire.pnn.police.uk www.westyorkshire.police.uk

Local Policing Department

Date Address

Dear On behalf of West Yorkshire Police, may I thank you for making a Secured by Design (SBD) application for your new development proposal of (?) situated at (?). Secured by Design is the UK Police flagship initiative supporting the principles of designing out crime by the use of effective crime prevention and security standards for a range of applications. It supports one of the Government's key planning objectives: the creation of secure, quality places where people wish to live and work. It is also recommended within the Home Office Crime Strategy 2008 2011, as an effective way to design out crime. It will be the aim of West Yorkshire Police, throughout the design and construction, to work closely with your team to overcome any site specific problems that may arise. We accept that this will be a business venture for you, but it must be understood that our sole purpose is to reduce opportunities for crime and make communities safer. Further, the granting of local authority planning permission does not signify that any design proposal will automatically be suitable for the issue of a Secured by Design award. It is therefore of vital importance that frequent and continued dialogue exists between the development team and the Police throughout the process and especially prior to any submission of a planning application, to ensure a successful scheme results. The Architectural Liaison Officer (ALO) must be working from the same set of drawings as those responsible for construction. This is a frequent failing. You should not hesitate to make contact with your designated ALO, or myself, should you have even the slightest concern that security could be compromised by any change of treatment, installation or design feature. You may also wish to consider signing a Secured by Design Pre-Build Agreement. This is a contractual obligation that permits you to market, sell and display the development as an SBD approved and accredited development subject to certain terms and conditions. I have included a blank copy of such a contract for your information with this letter.

WYP Residential SBD letter 03:2009

91

There are a significant number of very relevent points about the application of Secured by Design within West Yorkshire that I need to ensure you and members of your team are aware of. May I ask that you share the content of this letter with any interested party. Whilst generic, the majority of points raised will be relevent to your scheme. Upon successful completion of your development, West Yorkshire Police would be keen to generate publicity with various local media. We would usually invite a senior officer to present the Secured by Design certificate to your appropriate representative. The photo opportunity gained from these events helps to further endorse the value of the achievement. Your Architectural Liaison Officer for this development is (name) who can be contacted at (address/telephone number). Further information with regard to the Secure by Design scheme may be obtained via the website: www.securedbydesign.com. Yours sincerely

Michael Brooke Force Architectural Liaison Officer West Yorkshire Police

92


Reference

1. The design guidance offered by SBD is a set of minimum standards. Additional or alternative measures may be required due to local conditions, as advised by the local Police Architectural Liaison Officer (ALO). Any deviation from these minimum standards, or additional measures, must be agreed in writing. Should any development fail to meet minimum standards, without such prior agreement being obtained, an award under the SBD scheme will not be made. 2. Similarly, any development failing to comply with the terms of this letter, and in particular the specific issues listed, without written agreement being obtained, will also result in an award under the scheme not being made. 3. All residential SBD schemes in the county of West Yorkshire must include laminated glazing of at least 6.4mm in thickness to all ground-floor windows, doors and adjacent panels. Further, should it be identified that windows at other levels are easily accessible by climbing or due to the topography of the land, then these must also be laminated in the same manner. For a double glazed unit, the laminated pane should be installed to the inside layer. 4. All external door sets, front, rear or side, must be fully certificated to the standard of PAS 24-1 Doors of enhanced security, or WCL 1, or LPS1175 Issue 7 Security Rating 2. 5. All ground-floor windows (or windows at other levels that are easily accessible by climbing or due to the topography of the land) must be fully certificated to the standard of BS7950, Windows of enhanced security, or WCL 4. 6. Prior to the issuing of an SBD award, copies of the certificates for doors and windows (see items 4 & 5 above) must be produced for West Yorkshire Police together with an accompanying letter that confirms that the doors and windows to which the certificates relate are the same doors and windows as used in the development under scrutiny. 7. Front boundaries with gates are required as they are the first line of security and define private space. 1.0m high walls and/or railings are suitable. 8. Front plot divisions are also required as clear demarcation between neighbours. These divisions should be in a matching style and height as used to create front boundaries (see item 7 above). 9. Rear and side perimeter boundaries to be of a minimum height of 1.8m, and all horizontal supports must be to the inside elevation to prevent easy climbing into these private areas. 10. Rear gates that provide access from fully public space into fully private rear gardens are not permitted.

SBD New Homes 2009 Pg5 1.2 Pg19 20.1

West Yorkshire Police

SBD New Homes 2009 Pg22 21.11 Pg29 26.3 Pg31 28.6 Pg32 28.8

West Yorkshire Police

SBD New Homes 2009 Pg19 21.1 Pg23 23.1

SBD New Homes 2009 Pg30 28.1

SBD New Homes 2009 Pg20 21.4 Pg31 28.3 West Yorkshire Police

SBD New Homes 2009 Pg12 10.1 West Yorkshire Police

SBD New Homes 2009 Pg13 10.8

SBD New Homes 2009 Pg12 10.6

West Yorkshire Police

93


11. Private enclosed rear areas to be entered by means of a 1.8m high lockable gate and a padlock must be supplied for this purpose. These gates are only to be installed where they provide access from space that is in-curtilage to the property. 12. Footpaths providing access to the rear of properties are not permitted and must be removed from any development proposal. 13. Rear plot divisions to be constructed from 1.5m high close boarded timber (or similar) fencing to prevent plot hopping. This height will also allow for natural surveillance. Higher divisions must be used on every 3rd or 4th property to further discourage plot hoping. 14. Rear privacy screens between plots are not required and are not desirable as they provide an offender with a hiding opportunity at the building line. 15. Vehicle parking to be in-curtilage, behind lockable gates and in direct relationship to the property they serve. 16. Low energy, photo sensitive, vandal resistant lighting (not passive infra red [PIR]) to be installed adjacent to both front and rear doors without a controlling over-riding switch. 17. Door chain and viewer to be installed to front doors. 18. Letter box to be sited no nearer than 400mm from locks, or reach through access must be restricted by a covering cowl. 19. A suitable power provision for an alarm must be installed (fused spur). 20. Garage doors must be certificated to the standard of LPS1175 SR1 or WCL2 BR1, and as with item 6 above, a copy of the certificate must be supplied to West Yorkshire Police together with an accompanying letter that confirms that the garage door to which the certificate relates, is the same garage door as used in the development under scrutiny. 21. Sliding patio doors are not currently available to an approved security standard and therefore their use should be avoided. Where an alternative is not sourced, the sliding patio doorset must be successfully tested to the new draft amendment PAS24: 2007. Again, documentation that proves this must be supplied to West Yorkshire Police. Laminated glazing as specified at item 3 must also be part of the installation process. 22. French windows must be fully certificated to the standard of BS7950 Windows of Enhanced Security, or WCL 4. External, glazed double doorsets must be fully certificated to the standard of PAS 24-1 Doors of enhanced security, or WCL 1, or LPS1175 Issue 7 Security Rating 2. A copy of the certificate must be produced for West Yorkshire Police together with an accompanying letter that confirms that the doors to which the
SBD New Homes 2009 Pg12 10.5 West Yorkshire Police

SBD New Homes 2009 Pg8 4.2 West Yorkshire Police SBD New Homes 2009 Pg13 10.8 West Yorkshire Police

West Yorkshire Police

SBD New Homes 2009 Pg15 16.1

SBD New Homes 2009 Pg32 30.1/2 West Yorkshire Police SBD New Homes 2009 Pg22 21.14/15 West Yorkshire Police SBD New Homes 2009 Pg23 21.17 SBD New Homes 2009 Pg33 32.1

SBD New Homes 2009 Pg29 27.2 West Yorkshire Police

SBD New Homes 2009 Pg23 23.1

West Yorkshire Police

SBD New Homes 2009 Pg28 26.1

West Yorkshire Police

94


certificate relates, are the same doors as used in the development under scrutiny. Laminated glazing as specified at item 3 must also be part of the installation process. 23. Integral garage door sets that provide direct access from the garage to the dwelling must be fully certificated to the standard PAS 24-1 Doors of enhanced security, or WCL 1, or LPS1175 Issue 7 Security Rating 2, and BS476 the connecting door standard for such installations. A copy of the certificate must be produced for West Yorkshire Police together with an accompanying letter that confirms that the door to which the certificate relates, is the same door as used in the development under scrutiny. Laminated glazing as specified at item 3 must also be part of the installation process. 24. House numbers must be displayed to all properties and the address detail, including full post codes, must be forwarded to West Yorkshire Police before any certificate is issued. 25. West Yorkshire Police require the submission of a lux plan for SBD developments. If you have not already done so, please forward this to the ALO dealing with your application. The details on the plan must include the maximum, minimum and average lux levels proposed across the site. 26. Should your development proposal include apartment living, in addition to all the above points, you must also ensure that the following measures are in place to further reduce the opportunities for crime. a. The installation of fully certificated PAS 24-1 Doors of enhanced security, or WCL 1, or LPS1175 Issue 7 Security Rating 2 is a requirement for each individual apartment, communal entrance doors and b. Defensible space must be created that fully encircles the whole of the ground floor. Open plan is unacceptable. c. Under no circumstances should mail be delivered door to door. Postal services should be able to deliver without the need for access into the building. Options to be considered are through the wall delivery systems, the creation of a secure mail room or airlock style senario where only residents can move beyond the next layer of access control. d. An effective and robust access control system is critical to the success of any apartment development. This must take the form of an audio-visual system that is connected to each apartment. Layers of additional access control must be present throughout the building and effective on each floor. e. Safe and secure vehicle parking must be provided that is close in proximity to the apartment they serve, well lit, and where natural surveillance of this provision is easily available to owners. f. Secured by Design states that a need for external walkways be designed out where ever posible. An application for Secured by Design accreditation that features external
SBD New Homes 2009 Pg29 27.2

West Yorkshire Police

West Yorkshire Police

SBD New Homes 2009 Pg14 14.1 West Yorkshire Police

SBD New Homes 2009 Pg17 19.4 West Yorkshire Police

SBD Multi-Storey Dwellings

SBD Multi-Storey Dwellings SBD New Homes 2009 Pg24 24 SBD Multi-Storey Dwellings Pg2 7.1 SBD New Homes 2009 Pg25 24.6 Pg25 24.6/1/2/3/4

SBD Multi-Storey Dwellings Pg1 1.1 & 3.1 Pg3 10.2 SBD New Homes 2009 Pg26 24.7/8 West Yorkshire Police SBD Multi-Storey Dwellings Pg1 2.1 & 4.1 Pg2 8 SBD New Homes 2009 Pg15 16.2 SBD Multi-Storey Dwellings Pg3 11.1 West Yorkshire Police

WYP Residential SBD letter 03:2009

95

walkways or open deck access will not be supported by West Yorkshire Police and will be refused. The above points should not be considered as a full, comprehensive or an exclusive list of issues, but are intended to highlight the very detailed and professional nature in which the Secured by Design scheme operates within West Yorkshire.

96

References
Angel, S. (1968) Discouraging Crime through City Planning. Working Paper Number 75,CenterforPlanningandDevelopmentResearch,Berkeley,UniversityofCalifornia. Armitage,R.(2000)AnEvaluationofSecuredbyDesignHousingwithinWestYorkshire BriefingNote7/00.London:HomeOffice.

Ashton, J. et al. (1998) Repeat Victimisation: Offender Accounts. International JournalofRisk,SecurityandCrimePrevention,3(4),269279.

Association of British Insurers (2006) Securing the Nation, London: Association of BritishInsurers. Beavon,D.J.K.(1984)CrimeandtheEnvironmentalOpportunityStructure:TheInfluence of Street Networks on the Patterning of Property Offences. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, SimonFraserUniversity,Burnaby,BritishColumbia. Bevis,C.andNutter,J.B.(1997)ChangingStreetLayoutstoReduceResidentialBurglary: PaperpresentedtotheAmericanSocietyofCriminology.Atlanta. Brantingham,P.LandBrantingham,P.J(1993)EnvironmentalRoutineandSituation: TowardsaPatternTheoryofCrime.AdvancesinCriminologicalTheory,5,pp.259294. Brantingham, P.L and Brantingham, P.J. (2000) A Conceptual Model for Anticipating Crime Displacement: Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Conference. SanFrancisco. Brantingham, P.L. and Brantingham, P.J. (1975) Residential Burglary and Urban Form.UrbanStudies,12,pp.273284. Brantingham, P.L. and Brantingham, P.J. (1984) Burglar Mobility and Preventive Planning. In: R.V. Clarke and T. Hope (eds.) Coping with Burglary: Research PerspectivesonPolicy.Boston,KluwerNijhoff.P.7796. Brantinghametal,(1977)PerceptionsofCrimeinaDreadfulEnclosure.OhioJournal ofScience,77,pp.256261.

Bridgeman,C.andHobbs,L.(1997)PreventingRepeatVictimisation:thepolice officersguide.London:HomeOffice.
Brown, B.B. and Altman, I. (1983) Territoriality, Defensible Space and Residential Burglary:AnEnvironmentalAnalysis.JournalofEnvironmentalPsychology,3,pp.203 220.

97

Brown, B. and Bentley, D. (1993) Residential Burglars Judge Risk: The Role of Territoriality.JournalofEnvironmentalPsychology,13,pp.5161. Brown,J.(1999)AnEvaluationoftheSecuredbyDesignInitiativeinGwent,SouthWales. Unpublished MSc. dissertation, Scarman Centre for the Study of Public Order, Leicester. ChiFeng Shu, S. (2000) Housing Layout and Crime Vulnerability. Urban Design International,5,177188. Cromwell,P.FandOlson,J.N.(1991)BreakingandEntering:AnEthnographicAnalysis ofBurglary.NewburyPark,California:Sage.
Ekblom, P. (2002) Future Imperfect: Preparing for the Crimes to Come. Criminal Justice Matters, 46, 38-40.

Ellingworth, D. et al.(1997) Prior Victimisation and Crime Risk.International JournalofRisk,SecurityandCrimePrevention,2(3),201214.

Feeney,F.(1986)RobbersasDecisionMakers.In:D.CornishandR.Clarke(eds.)The ReasoningCriminal.NewYork,SpringerVerlag.p.5371. Finnie,W.C.(1973)FieldExperimentsinLitterControl.EnvironmentandBehaviour,5, 123144. Gabor, T. et al. (1987) Armed Robbery: Cops, Robbers, and Victims. Springfield, IL, CharlesC.Thomas. Greenberg,S.andRohe,W.(1984)NeighbourhoodDesignandCrime:ATaleofTwo Perspectives.JournalofAmericanPlanningAssociation,50(1),pp.4861. Hillier,B.andChiFengShu,S.(1998)CrimeandUrbanLayout:TheNeedforEvidence: HomeOfficeCrimePreventionCollege.Easingwold. Letkemann,P.(1973)CrimeasWork.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall. Maguire,M.andBennett,T.(1982)BurglaryinaDwelling.London,Heinemann. MirleesBlack, C. et al. (1998) The 1998 British Crime Survey England and Wales. London:HomeOffice. Newlands, M. (1983) Residential Burglary Patterns in a Vancouver Neighbourhood. Unpublishedhonorsthesis,SimonFraserUniversity. Newman, O. (1973) Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City. London: ArchitecturalPress

98

Newman, O. (1995) Defensible Space: A New Physical Planning Tool for Urban Revitalization.AmericanPlanningAssociationJournal,61(2),149155. Pascoe,T.(1999)EvaluationofSecuredbyDesigninPublicSectorHousingFinalReport. Watford:BRE. Pascoe, T. and Topping, P. (1997) Secured by Design: Assessing the Basis of the Scheme.InternationalJournalofRisk,SecurityandCrimePrevention,2(3),pp.161173.

Pease, K. (1998) Repeat Victimisation: Taking Stock. Crime Detection and PreventionSeriesPaper90.London:HomeOffice.
Poyner,B.andWebb,B.(1991)CrimeFreeHousing.Oxford,Butterworth. Rengert, G.F. and Wasilchick, J. (2000) Suburban Burglary: A Tale of Two Suburbs SecondEdition.Springfield,Illinois,CharlesC.ThomasPublishers. Reppetto,T.A.(1974)ResidentialCrime.Cambridge,MA:Ballinger. Rudlin,D.andFalk,N.(1995)21stCenturyHomes:BuildingtoLast.URBED,London. Skogan, W.G. (1990) Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Neighbourhoods.California,UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Suttles, G.D. (1968) The Social Order of the Slum. Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press. Taylor, R. and Gottfredson, S.D. (1987) Environmental Design, Crime and Prevention:AnExaminationofCommunityDynamics.CrimeandJustice:AnAnnual ReviewoftheResearch,8,387416. Teedon, P., and Reid, T. (Jan 2009) Evaluation of SBD Glasgow Housing Association (Draft)ArchitecturalLiaisonOfficersConference,Nottingham,January2009. UnitedNationsConferenceonEnvironmentandDevelopment,(1992)Agenda21.Rio DeJaneiro,Brazil. Wiles, P. and Costello, A. (2000) The Road to Nowhere: The Evidence for Travelling Criminals,HomeOfficeResearchStudy207.London,HomeOffice. Wilson, J.Q. and Kelling, G.L. (1982) The Police and Neighbourhood Safety. The Atlantic,March1982,2938. Zimbardo, P.G. (1970) The Human Choice: Individuation, Reason, and Order Versus Deindividuation, Impulse and Chaos. In: W. Arnold and D. Levine (eds.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1969. Lincoln, NB, University of Nebraska Press. p. 237-307.

99

100