Secured by Design (SBD) is a program that encourages housing developers to design out crime at the planning stage or concept stage. The concepts and standards can also be used to refurbish estates to bring them up to SBD standards. SBD was started by police forces in
The key principles of SBD concern physical security, surveillance, access/egress, territoriality, and management and maintenance.
Physical security. Standards are set for the physical security of each property and its boundaries. Often, this takes the form of target hardening (e.g., installing better locks or security lighting).
Surveillance. While SBD encourages enhancing natural surveillance (e.g., removing shrubbery or high walls), it tries to balance surveillance with the need for privacy. Informal social control is encouraged through a blend of dwellings that will attract a mix of residents (families, retirees, young couples), which can increase the chance that someone will be at home throughout the day and night.
Access/egress. Entrances/exits to the development are minimized to deter the entry of non-resident, potential offenders.
Territoriality. The purposes and ownership of spaces are clearly defined so that those who do not belong can be more easily identified by residents.
Management and maintenance. Properties are maintained to certain standards (e.g., litter and graffiti are removed), which can help reduce visual disorder.
SBD standards have evolved over time. For example, many changes were introduced in 1999, with the introduction of performance-led requirements. These changes were made to ensure that a consistent level of security was being offered by manufacturers. One other important evolution in SBD has been the move toward influencing the preplanning stages, rather than involvement in the planning or postplanning stages.
Armitage (2004) suggests that Newman’s theory of defensible space and new opportunities theories (such as rational choice theory and routine activity theory) may best underpin the foundations of SBD. Newman’s theory states that people’s latent sense of control over spaces in which they live can be affected by the physical design of the environment. By changing elements in the built environment, social control can be encouraged.
New opportunities theories center on the opportunity to commit a criminal offense rather than on the individual criminal. For instance, rational choice theory posits that the decisions of potential offenders can be shaped by increasing the perceived costs of committing the crime (e.g., the probability of being apprehended and punished) and decreasing perceived benefits of offending (e.g., through property marking).
SBD is managed by the Association of Chief Police Officers Crime Reduction Initiatives. However, Architectural Liaison Officers (ALOs) or Crime Prevention Design Advisors (CPDAs) are the people that work with individual police forces. ALO/CPDAs ensure that developments are designed and built to certain specifications. There are currently more than 300 ALO/CPDAs in
Armitage (2000) found that there were 26 percent fewer crime events per dwelling in the Secured by Design (SBD) sample, a statistically significant finding. Also, the prevalence of crime was lower in SBD estates (44 percent of non–SBD estates experienced an offense, versus 37 percent of SBD estates); this finding verged on statistical significance. While the difference between the number of burglary offenses for the two samples was not statistically significant, the prevalence for burglary offenses was statistically significant, being twice as high within the non–SBD sample.
Overall, burglary rates experienced a downward trend between 1994 and 1998 in SBD estates relative to rates in non–SBD estates. Whereas in 1994, the rate of SBD burglary was more than 100 percent that of non–SBD estates, by 1998, the rate was less than 50 percent. This may suggest that changes in SBD standards had an effect over time.
Rates of repeat victimization were higher within SBD estates compared to non-SBD estates.
Feelings of Safety
The resident survey indicated that there were lower rates of feeling “very unsafe” among SBD respondents.
Armitage and Monchuk (in press) found a statistically significant difference in burglary rates between the Secured by Design (SBD) estates and the rest of
In the same-street analysis, a statistically significant difference was found for crime rates. SBD properties experienced118.8 crimes per 1,000 properties, compared to 262.7 crimes per 1,000 properties for non–SBD residences. Five burglaries occurred in non–SBD properties; zero in SBD properties. Only criminal damage was higher in the SBD sample; all other crime categories were lower. The researchers found a strong, statistically significant negative correlation between number of SBD properties and rates of dwelling burglary, assault, and criminal damage (i.e., the fewer the proportion of SBDs, the higher the crime rate).
In the matched pair analysis, crime was slightly lower in the SBD sample (128.7 crimes per 1,000 properties, versus 166.0 crimes per 1,000 properties), but the difference was not statistically significant. It was unclear why these findings diverged from those of the same-street analysis. For the matched pairs, levels of crime 10 years later (1990 to 2000) had dropped in both SBD and non–SBD estates; both experienced very low levels of crime.
For closer analysis of the two matched pairs from the 2000 study, there were mixed findings, which raised some concern about the sustainability of crime reduction within one of the matched pairs.
This analysis was based on the matched pairs sample. As with the 2000 study, higher rates of repeat victimization were found in SBD estates compared to non–SBD estates (35.7 percent of crimes were repeat offenses, versus 27.3 percent of non–SBD crimes being a reoffense). The main type of crime impacting these results was assault. When assault was removed, only 11.9 percent of offenses were repeat offenses in the SBD estates. The victim survey was only suggestive, given the small sample size; it indicated a slight decrease in the percentage of SBD victims.
Based on a visual audit, scores were lower (that is, better) for the SBD sample. This finding suggests that SBD properties had lower visual disorder. For 12 of the 16 matched pairs, the SBD developments scored lower than the non–SBD developments.
1 10 21 25 121 138 442