Defensible Spaces

I was going to write this week about the power of “thank you,” as it seemed very fitting coming off of Thanksgiving.  But the mass shooting in San Bernardino earlier this week has diverted me.

View image | gettyimages.com

According to shootingtracker.com, maintained by “Guns Are Cool” on reddit, San Bernardino was the 355^th mass shooting  in the United States this year.  While criminologists have not landed on a universally supported definition of what constitutes a mass shooting, shootingtracker.com borrows from the historic FBI definition (and, therefore, every law enforcement department’s definition) of a mass murder:  four or more people murdered at one location.

Thus, the mass shootings that shootingtracker.com counts is any event where four or more people are shot, regardless of whether anyone dies.  I heard Mark Kelly, husband of former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and co-founder with her of Americans for Responsible Solutions (an organization working on reducing gun violence in our country), quote the number of 355 while driving in my car.  I was sure that I had misheard, only to confirm the accuracy of his statement.

In response to the San Bernardino shooting, The Los Angeles Times put together a list of the most deadly mass shootings in the US since 1984; there are just under 50.  Five of them happened this year.  Of those five, four happened at a nonprofit:  Inland Regional Center, San Bernardino—14 dead, 27 wounded; Planned Parenthood, Colorado Springs:  3 dead, 9 injured; Umpqua Community College, Roseburg, Oregon, 9 dead, 9 injured; and Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, Charleston, SC, 9 dead.  The targets of the fifth were military-related.

What does this say?  Well, it doesn’t say that mass shooters are targeting nonprofits, that’s for sure.   But it does suggest that many nonprofits are among the softer targets, making it an easy(ier) location for mass shooters to do their violent acts.  This should give all of us pause.  If mass shooters can be successful at more harden targets, like a Fort Hood or the Washington Navy Yard,then nonprofits, whose very missions and core values are all about welcoming and helping, are a cake walk.  And perhaps it is time for nonprofits to give this some serious thought.

It pains me to have to write any of this, both as a former criminologist and a forever nonprofit employee.  But in almost 2016, we may have reached the point where we must consider how we honor our missions to foster community, break down barriers of difference and value each individual while also doing our utmost to ensure the safety of those we serve, from our clients to our employees.  How can we, ethically and in sync with our missions and core values, move from being soft targets to a bit more hardened ones while still being open and welcoming to those we serve.  After all, not one of us can do our work or achieve our goals if we don’t feel safe.

My Masters’ thesis was on defensible space, taking off from the work of Oscar Newman (an architect).  Newman espoused designing space that inhibited crime rather than space that promoted opportunities for crime.  Yes, defensible space involved target hardening acts such as improved lighting and security hardware.  But, more importantly, it was about replacing high walls and tall shrubbery that could protect a robber or rapist from hiding and springing unexpectedly with low walls or see-through fences and low bushes and flower beds for beautification.

It involved, as Jane Jacobs advocated in The Death and Life of Great American Cities, mixed use spaces so that no neighborhood was completely deserted during the day, as people worked away from the home, or during the night, as business communities emptied as everyone returned home.

It involved not building blind spots into buildings, such that there were spaces, like totally enclosed stairwells and long hallways with both sides closed off (no windows, solid doors) so others could not see what was happening within that bounded space.  Defensible space existed to help people from becoming victims and reduce the space where crime could function.  And though not its intended goal when it was created, defensible space can help police bring crime situations, such as mass killings, under control more readily.

Decades later, I am still a proponent of defensible space, and while it certainly can be of help now, it is not the solution.  And I do not have your solution, as this is something each organization will need to address itself.  But address it you must; failure to discuss the safety of your workspace and how, within the parameters of your mission and core values, you will do what you can to protect all you serve is irresponsible.