The intention of the original research was to show that residential crime could be controlled by the design of a housing development without having to rely excessively on security devices such as locking hardware or alarm systems. This review of the findings and relevant research since the publication of the earlier study gives little reason to change the core findings and proposal of the earlier study. The one issue that has been controversial is the earlier study's conclusion that cul-de-sac housing layouts have less crime than designs with through streets and grid-like street patterns. Research from the reworking of the Northampton data of the original study indicates that housing areas with the latter design have lower crime rates for some burglary, car theft, theft from cars, and some thefts from around houses; however, an alternative view suggests that it is only when cul-de-sacs are linked to a footpath network that they are associated with crime. Pure cul-de-sacs have few crime problems, particularly in middle-income housing. The three case studies in this current review support this conclusion. It is only when cul-de-sacs are linked by footpaths or similar connections to open spaces that they facilitate crime. This report outlines strategies for designing housing developments and specific houses to inhibit house burglary, to facilitate safe parking of vehicles, to minimize the theft of items around the house, and to avoid criminal damage to housing. Extensive tabular data, figures, and photographic exhibits; 66 references; a subject index; and appended classification of residential and nonresidential crime, residential crime data, and a summary of design requirements from the original study