Community Garden Security Prevention, Incident and Recovery Workbook
Roadmap #60 companion tool. Use this workbook to prevent and respond to produce theft, tool loss, vandalism and safety incidents without treating the whole garden as a fortress.
Governing principle: Secure the vulnerable thing. Keep the community visible.
Emergency boundary: If there is an immediate threat, violence, fire, medical emergency or another situation requiring immediate police, fire or ambulance assistance, move to safety and call 911. Do not pursue or physically confront a person over produce, tools or property. Close areas with broken glass, exposed electricity, unknown substances or other hazards until they are cleared.
1. Garden identity and responsible people
| Garden | | Date | |
|---|
| Property host/owner | | Security review lead | |
|---|
| Garden address for responders | |
|---|
| Primary gate/access description | |
|---|
2. Emergency and reporting contacts
| Need | Contact/process | Notes |
|---|
| Emergency police/fire/medical | 911 | Use for emergencies requiring immediate assistance. |
| Local non-emergency police/public safety | | |
| Property host after-hours contact | | |
| Garden leadership | | |
| Insurance/incident reporting | | |
| Facilities/electrical/plumbing emergency | | |
3. Problem definition
Before buying hardware, identify the event or pattern the garden is trying to change.
| Category | Observed? | Evidence / dates |
|---|
| Produce missing from assigned plots | | |
| Tools/equipment missing | | |
| Vandalism/deliberate damage | | |
| Accidental/trampling/animal damage | | |
| Graffiti/litter/repeated minor disorder | | |
| Unauthorized vehicle/access problem | | |
| Harassment/threat/personal safety | | |
4. Boundary and signage audit
| Question | Yes/No | Correction |
|---|
| Can a first-time visitor tell what the garden is? | | |
| Can a visitor tell whether individual plots are private? | | |
| Is any free-pick/share area clearly separated and labeled? | | |
| Are open/closed access expectations clear? | | |
| Is a useful contact method posted? | | |
| Are gates and controlled areas obvious without creating barriers to accessible use? | | |
5. Natural-surveillance walk
Draw or attach a site map. Mark entrances, paths, streets, neighboring windows/public spaces, active gathering areas and locations that are difficult to see.
| Location | What blocks observation? | Legitimate activity nearby? | Possible correction |
|---|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
6. Vulnerable asset register
| Asset | Value/consequence if lost | Current control | Control owner | Needs change? |
|---|
| Hand tools | | | | |
| Power tools/batteries | | | | |
| Fuel/chemicals | | | | | |
| Hoses/irrigation parts | | | | | |
| Keys/codes | | | | | |
| Produce/share station | | | | | |
| Other | | | | | |
7. Key, gate and code register
| Lock/access point | Who administers? | Who has access? | Backup access | Last code/key review |
|---|
| | | | |
| | | | |
Do not put secret codes or sensitive access details in a copy that will be publicly posted.
8. Maintenance and visible-damage audit
| Item | Condition | Immediate hazard? | Repair owner/date |
|---|
| Fence/gates | | | |
| Signs | | | |
| Shed/storage | | | |
| Lighting, if present | | | |
| Paths/visibility | | | |
| Graffiti/litter/damage | | | |
9. Targeted-control decision record
| Documented problem | |
|---|
| Proposed control | |
|---|
| Why this control addresses the problem | |
|---|
| Access/accessibility side effects | | Visibility side effects | |
|---|
| Maintenance/cost burden | | Local approval needed? | |
|---|
| Success measure | |
|---|
| Review date | | Decision | Proceed / Investigate / Modify / Stop |
|---|
10. Camera or lighting review
| Question | Answer |
|---|
| What documented problem is this intended to solve? | |
| Who owns/authorizes the property and installation? | |
| What school/municipal/HOA/host policies apply? | |
| What neighboring/private areas could be affected? | |
| Who controls camera footage/accounts or lighting controls? | |
| What retention/maintenance/subscription costs exist? | |
| What accessible or emergency access could be affected? | |
| What less intrusive control has already been tried? | |
| Approval / review record | |
11. Incident log
| Date/time discovered | | Location | |
|---|
| Category | Produce / tool / vandalism / accidental / safety / other: |
|---|
| What is known | |
|---|
| Immediate hazards | |
|---|
| Photos/witness information | |
|---|
| Leader/host notified | | Time | |
|---|
| Police/other report number if applicable | |
|---|
| Temporary control/repair | |
|---|
| Follow-up owner/date | |
|---|
12. Incident response checklist
- □ People are safe and the affected area is closed if hazards remain.
- □ Authorized harvest/maintenance/tool use was checked before assigning cause.
- □ The condition was documented safely.
- □ Garden leadership and property host were notified as required.
- □ Emergency or non-emergency public-safety reporting was used appropriately.
- □ Hazards were removed and visible damage repaired when cleared to do so.
- □ Affected gardener(s) received practical support where possible.
- □ The incident was classified and added to the pattern log.
- □ Any new control is tied to evidence rather than fear.
13. Pattern review
| Period reviewed | | Reviewer | |
|---|
| Number of produce-loss incidents | | Tool/equipment loss | |
|---|
| Vandalism incidents | | Safety incidents | |
|---|
| Recurring location/time? | |
|---|
| Controls tried | |
|---|
| Evidence of improvement? | |
|---|
14. Garden-security health
| Status | Check |
|---|
| Healthy | □ Clear boundaries, rare isolated incidents, secure assets, maintained site, useful neighbor relationships. |
| Watch | □ Ambiguous/repeating minor losses, confusing signs, blind spots, incomplete records. |
| Correct | □ Repeated theft/vandalism, shed/gate failures, users avoiding site, basic controls failed. |
| Stop | □ Threats/violence, dangerous damage, contamination, exposed utilities, or security changes that make access unsafe. |
15. End-of-season review
What security problem cost the garden the most time, trust or money?
Which control helped without making the garden harder to use?
Which control should be removed, simplified or redesigned?
What should next year's leaders know on day one?
Sources and revision note
Prepared September 6, 2026. Framework informed by NC State Extension, University of Georgia Extension, University of Missouri Extension, U.S. Department of Justice COPS Office CPTED/public-space resources, and the National 911 Program. Verify local property, surveillance, police reporting, fencing, lighting, accessibility, school and institutional rules before implementation.