Police Information

Preventing Residential Burglary

Wed, September 19, 2001

Source: Trevor Bennett and Linda Durie

Preventing Residential Burglary In Cambridge: Policing & Reducing Crime Briefing Note

Summary

The report describes the work of the Domestic Burglary Task Force (DBTF) in Cambridge, which was established in July 1994 to examine the nature of residential burglary in Cambridge and to design and implement initiatives to prevent it. The group devised an overall strategy that divided the work into two stages: (1) a data-gathering stage, during which information about burglary in Cambridge was collected, and (2) a programme implementation stage, during which various projects were designed and implemented. The report provides a candid account of the issues involved in implementing and evaluating such strategies. 

The strategy 

Data-gathering

The main findings of the data-gathering stage were that residential burglary in Cambridge was concentrated within specific wards to the north of the city and within specific ‘hot spots’ within these wards. The ‘hot spots’ and the ‘hot wards’ were characterised by high levels of repeat victimisation. There was some evidence that residential burglaries in the area were committed by local youths who lived in the same or adjacent wards and who selected the target areas as a result of convenience, easy access through footpaths and alleyways, and the perceived abundance of suitable targets. As a result of these findings, the DBTF identified the largest ‘hot spot’ in the north of the City, and the two wards, which contained the ‘hot spot’, as the targeted area. 

Programme implementation

A key principle of the overall programme strategy was that the nature of the solution to burglary in Cambridge should be based on sound knowledge of the nature of the problem. A number of seminars were organised for representatives of local agencies to identify burglary prevention strategies, which would best match the problems identified.   

Results of the burglary strategy 

Outcome evaluation

The outcome evaluation showed that total burglaries reduced in the targeted wards (by 3% and 6%) and in the targeted ‘hot spot’ (by 18%) over the evaluation period. Repeat burglaries reduced in one of the targeted wards (by 2%), but not in the other ward or in the targeted ‘hot spot’ (increasing by 1% and 2% respectively). However, the results also showed that burglary reduced generally by greater amounts in the City as a whole (by 19%), and, with one exception where burglaries increased by 57%, decreased in the various comparison areas by between 26% and 31% over the same period. Repeat victimisation decreased by 3% in the City as a whole over the period.

Implementation evaluation

The implementation evaluation concluded that the majority of the projects were implemented as planned and were generally regarded positively by the residents and victims to whom they were directed. However, the intensity and coverage of the projects as a whole was not great in terms of the number of residents involved or the time or area over which the scheme operated. It is possible that the two targeted wards that contained the burglary ‘hot spot’ required larger amounts of crime prevention resources and greater intensity and coverage than were achieved by the Domestic Burglary Task Force. 

Overall, the report concludes that there was evidence of a reduction in burglary in the targeted areas. However, the most likely causes of this reduction were wider developments in policing during the programme period and economic and social factors that were affecting property crime generally. 

Points for action 

The report provides a candid account of the difficulties involved in developing and implementing a burglary strategy, and demonstrates the problems that can arise in measuring impact.  

Notwithstanding these difficulties, the report will be of practical value to local partnerships, as a good example of a crime audit, as a source of ideas for possible interventions to tackle burglary, and to highlight the need to refine and revise strategies in the light of monitoring and evaluation of impact. 

• In developing strategies to tackle burglary, the first stage of the process should involve data gathering to establish the precise nature of the problem (i.e its size, where and when offences occur, the existence of any ‘hot-spots’, and the longevity/stability of problem areas).

 

• A variety of methods may be used to generate an accurate picture of the problem. Methods used in this study include: crime pattern analysis; offender address analysis; interviews with burglars; environmental surveys; household surveys; and victim surveys.

 

• Measurement of the impact of any initiative is going to be coloured by the level at which that measurement takes place. In the case of the Cambridge study the picture differs markedly between and across City, area, ward and enumeration district levels. This needs to be taken into account in any evaluation.

 

• The design of initiatives to tackle the identified problem should be determined by the nature of the problem. The Cambridge strategy used a Routine Activities Model to identify areas for intervention (capable guardians, victims, and offenders). In addition, representatives from a number of agencies (police, local authority, probation, university) were involved in the development of the various initiatives that comprised the strategy.

 

• Where a number of agencies are involved in a strategy the issue of leadership is critical, both to steer the group and ensure actions are taken, and to give the group a positive sense of direction.

To view the full paper click the URL below