Crime Reduction - Helping to Reduce Crime in Your Area

Repeat Victimisation Domestic Burglary Project

Title: Repeat Vicitimisation Domestic Burglary Project
Authors: Brian Neale and Michelle Evans
Number of Pages: 73
Date published: June 2003

Research undertaken by Safe In Tees Valley in 2001/02 revealed that the approach to repeat domestic burglaries across the five Tees Valley Basic Command Units was inconsistent and often ineffective. Responses were often hampered by a lack of basic, timely information and no resources to address the issue. This research is a development of the initial work and aimed to:

• Develop a way forward to prevent a first time burglary victim becoming a repeat victim
  

• Reduce the number of domestic burglaries through highlighting the circumstances of repeats
  

• Provide more timely and effective intervention with repeats
  

• Improve the service to victims of repeat burglary
  

• Improve partnership working

The report represents the findings of research conducted between August 02 and January 03 in relation to repeat victims of domestic burglary. The main focus was on the contact with and collection of data from all repeat domestic burglary victims identified during the life of the project.

To further develop the initiative, prolific convicted burglars, all of whom had served a custodial sentence, were interviewed to establish their motivation in returning to previously attacked homes.

Whilst not part of the initial project outline the project team recognised the benefit of providing security improvements for victims. As a result funding was identified in each of the districts to undertake the work.

Key points:

• Of those who received security improvements only 1 has been subject of a further burglary, (caused by occupier leaving a ground floor window open). It has not been possible to establish if any person who did not receive security improvements was subject to another burglary.

• Research with offenders has shown that lighting plays an important part in the identification of vulnerable property. Offenders did not like to operate in areas of security lighting, particularly dusk 'til dawn, which provides a constant pool of light.

• Older housing stock, particularly Victorian back to back terraced housing is most vulnerable to repeat attack from both forced and unforced entry.

• The most prevalent areas for repeat burglary activity are town centre and outlying council 'type' estates, concentrated in recognised areas of deprivation.

• Preferred points of entry differ throughout districts, however, forced rear window and insecure front door access remain the most popular choice for burglars committing repeat offences.

• Home entertainment equipment was the most popular category of property stolen.

• Wooden doors and windows of older properties create easy opportunities for a burglar to gain entry.

• Offenders would generally commit crime in the close proximity to the area where they lived. They only had a short distance to travel in an area familiar to them, didn't stand out and felt 'safe'.

• Offenders reported using a third party to identify a potential target whether it was to commit a repeat burglary or a first time burglary i.e. milkmen, taxi drivers and window cleaners.

• Offenders use a different entry point when returning to a property, on the assumption that the victim has secured the point of entry after the first attack.

• Detection rates for Cleveland Police and Darlington are 8% and 12% respectively for repeat burglaries.

• A high risk victim could be characterised as:

  • Single

  • Female

  • 25-44 years

  • In older rented housing

  • On a council estate

  • In a deprived area
    

• This report has confirmed what was suspected at the outset of the research, that is, there is not a consistent approach to repeat domestic burglary across the 5 Basic Command Units reviewed.

• Accurate and timely information is obviously vital to the process. Prior to the research, police staff complained of problems accessing computers, key officers (C.P.O's) not having training in crime recording systems and repeat victims often not being a priority for crime analysts.

• The use of mapping has proved a useful exercise for the project. It has confirmed a reduction in burglary and repeat burglary incidences. It is of interest to note significant reductions were achieved in the Gresham and Southfield wards of Middlesbrough. Both these wards have been subject to an extensive Alleygating programme. However in the adjoining Linthorpe ward which has not been subject to Alleygating, there has been a considerable increase in burglary activity.

• Much of the research focuses on the Police. It is obvious, however, that the issue lends itself to a partnership problem solving approach. There have been attempts at this in the past. There are examples of current good practice, and there needs to be a commitment to establish and share "what works".

• In the public housing sector, maintenance and repair services vary significantly. Whilst recognising financial constraints, it is not helpful to replace one flimsy door with a similar flimsy door.

• The report also raises questions about victims and their behaviour. The research clearly demonstrates that a significant proportion of victims are apparently disinterested in doing anything to reduce their chance of further victimisation.

The Police Standards Unit, has acknowledged the merits of this initiative. It is now providing funding for Cleveland Police to develop, through Safe in Tees Valley, a corporate approach in addressing the issues of response, through to the investigation of burglary, with an emphasis on repeat victimisation.

Download a copy of "Repeat Vicitimisation Domestic Burglary Project" PDF 6.5Mb (Large file, may take a while to download)

Last update: Wednesday, August 27, 2008