Burglary
Biting Back II: Reducing Repeat Victimisation In Huddersfield
| This document is published for archival/historical purposes. It will not be updated. |
Crime Detection and Prevention Series, Paper 82 (1997) by Sylvia Chenery & Ken Pease
This report describes the impact of a strategy to reduce crime by focussing on repeat victims and examines the issues involved in putting it into practice.
Focusing on repeat victims is feasible and seems to have enjoyed substantial success in helping to reduce rates of domestic burglary, and some success in reducing theft from motor vehicles.
Key points
The main achievements of the project include:
A reduction in crime – domestic burglary fell by 30% and theft from motor vehicles fell by 20%
Reduced levels of repeat domestic burglary
No evidence to suggest that domestic burglary was displaced rather than prevented
An increase in arrests from temporary alarms, from 4% of installations to 14%
Improved quality of service to victims.
The report sets out the police tasks necessary for areas wishing to implement a divisional repeat victimisation scheme:
Quantification of repeat victimisation, and determination of how well this is reflected in recorded crime data.
Routine identification of repeat victims, by the first officer attending, and establishment of Cocoon Watch and Police Watch.
Purchase of equipment for temporary installation with burglary victims.
Decision as to allocation of resources to victims, including identification of suitable targets for installation of high-tech equipment, for example videos and alarms.
Training and oversight of police, and liaison with local authority.
Monitoring and modification of scheme in the light of developments, including the purchase of new equipment.
Several areas were identified with scope for further development. These include:
Definitions of repeats based on the risk of repetition and the circumscription of target, in order to identify where a repeat prevention strategy would be most and least productive.
The project’s definition for repeat car crime – the same household’s vehicle(s) in the same location – was too narrow as it led to a low number of repeats and a correspondingly low intensity of response
Greater involvement of scenes of crime officers (SOCOs) – the scope of detecting repeats from this source was not fully explored; and,
A potential role for organisations like Victim Support in setting up Cocoon Watches in areas where concrete and immediate neighbour help to individual victims could contribute to the development of community co-operation.
Getting a copy
Biting Back II: Reducing Repeat Victimisation in Huddersfield 
PDF (425 kB)
Last update: Wednesday, August 27, 2008