| Approach |
Reasoning / mechanism |
Summary of research findings
|
|
Increase CCTV coverage
|
Cameras will either:
- Support successful prosecutions
|
Can be effective where it is clear what impact the scheme is
meant to have, and where the right conditions are in place for the
cameras to have the intended effect.
Works best as part of an integrated and evolving package of
measures.
(Tilley, 1993) |
|
Secure by design
|
Crime can be reduced by making it harder and more risky to
commit. |
Implementing action in a police beat reduced risks by nearly 10%
Home Office Research Findings No 42
Domestic burglary schemes in the safer cities programme.
Ekblom Law and Sutton.(1996)
|
|
Greater use of intelligence |
To provide the rationale and focus for dedicated squads |
Performance was seen to have improved.
Crime Detection &Prevention Series Paper 59. Combating
Burglary: An evaluation of three Strategies
.Stockdale and Gresham.(1995)
|
|
Property marking |
To aid in reducing burglary and recovering property. |
Evaluation of a successful scheme Laycock (1992)
|
|
Targeted policing of hotspots
|
The more precisely patrol presence is concentrated at the ‘hotspots’
the less crime there will be at those places and times.
Crackdowns on identified problems must be followed by appropriate
consolidation. |
US evidence is that this is an effective strategy for dealing
with local problems.
Goldblatt & Lewis
Wright and Pease 1995 |
|
Target known offenders
|
Disrupting offenders’ methods/routines can reduce crimes.
The higher the police arrest rates for high risk offenders the
lower the rates of crime. |
Targeting repeat offenders appears to be worthwhile.
Goldblatt & Lewis
Recent research indicates that targeting prolific burglars
reduced burglaries.
Consolidating Crackdowns: Findings from an anti-burglary project.
.Police Research Series 113 Farrell,Chenery and Pease. |
|
Publicity campaigns
|
Continuous publicity must accompany target hardening to maximise
benefit. |
Media involvement must be planned carefully and messages
continually re-inforced. Tilley and Webb 1994 |
|
Targeting the market in stolen goods
|
Rates of offending/re-offending are influenced by how hard/easy
it is to dispose of stolen goods.
|
Some evidence that difficulties in disposing of stolen property
can deter inexperienced thieves in re-offending. Strategies for
reducing illicit markets are being tested.
Sutton 1998 |
|
Protecting property
|
Dwellings are particularly vulnerable during a change in
occupier. |
Increased incidence of property crime in both pre-move and
post-move periods.
Movers and Breakers;Ellingworth and pease Vol 3 No 1
International Journal of risk,Security and Crime Prevention. |
|
Informant hotlines
|
Rewards, free phone number and anonymity will generate
information leading to arrests. |
Schemes are in general highly productive in recovering stolen
property/successful prosecutions. Clarke & Harris.1992.
More useful in detection than prevention.
Research findings by the Vauxhall Centre for the study of Crime
at the University of Luton, indicate that in 63% of cases previously
unknown offenders, or those known but not suspected for the case in
question were arrested and charged as a result of Crimestoppers
information.
|
|
Raise public awareness/change behaviour
|
People can (but often fail to) take simple steps
to protect themselves from being victimised.
‘Cocoon watch’ combined with tailored target hardening can
prove effective. |
General campaigns have limited impact and are unlikely to reduce
the overall levels of theft.
Burrows & Heal
Campaigns targeted on vulnerable people/places show more promise.
Forrester, Chatterton and Pease 1988 |
|
Repeat victimisation
|
Crime can be reduced by protecting victims from further crime.
A graded response to repeats, including household security
improvements is effective. |
UK research indicates that this can effect a significant
reduction.
Chenery et al, 1997
Anderson Chenery and Pease1995 |