Advertisement

An Evaluation of a Research-Informed Target Hardening Initiative

  • James Hunter
  • Andromachi Tseloni
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter describes a target hardening demonstration project implemented in an English city, which drew on the research findings relating to burglary and the most effective combination ‘on a budget’ nationally – window locks, internal lights on a timer, double door locks or deadlocks and external lights on a sensor (WIDE) – of security devices presented earlier in this book. The pilot target hardening initiative sought to test the effectiveness of the WIDE security combination in local areas following the principle of repeat and near repeat victimisation. The discussion provides an overview of the different stages of the initiative and the partner organisations involved. It also outlines preliminary evaluation results, which suggest WIDE-informed burglary prevention gains, and discusses some of the practical and methodological issues surrounding crime reduction initiatives that stem from the project in question.

Keywords

Crime prevention evaluation Domestic burglary Pilot project Target hardening initiative 

Abbreviations

BTF

Burglary Task and Finish group

CSEW

Crime Survey for England and Wales

ESRC-SDAI

Economic and Social Research Council-Secondary Data Analysis Initiative

LSOA

Lower Super Output Area (statistical geographical boundary for UK Census and other data)

NCDP

Nottingham Crime and Drugs Partnership

NCH

Nottingham City Homes

NRV

Near repeat victimisation

OPCC

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner

PCSOs

Police Community Support Officers

PCU

Pre-crime unit

WIDE

Window locks, internal lights on a timer, double door locks and external lights on a sensor

References

  1. Allatt, P. (1984). Residential security: Containment and displacement of burglary. Howard Journal, 23(2), 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett, T., Holloway, K., & Farrington, D. (2006). Does neighbourhood watch reduce crime? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 437–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowers, K., & Johnson, S. (2003). The role of publicity in crime prevention: Findings from the Reducing Burglary Initiative. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  4. Bowers, K., & Johnson, S. (2005). Domestic burglary repeats and space-time clusters: The dimensions of risk. European Journal of Criminology, 2(1), 67–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowers, K., Johnson, S., & Hirschfield, A. (2003). Pushing back the boundaries: New techniques for assessing the impact of burglary schemes. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  6. Brand, S., & Price, R. (2000). The economic and social costs of crime (Home Office Research Study 217). Economics and Resource Analysis Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  7. Brunton-Smith, I., & Sturgis, P. (2011). Do neighbourhoods generate fear of crime? An empirical test using the British Crime Survey. Criminology, 49(2), 331–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. College of Policing. (2018). Crime and policing in England, Wales and Northern Ireland – Police. UK. https://data.police.uk/data.
  9. Coupe, T., & Blake, L. (2006). Daylight and darkness targeting strategies and the risks of being seen at residential burglaries. Criminology, 44(2), 431–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cummings, R. (2006). ‘What If’: The counterfactual in program evaluation. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 6(2), 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). (2015). The English indices of deprivation 2015. London: DCLG.Google Scholar
  12. Ekblom, P., Law, H., Sutton, M. (1996). Safer cities and domestic burglary (Home Office Research Study 164). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  13. Farrell, G. (1992). Multiple victimisation: Its extent and significance. International Review of Victimology, 2, 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forrester, D., Chatterton, M., & Pease, K. (1988). The Kirkholt burglary prevention project, Rochdale. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  15. Foster, J., & Hope, T. (1993). Housing, community and crime: The impact of the priority estates project (Home Office Research Study 131). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  16. Griswold, D. (1984). Crime prevention and commercial burglary: A time series analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 493–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hope, T. (2004). Pretend it works: Evidence and governance in the evaluation of the reducing burglary initiative. Criminal Justice, 4(3), 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hunter, J., & Tseloni, A. (2016). Equity, justice and the crime drop: The case of burglary in England and Wales. Crime Science, 5(3), 1–13.Google Scholar
  19. Ignatans, D., & Pease, K. (2016). On whom does the burden of crime fall now? Changes over time in counts and concentration. International Review of Victimology, 22(1), 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson, S., & Bowers, K. (2004a). The stability of space-time clusters of burglary. British Journal of Criminology, 44(1), 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson, S., & Bowers, K. (2004b). The burglary as clue to the future. The beginnings of prospective hot-spotting. European Journal of Criminology, 1(2), 237–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson, S., Bowers, K., Jordan, P., Mallender, J., Davidson, N., & Hirschfield, A. (2004). Evaluating crime prevention scheme success: Estimating ‘outcomes’ or how many crimes were prevented. Evaluation, 10(3), 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson, S., Bernasco, W., Bowers, K., Elffers, H., Ratcliffe, J., Rengert, G., & Townsley, M. (2007). Near repeats: a cross national assessment of residential burglary. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23, 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jones, A., Valero-Silva, N., & Lucas, D. (2016). The effects of ‘Secure Warm Modern’ homes in Nottingham: Decent Homes impact study. Nottingham: Nottingham City Homes http://www.nottinghamcityhomes.org.uk/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alId=2472. Accessed 12 June 2018.Google Scholar
  25. Linning, S. Eck, J., & Bowers, K. (2017, November 15–18). The temporal effects surrounding place-based crime prevention interventions. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology 73rd annual meeting, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  26. Lurigio, A., & Rosenbaum, D. (1986). Evaluation research in community crime prevention: A critical look at the field. In D. Rosenbaum (Ed.), Community crime prevention: does it work? (pp. 19–44). Beverley Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Millie, A., & Hough, M. (2004). Assessing the impact of the Reducing Burglary Initiative in Southern England and Wales. London: Home Office – Second Edition.Google Scholar
  28. NOMIS. (2018). Population estimates – Local authority by single year of age 2016. NOMIS Official Labour Market Statistics/Office for National Statistics. https://www.nomisweb.co.uk.
  29. Nottingham Crime and Drugs Partnership (NCDP). (2014). Repeat and Near Repeat Burglary Pilot Project Protocol (Restricted report). Nottingham: Crime and Drugs Partnership.Google Scholar
  30. Nottingham Crime and Drugs Partnership (NCDP). (2015a). Strategic assessment 2015/2016. http://www.nottinghamcdp.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/REVISED-FINAL-Strategic-Assessment-2015-16.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2018.
  31. Nottingham Crime and Drugs Partnership (NCDP). (2015b). Repeat and near repeat burglary pilot project: Operation Paddlewood. Burglary and security conference presentation, Galleries of Justice, Nottingham, 21 January 2015.Google Scholar
  32. Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2017a). Workless households for regions across the UK: 2016. London: Office for National Statistics.Google Scholar
  33. Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2017b). Recorded crime data by community safety partnership area 2017. London: Office for National Statistics.Google Scholar
  34. Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2018). Mid-year population estimates 2016. London: Office for National Statistics.Google Scholar
  35. Osborn, D., & Tseloni, A. (1998). The distribution of household property crimes. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14, 307–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Osborn, D., Ellingworth, D., Hope, T., & Trickett, A. (1996). Are repeatedly victimised households different? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 12, 223–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pease, K. (1991). The Kirkholt Project: Preventing Burglary on a British Public Housing Estate. Security Journal, 2, 73–77.Google Scholar
  38. Pease, K. (2009). The carbon cost of crime and its implications. An ACPO Secured by Design research project. http://www.securedbydesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/The-Carbon-Cost-of-Crime.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2015.
  39. Polvi, N., Looman, T., Humphries, C., & Pease, K. (1991). The time course of repeat burglary victimisation. British Journal of Criminology, 31, 411–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosenbaum, D. (1987). The theory and research behind neighbourhood watch: Is it a sound fear and crime reduction strategy. Crime & Delinquency, 33(1), 103–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ross, N., & Pease, K. (2007). Community policing and prediction. In T. Williamson (Ed.), Knowledge-based policing (pp. 305–321). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  42. Santos, R., & Santos, R. (2015). Practice-based research: Ex post facto evaluation of evidence-based police practices implemented in residential micro-time hot spots. Evaluation Review, 39(5), 451–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sherman, L., Gottfredson, D., Mackenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1998). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.Google Scholar
  44. Sidebottom, A., Tompson, L., Thornton, A., Bullock, K., Tilley, N., Bowers, K., & Johnson, S. (2015). Gating alleys to reduce crime: A meta-analysis and realist synthesis. What works: Crime reduction systematic review series. London: What Works Centre for Crime Reduction http://whatworks.college.police.uk/About/Documents/Alley_gating.pdf. Accessed 11 Apr 2018.Google Scholar
  45. Townsley, M., Homel, R., & Chaseling, J. (2003). Infectious burglaries: A test of the near repeat hypothesis. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 615–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Trickett, A., Osborn, D. R., Seymour, J., & Pease, K. (1992). What is different about high crime areas? British Journal of Criminology, 32, 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tseloni, A. (2006). Multilevel modelling of the number of property crimes: Household and area effects. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 169(2), 205–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tseloni, A., & Rogerson, M. (2018). Estrategias para la prevención de la revictimización. En M. Tenca, y E. Mendez Ortiz (Coordinadores) Manual de Prevención del Delito y Seguridad Ciudadana (pp. 251-276). Buenos Aires: Ediciones Didot [Tseloni, A., & Rogerson, M. (2018). Strategies for preventing repeat victimisation. In M. Tenca & E. Mendez Ortiz (Eds.) Handbook of crime prevention and citizen security (pp. 251–276). Buenos Aires: Ediciones Didot].Google Scholar
  49. Tseloni, A., Thompson, R., Grove, L., Tilley, N., & Farrell, G. (2014). The effectiveness of burglary security devices. Security Journal, 30(2), 646–664. DOI: 10.1057/sj.2014.30.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Quantitative and Spatial Criminology, School of Social SciencesNottingham Trent UniversityNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations