Preventing Repeat Residential Burglary Victimization

  • Graham Farrell
  • Ken Pease

This chapter reviews evaluations of the prevention of repeat residential burglary. These evaluations are a subset of the evaluations relating to the prevention of repeat victimization. The review methodology aims to follow that of the systematic review process proposed by the Campbell Collaboration, which has produced a series of recent reviews including, Farrington and Welsh (2002) and the set of reviews edited by Farrington and Welsh (2001). In keeping with that format, the authors acknowledge a possible interest: We have both previously worked on repeat victimization prevention efforts and elsewhere contended that preventing repeat victimization is a potentially attractive crime prevention strategy.


Crime Prevention Crime Type Comparison Area Repeat Victimization Residential Burglary 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, David, and Ken Pease. 1997. ‘‘Biting Back: Preventing Repeat Burglary and Car Crime in Huddersfield.’’ In Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies, Second ed., edited by Ronald V. Clarke, 200-208. Guilderland, New York: Harrow and Heston.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, David, Sylvia Chenery, and Ken Pease. 1995. Biting Back: T ackling Repeat Burglary and Car Crime. Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper, No. 58. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  3. Ball Public Relations and Christine Walter. 2002. T he South Australian Residential Break and Enter Pilot Project Evaluation Report - Summary Volume. Canberra. Australia: Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, Trevor H., and Linda Durie. 1999. Preventing Residential Burglary in Cambridge: From Crime Audits to T argeted Strategies. Police Research Series Paper, No. 108. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  5. Bowers, Kate, Shane Johnson, and Alex Hirschfield. 2003. Pushing Back the Boundaries: New T echniques for Assessing the Impact of Burglary Schemes. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  6. Budz, Dennis, Neil Pegnall, and Michael Townsley. 2001. L ightning Strikes T wice: Preventing Repeat Home Burglary. Queensland, Australia: Criminal Justice Commission.Google Scholar
  7. Chenery, Sylvia, John Holt, and Ken Pease. 1997. Biting Back II: Reducing Repeat V ictimization in Huddersfield. Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper, No. 82. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  8. Farrell, Graham. 1992. Multiple Victimisation: Its Extent and Significance. International Review of V ictimology 2: 85-102.Google Scholar
  9. —— . 1995. ‘‘Preventing Repeat Victimization.’’ In Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 19, edited by Michael Tonry and David P. Farrington, 469-534. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. —— , and Ken Pease. 1993. Once Bitten, T wice Bitten: Repeat V ictimization and its Implications for Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention Unit Paper, No. 46. London; Home Office.Google Scholar
  11. 1997. Repeat Victim Support. British Journal of Social Work 27: 101-113.Google Scholar
  12. —— . 2003. ‘‘Measuring and Interpreting Repeat Victimization Using Police Data: Findings from Repeat Burglary in Charlotte, North Carolina.’’ In T heory for Practice in Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 16, edited by Marti Smith and Derek Cornish, 265-289. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  13. Farrell, Graham, Louise Hobbs, Alan Edmunds, and Gloria Laycock. 2000. RV Snapshot: UK Policing and Repeat V ictimization. Policing and Reducing Crime Unit Paper, No. 5. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  14. Farrington, David P. 1992. Was the Kirkholt Burglary Prevention Project Effective? Unpublished paper. Cambridge, U.K.: Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  15. —— , and Brandon. C. Welsh. 2002. Improved Street Lighting and Crime Prevention. Justice Quarterly 19: 313-342.Google Scholar
  16. —— , eds. 2001. What Works in Preventing Crime? Systematic Reviews of Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research. [Full issue.] Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578.Google Scholar
  17. Forrester, David, Mike Chatterton, and Ken Pease. 1988. T he Kirkholt Burglary Prevention Project, Rochdale. Crime Prevention Unit Paper, No. 13. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  18. Forrester, David, Samantha Frenzz, Martin O’Connell, and Ken Pease. 1990. T he Kirkholt Burglary Prevention Project: Phase II. Crime Prevention Unit Paper, No. 23. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  19. Henderson, Monika. 2002. Preventing Repeat Residential Burglary: A Meta-Evaluation of T wo Australian Demonstration Projects. Barton, Australia: Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Office.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, Shane D., and Kate Bowers. 2004. The Spatio-Temporal Distribution of Repeat Burglaries. European Journal of Criminology 1: 237-255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kodz, Jenny, and Ken Pease. 2003. Burglary Reduction Initiative: Early Findings on Burglary Reduction. Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate Findings, No. 204. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  22. Laycock, Gloria. 2001. Hypothesis-Based Research: The Repeat Victimization Story. Criminal Justice 1: 59-82.Google Scholar
  23. —— . 2002. ‘‘Methodological Issues in Working with Policy Advisers and Practitioners.’’ In Evaluation for Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 13, edited by Nick Tilley, 205-237. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  24. —— , and Graham Farrell. 2003. ‘‘Repeat Victimization: Lessons for Implementing Problem-Oriented Policing.’’ In Problem-Oriented Policing: From Innovation to Mainstream. Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 15, edited by Johannes Knutsson, 150-175. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pease, Ken. 1991. The Kirkholt Project: Preventing Burglary on a British Public Housing Estate. Security Journal 2: 73-77.Google Scholar
  26. —— . 1998. Repeat V ictimisation: T aking Stock. Police Research Group Paper, No. 90. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  27. Stedman, John, and Deborah Lamm Weisel. 1999. ‘‘Finding and Addressing Repeat Burglaries.’’ In Problem-Oriented Policing: Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues and Making POP Work, edited by Corina S. Brito and Tracy Allan. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.Google Scholar
  28. Tilley, Nick. 1993. After Kirkholt - T heory, Method and Results of Replication Evaluations. Crime Prevention Unit Series Paper, No. 47. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  29. —— . 1995. T hinking About Crime Prevention Performance Indicators. Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper, No. 57. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  30. —— , and Janice Webb. 1994. Burglary Reduction: Findings from Safer Cities Schemes. Crime Prevention Unit Paper, No. 51. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  31. Townsley, Michael, Ross Homel, and Janet Chaseling. 2003. Infectious Repeats: A Test of the Near Repeat Hypothesis. British Journal of Criminology 43: 615-633.Google Scholar
  32. Webb, Janice. 1996. Direct L ine Homesafe. Lincolnshire, U.K.: Janice Webb Research.Google Scholar
  33. Weisel, Deborah L., Ronald V. Clarke, and John.R. Stedman. 1999. Hot Dots in Hot Spots: Examining Repeat V ictimization for Residential Burglary in T hree Cities. Final Report Submitted to the National Institute of Justice. Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graham Farrell
  • Ken Pease

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations