The Organisation and Deployment of Patrol Resources: Cost-Effective On-Scene Arrest at Burglaries

  • Richard Timothy CoupeEmail author


The objectives of this chapter are to understand the ways in which patrol resources and incident solvability affect arrest at or near the scene of domestic burglaries. It is based on an individual data sample of in-progress burglaries during a six-month period in a large UK police force’s jurisdiction. Catching burglars red-handed involves three patrols being close to and available to respond to burglaries. This depends on daily fluctuations in levels of incident demand, particularly those requiring an immediate response, relative to the numbers of patrols deployed per unit area. Patrol supply per unit area might be improved by deploying more officers in single-crewed units. Responses by additional patrols situated close to targets markedly increase the odds of arrests, but only at more solvable incidents. The solvability factors for in-progress residential burglaries are who made the alert, the burglary stage at which the burglar was seen or heard, the presence of daylight or darkness, and the number of suspects. Dog vans should be used as much for solvable daylight cases as for less solvable night-time ones. The study underlines the importance of matching patrol resources to the most solvable cases to maximise detections.


Patrol Deployment Resources Response time In-progress burglary Solvability factors 


  1. Bieck, W., & Kessler, D. A. (1977). Response time analysis. Kansas City: Missouri Board of Police Commissioners.Google Scholar
  2. Blake, L. (2006). Catching residential burglars in the act (Ph.D. thesis). University of Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
  3. Blake, L., & Coupe, R. T. (2001). The impact of single and two-officer patrols on catching burglars in the act. The British Journal of Criminology, 41(2), 381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boydstun, J. E., Sherry, M. E., & Moelter, N. P. (1977). Patrol staffing in San Diego: One- or two-officer units. Washington: Police Foundation.Google Scholar
  5. Clawson, C., & Chang, S. K. (1977). Relationship of response delays and arrest rates. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 5(1), 53–68.Google Scholar
  6. Coupe, R. T., & Blake, L. (2005). The effects of patrol workloads and response strength on burglary emergencies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(3), 239–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coupe, R. T., & Kaur, S. (2005). The role of alarms and CCTV in detecting non-residential burglary. Security Journal, 18(2), 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coupe, T., & Griffiths, M. (1996). Solving residential burglary (Police Research Group Crime Detection and Prevention Services, Paper 77). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  9. Coupe, R. T., Erwood, N., & Kaur, S. (2002). Solving non-residential burglary (Unpublished Home Office Report). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  10. Decker, S. H., & Wagner, A. E. (1982). The impact of police patrol staffing on police–citizen injuries and dispositions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 10(5), 375–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donnellan, G. and Ariel, B. (2012, July, 4–6). Burglary solvability factors. Paper presented at 4th International Evidence-Based Policing Conference, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. Jansson, K. (2005). Volume crime investigations—A review of the research literature (Home Office Online Report OLR 44/05). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  13. Kaplan, E. H. (1979). Evaluating the effectiveness of one-officer versus two-officer patrol units. Journal of Criminal Justice, 7(4), 325–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kelling, G., Pate, T., Dieckman, D., & Brown, C. (1974). The Kansas City preventive patrol experiment. Washington DC: Police Foundation.Google Scholar
  15. Larson, R. (1975). What happened to patrol operations in Kansas City? A review of the Kansas City preventive patrol experiment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 3(4), 267–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Newburn, T. (2007). Understanding investigation. In T. Newburn, T. Williamson, & A. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of criminal investigation. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Paine, C., & Ariel, B. (2013, July, 8–10). Solvability analysis: Increasing the likelihood of detection in completed, attempted and in-progress burglaries. Paper presented at the 6th International Evidence-Based Policing Conference, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Pease, K. (1998). Repeat victimisation: Taking stock (Crime Detection and Prevention Series, Paper 90). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  19. Robinson, A., & Tilley, N. (2009). Factors influencing police performance in the investigation of volume crimes in England and Wales. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 10(3), 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Spelman, W., & Brown, D. K. (1981). Calling the police: Citizen reporting of serious crime. Washington, DC: Police Research Executive Forum.Google Scholar
  21. Tilley, N., Robinson, A., & Burrows, J. (2007). The investigation of high volume crime. In T. Newburn, T. Williamson, & A. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of criminal investigation (pp. 226–254). London: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Wilson, C., & Brewer, N. (1992). One- and two-person patrols: A review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20(5), 443–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of CriminologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations