Advertisement

Population-Level Analysis of Residential Burglaries

  • Colin PaineEmail author
  • Barak Ariel
Chapter
  • 133 Downloads

Abstract

In this chapter, we replicate previous research aimed at identifying those factors associated with solved residential burglaries, but in a large England and Wales context. A large number of factors were correlated with solved cases, but just 12 are effective solvability factors. This study confirms the findings of previous studies in identifying the following variables as effective solvability factors, a) fingerprints recovered; b) offender seen; c) witness recorded; d) offender’s vehicle sighted; e) offender disturbed; f) description of the suspect is recorded. However, this study advances the list of known solvability factors further by identifying six new variables that were traditionally overlooked and some of which result from advances in science, these are a) footwear marks; b) DNA; c) citizens’ reports on the burglary being in progress, d) the stolen property is recovered; e) articles left the scene by the offender and f) whether a vehicle was stolen in the crime. The magnitude of these effects, measured with standardised mean differences, suggest that the presence of these factors is strongly associated with solvability, some with very large effect sizes often exceeding Cohen’s d = 1.0. The analyses suggest that over 50% of all burglaries had one or more solvability factors present, and having one or more of these solvability factors was associated with over 60% accuracy in detection. If used as a screening tool, this solvability analysis approach Thames Valley Police would be required to investigate just over 40% of cases for investigation, as all other cases are unlikely to be solved. The policy implications of using solvability factors analysis is clear; implementing this approach as a screening tool enables police leaders to choose a suitable cut-off point that will allow an optimal balance between resource usage and detection levels.

Keywords

Residential burglary Solvability factors Resources Meta-analysis In-progress burglary 

References

  1. Ariel, B. (2012). Deterrence and moral persuasion effects on corporate tax compliance: findings from a randomized controlled trial. Criminology, 50(1), 27–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., ... & Henderson, R. (2016a). Report: Increases in police use of force in the presence of body-worn cameras are driven by officer discretion: A protocol-based subgroup analysis of ten randomized experiments. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(3), 453–463.Google Scholar
  3. Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., ... & Henderson, R. (2016b). Wearing body cameras increases assaults against officers and does not reduce police use of force: Results from a global multi-site experiment. European Journal of Criminology, 13(6), 744–755.Google Scholar
  4. Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., ... & Henderson, R. (2017). “Contagious accountability” a global multisite randomized controlled trial on the effect of police body-worn cameras on citizens’ complaints against the police. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(2), 293–316.Google Scholar
  5. Bloch, P. B., & Bell, J. (1976). Managing investigations: The Rochester system. Washington DC: The Police Foundation.Google Scholar
  6. Burrows, J. (1986). Burglary: Police actions and victims’ views (Home Office Research and Planning Unit Paper 37). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  7. Burrows, J., Hopkins, M., Hubbard, R., Robinson, A., Speed, M., & Tilley, N. (2005). Understanding the attrition process in volume crime investigations (Home Office Research Study 295). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  8. Burrows, J., & Tarling, R. (1982). Clearing up crime. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Coupe, T., & Griffiths, M. (1996). Solving residential burglary (Police Research Group Crime Detection and Prevention Services, Paper 77). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  12. Donnellan, P. G. (2011). To what extent is burglary detection a consequence of effective investigation? (unpublished M.Sc. thesis). University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  13. Doyle, A. C. (1887). A study in scarlet. London: Ward, Lock and Co.Google Scholar
  14. Eck, J. E. (1979). Managing case assignments: The burglary investigation decision model replication. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.Google Scholar
  15. Eck, J. E. (1983). Solving crimes: The investigation of burglary and robbery. Washington DC: Police Executive Research Forum.Google Scholar
  16. Eck, J. E., & Spelman, W. (1987). Who ya gonna call? The police as problem busters. Crime & Delinquency, 33(1), 31–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenberg, B., Elliot, C. V., Kraft, L. P., & Procter, S. H. (1977). Felony investigation decision model—An analysis of investigation elements of information. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  18. Greenberg, B., Yu, O., & Lang, K. (1973). Enhancement of the investigative function (Vol. I). Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute.Google Scholar
  19. Hogan-Howe, B. (2012, July 9). Total policing. Unpublished Lecture, Criminology Faculty, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  20. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Robb, P., Coupe, T., & Ariel, B. (2015). ‘Solvability’ and detection of metal theft on railway property. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 21(4), 463–484.Google Scholar
  22. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Thames Valley PoliceLondonUK
  2. 2.Institute of CriminologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Institute of Criminology, Faculty of LawThe Hebrew UniversityMount Scopus, JerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations