European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 285–308 | Cite as

Closing Off Opportunities for Crime: An Evaluation of Alley-Gating

  • Kate J. Bowers
  • Shane D. Johnson
  • Alex F. G. Hirschfield


A new situational crime prevention measure recently introduced into Great Britain involves the fitting of gates to alleyways running along the back of terraced properties to restrict access to local residents and reduce opportunities for offenders. A number of quantitative techniques were used to assess the success of the intervention in reducing burglary in the City of Liverpool. The results demonstrate that, relative to a suitable comparison area, burglary was reduced by approximately 37%, there was a diffusion of benefit to properties in the surrounding areas, and the scheme was cost beneficial with a saving of £1.86 for every pound spent. The analyses provide persuasive evidence that these reductions were attributable to the intervention. We argue that the methodological techniques demonstrated here can be applied more widely to crime prevention evaluations.

Key words

evaluation situational crime prevention diffusion of benefit cost benefit analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, D., S. Chenery and K. Pease, Biting back: Tackling repeat burglary and car crime, Crime Detection and Prevention Series, Paper 58. Home Office: London, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, G, Defining and optimising displacement. In: J. Eck, and D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and Place. Crime Prevention Studies 4, pp. 95–114. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. Barr, R. and K. Pease, Crime placement, displacement and deflection. Crime Justice: Review Research, 12, pp. 277–318, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowers, K.J. and S.D. Johnson, Measuring the geographical displacement of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19(3), pp. 275–301, 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowers, K.J., S.D. Johnson and A.F.G. Hirschfield, Pushing back the boundaries: New techniques for assessing the impact of burglary schemes. Home Office Online report 24/03. Home Office: London, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. Bowers, K.J., S.D. Johnson and A.F.G. Hirschfield, The measurement of crime prevention intensity and its impact on levels of crime. The British Journal of Criminology, 44, pp. 419–440, 2004.Google Scholar
  7. Budd, T., Burglary of domestic dwellings: Findings from the British Crime Survey. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 4/99. Home Office: London, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. Brand, S. and R. Price, The economic and social costs of crime. Home Office Research Study 217, Home Office: London, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, R.V., Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Crime Studies. New York: Harrow and Heston, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. Clarke, R.V., Situational crime prevention. In M. Tonry and D.P. Farrington (Eds.), Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention, Crime and Justice, 19. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. Eck, J., The threat of crime displacement. Criminal Justice Abstracts, 25, pp. 527–546, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. Ekblom, P. and K. Pease, Evaluating Crime prevention. In: M. Tonry and D. Farrington (Eds.), Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention. Crime & Justice, a Review of Research, 19. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. Ekblom, P., H. Law, and M. Sutton, Safer cities and domestic burglary. Home Office Study 164, Home Office: London, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. Farrell, G., Preventing repeat victimisation. In: M. Tonry and D.P. Farrington (Eds.), Building a Safer Society. Crime and Justice 19. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. Farrington, D.P. and B. Welsh, Effects of improved street lighting on crime: A systematic review. Home Office Research Study 251. Home Office: London, 2002.Google Scholar
  16. Forrester, D., M.R. Chatterton and K. Pease, The Kirkholt Burglary Prevention project, Rochdale. Crime Prevention Paper 13, Home Office: London, 1988.Google Scholar
  17. Goldblatt, P. and C. Lewis (Eds.), Reducing offending: An assessment of research evidence on ways of dealing with offender behaviour. Home Office Research Study 187, Home Office: London, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. Griswold, D.B., Crime prevention and commercial burglary: A time series analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12 (5), pp. 493–501, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hesseling, R.B.P., Displacement: A review of the empirical literature. In: R.V. Clarke (Ed.), Crime Prevention Studies 2, Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 197–230, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, S.D. and K.J. Bowers, Opportunity is in the eye of the beholder: The role of publicity in crime prevention. Criminology and Public Policy, 2(3), pp. 497–524, 2003.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, S.D. and C. Loxley, Installing Alley-gates: Practical lessons from burglary prevention projects, Home Office Briefing Note 2(1). Home Office: London, 2001.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, S.D., K.J. Bowers and A.F.G. Hirschfield, New insights into the spatial and temporal distribution of repeat victimisation. The British Journal of Criminology, 37(2), pp. 224–244, 1997.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, S.D., K.J. Bowers, C. Young and A.F.G. Hirschfield, Uncovering the true picture: Evaluating crime reduction initiatives using disaggregate crime data. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal, 3(4), pp. 7–24, 2001.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, S.D., K.J. Bowers, P. Jordan, J. Mallender, N. Davidson, and A.F.G, Hirschfield, Estimating crime reduction outcomes: How many crimes were prevented? Evaluation: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 10, pp. 327–348, 2004.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, S.D, K.J. Bowers and A.F.G. Hirschfield, The impact of situational crime prevention on residents’ perceptions of risk. The International Review of Victimology, in press.Google Scholar
  26. Kershaw, C., N. Chivite-Matthews, C. Thomas, and R. Aust, The 2001 British Crime Survey: England and Wales. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 18/01. Home Office: London, 2000.Google Scholar
  27. McGarrell, E.F., S. Chermak, A. Weiss, and J. Wilson, Reducing firearms violence through directed police patrol. Criminology and Public Policy, 1(1), pp. 119–148, 2001.Google Scholar
  28. Miethe, T.D., Citizen-based crime control activity and victimisation risks: An examination of displacement and free-rider effects. Criminology, 29(3), pp. 419–439, 1991.Google Scholar
  29. Painter, K. and D.P. Farrington, The crime reducing effects of improved street lighting: The Dudley project. In: R.V. Clarke (Ed.), Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies, 2nd edn., Guilderland, NY: Harrow and Heston, pp. 209–226, 1997.Google Scholar
  30. Pease, K., Repeat victimisation: Taking stock. Crime detection and Prevention Series, Paper 90. Home Office: London, 1998.Google Scholar
  31. Polvi, N., T. Looman, C. Humphries and K. Pease, The time course of repeat burglary victimisation. British Journal of Criminology, 31(4), pp. 411–414, 1991.Google Scholar
  32. Repetto, T.A., Residential Crime, Ballinger: Cambridge, MA, 1974.Google Scholar
  33. Sherman, L., D. Gottfredson, D. Mackenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter and S. Bushqway. Preventing Crime: What Works, What doesn’t, What’s Promising. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs: Washington, DC, 1997.Google Scholar
  34. White, R. and A. Sutton, Crime Prevention, Urban space and social exclusion. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 31(1): 82–99, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kate J. Bowers
    • 1
  • Shane D. Johnson
    • 1
  • Alex F. G. Hirschfield
    • 1
  1. 1.Jill Dando Institute of Crime ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations