The efficacy of home security measures

Abstract

Crime prevention through environmental design(CPTED) assumes criminal acts are influenced by their inherent costs and benefits. Policy implications drawn from CPTED suggest home security measures increase these costs and reduce the likelihood of burglary. This paper tests the efficacy of home security measures. A telephone survey of 566 residents in Mobile County, Alabama, inquired about security measures burglary victims and nonvictims employed. A logistic regression solution found some, but not all, of these security measures to be quite effective.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Allat, P. (1984). Residential burglary: Containment and displacement of burglary.Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 99–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bennett, T., & Wright, R. (1984).Burglars on burglary: Prevention and the offender. Brookfield, VT: Gower Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Buck, A., Hakim, S., & Rengert, G. (1993). Burglar alarms and the choice behavior of burglars: A suburban phenomenon.Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 497–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1996).Criminal victimization 1994: National crime victimization survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Clarke, R. (1995). Situational crime prevention.British Journal of Criminology, 20, 136–147.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach.American Sociological Review, 44, 588–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cromwell, P., Olson, J., & Avary, D. (1991).Breaking and entering: An ethnographic analysis of burglary. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Feins, J., Epstein, J., & Widom, R. (1997).Solving crime problems in residential neighborhoods: Comprehensive changes in design, management, and use. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Forrester, D., Chatterton, M., & Pease, K. (1988).The Kirkholt burglary prevention demonstration project, Rochdale. Crime prevention unit paper 13. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Heller, N., Stenzel, W., Gill, A., Kolde, R., & Schimerman, S. (1975).Operation identification projects: Assessment of effectiveness. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jeffrey, C. R. (1971).Crime prevention through environmental design. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kaplan, H., O’Kane, K., Lavrakas, P., & Pesce, E. (1978).Crime prevention through environmental design: Final research report on commercial demonstration; Portland, Oregon. Arlington, VA: Westinghouse Electric Co.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Laycock, G. (1985).Property marking: A deterrent to domestic burglary? Crime prevention unit paper 3. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lilly, R., Cullen, F., & Ball, R. (1995).Criminological theory: Context and consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Miethe, T., & McCorkle, R. (1998).Crime profiles. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Meredith, C., & Paquette, C. (1992). Crime prevention in high-rise rental apartments: Findings of a demonstration project.Security Journal, 3, 161–169.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nasar, J., & Fisher, B. (1993). Hot spots of fear and crime: A multi-method investigation.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rengert, G., & Wasilchick, J. (1990).Space, time, and crime: Ethnographic insights into residential burglary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Reppeto, T. (1974).Residential crime. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Robinson, M. (1999). The theoretical development of crime prevention through environmental design(CPTED).Advances in Criminological Theory, 8, 427–462.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rosenbaum, D., Lewis, D., & Grant, J. (1986). Neighborhood-based crime prevention: Assessing the efficacy of community organizing in Chicago. In D. Rosenbaum (Ed.),Community crime prevention: Does it work? (pp. 68–86). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Scarr, H., Pinsky, J., & Wyatt, D. (1973).Patterns of burglary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Seattle Law and Justice Planning Office. (1975).Evaluation report: Target hardening. Washington, DC: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sherman, L., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1998).Research in brief: Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Shover, N. (1973). The social organization of burglary.Social Problems, 20, 54–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Shover, N., & Honaker, D. (1996). The socially bounded decision making of persistent property offenders. In P. Cromwell (Ed.),In their own words: Criminals on crime (pp. 10–23). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Spelman, W., & Eck, J. (1989). Sitting ducks, ravenous wolves, and helping hands: New approaches to urban policing.Public Affairs Comment, 35, 2, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Tilly, N., & Webb, J. (1994).Burglary reduction: Findings from safer cities schemes. Crime prevention unit paper 51. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Waller, I., & Okihiro, N. (1978).Burglary: The victim and the public. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Weisburd, D. (1997). Reorienting crime prevention research and policy: From the causes of criminality to the context of crime. Paper presented at the 1996 National Institute of Justice sponsored conference on criminal justice research and evaluation, Washington, DC.

  31. Wright, R., & Decker, S. (1994).Burglars on the job. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy C. O’shea.

Additional information

The author would like to thank Bill Doerner and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and patience. Thanks also go to Sheriff Jack Tillman, Captain Ronnie Phillips, and Thomas Barclay of the Mobile County (AL) Sheriffs Office for their support in this project.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

O’shea, T.C. The efficacy of home security measures. Am J Crim Just 24, 155–167 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02887589

Download citation

Keywords

  • Crime Prevention
  • Security Measure
  • National Crime Victimization Survey
  • Situational Crime Prevention
  • Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design