Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 319–345 | Cite as

Improving forensic responses to residential burglaries: results of a randomized controlled field trial

  • Emma AntrobusEmail author
  • Andrew Pilotto



Residential burglaries (or break and enters) can cause great concern to the public but are typically a routine police job. The present study sought to evaluate an enhanced police approach to this high-volume crime by emphasizing police–victim interactions and more thorough forensic examinations.


Scenes of crime officers (forensic examiners) were randomly assigned to either a control (business-as-usual) or experimental condition. Officers in the experimental condition received additional training and resources to upskill them in DNA and fingerprint evidence collection and crime scene evaluation. Experimental officers also received additional training on procedurally just approaches to dealing with victims and were encouraged to be more thorough and spend more time at these high-volume crime scenes.


The trial revealed that the enhanced, experimental, approach offered a number of benefits, including greater evidence collection, identification, and incidents solved. Further, this enhanced approach boosted victims’ perceptions of officers’ procedural justice and satisfaction with the procedures used. However, this approach was more costly in relation to time, and the additional collection of extra DNA evidence did not greatly add to the crime solvability of these incidents.


High-volume crimes such as break and enters have a significant impact on the victims and often go unsolved. This study provides causal evidence that enhancing officers’ attendance and attention to victims and evidence at these scenes can increase solvability and enhance victim experiences.


Crime scene examiners Policing Procedural justice Property crime Randomized experiment 



The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. The authors also importantly thank the many police officers involved in this project in various ways. Particular thanks go to Assistant Commissioner Peter Martin, Chief Superintendent Debbie Platz, Superintendent Brian Huxley, and Inspector Paul Baker. The authors also acknowledge the team of researchers from the University of Queensland (Institute for Social Science Research and School of Social Science), especially Emina Prguda, Professor Lorraine Mazerolle, Dr. Sarah Bennett, and Dr. Elise Sargeant, who assisted in a variety of ways to bring this trial to fruition. The partnership between the research team and the Queensland Police Service is particularly acknowledged. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and are not those of the Queensland Police Service. Responsibility for any errors of omission or commission remains with the authors. The Queensland Police Service expressly disclaims any liability for any damage resulting from the use of the material contained in this publication and will not be responsible for any loss, howsoever arising, from use or reliance on this material.


  1. Adderley, R., Townsley, M., & Bond, J. (2007). Use of data mining techniques to model crime scene investigator performance. Knowledge-Based Systems, 20, 170–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2013). Data by Region: Greater Brisbane Area (GCCSA). Retrieved from Accessed 20 Jan 2016.
  3. Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC). (2014). Australian crime: Facts & figures. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Retrieved from Accessed 10 Jan 2016.
  4. Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency (ANZPAA) and National Institute Forensic Science (NIFS). (2012). End-to-end forensic identification process project: Volume crime. Australia: ANZPAA & NIFS.Google Scholar
  5. Baber, C., & Butler, M. (2012). Expertise in crime scene examination comparing search strategies of expert and novice crime scene examiners in simulated crime scenes. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54(3), 413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baskin, D., & Sommers, I. (2011). Solving residential burglaries in the United States: the impact of forensic evidence on case outcomes. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 13, 70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A four-component model of procedural justice: defining the meaning of a “fair” process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 747–758.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bond, J. W. (2009). The value of fingerprint evidence in detecting crime. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 11(1), 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Briody, M. (2005). Effects of DNA evidence on property offences in court. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 17, 380–396.Google Scholar
  10. Briody, M., & Prenzler, T. (2005). DNA databases and property crime: a false promise? Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 37(2), 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, C., Ross, A., & Attewell, R. G. (2014). Benchmarking forensic performance in Australia—volume crime. Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal, 5(3–4), 91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burrows, J., & Tarling, R. (2004). Measuring the impact of forensic science in detecting burglary and autocrime offences. Science and Justice, 44(4), 217–222.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 no. 295). London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.Google Scholar
  14. Coupe, T., & Griffiths, M. (1996). Solving residential burglary. Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper 77. UK Home Office Police Research Group.Google Scholar
  15. Dolan, P., & Peasgood, T. (2007). Estimating the economic and social costs of the fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology, 47, 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dull, R. T., & Wint, A. V. N. (1997). Criminal victimization and its effect on fear of crime and justice attitudes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(5), 748–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elliott, I., Thomas, S. D. M., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2011). Procedural justice in contacts with the police: testing a relational model of authority in a mixed methods study. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(4), 592–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibbons, S. (2004). The costs of urban property crime. The Economic Journal, 114, F441–F463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2010). Four ingredients: new recipes for procedural justice in Australian policing. Policing, 4(4), 403–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grabosky, P. N. (1995). Fear of crime and fear reduction strategies (Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice, vol. 44). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.Google Scholar
  21. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  22. Heiskanen, M. (2010). Trends in police-recorded crime. In S. Harrendorf, M. Heiskanen, & S. Malby (Eds.), International statistics on crime and justice (pp. 21–48). Helsinki: European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, affiliated with the United Nations. Retrieved from Accessed 19 Jan 2016.Google Scholar
  23. Hinds, L., & Murphy, K. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40(1), 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Horne, N., Edmondson, K., Harrison, M., & Scott, B. (2015). The applied use of forensic intelligence for community and organised crime. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 47(1), 72–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Stanko, E. A., & Hohl, K. (2013). Just Authority? Trust in the police in England and Wales. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Jansson, K. (2005). Volume crime investigations: A review of the research literature (RDS Online Report OLR 44/05). London: Home Office. Retrieved from Accessed 10 Jan 2016.Google Scholar
  27. Julian, R., & Kelty, S. (2009). The effectiveness of forensic science in criminal investigations. Australasian Policing: A Journal of Professional Practice and Research, 1(2), 10–15.Google Scholar
  28. Kelty, S., & Julian, R. (2010). Research in progress: identifying the skills and attributes of good crime scene personnel. Australasian Policing: A Journal of Professional Practice and Research, 2(2), 40–41.Google Scholar
  29. Kelty, S. F., Julian, R., & Robertson, J. (2011). Professionalism in crime scene examination: the seven key attributes of top crime scene examiners. Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal, 2(4), 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuroki, M. (2013). Crime victimization and subjective well-being: evidence from happiness data. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(3), 783–794.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Laxminarayan, M. (2013). Interactional justice, coping and the legal system needs of vulnerable victims. International Review of Victimology, 19(2), 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ludwig, A., Fraser, J., & Williams, R. (2012). Crime scene examiners and volume crime investigations: an empirical study of perception and practice. Forensic Science Policy and Management, 3(2), 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ludwig, A., Edgar, T., & Maguire, C. N. (2014). A model for managing crime scene examiners. Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal, 5(3–4), 76–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mayhew, P. (2012). The case of Australia and New Zealand. In J. van Dijk, A. Tseloni, & G. Farrell (Eds.), The international crime drop (pp. 76–102). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Antrobus, E., & Eggins, E. (2012). Procedural justice, routine encounters and citizen perceptions of police: main findings from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(4), 343–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mazerolle, L., Antrobus, E., Bennett, S., & Tyler, T. R. (2013). Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: a randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology, 51(1), 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Murphy, K., Hinds, L., & Fleming, J. (2008). Encouraging public cooperation and support for police. Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 18(2), 136–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. National Academy of Sciences. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  39. Peterson, J. L., Hickman, M. J., Strom, K. J., & Johnson, D. J. (2013). Effect of forensic evidence on criminal justice case processing. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 58(s1), s78–s90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Queensland Police Service. (2012). Annual statistical review, 35–55. Retrieved from Accessed 9 Sept 2013.
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. Roman, J. K., Reid, S., Reid, J., Chalfin, A., Adams, W., & Knight, C. (2008). The DNA field experiment: cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of DNA in the investigation of high-volume crimes. Washington DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.Google Scholar
  43. Roman, J. K., Reid, S. E., Chalfin, A. J., & Knight, C. R. (2009). The DNA field experiment: a randomized trial of the cost-effectiveness of using DNA to solve property crimes. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(4), 345–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith, L. N., & Hill, G. D. (1991). Victimization and fear of crime. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18(2), 217–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., Huo, Y. J., Ortiz, D. J., & Lind, E. A. (1998). The self-relevant implications of the group-value model: group membership, self-worth, and treatment quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(5), 470–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stafford, M., Chandola, T., & Marmot, M. (2007). Association between fear of crime and mental health and physical functioning. The American Journal of Public Health, 97(11), 2076–2081.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Taylor, R. B. (1995). The impact of crime on communities. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 539, 28–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tilley, N., Robinson, A., & Burrows, J. (2007). The investigation of high volume crime. In T. Williamson, A. Wright, & T. Newburn (Eds.), Handbook of criminal investigation (pp. 226–254). UK: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  50. Tin, J. (2012). Household burglaries in Queensland out of control as police struggle to cope. The Courier Mail. Retrieved from Accessed 27 Aug 2013.
  51. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Tyler, T. R., & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: why do people help the police fight crime in their communities? Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 231–275.Google Scholar
  53. Tyler, T. R., Jackson, J., & Bradford, B. (2014). Social connections and material interests: On the relational basis of cooperation with legal authorities. Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice.Google Scholar
  54. United Nations Economic and Social Council (UNESC). (2014). World crime trends and emerging issues and responses in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, 23rd Session, Vienna, 12–16 April 2014. Retrieved from Accessed 10 Jan 2016.
  55. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2015). Crime and criminal justice statistics. Retrieved from Accessed 10 Jan 2016.
  56. Weatherburn, D., Matka, E., & Lind, B. (1996). Crime perception and reality: Public perceptions of the risk of criminal victimisation in Australia (Crime and justice bulletin: Contemporary issues in crime and justice, no. 28). Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.Google Scholar
  57. Weisel, D. J. (2002). The problem of burglary of single-family houses. Guide No. 18. Centre for Problem-Oriented Policing. Retrieved from Accessed 19 Jan 2016.
  58. White, M. D., Borrego, A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2014). Assessing the utility of DNA evidence in criminal investigations. In K. J. Strom & M. J. Hickman (Eds.), Forensic science and the administration of justice: critical issues and direction (pp. 121–135). California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  59. Winkel, F. W. (1991). Police communication programmes aimed at burglary victims: A review of studies and an experimental evaluation. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 1(4), 275–289.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social Science and ARC Centre of Excellence in Children and Families over the Life CourseThe University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia
  2. 2.Queensland Police ServiceBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations