Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Experimental Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We note that the scientific examination of the forensic evidence is often conducted by a scientist (in the case of DNA) or police officer who has been trained in specific examination techniques (e.g., fingerprint examiner). This is the case in the jurisdiction in which this study takes place. DNA evidence is sent to a government-run laboratory, and fingerprints are examined by a fingerprint bureau within the police organization.

  2. Although these statistics may now be outdated due to changes in policies since these reports were published.

  3. Due to backlogs of DNA analysis, it is common in the USA for biological, DNA-relevant, samples to go unanalyzed (Pratt et al. 2006, cited in White et al. 2014).

  4. This indicates that forensic evidence factors were not significant. However, given the study was conducted in the USA where forensic evidence collection is more varied, this does not rule out the importance of forensic factors in jurisdictions where forensic evidence is collected and analyzed on a much more routine basis, such as is the case in Australia.

  5. Following restructure in 2013, QPS merged Brisbane Metropolitan North and South into a single Brisbane Region. This rate represents an average of the North and South region rates in 2011–2012.

  6. Other identified factors such as life experience and cognitive abilities were considered outside the ability of a brief training intervention to change.

  7. As previously mentioned, forensic officers in this jurisdiction typically attend residential burglaries alone. The few cases where more than one attended (<10) were excluded from the study.

  8. The survey responses were only received up to two months following the trial. This was an attempt to focus survey respondents on the encounter with the officers rather than any specific outcomes of their case (i.e., whether the case was solved or not). The majority of surveys were returned within approximately a month following the incident, prior to most incidents being solved.

  9. Although control survey participants were significantly older than their experimental counterparts, there were no significant correlations between participant age and the survey variables of interest (satisfaction, procedural justice, legitimacy; all rs < |.129|, all p-values > 0.103).

  10. We note, however, that the lower identification rate of DNA than fingerprints more generally is unsurprising given that, in Australia, the proportion of the population on the DNA database is much smaller than the proportion on the fingerprint database (ANZPAA and NIFS 2012).

References

  • Adderley, R., Townsley, M., & Bond, J. (2007). Use of data mining techniques to model crime scene investigator performance. Knowledge-Based Systems, 20, 170–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2013). Data by Region: Greater Brisbane Area (GCCSA). Retrieved from http://stat.abs.gov.au/itt/r.jsp?databyregion. Accessed 20 Jan 2016.

  • Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC). (2014). Australian crime: Facts & figures. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Retrieved from http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/facts/2013/facts_and_figures_2013.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2016.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, J. W. (2009). The value of fingerprint evidence in detecting crime. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 11(1), 77–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briody, M. (2005). Effects of DNA evidence on property offences in court. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 17, 380–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briody, M., & Prenzler, T. (2005). DNA databases and property crime: a false promise? Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 37(2), 73–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrows, J., & Tarling, R. (2004). Measuring the impact of forensic science in detecting burglary and autocrime offences. Science and Justice, 44(4), 217–222.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Coupe, T., & Griffiths, M. (1996). Solving residential burglary. Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper 77. UK Home Office Police Research Group.

  • Dolan, P., & Peasgood, T. (2007). Estimating the economic and social costs of the fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology, 47, 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, S. (2004). The costs of urban property crime. The Economic Journal, 114, F441–F463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2010). Four ingredients: new recipes for procedural justice in Australian policing. Policing, 4(4), 403–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Crime-statistics/International_Statistics_on_Crime_and_Justice.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Stanko, E. A., & Hohl, K. (2013). Just Authority? Trust in the police in England and Wales. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansson, K. (2005). Volume crime investigations: A review of the research literature (RDS Online Report OLR 44/05). London: Home Office. Retrieved from http://tna.europarchive.org/20071206133532/homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/rdsolr4405.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuroki, M. (2013). Crime victimization and subjective well-being: evidence from happiness data. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(3), 783–794.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Laxminarayan, M. (2013). Interactional justice, coping and the legal system needs of vulnerable victims. International Review of Victimology, 19(2), 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Queensland Police Service. (2012). Annual statistical review, 35–55. Retrieved from https://www.police.qld.gov.au/corporatedocs/reportsPublications/statisticalReview/default.htm. Accessed 9 Sept 2013.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. N., & Hill, G. D. (1991). Victimization and fear of crime. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18(2), 217–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R. B. (1995). The impact of crime on communities. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 539, 28–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Tin, J. (2012). Household burglaries in Queensland out of control as police struggle to cope. The Courier Mail. Retrieved from http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/police-battle-to-handle-theft-spree/story-e6frep2f-1226268655046. Accessed 27 Aug 2013.

  • Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/ECN.1520145_EN.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2016.

  • United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2015). Crime and criminal justice statistics. Retrieved from http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime.html. Accessed 10 Jan 2016.

  • 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 

  • Weisel, D. J. (2002). The problem of burglary of single-family houses. Guide No. 18. Centre for Problem-Oriented Policing. Retrieved from http://www.popcenter.org/problems/burglary_home. Accessed 19 Jan 2016.

  • 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 

  • 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.

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social Science and ARC Centre of Excellence in Children and Families over the Life Course, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, 4072, Australia

    Emma Antrobus

  2. Queensland Police Service, Brisbane, Australia

    Andrew Pilotto

Authors
  1. Emma Antrobus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew Pilotto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emma Antrobus.

Appendices

Appendix A: Items used in victim survey

Satisfaction

Are you satisfied with the time it took for the Scenes of Crime officer to arrive?

Are you satisfied with the time the Scenes of Crime officer spent at your house?

How would you describe the way the Scenes of Crime officer collected and examined physical evidence?

Overall, how satisfied were you with this most recent contact with Scenes of Crime?

Procedural justice

The Scenes of Crime officer gave me the opportunity to express my views

The Scenes of Crime officer listened to what I had to say

The Scenes of Crime officer treated me with dignity and respect

The Scenes of Crime officer treated me fairly

The Scenes of Crime officer clearly explained what action they would take

The Scenes of Crime officer was honest

The Scenes of Crime officer was polite

Legitimacy

I trusted the intentions of the Scenes of Crime officer

I was confident the Scenes of Crime officer was doing the right thing

I did what the Scenes of Crime officer asked me to do

The Scenes of Crime officer was genuinely concerned about me as a person

I felt that the Scenes of Crime officer did what was best for me

I felt obliged to obey any directive the Scenes of Crime officer gave me

Appendix B

Table 8 Bivariate correlations amongst study variables
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Antrobus, E., Pilotto, A. Improving forensic responses to residential burglaries: results of a randomized controlled field trial. J Exp Criminol 12, 319–345 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9273-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9273-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation