Skip to main content

Using citizen notification to interrupt near-repeat residential burglary patterns: the micro-level near-repeat experiment

Abstract

Objectives

Test the efficacy of swift resident notification for preventing subsequent burglaries within near-repeat high-risk zones (NR-HRZ).

Methods

The experiment was conducted in Baltimore County, Maryland and Redlands, California. As residential burglaries came to the attention of the police, a trickle randomization process was used to assign each micro-level NR-HRZ (measured 800 ft, 244 m from the burglary location) and associated buffer (400 ft, 122 m) to treatment or control. Treatment was performed by uniform agency volunteers and consisted of swift notification to residents in the area of increased risk of burglary victimization. Treatment and control zones were compared for differences in the mean count of residential burglary using independent samples t tests. Two surveys were administered to gauge the impact of the program: one targeted residents and one targeted at the treatment providers.

Results

There was limited evidence that the treatment reduced follow-on burglaries. The effectiveness of the intervention varied depending on the post-intervention time period being considered. The results of the community survey suggested that: (1) the most frequent crime prevention actions taken by residents were relatively low-cost and low-effort and (2) notification did not increase resident fear of burglary. The treatment provider survey found that the program was effective at increasing the level of engagement between volunteers and the agency and had positive impacts on community perception.

Conclusions

This research demonstrated that law enforcement volunteers can be used to undertake programs that have positive impacts on police-community relations. Limitations included low near-repeat counts, delays in discovering/reporting burglary, and staffing constraints.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. This publication appeared in a Dutch journal. We are citing the summary published in English. Original citation is Peeters, M.P., Van der Kemp, J., Beijers, G., & Elffers, H. (2012) Het effect van intensief surveilleren vlak bij en vlak na een eerdere inbraak [The effect of intensive surveillance close by and immediately after a previous burglary]. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 54(4), 335–348.

  2. We thank one of our anonymous reviewers for this insightful observation.

  3. “If You See Something, Say Something” is a Department of Homeland Security initiative.

  4. “Is That Your Bag?” is a Metro Transit Police Department, Washington, DC, initiative.

  5. For more information on WeTip, see http://www.wetip.com.

  6. The intervention was originally scheduled to end after 3–4 months. During the planning phase, BCoPD realized that it would be able to allocate enough volunteers for only one treatment per day. This was because volunteers were already used for other tasks in BCoPD. This treatment limit reduced the rate of accrual for treatment and control sites and the experiment had to be extended multiple times. The research and practitioner teams agreed that when we reached the number of sites necessary to achieve the power to detect a large effect, we would end the experiment.

  7. This decision meant that burglaries occurring in the inverse buffer area were not considered for inclusion in the study as originators because their associated NR-HRZ would fall outside the study area. However, subsequent burglaries that occurred within an NR-HRZ that overlapped the inverse buffer area were counted as outcomes. This element of the design may have contributed to the low numbers of burglaries observed during the study period because the inverse buffer area has a relatively high rate of burglary. We did not use an internal buffer in Redlands because only 1.87% (374 out of 20,042 addresses) fell within 400 ft (122 m) of the boundary.

  8. Measurement of Manhattan distance within the NRC “simply adds the difference between the x coordinates of two points to the difference between the y coordinates of two points. It is the same as traveling from point to point first horizontally and then vertically.” (Ratcliffe 2007, p. 9).

    Parameters used in NRC were as follows:

    Iterations requested = 19

    Spatial bandwidth = 400

    Number of spatial bands = 5

    Temporal bandwidth = 7

    Number of temporal bands = 5

  9. Because of the differences in burglary volume, we used 2013 residential burglary data in Baltimore County and January 2012–May 2014 residential burglary data in Redlands.

  10. The NR-HRZ intervention tool was developed by Azavea in R, an open-source software program. Because it is open-source and free, we were able to install it at no cost to the agencies. For more information about Azavea, see https://www.azavea.com/. For access to the custom software, please see [redacted for peer review].

  11. A Mersenne twister random number generator was used to generate a random sequence of 1000 numbers before the start of the experiment. Assignment to treatment or control conditions was dependent on whether the randomly assigned number was odd or even.

  12. An a priori power analysis to compute required sample size was conducted with G*power 3.0 software (Faul et al. 2007) using the given parameters: a one-tailed test an alpha of 0.05 and power (1 − β) of 0.95. Effect sizes of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 were tested and returned sample sizes of 1084, 176, and 70, respectively.

  13. In NR literature, the originator event is the typical term attached to an event that starts a chain of NR crimes. In other words, the first event in a series is the originating event for that series.

  14. Certified Spanish language translators at the RPD translated the crime prevention materials.

  15. The exact time of a burglary is often unknown. For example, a resident may return home from a day at work and find that their home was burglarized. The reported time of the burglary may be 5 p.m., but the burglary occurred between the time the owner left in the morning and the time they returned. Techniques such as Ratcliffe’s (2000) Aoristic Analysis have been used to address this issue in other contexts but are not appropriate here. Because this is a police intervention, the possibility of treatment can begin only once the agency has been made aware of the event. Thus, we use the time that the event is reported to the police as the benchmark for police action.

  16. Crime analysis was also closed on 6 days over the course of the experiment (October 17, 2014, Monday; November 4, 2017, Tuesday; March 5, 2017, Thursday (snow day); May 25, 2015, Monday; September 7, 2015, Monday; October 12, 2015, Monday; November 26, 2015, Thursday). In addition, the experiment did not run on October 31, 2014 (Halloween) because the auxiliary police were needed to keep order.

  17. The limit on the number of treatments per day was also carried out by the program and the cases that were omitted were not subject to human intervention or decision-making.

  18. The reasons for canceling treatments included volunteer safety (reported house with Ebola in treatment area), jeopardy to an undercover operation (had a GPS on a suspect who was in that area, so they did not want uniformed people in the area; ongoing covert narcotic investigations) and having had an arrest already made on the burglary.

  19. The incentive was used to encourage a high response rate based on a sample of addresses that received the treatment. In a comprehensive meta-analysis, Edwards et al. (2002) found that a monetary incentive for survey completion more than doubled the odds of receiving a response.

  20. As noted previously, we took the statistically conservative approach and included these areas in the outcome analysis as if they were treated as intended.

  21. Given the large number of events with zero events in the 1, 1- to 2-, 1- to 4-, 1- to 8-, and 1- to 12-week follow-on period, it is reasonable to question whether the data meet the normality assumption that underlies t tests. We explored these data further by re-specifying models into binary outcomes where 0 = no follow-on events during that temporal band and 1 = one or more follow-on events in that temporal band. Logistic regression models were used to predict this binary outcome; the only predictor in the model was a dichotomous variable for treatment or control condition. Results did not differ greatly from the t tests presented in Tables 3 and 4. In Baltimore County, the marginally significant difference in the NR-HRZ for the 1- to 2-week time period was slightly more marginal (p = .08 compared with p = .13). In Redlands, the 1, 1- to 2-, and 1- to 4-week buffer area model could not be fitted because all treatment buffers had zero follow-on events. In the Redlands buffer area for the 1- to 8-week temporal band, the p value was reduced slightly (from .04 to .08).

  22. An additional analysis of other property crimes in the treatment and control areas revealed that their numbers were also low. There were no significant differences between treatment and control areas for property crime either. Results available from first author.

  23. There is mixed evidence as to seasonal patterns in residential burglary increases. Several studies found a winter increase in burglary (Baumer and Wright 1996; Farrell and Pease 1994; Peng et al. 2011). Other studies reported lower numbers of residential burglaries in winter (Andresen and Malleson 2013; Lauritsen and White 2014; Linning et al. 2017).

References

  • Andresen, M. A., & Malleson, N. (2013). Crime seasonality and its variations across space. Applied Geography, 43, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.06.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barthe, E. (2006). Crime prevention publicity campaigns. Washington: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumer, E., & Wright, R. (1996). Crime seasonality and serious scholarship: a comment on Farrell and Pease. Brit J Criminology, 36, 579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernasco, W. (2008). Them again? European Journal of Criminology, 5, 411–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumberg, S. J., & Luke, J. V. (2010). Wireless substitution: early release of estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, January-June 2008. National Center for Health Statistics, 201.

  • Bowers, K. J., & Johnson, S. D. (2016). Domestic burglary repeats and space-time clusters. European Journal of Criminology, 2, 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370805048631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braga, A. A., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2014, Aug). The effects of hot spots policing on crime: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 31, 633–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.673632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braucht, G. N., & Reichardt, C. S. (2016). A computerized approach to trickle-process, random assignment. Evaluation Review, 17, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841x9301700106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Census Bureau, U. S. (2011). Census 2010. Washington: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chainey, S., & Ratcliffe, J. H. (2005). GIS and crime mapping. London: John Wiley and Sons.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. V. (2008). Situational crime prevention. In R. Wortley & L. Mazerolle (Eds.), Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis (pp. 178–194). Portland: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, P., Roberts, I., Clarke, M., DiGuiseppi, C., Pratap, S., Wentz, R., & Kwan, I. (2002). Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ, 324, 1183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elffers, H., Peeters, M., van der Kemp, J., & Beijers, G. (2018). Quasi-experimental evaluation of near repeat patrolling: the Amstelveen experiment. Research Gate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33339.31524.

  • Ericsson, U. (1995). Straight from the horse’s mouth. Forensic Update, 43, 23–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everson, S. (2003). Repeat victimisation and prolific offending: chance or choice? International Journal of Police Science & Management, 5, 180–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, G., & Pease, K. (1993). Once bitten, twice bitten: repeat victimization and its implications for crime prevention. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, G., & Pease, K. (1994). Crime seasonality: domestic disputes and residential burglary in Merseyside 1988–90. British Journal of Criminology, 34, 487–498. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Bureau of Investigation (2017a). Crime in the United States. Burglary. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/burglary.

  • Federal Bureau of Investigation (2017b). Crime in the United States. Clearances. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/clearances.

  • Fielding, M., & Jones, V. (2012). ‘Disrupting the optimal forager’: Predictive risk mapping and domestic burglary reduction in Trafford, Greater Manchester. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 14, 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1350/ijps.2012.14.1.260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groff, E. R., & La Vigne, N. G. (2001). Mapping an opportunity surface of residential burglary. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427801038003003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groff, E. R., & McEwen, T. (2005). Disaggregating the journey to homicide. In F. Wang (Ed.), Geographic information systems and crime analysis (pp. 60–83). Hershey: Idea Group.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Groff, E. R., Kearley, B., Beatty, P., Couture, H., & Wartell, J. (2005). A randomized experimental study of sharing crime data with citizens: do maps produce more fear? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 87–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haberman, C. P., & Ratcliffe, J. H. (2012). The predictive policing challenges of near repeat armed street robberies. Policing, 6, 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pas012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haberman, C. P., Groff, E. R., Ratcliffe, J. H., & Sorg, E. T. (2015). Satisfaction with police in violent crime hot spots. Crime & Delinquency, 62, 525–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128713516840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes, M., & Roberts, C. (2008). Reassurance policing: community intelligence and the co-production of neighborhood order. In T. Williamson (Ed.), The handbook of knowledge-based policing: current conceptions and future directions (pp. 241–262). West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. D., & Bowers, K. J. (2004). The stability of space-time clusters of burglary. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/44.1.55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. D., & Bowers, K. J. (2016). The burglary as clue to the future. European Journal of Criminology, 1, 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370804041252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. D., Bowers, K., & Hirschfield, A. (1997). New insights into the spatial and temporal distribution of repeat victimization. British Journal of Criminology, 37, 224–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. D., Bernasco, W., Bowers, K. J., Elffers, H., Ratcliffe, J., Rengert, G., & Townsley, M. (2007). Space–time patterns of risk: a cross national assessment of residential burglary victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23, 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-007-9025-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. D., Lab, S. P., & Bowers, K. J. (2008a). Stable and fluid hotspots of crime: differentiation and identification. Built Environment, 34, 32–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. D., Summers, L., & Pease, K. (2008b). Offender as forager? A direct test of the boost account of victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25, 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-008-9060-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. D., Bowers, K. J., Birks, D. J., & Pease, K. (2009). Predictive mapping of crime by ProMap: accuracy, units of analysis, and the environmental backcloth. In D. Weisburd, W. Bernasco & G. Bruinsma (Eds.), Putting crime in its place (pp. 171–198). Springer.

  • Johnson, S. D., Davies, T., Murray, A., Ditta, P., Belur, J., & Bowers, K. (2017, Dec). Evaluation of operation swordfish: a near-repeat target-hardening strategy. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13, 505–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-017-9301-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleemans, E. R. (2004). Repeat burglary victimization: results of empirical research in the Netherlands. In G. Farrell & K. Pease (Eds.), Repeat victimization (pp. 53–68). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochel, T. R., & Weisburd, D. (2018). The impact of hot spots policing on collective efficacy: findings from a randomized field trial. Justice Quarterly, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1465579.

  • Lantz, B., & Ruback, R. B. (2017). A networked boost: burglary co-offending and repeat victimization using a network approach. Crime & Delinquency, 63, 1066–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauritsen, J. L., & White, N. (2014). Seasonal patterns in criminal victimization trends. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laycock, G. (2005). Defining crime science. In M. J. Smith & N. Tilley (Eds.), Crime science: new approaches to preventing and detecting crime (pp. 3–24). Devon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linning, S. J., Andresen, M. A., & Brantingham, P. J. (2017, Dec). Crime seasonality: examining the temporal fluctuations of property crime in cities with varying climates. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 61, 1866–1891. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16632259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miethe, T. D., & McDowall, D. (1993). Contextual effects in models of criminal victimization. Social Forces, 71, 741–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreto, W., Piza, E., & Caplan, J. (2014). A plague on both your houses? Risks, repeats, and reconsiderations of urban residential burglary. Justice Quarterly, 31, 1102–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nobles, M. R., Ward, J. T., & Tillyer, R. (2016, Aug). The impact of neighborhood context on spatiotemporal patterns of burglary. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53, 711–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427816647991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pease, K. (1998). Repeat victimisation: taking stock (crime detection and prevention series paper 90). London: The Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pease, K., & Laycock, G. (1999). Revictimisation: reducing the heat on hot victims (128). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, C., Xueming, S., Hongyong, Y., & Dengsheng, L. (2011). Assessing temporal and weather influences on property crime in Beijing, China. Crime, Law and Social Change, 55, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piza, E. L., & Carter, J. G. (2017). Predicting initiator and near repeat events in spatiotemporal crime patterns: An analysis of residential burglary and motor vehicle theft. Justice Quarterly, 35, 842–870. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2017.1342854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polvi, N., Looman, T., Humphries, C., & Pease, K. (1991). The time course of repeat burglary victimization. British Journal of Criminology, 31, 411–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, J. H. (2000). Aoristic Analysis: The Spatial Interpretation of Unspecific Temporal Events. International Journal Geographical Information Science, 14(7), 669–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, J. H. (2007). Near repeat calculator [apparatus and software]. Retrieved from http://www.cla.temple.edu/cj/resources/near-repeat-calculator/.

  • Ratcliffe, J. H., Groff, E. R., Sorg, E. T., & Haberman, C. P. (2015). Citizens’ reactions to hot spots policing: impacts on perceptions of crime, disorder, safety and police. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 393–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-015-9230-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos, R. B., & Santos, R. G. (2015a). Examination of police dosage in residential burglary and residential theft from vehicle micro-time hot spots. Crime Science, 4, 27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos, R. G., & Santos, R. B. (2015b). Practice-based research: ex post facto evaluation of evidence-based police practices implemented in residential burglary micro-time hot spots. Evaluation Review, 39, 451–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X15602818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. W. (1998). Evidence-based policing. Washington: Police Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, M. B., D’Orsogna, M. R., Brantingham, P. J., & Tita, G. E. (2009). Measuring and modeling repeat and near-repeat burglary effects. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25, 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-009-9068-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, R. (1981). Multiple victimization: evidence, theory, and future research. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 72, 762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Telep, C. W., Mitchell, R. J., & Weisburd, D. (2014). How much time should the police spend at crime hot spots? Answers from a police agency directed randomized field trial in Sacramento, California. Justice Quarterly, 31, 905–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobler, W. (1970). A computer model simulation of urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography, 46, 234–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsley, M., Homel, R., & Chaseling, J. (2003). Infectious burglaries. A test of the near repeat hypothesis. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 615–633. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/43.3.615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tseloni, A., & Pease, K. (2003). Repeat personal victimization. ‘Boosts’ or ‘flags’? British Journal of Criminology, 43, 196–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd, D., Hinkle, J. C., Famega, C., & Ready, J. (2011). The possible “backfire” effects of hot spots policing: an experimental assessment of impacts on legitimacy, fear and collective efficacy. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 297–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellsmith, M., & Birks, D. J. (2008). Research on target: a collaboration between researchers and practitioners for a target hardening scheme. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 22, 181–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. D., Sorg, E. T., Groff, E. R., Ratcliffe, J. H., & Taylor, C. J. (2013). Cops as treatment providers: realities and ironies of police work in a foot patrol experiment. Policing and Society, 24, 362–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2013.784292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. D., Taylor, C. J., Groff, E. R., & Ratcliffe, J. H. (2015). Aligning policing and public health promotion: insights from the world of foot patrol. Police Practice and Research, 16, 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2013.846982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., Zhao, J., Ren, L., & Hoover, L. (2015). Space-time clustering of crime events and neighborhood characteristics in Houston. Criminal Justice Review, 40, 340–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research could not have been completed without the support of the Police Foundation and the Baltimore County, Maryland and City of Redlands, California Police Departments. At the Police Foundation, Dr. Karen Amendola, who served as Project Director and Maria Valdovinos who coordinated the citizen survey mail outs and assisted with other tasks. There are too many practitioners to mention all by name but several were indispensable. In Baltimore County, Major Mark Warren, Lt. Chris Kelly, Captain Matthew (Mac) McElwee and Mike Leedy (Crime Analyst) and in Redlands, Chief Chris Catren and Tom Resh (GIS Coordinator) made sure we had the support we needed. The authors would also like to recognize the comments provided by Robert Boruch and their Advisory Board (Kate Bowers, Shane Johnson, Jerry Ratcliffe, and David Weisburd) related to the design and conduct of the experiment. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice. Any errors are our own.

Funding

This project was supported by Award No. 2012-IJ-CX-0039, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice to the Police Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Groff.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 872 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Groff, E., Taniguchi, T. Using citizen notification to interrupt near-repeat residential burglary patterns: the micro-level near-repeat experiment. J Exp Criminol 15, 115–149 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-018-09350-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-018-09350-1

Keywords

  • Micro-level
  • Near repeat
  • Residential burglary
  • Resident notification
  • Resident survey
  • Treatment provider survey