Advertisement

Crime Prevention and Community Safety

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 61–67 | Cite as

To what extent is revictimization risk mitigated by police prevention advice after a previous burglary?

  • Henk ElffersEmail author
  • Frank Morgan
Original Article

Abstract

This article investigates the effect of police prevention visits to recently burgled households on revictimization risk, using data on 8984 burgled houses in Adelaide, South Australia. We compare burgled dwellings whose inhabitants got advice with burgled dwellings whose inhabitants did not accept the offer of a prevention visit, and with burgled dwellings that did not get an offer at all. Using survival analysis, we estimate the effect size of the impact of prevention visits on revictimization risk. More than one in five cases of revictimization has been prevented through the prevention visit scheme.

Keywords

Prevention advice Burglary Revictimization Survival analysis Australia 

References

  1. Blossfeld, H.P., A. Hamerle, and K.U. Mayer. 1989. Event history analysis. Statistical theory and application in the social sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Bowers, K.J., and S.D. Johnson. 2003. Measuring the geographical displacement and diffusion of benefit effects of crime prevention activity. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 19: 275–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Breslow, N.E. 1970. A generalized Kruskal–Wallis test for comparing K samples subject to unequal patterns of censorship. Biometrika 57: 579–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Grove, L.E., G. Farrell, D.P. Farrington, and S.D. Johnson. 2012. Preventing repeat victimization: A systematic review. Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention/Brottsförebyggande rådet–Brå.Google Scholar
  5. Laycock, G. 2001. Hypothesis-based research: The repeat victimization story. Criminal Justice 1(1): 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Morgan, F., and C. Walter. 2002. The South Australian residential break and enter pilot project: Outcome evaluation: Full report volume. Canberra: Attorney-General’s Department.Google Scholar
  7. Pease, K. 1998. Repeat victimisation: Taking stock. Crime prevention and detection series. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  8. Pease, K., and G. Laycock. 1996. Revictimisation: Reducing the heat on hot victims. Research in action. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR)AmsterdamNetherlands
  2. 2.University of Western Australia (UWA)PerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations