Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preventing near-repeat residential burglary through cocooning: post hoc evaluation of a targeted police-led pilot intervention

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Security Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Western Australian Police piloted an 8-month small-scale targeted burglary prevention initiative involving distribution of crime prevention pamphlets to burglary victims and their immediate neighbors in the few days directly after victimization. External researchers then undertook a post hoc evaluation of this intervention, examining the impact with a pre- and post-comparison using Ratcliffe’s (Near-repeat calculator (version 1.3), Temple University, Philadelphia, 2009) near-repeat calculator (using 50 m and 5-day intervals for space and time, respectively), analysis of police records relating to the implementation of the intervention, and an online survey of residents who had been scheduled to receive the burglary prevention information. Relative to the pre-intervention period, the near-repeat calculator demonstrated a significant reduction in near-repeat residential burglary (within 0–5 days and 1–200 m from the victim) but no corresponding reduction in same-address repeat victimization (within 0–5 days). Analysis of police records explained this unexpected pattern, revealing an implementation issue had resulted in only 23% of victim addresses receiving the treatment pamphlet. Despite low-response rates to the online survey limiting the strength of the conclusions possible from this data source, trends were indicative of the pamphlet changing residents’ behaviors to reduce the opportunity for burglary. These results add support to prior findings demonstrating police can use victimization information to work in a targeted, timely manner and reduce the risk of burglary. It also emphasizes the importance of good data management practices when undertaking prevention initiatives to ensure programs are delivered as intended.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, D., S. Chenery, and K. Pease. 1995. Biting back: Tackling repeat burglary and car crime. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018) Crime Victimisation, Australia, 2015-16, http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4530.0Main+Features12015-16?OpenDocument. Accessed 21 Mar 2018.

  • Bennett, T., K. Holloway, and D. Farrington. 2006. Does neighbourhood watch reduce crime?: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology 2: 437–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernasco, W. 2008. Them again?: same-offender involvement in repeat and near repeat burglaries. European Journal of Criminology 5 (4): 411–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernasco, W., S. Johnson, and S. Ruiter. 2015. Learning where to offend: Effects of past on future burglary locations. Applied Geography 60: 120–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, K., and S. Johnson. 2004. Who commits near repeats?: A test of the boost explanation. Western Criminology Review 5 (3): 12–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham, P., and P. Brantingham. 1995. Criminality of place. European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research 3 (3): 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham, P., and P. Brantingham. 2011. Crime pattern theory. In Environmental criminology and crime analysis, ed. R. Wortley and L. Mazerolle, 78–93. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budd, T. 1999. Burglary of domestic dwellings: findings from the British crime survey. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey, J., and M. Mitchell. 2007. Requirements of police managers and leaders from sergeant to commissioner: police leadership and management, 4–20. Sydney, NSW: Federation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chainey, S., and B. da Silva. 2016. Examining the extent of repeat and near repeat victimisation of domestic burglaries in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Crime Science 5 (1): 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chenery, S., C. Henshaw, and K. Pease. 2002. Repeat victimisation and the policing of communities. International Review of Victimology 9: 137–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. 2009. Techniques of situational crime prevention. http://www.popcenter.org/25techniques/. Accessed 23 Jan 2009.

  • Cohen, L., and M. Felson. 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44 (4): 588–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornish, D., and R. Clarke. 1987. Understanding crime displacement: An application of rational choice theory. Criminology 25 (4): 933–947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornish, D., and R. Clarke. 2016. The rational choice perspective. In Environmental criminology and crime analysis, ed. R. Wortley and M. Townsley, 29–61. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, G., and K. Pease. 2003. Measuring and interpreting repeat victimisation using police data: an analysis of burglary data and policy for Charlotte, North Carolina. In Theory for practice in situational crime prevention, ed. M. Smith and D. Cornish, 161–176. New York: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felson, M., and R. Clarke. 1998. Opportunity makes the thief: Police Research Series. Paper 98.

  • Fielding, M., and V. Jones. 2012. ‘Disrupting the optimal forager’: Preditive risk mapping and domestic burglary reduction in Trafford, Greater Manchester. International Journal of Police Science and Management 14 (1): 30–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, B., and S. Lab. 2010. Encyclopaedia of victimology and crime prevention. California: SAGE Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, D., M. Chatterton, and K. Pease. 1988. The Kirkholt burglary prevention project. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golsby, M. (ed.). 1998. Police and private security working together in a cooperative approach to crime prevention and public safety; February 1998, Hobart, Australia: Conference of Partnerships in Crime Prevention.

  • Grove, L.E., G. Farrell, D.P. Farrington, and S.D. Johnson. 2012. Preventing repeat victimization: A systematic review. Brottsförebyggande rådet/The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.

  • Haberman, C.P., E.R. Groff, J.H. Ratcliffe, and E.T. Sorg. 2016. Satisfaction with police in violent crime hot spots: using community surveys as a guide for selecting hot spot policing tactics. Crime and Delinquency 62 (4): 525–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S., W. Bernasco, K. Bowers, H. Elffers, J. Ratcliffe, G. Rengert, and M. Townsley. 2007. Space-time patterns of risk: A cross national assessment of residential burglary victimisation. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 23 (3): 201–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S.D. 2008. Repeat burglary victimization: A tale of two theories. Journal of Experimental Criminology 184: 215–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S.D., T. Davies, A. Murray, P. Ditta, J. Belur, and K. Bowers. 2017. Evaluation of operation swordfish: A near-repeat target-hardening strategy. Journal of Experimental Criminology 13 (4): 505–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lammers, M., B. Menting, S. Ruiter, and W. Bernasco. 2015. Biting once, twice: The influence of prior on subsequent crime location choice. Criminology 53 (3): 309–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, N.N., Y. Lee, J.E. Eck, and O. SooHyun. 2017. Ravenous wolves revisited: a systematic review of offending concentration. Crime Science 6 (1): 10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreto, W., E. Piza, and J. Caplan. 2014. A plague on both your houses?’: risks, repeats and reconsiderations of urban residential burglary. Justice Quarterly 31 (6): 1102–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pease, K. 1998. Repeat victimization: Taking stock. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pease, K., and G. Farrell. 2016. Repeat victimisation. In Environmental criminology and crime analysis, ed. R. Wortley and M. Townsley, 180–198. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pease, K., and G. Laycock. 1999. Revictimisation: Reducing the heat on hot victims in crime and criminal justice, 128. Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Criminology. Report No.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, J.H. 2009. Near repeat calculator (version 1.3). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University.

  • Reynald, D. 2011. Guarding against crime: Measuring guardianship within routine activity theory. Surrey: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sax, L., S. Gilmartin, and A. Bryant. 2003. Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education 44 (4): 409–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M., and K. Pease. 2000. Research on repeat victimisation in Scotland: final report. London, UK: Home Office Statistical Bulletin 4/99.

  • SooHyun, O., N.N. Martinez, Y. Lee, and J.E. Eck. 2017. How concentrated is crime among victims?: A systematic review from 1977 to 2014. Crime Science 6 (10): 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, A., A. Cherney, and R. White. 2014. Crime prevention: principles, perspectives and practices. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilley, N. 1993. After Kirkholt: Theory, method and results of replication evaluations. Home Office Police Department.

  • Townsley, M., R. Homel, and J. Chaseling. 2000. Repeat burglary victimisation: Spatial and temporal patterns. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 33 (1): 37–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsley, M., R. Homel, and J. Chaseling. 2003. Infectious burglaries: a test of the near repeat hypothesis. British Journal of Criminology 43: 615–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisel, D. 2005. Analysing repeat victimisation: problem-oriented guides for police problem-solving tools. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youstin, T., M. Nobles, J. Ward, and J. Cook. 2011. Assessing the generalisability of the near repeat phenomenon. Criminal Justice and Behaviour 38 (10): 1042–1063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The researchers would like to thank (in first name alphabetical order) Angela Nicholson, Christine McComb, Paul House, and Simon Williams, from the WA Police Evidence-Based Policing Division. Without their work in providing data and undertaking internal analysis, this evaluation would not have been possible. We would also like to thank Simon Hazel from the WA Police, for his work in orchestrating this cocooning initiative and providing the opportunity to undertake the post hoc evaluation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch, WA, 6150, Australia

    Nicola Stokes

  2. The University of Western Australia, M253, 35 Stirling Hwy, Perth, WA, 6009, Australia

    Joseph Clare

Authors
  1. Nicola Stokes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joseph Clare
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph Clare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stokes, N., Clare, J. Preventing near-repeat residential burglary through cocooning: post hoc evaluation of a targeted police-led pilot intervention. Secur J 32, 45–62 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-018-0144-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-018-0144-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation