File #2404: "2018_Book_ReducingBurglary.pdf"
Testo
1|Acknowledgements|5
1|Contents|6
1|List of Figures|15
1|Diagrams|20
1|List of Tables|21
1|About the Authors|12
1|Chapter 1: Introduction|24
2|1.1 Domestic Burglary: Definition, Data Sources and Counts|25
2|1.2 The Distribution of Burglary|27
2|1.3 Repeat Victimisation|35
2|1.4 Burglary Trends|37
2|1.5 The Impact of Burglary|38
2|1.6 Responding to Burglary|38
2|1.7 Outline of the Remainder of the Book|39
2|References|40
1|Chapter 2: A Short History of the England and Wales National Burglary Security Initiatives|43
2|2.1 Introduction|43
2|2.2 Background|45
2|2.3 Programmes|47
3|2.3.1 Neighbourhood Watch|47
3|2.3.2 Property Marking|48
3|2.3.3 Publicity Schemes|48
3|2.3.4 The Kirkholt Burglary Prevention Project|49
3|2.3.5 Safer Cities|50
3|2.3.6 Huddersfield and the ‘Olympic’ Model|53
3|2.3.7 Crime Reduction Programme|54
3|2.3.8 Design Against Crime|55
3|2.3.9 Alley Gating|55
3|2.3.10 Estate Action, Single Regeneration Budget and Priority Estates|56
3|2.3.11 Improved Street Lighting|57
2|2.4 The Vexed Question of Displacement|58
2|2.5 Lessons Learned|59
3|2.5.1 What Worked?|59
3|2.5.2 What Didn’t Work|61
3|2.5.3 The Importance of Context|61
3|2.5.4 Strategy|62
2|2.6 Conclusions|63
2|References|63
1|Chapter 3: Domestic Burglary: Burglar Responses to Target Attractiveness|67
2|3.1 Introduction|67
2|3.2 Reducing Burglary Through Secured by Design|68
3|3.2.1 Place-Based Crime Reduction|68
3|3.2.2 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)|69
3|3.2.3 Secured by Design (SBD): Development, Management and Implementation|69
3|3.2.4 Consideration for Crime Prevention Within the Planning System|70
3|3.2.5 Evaluating the Effectiveness of Secured by Design (SBD)|73
3|3.2.6 The Principles of Secured by Design (SBD) and Their Individual Impact on Crime|75
2|3.3 Accounting for Burglar Perceptions|77
3|3.3.1 Methodology|77
3|3.3.2 Limitations of the Research|78
2|3.4 Burglar Accounts of Target Attractiveness: Research Findings|80
3|3.4.1 What Makes a Suitable Target?|80
3|3.4.2 What Makes an Unsuitable Target?|81
3|3.4.3 Surveillance|83
3|3.4.4 Movement Control|85
3|3.4.5 Defensible Space|88
3|3.4.6 Physical Security|89
3|3.4.7 Management and Maintenance|92
2|3.5 What Can Secured by Design Learn from Burglar Accounts?|93
2|References|95
1|Chapter 4: Which Security Devices Reduce Burglary?|98
2|4.1 Introduction|98
2|4.2 Previous Work on Security Availability|99
2|4.3 Previous Work on Security Device Effectiveness Against Burglary|101
3|4.3.1 Victimisation Survey Data|101
3|4.3.2 Offender Interviews|103
4|4.3.2.1 Burglar Alarms|103
4|4.3.2.2 Locks|104
4|4.3.2.3 Occupancy Cues/Proxies|104
3|4.3.3 Large-Scale Initiatives|105
2|4.4 Data and Methods|106
3|4.4.1 Why Examine Attempted Burglary and Burglary with Entry Separately?|107
2|4.5 Results|109
3|4.5.1 FAVOR-able Cues: Accessibility and Occupancy|109
3|4.5.2 Which Security Devices Deter and Which Thwart?|111
2|4.6 Discussion and Conclusion|114
2|Appendix A|118
2|A.1 Introduction|118
2|A.2 Crime Survey for England and Wales Sample Selection|118
2|A.3 Crime Survey for England and Wales Questionnaire Structure|118
2|A.4 Limitations|119
3|A.4.1 Security Information Is Not Available for All Burglary Victims|119
3|A.4.2 Victims of Both Attempted Burglary and Burglary with Entry Are Excluded|121
2|A.5 Alternative Deter/Thwart Calculations|121
2|A.6 More Information|123
2|References|123
1|Chapter 5: Household- and Area-Level Differences in Burglary Risk and Security Availability over Time|127
2|5.1 Introduction|127
2|5.2 Theoretical Framework|129
2|5.3 Previous Research Evidence|131
3|5.3.1 Burglary Risks in Context|131
3|5.3.2 Security Availability in Context|132
3|5.3.3 Security Availability and Burglary Risk in Context|133
3|5.3.4 Who Has Benefited the Most (or, Conversely, Drew Negligible Benefits) from the Reduction in Burglary Risk and the Increase in Security Availability?|134
3|5.3.5 Limitations of Previous Research|136
2|5.4 Effective Security Availability and Burglary Risks During the Crime Drop|137
3|5.4.1 Data and Methodology|137
3|5.4.2 Burglary Risk and Effective Security Correlation During the Crime Drop|139
2|5.5 Effective Security Availability and Burglary Risks in Context over the Period of the Crime Drop|141
3|5.5.1 General Remarks, Population Groups and Their (National Average) Burglary Risks|141
3|5.5.2 Effective Security and Burglary Risk Across Ethnic Groups|147
3|5.5.3 Effective Security and Burglary Risk with Respect to Household Composition|149
3|5.5.4 Effective Security and Burglary Risk with Respect to Household Tenure|153
3|5.5.5 Effective Security and Burglary Risk with Respect to Annual Household Income|155
3|5.5.6 Effective Security and Burglary Risk with Respect to Household Car Ownership|158
3|5.5.7 Effective Security and Burglary Risk by Area of Residence|159
2|5.6 Security-Driven Burglary Drop and Distributive Justice|161
2|5.7 How Can Crime Prevention Redress the Uneven Burglary Drop and Reignite Overall Falls?|164
2|Appendix B|166
2|B.1 Data and Methodology|166
3|B.1.1 Variables|166
3|B.1.2 Data and Sample Sizes|167
3|B.1.3 Statistical Model and Modelling Strategy|171
2|B.2 The Correlation of Burglary Risk and Effective Security Availability Nationally, 1993–2011/2012|176
2|B.3 Estimated Bivariate Logit Regression Models of Burglary Risk and WIDE Security Availability During the Crime Drop|177
2|References|181
1|Chapter 6: An Evaluation of a Research-Informed Target Hardening Initiative|185
2|6.1 Introduction|185
2|6.2 Evaluation of Burglary Reduction Initiatives|187
3|6.2.1 Theoretical Underpinnings: Repeat and Near Repeat Victimisation|187
3|6.2.2 Key Methodological Issues in the Evaluation of Burglary Reduction Initiatives|187
2|6.3 Project Context|189
3|6.3.1 The City of Nottingham|189
3|6.3.2 Burglary Profile of Nottingham|190
3|6.3.3 Nottingham Crime and Drugs Partnership (NCDP)|190
2|6.4 The Nottingham Pilot Burglary Target Hardening Initiative|191
3|6.4.1 Project Inception and Operational Framework|191
3|6.4.2 Research-Informed Project Aims and Protocol|191
3|6.4.3 Selection of Participating Areas|193
3|6.4.4 Pilot Process: Planning, Implementation, Security Cost and Evaluation|195
2|6.5 Evaluation|200
3|6.5.1 Pilot Data|200
3|6.5.2 Evaluation Data: Did It Work?|203
2|6.6 Discussion and Conclusion|205
2|Appendix C|206
2|C.1 The Nottingham Crime and Drugs Partnership (NCDP)|206
3|C.1.1 Statement|206
3|C.1.2 For Recognition|207
3|C.1.3 History|207
2|C.2 Selected Protocol and Home Security Assessment Templates|208
2|References|211
1|Chapter 7: The Role of Security Devices Against Burglaries: Findings from the French Victimisation Survey|214
2|7.1 Introduction|214
2|7.2 Source, Contextual Data and Modelling|217
3|7.2.1 Source|217
3|7.2.2 Defining the Three Stages of the Burglary|218
3|7.2.3 Security Features and Information Regarding the Presence of Someone in the Housing Unit|221
3|7.2.4 Environmental Factors and Lifestyle|223
3|7.2.5 Modelling|224
2|7.3 Results|225
3|7.3.1 The Role of Security Devices|225
4|7.3.1.1 Targeting|225
4|7.3.1.2 Forced Entry|227
4|7.3.1.3 Theft|228
3|7.3.2 Analysis of Combinations of Devices|230
4|7.3.2.1 Entering the Housing Unit|230
4|7.3.2.2 Theft|232
3|7.3.3 The Specific Case of Repeat Victimisations|233
2|7.4 Discussion|236
2|Appendix D|239
2|References|240
1|Chapter 8: The Role of Security in Causing Drops in Domestic Burglary|242
2|8.1 Introduction|242
2|8.2 A Comprehensive Theory of the Crime Drop|245
3|8.2.1 Seventeen Propositions and Four Tests|245
3|8.2.2 The Security Hypothesis|245
2|8.3 Testing the Security Hypothesis for the Burglary Drop: A Data Signatures Approach|248
2|8.4 Security-Led Burglary Drop in England and Wales|249
3|8.4.1 Signature 1: There Would Be an Overall Increase in the Level of Security of Dwellings|249
3|8.4.2 Signature 2: There Would Be a Reduction in the Proportion of Dwellings Unprotected by Security Measures|250
3|8.4.3 Signature 3: Dwellings with More Security Would Generally Be Less Vulnerable to Burglary than Those with Less Security|251
3|8.4.4 Signature 4: The Use of More Effective Security Devices and Combinations Will Grow More than the Use of Less Effective Security Devices and Combinations|252
3|8.4.5 Signature 5: The Protection Conferred by the Presence of Security Devices Would Increase over Time|252
3|8.4.6 Signature 6: There Will Be No Downward Trend in Burglary Amongst Properties with No Security|255
3|8.4.7 Signature 7: There Would Be a Greater Fall in Burglary with Forced Entry Where the Offender Has to Overcome Security Devices, than in Unforced Entry Where This Is Not Necessary|255
2|8.5 Discussion|256
2|8.6 The Curious Case of Burglar Alarms|258
2|8.7 The Importance of Design and Detailed Understanding|260
2|8.8 Conclusion|261
2|References|261
1|Chapter 9: From Project to Practice: Utilising Research Evidence in the Prevention of Crime|264
2|9.1 Introduction|264
2|9.2 Context|265
2|9.3 The Project|266
2|9.4 Key Factors|267
3|9.4.1 Relationships|268
3|9.4.2 Communication|270
4|9.4.2.1 Communication with the Advisory Committee|270
4|9.4.2.2 Communication Beyond the Advisory Committee|271
2|9.5 Challenges in Exchanging Knowledge and Facilitating Impact|273
3|9.5.1 Articulating the Potential Practical Benefits of Involvement|273
3|9.5.2 How to Trace and Document Impact?|275
2|9.6 Discussion|276
2|9.7 Conclusion|277
2|References|278
1|Chapter 10: Conclusions: Reducing Burglary – Summing Up|283
2|10.1 Burglary Trends and Patterns|284
2|10.2 Which Security Devices Work and How?|285
2|10.3 Burglary Prevention Lessons|287
2|10.4 Future Opportunities|288
2|References|290
1|Index|291
1|Contents|6
1|List of Figures|15
1|Diagrams|20
1|List of Tables|21
1|About the Authors|12
1|Chapter 1: Introduction|24
2|1.1 Domestic Burglary: Definition, Data Sources and Counts|25
2|1.2 The Distribution of Burglary|27
2|1.3 Repeat Victimisation|35
2|1.4 Burglary Trends|37
2|1.5 The Impact of Burglary|38
2|1.6 Responding to Burglary|38
2|1.7 Outline of the Remainder of the Book|39
2|References|40
1|Chapter 2: A Short History of the England and Wales National Burglary Security Initiatives|43
2|2.1 Introduction|43
2|2.2 Background|45
2|2.3 Programmes|47
3|2.3.1 Neighbourhood Watch|47
3|2.3.2 Property Marking|48
3|2.3.3 Publicity Schemes|48
3|2.3.4 The Kirkholt Burglary Prevention Project|49
3|2.3.5 Safer Cities|50
3|2.3.6 Huddersfield and the ‘Olympic’ Model|53
3|2.3.7 Crime Reduction Programme|54
3|2.3.8 Design Against Crime|55
3|2.3.9 Alley Gating|55
3|2.3.10 Estate Action, Single Regeneration Budget and Priority Estates|56
3|2.3.11 Improved Street Lighting|57
2|2.4 The Vexed Question of Displacement|58
2|2.5 Lessons Learned|59
3|2.5.1 What Worked?|59
3|2.5.2 What Didn’t Work|61
3|2.5.3 The Importance of Context|61
3|2.5.4 Strategy|62
2|2.6 Conclusions|63
2|References|63
1|Chapter 3: Domestic Burglary: Burglar Responses to Target Attractiveness|67
2|3.1 Introduction|67
2|3.2 Reducing Burglary Through Secured by Design|68
3|3.2.1 Place-Based Crime Reduction|68
3|3.2.2 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)|69
3|3.2.3 Secured by Design (SBD): Development, Management and Implementation|69
3|3.2.4 Consideration for Crime Prevention Within the Planning System|70
3|3.2.5 Evaluating the Effectiveness of Secured by Design (SBD)|73
3|3.2.6 The Principles of Secured by Design (SBD) and Their Individual Impact on Crime|75
2|3.3 Accounting for Burglar Perceptions|77
3|3.3.1 Methodology|77
3|3.3.2 Limitations of the Research|78
2|3.4 Burglar Accounts of Target Attractiveness: Research Findings|80
3|3.4.1 What Makes a Suitable Target?|80
3|3.4.2 What Makes an Unsuitable Target?|81
3|3.4.3 Surveillance|83
3|3.4.4 Movement Control|85
3|3.4.5 Defensible Space|88
3|3.4.6 Physical Security|89
3|3.4.7 Management and Maintenance|92
2|3.5 What Can Secured by Design Learn from Burglar Accounts?|93
2|References|95
1|Chapter 4: Which Security Devices Reduce Burglary?|98
2|4.1 Introduction|98
2|4.2 Previous Work on Security Availability|99
2|4.3 Previous Work on Security Device Effectiveness Against Burglary|101
3|4.3.1 Victimisation Survey Data|101
3|4.3.2 Offender Interviews|103
4|4.3.2.1 Burglar Alarms|103
4|4.3.2.2 Locks|104
4|4.3.2.3 Occupancy Cues/Proxies|104
3|4.3.3 Large-Scale Initiatives|105
2|4.4 Data and Methods|106
3|4.4.1 Why Examine Attempted Burglary and Burglary with Entry Separately?|107
2|4.5 Results|109
3|4.5.1 FAVOR-able Cues: Accessibility and Occupancy|109
3|4.5.2 Which Security Devices Deter and Which Thwart?|111
2|4.6 Discussion and Conclusion|114
2|Appendix A|118
2|A.1 Introduction|118
2|A.2 Crime Survey for England and Wales Sample Selection|118
2|A.3 Crime Survey for England and Wales Questionnaire Structure|118
2|A.4 Limitations|119
3|A.4.1 Security Information Is Not Available for All Burglary Victims|119
3|A.4.2 Victims of Both Attempted Burglary and Burglary with Entry Are Excluded|121
2|A.5 Alternative Deter/Thwart Calculations|121
2|A.6 More Information|123
2|References|123
1|Chapter 5: Household- and Area-Level Differences in Burglary Risk and Security Availability over Time|127
2|5.1 Introduction|127
2|5.2 Theoretical Framework|129
2|5.3 Previous Research Evidence|131
3|5.3.1 Burglary Risks in Context|131
3|5.3.2 Security Availability in Context|132
3|5.3.3 Security Availability and Burglary Risk in Context|133
3|5.3.4 Who Has Benefited the Most (or, Conversely, Drew Negligible Benefits) from the Reduction in Burglary Risk and the Increase in Security Availability?|134
3|5.3.5 Limitations of Previous Research|136
2|5.4 Effective Security Availability and Burglary Risks During the Crime Drop|137
3|5.4.1 Data and Methodology|137
3|5.4.2 Burglary Risk and Effective Security Correlation During the Crime Drop|139
2|5.5 Effective Security Availability and Burglary Risks in Context over the Period of the Crime Drop|141
3|5.5.1 General Remarks, Population Groups and Their (National Average) Burglary Risks|141
3|5.5.2 Effective Security and Burglary Risk Across Ethnic Groups|147
3|5.5.3 Effective Security and Burglary Risk with Respect to Household Composition|149
3|5.5.4 Effective Security and Burglary Risk with Respect to Household Tenure|153
3|5.5.5 Effective Security and Burglary Risk with Respect to Annual Household Income|155
3|5.5.6 Effective Security and Burglary Risk with Respect to Household Car Ownership|158
3|5.5.7 Effective Security and Burglary Risk by Area of Residence|159
2|5.6 Security-Driven Burglary Drop and Distributive Justice|161
2|5.7 How Can Crime Prevention Redress the Uneven Burglary Drop and Reignite Overall Falls?|164
2|Appendix B|166
2|B.1 Data and Methodology|166
3|B.1.1 Variables|166
3|B.1.2 Data and Sample Sizes|167
3|B.1.3 Statistical Model and Modelling Strategy|171
2|B.2 The Correlation of Burglary Risk and Effective Security Availability Nationally, 1993–2011/2012|176
2|B.3 Estimated Bivariate Logit Regression Models of Burglary Risk and WIDE Security Availability During the Crime Drop|177
2|References|181
1|Chapter 6: An Evaluation of a Research-Informed Target Hardening Initiative|185
2|6.1 Introduction|185
2|6.2 Evaluation of Burglary Reduction Initiatives|187
3|6.2.1 Theoretical Underpinnings: Repeat and Near Repeat Victimisation|187
3|6.2.2 Key Methodological Issues in the Evaluation of Burglary Reduction Initiatives|187
2|6.3 Project Context|189
3|6.3.1 The City of Nottingham|189
3|6.3.2 Burglary Profile of Nottingham|190
3|6.3.3 Nottingham Crime and Drugs Partnership (NCDP)|190
2|6.4 The Nottingham Pilot Burglary Target Hardening Initiative|191
3|6.4.1 Project Inception and Operational Framework|191
3|6.4.2 Research-Informed Project Aims and Protocol|191
3|6.4.3 Selection of Participating Areas|193
3|6.4.4 Pilot Process: Planning, Implementation, Security Cost and Evaluation|195
2|6.5 Evaluation|200
3|6.5.1 Pilot Data|200
3|6.5.2 Evaluation Data: Did It Work?|203
2|6.6 Discussion and Conclusion|205
2|Appendix C|206
2|C.1 The Nottingham Crime and Drugs Partnership (NCDP)|206
3|C.1.1 Statement|206
3|C.1.2 For Recognition|207
3|C.1.3 History|207
2|C.2 Selected Protocol and Home Security Assessment Templates|208
2|References|211
1|Chapter 7: The Role of Security Devices Against Burglaries: Findings from the French Victimisation Survey|214
2|7.1 Introduction|214
2|7.2 Source, Contextual Data and Modelling|217
3|7.2.1 Source|217
3|7.2.2 Defining the Three Stages of the Burglary|218
3|7.2.3 Security Features and Information Regarding the Presence of Someone in the Housing Unit|221
3|7.2.4 Environmental Factors and Lifestyle|223
3|7.2.5 Modelling|224
2|7.3 Results|225
3|7.3.1 The Role of Security Devices|225
4|7.3.1.1 Targeting|225
4|7.3.1.2 Forced Entry|227
4|7.3.1.3 Theft|228
3|7.3.2 Analysis of Combinations of Devices|230
4|7.3.2.1 Entering the Housing Unit|230
4|7.3.2.2 Theft|232
3|7.3.3 The Specific Case of Repeat Victimisations|233
2|7.4 Discussion|236
2|Appendix D|239
2|References|240
1|Chapter 8: The Role of Security in Causing Drops in Domestic Burglary|242
2|8.1 Introduction|242
2|8.2 A Comprehensive Theory of the Crime Drop|245
3|8.2.1 Seventeen Propositions and Four Tests|245
3|8.2.2 The Security Hypothesis|245
2|8.3 Testing the Security Hypothesis for the Burglary Drop: A Data Signatures Approach|248
2|8.4 Security-Led Burglary Drop in England and Wales|249
3|8.4.1 Signature 1: There Would Be an Overall Increase in the Level of Security of Dwellings|249
3|8.4.2 Signature 2: There Would Be a Reduction in the Proportion of Dwellings Unprotected by Security Measures|250
3|8.4.3 Signature 3: Dwellings with More Security Would Generally Be Less Vulnerable to Burglary than Those with Less Security|251
3|8.4.4 Signature 4: The Use of More Effective Security Devices and Combinations Will Grow More than the Use of Less Effective Security Devices and Combinations|252
3|8.4.5 Signature 5: The Protection Conferred by the Presence of Security Devices Would Increase over Time|252
3|8.4.6 Signature 6: There Will Be No Downward Trend in Burglary Amongst Properties with No Security|255
3|8.4.7 Signature 7: There Would Be a Greater Fall in Burglary with Forced Entry Where the Offender Has to Overcome Security Devices, than in Unforced Entry Where This Is Not Necessary|255
2|8.5 Discussion|256
2|8.6 The Curious Case of Burglar Alarms|258
2|8.7 The Importance of Design and Detailed Understanding|260
2|8.8 Conclusion|261
2|References|261
1|Chapter 9: From Project to Practice: Utilising Research Evidence in the Prevention of Crime|264
2|9.1 Introduction|264
2|9.2 Context|265
2|9.3 The Project|266
2|9.4 Key Factors|267
3|9.4.1 Relationships|268
3|9.4.2 Communication|270
4|9.4.2.1 Communication with the Advisory Committee|270
4|9.4.2.2 Communication Beyond the Advisory Committee|271
2|9.5 Challenges in Exchanging Knowledge and Facilitating Impact|273
3|9.5.1 Articulating the Potential Practical Benefits of Involvement|273
3|9.5.2 How to Trace and Document Impact?|275
2|9.6 Discussion|276
2|9.7 Conclusion|277
2|References|278
1|Chapter 10: Conclusions: Reducing Burglary – Summing Up|283
2|10.1 Burglary Trends and Patterns|284
2|10.2 Which Security Devices Work and How?|285
2|10.3 Burglary Prevention Lessons|287
2|10.4 Future Opportunities|288
2|References|290
1|Index|291