---
title: "Nowhere to Run, Nowhere to Hide: Neighborhood Burglary Reduction"
type: "pdf"
year: "2005"
canonical: "/projects/1201"
---

# NOWHERE TO RUN TO NOWHERE TO HIDE NEIGHBORHOOD BURGLARY REDUCTION 

STAFFORDSHIRE POLICE, UNITED KINGDOM, 2005

# Table of Contents

- [NOWHERE TO RUN TO NOWHERE TO HIDE NEIGHBORHOOD BURGLARY REDUCTION](#nowhere-to-run-to-nowhere-to-hide-neighborhood-burglary-reduction)
  - [Supporting Statement](#supporting-statement)
- [NOWHERE TO RUN TO NOWHERE TO HIDE NEIGHBORHOOD BURGLARY REDUCTION](#nowhere-to-run-to-nowhere-to-hide-neighborhood-burglary-reduction)
- [Project Aims \& Objectives](#project-aims-objectives)
- [Scanning](#scanning)
- [$>$ Classification of crime / incident type.  $>$ Date of incident.  $>$ Time bands relating to occurrence.](#classification-of-crime-incident-type-date-of-incident-time-bands-relating-to-occurrence)
- [Analysis](#analysis)
- [Who are the offenders?](#who-are-the-offenders)
- [Response](#response)
- [What are Alleygates?](#what-are-alleygates)
- [Why did we use Alleygates?](#why-did-we-use-alleygates)
- [Assessment](#assessment)
- [Agency and Officer Information](#agency-and-officer-information)
- [Project Contact Person.](#project-contact-person)
- [Reference List](#reference-list)
- [House Burglaries - Highfield Project Area (April 2000 - March 2005 Inc.)](#house-burglaries-highfield-project-area-april-2000-march-2005-inc)
- [Shed / Garage Burglaries - Highfield Project Area (April 2000 - March 2005 Inc.)](#shed-garage-burglaries-highfield-project-area-april-2000-march-2005-inc)
- [Cost Benefit Analysis - Highfields Project](#cost-benefit-analysis-highfields-project)

## Supporting Statement

Between the years 2000-2002 a total of 121 combined burglaries occurred within the Highfields housing estate in Stafford. At that time a figure in excess of the United Kingdom's national burglary average. Given this historical burden on policing resources, and acknowledging community concerns, it was evident that a problem solving approach was required.

A co-ordinated approach was formulated, initiated and subjected to ongoing monitoring and evaluation. Agencies and community contacts participated and discussed ways of tackling the evidenced problems. This group considered the impact of crime and disorder, and guided by the Police Crime Reduction Unit, an action plan was formulated.

A 3 year plan was agreed. All participants believed the aims and objectives set for the project, although challenging in the long term, were attainable. The plan drilled down into action worksheets, which enabled practitioners to be aware of time-scales for completion of their specific actions and to monitor plan effectiveness.

Using baseline figures for 2000-2002 we have achieved reductions in house burglaries of $67.5 \%$ and burglaries of sheds and garages by $62.4 \%$ over our three year target period, with a continuing trend for further burglary reductions year on year. Overall crime is also down $24 \%$ along with a positive diffusement of benefits across other crime types.

This Goldstein 2005 submission evidences the success of a methodical problem solving approach to the increasing policing and community challenges in the Highfields. It has produced a framework for long-term sustainability and evidences that cutting crime in the community can be achieved in partnership with the police, the community and our agency partners.
![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/05-14%28F%29/img-0.jpeg)

# NOWHERE TO RUN TO NOWHERE TO HIDE NEIGHBORHOOD BURGLARY REDUCTION 

STAFFORDSHIRE POLICE, UNITED KINGDOM, 2005

THE PROBLEM: Between the years 2000-2002 a total of 121 burglaries occurred within a 'footprint' of some 1,505 homes. At that time a figure well in excess of the United Kingdom's national burglary average. Residents at times felt demoralized and despondent at the state of affairs in the neighborhood.

ANALYSIS: The existence of a high proportion of 'rat run' type alleyways and pathways running alongside, and at the rear of properties, provided generous opportunities for access making houses particularly vulnerable. Modus Operandi suggested that there was also a distinct lack of knowledge amongst victims as to the crime prevention and target hardening techniques available to prevent them becoming crime victims. This lack of awareness undoubtedly affected the disproportionate high numbers of repeat victims. A sizeable proportion of offenders arrested in connection with burglaries and other crimes in the area were both local and linked to serious drug dependencies, based on research into well known burglars operating in the area. There was also no Offender-based program available at the time to tackle such criminality.

RESPONSE: The partnership between the Police, Council and the Highfields Community embarked on a program of alleygating the most vulnerable and critical areas within the footprint. This provided a target hardening element alongside a campaign to enhance the knowledge of the local residents as to crime reduction techniques. Offenders were provided with an intensive support package, supplied by Police and Probation Services, of drug treatment alongside other benefits to reduce their reliance on drugs and curb their re-offending.

ASSESSMENT: Against the baseline data the initiative has produced over a three year period a reduction in domestic burglaries of $67.5 \%$ and garage/shed burglaries of $62.4 \%$. There is also evidence of a

positive diffusement of benefit with a $54.6 \%$ reduction in vehicle crime, a $34.5 \%$ reduction in incidents of criminal damage, an overall reduction in all crime of $24 \%$, and a community perception of reduced antisocial behaviour. The project has met and surpassed its original reduction targets. It has driven down burglary, overall crime, reduced community concerns and has begun to create a new climate of social ease and community safety. Although the ideal aim is to eradicate all incidents of crime and disorder, reality tells us this is not always realistic.

# Project Aims \& Objectives 

...adopting an effective approach to crime reduction ideally requires a degree of tactical understanding of what works, where, and how (Tilley and Laycock) [2002].

Effective crime reduction strategies use a problem solving approach. This initiative utilized the model of the preventative process: Scanning and Analysis of Data; an effective approach (Preventative Measures); Implementation of chosen solutions; and Monitoring and Evaluation. The Crime Reduction Unit (CRU) produced a site-specific project to Government Office for the West Midlands for funding assistance. Following late approval in July 2002 a strategy and a comprehensive action plan enabled us to fulfil the aims and SMART objectives set as our goals.

These were essential components of the practitioner group providing an informative tool for those with less 'hands on' experience to understand the methods behind delivery of reductive measures and ensuring timely responses to actions and tasks. Monitoring and evaluation processes were a vital ingredient for the program.

Guided by the needs of the community, coupled with the Governments' 5 year UK burglary reduction strategy, the overall aim of the Highfields Project was to reduce house burglaries and shed/garage burglaries whilst ensuring a positive and enhanced community outcome. Following detailed scanning and analysis the group set specific, demanding, targets to:
$>$ Reduce incidents of house burglary by $20 \%$ per year over 3 years.
$>$ Reduce incidents of shed and garage burglary by $20 \%$ per year over 3 years.
$>$ Reduce overall crime by $20 \%$ over 3 years.

A realistic delivery time scale of April 2002 - March 2005 was agreed and reduction targets were set against baseline data from April 2000-March 2002.

# Scanning 

The Highfields housing estate is situated 2 miles south west of Stafford, in the Chase policing division, Staffordshire. The homes within it date back over 30 years with an architectural layout, aesthetic appearance and estate management being considered inadequate for the needs of the local community. The initiative covered some 23 streets mainly comprising of a mix of 2 story 'terraces' (a number of houses joined in a continuous row) or semi-detached housing. The Highfields could be defined as a lower to middle class area.

The Highfields had historically been a problem location generating a variety of calls for service. Past police commanders had acknowledged these difficulties and have systematically responded with a variety of policing options. Given no clear focus or problem solving process a piecemeal delivery was inevitable. The environment continued to decline and in the years 1998-2001 domestic burglaries rose to twice that of the UK national average.

Officers attended incidents over many years dealing with similar problems with no real sustainable improvements. The community, inevitably the victims of the offenses, saw that any successes were inevitably short term. The Highfields was, in general, very reluctant to pass information to police in respect of crime and offenders. This was most likely due to the high fear of retribution from local criminals that existed and an entrenched, unchallenged culture of insularity from the authorities.

Community information mainly consisted of mouth to mouth achieved on an 'ad hoc' basis. A new approach was required, embracing problem-oriented policing, committing resources to building an energetic working local Partnership, with the sole aim of producing much required sustainable outcomes for the majority of law abiding citizens residing there. The Highfields suffered a variety of crimes/ incident types: burglaries of domestic properties, burglaries of sheds and garages, criminal damage, vehicle crime and was suffering from a lack of 'corporate' ownership.

The use of a computerised geographical crime/incident analysis package identified long term activity trends. In addition we were able to provide an accurate breakdown of all activities that elicited a police response within the Highfields.

With the evidence available we were able to consult with local community officers, counsellors, people living and working in the community, council departments, housing and voluntary organisations for information as part of the scanning process. Data which became available provided evidence of the following:

# $>$ Classification of crime / incident type.  $>$ Date of incident.  $>$ Time bands relating to occurrence. 

A compact delivery-based group combined to produce a strategy providing a combination of traditional policing methods, 'quick wins', for the short term approach. In-depth research analysis for long-term problem solving solutions was also delivered.

Between April 2000 and March 2002 there were 121 recorded burglary offenses in the area. Although concerns revolved around house, shed and garage burglary other priority offense types were recorded in that period. Practitioners believed that the burglary project would have a beneficial reduction effect 'across the board'

| Priority Incidents Recorded - Highfields April 2000 - March 2002 Inclusive |  |
| :-- | :-- |
| Incident Type | Count |
| House Burglary | 82 |
| Shed/Garage Burglary | 39 |
| Criminal Damage | 306 |
| Theft from Auto | 182 |
| Auto Theft | 49 |

# Analysis 

With the scanning complete the CRU set about analysing the data. It was vitally important to understand what was causing such a high rate of burglaries to occur over a 'footprint' of some 1505 Highfields homes. Routine Activity Theory (Felson) states that three elements have to be present for a crime to occur:
$>$ A suitable target; this can be a person, an object or a place.
$>$ The absence of a capable guardian; this is anything that discourages a crime from taking place.
$>$ A motivated offender; offenders have many different reasons for committing crime.

Therefore one can presume that for a crime not to occur one needs to alter one of the elements. The analysis of the crime data directed solutions towards changes to the first and second elements by making the targets less attractive and establishing guardianship. (The third element was later affected following another successful submission for a Prolific Offenders Program covering the entire Chase police division and will be discussed later in the submission).

Utilising the sixteen opportunity reducing techniques of situational crime reduction (Clarke) [1997] the interventions needed to alter the balance of costs/benefits influencing a potential offender...shifting the balance of perceived rewards, effort and risk.

Over the 2 years 2000-2002 Highfields had a house burglary rate in excess of the UK national average. Analysis evidenced $55 \%$ of burglaries were via rear doors and windows, $21 \%$ through unsecured doors and windows.
$>44 \%$ of all burglaries occurred during 'core' daylight hours of 0600 and 1800 hours.
$17.4 \%$ occurred between 1800 and 2200 hours.
$14.6 \%$ occurred between 2200 and 0600 hours.
$24 \%$ unknown

Of the premises attacked analysis indicated at least 41 cases where access was gained from the rear of the house. 33 premises had rear facing windows forced and 11 involved unsecured doors.

The existence of a high proportion of 'rat run' type alleyways, and pathways running alongside and at the rear of properties, provided generous opportunities for access to houses making them particularly vulnerable. This was further compounded by low, poorly designed fencing with little deterrent value. End 'terraced' houses were distinct targets.

Vehicular access to the estate was, in some areas limited, with pathways that allowed pedestrian movement to go unnoticed by police patrols. The Architectural Liaison Officer (ALO) identified that lighting in the area was, across a number of locations, below British Standard and was believed to be a contributory factor to burglaries occurring during the winter months.

Modus Operandi suggested there was a distinct lack of knowledge amongst known victims as to the crime prevention advice available to them to prevent them becoming victims of crime. This lack of awareness undoubtedly affected the disproportionate high numbers of repeat victims. Only one Neighborhood Watch group existed on the Highfields at the time.

Local deprivation indicators revealed unemployment levels were running at between 9.5 and $11.7 \%$ with $6 \%$ of residents single parents with one or more children to support. Partnership evidence suggested a large proportion of homes on the Highfields were uninsured and this in itself indicated high numbers of domestic burglaries were going unreported compounding the feeling of desperation amongst victims.

The thorough analysis of the crimes/incidents at the location indicated there were two main crime victims:
$>$ Residents - Loss of cash, credit cards, jewellery, electrical goods ${ }^{1}$, and the inevitable
irreplaceable personal possessions. They also suffered nuisance crimes stemming from neglect in the locality fuelling the fear of crime.
$>$ Local Council/Housing Associations - Increasing revenue loss/capital expenditure due to ongoing costly repairs to victims' homes.

[^0]
[^0]:    ${ }^{1}$ CRAVED - concealable, removable, available, valuable, enjoyable and disposable (Clarke) [1999].

# Who are the offenders? 

The architectural layout of the Highfields, coupled with officer evidence from foot pursuits, suggested a high level of knowledge held by offenders. Analysis suggested large numbers of offenses being committed by local burglars. Only $4 \%$ of burglaries required the use of transport.

A sizeable proportion of offenders arrested in connection with burglaries in the area were local and linked to serious drug dependencies (underpinned by research). All were associated with drug users or dealers, two-thirds of them using heroin or amphetamines. No corrective offender based program was available to tackle such criminality. One can assume that criminals perceived that little effort and a low risk of detection resulted in sufficient reward to maintain their lifestyle.

For this project to succeed it was essential to bring in the knowledge and experience of everyone, not just specialists, to find solutions.
$>$ Criminal Investigation and Pro-Active Police units updated the team on target criminals and M.O., running operations prior to project commencement providing that 'short term' impact. This element gave us the time and space to bring some renewed community control over the criminals and their behaviour.
$>$ Local officers ensured that a patrol strategy was in place with a major sustainable input from community police officers.
$>$ Facilitating a charity based group serving Highfields in delivering information and advice at residents' forums.
$>$ The CRU provided the knowledge for target hardening providing the required reductive sustainability and supervised all project activities.
$>$ The CRU submitted a funding bid, overlapping the Alleygating proposal, for a Prolific Offenders Program (Chase POP) aimed at curtailing the actions of the small offender core that caused a disproportionate amount of crime.

Armed with the scanning and analytical data the partners defined a target area within the Highfields to address the problems. It consisted of the densely populated south -eastern area which contained housing stock owned by the local council, and two housing associations. In all a community 'footprint' of 1505 houses.

The interventions chosen were focussed on all residents within this small localized area to tackle the causes of crime at a community level. The practitioners also accepted that such a small initiative would face the risk of displacement of some kind.

# Response 

Establishing effective arrangements for partnership work can be hard (Hough and Tilley) [1997].

A co-ordinated approach was formulated, initiated and subjected to ongoing monitoring and evaluation. Agencies and community contacts participated and discussed ways of tackling the evidenced problems. A 'talking shop' was avoided at all costs.

This group considered the impact of crime and disorder and guided by the CRU an action plan was formulated. The CRU could not accomplish the aims or objectives on their own. Without support it is doubtful that the achievements on the Highfields would have been accomplished.

The Principles of Crime Prevention enable practitioners to solve particular problems, or reduce the likelihood of them occurring, by ensuring the right preventative measures are put into place. Not all principles apply to all problems. It is vital to tailor any interventions to the site-specific problem. Interventions that are chosen 'off the shelf' without any real thought tend not to work. Standard, broad brush, blockbuster approaches to problems tend to produce disappointing results. (Hough and Tilley)[1997].

Participants were carefully selected for their ability to produce effective assessments and their capacity to deliver solutions. This was important as it ensured the correct interventions were chosen, for the correct locations, achieving maximum impact. All interventions were financed through a small Local Government grant of $\$ 72,000$ over a three year period, with no other 'added value' funding streams available.

The CRU were tasked with providing appropriate, realistic interventions. This involved producing full surveys and plans. Interventions were based on knowledge from research studies, national practitioner databases and experience from our own departmental projects guided by the 'principles' test. The partnership with Prison and Probation services was to prove particularly unique.

A 3 year plan of action was agreed upon. All participants felt that the aims and objectives set for the project, although challenging in the long term, were attainable. The plan drilled down into action worksheets, which enabled practitioners to be aware of time-scales for completion of their specific actions. Difficulties were therefore quickly evidenced allowing the team to investigate and adapt the plan where necessary.

In addition, a repeat location electronic search engine was developed to automatically identify developing hot spot locations and issues arising from any displacement of crime. This tool was used to provide structured monitoring, ensuring that any emerging problems were rapidly identified and resolved.

An intervention list was drawn up. A series of rolling positive crime reducing effects designed to produce on going improvements. A small section is as follows:
$>$ Alleygating- define and protect the most critical locations
$>$ Environmental and landscaping improvements
$>$ Improved lighting to identified areas
$>$ Promote Crimestoppers and increase Neighborhood Watch Groups to improve the two way channel of communication between the Police and Highfields residents, and deliver a property marking campaign
$>$ Consolidate early reductive activity through the Prolific Offenders Program team by removing core offenders from the equation
.....there are good reasons for thinking that alley-gates should reduce burglary, there is as yet little hard evidence that they do (Johnson and Loxley) [2001].

# What are Alleygates? 

The installation of security gates across footpath and alleyways which attempts to reduce the opportunity to commit crimes such as house burglary. When installed and used properly, alley-gates can control access to vulnerable target areas.

# Why did we use Alleygates? 

Crime can be a problem in many areas and criminals see alleyways as 'rat runs' that provide perfect cover and easy access to commit crime. The mechanisms by which this method would work included:
$>$ Removing access to vulnerable homes and outbuildings
$>$ Reducing the escape routes
$>$ Increase the perceived risk and effort
![img-1.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/05-14%28F%29/img-1.jpeg)

The gates were constructed by prisoners at Her Majesty's Prison Featherstone. The initiative involved using the skills of 30 of the fabrication unit's inmates over 3 years. The prisoners were aware that the gates were used to prevent crime and gained great satisfaction in producing them to a high standard. A unique and innovative approach to the UK system known as Reparative Justice, where offenders give something back to the community as part of their sentence.

Steve Barkby, Head of Industries, HMP Featherstone commented: "As part of the re-settlement initiative, skills assessment and retraining play a major role....our fabrication unit provides many inmates with valuable skills and a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) in Welding."

"The prison is part of the community and anything we do to enhance our public image has to be good, not only for the prison, but also for the prisoners. The public often hear all the bad things about prison, but rarely get to know about the good things that the prison does for the community."

The fitting of the gates was completed by offenders on Community Service Orders, supervised by the Staffordshire Community Punishment Team (Probation). Groups were carefully selected according to their skills and the type of crimes they had committed. Each gate installation was supervised by a placement supervisor. Offenders had the opportunity to extend their learning in the use of both hand and electrical tools helping them toward an NVQ in basic skills, led by tutors from Stafford College. A worthwhile qualification helping them back into work and leave their life of crime behind them.

Oliver Malone, Placement Manager commented: "The work involved has provided an excellent grounding in basic skills for our offenders. They have been pleased to do a worthwhile job that has given them new skills and a qualification that will help them get back into work." The relationship with Probation also enabled the team to plan structured long term interventions to deliver environmental improvements to identified areas and reduce the opportunity for crime/anti social activities.

Measures were implemented in a particular order. The design of the 'footprint' provided excellent opportunities for offenders to operate with a choice of escape routes to greatly reduce the risks of being observed or ultimately apprehended. Securing critical areas was a priority along with a major input from the community police officer Andy Goodey and his colleagues that included a property marking campaign and crime reduction advice to residents.

The property marking campaign aimed to lower the value of stolen goods and increase the risk to the offender by being in possession of them. The mechanism included:
$>$ Assisting the residents to become crime preventers by marking all their valuable property.
$>$ Increasing the perception of risk and effort with reduced reward.

The mechanisms behind the work to promote Neighborhood Watch was to help residents protect their property and the property of their neighbors coupled with the deter element of communicating that reduction activities were being carried out within the vicinity.

Monthly monitoring and evaluation by the police continued throughout the period 2002 -2005, with quarterly detailed finance and output/outcome reports being forwarded to Government Office for the West Midlands for evaluation and audit.

Project Area And Location Of 'Alleygating' Installations
![img-2.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/05-14%28F%29/img-2.jpeg)

# Assessment 

This initiative is a story of success, reassurance and the assertion of community safety which we tell to the residents of Highfields (M. Poulter...Chairman Staffordshire Police Authority) [2005].

The project, through the use of the Principles of Crime Reduction, had an overarching plan to reduce both house and shed/garage burglaries whilst ensuring a positive and enhanced community outcome.
$>$ Baseline figures for 2000/2002 - 121
$>$ Intervention Year 1 2002/2003 - 31 Down 49\%
$>$ Intervention Year 2 2003/2004 - 20 Down 29\%
$>$ Intervention Year 3 2004/2005 - 11 Down 45\%

Overall reductions in burglary for the three year intervention period as compared to the pre-intervention 2000-2002 = down $65.8 \%$. (Appendices A, B and C provide further detailed breakdowns re house and shed/garage burglary and project cost/benefit analysis)

Combined Burglaries - Highfield Project Area (April 2000 - March 2005 Inc.)
![img-3.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/05-14%28F%29/img-3.jpeg)

Since the project implemented the improvements, local residents and police have noticed a marked improvement in the quality of life evidenced by continuing actual reductions in recorded crime and the anecdotal evidence from council leaders and residents alike. (Appendix D)

Crime data for the general area signified no detrimental displacement effect having removed the crime generating factors from our 'footprint'. Indeed, there is good evidence to demonstrate a positive diffusement of benefits has occurred to the immediate vicinity with overall crime down $24 \%$.

The community, police and the owners of the housing stock have seen tangible benefits from the project:
$>$ Reduced levels of burglary
$>$ Reduced levels of priority and overall crime levels
$>$ An increased policing presence from community officers
$>$ A new Police Community Support Officer as a permanent visible neighborhood presence
$>$ Reduced overall damage repairs
$>$ Reduce calls for service

Important results that offset some of the initial \$72,000 cost to bring the project to its successful conclusion.

| Year | All  Crime/Incidents | House | Shed /  Garage | Burg. (Combined) |
| :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: |
| April 2000-March 2001 | 905 | 39 | 25 | 64 |
| April 2001-March 2002 | 981 | 43 | 14 | 57 |
| April 2002-March 2003 | 733 | 17 | 14 | 31 |
| April 2003-March 2004 | 699 | 16 | 4 | 20 |
| April 2004-March 2005 | 692 | 7 | 4 | 11 |


| Highfields  Project | House | Shed | (H)  Ave. | (S) Ave. | Overall Ave. |
| :-- | --: | --: | --: | --: | --: |
| Pre (2yr) | 82.0 | 39.0 | 41.0 | 19.5 | 60.5 |
| Project (3yr) | 40.0 | 22.0 | 13.3 | 7.3 | 20.7 |
| \% Reduction |  |  | -67.5 | -62.4 | -65.8 |

There is however a caveat that the author will address. The results above are extremely encouraging; however there are often other factors involved in any long-term intervention program. As discussed in this submission the Chase POP has undoubtedly had some effect on the criminal element of the Highfields. To what extent is as yet undetermined, however by using the Chase division as a reference area one can assume certain background detail.

The overall Highfields objective was to reduce house and shed/garage burglaries by $20 \%$ per year over 3 years. This was achieved with a combined reduction of $65.8 \%$ against the pre intervention years of 20002002. For Chase police division there was a $25.6 \%$ reduction across the same timeframes.

If we therefore assume that any divisional reductions in priority crime were due to the Chase POP we can re-calculate the Highfields results to show reductions that can be solely attributable to the Highfields project itself, without a perceived element of contradiction. This changes the reduction table as follows:

| Crime Type | Highfields  Project | Chase POP  Contribution | Highfields  Project Overall |
| :-- | --: | --: | --: |
| House Burglary | $67.50 \%$ | $28.20 \%$ | $39.30 \%$ |
| Shed/Garage |  |  |  |
| Burglary | $62.40 \%$ | $23.10 \%$ | $39.30 \%$ |
| Vehicle Crime | $54.60 \%$ | $26.10 \%$ | $28.40 \%$ |
| All Crime | $24.90 \%$ | $5.10 \%$ | $19.80 \%$ |
| Criminal Damage | $34.50 \%$ | $25.80 \%$ | $8.70 \%$ |

One can rightly argue that the author is being somewhat generous in purporting that the Chase POP was responsible for all the contributory reduction figures however it is important to the evaluation process that there is a degree of transparency and honesty in its determination.

One can base the calculations of cost savings to the community against the all encompassing crime reduction figures, as the Chase POP was always viewed as part of the ongoing reductive process, and one can also assess the pure impact of the target hardening activities within the Highfields Project itself. (Appendix C evidences cost effectiveness across both parameters and evidences tangible success).

Burglary affects all of us as the cost of this type of crime is ultimately passed on to the consumers with higher premiums in the home insurance market and, of course, to the tenants on the estate in increased monthly rent for their homes.

The problem had been a long-standing issue requiring long-term solutions. Monitoring and evaluation will continue on a quarterly base to evidence the results of the final target hardening activities. The important feature is the project was conceived as a low-cost enduring approach aiming to improve the quality of life for residents on the Highfields and that the alleygating process will give sustainability to the long-term impact.

The partnership has worked well thus far, and is presently revisiting and re-assessing with the community what has been achieved, and addressing concerns through the constant use of the SARA process. This will ensure that momentum is sustained.

Cutting crime in the community requires partnership. The police, the community, and 'service providers' all have to play their part in driving down crime. The success has depended on intelligence-led Community Policing, partnership with local agencies but most importantly with the local residents actively co-operating with the CRU and our partners on this project. The continuation of success is in the hands of everyone wanting to see a secure Highfields community.

The implementation of such a long-term reduction strategy did not come without its difficulties both in terms of capacity and resources. The Stafford crime reduction officers' position was left vacant for 9 months to assist with divisional finances. This put added pressure onto an already stretched CRU to continue delivery of this and other major projects.

Police software systems and UK Government crime classifications have received a number of major overhauls causing real difficulties in data capture, making the final evaluation process a somewhat long and torturous one. Our project costs were even hit by the China syndrome, with the sheet steel utilized in the

gate fabrication process increasing by $160 \%$ due to global demand! Fortunately contingency is always built into our plans.

As practitioners the working and learning process of any initiative is vital. Much of what is achieved is based on sound learning, not only from a theoretical point of view, but from the research into good and best practise around a particular problem profile. There is little point in attempting to solve a problem whilst making the same mistakes as others have in the past. Good research is essential.

Whilst compiling this submission the author found difficulty finding hard evidence from research based projects as to the reductive capabilities of alleygating schemes around the UK, targeted to smaller projects such as our own. When the project was developed alleygating was still in its infancy. Data around the UK Government program, the Reducing Burglary Initiative, was not available and has only recently been published, again addressing larger projects. The current Gate-It program has little empirical evidence to use as a comparator.

NB - For the purposes of this report it was decided to provide general background information, but to concentrate our submission on the Alleygating program around burglary reduction. Consequently the Crime Reduction Team has retained considerable background information that does not feature within this submission.

Appendix A - House Burglaries - Highfields Project Area (April 2000-March 2005 Inclusive)
Appendix B - Shed/Garage Burglaries - Highfields Project Area (April 2000-March 2005 Inclusive)
Appendix C - Cost/Benefit Analysis - Highfields Project
Appendix D - Highfields Project Community Newsletter June 2005

# Agency and Officer Information 

$>$ At what level of the police organization
was this problem-solving initiative
adopted?

The Author, then Divisional Crime Reduction Sergeant, along with the Divisional and local Crime Reduction Officer co-ordinated all target hardening and project activities at a police divisional level supported by the local community policing team and local police Chief Mark Hallam. The results are now being promoted across the Highfields community, to political and policing representatives, and through an external project newsletter. It has also been identified for article publication by the UK Government News Network.
$>$ Did officers or management receive any
training in problem-oriented policing
and/or problem solving before this
project began or during its execution?

The CRU has been extremely adept at innovative approaches to problem solving over a number of years. Despite only 5 officers across a large policing division and 'customer' base of 330,000 people, with the appropriate crime reduction training along with self taught analytical and bid writing skills, they were able to bring the required expertise to the benefit of the project
$>$ Were additional incentives given to police officers who engaged in problem solving?
No additional incentives were given to officers engaged in this project.
$>$ What resources and guidelines manuals, past problem-solving examples, etc.were used, if any, by police officers to help them manage this problem-solving initiative

A number of theoretical and practitioner reference documents were utilized as a working knowledge base at the inception of the project. Limited evidence was available at the time re effectiveness of certain interventions.
$>$ What issues/problems were identified
with the problem-oriented policing
model or the problem solving model?

This type of project should act as a catalyst to re educate those within policing circles as to the benefits of a problem solving philosophy. A 'sea change' in problem solving methodology is still required amongst rank and file officers despite the clear evidence nationally, and internationally, that problem solving works.
$>$ What general resources (financial and/or personnel)
were committed to this project, and of those resources,
what went beyond the existing department budget?

The major capital expenditure on this initiative was funded by a small budget allocation from regional government. Much of the comprehensive background work regarding scanning, analysis, response and evaluation were completed by the CRU with no increased capacity.

# Project Contact Person. 

Andy Smith
Sergeant 3150 (Staffordshire Police)
Seconded to Government Office for the West Midlands
5, St Philips Place
Colmore Row
Birmingham
West Midlands
B3 2PW
Telephone: 01213525023 Cell Phone: 07776478173 Fax
Email Work: asmith.GOWM@go-regions.gsi.gov.uk Home: sahara.man@virgin.net

# Reference List 

Cressida Bridgeman [1996] Crime Risk Management-Making it Work
Michael Hough Nick Tilley [1997] Getting the Grease to the Squeak-Research lessons for Crime Prevention
Graham Farrell Alun Edmunds Louise Hobbs Gloria Laycock [2000] Crime Reduction Research Series
Paper 5
Shane Johnson and Camille Loxley [2001] Practical Lessons from Burglary Prevention Projects-Briefing
Note 2/01
Liz Curtin Nick Tilley Mark Owen Ken Pease [2001] Developing Crime Reduction Plans: Some Examples
from the RBI
Nick Tilley Gloria Laycock [2002] Working out what to do: Evidence-based crime reduction
Ronald V. Clarke [2003] Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime
Calvin Beckford Metropolitan Police Alleygater's Guide to Alley Gating
Andy Smith [2004] Safe and Secure 24/7 Tilley Award Submission
Roger Bowles Rimawan Pradiptyo [2004] Reducing Burglary Initiative: an analysis of costs, benefits and cost effectiveness

Home Office Research Study 287 [2004] The Reducing Burglary Initiative: design, development and delivery
www.crimereduction.gov.uk
www.homeoffice.gov.uk
www.popcenter.org
www.gate-it.org.uk
www.cops.usdoj.gov

![img-4.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/05-14%28F%29/img-4.jpeg)

# House Burglaries - Highfield Project Area (April 2000 - March 2005 Inc.)

|  Project Type | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  Pre-Project Burglary Rate | 45 | 35 | 25 | 15 | 10 | 5  |
|  Pre-Project Burglary Rate | 30 | 25 | 15 | 10 | 5 | 0  |
|  Pre-Project Burglary Rate | 15 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0  |

**Total** | 45 | 35 | 25 | 15 | 10 | 5 | 0 |

![img-5.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/05-14%28F%29/img-5.jpeg)

# Shed / Garage Burglaries - Highfield Project Area (April 2000 - March 2005 Inc.)

|  Project | 2000-March 2001 | 2001-March 2002 | 2002-March 2003 | 2003-March 2004 | 2004-March 2005  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  Pre-Project Burglary Rate | 25 | 20 | 10 | 5 | 10  |
|  Three Year Project - Burglary Rate | 20 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 5  |
|  Recorded Burglaries | 10 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5  |
|  10 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5  |
|  5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5  |
|  0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0  |

*April 2000-March 2001: April 2001-March 2002: April 2002-March 2003: April 2003-March 2004: April 2004-March 2005*

# Cost Benefit Analysis - Highfields Project

|  Crime Type | Highfields | Chase Division
Contribution | Highfields Overall  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  House Burglary | $67.50 \%$ | $28.20 \%$ | $39.30 \%$  |
|  Shed/Garage Burglary | $62.40 \%$ | $23.10 \%$ | $39.30 \%$  |
|  Vehicle Crime | $54.60 \%$ | $26.10 \%$ | $28.40 \%$  |
|  All Crime | $24.90 \%$ | $5.10 \%$ | $19.80 \%$  |
|  Criminal Damage | $34.50 \%$ | $25.80 \%$ | $8.70 \%$  |

Highfields Initiative

> Burglary Cost pre intervention $£ 138,498$ Burglary cost post intervention $£ 44,927$ Saving per year $£ 93,571$ Total savings over initiative lifespan $£ 280,713$ Chase POP burglary contribution $£ 71,862$ therefore total savings attributable to the Highfields Project alone is $£ 208,851$ Project cost benefit ratio 1 to 4.81 - deemed as a cost effective initiative