--- title: "Repeat Victimisation, Domestic Burglary Project" type: "pdf" year: "2003" canonical: "/projects/314" --- # Repeat Victimisation, ![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/03-54/img-0.jpeg) GOVERNMENT OFFICE FOR THE NORTH EAST ![img-1.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/03-54/img-1.jpeg) www.safeinteesvalley.org Michelle Evans Brian Neale Repeat Victimisation, Domestic Burglary Project The Herman Goldstein Award 2003 # Table of Contents - [Repeat Victimisation,](#repeat-victimisation) - [THE HERMAN GOLDSTEIN AWARD 2003](#the-herman-goldstein-award-2003) - [REPEAT VICTIMISATION DOMESTIC BURGLARY PROJECT](#repeat-victimisation-domestic-burglary-project) - [PARTNERSHIP PROJECT](#partnership-project) - [Endorsing Chief Officer(s):](#endorsing-chief-officers) - [Contact Details:](#contact-details) - [CONTENTS](#contents) - [APPENDICES](#appendices) - [REPEAT VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC BURGLARY](#repeat-victims-of-domestic-burglary) - [Summary](#summary) - [The problem was evidenced by:-](#the-problem-was-evidenced-by) - [Response to the problem was achieved by:](#response-to-the-problem-was-achieved-by) - [Impact of response and how measured?](#impact-of-response-and-how-measured) - [Introduction](#introduction) - [Scanning](#scanning) - [Analysis](#analysis) - [Repeat Burglaries](#repeat-burglaries) - [Response](#response) - [Assessment](#assessment) - [Victims](#victims) - [Benefit Recipient](#benefit-recipient) - [Property](#property) - ["Does the type of property make it more vulnerable to repeat victimisation?"](#does-the-type-of-property-make-it-more-vulnerable-to-repeat-victimisation) - [Preventative Measures](#preventative-measures) - [Security Lighting](#security-lighting) - [Timer Switch information](#timer-switch-information) - [Window locks](#window-locks) - [Neighbourhood Watch](#neighbourhood-watch) - [Repeat Offenders](#repeat-offenders) - [Apathy](#apathy) - [Predictive Characteristics](#predictive-characteristics) - [Footnote](#footnote) - [Conclusions](#conclusions) - [APPENDICES](#appendices) - [SECTION 1 - VICTIM DETAILS](#section-1-victim-details) - [SECTION 4 - SECURITY SURVEY](#section-4-security-survey) - [SAFE IN TEES VALLEY TARGET-HARDENING PROJECT](#safe-in-tees-valley-target-hardening-project) - [AUTHORISATION TO PASS INFORMATION TO ABOVE PROJECT](#authorisation-to-pass-information-to-above-project) - [Crime No.](#crime-no) - [SAFE IN TEES VALLEY TARGET-HARDENING PROJECT](#safe-in-tees-valley-target-hardening-project) - [AUTHORISATION TO PASS INFORMATION TO ABOVE PROJECT](#authorisation-to-pass-information-to-above-project) - [REPEAT BURGLARY DWELLING PROJECT](#repeat-burglary-dwelling-project) - [Safe in Tees Valley](#safe-in-tees-valley) - [Literature Review](#literature-review) - [Multiple burglary victims quizzed for research project](#multiple-burglary-victims-quizzed-for-research-project) - [Homing in on burglars](#homing-in-on-burglars) - [**G** 100K table shame](#g-100k-table-shame) - [By MIKE UNDERWOOD](#by-mike-underwood) - [High number of repeat offenders on Teessic](#high-number-of-repeat-offenders-on-teessic) - [The Tilley Award 2003 Partnership Project](#the-tilley-award-2003-partnership-project) # THE HERMAN GOLDSTEIN AWARD 2003 ## REPEAT VICTIMISATION DOMESTIC BURGLARY PROJECT ## PARTNERSHIP PROJECT Cleveland Police, Safe in Tees Valley and the Crime and Disorder Partnerships of: - Middlesbrough - Stockton - Hartlepool - Redcar and Cleveland - Darlington ## Endorsing Chief Officer(s): - Cleveland Police - Safe in Tees Valley - Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership ![img-2.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/03-54/img-2.jpeg) ## Contact Details: Mr Brian Neale, Project Manager, Safe in Tees Valley, Christine House, Sorbonne Close, Thornaby, STOCKTON ON TEES, TS17 6DA Tel: 01642306699 Cleveland Police - A/ACC (O) John Burke Safe in Tees Valley - Programme Director John Bentley Crime and Disorder Partnership - Mike Batty, Head of Community Protection, Stockton # CONTENTS 1. Summary 2. Scanning 3. Analysis 4. Response 5. Assessment 6. Conclusion ## APPENDICES 1. Table 15 - Predictive Characteristics by District 2. Victim Survey Questionnaires 3. Data Protection Forms 4. Letters to Victims 5. Literature Review 6. Letters of Thanks 7. Press Articles ![img-3.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/03-54/img-3.jpeg) Map illustrating the Tees Valley Region # REPEAT VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC BURGLARY ## Summary The government has put in place targets to reduce domestic burglary by $25 \%$ over the six year period April 1999 to March 2005. Central to addressing 'repeat' incidents should be a strategy to avoid becoming a repeat. Research by Safe in Tees Valley in 2001/2002 revealed the approach to domestic burglary repeats across the Cleveland Police area and the Darlington Division of Durham Constabulary was inconsistent and ineffective. This resulted in a poor service to victims and an inaccurate recording of crime details. Responses were often hampered by a lack of basic, timely information and no resources to address the problem. The project outline developed the initial work and aimed to: - Develop a way forward to prevent a first time burglary victim becoming a repeat victim. - Reduce the number of domestic burglaries through highlighting circumstances of repeats and the predictive characteristics. - Provide timely and effective intervention with repeats thereby improving service to victims. - Improve partnership working through information sharing. # The problem was evidenced by:- - Interviews with victims and completion of a comprehensive questionnaire. - Interviews with police officers at all levels. - Analysis of Crime data identified the high proportion of repeat victims. - Consultation with five Crime and Disorder Partnership Managers and associated agencies. Key to the project was contact with and collection of data from repeat burglary victims. Three factors were considered when assessing vulnerability and risk: - Property Type - Location - Victim Characteristics ## Response to the problem was achieved by: - Early intervention on a daily basis to identify and visit repeat victims. - Undertake thorough security survey. - Provide bespoke security improvement service to victims. - Improvement of victim reassurance by spending time with victims, providing advice and points of contact with police and other agencies. [^0] [^0]: * BCU = Police Basic Command Units CDRP = Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership C.P.O. = Crime Prevention Officer BVPI = Best Value Performance Indicator J.S.U. = Joint Strategy Unit H.M.I. C. = Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary Langhaurgh BCU police the Redcar and Cleveland council area - Develop a database to establish a profile of repeat victim/property characteristics. - Interview twelve post custody burglars. - A daily feedback to partners agencies. - Regular media campaigns. # Impact of response and how measured? - 250 victims received bespoke security improvements, the remainder receiving advice and/or security lighting. - 459 victims of repeat domestic burglary participated in the project. - Victims reassured - evidenced by letters of thanks. - First three months, post project term realised a o $36 \%$ reduction in number of repeat burglaries ( 357 to 262 ) o $27 \%$ reduction in first time burglaries (1913 to 1502) # Introduction The Tees Valley comprises of four BCU's * within Cleveland Police area and the Darlington Division of Durham Constabulary. This geographical area is serviced by five Local Strategic Partnerships and CDRP's * all co-terminus with each BCU. Safe in Tees Valley a unique sub regional Community Safety Partnership acts as a catalyst for many Crime Reduction and Community Safety Initiatives. This project had active support from: - All five CDRP Managers - All five Police BCU's from District Commander through to C.P.O's* - Victim Support Service - Age Concern - Youth Offending Team - Probation Service - Joint Strategy Unit - Government Office North East The project aimed to focus upon the victim, improve service to them and understand if repeat victimisation is linked to characteristic of the person living at the target property, or does the property make it more vulnerable to repeat victimisation? [^0] [^0]: * BCU = Police Basic Command Units CDRP = Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership C.P.O. = Crime Prevention Officer B VPI = Best Value Performance Indicator J.S. U. = Joint Strategy Unit H.M.I. C. = Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary Langhaugh BCU police the Redcar and Cleveland council area In accordance with the SARA problem solving model, this project was subject to constant review and modification. The project funded by Government Office for the North East under the auspices of the Partnership Development Fund employed 1.5 project workers from $15^{\text {th }}$ July 2002 until $31^{\text {st }}$ March 2003. All partners saw this high volume crime as a priority and in line with Government Targets the CDRP's identified this within their action plans 2002-2005. (Cleveland No 4 in HMIOMatrix of Indicators 2001-02). There was no BVPI* and no clear definition of a repeat victim. It was agreed, with partners the definition of a repeat victim for purposes of this project would be: Any Person who has been the victim of a dwelling house burglary or attempted burglary within a rolling twelve month period A key part of the project was contact with and collection of data from all repeat burglary victims. Three factors were considered when assessing vulnerability and risk: - Property Type - Location - Victim Characteristics [^0] [^0]: * BCU = Police Basic Command Units CDRP = Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership C.P.O. = Crime Prevention Officer B VPI = Best Value Performance Indicator J.S. U. = Joint Strategy Unit H.M.I.C. = Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary Langbaurgh BCU police the Redcar and Cleveland council area # Scanning The project commenced on $15^{\text {th }}$ July 2002. The team embarked upon a period of consultation to establish effectiveness of existing procedures. It also sought to gain consensus as to the best way forward in bringing partners together in meeting 'repeat' issues in a co-ordinated and structured form. Both forces had three tiered responses in place to deal with repeat victims. It appeared that only Darlington and Stockton were adhering to them. Using the SARA model a number of problems requiring remedial attention were identified: Table 1 - Problems, Response, Result | Problem | Response/Result | | :-- | :-- | | BCU's* retrieving repeat victim burglary crime information | Centrally based project team provided timely and accurate crime data to BCU's on a daily basis by accessing Crimes Recording systems in both police forces | | Differing levels of commitment to the problem of repeats | An agreed system of a priority approach implemented across all BCU's, i.e. victims visited with 24-48 hours, survey undertaken, security improvements carried out promptly | | Confusion over information sharing | Protocols introduced servicing the flow of data between agencies and across BCU's - Police, CDRP's * and Victim Support | | Poor quality of crime report details | Education and increased awareness of the need for accurate and comprehensive recording details | [^0] [^0]: * $B C U=$ Police Basic Command Units CDRP $=$ Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership C.P.O. $=$ Crime Prevention Officer BVPI $=$ Best Value Performance Indicator J.S.U. $=$ Joint Strategy Unit H.M.I. C. $=$ Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary Langbaugh BCU police the Redcar and Cleveland council area | Problem | Response/Result | | :--: | :--: | | No accurate or detailed analysis of who, what where or when the problem was arising | Project team in association with J.S.U.* took ownership of analytical function in providing statistical data at a force, BCU and ward level. Full breakdown provided in the guise of - Mapping - geographical distribution - Trends - Hotspots - Prevalence - Characteristics-victim/property/m.o. | | No funds for project to Target Harden Properties | Negotiations with police and CDRP's* ensured funding for Target Hardening | It was accepted that these deficiencies required urgent and detailed attention. This would only be achieved if dedicated resources e.g. C.P.O's, Crime Scene Investigators, Research staff and Local Authority Community Safety Departments were committed to the project. Ongoing consultation was the theme throughout this initiative with the Project Team providing and receiving feedback as to progress and developments at individual, group and organisational level. # Analysis The following methodology was adopted by the project team in its analysis: - Desk Research 0 - Consultation - Development of Working Practices - Data Collection and Analysis Issues Analysis confirmed that repeat domestic burglary was a significant problem across the Tees Valley, compounded by the fragmented and uncoordinated approach, evidenced across BCU's. Furthermore, inconsistent approaches by police officers and associated partners resulted in a poor service delivery to victims. It was established repeat activity across the Tees Valley mirrored trends across first time burglary offences. As can be seen at Table 2 local first time burglary trends are replicated nationally. Table 2 National and local domestic burglary figures | Year | National Burglary Figure | Cleveland Burglary Figure | Durham Burglary Figure | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | $\mathbf{9 9 / 0 0}$ | $\mathbf{4 4 2 , 6 0 2}$ | $\mathbf{7 7 1 7}$ | $\mathbf{4 0 4 4}$ | | $\mathbf{0 0 / 0 1}$ | $\mathbf{4 0 2 , 9 8 4}$ | $\mathbf{7 1 3 8}$ | $\mathbf{3 2 0 0}$ | | $\mathbf{0 1 / 0 2}$ | $\mathbf{4 3 0} \mathbf{6 1}$ | $\mathbf{8 2 3 5}$ | $\mathbf{4 0 2 3}$ | | $\mathbf{0 2 / 0 3}$ | | $\mathbf{7 3 2 1}$ | $\mathbf{3 0 8 3}$ | (Figure for 02/03 n/a) 0 See literature review in appendices section [^0] [^0]: * $B C U=$ Police Basic Command Units CDRP $=$ Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership C.P.O. $=$ Crime Prevention Officer BVP1 $=$ Best Value Performance Indicator J.S. U. $=$ Joint Strategy Unit H.M.I.C. $=$ Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary Langbaurgh BCU police the Redcar and Cleveland council area The project team identified a discrepancy, in that the data search of repeat victims from the Cleveland system suggested double counting. In order to ensure accuracy each record during the project term was re-examined. As a result, duplicate records were consolidated into a single record to reflect an accurate figure. A $21 \%$ reduction of the original figure was confirmed after the re examination. Cleveland Police are now reviewing the situation. This will result in the introduction of an additional standard report, consolidating any double counted record. The project team throughout the initiative maintained a manual independent system, which mirrored the findings of the re-examination. See table 3 Table 3- Repeat Burglary figures (21.8.02 - 21.01.03) | District | Total no of burglaries per district | No of repeats | | --- | --- | --- | | Hartlepool | 607 | 95 | | Middlesbrough | 1033 | 233 | | Stockton | 936 | 154 | | Langbaurgh | 320 | 36 | | Total - Cleveland | 2896 | 518 | | Darlington | 318 | 17 | Data received from Darlington used a victim only search. Findings indicated an anomaly. By searching on location and victim, 7 additional repeat victims were [^0] [^0]: * $B C U=$ Police Basic Command Units ``` CDRP $=$ Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership C.P.O. $=$ Crime Prevention Officer BVPI $=$ Best Value Performance Indicator J.S.U. $=$ Joint Strategy Unit H.M.I. C. $=$ Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary Langhaurgh BCU police the Redcar and Cleveland council area ``` identified. It is essential that all relevant searches are carried out in order to ensure an accurate reflection of the problem. This issue has been raised with senior police managers at Darlington. # Repeat Burglaries Table 4 represents the percentage of repeat burglaries against district totals. During the project term there were 2896 offences of domestic burglary in the Cleveland area, $518(18 \%)$ were repeat victims. $20 \%$ of house burglaries were repeat crimes. Table $4-\%$ of repeats against district total $(21.8 .02-21.01 .03)$ | District | Total no of domestic burglaries per district | No of repeats | \% of repeats against district domestic burglaries | | :-- | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Hartlepool | 607 | 95 | $16 \%$ | | Middlesbrough | 1033 | 233 | $22.5 \%$ | | Stockton | 936 | 154 | $16 \%$ | | Langbaurgh | 320 | 36 | $11 \%$ | | Darlington | 318 | 17 | $5 \%$ | [^0] [^0]: * $B C U=$ Police Basic Command Units CDR P $=$ Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership C.P.O. = Crime Prevention Officer BVPI = Best Value Performance Indicator J.S.U. = Joint Strategy Unit H.M.I. C. = Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary Langbaurgh BCU police the Redcar and Cleveland council area Table 5 identifies BCU contributions to the problem Table 5 -BCU \% of problem (21.8.02 - 21.01.03) | District | Total No of repeats - forcewide | No of repeats per district | \% of repeats against total no of repeats - forcewide | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Hartlepool | 518 | 95 | $18 \%$ | | Middlesbrough | 518 | 233 | $45 \%$ | | Stockton | 518 | 154 | $30 \%$ | | Langbaurgh | 518 | 36 | $7 \%$ | | Darlington | $\mathrm{n} / \mathrm{a}$ | 17 | $\mathrm{n} / \mathrm{a}$ | Note N/A = data unavailable Survey Information All identified repeat victims were visited in an attempt to bring them into the project. $70 \%$ participated and personal data together with security information was collated for analysis purposes. The Joint Strategy Unit, and a Research Officer at Safe in Tees Valley analysed crime and survey data. Survey information revealed: - Trends - Hotspots - Predictive characteristics High crime is associated with socially deprived areas. [^0] [^0]: * $B C U=$ Police Basic Command Units ``` CDRP = Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership C.P.O. = Crime Prevention Officer BVPI = Best Value Performance Indicator J.S. U. = Joint Strategy Unit H.M.I. C. = Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary Langbaurgh BCU police the Redcar and Cleveland council area ``` # Response Through consultation at practitioner and strategic level the project was taken forward. A systematic and time banded project plan was established. The project life was nine months, incorporating a five months data collection period. Key areas within the process were: - Project Team provided repeat crime details to each BCU on a daily basis, from computerised crime recording systems. - Database and data sets were developed and maintained by the project team. - Districts adopted a high priority response, delivered by C.P.O's. This response was agreed by all BCU's and CDRP's. - When C.P.O's could not make contact with victim the details were referred to the project team who would undertake victim visits. - Those victims who proved difficult to contact were written to on two occasions with an average of up to five visits spread between the C.P.O's and the project team. - Bespoke target hardening was carried out with priority to vulnerable victims. - Convicted burglars were interviewed to establish what crime prevention methods deterred them. - All completed questionnaires were returned to project team and entered onto database for monitoring and evaluation purposes. [^0] [^0]: * BCU = Police Basic Command Units CDRP = Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership C.P.O. = Crime Prevention Officer BVPI = Best Value Performance Indicator J.S.U. = Joint Strategy Unit H.M.I. C. = Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary Langhaurgh BCU police the Redcar and Cleveland council area - Project Team attended burglary task groups and other crime initiative meetings to share'good practice and provide project updates. - To generate and maintain press/media interest. The resulting database provided detail of trends during project activity and established a profile of repeat victim characteristics that informed intervention strategies throughout the Tees Valley sub region. It was considered by the Project Team that the 'offender element' played a significant part in understanding repeat domestic burglaries. 'Wo offender no burglary". A number of convicted burglars were interviewed in an attempt establish what deters them from committing a burglary. As a result arrangements were made, through the Hartlepool Dordrecht scheme to interview convicted burglars, all of whom had served custodial sentences. Footnote The Hartlepool Dordrecht Initiative is a partnership between the local Police, the Probation Service, the Health Authority and other agencies to reduce offending by persistent post custody adult burglars in the Hartlepool area. [^0] [^0]: * BCU = Police Basic Command Units CDRP = Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership C.P.O. = Crime Prevention Officer BVPI = Best Value Performance Indicator J.S.U. = Joint Strategy Unit H.M.I. C. = Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary Langhaurgh BCU police the Redcar and Cleveland council area # Assessment The project was costed and the project team with support of the police and local authorities ensured adequate resources were assigned to the problem, (C.P.O'S, Local Authority Community Safety Department staff and Analytical capabilities). Ongoing consultation and feedback with partners were key elements for project direction. Formal and informal meetings were held regularly. Amendments were made to: a) the composition of the survey report form b) Project team taking over visits to victims (after accreditation by C.P.O's to undertake surveys). A minority of victims however failed to respond to any attempts at contact. Some external surveys were therefore undertaken where property details only were obtained in an effort to gather as much information as possible for project use. ## Victims Is repeat victimisation linked to the characteristic of the person living at the target property? [^0] [^0]: * $B C U=$ Police Basic Command Units CDRP = Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership C.P.O. = Crime Prevention Officer B VPI = Best Value Performance Indicator J.S.U. = Joint Strategy Unit H.M.I.C. = Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary Langbaurgh BCU police the Redcar and Cleveland council area Single unemployed females in the 25-44 year age bracket appeared more likely to suffer a repeat attack on their property. Table 6 - Gender/Age etc (21.8.02 - 21.01.03) | District | Female | Age 25-44 | Unemployed | Single | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Hartlepool | $48 \%$ | $33 \%$ | $39 \%$ | $19 \%$ | | Middlesbrough | $53 \%$ | $34 \%$ | $31 \%$ | $34 \%$ | | Stockton | $43 \%$ | $29 \%$ | $27 \%$ | $15 \%$ | | Langbaurgh | $50 \%$ | $44 \%$ | $35 \%$ | $29 \%$ | | Darlington | $50 \%$ | $37 \%$ | $25 \%$ | $50 \%$ | # Benefit Recipient Benefit recipients were more likely to become a repeat victim. This research supports this in all districts, with the exception of Darlington; where more victims were in receipt of benefit than were not. See Table 7 ![img-4.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/03-54/img-4.jpeg) # Property ## "Does the type of property make it more vulnerable to repeat victimisation?" Targeted properties were houses and more specifically older terraced properties Methods of entry varied across the five districts and appeared to be dictated by age, style and location. Middlesbrough continued to suffer rear alleyway attacks, whereas in Hartlepool and Stockton the front door was the popular point of entry. 'Is vulnerability, in terms of repeat victimisation associated with specific geographic locations? " [^0] [^0]: * $B C U=$ Police Basic Command Units CDRP = Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership C.P.O. = Crime Prevention Officer BVPI = Best Value Performance Indicator J.S.U. = Joint Strategy Unit H.M.I. C. = Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary Langhaurgh BCU police the Redcar and Cleveland council area Domestic burglary would appear to have a concentration in town centre areas, with Middlesbrough experiencing higher levels. - This project has shown that, albeit not exhaustive, evidence indicates that it is the geographic area, rather than the property which increases the probability of it being burgled. - Analysis at ward level revealed that those areas with the highest burglary rates tended to experience the highest percentage of 'repeats'. - This initiative has shown that repeat victimisation tends to occur in those areas with higher levels of poverty. - Repeat offences also occur in areas where there are less owner occupied houses and more 'other' tenure properties, including those owned by private landlords. This suggests repeat victimisation has an association with the less stable, more transient population. - Of 459 properties broken into 236 were at houses over fifty years old, compared to: \begin{array}{ll} \text { Property under } 10 \text { years } & =4 \\ \text { Property } 10-19 \text { Years } & =8 \\ \text { Property } 20-29 \text { years } & =22 \\ \text { Property } 30-39 \text { years } & =44 \\ \text { Property } 40-49 \text { years } & =66 \end{array} o Older properties tend to have wooden windows/doors which are easier for a burglar to force. o Many older properties are not maintained and again provide ease of opportunity for the offender. - Window locks - the majority of victims did have window locks fitted however this has not stopped them being attacked; Middlesbrough and Langbaurgh demonstrated that the preferred point of entry was via a rear window - see table 8. Table 8 - Entry points (21.8.02-21.01.03) | District | Front door | Rear door | Side door | Patio door | Front window | Rear window | Side window | Window locks fitted | | :-- | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Hartlepool | $\mathbf{4 0 \%}$ | $\mathbf{1 9 \%}$ | $\mathbf{1 \%}$ | $5 \%$ | $4 \%$ | $23 \%$ | $\mathbf{1 \%}$ | $28 \%$ | | Middlesbrough | $\mathbf{2 9 \%}$ | $\mathbf{2 2 \%}$ | $\mathbf{0 . 9 \%}$ | $.9 \%$ | $4 \%$ | $31 \%$ | $\mathbf{1 \%}$ | $45 \%$ | | Stockton | $\mathbf{2 7 \%}$ | $\mathbf{1 5 \%}$ | $\mathbf{2 \%}$ | $7 \%$ | $4 \%$ | $24 \%$ | $\mathbf{2 \%}$ | $40 \%$ | | Langhaurgh | $\mathbf{2 0 . 5 \%}$ | $\mathbf{8 \%}$ | nil | nil | $6 \%$ | $35 \%$ | $\mathbf{9 \%}$ | $47 \%$ | | Darlington | $\mathbf{1 2 . 5 \%}$ | $\mathbf{2 5 \%}$ | nil | nil | $12.5 \%$ | $\mathbf{2 5 \%}$ | nil | $75 \%$ | - Point of entry into property across the five districts appeared varied and dictated by age, style and location. - In view of the disparate points of entry consideration should be given (funding permitting) to providing a bespoke service in relation to security improvements. In essence an odd timer switch, [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{6} B C U=$ Police Basic Command Units $C D R P=$ Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership C.P.O. $=$ Crime Prevention Officer BVPI = Best Value Performance Indicator J.S.U. = Joint Strategy Unit H.M.I. C. = Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary Langbaurgh BCU police the Redcar and Cleveland council area door bolt or chain may be of some assistance, but experience has found that bespoke target hardening is the only way forward. This has been accepted in all CDRP's who are in the process of identifying funds for this purpose. - Terraced housing is more vulnerable than any other type of housing, with mid terraced houses being the most open to attack (not end terrace property). - Analysis has indicated more houses without alarms are attacked, as opposed to those fitted with a functioning system. Offenders interviewed were ambivalent to alarms, but did indicate a limited preference to break into property where no alarm was fitted, see table 9 . Table 9 - Alarms fitted -victim survey data ![img-5.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/03-54/img-5.jpeg) Table 10 clearly shows that the majority of burglar alarms were not in use at the time of the repeat burglary. There is a clear need to educate the public into the benefits of using an alarm system. This was addressed by media campaigns and provision of specific crime prevention literature. Table 10 - Alarms in use ![img-6.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/03-54/img-6.jpeg) # Preventative Measures ## Security Lighting Whilst there has been an increase in the use of internal timer switches during the project term (Cleveland held a Light against Crime Campaign) there is still a need to educate the public in relation to the use of outside security lighting. The tables below gives clear evidence to support this. Offenders did say security lighting deterred them. [^0] [^0]: * $B C U=$ Police Basic Command Units CDRP $=$ Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership C.P.O. $=$ Crime Prevention Officer BVPI = Best Value Performance Indicator J.S.U. = Joint Strategy Unit H.M.I.C. = Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary Langhaurgh BCU police the Redcar and Cleveland council area # Timer Switch information Table 11 - Internal timer switches | District | Total No. not having internal timer switches (project term) | Total No. not having timer switches Nov 2002 | | :-- | :--: | :--: | | Hartlepool | $39 \%$ | $90 \%$ | | Middlesbrough | $57 \%$ | $97 \%$ | | Stockton | $35 \%$ | $89 \%$ | | Langbaurgh | $56 \%$ | $100 \%$ | | Darlington | $100 \%$ | $100 \%$ | Table 2 - External security lighting | District | Property did not have security lighting | | :-- | :--: | | Hartlepool | $41 \%$ | | Middlesbrough | $57 \%$ | | Stockton | $48 \%$ | | Langbaurgh | $47 \%$ | | Darlington | $25 \%$ | ## Window locks $41 \%$ of houses broken into did have window locks fitted - see table 13 Window access is the second most popular choice of entry by burglars. It appears that window locks are not acting as a deterrent. C.P.O's are aware of this and take note when giving advice? [^0] [^0]: * $B C U=$ Police Basic Command Units CDRP $=$ Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership C.P.O. $=$ Crime Prevention Officer BVPI = Best Value Performance Indicator J.S. U. = Joint Strategy Unit H.M.I. C. = Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary Langbaurgh BCU police the Redcar and Cleveland council area ![img-7.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/03-54/img-7.jpeg) # Neighbourhood Watch $93 \%$ of victims interviewed were unaware if schemes existed in their area. There is a clear need to keep schemes focused and informed for them to be impactive in any crime reduction programme. The sub region is now actively seeking a co-ordinator to focus upon a more dynamic approach, with links to the National Intelligence Model. ## Repeat Offenders Twelve interviews with offenders revealed common themes about offender behaviour: - The majority committed burglaries in their own locality and on foot "where they felt safe". [^0] [^0]: * $B C U=$ Police Basic Command Units CDRP $=$ Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership C.P.O. $=$ Crime Prevention Officer BVPI $=$ Best Value Performance Indicator J.S.U. $=$ Joint Strategy Unit H.M.I. C. $=$ Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary Langbaugh BCU police the Redcar and Cleveland council area - $25 \%$ spoke of third party involvement., milkmen, taxi drivers and window cleaners were responsible for supplying details of empty houses. - Most were opportunist and decided on the spot to select a certain property. - Alarms do deter them, but one did speak of foaming boxes and cutting wires. - Double glazing did not deter them, as some double glazed windows can be 'popped' quite effortlessly. - Security lighting does act as a deterrent. A house in darkness is classed as an open invitation. External lights such as Dusk 'til dawn lights, which create a permanent pool of light, do create problems. However Passive Infra Red lights, can be pushed aside, letting them work in darkness. - Noise does concern them, but they are prepared to force a window/door "who takes any notice of one thud". Once inside a property their first priority is to identify their egress. - They will put a chair or similar object against the door in the room where they are working to frustrate any entry by the occupier. - $70 \%$ decided not to return to the same address as they assume that the householder would have tightened up security. - $30 \%$ returned to the same property to steal items identified on their first visit. They now know the layout of the property and felt that they had secured a successful escape route. # Apathy During the project it was essential to gather as much information from victims as possible. When C.P.O's failed to make contact with the victim, they referred the details to the project team for them to pursue the matter. The project team would telephone, write, cold call, leave calling cards and send an 'opt out' letter (this gives a specific appointment time when a project officer will call, putting the onus on the victim to either keep the appointment or re-arrange). When asked why they hadn't responded, the explanations offered were varied: - Some meant to reply but had forgotten. - Others said they could not be bothered. - A shrug of the shoulders with no reason given. - They had not thought it important or a priority. - "What can the Police do" - they are too busy to care. A minority however failed to respond to any attempts at contact. On a few occasions appointments were made, and although there was quite clearly somebody at home they would not answer the door. This prompts the question "why?" Police officers often have a 'gut' reaction to the validity of the offence. However, these 'thoughts' are not recorded as a matter of course. - Officer's should investigate rather than simply take a report. - Was it a false report in the first instance? - the "victim?" uncomfortable with the extra attention given. - Would they resist contact with anyone from an official office? - Do they have criminal connections and will therefore oppose any contact with the police? # Predictive Characteristics Research suggests there are many characteristics that can inform partners as to 'who' could be a potential repeat victim of a domestic burglary. These characteristics if recognised in the first instance, could prevent a first time burglary victim become a 'repeat victim'. These characteristics include: - Single person (26\%) - Benefit recipient (32\%) - Female (49\%) - Aged 25-44 years (33\%) - Unemployed (31\%) - Property over 50 year old especially Victorian back to back housing $(51 \%)$. [^0] [^0]: * BCU = Police Basic Command Units CDR P = Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership C.P.O. = Crime Prevention Officer BVPI = Best Value Performance Indicator J.S. U. = Joint Strategy Unit H.M.I. C. = Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary Langhuargh BCU police the Redcar and Cleveland council area - Terraced Housing (39\%). - Wooden windows/doors ( $56 \%$ \& 76\% respectively). - Not owner occupied (48\%). - Entry via rear window or front door ( $28 \%$ \& 29\% respectively). - Security Lighting/timer switches not in use $51 \%$ \& 49\% respectively). This list, merely describes the typical characteristics of most personal circumstances of residents in the deprived, high burglary areas of the Tees Valley. Table 14 displays closer analysis at district level showing features most vulnerable to repeat victimisation. # Footnote Percentages reflect data from survey questionnaires [^0] [^0]: * BCU = Police Basic Command Units CDRP = Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership C.P.O. = Crime Prevention Officer BVPI = Best Value Performance Indicator J.S.U. = Joint Strategy Unit H.M.I. C. = Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary Langbuergh BCU police the Redcar and Cleveland council area ![img-8.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/03-54/img-8.jpeg) Table 15 (see appendix section) also illustrates individual characteristics specific to each district but includes relevant figures. The salient points from the survey report were included. In an attempt to collect as much information as possible, some external surveys of properties were undertaken when victims were unavailable. This enabled details to be gathered which related to windows, doors natural surveillance etc however victim data could not be obtained. Victims should be singled out for closer attention when identified as a repeat, mechanisms are required to identify and act on these indicators following first time [^0] [^0]: * $B C U=$ Police Basic Command Units CDRP = Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership C.P.O. = Crime Prevention Officer B VPI = Best Value Performance Indicator J.S.U. = Joint Strategy Unit H.M.I. C. = Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary Langbaurgh BCU police the Redcar and Cleveland council area burglaries. A truly preventative strategy would identify this vulnerable group and proactively assist them to reduce their risk before the potential event. The project has made an immediate impact in the following areas: Comparisons were made between the $1^{\text {st }}$ three months of the project term and the $1^{\text {st }}$ three months post project term: - $36 \%$ reduction in repeat domestic burglary (357 to 262). - $27 \%$ reduction in domestic burglary (1913 to 1502). - Evidence of improved victim satisfaction in relation to service provided by all partner agencies. - An acknowledgement by all partner agencies that the project has provided a consistent and structured way forward in tackling burglary and repeat burglary activity. The Police Standards Unit recognising the merits of this project are supporting an opportunity for Cleveland Police to put in place a composite Force model dealing with burglary with an emphasis on repeats from report through to investigation. This pilot scheme will then be rolled out nationally to all Forces. [^0] [^0]: * $B C U=$ Police Basic Command Units CDR P = Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership C.P.O. = Crime Prevention Officer BVPI = Best Value Performance Indicator J.S.U. = Joint Strategy Unit H.M.I. C. = Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabulary Langhburgh BCU police the Redcar and Cleveland council area # Conclusions A Director of Crime has been appointed in the Cleveland force area and has ownership of burglary. As a result of the research the following recommendations were offered to all partners as a potential way forward in reducing both first time and Repeat domestic burglary activity: - A strategy to prevent repeat domestic burglary should incorporate an approach to prevent the first time burglary victim becoming a repeat. - The research team identified good practice within Langbaurgh, which has in place a team with a cross section of skills responding to the issue of burglary and repeat victimisation. Throughout this initiative it has been suggested other districts may wish to assess the merits of Langbaurgh's approach. - First time burglary victims should be dealt with to a consistent standard and utilising predictive characteristics potential repeat victims could be identified. - Aide memoirs should be available to every officer ensuring consistency when dealing with burglary and repeat issues. - Bespoke security measures for victims are essential. - Where victims are proving difficult to contact an 'opt out' letter should be considered. This provides the victim with an appointment time when an officer will attend, thereby putting the onus upon the victim to re-arrange. - Multi skilling officers would prevent numerous calls by staff from different departments, who may not necessarily liaise with one another to share vital [^0] [^0]: * BCU = Police Basic Command Units CDRP = Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership C.P.O. = Crime Prevention Officer BVPI = Best Value Performance Indicator J.S.U. = Joint Strategy Unit H.M.I.C. =Her Majeviles Inspectorate of Constabulary Langbaurgh BCU police the Redcar and Cleveland council area information. Officers are encouraged to challenge potential spurious repeats and be robust in their questioning of 'victims'. - Darlington Division, should consider reviewing their identification criteria, e.g. undertake a location search. - Replacement doors and windows etc should of an appropriate standard. - Regular analysis of burglary and repeat burglary activity needs to be a constant in terms of location and volume - the problem is fluid. - Respond to burglary to be consistent and commensurate with variations of victim and property attacked, e.g. vulnerable victim, walk in, distraction, bogus official and void property. # APPENDICES 1. Table 15 - Predictive Characteristics by District 2. Victim Survey Questionnaires 3. Data Protection Forms 4. Letters to Victims 5. Literature Review 6. Letters of Thanks 7. Press Articles Table 15 - Predictive Characteristics by District | | HARTLEPOOL | MIDDLESBROUGH | STOCKTON | LANGBAURGH | BABLINGTON | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | PROPERTY | | | | | | | Rented | $51 \%$ | $51 \%$ | $37 \%$ | $65 \%$ | - | | Owner Occupied | - | - | - | - | $50 \%$ | | Over 50 years old | $51 \%$ | $63 \%$ | $29 \%$ | $63 \%$ | $87 \%$ | | Mix of council/ private | $41 \%$ | - | - | - | - | | Council/Housing Assoc | - | $33 \%$ | - | - | - | | Private Housing | - | - | - | - | $50 \%$ | | Terraced | $52 \%$ | $45 \%$ | $27 \%$ | - | - | | End Terraced | - | - | - | $29 \%$ | - | | Semi Detached | - | - | - | - | $50 \%$ | | Has rear alley | $61 \%$ | $45 \%$ | $19 \%$ | $20 \%$ | $25 \%$ | | House | $65 \%$ | $77 \%$ | $65 \%$ | $55 \%$ | $75 \%$ | | MODUS OPERAND | | | | | | | Entry - insecure Front door | $40 \%$ | - | $27 \%$ | - | - | | Force rear Door | - | - | - | - | $25 \%$ | | Force rear window | - | $31 \%$ | - | $35 \%$ | $25 \%$ | | Distraction buralary | $5 \%$ | $2 \%$ | $2 \%$ | nil | $12 \%$ | | Bogus Official | $1 \%$ | $2 \%$ | $3 \%$ | nil | $12 \%$ | | Property Occupied | $31 \%$ | $35 \%$ | $38 \%$ | $18 \%$ | $25 \%$ | | PREVENTION | | | | | | | Alarmed - yes | $13 \%$ | $33 \%$ | $24 \%$ | $15 \%$ | $12 \%$ | | External Security lights-yes | $21 \%$ | $21 \%$ | $25 \%$ | $26 \%$ | $75 \%$ | | Window Locks yes | $28 \%$ | $45 \%$ | $40 \%$ | $47 \%$ | $75 \%$ | | Property Security marked - yes | $9 \%$ | $5 \%$ | $5 \%$ | $18 \%$ | $37 \%$ | | Knew of Neighbourhood Watch-yes | $5 \%$ | $4 \%$ | $12 \%$ | $6 \%$ | $25 \%$ | | Internal timer switches - yes | $12 \%$ | $5 \%$ | $8 \%$ | $18 \%$ | nil | | VICTIM | | | | | | | 24-44 years | $33 \%$ | $34 \%$ | $33 \%$ | $44 \%$ | $37 \%$ | | Female | $48 \%$ | $53 \%$ | $49 \%$ | $50 \%$ | $50 \%$ | | Unemployed | $38 \%$ | - | - | $35 \%$ | - | | Employed | - | $31 \%$ | $28 \%$ | - | $50 \%$ | | Receiving Benefits | $34 \%$ | $34 \%$ | $24 \%$ | $50 \%$ | $50 \%$ | ![img-9.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/03-54/img-9.jpeg) # SECTION 1 - VICTIM DETAILS ![img-10.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/03-54/img-10.jpeg) Does the property have good natural surveillance? Front: Yes $\quad \mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{in}} \quad \mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{in}} \square_{\mathrm{in}} \quad$ Rear: Yes $\mathrm{Q}_{\mathrm{in}} \quad \mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{in}} \square_{\mathrm{ra}}$ Is the property well maintained? Are the grounds well maintained? Is the property adjacent to fields? Are the grounds are in field? Is the property adjacent to a track/path? Yes $n