---
title: "Reducing Dwelling Burglaries in Areas which Repeatedly Suffer High Rates"
type: "pdf"
year: "2017"
canonical: "/projects/388"
---

# Reducing dwelling burglaries in areas which repeatedly suffer high rates in County Durham, UK. 

# Table of Contents

- [Reducing dwelling burglaries in areas which repeatedly suffer high rates in County Durham, UK.](#reducing-dwelling-burglaries-in-areas-which-repeatedly-suffer-high-rates-in-county-durham-uk)
  - [1. Summary (394 words)](#1-summary-394-words)
- [2. Description (3991 words)](#2-description-3991-words)
  - [A. Scanning](#a-scanning)
- [B. Analysis](#b-analysis)
- [C. Response](#c-response)
- [Analysis - PAT - $1^{\text {st }}$ Layer](#analysis-pat-1text-st-layer)
  - [Analysis PAT - $2^{\text {nd }}$ Layer](#analysis-pat-2text-nd-layer)
- [Guardian of the Victim](#guardian-of-the-victim)
  - [Handlers of the Offenders](#handlers-of-the-offenders)
- [D. Assessment](#d-assessment)
- [3. Agency and Officer Information:](#3-agency-and-officer-information)
- [4. Appendices](#4-appendices)
  - [Appendix 1 - Scanning and Analysis- Tables, Charts, Graphs](#appendix-1-scanning-and-analysis-tables-charts-graphs)
  - [Locations for Significant Jewellery Burglary Activity](#locations-for-significant-jewellery-burglary-activity)
- [Neville's Cross (D5C/D5D)](#nevilles-cross-d5cd5d)
- [North Lodge (G1A)](#north-lodge-g1a)
- [Locations for Significant Burglary Activity](#locations-for-significant-burglary-activity)
  - [Delves Lane (I1B)](#delves-lane-i1b)
- [Bournmoor (G4C)](#bournmoor-g4c)
- [Edenhill North E1D](#edenhill-north-e1d)
  - [Appendix 2 - Assessment](#appendix-2-assessment)
- [1. High Grange Estate](#1-high-grange-estate)
- [2. Neville's Cross](#2-nevilles-cross)
  - [3. North Lodge](#3-north-lodge)
- [Remaining Burglary Locations](#remaining-burglary-locations)
  - [4. Delves Lane](#4-delves-lane)
- [5. Bournmoor](#5-bournmoor)
- [6. Edenhill North](#6-edenhill-north)

## 1. Summary (394 words)

This problem solving plan recognised that certain areas, at a local neighbourhood level, such as a housing estate or a group of streets, repeatedly suffer higher rates of dwelling house burglaries year on year compared to other areas.

The plan set out to identify the areas which had suffered high rates of repeat dwelling burglaries; target available funding into some of these areas and to measure the effectiveness of this targeted funding by identifying 6 target and 6 control areas within Durham Constabulary.

The objectives were:
i. To reduce the rate of dwelling burglaries in areas which have suffered high rates of repeat offences.
ii. To target funding effectively and efficiently.
iii. To maintain and improve confidence of residents and the community.

The hypothesis identified was that offenders were repeatedly targeting areas which they were familiar with and which had previously proved lucrative. Visible and behavioural changes would alter the offender's perception and deter them from returning to that area.

This was supported by research relating to Routine Activity Theory, Rational Choice Theory and Optimal Foraging Theory.

Physical security within the target areas was reviewed and the most appropriate and efficient crime prevention tactics were identified. An emphasis was placed upon the engagement of local residents

through the strengthening and promotion of Neighbourhood Watch schemes as well as a multiagency approach to promote improvements not only in physical security measures, but also in residents and other agencies working together to prevent further dwelling burglaries from occurring through improved communication and guardianship.

A bespoke response for each area was agreed and implemented in conjunction with local Neighbourhood Teams, Neighbourhood Watch, Volunteers and Housing Associations.

Assessment of the burglary rates in the target areas revealed that the burglary rates in the areas which had been targeted were improved (i.e. had a lower rate) than those in the control areas, as well as than those in the same beat, sector and force areas.

The assessment supported the hypothesis that targeted crime prevention reduces dwelling burglary rates. Consideration of the behaviour of victims alongside physical security, strongly supported the notion that education and advice which changes behaviour is a crucial aspect to effective crime prevention. The conclusion drawn from this was that improving the behaviour and cohesion of victims should be promoted alongside the introduction of physical deterrents in order to improve guardianship in vulnerable locations.

# 2. Description (3991 words) 

## A. Scanning

1. What was the nature of the problem? The nature of the problem was that certain areas, at a local neighbourhood level, in Durham Constabulary's policing area repeatedly suffered dwelling house burglaries year on year at a higher level than other areas.
2. How was the problem identified? This problem was identified through an awareness of dealing not only with individual victims who were repeatedly targeted but also from a wider awareness that a location may be repeatedly targeted at a street or housing estate level.

3. Who identified the problem? This was identified through police managers and researchers being aware of crime patterns over several years. It was observed that certain locations appeared to attract higher rates of dwelling burglary than others. Scanning identified the locations which were repeatedly targeted for dwelling burglaries (see appendix 1).
4. How and why was this problem selected for special attention? The issue of dwelling burglary was selected for special attention as the reduction of dwelling burglary has been a long term organisational objective. This was due to the psychological impact it has upon victims. This reinforced the importance of improving dwelling burglary prevention as well as reacting to the problem by pursuing and prosecuting offenders.
5. What was the initial unit of analysis? The unit of analysis were locations such as a small residential housing estate or group of streets which had been subject to repeated episodes of dwelling burglary. The amount of burglaries which had occurred in the location as a whole was measured rather than just the number of repeat victims in that location. Dwellings which were uninhabited were excluded due to the lesser impact upon the victim in such cases and the fact that this type of burglary had recently been subject to a separate problem solving initiative. Searches therefore excluded vacant/empty/derelict properties to filter out new builds or properties under renovation where the motive was likely be boiler or metal thefts. Scanning also took into consideration the activity and offending patterns of serial dwelling burglars and Organised Crime Groups.

# B. Analysis 

1. What methods, data and information sources were used to analyse the problem? In order to analyse the problem, 6 target areas and 6 control areas were identified. This involved identifying locations where there had been significant levels of dwelling burglary activity over the past 5 years between April 2010 and March 2015. 6 of these locations were identified as being subject to burglaries where cash and jewellery were being sought. These burglaries included speculative

crimes where addresses were targeted by a number of organised teams. With these 6 locations, 3 were identified as target locations which received coordinated crime prevention activity and the remaining 3 remained untouched, thereby acting as controls. The remaining 6 locations were areas which had seen significant dwelling burglary activity over the past 5 years where the stolen property was more general. Again, 3 of these received crime prevention activity and the remaining 3 remained untouched, thereby acting as controls. With each of the 6 target locations analysis of the property types targeted, the modus operandi, including point and method of entry and basic crime pattern analysis maps were collated to assist in identifying vulnerabilities. These are demonstrated in Appendix 1. The methodology involved running I-Base searches including modus information from the force's crime database to identify property types targeted, and the point and method of entry. The first search included a property element which identified those burglaries where jewellery, cash and watches were targeted. When the outcomes from this search were mapped, they identified the 6 significant areas of jewellery/cash burglary activity. When these 6 locations were identified the search was rerun without the property option, so that all of the burglaries from these locations were included. This was to enable the inclusion of the attempts, and also the crimes where the property taken has not been recorded on the crime recording database. This search enabled the crimes where houses were ransacked and no property taken to be included. This is significant as there were a number burglaries where the offenders would leave empty handed. The second search was then run as above, but without the property search element. This identified the remaining 6 burglary locations. The outcomes provided areas which differed slightly in size but were similar enough to allow effective comparison.
2. How often and how long was it a problem? Repeat dwelling burglaries had been an issue in these areas for at least 5 years. The period of 5 years was used to analyse data and ensure that locations were identified which had been subject to repeated dwelling burglaries over each year.

Therefore, the problem solving activity was implemented in locations where it was most worthwhile.
3. Who was involved in this problem and what were their respective motivations, gains and losses? Involved in this problem, were victims who were residents in either privately owned or rented housing with a range of incomes and backgrounds. Offenders included a range of burglars including, opportunistic, organised, individual and group offenders. Intelligence identified that some groups, particularly those seeking cash and jewellery were travelling long distances from other areas of the region. They were motivated by the opportunity to steal items of significant value where the benefits outweighed the risks of being caught. Covert policing tactics revealed certain burglary teams going to great lengths to prepare by revisiting and scoping areas on several occasions, carefully planning their offences. They would also ensure minimal forensic evidence was left at the scene. This was exemplified by one group of offenders observed throwing their footwear from their moving vehicle after leaving the scene of a burglary.
4. What harms resulted from the problem? The harm caused was significant. This included the physical element of the loss of property, financial loss and damage to property. More significantly, psychological damage was caused to individuals and the confidence of families and communities in the authorities' ability to maintain their safety was being damaged in specific locations.
5. How was the problem being addressed before the problem solving project? The problem had been addressed previously through reactive investigation and the prosecution of offenders. There was also general crime prevention advice available but this was not focussed on an area as a whole and was implemented only after a burglary had occurred. There was some very effective investigative work to prosecute several offenders and Organised Crime Groups resulting in a number of custodial sentences. However the detection rate for dwelling burglary at this time was approximately $20 \%$ and therefore highlighted the importance of an approach which would prevent and reduce burglary, rather than just relying upon reactive investigation.

6. What did the analysis reveal about the nature and extent of the problem? The analysis made it clear that various groups of criminals repeatedly focussed their burglary activity within relatively small locations within a cross section of small and medium sized towns across the Durham Constabulary area. Each of the locations had been subjected to burglary activity year on year over the past 5 years, rather than a single wave of burglary activity that may have resulted from the actions of one individual. Some locations such as Neville's Cross and North Lodge were targeted by various jewellery burglary teams over the past 5 years. The longer term problem solving approach in these locations was therefore warranted.
7. What did the analysis reveal about the causes and underlying conditions that precipitated the problem? The analysis resulted in the hypothesis that offenders were repeatedly targeting areas which they were familiar with and which had previously proved lucrative. Further to this, visible and behavioural changes would alter the offender's perception and deter them from returning to that area. In effect, a change both in the physical environment and in the behaviour of victims would increase the perceived risks of offending in that area and prevent further burglaries. This was supported by analysis of the recorded crime and intelligence recorded about known offenders operating within these locations. This was also supported by theories such as the Routine Activity Theory ${ }^{1}$, Rational Choice Theory ${ }^{2}$ and Optimal Foraging Theory ${ }^{3}$.
8. What other information was analysed to better understand the problem? Other information which was analysed was gleaned from individual multi agency briefings. These were arranged for each of the 6 target locations and allowed for the results of the analysis to be shared. This allowed consideration of factors bespoke to that location including how local factors such as
[^0]
[^0]:    ${ }^{1}$ Felson, M. and Cohen, L.E. (1979) 'Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach', American Sociological Review, 44(4): 588-608.
    ${ }^{2}$ Cornish, D and Clarke R.V (1987) 'Understanding crime displacement: an application of rational choice theory', Criminology 25: 933-947
    ${ }^{3}$ Johnson, S.D (2014) 'How do offenders choose where to offend? Perspectives from animal foraging.' Legal and Criminological Psychology 19(2): 193-210

pathway layout, access, lighting and geographical factors resulted in vulnerabilities particular to that location. For example, this enabled crime pattern analysis to be applied in areas such as the High Grange Estate, where the maps showed that only those dwellings on the perimeter of the estate had been subjected to burglaries. Those dwellings within the centre of the estate had not been targeted. In the Response stage, this led to the implementation of security measures around footpaths and fence lines on the perimeter of the estate which had made the houses more vulnerable from backing on to open land.
9. What were the community perspectives on the problem? The community perspectives on the problem ranged from reluctant acceptance that certain locations were prone to dwelling burglaries; to general apathy where some residents were not aware that they were vulnerable; to those locations where a minority of residents promoted active guardianship through close relationships with neighbours and use of Neighbourhood Watch schemes.

# C. Response 

1. What were the project goals and corresponding measurable objectives? The objectives were:
i. To reduce the rate of dwelling burglaries in areas which have suffered high rates of repeat offences. This was measured by comparing burglary rates to control areas, beat areas and sector areas.
ii. To target funding effectively and efficiently. This was measured by tracking the amounts spent on crime prevention products and comparing them against costs involved by agencies responding to a dwelling burglary.
iii. To maintain and improve confidence of residents and the community. This was measured by structures interviews with residents who lived in the target locations.
2. What range of possible response alternatives were considered to deal with the problem? A range of possible responses were considered through a framework of questions aimed at Crime

Reduction Officers, Community Liaison Officers and Neighbourhood Officers. They were tasked to answer the following questions for each of the 6 target locations:

# Analysis - PAT - $1^{\text {st }}$ Layer 

Location - Physical security - (Crime Reduction Officer led):

- What are the most appropriate and efficient Crime Prevention tactics for the area?
- What tactics can be included as preventative measures both for individual householders and /or for public areas?

Victim - (Community Liaison Officers and Neighbourhood Officers led)

- How can occupants be encouraged with measures to improve security of their own households at their own expense?
- What education and advice can be provided to encourage behaviour which deters crime?
- What engagement can be promoted through local meetings and community forums?

Offender -(CID and Intelligence led)

The features of the Offender were considered and, although were not the principle focus of this operation, were already catered for in police processes. These included enforcement activity such as investigative operations using a range of tactics, OCG disruption, the targeting individual offenders by local police teams and cross command monthly dwelling burglary offender review meetings.

## Analysis PAT - $2^{\text {nd }}$ Layer

Manager of the Location

- How can partners such as Resident Associations, Housing associations and the Local Authority assist?


# Guardian of the Victim 

- Neighbourhood watch assessments were completed to establish how effective the NHW scheme was in that area.


## Handlers of the Offenders

- An ongoing intelligence strategy was employed in an effort to engage offenders to learn more about how they committed crime and which preventative tactics would be employed. Offers were made to offenders to engage in offender management programmes and restorative justice.

3. What specifically did you learn from your analysis of the problem that led to your choice of a new response to the problem? The choice of a new response to the problem was guided by analysis which showed that there were obvious improvements in physical security and the levels of guardianship within these locations which would deter further dwelling burglaries. There was also a realisation that despite a number of successful prosecutions against offenders, the burglaries continued and a longer term preventative approach was required. Therefore, the main focus for this initiative was the Victim and Location features of the Problem Analysis Triangle.
4. What responses did you use to address the problem? A bespoke response was formulated for each of the 6 areas dependent upon the findings of the analysis stage. Records were maintained for each of the 6 areas to monitor progress. In general, the following measures were implemented:

- The Crime Reduction Officers conducted surveys of each target area alongside the local Police Community Support Officer and Community Liaison Officer.
- There was engagement through home visits with residents within the target areas who were provided with Safer Homes Packs, as well as suitable advice around security measures.
- Existing community meetings as well as meetings called specifically to discuss the initiative were called in order to engage local residents.
- The local community were engaged to promote Neighbourhood Watch coverage, encouraging existing schemes to carry out works themselves, such as the applying anti-climb paint.
- Work in partnership with the local authority to erect suitable deterrent signage.
- Work with social housing providers to make use of their maintenance operators. Where this was not possible, work was carried out by Durham Constabulary's maintenance department.

Overall, the equipment supplied across the 6 locations included: 1019 Safer Home Packs (including crime prevention advice, marking devices and property registration method); 117 Light Timers; 122 Simulated TVs; door chimes; solar / security lighting; fence spikes (pikka strips); anti climb paint applied to 48 properties; Neighbourhood Watch and crime prevention signage and shed alarms. Effective signage was encouraged as a cost effective means of publicising the message that residents were vigilant (as supported by research highlighting the merits of publicity in crime reduction schemes ${ }^{4}$ ).
5. Who was involved in the response to the problem? There was an emphasis on ensuring a partnership approach and the initiative being a 'team effort' with each element of the team having an important part to play. This initiative also ensured that the guardians of victims and managers of the locations were involved. Neighbourhood Watch Coordinators were encouraged to take responsibility for the distribution and fitting of items, cascading the equipment within

[^0]
[^0]:    ${ }^{4}$ Johnson, S. D., \& Bowers, K. J. (2003). Opportunity is in the eye of the beholder: The role of publicity in crime prevention. Criminology \& public policy, 2(3), 497-524.

the scheme as well as seeking to boost membership of their schemes. Local authority and social housing providers were involved in multi-agency briefings and asked to contribute to situational crime prevention both to individual homes and the surrounding environment. A number of different teams within the police were engaged including Police Community Support Officers, Detectives, Intelligence Officers, Crime Prevention Officers and Community Liaison Officers.
6. What factors were considered in deciding which potential responses to implement? In deciding which responses to implement, careful consideration was given to the analysis which had been conducted. For example, there were a high number of burglaries where the property had been left insecure in Edenhill. Therefore, the use of door chimes and firm education regarding basic home security was provided in this area. Groups of properties with particular vulnerabilities were picked out and bespoke applications applied. For example the use of fence spikes and anticlimb paint were applied along a perimeter line of fencing which increased the insecurity of numerous dwellings in the North Lodge area.
7. What resources were available to address the problem? The resources available to address the problem involved a crime prevention budget of $£ 5000$ to purchase equipment. However, the most important resource were the local residents and their potential to increase community ownership of spaces around their homes. The physical products were used to engage local residents in the first part of a process to encourage them to take greater responsibility for their security in their homes and in the areas around their homes. The physical security products were used to stimulate greater awareness of the burglary issue and were supplemented with advice sheets covering further products which could be purchased at the residents' own expense. Most importantly, residents were encouraged to work with their Neighbourhood Watch schemes to remain vigilant and communicate any concerns with each other or the relevant authority. These messages were relayed during a variety of local community meetings and contributed to greater guardianship within the locations. This intention to strengthen the sense of territoriality residents had for their homes and the surrounding spaces is supported by research indicating

that territorial behaviour increased the perception of burglars' risk and deterred them from committing offences. ${ }^{5}$
8. What difficulties were encountered during response implementation? Practical difficulties were encountered in private housing areas in gaining the relevant permission, in for example, using anti climb paint on a line of facing owned by several parties. However, although this caused delay, this was overcome and achieved within the later part of winter, rather than before winter, as had been intended. The social housing providers were particularly co-operative in providing access to their residents and in many cases providing free labour for the installation of products.

# D. Assessment 

1. Were response goals and objectives achieved? The objectives of the initiative were met. Dwelling burglaries in the target areas were lower than in control areas. The funding was used efficiently and there was an increase in confidence amongst local residents.
2. What specific impact did the implemented responses have on the problem? Assessment of the burglary rates in the target areas revealed that the burglary rates in the areas which had been targeted were improved (i.e. had a lower rate) than those in the control areas, than those in the same beat, sector and force areas. There was no evidence of displacement of crime into immediate surrounding areas.

The key quantitative findings included:

- When compared to the 5 year annual average there were crime reductions in burglaries in 5 of the 6 Target Locations, with the other remaining at the same level.
- The burglary level changes between 2014/2015 \& 2015/2016 in 5 of the 6 locations (5 reductions; 1 static) compared favourably with the $15.75 \%$ increase witnessed across the force.

[^0]
[^0]:    ${ }^{5}$ Brown, B. \& Bentley, D. (1993) Residential Burglars Judge Risk: The Role of Territoriality. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 13, 51-61.

- The burglary level change between 2014/2015 \& 2015/2016 in 5 of the 6 locations compared favourably with the increases witnessed in each of their respective sectors.
- When the target period is compared to the 5 year annual average, all 6 target locations have preferable percentage changes to their respective control areas. The key qualitative findings included:
- The initial assessment supported the hypothesis that targeted crime prevention reduces dwelling burglary rates.
- The importance of the behaviour of victims alongside improved physical security is difficult to determine quantitatively but feedback from residents in the targeted areas supported the notion that education and advice which changes behaviour is a crucial factor to promote. In simple terms, the deterrent value is increased if, as well as a criminal noticing improved security measures as they return to an area, the residents are also more vigilant, more likely to communicate with each other and more likely to take action. Evidence was provided from a number of residents who lived in the target locations and were highly supportive of the improvements which had been made in their area. Three video interviews were completed which exemplify such reactions and are available if required.

The operation was cost effective. Overall, $£ 5,000$ was spent on crime prevention products which were installed in the target areas. Home Office research shows that the average cost to the Police service of dealing with a single dwelling burglary is $£ 576$. Therefore, if there were 9 fewer dwelling burglaries in the target areas, this would cover the products cost. In fact, there was a differentiation of 15 fewer dwelling burglaries in the target areas than the control areas. The value of the operation is amplified when it is considered that the average cost of a single dwelling burglary to:

- all Criminal Justice agencies is $£ 1,137$

- the victim, the police, the criminal justice system and all agencies / companies is $£ 3266$.

Appendix 2 provides results tables and crime maps for each of the locations which allows comparison with the crime rates prior to the crime prevention activity taking place in each location. Appendix 2, Table 1 provides a comparison for the burglary levels for the target period in the target period with the annual average for the previous 5 years. Each target area, indicated in red, is paired with its control area with the same data presented the target areas. Appendix 2, Table 2 provides a more exhaustive breakdown of the data, with the levels of burglaries for each of the 5 years prior to the study period identified. Additionally it provides a comparison with force wide figures for the year 2015-2016 as well as sector level figures for the sectors each of the locations sit within for comparison. The 6 target locations are looked at briefly in turn to identify their respective burglary activity and compared with their control area, and additionally the burglary levels within their respective sectors, and the force burglary level. The first 3 target locations and their control locations are the 6 areas identified as being subject to cash/jewellery burglaries.
3. How did you measure your results? The assessment included a qualitative, quantitative and cost effectiveness analysis. The assessment looked at the level of reported burglaries in the 12 areas April 12015 - 31 March 2016 compared with the level of the 5 year average and the previous year April 12014 - 31 March 2015. The change in burglary levels between April 12014 - March 2015 and April 12015 - 31 March 2016 for these 12 areas were compared with the changes for this period across the force as a whole, and also the changes in each of the 12 locations were compared with the overall changes with the sectors that they respectively sit within. The force and sector data was obtained from the force crime performance database.

The 3 non-cash/jewellery burglary areas that were targeted were large with the result being that the officers carrying out the work only focused upon a part of the targeted area. The

whole original sample area was examined to identify dwelling burglaries within the boundaries originally established. The initial data outcomes from the locations for burglaries for the year 2015-2016 were compared both with the average for the previous 5 years and also the previous year. The comparison with the previous 5 years is arguably the most significant as the 12 months prior to the study period may have been subject to short term variables such as policing and community priorities, prison releases, arrests of offenders, patrols, and neighbourhood watch activity which would impact upon criminality in the target areas. The 5 year figure provides a more stable base for comparison.
4. For how long was the effectiveness of the problem solving effort evaluated? The effectiveness of the problem solving was initially evaluated over a 12 month period after the crime prevention activity had been implemented.
5. Who conducted the evaluation? The quantitative evaluation was conducted by an Analyst. A number of local residents within the target locations were interviewed. Three of these interviews were video recorded and used in presentations of the POP plan. Those residents who were interviewed provided positive feedback regarding the benefits of the security products and how this had resulted in a greater feeling of safety around their homes.
6. Were there problems in implementing the response plan that affected the project outcomes? The outcomes were sufficiently distinctive to overcome any variations in the timing or amount of interaction different neighbourhood policing teams had within the different locations. There was a higher interaction rate in some locations compared to others and this was affected by the resourcing level and interest shown by individuals on different neighbourhood policing teams. The tracking of what devices had been distributed at each location was predicted to be a potential difficulty prior to implementation and therefore one individual was given the responsibility of ensuring accurate records were kept of exactly what product was provided at individual addresses. This approach was successful in ensuring the effective delivery of products to the target locations.

7. If there were no improvement in the problem, were other systematic efforts considered to handle the problem? There were improvements in all areas apart from one area where burglary rates remained static.
8. How might have the response been more effective? The response was sufficiently effective for the scale and nature of this initiative.
9. Was there evidence of displacement? There was no evidence of displacement of increased dwelling burglaries in the areas surrounding the locations following a scan of burglary rates and modus operandi at the beat level surrounding each location.
10. Was there any evidence of diffusion of benefits? There were some positive effects beyond expectations. For example, residents in the High Grange Estate location reported that they were delighted as the signage and lighting aimed at deterring burglaries also resulted in a significant decrease in other anti-social behaviour such as dog fouling and littering. Within Durham Constabulary, the effectiveness of closer working between Safer Neighbourhood Units, Crime Reduction Officers, CID and the Media team resulted in a regular forum to promote force wide media and publicity opportunities for other aspects of volume crime. The initiative was identified as good practice in force and highlighted to the College of Policing.
11. Will your response require continued monitoring or a continued effort to maintain your results? Burglary rates in the target and control locations will continue to be monitored. The initiative has generated greater responsibility for security amongst residents and Neighbourhood Watch schemes in their locations which provides sustainability to the solution. Should there be an increase in burglaries at these locations, early intervention will be facilitated by the networks which have been strengthened at these locations through this problem solving plan.

# 3. Agency and Officer Information: 

Project Team:
David Ashton (Detective Chief Inspector); Stephen Smith (Researcher/ Analyst); Jessica Keelty (Crime Reduction Co-ordinator)

Project Contact Person:
David Ashton
Detective Chief Inspector
Durham Constabulary Head Quarters, Aykley Heads, Durham, County Durham, DH1 5TT
External: 101 or 03456060365 Internal: 752769
Mobile: 07736084347
Mail: david.ashton@durham.pnn.police.uk

# 4. Appendices 

## Appendix 1 - Scanning and Analysis- Tables, Charts, Graphs

The 6 target areas and 6 control areas identified (Please note that the actual locations of the control areas can be provided upon request):

| Target Area | Control Area |
| :--: | :--: |
| High Grange Estate - Gilesgate(D2B) | Area A |
| Neville's Cross (D5C/D5D) | Area B |
| North Lodge (G1A) | Area C |

## Locations for Significant Jewellery Burglary Activity

High Grange Estate (D2B)
![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-0.jpeg)

High Grange Estate Burglaries
15 burglary dwellings over the past 5 years on the High Grange Estate

All the burglaries have occurred on either Willowtree Avenue, Rowan Tree Avenue or Moor Crescent. There is a clear focus for this activity around the edge of the estate. These areas mostly have discrete pathways running to the rear of the properties enabling discrete access. This is evident in the aerial view below.
![img-1.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-1.jpeg)

High Grange Estate Aerial View

![img-2.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-2.jpeg)

High Grange Estate - Property Types
![img-3.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-3.jpeg)

High Grange Estate - Point of Entry

![img-4.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-4.jpeg)

High Grange Estate -Method of Entry

# Neville's Cross (D5C/D5D) 

There have been 20 burglary dwellings over the past 5 years on Neville's Cross.

![img-5.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-5.jpeg)

Neville's Cross Burglaries
![img-6.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-6.jpeg)

![img-7.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-7.jpeg)

Neville's Cross - Method of Entry

# North Lodge (G1A) 

There have been 33 burglary dwellings over the past 5 years at North Lodge.

![img-8.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-8.jpeg)

North Lodge Burglaries
![img-9.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-9.jpeg)

North Lodge - Property Types

![img-10.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-10.jpeg)

North Lodge - Point of Entry
![img-11.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-11.jpeg)

North Lodge - Method of Entry
The searches for the areas of burglaries identified the 6 locations below which are divided into the 3 areas to be targeted and the 3 control areas. The 3 areas to be targeted are looked at in turn below:-

| Target Area | Control Area |
| :--: | :--: |
| Delves Lane (I1B) | Area D |
| Bournmoor (G4C) | Area E |

# Locations for Significant Burglary Activity 

## Delves Lane (I1B)

There have been 33 burglary dwellings over the past 5 years at Delves Lane.
![img-12.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-12.jpeg)

Delves Lane Burglaries

![img-13.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-13.jpeg)

Delves Lane-Property Types
![img-14.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-14.jpeg)

Delves Lane - Point of Entry

![img-15.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-15.jpeg)

Delves Lane - Method of Entry

# Bournmoor (G4C) 

There have been 40 burglary dwellings over the past 5 years at Bournmoor with 2 addresses being repeat locations.
![img-16.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-16.jpeg)

![img-17.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-17.jpeg)

Bournmoor- Property Types
![img-18.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-18.jpeg)

Bournmoor - Point of Entry

![img-19.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-19.jpeg)

Bournmoor - Method of Entry

# Edenhill North E1D 

There have been 41 burglary dwellings over the past 5 years at Edenhill with one address being a repeat location.

![img-20.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-20.jpeg)

Edenhill Burglaries

![img-21.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-21.jpeg)

Edenhill- Property Types
![img-22.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-22.jpeg)

Edenhill - Point of Entry

![img-23.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-23.jpeg)

Edenhill– Method of Entry

## Appendix 2 - Assessment

|  Target/Control Locations | 5 Year
Total | 5 Year
Annual
Average | 2015-
2016 | % Change  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  HIGH GRANGE ESTATE (D2B) | 15 | 3 | 3 | 0  |
|  AREA A | 12 | 2.4 | 3 | 25%  |
|  NEVILLE'S CROSS (D5C/D5D) | 20 | 4 | 1 | -75%  |
|  AREA B | 14 | 2.8 | 2 | -28.50%  |
|  NORTH LODGE (G1A) | 34 | 6.8 | 2 | -70.50%  |
|  AREA C | 26 | 5.2 | 5 | -3.80%  |
|  DELVES LANE (I1B) | 43 | 8.6 | 1 | -88.30%  |
|  AREA D | 18 | 3.6 | 10 | 178%  |
|  BOURNMOOR (G4C) | 40 | 8 | 4 | -50%  |
|  AREA E | 19 | 3.8 | 3 | -21%  |
|  EDENHILL NORTH (E1D) | 41 | 8.2 | 3 | -63.40%  |

| AREA F | 44 | 8.8 | 6 | $-31.80 \%$ |
| :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- |

Appendix 2.Table 1 - Data from the initial 5 year scan and review period for the Target and Control areas

|  Target Locations | 2010-
2011 | 2011-
2012 | 2012-
2013 | 2013-
2014 | 2014-
2015 | 5 Year
Total | 5 Year
Annual
Average | 2015-2016 | \% Change on 5 Year Annual Average | \% Change 2014/2015 \& 2015/2016 | \% Change 2014/2015 \& 2015/2016 - Forcewide | \% Change 2014/2015 \& 2015/2016 - Sector Level  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  HIGH GRANGE ESTATE (D2B) | 1 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 15.75\% | 16.10\%  |
|  NEVILLE'S CROSS (DSC/D5D) | 6 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 20 | 4 | 1 | $-75 \%$ | $-75 \%$ | 15.75\% | 16.10\%  |
|  NORTH LODGE (G1A) | 3 | 1 | 11 | 14 | 5 | 34 | 6.8 | 2 | $-70.50 \%$ | $-60 \%$ | 15.75\% | 10.50\%  |
|  DELVES LANE (I1B) | 13 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 9 | 43 | 8.6 | 1 | $-88.30 \%$ | $-88.90 \%$ | 15.75\% | 42\%  |
|  BOURNMOOR (G4C) | 6 | 8 | 13 | 12 | 1 | 40 | 8 | 4 | $-50 \%$ | 300 | 15.75\% | 10.50\%  |
|  EDENHILL NORTH (E1D) | 7 | 12 | 12 | 5 | 5 | 41 | 8.2 | 3 | $-63.40 \%$ | $-40 \%$ | 15.75\% | 23.40\%  |
|  Control Locations |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |
|  AREA A | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 12 | 2.4 | 3 | 25\% | 50\% | 15.75\% | 16.10\%  |
|  AREA B | 2 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 14 | 2.8 | 2 | $-28.50 \%$ | 0 | 15.75\% | 16.10\%  |
|  AREA C | 6 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 26 | 5.2 | 5 | $-3.80 \%$ | $-16.70 \%$ | 15.75\% | 10.50\%  |
|  AREA D | 3 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 18 | 3.6 | 10 | 178\% | 233\% | 15.75\% | 42\%  |
|  AREA E | 1 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 19 | 3.8 | 3 | $-21 \%$ | $-40 \%$ | 15.75\% | 10.50\%  |
|  AREA F | 4 | 13 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 44 | 8.8 | 6 | $-31.80 \%$ | $-50 \%$ | 15.75\% | 23.40\%  |

Appendix 2.Table 2 - Data from the initial 5 year scan and review period for the Target and Control areas

| Target Area | Control Area |
| :--: | :--: |
| High Grange Estate - Gilesgate(D2B) | Area A |
| Neville's Cross (D5C/D5D) | Area B |
| North Lodge (G1A) | Area C |

Table 3 - 3 Jewellery/Cash Burglary Target areas and their Controls

# 1. High Grange Estate 

During the review period there were 3 dwelling burglaries on the High Grange Estate - locations in Map 1 below -
![img-24.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-24.jpeg)

Map 1 - High Grange Estate - Burglary Locations 2015-2016

In the control area, there were 3 burglaries.
This level of burglaries on the High Grange Estate in the target period is the same level as the 5 year annual average, and also the burglary level for the previous 12 months 2014-2015.

This static burglary level compares with a $15.75 \%$ increase across the force and a $16.1 \%$ increase in Durham Sector.

# 2. Neville's Cross 

During the review period there was 1 burglary in the Neville's Cross location - see Map 2 below -
![img-25.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-25.jpeg)

Map 2 - Neville's Cross - Burglary Location 2015-2016

## 3. North Lodge

During the review period there were 2 burglaries at North Lodge - see Map 3 below -

![img-26.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-26.jpeg)

Map 3 - North Lodge - Burglary Locations 2015-2016

# Remaining Burglary Locations 

| Target Area | Control Area |
| :--: | :--: |
| Delves Lane (I1B) | Area D |
| Bournmoor (G4C) | Area E |
| Edenhill North (E1D) | Area F |

Table 4-3 Burglary Target areas and their Controls

## 4. Delves Lane

During the review period there was 1 burglary at Delves Lane - see Map 4 below -

![img-27.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-27.jpeg)

Map 4 - Delves Lane Burglary Location 2015-2016

# 5. Bournmoor 

During the review period there were 4 burglaries at Bournmoor- see Map 5 below -
![img-28.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-28.jpeg)

Map 5 - Bournmoor Burglary Locations 2015-2016

# 6. Edenhill North 

During the review period there were 3 burglaries at Edenhill North- see Map 6 below -
![img-29.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/17-04/img-29.jpeg)

Map 6 - Edenhill North Burglary Locations 2015-2016