Preventing Repeat Residential Burglary:

A meta-evaluation of two Australian demonstration projects

Contents | Acknowledgements | Executive Summary | Chapter 1: About repeat victimisation | Chapter 2: The demonstration projects | Chapter 3: Meta-Evaluation | Chapter 4: Programme guide and resource tools | Appendix 1: Summary of research study outcomes | Appendix 2: Process evatuation framework | References

CHAPTER 1

About repeat victimisation

This chapter provides an overview of repeat victimisation and key research on this issue to provide a context for the demonstration projects. It provides a definition of repeat victimisation, discusses why repeat victimisation is an important issue to address, and summarises the international and Australian literature on the topic. The word 'burglary' and the term 'break and enter' are both used in this chapter, depending on the particular term used in the reference cited.

What is repeat victimisation?

Repeat victimisation is when the same person or place experiences two or more crimes over a particular time period. A repeat residential burglary commonly refers to when there has been more than one burglary at the same residential address over a 12-month period.

Why is repeat victimisation an issue?

Repeat victimisation has become a significant issue in crime prevention for several reasons. First, international research demonstrates repeat incidents comprise a high proportion of overall crime, especially in high crime areas. Such areas experience high crime levels not because they have more victims but because they have more heavily victimised victims³. Targeting repeat victimisation with successful prevention strategies has the potential to reduce crime rates significantly, particularly in areas with the highest levels of crime. Therefore, there is a clear community benefit.

Second, being a victim of crime has profound consequences for many individuals, both economic and psychological. Being repeatedly victimised compounds these traumas and repeat victims are generally more worried about crime⁴. Preventing crimes from recurring means fewer victims suffer these compounding and disproportionate crime effects. Therefore, there are benefits for those individuals who are at greater risk of further victimisation and who are most vulnerable to suffering a disproportionate level of adverse effects from criminal actions.

Third, the characteristics of repeat victimisation mean that efforts directed at apprehending offenders can concentrate on known at-risk locations over a relatively short, high-risk, time. Efforts directed at repeats therefore are more likely to be successful in detecting and apprehending offenders. Doing so can prevent the immediate incident from being completed; as well as preventing future incidents that might otherwise be perpetrated by those individuals, particularly given evidence that repeat crimes are more likely to be the work of prolific offenders.

It has also been argued that targeting repeats is a particularly resource effective method of responding to crime because limited resources can be directed to those people and places known to be at greatest risk of victimisation over the relatively short timeframe of heightened risk. Crime prevention strategies that may be too costly to be used widely can be deployed to a small number of locations over a short time, for maximum effect. Economic benefits for the government sector and ultimately for taxpayers become apparent.

Conclusions from international research

This section provides an overview of outcomes from international literature. It is based on studies that have examined the nature, extent and features of repeat victimisation from the larger body of international research and practice reports. Australian research is presented separately in the following section and is described in greater detail.

The extent of repeat victimisation
International literature reports high levels of repeat victimisation. Examples of statistics on the extent of repeat victimisation reported in over 20 studies, selected across different crimes and countries, and using different methodologies and sources, are set out in Appendix 1. Table 1 below provides a summary overview of these research outcomes for crimes other than residential burglary. Table 2 summarises the outcomes specifically for residential burglary.

TABLE 1
Outcomes of international research findings on the extent of repeat victimisation 

Outcome	Source
One-quarter to one-half of total crimes over a 12-month period are repeat incidents; and one-quarter to one-third of victims are repeat victims	Nation-wide British and Canadian and international crime victim surveys in 17 industrialised countries5
Repeat rates vary between 6% and 75% for specific types of crimes (including assault, robbery, vandalism, theft, and commercial burglary), with the lower repeat rates generally reported for vehicle theft and the higher rates for assault	Nation-wide UK crime victim surveys; UK crime surveys of small businesses and of industrial estates; crimes reported to various UK and US police forces; crimes at Swedish schools reported to police; UK hospital accident and emergency department patient survey6
Victims experiencing multiple repeat incidents (for example, between three and 10 incidents over a 12-month period) constitute a small proportion of victims (1?5%) but account for between one-quarter and one-half of all crimes	National crime victim surveys in Britain, Scotland, Canada and New Zealand; survey of UK businesses; calls for service to US police7
The effect of victims experiencing multiple repeats is higher when specific types of crimes are considered separately, accounting for between one-quarter to two-thirds of specific offence types	Calls for service to UK police; surveys of UK businesses; racial attacks reported to any agency on an East London estate8
Repeat victimisation accounts for over three-quarters of total crimes in areas experiencing very high rates of crime generally, with under 3% of victims accounting for 30% of all incidents	Survey of UK high crime estate9

The examples from international literature demonstrate that a relatively small minority of people experience a very large proportion of crime, regardless of the type of crime, the locality or country surveyed, or the method used to identify and calculate repeats. In fact, a British review¹⁰ of repeat victimisation studies concluded that the two to three per cent of those who are most commonly victimised experience one-quarter to one-third of all crime incidents.

International research on repeat burglary shows similar findings. Table 2 summarises some examples from the literature.

TABLE 2
Examples of international research findings on the extent of repeat burglary

Statistic	Source
18% of burglaries are repeats	17 industrialised countries in the International Crime Victims Survey (Farrell & Tseloni 2001)
20% were repeat victims 7% experienced more than one repeat	1999 British Crime Survey (Budd, 2001)
16% were definite and 24% possible repeat	Domestic burglaries reported to police in Huddersfield (UK) (Anderson et al, 1995)
7% were repeat victims 0.2% of all households accounted for 13% of all burglaries	Residential burglaries reported to police in Merseyside (UK) (Johnson et al, 1997)
Nearly half of households were repeat victims	Burglary incidents recorded by police on the Kirkholt (UK) housing estate (Pease, 1992)
3.5% of victims accounted for 14% of incidents	Burglaries reported to Trent police in Nottinghamshire (UK) (Ratcliffe & McCullagh, 1998)
1.2% of victims experienced 29% of incidents	Burglaries and attempted burglaries reported to police in Tallahassee Florida (US) over a three-year period (Robinson, 1998)
1% of the population reported 26% of incidents	Burglaries reported to Kansas (US) police over a four-year period (Sherman, 1992 cited in PERF, 1996)

Return to the top

As with other crimes, repeat rates for domestic burglaries documented in the international literature show a small proportion of residences account for a large proportion of incidents, although there is variation in actual rates between locations. This variation is likely to reflect both different methodologies used to identify repeats as well as differences in actual repeat rates that reflect area demographic and overall crime rate differences.

Other features of repeat victimisation

Time course

International research shows repeat victimisation often occurs soon after the first incident. For example, high proportions of repeat burglaries occur within several weeks, and sometimes several days, of the first incident. Examples of some of the research findings are summarised in Appendix 1. Table 3 provides an overview of these research outcomes.

TABLE 3
Outcomes of international research findings on the time course of repeat victimisation

Outcome	Source
28-51% of repeat burglaries occur within one month, 11-25% within one week, with repeat rates generally higher for commercial than for residential burglaries28-51% of repeat burglaries occur within one month, 11-25% within one week, with repeat rates generally higher for commercial than for residential burglaries	Burglaries reported to various UK and US police forces11
The likelihood of a repeat burglary within one month is 12 times the expected rate, declining to twice at six months; half of all second victimisations occurring within one month occur within seven days	Burglaries reported to Canadian police12
27-79% of other property repeat crimes occur within month	UK crime surveys of small business; crimes at UK and Swedish schools reported to police; calls for service to US police13
Violent incidents also show low time intervals to repeats; for example, 35% of victimised households report a second incident within five weeks; subsequent racial attacks were more frequent within the first week of the first attack	Calls for service to UK police; racial attacks reported to any agency on an East London housing estate14

Regardless of the type of offence or the location, international studies consistently show most repeat incidents occur relatively soon after the initial event. Risk of re-victimisation diminishes markedly over time. Between 1/4 to 1/2 of repeat residential burglaries occur within one month of the first incident.

Risk profile

Some groups and localities have been demonstrated in international literature¹⁵ to be more at risk of repeat victimisation than others, specifically lone parents and 'social renters' and those living in disadvantaged areas and high crime areas.

Other aspects

International literature has documented the effects of burglary victimisation. For example, an analysis¹⁶ of British crime survey results showed 87 per cent of victims are emotionally affected by the incident. A U.S. study¹⁷ reported victims take on average four months to recover from the stress of being burgled. Others¹⁸ give accounts of burglary victimisation in terms of the feelings of powerlessness and pessimism experienced after the incident. These victim effects are compounded in the case of repeat burglaries. Effects on repeat victims have been described in terms of emotional distress, feeling unsafe, social exclusion (in that victims withdraw from social contact), poor health, lifestyle changes generated by fear of crime, and low expectations about what police can do to help (which may lead to failure to report future crimes)¹⁹.

Repeat victimisation has also been linked to reporting rates, showing an inverse trend between the number of victimisations and inclination to report the incident to police. In one analysis²⁰, 40 per cent of crimes on single-incident victims were reported to police compared to a 28 per cent reporting rate among those victimised six times or more.

Preventing repeat victimisation

British Home Office-sponsored research has produced the most widely cited intervention studies targeting repeat victimisation. One of the earliest is the Kirkholt project in a high crime estate in Manchester in the 1980s. Evaluations of this programme²¹ reported an 80 per cent decline in domestic burglaries over the first seven months and a 75 per cent reduction in the burglary rate over a three-year period, compared to a reduction of only 24 per cent in the remainder of the police division. Repeat incidents fell by 40 per cent in five months and there was an 80 per cent reduction in domestic burglary repeats over seven months.

Applying the Kirkholt methodology in three replication projects failed to show the same level of effect, although this has been attributed to differences in the characteristics of the target areas²². In two of the projects, there was an increase in the number of incidents, although at much lower levels than the relevant control sites.

The Huddersfield project, at another British housing estate in the early 1990s, reported a 30 per cent decline in domestic burglary and a 20 per cent reduction in theft from vehicles²³. The Small Business and Crime Initiative was associated with a 33 per cent decrease in crimes against businesses in Leicester²⁴.

Other studies have examined the effect of general burglary reduction schemes on repeat victimisation. For example, the Meadows Household Security Project in Nottingham (UK), one of the Safer Cities schemes evaluated in UK research²⁵, showed a decline in repeat burglaries from 23 per cent to 14 per cent over a two-year period. The average time between revictimisations rose from 81 days to six months.

Other examples of effective repeat victimisation prevention strategies have been reported for commercial crime, domestic violence, racial attacks, and school bullying²⁶.

The Australian experience

Compared to the international literature, there have been relatively few Australian studies of repeat victimisation to date. Key Australian research on repeat victimisation is described below.

Extent

The 1998 Crime and Safety Survey²⁷ analysed repeat rates for each of the six crimes covered by the survey. Assaults show the highest and motor vehicle thefts the lowest rates. Almost 20 per cent of break and enters and 33 per cent of attempts were repeats.

TABLE 4
Australian repeat victimisation rates derived from the 1998 Crime and Safety Survey 

	Average number of incidents per victim	Number of incidents in the last 12 months
	no.	1%	2%	3+%
Break and enter	1.3	80.2	15.2	4.7
Attempted break and enter	1.6	67.1	24.4	8.5
Motor vehicle theft	1.1	90.8	7.3	1.9
Robbery	1.5	77.3	14.5	8.2
Assault	2.5	54.6	21.3	24.2
Sexual assault	1.6	73.0	9.9	17.1

Return to the top

The 20 per cent of Australian households experiencing two or more break and enters accounted for 39 per cent of incidents. The 33 per cent experiencing two or more attempted break and enters accounted for 56 per cent of incidents. The equivalent figures for personal offences were 23 per cent of victims accounting for 48 per cent of robberies, 45 per cent accounting for 78 per cent of assaults, and 27 per cent accounting for 54 per cent of sexual assaults. A subsequent analysis²⁸ of incidents classified as family violence found 32 per cent of victims accounted for 63 per cent of family violence incidents.

An analysis²⁹ of the 1993 National Crime and Safety Survey concluded that the 29 per cent of households experiencing a repeat property crime accounted for 51 per cent of property incidents. The 41 per cent of victims experiencing a repeat personal offence accounted for 65 per cent of such incidents. Figures from both the 1993 national survey and five individual State surveys in 1995 showed one in five victims of break and enter experienced a repeat, while about one-quarter to one-third of victims of attempted break and enter experienced a repeat.

A Queensland survey³⁰ found 17 per cent of all surveyed households had experienced a single property crime compared to 11 per cent experiencing more than one. For break and enter specifically, three per cent had experienced a single break and enter incident and three per cent a repeat. A later Queensland survey³¹ in 2000 found repeat victimisation rates of 2.5 per cent among robbery victims, 40 per cent for assault, five per cent for sexual assault, 14 per cent for motor vehicle theft, 11 per cent for break and enter and 10 per cent for attempted break and enter.

Other studies based on crimes reported to police show similar results. A Queensland report analysed calls for police service for break and enter³² over an 18-month period. Results showed 16 per cent of residential burglaries were repeats, accounting for 32 per cent of all incidents. Only four per cent of burgled residences accounted for 12 per cent of calls. For non-residential burglaries, 42 per cent were repeats, accounting for 74 per cent of all incidents. Only three per cent of burgled non-residential properties accounted for 20 per cent of calls. A subsequent analysis³³ reported the risk of repeat victimisation for residential break and enter was 3.5 times higher than the probability of being a victim once.

Analysis of break and enter incidents and attempts reported to police in two NSW local area commands³⁴ showed 4.9 per cent of residences and 8.6 per cent of incidents in the urban area were repeats. A slightly higher rate of 6.1 per cent of residences and 12.7 per cent of incidents was found in the non-metropolitan area. Another NSW report³⁵ found 21 to 23 per cent of incidents and 11 to 12 per cent of residences in three Sydney patrol areas were repeats.

In a Western Australian study³⁶, the repeat burglary rate in a Perth suburb was 16.5 per 100 dwellings per year, compared to the equivalent figure of 7.1 for total burglaries. The repeat rates varied considerably between the two local areas analysed. One area showed a repeat rate of 20.7 per 100 dwellings, compared to a total burglary rate of 14.2 for that locality. The second area had a lower repeat rate at 12.0, but which was dramatically higher than the area's total burglary rate of only 4.4.

Although there is some variation between localities, both victim surveys and police statistics report levels in the same range as the international literature (see Tables 1 and 2). There is a tendency for victim surveys to report higher prevalence and incidence rates than recorded police crime statistics, with calls for service falling between. However, there are too few Australian studies to be able to draw any definitive conclusions about whether these differences are due purely to the methodology used or also reflect real differences in rates between areas.

Time course

Several of the Australian studies also report on the time course for repeat burglaries. Queensland research³⁷ found 65 per cent of repeats occurred within one month and 83 per cent within two months. One NSW study³⁸ of break and enters reported to police found 80 per cent of repeats occurred within 4.2 to 4.7 months across the three patrol areas. Another³⁹ found 41 per cent and 47 per cent occurred within one month and 19 per cent and 21 per cent within a week in the two local areas.

The Australian research shows the same time course for repeat burglaries as the international literature, with the majority of repeats occurring within one or two months and a significant proportion within one week.

Risk profile

Some Australian and international studies have investigated risk factors for repeat victimisation⁴⁰. However, the research findings are limited and interpretations need to be made with caution. To date, there is some consistency in factors associated with higher risk of repeat victimisation generally, but there are too few studies using comparable methodologies and representative samples to draw conclusions about risk factors specific to repeat residential burglary.

The following factors may be associated with heightened risk of repeat victimisation:

• households where residents are renting rather than purchasers or owners (break and enter)
  
• sole parent households (household property crime)
  
• male, aged 15-24, never married, unemployed (robbery)
  
• female, aged 45-54, separated or divorced, Australian-born (assault)
  
• aged 35 and over, not in labour force, Australian-born, never married (sexual assault)
  
• living in high crime area (crime generally)
  
• located in disadvantaged socio-economic area (non-residential burglary)
  
• miscellaneous features of the immediate area, such as a high level of motor and pedestrian traffic, and being located within 100 metres of facilities such as licensed venues, schools, late closing shopping or commercial premises, and public transport stops (residential burglary).

Other aspects

Repeat victimisation has been associated with higher levels of fear of crime, particularly among specific groups such as young people, women, public housing renters, and people perceiving their area as relatively high in crime⁴¹.

Repeat victimisation also has been linked to reporting rates. An analysis⁴² of family violence from the 1998 Crime and Safety Survey found 35 per cent of incidents involving female victims who had experienced only one assault became known to police, compared to only 14 per cent of incidents becoming known to police if the victim had experienced three or more assaults.

Preventing repeat victimisation in australia

Only one Australian study⁴³ (other than the two demonstration projects) was identified that specifically addressed repeat residential burglary. This is an evaluation of the Cities Housebreaking Reduction Project conducted in two New South Wales police local area commands in 1999. Interventions included: security assessment at initial police investigation; a follow-up victim support package providing crime prevention information and property marking material; advising near neighbours; target hardening victim residences; increasing fingerprint attendance rate; operations targeting property crime in identified hot spots; targeting recidivist offenders; increased attention by police to second hand dealer shops; and a public crime prevention awareness campaign.

The study found a 29 per cent and a nine per cent reduction in the number of break and enters in the two areas compared to a Statewide decline of 10 per cent between the year before the introduction of the programme and the actual intervention period. The percentage of repeats remained unchanged between the two time periods in both intervention areas.

The evaluation concluded there was no major effect on the level of repeat victimisation, and that the reductions found in total break and enter rates in the intervention areas may have been part of a wider trend.

Conclusions about repeat victimisation

The outcomes of both international and Australian research identify several key features about repeat victimisation:

• it is a significant contributor to high crime rates, and is especially prevalent in high crime areas
  
• it has a disproportionate effect on the community, in that a small number of victims experience a high proportion of offences and certain groups are at higher risk
  
• it occurs relatively quickly after the first incident
  
• it is likely to be under-reported
  
• it is preventable.

Chapter summary

International research shows a very small proportion of victims (two to six per cent) generally account for a very large proportion of crime (one-quarter to half of total offences and up to two-thirds of particular crime types). About 20 per cent of residential burglaries are repeats. Repeats occur relatively quickly after the first crime. One-quarter to half of repeat burglaries happen within a month of the initial incident, often within the first week. Certain groups in the community and local areas have a higher risk of repeat victimisation. Australian research shows similar trends in the extent, time course, and risk profiles for repeat victimisation. International research demonstrates that repeat victimisation can be prevented, reporting up to 75 per cent reduction in repeat rates of residential burglary. International studies also show that targeting repeats can have a significant effect on reducing overall burglary rates.

Return to the top