Promising - One study
Date: This profile was posted on June 08, 2011
A crime prevention program designed to reduce burglary problems in high-crime residential areas. The program is rated Promising. The program led to a reduction in burglaries and repeat victimization in the target area.
The Hartlepool program was designed to tackle burglary problems in two high-burglary areas of Hartlepool, England. It was part of the larger Reducing Burglary Initiative, launched by England’s Home Office in 1998, which identified and provided funding to areas around the country where the burglary rates were at least twice the national average.
Conceived of as a comprehensive approach to solve community problems, the program consisted of the following activities:
Alleygating. For this component, alleys were identified where the installation of gates could control access to the area. Over the course of the project, 14 alleygates were installed.
Target hardening. The purpose of this component was to make properties more secure and harder to access, particularly with regard to repeat victims, burglary hot spots, and end terrace properties. For such properties, a Crime Prevention Officer would offer to do a crime prevention survey and make recommendations. A volunteer agency would then install recommended fixtures, such as locks and security lights. Related to this component was the recommendation that residents use plug-in timers, which were offered for sale at a reduced cost. Residents purchased 364 timers.
Property marking. For this part of the program, organizers offered to mark five items of property at each house. There was a relatively low rate of participation rate in this component of the program.
Youth programs. Two different types of programs were introduced. The first was designed to engage at-risk youth in structured activities at the local sports center. The second was a youth development program targeted at young offenders.
Education and awareness activities. These activities varied considerably, but were intended to promote crime prevention on the part of the community and its individuals. Activities included visits to schools, newsletters, and the organization of a crime prevention week.
Community development. Many of the activities were directed at building the capacity of the community to respond to and prevent crime. Activities included the establishment of a new resident association and new Neighborhood Watch groups.
Project manager. Two project managers were involved during the course of the program, the community Safety Strategy Officer for the Hartlepool Borough Council and the Community Safety Officer from the Cleveland Police. They developed a productive working relationship and provided strong, non-authoritarian leadership.
Steering group. The steering group met regularly every 6 weeks and monitored the program’s progress carefully. Members of the group helped engage the partners in identifying solutions for problems. The Steering group helped select achievable targets to monitor the progress of the program.
Anti-burglary coordinators. These were part-time employees who provided crucial links between program organizers and residents. They did much of their work out of a local sports center, so they were accessible to community residents.
Sports center supervisor. Although the supervisor was not initially recruited as part of the program team, he played a crucial role in working with the youth. Due to his long tenure in the position, youth in the community were familiar with him and trusted him. His outreach work was instrumental to the success of the youth intervention component.
Other stakeholders. Other partners or stakeholders included a community safety organization; a voluntary alarms project; landlord/housing associations; a sports center; residents’ associations; local councilors and residents; the Neighborhood Watch coordinator; and community police officers.
Reductions in burglary
Sturgeon–Adams, Adamson and Davidson (2005) found that the program led to a 25 percent reduction in overall burglaries reported in the target area. Thus, the average number of burglaries per month decreased from 17.5 in the 2 years prior to the program to 13.2 in the 2 years after. This compared with a 9 percent reduction in the local police division and a 12 percent reduction in the Cleveland Police Force Area. The researchers calculated that the impact of the interventions prevented 55 burglaries over a 2-year period.
The impact of the program was greater in the 1st year (38 burglaries avoided) compared to the 2nd year (17 burglaries avoided). After 4 years, the total reduction in burglaries was 28 percent, compared to a 13 percent reduction in the local police division and 8 percent in Cleveland Police Force Area. After 4 years, the total in burglaries prevented was calculated at 138.
Findings showed that the buffer zone experienced no increase in burglary, but rather a decrease similar to that of the treatment area. This decrease indicated a diffusion of benefits.
Reduction of repeat victimization
Over the 4-year period post-implementation, repeat victimization was reduced in the SDP by two and a half times the amount of the BCU.
Sturgeon–Adams and colleagues (2005) used a quasi-experimental design with comparison conditions to evaluate the effectiveness of the Hartlepool Burglary Reduction program. The Hartlepool Strategic Development Project (SDP) consisted of 3,500 households, divided into two areas by a main road. The SDP average monthly burglary count prior to the program was 17.5.
Researchers obtained disaggregate crime data for the period of April 1997 to September 2001 from the Cleveland police. They noted that the police improved the computer systems in July 1999. The researchers were able to clean the pre–July 1999 data for burglary, so that it could be used to assess burglary rates before and after program implementation. This was not possible for other crime data, so “before/after” data are not reliable for other crimes, although comparisons can be made between treatment and comparison sites. Comparison sites include a buffer zone immediately surrounding the treatment area, the Cleveland Police Force Area, the Hartlepool 1 Police District (Basic Command Unit or BCU), and another comparison area north of the town center.
The study used mean monthly burglaries to assess the relative significance of changes in the Hartlepool SDP in relation to the comparison areas. The original follow-up period was up to 2 years after the program began implementation. This was extended in a later analysis to 4 years.
Researchers noted that another program, New Deal for Communities, was running in close proximity to this program, so that it was impossible to definitively attribute reductions in burglary to the burglary reduction program.
The Hartlepool Strategic Development Project contributions of cash totaled £79,000. Researchers modeled total project costs over the life of the project at £54,000, and the value of burglaries saved at £118,030, yielding a cost–benefit ratio of 2.19 and net benefits of £64,000.
Evidence-Base (Studies Reviewed)
These sources were used in the development of the program profile:Study 1
Sturgeon–Adams, Louise, Sue Adamson, and Norman Davidson. 2005. Hartlepool: A Case Study in Burglary Reduction
. Hull, England: Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Hull.http://www.popcenter.org/library/scp/pdf/177-SturgeonAdams.pdf
These sources were used in the development of the program profile:
Hough, Mike, Ian Hearnden, Andrew Millie, Carol Hedderman, Niall Hamilton–Smith, and Jane Willis. 2004. “The Reducing Burglary Initiative: Design, Development and Delivery.” In Niall Hamilton–Smith (ed.). Home Office Research Study 287
. London, England: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.http://www.popcenter.org/tools/implementing_responses/PDFs/Hamilton-Smith.pdf
Following are CrimeSolutions.gov-rated practices that are related to this program:Neighborhood Watch
Also known as block watch, apartment watch, home watch, and community watch, these programs involve citizens trying to prevent crime in their neighborhood or community. Citizens remain alert for suspicious activities and report those activities to the police. The practice is rated Promising in reducing crime in the control area compared to the experimental area; and rated No Effects in reducing victimization.Evidence Ratings for Outcomes:
| ||Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types|
| ||Victimization - Multiple victimization outcomes|