Which burglary security devices work for whom and in what ... · Burglary victimisation and...
Transcript of Which burglary security devices work for whom and in what ... · Burglary victimisation and...
Which burglary security devices work for whom and in what
context?
Andromachi Tseloni (LU) and Nick Tilley (UCL)
Graham Farrell (SFU), Louise Grove (LU), Rebecca Thompson (IPSCJ), Emily Evans (LU) and Emmanuel Aboagye–Nimo (LU)
BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
21 January 2015, 9.30am-3.30pm
1
Economic and Social Research Council, Secondary Data Analysis Initiative, Phase 1,
ES/K003771/1 (NTU) and ES/K003771/2
Issues to be explored
• Wider research programme • Burglary trends & data • Which burglary security devices work? • Burglar alarms • Modus Operandi over time • How domestic burglary security has changed over
time? • Which burglary security devices work for whom? • … in what context? • Distributive justice for security and burglary &
conclusions • Current work
2 BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Wider research programme
• Sustaining the Crime Drop in Industrialised Nations: A Crime-Specific Problem-Solving Approach (Farrell, Tilley and Tseloni; 2007-2009; ESRC)
• Which burglary security devices work for whom and in what context? (Tseloni, Tilley, Grove and Farrell; 2013-2015; ESRC-SDAI Phase 1)
• What is the role of population group- and context- specific changes in personal security and routine activities in explaining the decline in stranger and acquaintance violence? (Tseloni, Farrell, Grove and Tilley; 2014-2016; ESRC-SDAI Phase 2)
3 BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Burglary trends & Data Domestic burglary trends, 1981-2011/12 Crime Survey for England
and Wales (CSEW) 92-96
98-00
01-05
05-08 08-12
1992-1996 1. Burglar alarm 2. Deadlocks 3. Window locks 4. Lights
1998-2007/08 1. Burglar alarm 2. Dummy alarm 3. Deadlocks 4. Window locks 5. Security chains 6. Indoor lights 7. Outdoor lights 8. Window
bars/grilles
2008/09-2011/12 9. CCTV camera
4
CSEW burglary levels peaked in 1993. In 2011/12 households were 3 times less likely to be burgled than in 1993 (risk fell from 7% to 2%).
BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Which burglary security devices work?
5 BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Security Protection Factors of selected burglary security devices against burglary,
2008/09-2011/12 CSEW
6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Burglaralarm
Doordeadlocksor double
locks
Externallights
Windowlocks
Window &Door locks
Securitychains,
Window &Door locks
Externallights,
Window &Door locks
External &Internallights,
Window &Door locks
CCTV,Securitychains,
Window &Door locks
Sec
uri
ty P
rote
cti
on
Fa
cto
rs
WIDE SPF=49
WD SPF=12.5
EWD SPF=34
BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Most effective security combinations
Windows needing a key Internal lights on a timer
Double door locks or deadlocks External lights on a sensor
7 BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
How domestic burglary security has changed
overtime?
8 BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Security devices presence, 1992-2011/12
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2001
2001
/02
2002
/03
2003
/04
2004
/05
2005
/06
2006
/07
2007
/08
2008
/09
2009
/10
2010
/11
2011
/12
Window locks
Double locks/deadlocks
Outdoor lights
Security chains/bolts/bars
Burglar alarm
Indoor lights
Dummy box
No security
Window bars/gril les
Individual or add-on presence Source ONS
Individual presence of security devices
9
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Pe
rce
nta
ge
(%
) o
f to
tal s
am
ple
CSEW Sweep
Window locks
Double locks or deadlocks
Security Chains
External Lights on Timer/Sensor
Burglar Alarm
Internal Lights on Timer/Sensor
Dummy Alarm
Window Bars/Grilles
BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Security combinations presence, 1998-2011/12
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Pe
rce
nta
ge
(%
) o
f to
tal s
am
ple
Crime Survey for E&W Sweep
Window and Door locks (WD)
WD+External lights (EWD)
WD+Security chains (WSD)
EWD+Burglar alarm (EWBD)
EWD+Security chains (EWSD)
EWBD+Internal lights (EIWBD)
WIDE
BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Households security profiles, 1998-2011/12
11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Pe
rce
nta
ge
(%
) o
f to
tal s
am
ple
Crime Survey for E&W Sweep
Any most effective securitycombination (WD, EWD orWIDE)
Any individual security
No security device
BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Security Protection Factors against burglary for combined devices, 1998-
2011/12
12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Window andDoor locks (WD)
WD+Externallights (EWD)
WD+Securitychains (WSD)
EWD+ Burglaralarm (EWBD)
EWD+Securitychains (EWSD)
WIDE
98-00
0102-0405
0506-0708
0809-1112
Secu
rity
Pro
tecti
on
Facto
rs
BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Which burglary security devices work for whom?
13 BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Burglary victimisation and presence of WIDE within social and private renters compared to home
owners, 2008/09-2010/11
14
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
Social renters Private renters
Burglary Victim Presence of WIDE
Home owners
= 1
Social renters have 190%
higher burglary odds and 73%
lower odds of WIDE presence
than owner-occupiers
Private renters have
37% higher burglary
odds and 73% lower
odds of WIDE presence
than owner-occupiers
Od
ds r
ati
o
BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Burglary victimisation and presence of WIDE within social and private renters compared to home
owners, 1994-2011/12
15
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
94-9
6
98-0
0
01/0
2-0
4/0
5
05/0
6-0
7/0
8
08/0
9-1
1/1
2
94-9
6
98-0
0
01/0
2-0
4/0
5
05/0
6-0
7/0
8
08/0
9-1
1/1
2 Social Tenants (Council housing
resident) - Private Renting Tenants
Burglary Risk
Presence of WIDE
Home
owners = 1
Bars shading reflects the
strength of the statistical
significance of the effect
of tenure on burglary
victimisation and
presence of WIDE
security. Models without
area factors. N = 812-
3,998
Od
ds r
ati
o
Burglary odds ratio of social renters relative to home owners nearly tripled when the average household is 3 times less likely to be burgled.
Sustained gap in presence of WIDE between home owners and others
Burglary victimisation and presence of WIDE within ethnic minorities compared to
whites, 1994-2011/12
16
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
94-9
6
98-0
0
01/0
2-0
4/0
5
05/0
6-0
7/0
8
08/0
9-1
1/1
2
94-9
6
98-0
0
01/0
2-0
4/0
5
05/0
6-0
7/0
8
08/0
9-1
1/1
2
94-9
6
98-0
0
01/0
2-0
4/0
5
05/0
6-0
7/0
8
08/0
9-1
1/1
2
Black - Asian - Mixed, Chinese or Other
Burglary Risk
Presence of WIDE
White =1
Bars shading reflects
the strength of the
statistical significance
of the effect of
ethnicity on burglary
victimisation and
presence of WIDE
security. Models
without area factors. N
= 812-3,998
BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Od
ds r
ati
o
Burglary victimisation and presence of WIDE in inner cities and urban areas compared to rural
areas, 1994-2011/12
17
Od
ds r
ati
o
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
94-9
6
98-0
0
01/0
2-0
4/0
5
05/0
6-0
7/0
8
08/0
9-1
1/1
2
94-9
6
98-0
0
01/0
2-0
4/0
5
05/0
6-0
7/0
8
08/0
9-1
1/1
2
Inner City - Urban
Burglary Risk
Presence of WIDE
Rural =1
Bars shading reflects
the strength of the
statistical significance
of the effect of area
type on burglary
victimisation and
presence of WIDE
security. Models
without area factors. N
= 812-3,998
Which burglary security devices work for whom and in what context?
18 BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Burglary victimisation and presence of WIDE across area deprivation for the base
household, 2007/08-2010/11
19
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Probability ofpresence of
WIDE
Probability ofbeing burgled
Base = 52 years old white household reference person, two adults without children, professional social class, earning £20k-£29,999, owning their home and 2 cars, living in a detached house in a SE rural area of nationally average area characteristics (% private renting, % under 5yrs olds, & unoccupied household
Area poverty (standardised values)
BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Burglary victimisation and presence of WIDE across area deprivation for the base and social
renting households , 2007/08-2010/11
20
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Probability ofpresence of
WIDE
Probability ofbeing burgled
Area poverty (standardised values)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Probability ofpresence of WIDE
within socialtenants
Probability ofbeing burgled for
social rentinghouseholds
BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Burglary victimisation and presence of WIDE across area deprivation for social renting households on £5-10k without a car ,
2007/08-2010/11
21 Area poverty (standardised values)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Probability ofpresence ofWIDE withinsocial tenants
Probability ofbeing burgled
for socialrentinghouseholds
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Probability of beingburgled for social rentinghouseholds without carearning £5-10K
Probability of presence of
WIDE within social tenantswithout car earning £5-10K
BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Distributive justice for security and burglary
• Burglary risk and effective security combinations are highly negatively correlated between households and between Basic Command Units.
• The following population groups are more burgled and have lower availability of effective security than others: o Social or Private renters
o Lone parents
o Households with household representative person of Asian (Indian-sub-continent), Chinese or other origin
o Households on low (<£10,000) or non-reported income
o Households without a car and /or
o Households living in deprived areas
22 BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Conclusions • Combinations of security devices on average afford
30 times more protection than no security, especially in more recent years and /or by combinations including Window locks, Internal lights, Door double or deadlocks and External lights.
• Overall WIDE seems to be the combination that confers the best ‘value for number of devices’ protection consistently since 2001.
• During the burglary falls both the presence of effective security combinations and the preventive power of these combinations increased, reflecting perhaps increases in new housing.
• Counter-intuitively burglar alarms are associated with increased risk of burglary, especially in more recent years.
23 BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Policy Implications
• …in the afternoon discussion session
2.30-3.30pm
24 BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Current work
• Neighbourhood watch effect
• Burglary signatures
25 BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Thanks to the following
26
• Advisory Committee – ACPO: Burglary & Secured by Design
– Home Office: Centre for Applied Science and Technology & Designing Out Crime Team
– Neighbourhood and Home Watch Network
– Nottingham Crime and Drugs Partnership
– Office for National Statistics
– Police Forces: Nottinghamshire, West Mercia & West Yorkshire
– Victim Support: Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Rutland & Nottinghamshire
– Academic experts: Nottingham Trent University & University of Huddersfield
• Dr Emmanuel Aboagye-Nimo
BURGLARY & SECURITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Thank you for listening
Contact details:
My email: [email protected]
Project
Email: [email protected]
Website:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/socialsciences/
research/projects/burglarysecurity/
27
BURGLARY & SECURITY
PROJECT CONFERENCE