Crime Reduction - Helping to Reduce Crime in Your Area

This is the first evidence base from the Improving Performance through Applied Knowledge (IPAK) pilot. IPAK seeks to share knowledge with practitioners across England and Wales to help people learn how to take known effective practice demonstrated by other groups and apply it to their local context in order to reduce crime and the fear of crime in their area. The hope is that shared knowledge will save time and money by identifying and applying the most effective solution to a specific area's problem. This should encourage people to consider what they could have done differently after the project is completed, to maintain a constant cycle of learning and improvement. This domestic burglary evidence base is a series of papers documenting what is currently known about the issues surrounding domestic burglary in England and Wales. It is intended to be the building block of future products that will be tailored to specific groups and these will be developed in consultation with practitioners from these groups. Following on from the Domestic Burglary pilot other crime topics will go through the same process.

The evidence base is divided into five sections

1. Key domestic burglary statistics describes the current picture of domestic burglary examining the characteristics of the offender, victim and the offence itself. Information is taken from published and 'grey' research which leads itself to the creation of the second document, Identified Gaps
   
2. Identified gaps highlights areas for possible future research.
   
3. What works for domestic burglary crime prevention: Strength of evidence indicators is taken from the Reducing Burglary Initiative. It seeks to provide information on to evaluate the range of domestic burglary reduction projects implemented during this government- funded initiative. The first set of tables, examines how robust the evidence is to support the validity of the initiatives.
   
4. What works for domestic burglary crime prevention: Techniques and context attempts to examine the good practice points and the potential barriers to implementation for partnerships or agencies seeking to replicate the initiatives within their local area.
   
5. Using the 5Is system for evaluation - A list of interview themes for practitioners provides a practical framework of questions that could be used to evaluate completed initiatives or to consider what evaluation should be built into a forthcoming project. Good evaluation is crucial for others to be able to replicate good practice and keep the cycle of improving practice and sharing knowledge flowing. In addition a glossary of frequently used terms is provided.
   
6. Acronyms and glossary of terms

Who is the evidence base aimed at?

Policy makers; practitioners within Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs)/Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) and related organisations tasked with reducing domestic burglary locally; people with responsibility for approving funding for local initiatives; people new to the field of burglary; researchers and academics studying the nature of burglary and the related issues.

Where has the information derived from?

The statistics are based on the latest figures released in June 2006 and, where applicable, includes updates received in January 2007. All published and some relevant ‘grey' research documents have been reviewed for inclusion in the report.

Key consideration

The initiatives described in the evidence base should not be taken as a guaranteed method to reduce domestic burglary; full analysis of the problems experienced at local level is essential. Similarly the value of evaluation post-implementation cannot be overemphasised. There are many tools to assist with analysis and evaluation using recognised problem-orientated approaches and further information is available from www.crimereduction.gov.uk .

What is next?

The papers will be updated annually in July or as soon as the latest British Crime Survey and Police Recorded Crime figures are published. We are keen to receive feedback on how useful this report is and any additions, omissions or amendments that readers identify are welcome. The team responsible for commissioning these papers will be holding user group forums to consult with end- users and seek feedback on what other follow-up products, in a variety of formats, might be considered valuable. Evidence bases examining other crime types, e.g. criminal damage and street robbery, are also being developed as mentioned previously.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the author of this evidence base, Andrew Kent. Valuable comments and suggestions were received from the peer review panel consisting of John Birkenshaw, Lucy Edwards, Andrew Millie and Jane Mowat. Additional thanks to Becca Chapman, Jorgen Lovbakke, Sean Quiggin, Nick Tilley and Sarah Pepper for their consideration of the development of the papers.

Last update: Wednesday, April 18, 2007