Research on target: A collaboration between researchers and practitioners for a target hardening scheme

Abstract

In this paper we report on a researcher–practitioner collaboration to deliver a crime reduction initiative across a borough in the West Midlands region of England. The circumstances of the collaboration and the initial analysis are explained. The crime prevention programme, which involved the situational crime prevention technique of target hardening, is described and a brief summary of the evaluation findings are included. We then consider the value of such collaborations for developing evidence-led interventions and discuss a number of issues which researchers embarking upon this type of project should consider: funding, timescales, data access, publication and evaluation. We conclude that, with due regard for these issues, such collaborations can be beneficial to all the parties involved.

Keywords:

• Crime prevention
• evidence-led practice
• research practitioner collaboration

Notes

1. Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, ‘Indices of Deprivation 2000’ (London: DETR, 2000).

2. Home Office, ‘Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships: Recorded Crime for Key Offences 2001/02 to 2002/03’ (London: Home Office, 2003).

3. J. Simmons and T. Dodd, ‘Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003, Statistical Tables’ (London: Home Office, 2003).

4. Neighbourhoods were geographically determined areas which were identified, and used, by the local authority. They represent natural communities which are understood by local residents and were, therefore, considered preferable to voting wards or police beats for our analysis.

5. Unpublished reports to the CDRP BTG; details available from the authors.

6. See, for example, R.V. Clarke, Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies, 2nd ed. (New York: Harrow & Heston, 1997); M. Felson and R.V. Clarke, ‘Opportunity Makes the Thief. Practical Research for Crime Prevention’. Police Research Series Paper 98 (London: Home Office, 1998).

7. Unpublished reports to the CDRP BTG (see note 5).

8. For an overview of repeat victimisation see, for example, G. Farrell and K. Pease, eds., Repeat Victimization. Vol. 12 of Crime Prevention Studies (Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 2001). For using repeat victimisation as a crime prevention strategy for domestic burglary see, among many other examples, S. Chenery, J. Holt and K. Pease, ‘Biting Back II: Reducing Repeat Victimisation in Huddersfield’. Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper 82 (London: Home Office, 1997), where reductions of 30% were achieved over a 2-year period.

9. For example, P. Ekblom, H. Law and M. Sutton, ‘Safer Cities and Domestic Burglary’ (Home Office Research Study 164, London: Home Office, 1996), reports a reduction in burglaries of 25% after a high dose target hardening intervention in a high crime area.

10. S.D. Johnson and K.J. Bowers, ‘The Burglary as Clue to the Future: The Beginnings of Prospective Hot-spotting’, European Journal of Criminology 1, no. 2 (2004): 237–55.

11. M. Townsley, R. Homel and J. Chaseling, ‘Repeat Burglary Victimisation: Spatial and Temporal Patterns’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 33, no. 1 (2000): 37–63.

12. M. Wellsmith, ‘Interim Review of the Focus Home Security Project’ (Unpublished report, March 2005); M. Wellsmith, ‘A Second Review of the Focus Home Security Project’ (Unpublished report, June 2005); M. Wellsmith, ‘Final Evaluation of the Focus Home Security Project’ (Unpublished report, June 2006). All reports are available from the corresponding author.

13. There is currently ongoing debate in criminology about the most appropriate methods of evaluation. These predominantly focus on the relative benefits (or otherwise) of a quasi-experimental approach which aims to mimic the randomised control trial and a ‘realistic’ approach which focuses more on the ‘individuality’ of an intervention, drawing out its context, mechanisms and outcomes in an attempt to determine its replicability to other circumstances. See, for example, R. Pawson and N. Tilley, ‘What Works in Evaluation Research?’, British Journal of Criminology 34, no. 3 (1994): 291–306, and the subsequent responses in the same journal that this article attracted.

14. In other words, the whole force with the borough in question removed. Although this is not ideal, it was not feasible, under the circumstances, to identify a suitable ‘matched’ borough. Nor would it have been possible to find one which had not received some sort of domestic burglary reduction programme.

15. R. Pawson and N. Tilley, Realistic Evaluation (London: Sage, 1997).

16. It should be noted that, for this analysis, a repeat victim was any household that was burgled for a second time during the period of study. The more usual definition applied by the police is a second offence during a 12 month period.

17. Wellsmith, Final Evaluation.

18. Ibid., 17.

19. Ibid., 5.

20. For the most recent matrix of situational crime prevention techniques, see D.B. Cornish and R.V. Clarke, ‘Opportunities, Precipitators and Criminal Decisions: A Reply to Wortley's Critique of Situational Crime Prevention’, in Theory for Practice in Situational Crime Prevention, ed. M.J. Smith and D.B. Cornish, Vol. 16 of Crime Prevention Studies (Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 2003), 41–96, specifically p. 90.

21. Report carried out for the Secretary of State for the Home Department, ‘Crime Statistics: An Independent Review’, November 2006, available online at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/crime-statistics-independent-review-06.pdf (last accessed 22 January 2007).

22. A. Walker, C. Kershaw and S. Nicholas, ‘Crime in England and Wales 2005/06’, (London: Home Office, 2006), 85.

23. See, for example, N. Tilley and G. Laycock, ‘Joining up Research, Policy and Practice about Crime’, Policy Studies 21, no 3 (2000): 213–27.

24. Such as N. Tilley and G. Laycock, ‘Working Out What to Do: Evidence-based Crime Reduction’, Crime Reduction Research Series Paper 11, 2002; L.W. Sherman, D.P. Farrington, B.C. Welsh and D.L. MacKenzie, eds., Evidence-based Crime Prevention (London: Routledge, 2002).

25. Tilley and Laycock ‘Joining up Research’.

26. R. Erol, M. Wellsmith and A. Burrell, ‘Improving Performance for Crime and Drug Partnerships: Gap Analysis’ (Unpublished report, 2006). Available from the corresponding author.

27. Economic and Social Research Council, ‘General Guidance Notes on Constructing a Good Proposal to the ESRC Research Grants Scheme’ (Swindon, 2007), available from www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Support/research%5Faward%5Fholders/FAQs2/index1aspx (last accessed 1 April 2008).

28. See Economic and Social Research Council website www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/opportunities/current_funding_opportunities/research/index.aspx?ComponentID=11696&SourcePageId=5964 for links to pdfs of successful awards from recent meetings (last accessed 22 January 2007).

29. G.K. Laycock, ‘Property Marking: A Deterrent to Domestic Burglary?’, Crime Prevention Unit Paper 3, (London: Home Office, 1985), would be one of a small number of notable exceptions.

30. Examples include data from the British Crime Survey and General Household Survey. These and others are available from www.data-archive.ac.uk (last accessed 22 January 2007).

31. Such debate is far beyond the scope of this paper. Interested readers should consult, for example, M. Maguire, ‘Crime Statistics: the ‘Data Explosion’ and its Implications', in The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, ed. M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 322–75, which provides both an overview and extensive references for further reading.

32. M. Riedel, Research Strategies for Secondary Data: A Perspective for Criminology and Criminal Justice (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000).

33. Pawson and Tilley, Realistic Evaluation, 159–64.