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)


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%).


Which burglary security devices work?


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


Most effective security combinations

Windows needing a key Internal lights on a timer

Double door locks or deadlocks External lights on a sensor


How domestic burglary security has changed

overtime?


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


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


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


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


Which burglary security devices work for whom?


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 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


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?


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 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


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 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


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


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


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.


Policy Implications

• …in the afternoon discussion session

2.30-3.30pm


Current work

• Neighbourhood watch effect

• Burglary signatures


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


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

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

which burglary security devices work for whom and in what ... · burglary victimisation and...

Documents