THE TIME COURSE OF REPEAT BURGLARY VICTIMIZATION

Abstract

Research has demonstrated that the probability of repeat victimization is greater than the probability of an independent offence. The time course of elevated risk has important implications for crime prevention. For burglaries, the current received wisdom is that the characteristics of homes which make burglary more probable persist over the medium and long term. Addressing the time course question, previous research by the authors examined the change in risk of repeat burglary victimization for up to twelve months after the initial offence (Polvi et al. 1990J. The study is here extended to the analysis of a four-year time period (1984 to 1987). It was found that the elevated risk of repeat burglary does not last over long time periods. Based on the present data, the risk becomes average once six months has passed and remains so subsequently. It is contended that the work should be replicated, given its surprising results. One implication of this research is that preventative action should be taken as soon as possible after a burglary. One of the criminological legacies of the late Richard Sparks was his recognition of the importance of the phenomenon of repeat crime victimization (see Sparks 1981). In essence, the probability of being victimized a second or subsequent time is several times the rate that would be expected if offences were independent events. This seems to be true across a wide range of offence types. Sparks (1981) reviews possible reasons for this phenomenon with typical wit and lucidity. The fact is usable in crime prevention terms, since concentration of preventative effort on prior victims will be more cost effective than concentration on a different group of similar size. This was the cornerstone of a recent, apparently successful, burglary prevention programme in Rochdale (Forrester et al. 1988). Put generally, we should think in terms of a continuum of crime predictability. The more exactly a crime location can be specified in advance, the greater the opportunity for prevention or detection. At one extreme, entrapment is a seductive technique because it locates a crime precisely in place and time. At the other extreme, random distribution of crime makes the allocation of prevention and detection effort maximally difficult. The heightened probability of repeat victimization serves to move the situation towards the predictable end of the continuum. To be useful, predictability has to apply in terms of both place (target) and time. Research on multiple victimization has hitherto neglected time, tending to look at elevated risk over a standard period, typically a year, rather than at any changes in risk across time. Yet the time course of elevated risk is of crucial importance to preventative effort. Specifically, over what