The Howard Journal Val 27 No 2. May 88 ISSN 02655527

How Young House Burglars Choose Targets

RICHARD WRIGHT and ROBERT H. LOGIE Richard Wright i s Associate Professor, Department o f Administration

o f Justice and Research Fel low, Center f o r Metropolitan Studies University o f Missouri , St. Louis , U.S.A.

Robert Logie is Lecturer, Department o f P.ychology, University o f Aberdeen

Abstract: This article reports the results of an empirical study designed to determine what features of the immediate environment are important to juvenile house burglars in their selection of targets. The study involved two main subject groups: ( i ) convicted juvenile burglars; and (ii) adult householders. Subjects were presented with photographs of houses and asked whether o r not they would choose them as a burglary target on the basis of the information available. These photographs were identical f o r each subject apart from a controlled factor. Data also were gathered from participants via a checklist procedure, a short interview and a surprise recognition test. The findings indicated that young burglars largely concurred as to the factors which inyuenced their decision when choosing a target. However, their choice of factors dijjfered in several important respects from those which householders believed to be important to such offenders. The implications of this work f o r environmental crime prevention strategies are discussed.

Recommendations for the prevention of residential burglary have made increasing reference to the alteration of situational cues emitted by potential targets and their surroundings (for example, Winchester and Jackson 1982). These recommendations rest on specific assumptions about what features of the environment are taken into account by house burglars. Until recently, however, little was known about the way in which burglars perceive physical opportunities for crime (Mayhew et al . 1979; Mayhew 1979).

In the absence of sound empirical knowledge, many ‘situational’ prevention schemes aimed at, among other crimes, house burglary were implemented on little more than ‘informed hunches’ (Waller 1979). Although in some cases the introduction of such schemes was followed by a reduction in burglary, it is unclear whether the schemes themselves produced this drop (Titus 1984). A rational, cost-effective approach to the situational prevention of residential burglary requires a thorough under- standing of the way in which offenders perceive targets. I t makes little sense, particularly a t a time of fiscal restraint, to alter the environment without first determining whether (and, if so, to what extent) burglars view these alterations as a constraint on crime.

92

This article reports the results of an empirical study designed to determine what features of the immediate environment are important to juvenile house burglars in their selection of targets.

Literature Review

A considerable amount of research has been conducted on the influence of environmental factors on crime (for example, Brantingham and Branting- ham 1981). Much of this research has concerned residential burglary, though little of it has addressed the question of what features of potential targets are taken into account by house burglars. Nevertheless, there is some information that bears on this issue. For example, several studies have compared the characteristics of victimised and non-victimised dwellings. They have consistently shown that victimised houses differ from non-victimised ones in that they are less ‘surveillable’ (Waller and Okihiro 1978; Dietrick 1977; Winchester and Jackson 1982) and more often left unoccupied (Winchester and Jackson 1982).

A few researchers have attempted to tap more directly the factors which influence burglars by interviewing them. Their conclusions are consistent in relation to some cues, but not others. Walsh (1980), Maguire and Bennett (1982) and Waller and Okihiro (1978) all reported that burglars prefer houses they can approach and enter without being seen. Bennett and Wright (1984) noted that house burglars specifically were worried about being observed by neighbours. Another consistent finding is that burglars prefer unoccupied houses (Scarr 1973; Reppetto 1974; Waller and Okihiro 1978; Maguire and Bennett 1982; Bennett and Wright 1984; Walsh 1980).

However, there is little agreement among those who have interviewed burglars regarding the influence of security hardware on target choice. Scarr (1973), Ixtkemann (1973) and Rengert and Wasilchick (1985) concluded that burglars consider the type of lock fitted, whereas Maguire and Bennett (1982), Bennett and Wright (1984) and Walsh (1980) found that they usually do not take this into account.

The information gleaned from these interviews, while suggestive, does not constitute a firm foundation on which to build situational prevention schemes. The interviews were conducted in a situation far removed from that in which burglaries typically occur thereby calling into question the validity of offenders’ responses.

In an attempt to approximate more closely the situation in which targets are selected, several researchers have used video-recordings, photographs or miniature models of houses (for example, Reppetto 1974; Walsh 1980). The most elaborate research of this type was conducted by Bennett and Wright (1983, 1984). They employed three different experimental methods, each designed to explore a different aspect of offenders’ target selection. The first method involved showing a video- recording of houses to a sample of convicted burglars. The offenders were asked to assess each of the houses as a potential target and to decide if they would break into it if they were looking for a house to attack.

93

The second experiment involved showing photographs of various aspects of houses to a separate sample of burglars. The burglars were given a complete front view of each house and asked to select additional photographs in an order that reflected their normal method of choosing targets. Again, they were asked to give reasons for each selection and for their final decision as to whether or not the house was suitable for burglary.

These two experimental methods identified a wide range of factors which seemed to affect burglars’ choice of targets. However, the experiments did not examine the independent influence of individual factors on that process. The third experiment was an exploratory study designed to investigate the feasibility of using photographs of houses to address this problem. Three photographs were taken of various aspects of five houses; a complete view of the front of the house, a close-up of the front door and a close-up of a ground floor window. Both of the close-up shots revealed details of locks, where these were fitted. Two sets of photographs were produced that were identical apart from a controlled factor. One set of photographs presented the houses in a supposedly favourable state (from a burglar’s point of view), while the other set presented them unfavourably. Five factors selected on the basis of the results of the first two experiments and the recommendations of crime prevention specialists (that is, crime prevention officers attached to various British police forces), were manipulated in the study: (i) whether an alarm was visible; (ii) whether the house was surrounded by bushes (offering cover); (iii) whether there was a car in the driveway of the house itself (suggesting occupancy); (iv) whether there was a car in the driveway next door (indicating the presence of neighbours), and (v) whether the window had a security lock. Twenty convicted burglars were shown the houses in a hypothetically favourable condition (surrounded by bushes, without an alarm visible and so on), and another 20 saw them in an unfavourable condition. Each individual, however, was presented with a mixture of favourable and unfavourable targets. The offenders were asked to look at the three photographs of each house and to report whether they would choose i t as a target.

Two of the five factors (whether an alarm was visible and whether the house was surrounded by bushes) had a statistically significant influence on offenders’ choices. The presence of a car in the driveway of the house also seemed to have an affect on target selection, although this was not significant. The presence of a window lock or a car in the neighbour’s driveway did not affect the burglars’ decision making.

This work has contributed to an understanding of those situational factors that may be crucial in the prevention of residential burglary. However, the evidence is not sufficiently strong to allow more general conclusions to be drawn. The third experiment, for example, included only a small number of houses and each factor was studied individually on just one of them. So, for example, a particular house may have been disliked not because there was a car in the neighbour’s driveway, but because i t appeared that there was little inside worth stealing.

94

There are two further limitations to the studies carried out by Bennett and Wright. First, recent crime statistics suggest that a substantial proportion of solved residential burglaries are committed by juveniles (Webster 1986; Home Office 1984) and the results reported above are applicable only to adult offenders. Second, it is unclear whether the pattern of results obtained for burglars matches that which would be obtained for non-burglars. A comparison with a sample of non-burglars might shed some light on the extent to which those factors assumed by the general population to be important in burglary prevention reflect those which offenders actually consider when choosing a target.

With such problems in mind, the present study was designed to extend the preliminary work carried out by Bennett and Wright in a more systematic and rigorous fashion.

Method

Subjects Groups Burglary Group The ten individuals in the burglary group were all in a remand centre for juvenile offenders in East Anglia. They were interviewed only after we had obtained permission from the juveniles themselves, their parent or guardian, their social worker and the local social services department. This was a time-consuming and often frustrating process. We were able to approach only a small proportion of the juveniles. The remand centre was by definition a short-stay facility and there was often not sufficient time to gain the permissions required before the juvenile went to court or was released.

All bar one of the 13 juveniles approached agreed to take part in the research. In two of these cases, however, a parent or social worker refused to allow them to do so. Those taking part were all male and their ages ranged from 15 to 17 years. They were selected on the basis that they had been convicted of residential burglary on at least one occasion, although they may have been involved in and/or convicted of other offences as well. None of them reported having used alcohol or drugs immediately prior to their burglaries which, for the most part, had been committed during daylight hours. In all cases, we were careful not to give the impression that we viewed the burglars as having specialised knowledge. This was to avoid feelings of esteem associated with breaking the law.

Control Group The ten individuals in the control group were all selected at random from a larger group of volunteers who were members of the subject panel of the Medical Research Council Applied Psychology Unit in Cambridge. Those chosen to take part in the study were all householders aged 21 to 60 years. They tended to have had at least twelve years full-time education, and many had attended a college or university. As such, the sample was not matched in any way to the burglary group. Rather, it represented, loosely

95

speaking, its ‘opposition’, that is, people with a personal interest in preventing these crimes.

Materials Target Photographs Black and white photographs were taken of 20 houses. Six of the houses were detached, eight were semi-detached and six were terraced. There were six photographs of a full front view of each house, and two close up shots showing details of the front door. The photographs were arranged as follows:

( i ) A full view of the front of the house as it normally looked with no additional physical features. ( i i ) One close up of the front door showing details of a ‘latch’ type lock. ( i i i ) A full view of the front of the house with a ‘dead bolt’ type lock fitted to the door. (iv) A close up of the front door showing the ‘dead bolt’ lock. (v) A full view of the front of the house with a ‘Beware of the Dog’ sign clearly visible. (vi) A full view of the front of the house with a burglar alarm clearly visible. (vii) A full view of the front of the house with a hedge or fence superimposed on the photograph. (viii) A full view of the front of the house with a car parked in the driveway or in the road out front.

This allowed for a possible six sets of photographs constructed such that each house was shown in each of six conditions across the sets. Within one set, however, a given house was shown in one condition only. For example, house number one would be shown in set 1 as a straight house with no factors added. In set 2 it would appear with a burglar alarm, in set 3 with a ‘Beware of the Dog’ sign (but no burglar alarm), in set 4 with a hedge superimposed, in set 5 with a car in the driveway, and in set 6 with a ‘dead bolt’ lock fitted to the front door. In contrast, house two might appear in set 1 with an alarm installed, in set 2 with a ‘Beware of the Dog’ sign and so on.

Within any one set the five factors were represented three times; on a terraced, a semi-detached and a detached house. In addition, the ‘straight’ house comprised one that was terraced, one that was detached and three that were semi-detached.

Recognition Photographs The sets of photographs for recognition were based on the target sets. Within each set, half of the photographs were identical copies of those in the corresponding target set. The remainder involved a change to the original photograph, comprising in some cases the addition of a factor to a dwelling which was originally presented as a ‘straight’ house. In other cases, a factor was removed fiom the original. Within each set of

96

photographs and for each factor, one house had that factor removed for the recognition test, while a second house had it added.

Checklist The checklist consisted of 30 characteristics of houses. Some were chosen because they hypothetically were attractive to a burglar (for example ‘newspapers stuffed in the letterbox’), others were chosen because they were thought to be unattractive (for example ‘T.V. on’), and the remainder were chosen because they seemed to be neutral (for example ‘a brick house’). Each item on the checklist was read out to the interviewee who was required to indicate whether (a) this factor would tend to attract a burglar, (b) this factor would tend to ‘put off a burglar, or (c) this factor would make no difference as to whether a house was chosen as a target. Two versions of the checklist were made up, with the 30 items arranged in a different random order for each.

The items to be included were categorised roughly into ten groups, and these are shown in Table I .

Questionnaire The subjects also were asked a number of questions about themselves. In the case of the burglary group this largely involved questions about their offending history. Members of the control group were asked about their own home and any home-security measures they had adopted.

Design and Procedure The initial part of the study involved showing photographs of houses either as they normally appear, or with one of the five factors added to the photograph. Each subject was instructed to look at the photograph and indicate whether a burglar would find the house attractive or unattractive. They were asked to make their decision on the basis of the information as it was presented in the photograph, without the possibility of returning at some later time to commit the offence.

This experiment rests on an assumption that the subjects will notice the factors being presented. Of course, that may not always be the case. T o address this possibility, we followed the experiment with a checklist procedure. After all 20 photographs had been shown, items from a checklist of features of houses were read out to the subjects. Thirty features were presented in a random order, and subjects were asked to indicate whether each would attract, deter or make no difference to a burglar.

These features were intended to cover those aspects of the physical environment which may be taken into account by a btlrglar, but which could not easily be shown in a photograph. We also included the factors examined in the photographs as a source of additional evidence.

Subjects next were asked the questions described briefly in the ‘Materials’ section, with the choice of questions appropriate to the subject group.

Finally, the subjects were given a surprise test of their ability to notice

97

TABLE 1 Items Contained in Checklist Arranged According to Categories of Features that are

Attractive (+), Unattractive (-) or Neutral to Burglar’s Decisions

1 . 2. 3. 4. 5 . 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 1 1 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

27. 28. 29. 30.

Car in drive Porch light on Light on in front room Car in neighbour’s drive Light on in hall T V on Full milk bottles on doorstep Newspapers stuffed in mailbox Dog in house Locks on windows Dead bolt lock on door Latch type lock on door Detached house Bungalow Well kept garden Leaded windows Untidy garden Terraced house Unkempt paintwork Open fields at back of house Large hedge in front of house Window open upstairs Sash windows Windows that open out Double glazing Neighbour’s window overlooking back of garden Semi-detached house Burglar alarm Brick house Front door painted red

Occupancy -

Occupancy -

Occupancy -

Occupancy -

Occupancy -

Occupancy -

Occupancy + Occupancy + Locks Locks -

Locks -

Wealth + Wealth + Wealth + Wealth + Wealth - Wealth -

Wealth -

Cover & access + Cover & access + Cover & access + Cover & access + Cover & access + Cover & access -

-

- Dog

Cover & access - Cover & access - Alarm -

Neutral Neutral

changes in the photographs they had been shown originally. There is evidence from the experimental psychology literature that relevant information is remembered better than irrelevant information (for example, Pitchert and Anderson 1977). This procedure, therefore, helped to rule out the possibility that the burglars had been deceptive in the earlier part of the experiment.

The photographs were presented one at a time in a random order. Subjects were told that they had seen all of the houses in the initial experiment, although some had been altered. They were asked to look at each photograph caretully and to decide whether the house had been changed in any way.

98

Results

Target Selection Percentage data for the different photograph conditions and three house types are shown in Table 2. From the table, it is clear that overall the burglars agree with the non-offenders that the presence of a dog or burglar alarm makes a house an unattractive target. There is disagreement between the groups where a ‘dead bolt’ lock has been fitted. The control group believed that these houses would be less attractive than the straight ones. The burglary group, however,( produced virtually the same proportion of ‘yes’ responses regardless’ of whether or not a ‘dead bolt’ lock was fitted.

TABLE 2 Percentage o f ‘Attracted’ Responses to Photographs of Target Houses, by Factor

Studied, House Type and Subject Group

Burglars Controls

Straight house Dead bolt lock Burglar alarm Cover

Car Dog

Detached Semi-detached Terraced

58 60 23 83 30

3

60 44 32

64 53 20 60 23 5 0

52 5 3 37

There were even larger discrepancies between the groups regarding the impact of the presence of a car or ‘cover’. The burglars were greatly attracted to houses with a hedge or fence, but they were put off those with a car in the drive. For the control group, cover made little difference.The presence of a car affected this group‘s decision to some extent, but the effect was not nearly as great as that for the burglar group. As regards type of house, there is a clear order of preference in the burglary group, with detached houses being seen as most attractive and terraced houses as least attractive. The control group viewed semi-detached and detached houses as equally attractive. However, they concurred with the burglars that terraced houses were the least prone to burglary.

Checklist The percentage of responses to the items on the checklist are shown in Table 3. The data shown have been summarised by grouping the 30 items in the checklist under ten categories of factors. Some of the categories were

99

initially considered attractive to a burglar, some were considered unattractive, and two were considered neutral. (The details of the grouping were shown in Table I ) . Some of these data were amenable to statistical analysis by the chi-square test (x‘). A significant 2‘ value indicates that the two groups differed in their choice of response. Where a x2 value is not shown, the relevant value was not statistically significant.

‘TABLE 3 Percentage of Each l )pe o f Response to Potentially Attractive (+), Unattractive

(-), or Neutral Factors !y Subject Group

drjb

Burglars Controls

Doesn’t Doesn’t Attract Put off Matter Attract Put off Matter Factor Group

Looks Occupied (-) 7 48 45 8 80 12

Unoccupied (+) 85 0 15 100 0 0 Dog (-1 0 80 20 0 100 0

‘Weal thy’ (+) 65 15 20 48 15 37 ‘Not Wealthy’ (-) 0 77 23 13 30 57

No cover & access (-) 0 47 53 3 60 37 Alarm (-) 10 80 10 0 100 0 Neutral 0 0 100 0 0 100

Looks

Locks (-) 13 17 70 10 73 17

Cover & access (+) 76 6 18 76 8 16

There appears to be some agreement between the groups that the presence of a dog makes a house a less tempting target. There is also general agreement that an alarm is a deterrent, although some burglars suggested that this might attract them on the grounds that it indicated there was something inside worth stealing.

The presence of locks shows a much more dramatic difference (x2 = 68, p < 0.001) between the groups than that found in the photograph procedure. Around 73% of the control responses reflected a belief that locks would deter burglars, while only 17% of the burglars’ responses indicated that locks would put them off. In some cases, a lock was actually considered by the burglars to be an attractive feature. However, this applied to ’latch’ type locks only.

More burglars than controls were attracted by signs ofwealth (x’ = 7.6, P < 0.05). However, the controls greatly underestimated (x‘ = 48, p < 0.001) the extent to which a ‘lack of wealth’ would put off the burglars. Items like a poorly-tended yard, a terraced house or unkempt paintwork all indicated to the burglars that the houses would have little

100

inside worth stealing. The control group recognised that these features would not make a property attractive to offenders. But they did not realise quite how unattractive they were to a burglar. There was broad agreement between the groups that cover and ease of access would make a house more attractive as a target. There was also general agreement that the lack of such factors would make the property a less attractive target. However,(householders overestimated (X‘ = 7.4, p < 0.05) the extent to which burglars would be put off by such cues. Both groups indicated that the neutral items would make no difference to a burglar’s decision.

Recognition Test The percentage of correct recognitions for each factor is shown in Table 4. I t is immediately apparent that the performance of the burglars is better than that of the controls. This difference was statistically significant as measured by a t-test ( t = 2.83,lp < 0.01).

TABLE 4 Percentage o f Correct Recognitions f o r Each Factor by Subject Group

Factor Burglars Controls

Lock

Cover Alarm Car

Dog 75.0 72.5 95.0 77.5 82.5

50 55 78 73 60

Mean Performance 80.5 63.2

The tendency for some factors to be better recognised than others is especially interesting. One prediction might be that the physical size of the factor in the photograph would determine whether it was remembered or not. For example, locks and beware of dog signs are quite small and may not have been noticed, whereas cars and hedges are quite large items and should have been better recognised.

Among the controls, performance was close to chance or ‘guessing’ (50%) for locks and beware of dog signs. However, it was also quite low for the presence of a car. In contrast, the burglars were quite accurate in remembering whether or not any of these factors had been present in the original photograph.

The presence of cover was remembered reasonably well by both groups. A very few burglars incorrectly remembered the presence of cover and this was true for only one photograph. Thus, it may be a peculiarity of that photograph. Surprisingly, 22% of the control responses involved incorrect recognition of this factor and this was not limited to one particular house.

101

Putting it another way, it was possible to introduce a hedge that covered half the house or remove a wall from in front without some of the controls noticing.

Alarms were remembered slightly better by the burglars, but both groups did reasonably well for this factor.

Discussion

The results for target selection and checklist procedures are in broad agreement, suggesting that the photograph method is indeed a useful technique in this context. It also suggests that the burglars clearly noticed the relevant factors in the photographs, and that there are important distinctions between the two groups studied.

The recognition procedure further supported our confidence in the veracity of the burglars’ responses. The superior recognition memory in the burglars cannot easily be explained in terms of how long each sample looked at the photographs, as this was equated in the two groups; nor can it be accounted for by educational level since this would predict that the control group would show better performance. A more likely explanation is that the burglars are revealing a measure of expertise in coding the photographs originally and thus they are more likely to notice these factors as having been changed.

One puzzling finding is the fact that the presence of locks is relatively easily remembered by the burglars despite their initial suggestion that locks would make very little difference to them in choosing a target. There are a number of possible explanations for this result. One is that our recognition memory procedure is simply not a very good measure of the importance to burglars of various factors. However, this seems unlikely as it would be difficult to explain why the burglars show much better recognition performance overall than the controls.

A srcond possibility is that the burglars arc dcliberately trying to mislead the experimenter by claiming that locks are not important, while alarms are. This is dubious since locks were shown to be unimportant to burglars in the photograph method, where they were not specifically asked about this factor, as well as in the checklist. Also, why should they give misleading answers for locks, alarms, and dogs, while providing apparently consistent responses for cover? It may be that this is a partial explanation; perhaps a minority of the burglars adopted a misleading strategy. Howrver, this explanation is inadequate as it stands. A more likely explanation is that although burglars may not bc put off or attracted to a house on the basis of door locks, they may consider them in terms of how access could be obtained. If a ‘latch’ type lock is present, this can be opened easily with a credit card or something similar. If a ‘dead bolt’ lock is fitted, then entry can be gained through a window. The lock therefore may be influential in deciding how to break in, but not in whether or not to do so. This, plus the possibility that our procedure draws attention to the door, is likely to result in better recognition performance.

In addition, by the time burglars are close enough to a house to see the

102

type of lock fitted, they probably have decided to brcak in and are fairly committed to doing so.

Conclusion

The results reported above were derived from a study involving small samples ofjuvenile burglars and law-abiding adult householders. As such, any generalisations based on these findings should be viewed cautiously until the research is carried out on a larger scale. Nonetheless, there are two reasons for placing confidence in the results. First, the burglars were largely consistent in their responses. The data were collected over a seven month period and the juveniles concerned were interviewed individually while in a short-stay remand hostel. It is unlikely therefore that they colluded in their responses, resulting in sample bias. Second, the factors cited by juvenile offenders as influential in their target selection mirrored the cues identified by adult burglars in other studies. Clearly, this adds a degree of confidence to the findings despite the small sample size. For example, the youngsters typically saw the presence of cover (sur- veillability), cars (occupancy) and dogs or alarms (occupancy ‘proxies’, that is, alternatives to human presence) as affecting their choice of houses. ‘These factors have been identified as critical to older ofrenders as well (for example, Waller and Okihiro 1978; Bennett and Wright 1984). Similarly, the young burglars agreed with their older counterparts who, in several studies, have indicated that locks are not a major deterrent (for example Walsh 1980; Maguire and Bennett 1982; Bennett and Wright 1984).

In contrast, the householders thought that locks had an important impact on target choice. Their responses probably reflect the emphasis of past burglary prevention campaigns, many of which have focussed on the importance of security hardware. Whatever the explanation, it is clear that the homeowners were not fully attuned to the way in which these burglars actually chose houses. They overestimated the importance of some factors, while underestimating the importance of others.

Perhaps residential burglary could be reduced simply by providing householders with accurate information about the factors that influence burglars’ choice of targets? Although some of these factors will remain beyond their ability to manipulate, others like signs of occupancy and the amount of cover can be controlled fairly easily.’

Notes

‘Acknowledgements The research on which this paper was based was funded by the Office of Research Administration, University of Missouri-St. Louis. The research was conducted while Kobrrt H. Logie was working at the Medical Research Council (U.K.) Applied Psychology Unit in Cambridge, England. We are grateful for the additional support of the Medical Research Council and for the co-operation of the Social Services Departments involved.

103

References

Bennett, T . and Wright, R. (1983) ‘Burglars perception of targets’, Home Office Research Bulletin, 15, 18-20.

Bennett, T . and Wright, R. (1984) Burglars on Burglary: Prevention and the Offender, Aldershot: Cower.

Brantingham, P. and Brantingham, P. (1981) Environmental Criminology, Beverly Hills: Sage.

Dietrick,, B. (1977) ‘The environment and burglary victimisation in a metro- politan suburb’ (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, unpublished).

Home Office (1984) Criminal Statistics: England and Wales 1983, Cmnd. 9349. Letkemann, P. (1973) Crime as Work, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Maguire, M. and Bennett, T . (1982) Butglary in a Dwelling, London: Heinemann. Mayhew, P. (1979) ‘Defensible space: the current status of a crime prevention

Mayhew, P., Clarke, R., Burrows, J., Hough, J. and Winchester, S. (1979) Crime in

Pitchert, J. W. and Anderson, R. C. (1977) ‘Taking different perspectives on a

Rengert, G. and Wasilchick, J. (1985) Suburban Burglary: A Time and a Placefor

Reppetto, T. G. (1974) Residential Crime, Cambridge, Ma.: Ballinger. Scarr, H. A. (1973) Patterns of Burglary, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government

Printing Office. Titus, R. (1984) ‘Residential burglary and the community response’, in: R. Clarke

and T. Hope (Eds.), Coping with Burglary, Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff. Waller, I . (1979) ‘What reduces residential burglary: action and research in

Seattle and Toronto’ (paper presented at the Third International Symposium on Victimology, Muenster, unpublished).

Waller, I . and Okihiro, N. (1978) Burglary: The Victim and the Public, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Walsh, D. (1980) Break-Ins: Burglary From Private Houses, London: Constable. Webster, W. (1986) Crime in the United States - 1985, Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Winchester, S. and Jackson, H. (1982) Residential Burglary (Home Office Research

theory’, The Howard Journal, 18, 15C-9.

Public View (Home Office Research Study No. 49), London: H.M.S.O.

story’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 309-15.

Everything, Springfield: Thomas.

Government Printing Office.

Study No. 74), London: H.M.S.O.

104