Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Burglary StatisticsData for providing comprehensive security
Kirk MacDowell
The Studies
1. Offender’s decision to burglarize 12/2012
2. Victim’s post-burglary adaption 12/2016
With these results we looked at common
themes and explored disparate views.
*AIREF funded and studies conducted by
Universities
Percent
of
Cleared
Crimes
Just the Facts & by the Numbers
✓ 1,579,527 burglaries - estimated in
2015
✓ 19.8% of burglaries accounted for
all property crimes
✓ $2,316 average loss per burglary for
a total of $3.6 billion
✓ $1,190 average loss per robbery
✓ 71.6% of all burglaries were
residential
2015
Property
Crimes
Source: Crime in the United States, 2015
Motor vehicle theft8.9%
Larceny-theft
71.4%
Burglary19.8%
Burglars Got In?
57.9%
involved a forcible entry35.5%
unlawful entry
(no force used)
6.6%
were attempted
forcible entry
The Bad Guys
422 Offenders Surveyed
• Incarcerated burglars from 3 states
(North Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio)
• Most had committed multiple burglaries
(average 3 arrests)
• Asked about details of their burglaries
The Good Guys
301 Victims Surveyed
• Victims in one county from one state
(Mecklenburg County, North Carolina)
• Most were the victim of one burglary
• Asked about the details of a recent
burglary victimization
Common Themes
and Disparate Views
Understanding Decisions
to Burglarize from the
Offender’s Perspective
Kristie R. Blevins, Ph.D., Eastern Kentucky University
Joseph B. Kuhns, Ph.D., University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Seungmug “Zech” Lee, Ph.D., Western Illinois University
Background
Sampling and Methods
Random samples of
incarcerated burglars
in North Carolina,
Kentucky, and Ohio
Self-administered
surveys given to
approximately 500
inmates in each state
(~350 males, ~150
females)
422 completed
surveys
Sample CharacteristicsFrequency Percentage
Gender
Male 275 65.2
Female 147 34.8
Race
Caucasian 281 66.6
African American 107 25.4
Hispanic 2 0.5
Native American 8 1.9
Other 20 4.7
Marital Status
Single (Never Married) 266 63.0
Separated 30 7.1
Married 39 9.2
Divorced 55 13.0
Widowed 4 0.9
Other 26 6.2
Mean Age = 32.9 (Range = 18 – 64)
Criminal HistoryBurglary Involvement
✓ Arrested - 1 to over 100 times
(average of 12.9 times)
✓ Age - first burglary arrest from age
9 to 50
✓ Reported Age - first burglary from 6
to 50 (mean is 21.8)
✓ Type of Burglary - about half in
residential vs 31% in commercial
burglary
Burglarizing for Drugs
64%would spend at least some
burglary income on drugs
44%said influence of drugs and/or the
need to buy drugs was primary
motivation for burglary
51%reported drugs as the top
reason for committing burglaries
Figure 1
Percent of burglars indicating which drugs they have used (N=409)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Alcohol
Marijuana/Hashish
Powder Cocaine
Crack Cocaine
Heroin
Amphetamines/Stimulants
Hallucinogens
Barbiturates
Methamphetamines
Non-Prescription Methadone
Tranquilizers
Glue/Paint Thinner/Inhalants
Other
PCP
Drugs Used
Burglarizing for Drugs
Burglary Planning
Target Selection and Planning
62% used a vehicle
(their own, family
or friend’s car)
Distance to targets
ranged from half a mile
to 250 miles away
When planning, 49% said
the burglary occurred
within 1 day, 16% said 1-
3 days, fewer said more
than 3 days
12% said they planned
burglaries, 41% said it was
“spur of the moment,” and
37% said it varied
Many assessed the target
based on presence of
locks, dogs, alarms, and/or
people nearby
Almost one third of
respondents “cased”
the target ahead of time
Over a third (36%) reported
collecting information about
the target in advance
Most preferred homes
or businesses
More than half deterred by:
✓ People inside
✓ Officer nearby
20% to 49% deterred by:
✓ Noise Inside
✓ Limited Escape Route
✓ Alarm
✓ People Walking Nearby
✓ Seeing Neighbors
✓ Car in Driveway
✓ Cameras/Surveillance
✓ Dog Inside
✓ Traffic Nearby
✓ Steel Bars
Reasons Burglars Avoid a Target
When asked
specifically about
alarms:
60% alarm would cause them
to seek an alternative target
83% would try to determine if
alarm was present before
attempting a burglary
If burglary was initiated and an
alarm was found,
50% would discontinue the
attempt, 37% would sometimes
continue; only 13% would always
continue
Alarm
Response
63% considered whether security
personnel or police would respond if an
alarm was triggered
Majority feared police response more
than security response
About half were aware that alarm calls
sometimes have to be verified before
response - half of this group
considered response
SIAC are the unsung heroes of our industry.
Deterrence in General
48% thought about the
likelihood of getting caught
while engaged in the act
53% considered this after
the burglary
Techniques
28% typically work alone, and about the
same percentage report never working alone.
Friends, spouses/significant others, and family
members are the most likely partners
60% reported engaging in multiple
burglaries in the same day, with 10% saying
they always committed multiple burglaries
Most burglaries lasted less than 10 minutes,
and early morning or late at night were the
preferred times
Most respondents gained entry through
open doors or windows or forced doors
open. Similar responses for residences
and businesses.
About 20% reported cutting
telephone wires or alarm wires before
entry
Most common tools carried during
burglaries were screwdrivers, crow
bars, and hammers. About 1 in 8
reported carrying lock-picking tools.
PREFERRED79% Cash
68% Jewelry
58% Illegal Drugs
56% Electronics
44% Prescription Drugs
DISPOSEDAbout 65% would dispose
of items immediately
Stolen items sold to:
• 44% Strangers
• 40% Pawn shops or
Second-hand Dealers
• 32% Friends
• 29% Traded for Something Else
Comparable criminal arrest and conviction records,
though males had higher number of previous arrests.
Gender Differences
• More involved in, and possibly motivated by substance use.
• Residences over businesses.
• Less likely to plan burglaries. If they did plan, more likely to
complete it same day.
• More likely to be deterred by alarm signs. No difference in
impact of alarms and surveillance equipment.
• More likely to seek prescription drugs
• Less deterred by lack of hiding locations, steel bars, proximity
of target to other houses or businesses, escape routes, and
distance to the nearest road
• More likely to work with spouses/significant others
FEMALES
Gender Differences
• Participate in burglaries with friends or colleagues
• Walk or ride a bike to a burglary target
• Engage in multiple burglaries within one day or night
• Cut telephone or alarm wires
• Steal illegal drugs, cash, and jewelry;
• Bring burglary tools and bags to carry stolen goods
• Commit burglaries in late evening; more females
preferred afternoons
Gender Differences
MALES
Most did not plan their crimes in advance, but did consider many factors before committing burglary
• cameras/surveillance equipment
• alarms
• people inside structure
• dogs
• cars in driveway
Conclusion One
Conclusion Two
Evidence suggests that alarms are
effective deterrents for many burglars
according to burglars. About 60% said
an alarm would cause them to seek a
different target, over 80% never
attempt to disable alarms, and over
40% would discontinue if an alarm was
discovered.
To determine how and whether or
not victims change their security
practices following a burglary
Kristie R. Blevins, Ph.D., Eastern Kentucky University
Joseph B. Kuhns, Ph.D., University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Study Methods
1. CMPD provided email addresses for
burglary victims each month for 18 months
2. Initial invitations to participate in this
research were sent about six months after
the burglary
3. Questionnaire was designed based on our
prior survey of incarcerated burglars,
existing literature, and suggestions from
some security experts
Survey Structure
• General characteristics/location of structure
• General details about the burglary - entry process,
items taken
• Security measures taken before and at the time
• Information about police and/or security response
• Outcome of the case - offender apprehended, items
recovered
• Changes made following the burglary - lighting,
alarm installed, other security measures taken
2.4%
9.0%
4.9%
8.0%
4.9%
8.0%
5.9%
8.3%
4.2%
6.6%
6.9%
6.3%
9.0%
5.2%
10.4%
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
Burglaries by the Month
Other Details of the Target:Yes No
Homes or businesses within sight of the residence
burglarized?
70.9% 29.1%
Residence burglarized near a major road? 66.7% 33.3%
Typically a lot of traffic in sight of the burglarized
residence during the time-frame of the crime?
32.4% 67.6%
Usually people walking near the burglarized residence
during the timeframe of the crime?
48.0% 52.0%
Anyone in the residence at the time the burglary
occurred?
19.9% 80.1%
33.11%
15.38%
13.38%
7.02%
22.41%
2.34%3.01%
2.01%1.34%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Not
Fearful
Somewhat
Fearful
Very
Fearful
Before your home was burglarized, how fearful were you that you could
become a burglary victim?
About What Time
of Day or Night
Was Your
Residence
Burglarized?
3.3%
29.4%
31.0%
8.6%
29.0%
37.6%11.0%
1.2%
2.9%
23.3%
34.3%
0.0%
0.4%
11.8%
A “beware of dog” sign
A dog
Cars in the driveway or parking lot
Outdoor cameras or surveillance…
A burglary alarm system
Some indoor lights were on
Neighborhood watch sign
Steel bars over the windows or doors
No trespassing sign
Outdoor lighting was on
A security sign
Multiple newspapers in the yard or paper…
Multiple days of mail in the mailbox
Other
Did you have any of
the following items
at/in your residence
at the time it was
burglarized?
Alarm System
Owners
Was the alarm fully activated at the time of the burglary?
Yes, the alarm was fully activated 45.57%
The alarm was activated but not fully activated 20.25%
No 34.18%
Yes No
Was there any evidence that the burglar(s)
disabled
or attempted to disable your alarm?
13.92% 86.08%
Was there any evidence that the burglar(s)
cut or attempted to cut alarm wires?3.80% 96.20%
Was the alarm being monitored by an alarm
company at the time of the burglary?67.95% 32.05%
24.1%
4.4%
14.6%
3.4%
3.1%
2.7%
4.1%
3.4%
14.6%
21.4%
2.4%
2.4%
17.0%
Broke a window
Used an opened window
Forced a window open
Used an unlocked front door
Used an unlocked back door
Came in through an open garage
Picked the lock on the front door
Picked the lock on the back door
Forced the front door open
Forced the back door open
Had a key to the building
Opened the garage and came in
Other
Method
of Entry
33.1%
41.7%
25.5%
35.5%
4.5%
37.2%
23.1%
6.6%
2.1%
2.4%
14.5%
1.4%
2.1%
37.2%
Television(s)
Computer(s)
Tablet(s)
Phones, electronic games or other electronics
Prescription Medication(s)
Jewelry
Cash
Pistol(s)
Rifle(s)
Other Firearm(s)
Clothing/Shoes
Other drug(s)
Weapon(s) other than firearms
Other
Items Taken
During the
Burglary
32.2%
27.6%
18.4%
15.5%
6.4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Less than $1,000 $1,001 to $3,000 $3,001 to $5,000 $5,001 to $10,000 More than$10,000
Value of
Items
Taken
73.5%
12.2%
7.5%
8.2%
0.3%
6.5%
Me
Someone else lived in the home
A neighbor
The alarm company
I am not sure
Other
Who Notified
the Police of
the Burglary?
How Long Did it
Take the Police to
Respond to Your
Residence?
30.0%
50.2%
11.3%
2.4%
6.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Less than 15minutes
15 to 60 minutes More than onehour to three
hours
More than threehours
I do not know
33.11%
15.38%
13.38%
7.02%
22.41%
2.34%3.01%
2.01%1.34%
7.12%
4.63%5.69%
8.90%
41.28%
9.25%10.32%
5.69%7.12%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45% Before
After
Fear of
Becoming a
Burglary Victim
Before & After
Not Fearful
SomewhatFearful
VeryFearful
We added a “beware of dog” sign 5.2%
We got a dog 6.5%
We leave cars in the driveway or parking lot 11.2%
Outdoor cameras or surveillance equipment was added 19.8%
A new burglary alarm system was installed after the burglary 35.3%
An alarm system that was already installed, but not active (not being monitored by an alarm company) before the burglary, was reactivated after the burglary and is now being monitored by an alarm company
7.3%
Some indoor lights are left on at night 32.8%
Purchased a firearm 13.4%
We have a neighborhood watch sign 2.2%
Steel bars were installed over the windows or doors 3.0%
No trespassing sign was posted 1.7%
Outdoor lighting is left on at night 30.6%
A security sign was installed 24.1%
We have not made any major changes 8.2%
Other 31.0%
Indicate Security
Changes Made
I am thinking about getting an alarm system 14.29%
I don’t think I need an alarm system 6.35%
I have not thought about getting an alarm 3.97%
I would like to get an alarm system but it is too expensive 19.05%
I don’t think an alarm system would protect my house 10.32%
I am renting my current home 42.86%
I asked the landlord to install an alarm 3.17%
What is the Primary
Reason That You Do
Not Have an Alarm?
Summary
Burglaries occurred most frequently between
noon and 4:00 pm; only one in six occurred during
nighttime
No one was present during 80.1% of the burglaries
Most common methods of entry:
✓ breaking a window (24.1%) or
✓ forcing open a back door (21.4%),
✓ front door (14.6%)
✓ window (14.6%)
The most common items taken during the
burglaries were computers, jewelry, phones,
electronic games, and other electronic devices,
and televisions
Summary
The offender(s) had been apprehended in 17.93%
of cases; 16.84% of victims had recovered any of
the items taken
Most respondents reported having some security
measure(s) in place at the time of the burglary
Levels of fear of becoming a burglary victim
increased for 68.9% of respondents
Four of five respondents took action to increase
or improve security after the burglary
FUTURE RESEARCHWhile these findings correspond with existing research in the area,
the study should be replicated in other locations to determine if
victims have similar experiences and reactions to residential burglary.
Apples and Oranges Comparisons General concerns across two separate studies of victims and offenders
• Study timeframes are different
• Response rates may impact both sets of findings
• Self-administered surveys versus online surveys
• Context and setting may have impacted willingness
to respond for victims and for offenders
3.3%
29.4%
31.0%
37.6%
11.0%
1.2%
2.9%
23.3%
19.9%
11.8%
16.70%
39.40%
40.60%
22.50%
12.80%
29.20%
6.90%
15.80%
29.20%
12.20%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%
A “beware of dog” sign
A dog
Cars in the driveway or parking lot
Some indoor lights were on
Neighborhood watch sign
Steel bars over the windows or doors
No trespassing sign
Outdoor lighting was on
Someone was in the structure
Other
Victims BurglarsThis Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND
Safety Measures in
Place at the Time of
the Offense
Alarm
Equipment in
Place
8.6%
29.0%
34.3%
50.30%
53.30%
24.70%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%
Outdoor cameras or surveillanceequipment
A burglary alarm system
A security sign
Victims Burglars
61.10%
37.20%
23.10%
14.50%
4.50%
1.40%
37.20%
63.50%
77.80%
90.00%
18.40%
50.50%
65.90%
20.80%
0.00% 15.00% 30.00% 45.00% 60.00% 75.00% 90.00%
TVs, Computers, Tablets, Phones, or OtherElectronics
Jewelry
Cash
Clothing/Shoes
Prescription Medications
Other Drugs
Other
Victims Burglars
Items Taken
During Burglary
Additional Information about Alarm Effectiveness
• 73% of burglars said they prefer not to burglarize a place with an alarm; 27%
said they would burglarize a place with an alarm; 29% of victims had alarms
• 86% of victims with alarms said there was no evidence of an attempt to
disable the alarm; 80% of burglars said they would never attempt to disable
alarms -12% sometimes, 8% always would
• 44% of burglars had never burglarized a building with an alarm - 36% a few,
8% half of them, 8% more than half, 3% all of them)
• 96% of victims said no evidence of alarm wires being cut, 80% of burglars
said they never cut alarm wires - 16% sometimes, 4% always)
Summary
• Burglary victims generally did not have many
security measures commonly cited as
deterrents by burglars in place at the time of
the intrusion
• Breaking a window was the most commonly
reported method
of entry reported by both victims and burglars
• Victims and offenders reported electronics,
cash, and jewelry as items lost
Putting it Together
Increase Perimeter Protection
x
x
x
Smarter Interior Protection
Adopt a bad ass dog named Charlie
0
1
2+
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1 2 3 4 5
% A
cco
un
ts R
emai
nin
g
Years Into Contract
Attrition Curve - # of Advanced Devices
Home Protection = Attrition Protection
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC
Consult. Use Data. Sell Advanced.
• Full perimeter systems matter! Early
detection is key. No more 3/1/1.
• Use statistics: FBI crime report
• Advanced devices added to intrusion system
keeps consumers engaged, attrition rates
low, premises protected and connected
• Return to security consulting model
• Complete AIREF reports and studies: Airef.org
![2011 Burglary Report [infographic]](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/568c48d41a28ab491691bd6e/2011-burglary-report-infographic.jpg)
