www.cops.usdo

Analyzing 

Repeat 

Victimization 

by 

Deborah Lamm Weisel 

Problem-Solving Tools 

Problem-Oriented Guides for 
www.PopCenter.org 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policin

Got a Problem? We’ve got answers! 

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing websit

at www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help 

you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your 

community, including: 

• Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides 

• Interactive training exercises 

• Online access to research and police practices 

• Online problem analysis module 

Designed for police and those who work with them to 

address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great 

resource in problem-oriented policing. 
Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Solving Tool Series 

Guide No. 4 

Analyzing Repeat 

Victimization 

Deborah Lamm Weisel 

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#2003CKWXK0087 by the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions 

contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. References to specific companies, 

products, or services should not be considered an 

endorsement of the product by the author or the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations 

to supplement discussion of the issues. 

ISBN: 1-932582-54-1 

August 2005 

About the Problem-Solving Tools Series 

About the Problem-Solving Tools Series 

The problem-solving tool guides are one of three series of 

the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. The other two are the 

problem-specific guides and response guides. 

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police summarize knowledge 

about how police can reduce the harm caused by specific 

crime and disorder problems. They are guides to 

preventing problems and improving overall incident 

response, not to investigating offenses or handling specific 

incidents. The guides are written for police–of whatever 

rank or assignment–who must address the specific 

problems the guides cover. The guides will be most useful 

to officers who 

• understand basic problem-oriented policing principles 

and methods, 

• can look at problems in depth, 

• are willing to consider new ways of doing police 

business, 

• understand the value and the limits of research 

knowledge, and 

• are willing to work with other community agencies to 

find effective solutions to problems. 

The tool guides summarize knowledge about information 

gathering and analysis techniques that might assist police at 

any of the four main stages of a problem-oriented project: 

scanning, analysis, response and assessment. Each guide 

• describes the kind of information produced by each

technique,

• discusses how this information could be useful in

problem solving,
ii Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

• gives examples of the previous use of the technique, 

• provides practical guidance about adapting the technique 

to the specific problem being addressed, 

• provides templates of data collection instruments (where 

this is appropriate), 

• suggests how to analyze data gathered by using the 

techinque, 

• shows how to interpret the information correctly and 

present it effectively, 

• warns about any ethical problems in using the technique, 

• discusses the limitations of the technique when used by 

police in a problem-oriented project, 

• provides reference sources of more detailed information 

about the technique, and 

• indicates when expert help in using the technique should 

be sought. 

Extensive technical and scientific literatures cover each of the 

techniques dealt with in the tool guides. The tool guides aim 

to provide only enough information about each technique to 

enable police and others to use it in the course of problemsolving. In most cases, the information gathered in the course 

of a problem-solving project does not have to withstand 

rigorous scientific scrutiny. Where greater confidence is 

needed in the data, police might need expert help in using the 

techniques. This can often be found in local university 

departments of sociology, psychology and criminal justice. 
About the Problem-Solving Tools Series i

The information needs for any single project can be quite diverse 

and it will often be necessary to employ a variety of data 

collection techniques in meeting these needs. Similarly, a variety 

of different analytic techniques may be needed to analyze the 

data. Some of the techniques may be unfamiliar to police and 

crime analysts, but the effort invested in learning to use them 

can make all the difference to the success of a project. 

For more information about problem-oriented policing, 

visit the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing (POP Center) 

online at www.popcenter.org or via the COPS website at 

www.cops.usdoj.gov. The POP Center website offers free online 

access to: 

• the Problem-Specific Guides series, 

• the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools series, 

• instructional information about problem-oriented policing

and related topics,

• an interactive training exercise,

• online access to important police research and practices, and

• an online problem analysis module. 
iv Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

Acknowledgments 

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are very much a 

collaborative effort. While each guide has a primary author, 

other project team members, COPS Office staff and 

anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide by 

proposing text, recommending research and offering 

suggestions on matters of format and style. 

The principal project team developing the guide series 

comprised Herman Goldstein, professor emeritus, University 

of Wisconsin Law School; Ronald V. Clarke, professor of 

criminal justice, Rutgers University; John E. Eck, professor of 

criminal justice, University of Cincinnati; Michael S. Scott, 

clinical assistant professor, University of Wisconsin Law 

School; Rana Sampson, police consultant, San Diego; and 

Deborah Lamm Weisel, director of police research, North 

Carolina State University. 

Cynthia Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS Office. 

Rebecca Kanable edited the guide. Research for the guides 

was conducted at the Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers 

University under the direction of Phyllis Schultze. 

The project team also wishes to acknowledge the members of 

the San Diego, National City and Savannah police 

departments who provided feedback on the guides' format 

and style in the early stages of the project, as well as the line 

police officers, police executives and researchers who peer 

reviewed each guide. 

vi Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

Contents 

About the Problem Solving Tools Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i


Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv


Patterns of Repeat Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


Defining Repeat Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3


The Extent of Repeat Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5


When Repeat Victimization Occurs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9


Why Repeat Victimization Occurs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12


How Repeat Victimization Relates to Other Crime Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14


Where Repeat Victimization Occurs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16


Overlooking Repeat Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18


Special Concerns About Repeat Victimization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20


Understanding Your Local Repeat Victimization Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23


Selecting the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23


Selecting Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24


Analysis Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26


Planning Further Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29


Responding to Repeat Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32


Types of Responses to Repeat Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32


Protecting Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33


Shifting Responsibility for Repeat Victimization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34


Increasing Risks to Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35


Cautionary Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36


Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37


Appendix A: Data Sources and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38


Police Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38


Victim Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41


Other Data Sources and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Contents v

Appendix B: Improving Data Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45


Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50


References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52


About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57


Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59


Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63


Patterns of Repeat Victimization 

Patterns of Repeat Victimization 

This guide begins by describing the concept of repeat 

victimization (RV) and its relationship to other patterns in 

public safety problems, such as hot spots and repeat 

offenders. The guide then describes sources of information, 

and ways to determine the amount and characteristics of 

repeat victimization in your jurisdiction. Finally the guide 

reviews responses to repeat victimization from evaluative 

research and police practice. 

This guide is intended as a tool to help police identify and 

understand patterns of repeat victimization for a range of 

crime and disorder problems. The guide focuses on 

techniques for determining the amount of RV for specific 

public safety problems and how analysis of RV generally may 

be used to develop more effective responses. This publication 

is not a guide to specific problems, such as burglary, domestic 

violence, or vehicle theft. You are encouraged to refer to 

other guides for an in-depth understanding of these 

problems. 

For decades, much effort by police and citizens has been 

invested in crime prevention—such as marking property, 

establishing a Neighborhood Watch, conducting crime 

prevention surveys, hardening targets, increasing lighting, and 

installing electronic security systems. 

While numerous crime prevention efforts are effective, many 

are adopted by persons, households, and institutions least at 

risk of being victimized. Crime prevention strategies are most 

effective when directed at those most likely to be victimized. 
2 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

† Lynch, Berbaum, and Planty (1998) 

disagree. Using data from the NCVS, 

the authors found that housing 

location, age, and marital status of 

the head of household, size, and 

changes in household composition 

were stronger predictors of repeat 

victimization for burglary than initial 

victimization in the United States. In 

addition, the authors found that the 

best predictor of repeat victimization 

for assault was the reporting of an 

initial assualt to the police. 

Linking crime prevention strategies with likely victims is a 

challenge because of the difficulty in predicting the most 

likely victims of crime. Taking steps to prevent that offense 

from occurring would be easier, if only police knew... 

· What stores will be robbed? 

· Whose homes will be burglarized? 

· Which college students will be sexually assaulted? 

It is often painfully obvious that some individuals, 

households, or businesses are particularly vulnerable to crime. 

Such vulnerability may be related to factors such as abusing 

alcohol, failing to secure property, being physically isolated, 

engaging in risky behaviors, or being in close proximity to 

pools of likely offenders. 

While most people and places do not get victimized by crime, 

those who are victimized consistently face the highest risk of 

being victimized again. Previous victimization is the single 

best predictor of victimization. It is a better predictor of 

future victimization than any other characteristic of crime.† 

Not only is repeat victimization predictable, the time period 

of likely revictimization can be calculated since subsequent 

offenses are consistently characterized by their rapidity. Much 

repeat victimization occurs within a week of an initial offense, 

and some repeat victimization even occurs within 24 hours. 

Across all crime types, the greatest risk of revictimization is 

immediately after the initial offense, and this period of 

heightened risk declines steadily in the following weeks and 

months. 
Patterns of Repeat Victimization 3 

The predictability of repeat victimization and the short time 

period of heightened risk after the first victimization provide 

a very specific opportunity for police to intervene quickly to 

prevent subsequent offenses. Strategies to reduce 

revictimization can substantially increase the effectiveness of 

police. Reducing repeat victimization can result in lower 

crime, improved efficiency of crime prevention resources, and 

the apprehension of offenders. It can also conserve both 

patrol and investigative resources. 

Defining Repeat Victimization 

In basic terms, repeat victimization is a type of crime pattern. 

There are several types of well-known crime patterns 

including hot spots, crime series, and repeat offenders. While 

repeat victimization is a distinct crime pattern, some offenses 

feature multiple crime patterns; these patterns are discussed 

later in this guide. 

By most definitions, repeat victimization, or revictimization, 

occurs when the same type of crime incident is experienced 

by the same—or virtually the same—victim or target within a 

specific period of time such as a year. Repeat victimization 

refers to the total number of offenses experienced by a victim 

or target including the initial and subsequent offenses. A 

person's house may be burglarized twice in a year or 10 times, 

and both examples are considered repeats. 

The amount of repeat victimization is usually reported as the 

percentage of victims (persons or addresses) who are 

victimized more than once during a time period for a specific 

crime type, such as burglary or robbery. Repeat victimization 

is also calculated as the proportion of offenses that are 

suffered by repeat victims; this figure is usually called repeat 
4 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

offenses. While both figures are important, they are not 

interchangeable and care should be taken in the reading of 

such numbers. In this guide, we report both proportions of 

repeat victims and repeat offenses when the data are available. 

For example, the first row in Table 1 would be stated as: 

· 46% of all sexual assaults were experienced by persons 

suffering two or more victimizations during the data 

period 

Similarly, the second row in Table 2 would read: 

· 11% of assault victims suffered 25% of all assaults over 

the 25-year period 

And the first row in Table 3 would read: 

· 40% of all burglaries were experienced by the 19% of 

victims who were victimized twice or more during the data 

period 

The term "victimization" usually refers to people, such as a 

person who has been victimized by domestic violence. But 

repeat victimization can best be understood as repeat targets 

since a victim may be an individual, a dwelling unit, a business 

at a specific address, or even a business chain with multiple 

locations. Even motor vehicles may be repeat victims. Later in 

this guide, we discuss how to distinguish repeat victims in 

police data by address, victim's name, and other identifiers. 
The Extent of Repeat Victimization 

Repeat victimization is substantial and accounts for a large 

portion of all crime. While revictimization occurs for virtually 

all crime problems, the precise amount of crime associated 

with revictimization varies between crime problems, over 

time, and across places.† These variations reflect the local 

nature of crime and important differences in the type and 

amount of data used for computing repeat victimization. 

Three primary sources of information demonstrate that 

repeat victimization is prevalent across the world: surveys of 

victims, interviews with offenders, and crime reports. 

Although each of these sources has limitations, the 

prevalence of revictimization is consistent across these 

different sources. 

Table 1:


Estimates of Repeat Victimization


International Victimization Survey 1


Patterns of Repeat Victimization 

† With the exception of Lynch, 

Berbaum, and Planty (1998), mos

estimates of repeat victimization 

produced outside the United State

and are drawn from the British 

Crime Survey, International Victim

Survey, and other surveys. A few 

American studies in the early 1980

used the National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS) to 

examine repeat victimization but t

NCVS is not designed to detect R

as it excludes crime "series", colle

data only for incidents occurring i

the preceding six months and use

sample based on address that cann

control for people moving over ti

Offenses Repeat Offenses 

Sexual assault 46% 

Assault 41% 

Robbery 27% 

Vandalism to vehicle 25% 

Theft from vehicle 21% 

Vehicle theft 20% 

Burglary 17% 

Comparison data from international victimization surveys 

show that repeat victimization is more common for violent 

crime such as assaults and robbery than for property crime 

(see Table 1). Assault victims routinely feature a high rate of 

revictimization (see Table 2), and domestic violence is among 

the most predictable crimes for which a repeat will occur. 
6 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

Table 2:

Estimates of Repeat Victimization for Assault

Offense Repeat 

Offenses 

Repeat 

Victims 

Data Source and Time Period 

Assault 25% 11.4% Emergency room reports, 25 years, 

Netherlands2 

Sexual assault 85% 67% Victim surveys, adult experience, 

Los Angeles, California3 

Domestic violence n/a 44% Victimization survey, one year, 

Great Britain4 

Assaults of youth 90% 59% National Youth Survey, one year, 

United States5 

Repeat victimization is also common for property crime as 

evidenced in data from the British Crime Survey (see Table 3). 

Table 3:


Estimates of Repeat Victimization for Property Crime:


British Crime Survey


Offense Repeat Offenses Repeat Victim

Residential burglary

6 40% 19% 

Vehicle crime (thefts of/from)7 46% 24% 

Vandalism8 n/a 30% 

Although many studies of repeat victimization are based on 

surveys of victims, police records also show strong evidence 

of revictimization for problems ranging from bank robberies 

to domestic violence and burglaries (see Table 4). As with the 

victimization surveys, crime reports show the largest amount 

of repeat victimization for domestic violence. 
Patterns of Repeat Victimization 7 

Table 4:


Estimates of Repeat Victimization:


Crime Reports


Offense Repeat 

Offenses 

Repeat 

Victims 

Location 

Domestic violence 62% 28% Merseyside, England

9 

42% 31% West Yorkshire, England

10 

Commercial robbery 65% 32% Indianapolis, Indiana

11 

Gas station robbery 62% 37% Australia12 

Bank robbery 58% 36% England

13 

Residential burglary 32% 15% Nottinghamshire, England

14 

13% 7% Merseyside, England

15 

32% 16% Beenleigh, Australia16 

25% 9% Enschede, Netherlands17 

Commercial burglary 66% 36% Austin, Texas

18 

33% 14% Merseyside, England

19 

Residential and 

commercial burglary 

39% 18% Charlotte, North Carolina20 

While many repeat victims suffer two victimizations during a 

reporting period, some repeat offenses are associated with 

chronic victims who are victimized more often, experiencing 

three or more offenses during a period of time. The British 

Crime Survey reveals that 7 percent of burglary and vehicle 

crime victims are victimized three or more times during a year 

(see Table 5) while 23 percent of domestic violence victims 

suffer this concentration of repeat victimization. 
8 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

The more numerous offenses reported by these chronic 

victims contribute disproportionately to overall victimization. 

For example, 7 percent of burglary victims comprise 21 

percent of all burglaries (see Table 6). 

Table 5:

Concentration of Repeats Among Victims 21

Type of Victimization 

Burglary Vehicle Crime 

(Theft of/from) 

Domestic 

Violence 

One offense 81% 76% 56% 

Two offenses 13% 17% 21% 

Three or more 7% 7% 23% 

Table 6:


Contribution of Repeat Victims to Burglaries 22


Offense Victims Proportion of Offenses 

One burglary 81% 60% 

Two burglaries 13% 19% 

Three or more 

burglaries 

7% 21% 

Despite strong evidence of repeat victimization, virtually all 

estimates of repeat victimization are conservative because of 

data limitations. Victimization surveys show the most repeat 

victimization, because they capture offenses unreported to 

police. But longitudinal surveys lose respondents over time, as 

victims are likely to move, and panel surveys depend on a 

victim's recall of multiple events. Interviews with offenders 

support repeat victimization but such studies have been 

limited and the veracity of offenders is questionable. 
Patterns of Repeat Victimization 

Unreported crime reduces police estimates of repeat 

victimization and evidence even suggests that repeat victims 

are less likely to call the police again.23 Police estimates of 

repeats may further exclude revictimization of the same 

individual at different locations, such as offenses reported 

from hospitals or at police stations while jurisdictional 

boundaries, recording practices for series offenses, the use of 

short-time periods such as a single year, and a small number 

of offenses may also mask repeats that can be identified by 

police. 

When Repeat Victimization Occurs 

A critical and consistent feature of repeat victimization is that 

repeat offenses occur quickly—many repeats occur within a 

week of the initial offense, and some even occur within 24 

hours. An early study of RV showed the highest risk of a 

repeat burglary was during the first week after an initial 

burglary.

24 

After the initial period of heightened risk, the risk of a repeat 

offense declines rapidly until the victim once again has about 

the same victimization risk as persons or properties that have 

never been victimized. This common pattern is displayed in 

Figure 1 and shows that 60 percent of repeat burglaries 

occurred within one month of the initial offense; about 10 

percent occurred during the second month. After the second 

month, the likelihood of a repeat offense is quite low. 

RV consistently demonstrates a predictable pattern known as 

time course: a relatively short high-risk period is followed by a 

rapid decline and then a leveling off of risk. The length of 

the time period of heightened victimization risk varies based 

on local crime problems. Determining the time period of 

heightened risk is critical because any preventive actions must 
10 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

be taken during the high risk period to prevent subsequent 

offenses. For offenses with a short high-risk time course, the 

preventive actions must be taken very quickly. The delay of two 

days or a week may miss the opportunity to prevent a repeat 

from occurring. 

Figure 1:


Time Course Between Repeat Commercial Burglaries


Montgomery County, MD


Some research suggests that the predictable time course of 

repeat victimization may be punctuated by a "bounce"—a slight 

resurgence in the proportion of revictimization occurring after 

the risk appears to be steadily declining (see Figure 2). The 

bounce in the time course may be associated with the 

replacement of property with insurance money. It seems likely 

that some repeat offenders may employ a "cool down" period, 

perceiving victims to be on high alert immediately after an 

offense but relaxing their vigilance within a few months. 

Figure 2:


Time Course Between Repeat Commercial Burglaries:


Indianapolis, IN


40% 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Time Course (months) 
Patterns of Repeat Victimization 1

Evidence suggests that the time period between an initial and 

subsequent offense varies by the type of crime. The time 

course of domestic violence appears short (see Table 7) with 

15% of repeat offenses occurring within a day. The time 

course of RV may be calculated by hours, days, weeks or 

months, or even years between offenses, depending upon the 

temporal distribution of data. 

In addition to variation by crime type, it is likely that the time 

course may also vary by the location of the study. For 

example, a study in Florida showed 25% of repeat burglaries 

took place within a week while a study in Merseyside showed 

11% of repeats occurred during a similar time period. 

Although the time period for reporting repeat victimization 

varies, the statement of such findings is straightforward. For 

example, the first row in Table 7 would be stated as: 

· Of repeat incidents of domestic violence, 15% occurred 

within 24 hours of the initial incident while 35% of repeat 

incidents occurred within five weeks. 

Table 7:


Time Course of Repeat Victimization by Offense Type:


Crime Reports


Offense Proportion of Repeats 

by Time Period 

Where/Study 

Domestic violence 15% within 24 hours 

35% within five weeks 

Merseyside, England

25 

Bank robbery 33% within three months England

26 

Residential burglary 25% within a week 

51% within a month 

Tallahassee, Florida27 

11% within one week 

33% within one month 

Merseyside, England

28 

Non-residential burglary 17% within one week 

43% within one month 

Merseyside, England

29 

Property crime at schools 70% within a month Merseyside, England

30 
12 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

Why Repeat Victimization Occurs 

There are two primary reasons for repeat victimization: one, 

known as the "boost" explanation, relates to the role of 

repeat offenders; the other, known as the "flag" explanation, 

relates to the vulnerability or attractiveness of certain victims. 

In the flag explanation, some targets are unusually attractive 

to criminals or particularly vulnerable to crime, and these 

characteristics tend to remain constant over time. In such 

cases, the victim is repeatedly victimized by different 

offenders. 

• Some locations, such as corner properties, may have higher 

victimization because offenders can easily determine if no 

one is home. Similarly, apartments with sliding glass doors 

are particularly vulnerable to break-ins. 

• Some businesses, such as convenience stores, are easily 

accessible and open long hours, which increases exposure 

to crime. 

• Some jobs, such as taxi driving or delivering pizzas, 

routinely put employees at higher risk than do other jobs. 

People who routinely spend time in risky places, such as 

bars, are at greater risk of victimization. 

• Hot products, such as vehicles desirable for joyriding, are at 

higher risk of being stolen. 

In the boost explanation, repeat victimization reflects the 

successful outcome of an initial offense. Specific offenders 

gain important knowledge about a target from their 

experience and use this information to reoffend. 
Patterns of Repeat Victimization 1

This knowledge may include easy access to a property, times 

during which a target is unguarded, or techniques for 

overcoming security. For example, offenders who steal 

particular makes of vehicles may have knowledge of ways to 

defeat their electronic security systems or locking mechanisms. 

Even fraudulent victimization shows this boost pattern, as 

insurance fraud may explain some cases of repeat victimization. 

• During initial offenses, offenders may spot but be unable to 

carry away all the desirable property. These offenders may 

return for property left behind; or the offenders may tell 

others about the property, leading different offenders to 

revictimize the same property. Since many victims will 

eventually replace stolen property, such as electronics, 

original offenders may also return after a period of time to 

steal the replacement property—presumably brand new.

31 

• Some victims may be unable to protect themselves from 

further victimization. An unrepaired window or door may 

increase vulnerability and make repeat victimization even 

easier than an initial offense. For example, once victimized, a 

domestic violence victim faces a high likelihood of 

revictimization if no protective measures are taken to 

prevent subsequent offenses. 

• Interviews with offenders suggest that much repeat 

victimization may be related to boost explanations— 

experienced offenders can reliably calculate both the risks 

and rewards of offending. Half to two-thirds of offenders 

report burglarizing or robbing a specific property twice or 

more.

32 Among domestic violence offenders, as many as 

two-thirds of incidents are committed by repeat offenders.

33 
14 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

Boost and flag explanations may overlap and vary by offense 

type. For example, bank robberies are most likely to recur if 

an initial robbery yielded a large take; when monetary losses 

were small, banks were less likely to be robbed again.34 

Research on repeat victimization—for banks and other 

targets—suggests that most offenses are highly concentrated 

on a small number of victims while the majority of targets are 

never victimized at all. 

How Repeat Victimization Relates to Other Crime 

Patterns 

Research has revealed several types of repeat victimization: 

• True repeat victims are the exact same targets that were initially 

victimized, such as the same house and the same occupants 

who were burglarized three times within a year. 

• Near victims are victims or targets that are physically close to 

the original victim and may be similar in important ways. 

Apartments close to a burglarized unit will tend to contain 

similar goods, have similar physical vulnerabilities, and a 

common layout. 

• Virtual repeats are repeat victims that are virtually identical to 

the original victim in important ways. A chain of 

convenience stores or fast food restaurants may have 

identical store layouts and management practices, such as 

having a single clerk on duty or informal cash handling 

procedures. The new occupants of a dwelling that had been 

previously burglarized are another type of virtual repeat. 
Patterns of Repeat Victimization 1

• Chronic victims are repeat victims who suffer from different 

types of victimization over time—such as burglary, 

domestic violence, and robbery. This phenomenon is also 

known as multiple victimization. 

For some crimes, repeat victimization is related to other 

common crime patterns: 

• Hot spots are geographic areas in which crime is clustered. 

Hot spots may be hot because of the frequency of the 

same type of crime, such as burglaries, or hot spots may 

include different types of crimes. For many crimes, repeat 

victimization contributes to hot spots. 

• Hot products are goods that are frequently stolen, and their 

desirability may underlie repeat victimization. Stores that 

sell CDs, beer, or gasoline may suffer repeat victimization. 

Some products, including vehicles, become hot products 

because of the product's vulnerability—for example, 

vehicles with locks that are easy to defeat. 

• Repeat offenders are individuals who commit multiple crimes. 

Some offenders specialize in a single crime type, while 

others commit complementary offenses—such as breaking 

into a house and stealing a vehicle to transport the goods, 

or stealing a license plate to be used in the commission of 

another crime, such as a commercial robbery. 

• Crime series are offenses of one crime type that appear to be 

the work of the same offender. The offenses may be 

clustered in space or time, or reflect a distinctive modus 

operandi, such as a serial rapist who targets college students. 

Common series involve property crime at similar targets, 

such as robberies of convenience stores. 
16 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

† Offenses such as domestic violence 

and sexual assault do not usually 

exhibit spatial concentrations, while 

other targets of repeat victimization, 

such as convenience stores, budget 

motels, and banks, may be 

geographically dispersed. 

• Risky facilities are locations such as colleges or shopping 

areas that routinely attract or generate a disproportionate 

amount of crime. For example, lots where students 

routinely park may generate more larcenies from vehicles 

because the vehicles of students may routinely contain 

desirable electronic equipment. 

These crime patterns are not mutually exclusive and may 

intersect or overlap; the detection of repeat victimization, 

however, routinely provides important clues about the reasons 

for recurrence and permits police to focus on avenues for 

prevention. 

Where Repeat Victimization Occurs 

For many crime problems, repeat victimization is most 

common in high crime areas.† Persons and places in high 

crime areas face a greater risk of initial victimization for many 

crimes, and they may lack the means to block a subsequent 

offense by improving security measures and doing so quickly.

35 

In high crime areas, crime is so concentrated among repeat 

victims that recurring offenses can create hot spots—relatively 

small geographic areas in which offenses are clustered. As a 

result, experts have coined the term "hot dots" because 

incident maps may be dominated by symbols scaled to 

represent the number of offenses at specific addresses.

36 (See 

Figure 3.) 

Incident maps are often used to identify hot spots and can be 

used to detect repeat victimization. Icons or symbols should 

be used on maps that are scaled in size to reflect the number 

of incidents, otherwise points that overlap may not be visible, 

masking RV. Data decisions can also distort the amount of 

repeat victimization that can be detected on maps. Short time 
Patterns of Repeat Victimization 1

Figure 3:

Repeat Commercial Robberies 37

periods, such as a week or month or even a quarter—may 

mask repeat victimization; imprecise address information, 

such as a single address for incidents occurring at a large 

apartment complex, also mask specific locations of RV. 

Incident maps may mask RV in densely populated areas 

because most maps demonstrate the incidence and spatial 

distribution of offenses, and do not account for the 

concentration of crimes. In densely populated areas such as 

those with multi-family dwellings, most maps will not 

differentiate between apartment units and apartment buildings 

that may comprise large apartment complexes. 

Crime is not always geographically patterned, and this is also 

true for repeat victimization. For example, victims of 

domestic violence are unlikely to be geographically 
18 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

concentrated. Even repeat incidents of domestic violence may 

not occur at a single address; one offense may take place at a 

residence while the repeat offense may occur at a victim's 

workplace. 

Some crimes, such as burglary, are clustered geographically; 

repeat burglaries are even more predictably clustered.38 Thus, 

citywide data on burglaries may mask the proportion of 

repeat burglaries occurring in smaller geographic areas. This 

suggests the need to use different geographic levels of 

analysis to examine RV. In contrast to burglary, offenses such 

as bank robberies and domestic violence may necessitate the 

use of data from the entire jurisdiction. 

Overlooking Repeat Victimization 

Although the phenomenon of repeat victimization is wellestablished, it is easy to overlook the importance of repeat 

victimization in crime pattern analysis because most people 

and properties within a jurisdiction are not victimized by 

crime, particularly within a period of one or a few years. 

Consider a study in which 10,828 burglaries were reported to 

police in 1990:39 

• 97 percent of the city's estimated 300,000 addresses were 

not burglarized 

• 3 percent of the jurisdiction's addresses (8,116) were 

burglarized 

At first, repeat victimization appears minimal: 

• 82 percent of the victims (6,616 addresses) suffered only 

one burglary during the year 

• 18 percent of victims (1,500 addresses) suffered two or 

more burglaries 
Patterns of Repeat Victimization 1

Analysis sheds further light on revictimization: 

• 61 percent of all burglaries (6,616) occurred at addresses 

with only one offense 

• 39 percent of all burglaries (4,212) occurred at addresses 

with two or more offenses 

While repeat victimization may still appear minimal, Figure 4 

demonstrates graphically that revictimization accounts for a 

disproportionately large share of all burglaries: 18 percent of 

victims accounted for 39 percent of burglaries. If offenses 

after the initial offense had been prevented, the jurisdiction 

would have experienced 2,712 fewer burglaries—a 25 percent 

reduction in burglaries. 

Figure 4:


Distribution of Burglaries by Address and Frequency


Once-only offenses Two or more offenses 

82% 

burglarized 

addresses 

(6,616) 

18% 

burglarized 

addresses 

(1,500) 

61% 

burglaries 

(6,616) 

39%

 burglaries 

(4,212) 

0 

1000 

2000 

3000 

4000 

5000 

6000 

7000 
20 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

In addition to its potential for crime reduction, analysis of 

repeat victimization provides an important analytic and 

management tool for police organizations by serving the 

following purposes: 

• Provide a reliable performance measure for evaluating 

organizational effectiveness (as used by police forces in 

Great Britain). 

• Serve as a catalyst for developing more effective responses 

for problems that generate much of the workload for 

police. 

• Reveal limitations of existing data and police practices, and 

advance improvements in data quality and victim services. 

(See Appendix A for ways to easily improve data quality.) 

• Provide insight into patterns underlying recurring crime 

problems. 

• Prioritize the development and delivery of crime prevention 

and victim services. 

Although recognizing repeat victimization is an important step, 

working out precisely what to do about revictimization will 

require additional effort on the part of police. 

Special Concerns About Repeat Victimization 

Once an agency undertakes analysis of repeat victimization 

and determines the prevalence and time course of repeats by 

offense type, the crime pattern can be used as a tool for 

developing responses to reduce revictimization. Focusing on 

victims raises a number of special concerns that police should 

consider: 
Patterns of Repeat Victimization 2

• Blaming the victim. Victims may be vulnerable because 

they are unable, or have failed to secure their property, or 

have placed themselves in high-risk settings. The behaviors 

of individuals—such as using poor judgment while under 

the influence of drugs or alcohol—may contribute to 

victimization. In most cases, police should provide 

information to the victim about the increased risk of 

victimization but must be careful about implying blame. 

• Increasing fearfulness. For offenses such as burglary that 

are unlikely to be solved, the primary role of police is often 

to comfort victims. Warning victims about the likelihood of 

being revictimized may make victims more fearful. 

• Violating privacy of victims. Although victimization 

increases the risk of revictimization to the original victim, it 

also increases the risks to persons and properties that are 

either nearby or virtually identical to the initial victim. 

While police may be concerned about violating the privacy 

of an initial victim by warning others, this information may 

prevent other vulnerable persons or places from being 

victimized. 

• Displacing crime. It is often believed that thwarting one 

offense will result in a motivated offender simply picking 

another target. Unless there are virtual victims, the 

likelihood of displacement is low.

40 For example, 

preventing repeat domestic violence is unlikely to result in 

the displacement of violence to another victim. If there are 

virtual victims available—such as similar nearby houses to 

be burglarized or similar unsecured parking lots for vehicle 

theft—police should consider these as candidates for 

similar crime prevention strategies. Rather than causing 

displacement, crime prevention efforts focused on victims 

are just as likely to produce bonus effects. For example, 

reducing opportunities for vehicle theft may also reduce 

theft from vehicles. 
22 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

• Unintended consequences. Focusing on repeat 

victimization to reduce offending may have unintended 

consequences. In a study in New York City, researchers 

found that follow-up visits and educational services to 

victims of domestic violence resulted in increased calls for 

police service,

41 and mandatory arrest for some domestic 

violence offenders increases revictimization. 
Understanding Your Local Repeat Victimization Pattern 2

Understanding Your Local Repeat 

Victimization Pattern 

The information in this guide is only a generalized description 

of repeat victimization. Because repeat victimization varies in 

different locations and by the type of crime problem, you 

must combine the basic concepts of repeat victimization with 

a more specific understanding of your local problem. 

Analyzing the local problem carefully will help you design a 

more effective response strategy. 

Estimating the amount and distribution of repeat 

victimization is necessary to develop an effective response. 

Selecting the Problem 

Depending upon the crime problem being examined—and its 

presumed relationship with other related problems—you may 

wish to examine a cluster of problems. For example, 

convenience stores victimized by robbery may also be 

frequent victims of burglary, shoplifting, or larceny. The 

choice of problems to be examined should be based on 

practical reasoning. 

Although it may be necessary to begin with a broad problem 

because of the type of data being used, every effort should 

be made to reduce the problem to one with more similarities 

than differences and avoid an overly broad problem. For 

example, vandalism includes graffiti and destruction of 

property, but each should be examined separately. 

For the problem being examined, determine the appropriate 

"unit of analysis" by deciding if the relevant "victim" is an 

individual or household, an address, a business, or a group of 

victims such as convenience stores or an individual chain 

store. 
24 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

Selecting Data 

Existing police data, such as crime reports, are most often 

used to document repeat victimization. In selecting data, 

attention should be given to: 

• Determining the appropriate time frame. For most 

crime problems, it is best to use at least three calendar years 

of data. You can then define repeat victims as persons or 

places victimized more than once during the three years. If 

you use only a single year of data, an address burglarized in 

December will not be identified as a repeat if the next 

burglary at the address occurred in January. Shorter time 

periods of data will generally underestimate the amount of 

repeat victimization. 

• Determining data sufficiency. As a general rule, it can be 

easier to detect repeat victimization for offenses that are 

common than for offenses that are rare. While the 

magnitude of problems varies from one jurisdiction to 

another, it may be useful to have 100 offenses or more per 

year to detect repeat. While one may find repeats even 

among 10 bank robberies per year in a small town, 

analyzing a larger number of robberies will produce more 

reliable findings. When there are few offenses of one type, 

you can increase the amount of data by incorporating 

multiple years, up to ten years or more, or by broadening 

the geographic scope of analysis, such as incorporating 

offenses that occur in neighboring jurisdictions. 

• Choosing a denominator. To best calculate repeat 

victimization, it is useful to know the population or 

number of possible victims of a similar type. For example, 

if you want to determine the number of repeat robberies 

of convenience stores, it is helpful to know the number of 
Understanding Your Local Repeat Victimization Pattern 2

convenience stores. For demographic information, such as 

households, such data can be found in the U.S. Census; for 

other denominators, sources such as business licenses or tax 

records can be used to determine the population. 

• Identifying key variables. Data should routinely include 

victim name, address (including street number, building name 

or number, apartment or suite number, and direction), and 

date and time of the offense. If the victim is a business, the 

business name and the type of business should be examined. 

Variables examined should also include the outcome such as 

the type or value of property taken or damaged, whether the 

offense was attempted or completed, the amount of force 

used in the offense, the level of harm, and so forth. 

Additional variables may be useful, and you can identify 

these by reading the literature on the specific type of 

problem being considered. 

• Determining data limitations. Police data routinely have 

limitations, including underreporting, delayed reporting, data 

errors, and imprecise address information. When selecting 

data, you should identify the limitations of the data you will 

use, think through the implications of these limitations, and 

determine whether the data can be improved with a 

reasonable amount of effort. Detecting the limitations of 

different data and techniques for improving data quality are 

discussed in appendices A and B.† 

† This task may suggest 

organizational changes that can be 

made to improve data quality. For 

example, agencies may modify 

offense reports, change nature 

classifications used in recording 

dispatched calls or standardize 

recording of victim names. 
26 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

Analysis Tasks 

Basic analysis for repeat victimization is straightforward and 

rarely requires any complex statistical procedures. Data are 

typically contained in a spreadsheet with a range of 

descriptive variables; the data are then sorted based on a 

particular variable so all related victims are grouped together. 

Mapping locations. Many types of revictimization can 

initially be detected with point maps. These maps place dots 

or points on the locations of offenses, calls for service, and 

arrests for crimes such as burglaries, robberies, and assaults. 

Points that are scaled in size to reflect the number of 

incidents occurring at individual addresses are useful. Point 

maps are less useful in areas of high-rise apartments or office 

buildings where the population is dense. Point maps are also 

less useful in rural areas or areas with few addresses such as 

parks, farms, and large parking lots, unless global positioning 

system (GPS) coordinates have been established for these 

locations. 

Sorting offense data by address. Mapping is essentially a 

method of putting a chart or table onto a spatial layer. We can 

accomplish the same task by sorting data by address—by 

sorting the street names and numbers, we create a table such 

as Figure 5. This table does not include the victim name, but 

the data would enable you to sort and then count the number 

of offenses occurring at each location. 
Understanding Your Local Repeat Victimization Pattern 2

Figure 5: †

Distribution of Burglaries by Address and Frequency

† A tool for conducting this analy

Police Census Census Street Street Street Name Street Type is included on the www.popcenter

Beat Tract Block Number Direction website. 

12 12500 4005 645 H ST 

12 12500 4005 645 H ST 

31 13412 1004 4420 BONITA RD 

14 12303 2013 295 E ST 

13 13000 1000 352 H ST 

13 12700 2000 444 3RD AV 

31 13409 1000 386 E H ST 

31 13409 1000 358 E H ST 

31 13413 2003 1020 TIERRA DEL REY 

31 13409 1000 354 E H ST 

TELEGRAPH 

31 13409 5009 599 CANYON RD 

TELEGRAPH 

31 13409 5009 591 CANYON RD 

TELEGRAPH 

31 13409 5009 591 CANYON RD 

14 12302 1006 279 F ST 

14 12302 1006 279 F ST 

14 12302 1006 279 F ST 

14 12302 1006 279 F ST 

Sorting offense data by victim name. Police data can be 

sorted by victim name as the primary sorting characteristic, 

using address, and other unique information to verify and 

resolve any apparent errors in the database. Both calls-forservice and offense data can be analyzed in this way. 

Counting victims and offenses. Once data are sorted and 

matched, most electronic databases such as Microsoft® Excel 

and SPSS® contain a procedure for counting the number of 

unique addresses or names. 

The best way to display repeat data is to create a table that 

includes the number of offenses and the number of victims 

(see Figure 6.) Additional columns may be used to report the 

percentage of households or offenses in each row. 
28 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

Figure 6:


Sample Table for Recording Number of Victimizations:


Residential Burglary


Number 

of burglaries 

Number of victims burglarized 

(address or households) 

Total 

burglarie

0 F 

(Total population or households – E) 

0 

1 A A 

2 B 2 x B 

3 C 3 x C 

4 or more D F – (A + 2B 

Total E (A +B + C + D) F 

Once the figures in this table are entered, percentages (as 

displayed in Table 6) provide an easy way to see the 

proportions of offenses experienced by repeat victims and to 

determine the proportion of all victims who have been 

revictimized. 

Cleaning data. Sorting and matching data reveals many 

errors. These may appear trivial (for example when road type 

is listed in one record as "avenue" and in another as "street") 

but such errors may reduce the number of matches and lead 

to underestimations of repeat victimization. The errors can 

typically be repaired by using another variable to sort and 

verify the correct version. For example, in Figure 5, 599 and 

591 Telegraph Canyon are both listed as addresses. A check of 

the victim's name may show that the 599 address was a data 

entry error that should be corrected to 591. 

Calculating time course. The amount of time between an 

initial offense and a subsequent offense (or between the 

second and third, or third and fourth) is called the time 
Understanding Your Local Repeat Victimization Pattern 2

course. Most software can easily compute the time course in 

days by subtracting the date of the second offense from the 

date of the first offense. The procedure is only slightly more 

complicated when the data set exceeds 12 months, because the 

calculation of year must be converted so the software 

interprets Jan. 1, 2001, as 365 days later than Jan. 1, 2000. 

Descriptive statistics are typically used to report time course— 

the average number of days between repeat events, the range 

of least and most time between events, and percentiles such as 

the proportion of repeat events occurring within one week, 30 

days, six months, or 12 months. The choice of the time period 

for reporting percentiles should be based upon natural or 

meaningful breaks in the temporal distribution of data. 

Calculating rate. For many crime problems, the amount of 

victimization and repeat victimization will relate to exposure. 

For example, if there are 118 convenience stores in a city and 

75 of these are Handy Andy® stores, there are likely to be 

more robberies of Handy Andy than any other store. 

Exposure may also be increased by longer operating hours, 

more residents, more vehicular or foot traffic, and so on. 

Planning Further Analysis 

The analysis of repeat victimization, its concentration, and 

time course may clearly point to specific responses that will 

eliminate or reduce a problem; however, it is likely that further 

analysis will be necessary. Without further analysis, most 

police will attempt to conduct surveillance or undercover 

operations to apprehend one or more offenders at the 

location of repeat victimization. This response may be 

appropriate when repeat victimization relates to the repeat 

offending but such efforts may require extensive resources 

and will not necessarily change the general conditions of 

properties or behaviors of persons who face higher risk of 

victimization. 
30 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

Collecting additional information. The initial analysis 

of repeat victimization may shed light on obvious 

vulnerabilities related to repeat victims. Such 

vulnerabilities may relate to characteristics for which data 

will need to be collected: store hours, age of victims 

(elderly or youth), environmental conditions, management 

practices, crime prevention devices used, victim behaviors, 

and so forth. All analysis should relate to factors that 

could be modified through some action on the part of the 

police or others. Patrol officers and investigators will often 

have insight into factors that contribute to high rates of 

repeat victimization. 

Examining victim-suspect relationships. For some 

offenses, the relationship between victim and suspect will 

shed light on the nature of revictimization and on the 

nature of the police response. These relationships may 

explain many repeats for personal and property 

victimization of individuals. 

Determining the role of boosts. Some offenses such as 

domestic violence will tend to involve the same offender 

over time but the role of repeat offenders may not be 

immediately obvious. For analysis of repeat victimization, 

efforts should be made to determine the contribution of 

repeat offenders. If a single prolific offender—an 

employee, family member, or someone else—underlies 

much revictimization, this information will guide efforts 

to determine the most effective response such as a panic 

or other temporary alarm, or increased short-term 

surveillance. Repeat victimization that continues after an 

offender is apprehended reflects flag rather than boost 

explanations. 

Comparing victims and non-victims. Focusing on 

repeat victimization often highlights the differences 

between victims and non-victims, or between one-time 
Understanding Your Local Repeat Victimization Pattern 3

victims and those who are repeatedly and even chronically 

victimized. Although convenience store robberies may be 

numerous, some stores are never robbed; crime in budget 

motels is not distributed across all such businesses, and 

factors such as management practices probably explain 

more variation than does location. Comparisons can reveal 

the average number of offenses for particular groups of 

businesses, locations, or victims. 

Variables to be examined can be determined through 

discussions with investigators and patrol officers, as well as 

a reading of literature on the topic. For property offenses, 

variables may include method of entry, type of property 

stolen, security practices employed, proximity to crime 

generators such as schools or bars, and so forth. For 

personal victimizations, such as sexual assault or domestic 

violence, variables such as victim-suspect relationship, and 

drug or alcohol use may be critical. For commercial 

offenses, variables such as management practices, security 

features, demographic characteristics of customers, or type 

of merchandise may offer insight into distinctions 

between victims and non-victims. 

For specific types of victims, such as schools, bars, budget 

motels, banks, and convenience stores, information can be 

collected through public records such as tax and business 

licenses.

42 

Establishing correlations between key variables or using 

cross-tabulations may provide important information 

about differences in victimization. Depending upon the 

nature of the problem, however, you may want to seek 

additional assistance in more complex statistical models. 

Providing this information may be helpful in 

implementing responses that require changes in victim 

behaviors or management practices. 
32 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

Responding to Repeat Victimization 

Since the risk of repeat victimization is highest in the shortterm, responses with the greatest potential for being effective 

have the following characteristics: 

Responses emphasize quick action—within 24 hours if 

possible—to prevent a subsequent offense. 

• Highest priority is accorded repeat victims with the most 

victimization, and these victims receive an increased level or 

amount of the response. This type of graded response 

deploys the easiest or least expensive measures to first-time 

victims and increases the intensity of the response if 

subsequent victimizations occur. 

• Responses to repeat victimization may be temporary since 

the increased risk of revictimization is most acute in the 

short-term. 

Types of Responses to Repeat Victimization 

There are three primary ways of responding to RV: 

• Protecting victims by blocking future opportunities against 

these specific persons or places 

• Shifting responsibility for repeat victimization 

• Increasing actual or perceived risks of apprehension for 

offenders, primarily repeat offenders 

These types of responses may be combined, depending on 

the type of problem. 
Responding to Repeat Victimization 3

Protecting Victims 

1. Quickly blocking visual signs of victimization. 

Obvious signs of property damage should be removed 

immediately to block visual signs of vulnerability. Needy 

victims may need assistance in quickly securing properties. 

2. Improving physical security. While it is not practical to 

provide security surveys to all potential victims, properties 

that have been victimized once or more should be assessed 

for vulnerability, and protective actions should be taken 

rapidly. 

3. Target hardening. Improved security, such as hardware, 

can be installed; lighting can be improved; security lighting 

installed; visibility improved such as by unobstructing views of 

cash registers; and so forth. 

4. Rapidly blocking access to targets. Installing bandit or 

anti-robbery screens at victimized properties; placing targeted 

products behind counters, in locked cases, or out of reach; 

and moving or removing targets such as telephone booths, 

signs, vending machines, or vehicles. 

5. Removing or protecting targets. Some targets cannot be 

physically moved but victimization can be reduced by 

installing driveway barriers where vehicles cannot be garaged; 

and obstructing access to alleys, walls, signs, or culverts using 

fences, gates, vegetation, baffles, or sprinklers. 

6. Regulating or controlling access. Access to locations 

that are repeatedly victimized, such as parks, bathrooms, 

libraries, and schools can be controlled in different ways 

including fees, passes, identification cards, or parking permits. 
34 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

Shifting Responsibility for Repeat Victimization 

7. Educating victims or eliminating excuses for risky 

behaviors. Victim behaviors, such as failing to secure 

property or walking alone, may contribute to victimization. 

Once victimized, victims can be educated about their risk of 

being victimized again. Services such as escorts for women 

walking alone on college campuses, access to shelters or 

protective custody for domestic violence victims, and crime 

prevention devices such as dead bolt locks can eliminate 

excuses for risky behavior. 

8. Changing management practices. Management 

practices, such as increasing the number of employees or 

adopting security features, may reduce repeat victimization. 

For example, access controls can be installed in parking lots, 

retail stores can require receipts for returned merchandise, 

apartment complexes can screen visitors, gasoline stations can 

adopt pre-pay policies, stores can limit and secure cash on 

hand, bars can monitor drinking, the number of customers 

can be limited, access to hot products can be controlled, or 

the number of employees can be increased during "hot 

times." 

Since changes in management practices may be costly and 

inconvenient, some businesses might prefer to put up with 

repeat victimization as a "cost" of doing business. In such 

cases, police should consider steps to encourage the adoption 

of preventive strategies. Education and informal requests may 

convince some property owners to adopt protective measures. 

Since predictable repeat victimization reduces the amount of 

police service available to unwilling victims, some repeat 

victims may be persuaded to adopt crime prevention strategies 

through the application of publicity, user fees, or even civil 

actions. 
Responding to Repeat Victimization 3

Increasing Risks to Offenders 

9. Temporarily increasing surveillance. For victimized 

locations and people, informal and formal surveillance can be 

increased temporarily through police patrols, security guards, 

and employees for a wide range of offenses from vandalism 

to burglary to domestic violence. 

• Temporary surveillance can be increased through "cocoon 

watch," a type of Neighborhood Watch in which nearby 

residents are informed of an offense and asked to be 

particularly vigilant. 

• Electronic surveillance, including CCTV and portable 

burglar alarms, can also be temporarily used in many 

settings. 

• Domestic violence victims may be provided with panic 

alarms to quickly contact police about repeat offenses. 

10. Reducing rewards. To deter repeat offenders, the 

rewards associated with offending can be reduced by focusing 

on victimized locations, persons, or property. 

• Tracking devices, such as units temporarily placed in 

vehicles, can be used to detect offenders. 

• Marking or etching property with identification makes it 

difficult to sell property, and ink packs in cash packs limit 

use. 

• Cash control procedures in retail stores limit the amount to 

be stolen, and return policies can reduce shoplifting. 
36 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

11. Monitoring repeat victimization. It is important to 

assign clear responsibility for identifying and monitoring 

repeat victimization. The responsibility for monitoring repeat 

victimization may vary by the type of offense and the 

prevalence of revictimization. Call dispatchers, crime analysts, 

crime prevention personnel, specialists such as victims service 

personnel, responding officers, and investigators may all take a 

role in identifying and monitoring repeat victimization; while 

the assignment of responsibility may vary from one crime 

problem to another, the locus of responsibility should be 

clearly articulated. 

Cautionary Note 

While some effective responses to repeat victimizations may 

focus on increasing the risks to offenders, particularly repeat 

offenders, caution should be exercised in focusing on 

increasing apprehension of offenders. Efforts to apprehend 

unknown offenders are resource intensive and may not be 

successful, particularly for property offenses. In some 

situations, tactical or short-term police efforts such as baiting, 

stings, or surveillance to prevent revictimization of individual 

persons or places may result in the apprehension of an 

individual offender. While these offenders may be responsible 

for numerous offenses, police should consider whether the 

initial characteristics of the vulnerable victim or location are 

likely to remain unchanged and therefore attract other 

offenders. 

The most effective and efficient crime reduction strategies will 

likely consist of longer-term efforts to prevent revictimization 

by changing the characteristics of types of repeat victims. For 

example, adopting pre-pay policies at gas stations with 

repeated gasoline drive-offs will produce longer-term benefits 

than arresting a single offender or even several offenders. 
Measuring Your Effectiveness 3

Measuring Your Effectiveness 

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your 

efforts have succeeded and suggests how you might modify 

your responses if they are not producing the intended results. 

You should take measures of your problem before you 

implement responses to determine how serious the problem 

is, and after you implement them to determine whether they 

have been effective. When problems are geographic, measures 

should be taken for both a target group and the surrounding 

area to detect any spatial displacement and, if possible, a 

comparable area to provide a basis of comparison. In many 

cases, measures should be taken for the problem of interest 

and any problem to which offenses may be displaced, such as 

from residential burglaries to commercial burglaries. (For 

more detailed guidance on measuring effectiveness, see the 

companion guide to this series, Assessing Responses to Problems: 

An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers.) 

The following are potentially useful measures of the 

effectiveness of responses focused on repeat victimization: 

• reduction in the number or frequency of reported 

incidents, 

• reduction in the proportion of repeat offenses, 

• reduction in the number or frequency of calls for service, 

• reduction in repeat calls for service, 

• reduction in the proportion of repeat victims, 

• reduction in completed offenses, 

• eduction of value of property taken or harm associated 

with offenses, and 

• increase in arrests associated with offenses suffered by 

repeat victims. 
38 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

† Citizen-initiated calls for service 

(911 calls) are valuable for identifying 

repeat victimization, particularly by 

address. While call data have limited 

variables and are not subject to the 

same level of verification as incident 

reports, they can provide important 

insight into related problems, such as 

911 hang-ups and domestic violence, 

or groups of problems, such as those 

occurring at schools or bars. 

Appendix A: Data Sources and 

Limitations 

The type and quality of data used for estimating RV 

influences the amount of revictimization that can be detected. 

This, in turn, may mask key elements of revictimization and 

limit how we can determine the impact of reducing 

revictimization. 

Police Data 

Recorded crime data are most often used to detect repeat 

victimization,† however, the actual amount of repeat 

victimization is often masked by common problems, 

including: 

• Underreporting. Much victimization is unreported but 

reporting varies from one offense to another. Virtually all 

bank robberies, vehicle crashes, and most vehicle thefts and 

commercial robberies are reported. On the other hand, 

most domestic violence, much theft, and much vandalism 

are unreported. Underreporting will limit the ability to 

detect repeat victimization. 

• Incomplete or inaccurate crime reports. Offense reports 

completed by responding officers are rarely used for 

analysis, and often contain incomplete or inaccurate 

information about offenses, including poor address or 

victim information, or missing information. Analysis of 

repeat victimization will likely provide an opportunity to 

involve line personnel in improving the quality of their 

initial reports; this may contribute to reductions in their 

workload and provide opportunities to participate in the 

most effective crime prevention strategies. 
Appendix 3

• Time period covered by the data. A single year of 

offense data is customarily used for crime analysis but 

provides a weak basis for detecting repeat victimization. 

Undercounting occurs when offenses straddle calendar 

years, with an initial offense occurring late in one calendar 

year and a recurrence early in the next year. The problem is 

more common when the time course between offenses is 

longer. While this data may be all that is available to police, 

truncating data by calendar year substantially masks repeat 

offenses. 

• Data accuracy. Police data are fraught with errors that 

reduce the amount of repeat victimization that can be 

detected. Some errors reflect data entry problems or errors 

on reports such as misspelled victim or street names, or 

erroneous street numbers. Basic inconsistencies in data, 

such as the use of a street suffix or direction (such as north 

or south), may reduce data quality. Accuracy of data is also 

affected by victim reporting—victims may delay reporting, 

may fail to recall key elements such as all types of property 

taken, may fail to report suspect information, or may 

provide false information to police such as claiming that 

properties were secured. 

• Data precision. Even in offense reports, police data often 

fail to record all the elements of a unique address. Street 

number, apartment building or building name, floor, and 

apartment or suite number are often necessary for 

accurately detecting revictimization at addresses. For large 

properties, such as parks, parking lots, or sporting venues; 

or in locations without an address, such as pedestrian or 

bicycle paths, along creeks or in canyons, or within alleys; 

very precise address information will be unavailable. Some 

properties, such as schools or businesses, may have multiple 

addresses, including different streets. Police data 
40 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

may fail to distinguish between types of residential 

properties, such as apartments or single-family dwellings, 

or a type of commercial enterprise. 

• Imprecise victim names. Detecting revictimization of 

individuals involves matching recorded victim names. But 

victims may alter their name, move after being victimized, 

be victimized in different locations, and households may 

contain individuals with different names who report 

separate incidents. When a commercial location is 

victimized, recording victim names should be standardized 

to consistently distinguish a corporate name from a store 

name or acronym. 

• Hierarchical crime classification and recording 

inconsistencies. Hierarchical classification of offenses 

may mask revictimization for some offense types. For 

example, the occurrence of a burglary at the address where 

domestic violence has occurred may result in 

undercounting burglary or domestic violence 

revictimization. Some offenses are not consistently 

classified—an attempted break-in of a motor vehicle may 

be reported as vandalism. 

• Victim groups. "Virtual" repeat victims may comprise 

groups, for example, specific restaurant chains, a specific 

chain of convenience stores or gasoline stations, college 

students, or surface parking lots. 

• Boundary issues. Repeat victimization may occur across 

territorial boundaries, particularly for victim groups. For 

example, a specific chain of fast food restaurants may be 

robbed but offenses occur in different jurisdictions or 

police districts, and therefore are not easily detected. In 

areas where offender mobility is high, RV may be masked. 
Appendix 4

Victim Surveys

Victim surveys improve upon police data because the data 

address a common problem in police data—underreporting. 

Since victimization for any particular offense is usually quite 

low, random surveys are generally not cost effective. Police, 

however, can use two basic methods to survey for repeat 

victimization: 

Victim follow-up surveys. Offense reports (or call 

histories) are used to construct a sampling frame; victims 

are then surveyed some time after their initial victimization 

to determine if they have been revictimized, and whether 

or not they called the police. The time period may be 30 

days, or three, six, or 12 months—depending upon the 

time course for the offense type being examined. 

Modified offense reports. A simple way for police to 

incorporate revictimization surveys into routine police 

work is to modify offense reports and/or the initial 

investigation of responding officers to include a few basic 

questions about victimization such as: 

• Have you previously been victimized? 

• Were you a victim of the same or a different type of 

offense? 

• Were you victimized at this address or another address? 

• How many times were you victimized? 

• When did the victimization occur? 

• Did you report the victimization to the police? 

Questions about victimization experience should be used 

to identify high-risk victims and may also shed light on the 

development of the most effective responses. Questions 

for victims should relate to the specific problem being 

examined. 
42 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

In some cases, police may want to carry out larger surveys. An 

entire population can be surveyed—such as all convenience 

store managers, budget motel managers, women on small 

college campuses, public school principals, or homebuilders. 

Some surveys may be observational, such as crime prevention 

surveys that assess environmental features such as lighting or 

building layouts. 

In general, methodological issues must be considered in 

victim surveys: 

• Continuous data. Unlike police data, which are collected 

continuously over time, data obtained from victim surveys 

are usually discrete, and data collection occurs at a single 

point in time. Ideally, surveys of victims should follow 

victims over time to detect if and when further 

victimizations occur. 

• Attrition. Victim surveys will be subject to attrition as 

some victims move or refuse to be surveyed. Attrition may 

be more likely for individuals who have been revictimized, 

thus distorting the amount of revictimization detected. 

Conversely, some studies suggest that victims who are 

pleased with the police response to an offense are more 

likely to call the police again. 

• Accuracy. Victims may be unable to recall incidents 

accurately—particularly dates of incidents—or may be 

reluctant to discuss victimization, particularly incidents 

such as domestic violence or sexual assault. Surveys 
Appendix 4

relating to such problems must be sensitive to the presence of 

an offender or others who may inhibit honesty. Victims may 

not consider some types of victimization crime or may not 

consider themselves victims. 

For guidance on developing surveys, refer to A Police Guide for 

Surveying Citizens and their Environments, or Conducting Community 

Surveys. Both are listed in the recommended readings. There 

are also specialized survey instruments, such as those used for 

conducting follow-up surveys with women victimized by 

domestic violence. For example, www.vaw.umn.edu contains 

links to validated instruments for such surveys that measure 

the amount of conflict that a victim has experienced. While 

many of these survey instruments are copyrighted and too indepth for police use, they provide ideas about reliable 

questions can be incorporated into any followup survey. 

Other Data Sources and Methods 

While there are other existing sources of data about 

revictimization, data may need to be collected to document 

repeat victimization. 

Important data may be collected through environmental 

observations. Properties that are vulnerable to graffiti such as 

vandal-prone walls in urban areas, pedestrian tunnels, or 

transportation corridors should be monitored to improve the 

amount and accuracy of information about offenses. Such 

observations may be daily or weekly, or reflect periods of 

vulnerability, such as following school holidays. (For more 

detailed guidance on environmental surveys, see A Police Guide 

to Surveying Citizens and Their Environment. This publication is 

listed in Recommended Readings at the end of this 

monograph.) 
44 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

Interviews with apprehended or experienced offenders may 

improve understanding of repeat victimization. Although 

these interviews won't provide an empirical measure about the 

amount of repeat victimization, insights from offenders may 

provide understanding of target selection and an opportunity 

to prevent recurring victimization. (For more detailed 

guidance on collecting information from offenders, see the 

companion guide to this series, Using Offender Interviews to 

Inform Police Problem Solving.) 

Other data sources that have been used to detect repeat 

victimization include medical records, such as hospital 

admissions or treatment in emergency rooms, admissions to 

domestic violence shelters, and inventory systems. 
Appendix 4

Appendix B: Improving Data Integrity 

The extent and the importance of data limitations vary from 

one problem to another. Data source and quality are seldom 

an issue for some problems—data on bank robberies are 

highly accurate and reliable for detecting revictimization. Poor 

data mask revictimization in other problems, such as 

burglaries and domestic violence. While data quality can often 

be improved, a decision to undertake such effort should 

consider the following factors: 

• Extent of data limitations for problem being examined 

• Presumed value of improving data quality, including

short-term and long-term benefits 

• Availability of alternate data or methods to improve data

quality 

• Resources necessary to improve data quality 

Depending on the problem being examined, more reliable 

data may be necessary. For example, if data suggest that 

private property owners should adopt costly preventive 

measures, extremely reliable data may be necessary to educate, 

encourage, convince, or coerce them into doing so. 

An important reason to carefully document the extent of 

repeat victimization is to provide a foundation for a 

response—including getting buy-in from others who may help 

reduce victimization. Depending upon the type of problem 

being examined, the integrity of data can be easily improved: 

• Collecting additional data. As discussed in Appendix A, 

offense reports can easily be modified so that victims are 

asked a short series of questions about prior victimization. 
46 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

Offense reports can also be modified to record all 

victimizations, regardless of whether charges were filed, to 

identify repeat offenses that may be masked by hierarchy 

rules. This is consistent with NIBRS (National IncidentBased Reporting System) procedures and will provide more 

complete information about victimization. 

• Creating data layers. In most jurisdictions, common types 

of locations—bars and nightclubs, budget motels, schools, 

banks, movie theatres, convenience stores, gasoline 

stations—will routinely generate similar types of crimes. 

For example, assaults will occur at the bars, vandalism at 

schools, robberies at banks, beer runs at convenience stores 

and so on. Police should integrate location identifiers into 

their records management systems so offenses among these 

location groups can be routinely monitored. 

• Combining data sources. For some problems, victim 

interviews will provide better information about the impact 

of responses to problems such as domestic violence than 

police records. Crime reports may underestimate or 

overestimate the impact of responses—increased reporting 

does not demonstrate increased victimization and reduced 

reporting does not demonstrate reduced victimization. 

Conducting follow-up surveys with victims who previously 

reported an offense to the police provides more reliable 

measures of revictimization. Other data sources—such as 

calls for service, offense reports, arrests, property 

recovered, and warrants—can also be combined to create 

more comprehensive databases, for example, facilitating 

searches by both name, address and unique identifiers when 

available. 
Appendix 4

• Increasing data precision. Incident reporting forms and 

police records can be revised to improve specific location 

information. Whenever possible, police should avoid 

recording offense locations as intersections or hundredblock addresses. Each unit of an address should be 

routinely recorded—including building name or number, 

floor, office suite, or apartment number. For properties that 

have multiple addresses (such as an apartment complex that 

has addresses on more than one street), records 

management systems should be modified to link addresses. 

An alternative is to use mapping to reveal near-repeat 

offenses that are recorded on different streets. For offenses 

that occur in large public or private spaces such as parks or 

parking lots, police can use global positioning system (GPS) 

equipment to record precise coordinates for offenses. 

• Improving data quality. Simple procedures, such as 

mapping offenses, can identify "match rates," or the 

proportion of offenses that can be linked to valid 

addresses. Consistent recording of offense types is very 

important. The distinctions between some offenses may 

seem trivial but have implications affecting revictimization. 

For example, if appliances are stolen from a house under 

construction, this might be classified as larceny or theft 

from a construction site, residential burglary, or commercial 

burglary. Offense classifications and recording practices 

should be monitored to ensure consistent classification and 

recording methods. 
48 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

• Data sharing. To detect revictimization across boundaries 

and jurisdictions, police agencies should routinely share data 

about victims. This is practical for counties or neighboring 

jurisdictions that participate in regional information 

networks. Individual victims may (unsuccessfully) relocate 

to avoid revictimization and revictimization of commercial 

properties. Virtual victims may be especially common across 

boundaries. 

50 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

Endnotes 

1 Farrell and Bouloukos (2001). 2 Kingma (1999). 

3 Calculated from data in Sorenson et al. (1991). 4 Simmons and Dodd (2003). 

5 Calculated based on one wave of NYS data presented in Lauritsen 

and Quinet (1995), Table I. 6 Budd (1999). 

7 Kinsholt (2001). 

8 Simmons and Dodd (2003). 

9 Calculated from Lloyd, Farrell, and Pease (1994). The data are 

referred to as domestic violence calls but it is presumed that these 

calls are synonymous with domestic violence crime reports. 10 Hanmer, Griffiths, and Jerwood (1999). 11 Weisel (2001). 12 Taylor (2004). 13 Matthews, Pease, and Pease (2001). 14 Ratcliffe and McCullagh (1998). 15 Calculated based on data from Johnson, Bowers, and Hirschfield 

(1997). 16 Townsley, Homel, and Chaseling (2000). 17 Kleemans (2001). 18 Weisel (2001). 19 Calculated based on data in Bowers, Hirschfield, and Johnson 

(1998). 20 Calculated based on data in LeBeau and Vincent (1998). 21 Simmons and Dodd (2003). 22 Budd (1999). 23 Mukherjee and Carcach (1997); Van Dijk (2001); Felson, Messner, 

and Hoskin (1999); Hotaling and Buzawa (2003). 24 Polvi et al. (1991). 25 Lloyd, Farrell, and Pease (1994). 26 Mathews, Pease, and Pease (2001). 27 Robinson (1998). 28 Johnson, Bowers, and Hirschfield (1997). 29 Bowers, Hirschfield, and Johnson (1998). 30 Burquest, Farrell, and Pease (1992). 31 Clarke, Perkins, and Smith (2001). 
Endnotes 5

32 Ashton et al. (1998). 33 Hanmer, Griffiths, and Jerwood (1999). 34 Matthews, Pease, and Pease (2001). 35 Kleemans (2001); Trickett et al. (1992); Townsley, Homel, and 

Chaseling (2000); Johnson, Bowers, and Hirschfield (1997); Bennett 

and Durie (1999); Bennett (1995). 36 Pease and Laycock (1996). 37 Weisel (2001). 38 Trickett et al. (1992); Townsley, Homel, and Chaseling (2000). 39 Calculated from LeBeau and Vincent (1998). 40 Boloukos and Farrell (1997). 41 Davis and Maxwell (2003). 42 See Schmerler, Wartell and Weisel (2004) for more guidance on this. 
52 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

References 

Ashton, J., I. Brown, B. Senior, and K. Pease (1998). "Repeat 

Victimisation: Offender Accounts." International Journal of 

Risk Security and Crime Prevention 3(4):269-279. 

Bennett, T. (1995). "Identifying, Explaining, and Targeting 

Burglary 'Hot Spots'." European Journal of Criminal Policy and 

Research 3(3):113-123. 

Bennett, T., and L. Durie (1999). Preventing Residential Burglary 

in Cambridge: From Crime Audits to Targeted Strategies. Police 

Research Series, Paper 108. London: Home Office. 

Bowers, K., A. Hirschfield, and S. Johnson (1998). 

"Victimization Revisited: A Case Study of Non-Residential 

Repeat Burglary in Merseyside." British Journal of Criminology 

38(3):429-452. 

Budd, T. (1999). "Burglary of Domestic Dwellings: Findings 

from the British Crime Survey," Bulletin 4/99. London: 

Home Office. 

Burquest, R., G. Farrell, and K. Pease (1992). "Lessons From 

Schools." Policing 8(2): 48-155. 

Clarke, R., E. Perkins, and D. Smith, Jr. (2001). "Explaining 

Repeat Residential Burglaries: An Analysis of Property 

Stolen." In G. Farrell and K. Pease (eds.), Repeat 

Victimization. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 12. Monsey, New 

York: Criminal Justice Press. 

Davis, R., and C. Maxwell (2003). "Preventing Repeat 

Incidents of Family Violence: A Reanalysis of Data from 

Three Field Tests." Final Report. Washington, D.C.: 

National Institute of Justice. 
References 5

Farrell, G., and A. Bouloukos (2001). "International Overview: 

A Cross-National Comparison of Rates of Repeat 

Victimization." In G. Farrell and K. Pease (eds.), Repeat 

Victimization. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 12. Monsey, New 

York: Criminal Justice Press. 

Felson, R., S. Messner, and A. Hoskin (1999). "The VictimOffender Relationship and Calling the Police in Assaults." 

Criminology 37 (4): 931-947. 

Hanmer, J., S. Griffiths, and D. Jerwood (1999). Arresting 

Evidence: Domestic Violence and Repeat Victimisation. Police 

Research Series, Paper 104. London: Home Office. 

Hotaling, G., and E. Buzawa (2003). "Forgoing Criminal Justice 

Assistance: The Non-Reporting of New Incidents of Abuse 

in a Court Sample of Domestic Violence Victims." Final 

Report to the National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C.: 

National Institute of Justice. 

Johnson, S., K. Bowers, and A. Hirschfield (1997). "New 

Insights Into the Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Repeat 

Victimization." British Journal of Criminology 37(2): 224-241. 

Kingma, J. (1999). Repeat Victimization of Victims of Violence: 

A Retrospective Study From a Hospital Emergency 

Department for the Period 1971-1995." Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence 14 (1): 79-90. 

Kinsholt, G. (2001). "Vehicle-Related Thefts: Practice Message 

from the British Crime Survey." Briefing Note. London: Home 

Office (July). 

Kleemans, E. (2001). "Repeat Burglary Victimization: Results of 

Empirical Research in the Netherlands." In G. Farrell and K. 

Pease (eds.), Repeat Victimization. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 

12. Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press. 
54 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

Lauritsen, J., and K. Quinet (1995). "Repeat Victimization 

Among Adolescents and Young Adults." Journal of 

Quantitative Criminology 11 (2): 143-166. 

LeBeau, J., and K. Vincent (1998). "Mapping It Out: RepeatAddress Burglar Alarms and Burglaries." In D. Weisburd 

and T. McEwen (eds.), Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention. 

Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 8. Monsey, New York: Criminal 

Justice Press. 

Lloyd, S., G. Farrell, and K. Pease (1994). Preventing Repeated 

Domestic Violence: A Demonstration Project on Merseyside. Home 

Office Crime Prevention Unit Paper 49. London: Home 

Office. 

Lynch, J., M. Berbaum, and M. Planty (1998). Investigating 

Repeated Victimization with the NCVS, Final Report NCJ# 

193415, Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice. 

Matthews, R., C. Pease, and K. Pease (2001). "Repeated Bank 

Robbery: Theme and Variations." In G. Farrell and K. Pease 

(eds.), Repeat Victimization. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 12. 

Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press. 

Mukherjee, S., and C. Carcach (1998). Repeat Victimisation in 

Australia. Research and Public Policy Series, No. 15. 

Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 

Pease, K., and G. Laycock (1996). Revictimization: Reducing the 

Heat on Hot Victims. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of 

Justice. 

Polvi, N., T. Looman, C. Humphries, and K. Pease (1991). 

"The Time Course of Repeat Burglary Victimization." 

British Journal of Criminology 31(4): 411-414. 
References 5

Ratcliffe, J., and M. McCullagh (1998). "Identifying Repeat 

Victimization with GIS." British Journal of Criminology 

38(4):651-662. 

Robinson, M. (1998). "Burglary Revictimization: The Time 

Period of Heightened Risk." British Journal of Criminology 

38(1):78-87. 

Schmerler, K., J. Wartell, and D. Weisel (2004). "Applied 

Research in Crime Analysis and Problem Solving." In C.W. 

Bruce, J. Cooper, and S. Hick (eds.), Exploring Crime Analysis: 

Readings on Essential Skills. Oakland Park, Kansas: IACA 

Press. 

Simmons, J., and T. Dodd (eds.). Crime in England and Wales 

2002/2003. London: Home Office. 

Sorenson, S., J. Siegel, J. Golding and J. Stein (1991). 

"Repeated Sexual Victimization." Violence and Victims 6 (4): 

299-308. 

Taylor, N. (2004). "Petrol Service Stations as Victims of 

Crime: Their Risks and Vulnerabilities." Crime Prevention and 

Community Safety: An International Journal 6 (1): 31-41. 

Townsley, M., R. Homel, and J. Chaseling (2000). "Repeat 

Burglary Victimisation: Spatial and Temporal Patterns." 

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 33(1):37-63. 

Trickett, A., D. Osborn, J. Seymour, and K. Pease (1992). 

"What is Different About High Crime Areas?" British Journal 

of Criminology 32 (1): 81-90. 
56 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

Van Dijk, J. (2001). "Attitudes of Victims and Repeat Victims 

Toward the Police: Results of the International Crime 

Victims Survey." In G. Farrell and K. Pease (eds.), Repeat 

Victimization. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 12. Monsey, New 

York: Criminal Justice Press. 

Weisel, D.L. (2001). "Repeat Victimization for Commercial 

Burglary and Robbery: How Much and Where?" 

Presentation at U.S. Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Justice, Crime Mapping Research Conference, 

Dallas, Texas (December). 
About the Author 5

About the Author 

Deborah Lamm Weisel 

Deborah Lamm Weisel is an assistant research professor and 

the director of police research in the Department of Political 

Science and Public Administration at North Carolina State 

University. Her portfolio includes research on police 

responses to crime problems such as gangs, street drugs and 

graffiti, as well as community policing, safety and security in 

public housing, and repeat victimization from burglary and 

robbery. Her work has been published in Justice Quarterly, 

Public Management, the NIJ Journal, and the American 

Journal of Police. She holds a doctorate in political 

science/public policy analysis from the University of Illinois 

at Chicago. 

Recommended Readings 5

Recommended Readings 

• A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their 

Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This 

guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners to 

two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying public 

opinion and surveying the physical environment. It provides 

guidance on whether and how to conduct cost-effective 

surveys. 

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers, by John E. Eck (U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 2001). This guide is a companion to the 

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series. It provides basic 

guidance to measuring and assessing problem-oriented policing 

efforts. 

• Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel 

(Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with 

accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic 

pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The 

document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs. 

• Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers In 60 Small 

Steps, by Ronald V. Clarke and John E. Eck (U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

2005). This easy-to-use 60-step manual prepares crime analysts 

to become key members of a problem-solving team. The 

volume is packed with vital and sophisticated information, 

making it one of the most significant publications addressed to 

the policing field in several decades. 
60 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

• Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 

(Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of 

volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing 

opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of 

initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems. 

• Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing:The 1999 

Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This document 

produced by the National Institute of Justice in collaboration 

with the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and 

the Police Executive Research Forum provides detailed 

reports of the best submissions to the annual award program 

that recognizes exemplary problem-oriented responses to 

various community problems. A similar publication is available 

for the award winners from subsequent years. The documents 

are also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. 

• Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime 

Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office 

Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and 

describes the factors that make problem-solving effective or 

ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in England 

and Wales. 

• Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory for 

Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. Clarke 

(Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98, 1998). 

Explains how crime theories such as routine activity theory, 

rational choice theory and crime pattern theory have practical 

implications for the police in their efforts to prevent crime. 

• Problem Analysis in Policing, by Rachel Boba (Police 

Foundation, 2003). Introduces and defines problem analysis 

and provides guidance on how problem analysis can be 

integrated and institutionalized into modern policing practices. 
Recommended Readings 6

• Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein 

(McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990). 

Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented 

policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses 

how a police agency can implement the concept. 

• Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention, 

by Anthony A. Braga (Criminal Justice Press, 2003). 

Provides a thorough review of significant policing research 

about problem places, high-activity offenders, and repeat 

victims, with a focus on the applicability of those findings 

to problem-oriented policing. Explains how police 

departments can facilitate problem-oriented policing by 

improving crime analysis, measuring performance, and 

securing productive partnerships. 

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the 

First 20 Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

2000). Describes how the most critical elements of 

Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have 

developed in practice over its 20-year history, and proposes 

future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report 

is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

• Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in 

Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman 

(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the 

rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the 

problem-solving process, and provides examples of 

effective problem-solving in one agency. 
62 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime 

and Disorder Through Problem-Solving 

Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott 

Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 1998) (also available at 

www.cops.usdoj.gov). Provides a brief introduction to 

problem-solving, basic information on the SARA model 

and detailed suggestions about the problem-solving process. 

• Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case 

Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 

(Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and 

methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over 

20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives. 

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: 

Case Studies in Problem-Solving, by Rana Sampson 

and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000) (also available 

at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case studies of effective 

police problem-solving on 18 types of crime and disorder 

problems. 

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook 

for Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for 

police to analyzing problems within the context of 

problem-oriented policing. 

• Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement 

Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G. 

LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains 

many of the basics of research as it applies to police 

management and problem-solving. 
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 6

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides series: 

1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2 

2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0 

3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-02-9 

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. 

Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7 

5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5 

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-05-3 

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1 

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-07-X 

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8 

10. Thefts Of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. 

Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6 

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X 

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8 

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6 

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4 

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-14-2 

16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-15-0 

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-16-9 

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7 

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5 

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. 

Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3 
64 Analyzing Repeat Victimization 

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4 

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-30-4 

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. 

Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2 

24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-33-9 

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-35-3 

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glensor and Kenneth J. 

Peak. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-36-3 

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-93258239-8 

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-42-8 

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-43-6 

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X 

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike 

Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2 

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0 

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-47-9 

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-50-9 

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-51-7 

Response Guides Series: 

• The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns. 

Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X 

• Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should You Go 

Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-41-X 
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 6

• Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-55-X 

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for 

Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-19-3 

• Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. Schultz. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7 

• Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem Solving. 

Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1932582-49-5 

• Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-54-1 

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides 

Domestic Violence 

Mentally Ill Persons 

Student Party Disturbances on College Campuses 

Drunk Driving 

Bank Robbery 

Witness Intimidation 

Drive-by Shootings 

Runaway Juveniles 

Human Trafficking in Women 

Disorderly Day Laborers in Public Places 

Internet Child Pornography 

Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues 

Traffic Congestion Around Schools 

Problem-Solving Tools 

Forming and Sustaining Problem-Solving Partnerships with Businesses 

Risky Facilities 
66 Analyzing Repeat 

Response Guides 

Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns 

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 

Video Surveillance of Public Places 

Other Related COPS Office Publications 

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law 

Enforcement. Timothy S. Bynum. 

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years. 

Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case 

Studies in Problem-Solving. Rana Sampson and Michael S. Scott. 

2000. 

• Community Policing, Community Justice, and Restorative 

Justice: Exploring the Links for the Delivery of a Balanced 

Approach to Public Safety. Caroline G. Nicholl. 1999. 

• Toolbox for Implementing Restorative Justice and Advancing 

Community Policing. Caroline G. Nicholl. 2000. 

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and 

Disorder Through Problem-Solving Partnerships. Karin 

Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and 

Meg Townsend. 1998. 

• Bringing Victims into Community Policing. The National 

Center for Victims of Crime and the Police Foundation. 2002. 

• Call Management and Community Policing. Tom McEwen, 

Deborah Spence, Russell Wolff, Julie Wartell and Barbara 

Webster. 2003. 

• Crime Analysis in America. Timothy C. O’Shea and Keith 

Nicholls. 2003. 

• Problem Analysis in Policing. Rachel Boba. 2003. 

• Reducing Theft at Construction Sites: Lessons From a 

Problem-Oriented Project. Ronald V. Clarke and Herman 

Goldstein. 2003. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

1100 Vermont Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the 

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below. 

ISBN: 1-932582-54-1 Created Date: August 4, 2005 

www.cops.usdoj.go