Home Invasion 

Robbery

Justin A. Heinonen and John E. Eck

Problem-Specific Guides Series

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

No. 70

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series

No. 70

Home Invasion Robbery

Justin A. Heinonen

John E. Eck

This project was supported by cooperative agreement #2010-CK-WX-K005 awarded 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 or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to 

specific agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement 

of the product by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references 

are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. 

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of this 

publication. Given that URLs and websites are in constant flux, neither the author(s) nor 

the COPS Office can vouch for their current validity.

© 2012 Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Inc. The U.S. Department of Justice 

reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or 

otherwise use, and authorize others to use, this publication for Federal Government 

purposes. This publication may be freely distributed and used for noncommercial and 

educational purposes.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 978-1-932582-16-1

November 2012

| v |

Contents

Contents

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Problem of Home Invasion Robbery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

General Description of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Harms Caused by Home Invasion Robbery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Factors Contributing to Home Invasion Robbery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Offenders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Victims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Locations and Times. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Understanding Your Local Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Stakeholders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Asking the Right Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Incidents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Locations/Times. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Victims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Dwellings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Offenders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Current and Previous Responses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Measuring Your Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Responses to the Problem of Home Invasion Robbery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Specific Responses to Reduce Home Invasion Robbery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Offender-Based Responses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Victim-Based Responses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Location-Based Responses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Responses with Limited Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Home Invasion Robbery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

About the Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

| 1 |

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about how police can reduce the 

harm caused by specific crime and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention and 

to improving the overall response to incidents, not to investigating offenses or handling 

specific incidents. Neither do they cover all of the technical details about how to implement 

specific responses. The guides are written for police—of whatever rank or assignment—

who must address the specific problem the guides cover. The guides will be most useful to 

officers who:

•	 Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles and methods. The 

guides are not primers in problem-oriented policing. They deal only briefly with the 

initial decision to focus on a particular problem, methods to analyze the problem, 

and means to assess the results of a problem-oriented policing project. They are 

designed to help police decide how best to analyze and address a problem they 

have already identified. (A companion series of Problem-Solving Tools guides has 

been produced to aid in various aspects of problem analysis and assessment.)

•	 Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the complexity of the problem, 

you should be prepared to spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and 

responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before responding helps you 

design the right strategy, one that is most likely to work in your community. 

You should not blindly adopt the responses others have used; you must decide 

whether they are appropriate to your local situation. What is true in one place 

may not be true elsewhere; what works in one place may not work everywhere.

•	 Are willing to consider new ways of doing police business. The guides describe 

responses that other police departments have used or that researchers have tested. 

While not all of these responses will be appropriate to your particular problem, they 

should help give a broader view of the kinds of things you could do. You may think 

you cannot implement some of these responses in your jurisdiction, but perhaps you 

can. In many places, when police have discovered a more effective response, they 

have succeeded in having laws and policies changed, improving the response to the 

problem. (A companion series of Response Guides has been produced to help you 

understand how commonly-used police responses work on a variety of problems.) 
| 2 |

Home Invasion Robbery

•	 Understand the value and the limits of research knowledge. For some types 

of problems, a lot of useful research is available to the police; for other problems, 

little is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series summarize existing research 

whereas other guides illustrate the need for more research on that particular problem. 

Regardless, research has not provided definitive answers to all the questions you 

might have about the problem. The research may help get you started in designing 

your own responses, but it cannot tell you exactly what to do. This will depend 

greatly on the particular nature of your local problem. In the interest of keeping the 

guides readable, not every piece of relevant research has been cited, nor has every 

point been attributed to its sources. To have done so would have overwhelmed and 

distracted the reader. The references listed at the end of each guide are those drawn 

on most heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of research on the subject. 

•	 Are willing to work with others to find effective solutions to the problem. The 

police alone cannot implement many of the responses discussed in the guides. They 

must frequently implement them in partnership with other responsible private and 

public bodies, including other government agencies, non-governmental organizations, 

private businesses, public utilities, community groups, and individual citizens. An 

effective problem-solver must know how to forge genuine partnerships with others 

and be prepared to invest considerable effort in making these partnerships work. 

Each guide identifies particular individuals or groups in the community with whom 

police might work to improve the overall response to that problem. Thorough 

analysis of problems often reveals that individuals and groups other than the police 

are in a stronger position to address problems and that police ought to shift some 

greater responsibility to them to do so. Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing 

Responsibility for Public Safety Problems, provides further discussion of this topic.

The COPS Office defines community policing as “a philosophy that promotes 

organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships and problemsolving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public 

safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.” These guides emphasize 

problem-solving and police-community partnerships in the context of addressing specific 

public safety problems. For the most part, the organizational strategies that can facilitate 

problem-solving and police-community partnerships vary considerably and discussion of 

them is beyond the scope of these guides. 
| 3 |

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series

These guides have drawn on research findings and police practices in the United States, 

the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. 

Even though laws, customs, and police practices vary from country to country, it is apparent 

that the police everywhere experience common problems. In a world that is becoming 

increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be aware of research and successful 

practices beyond the borders of their own countries.

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the research literature and reported police 

practice, and each guide is anonymously peer-reviewed by a line police officer, a police 

executive, and a researcher prior to publication. The review process is independently 

managed by the COPS Office, which solicits the reviews. 

For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit the Center for ProblemOriented Policing online at www.popcenter.org. This website offers free online access to:

•	 The Problem-Specific Guides series

•	 The companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools series 

•	 Special publications on crime analysis and on policing terrorism

•	 Instructional information about problem-oriented policing and related topics 

•	 An interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise

•	 An interactive Problem Analysis Module

•	 Online access to important police research and practices

•	 Information about problem-oriented policing conferences and award programs 

| 5 |

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the Center for Problem-Oriented 

Policing, whose officers are Michael S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate 

Director), and Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director). 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 project team that developed the guide series comprised Herman Goldstein (University 

of Wisconsin Law School), Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), John E. Eck (University 

of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott (University of Wisconsin Law School), Rana Sampson 

(Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm Weisel (North Carolina State University). 

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and Savannah, Georgia, police 

departments provided feedback on the guides’ format and style in the early stages of the 

project.

Kimberly Nath oversaw the project for the COPS Office. Phyllis Schultze conducted 

research for the guide at Rutgers University’s Criminal Justice Library. Nancy Leach 

coordinated the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing’s production process. Peter Slavin 

edited this guide.

| 7 |

The Problem of Home Invasion Robbery

The Problem of Home Invasion Robbery

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover

This guide begins by describing the problem of home invasion robbery and reviewing 

factors that increase its risks. It then identifies a series of questions to help you analyze your 

local home invasion robbery problem. Finally, it reviews responses to the problem and what 

is known about these from evaluative research and police practice.

Home invasion robbery is but one aspect of the larger set of problems related to residential 

and violent crime. This guide is limited to addressing the particular harms created by home 

invasion robbery. Related problems not directly addressed in this guide, each of which 

requires separate analysis, include the following:

•	 Burglary of single-family houses and apartments

•	 Street robbery

•	 Commercial robbery (e.g., banks, gas stations, convenience stores)

•	 Gun violence

•	 Stolen goods markets

•	 Stranger assault

•	 Crime against the elderly

•	 Drug dealing in privately owned apartment complexes

Some of these related problems are covered in other guides in this series, all of which are 

listed at the end of this guide. For the most up-to-date listing of current and future guides, 

see www.popcenter.org. 

General Description of the Problem

This guide makes the best use of available research on home invasion robbery, but more 

recent studies on this crime are rare. Furthermore, of the few studies that describe the 

problem specifically and in close detail, many were conducted outside of the United States. 

Consequently, the description of the problem that follows is based on a small number of 

earlier U.S. and non-U.S. studies and therefore may not apply to your community. 

Home invasion robbery has characteristics of both residential burglary and street robbery.1

Like residential burglars, home robbers must usually gain unlawful entry into an individual’s 

residential dwelling (a single-family home, apartment unit, or mobile home). Like street 

robbers, home robbers physically confront victims in order to obtain desired items.
| 8 |

Home Invasion Robbery

Yet, home invasion robbery is distinct from these crimes.2 Street robbery occurs in public 

or quasi-public space and victims are pedestrians, not occupants. Most residential burglars 

try to avoid confrontation, but home robbers seek it. Residential burglars who confront and 

rob unexpected occupants are not necessarily home robbers, because they did not intend to 

commit robbery when they entered the home.3

In general, home invasion robberies have the following five features: 

•	 Offender entry is forced and/or unauthorized (except in some drug-related robberies)

•	 Offenders seek confrontation (i.e., the intent is to rob)

•	 Confrontation occurs inside dwellings

•	 Offenders use violence and/or the threat of violence 

•	 Offenders demand and take money and/or property4

There are several common motives for home invasion robberies. The most obvious is to 

steal valuable items, such as cash, drugs, or property, which can be sold for cash. Another is 

retaliation, such as against a rival drug dealer, gang member, or domestic partner; robbery is 

part of the retaliation. Another is sexual assault in which robbery is committed incidentally. 

In some communities, home invasion robberies are principally drug rip-offs in which the 

target is cash or drugs, or both, and both offenders and victims are involved in the illegal 

drug trade.5

Many home invasion robberies are drug rip-offs in which the drugs or cash are 

the target.
| 9 |

The Problem of Home Invasion Robbery

Estimating the number of home invasion robberies is difficult, because it is recorded in 

various ways (e.g., as burglary, robbery in a residence, assault, homicide).6 Nevertheless, data 

from different countries shed light on its prevalence and trends.

Home invasions make up a relatively small portion of all robberies. “Residential robbery” 

accounted for about 14 percent of all robberies in the United States in the late 1990s, but 

just 7 percent in Australia and about 4 percent in Canada.7 About 6 percent of “violent 

thefts” in 1992 in Western Australia were classified as home robberies.8 Less than one 

percent of robberies (armed and unarmed), burglaries, and dwelling break-and-enters in 

South Australia were identified as home robbery.9 “Violent or threatening behavior” was 

used in just 11 percent of burglaries reported in the 1998 British Crime Survey.10 About 

14 percent of all robberies in the United States in 2003, and about 10 percent in Canada in 

2008, occurred at a residence.11

Home invasion robbery is rare, but many robbers target homes at some point in their 

criminal career. In one study, about 21 percent of armed robbers reported having robbed 

a home, and homes ranked behind only the street, gas stations, and fast-food restaurants 

as the most common robbery location.12 Another study found that, after banks and 

pedestrians, robbers most often targeted persons at home.13

Some data suggest home invasion robberies are increasing. Incidents in the United States 

increased 18 percent from 1999 to 2003 (compared to a one percent increase for all other 

types of armed robberies).14 In Tulsa, Oklahoma, home robberies increased 29 percent from 

2009 to 2010.15 In Canada, robberies at residences increased 38 percent from 1999 to 

2005, but this trend has stabilized.16

Harms Caused by Home Invasion Robbery

Home invasion robbery causes a variety of harms.17 Victims lose cash and property and may 

also face property damage or have to pay to add or upgrade home security after the robbery. 

Victims also can experience sentimental loss, losing personal items like books, documents, 

and family heirlooms. These losses are unlikely for street or commercial robbery victims, 

who do not possess such items away from home.

More important, victims may suffer serious physical injury or even death. When it occurs, 

violence is sometimes unusually heinous. In one incident, robbers immersed an elderly 

victim’s face in boiling water and in another they sodomized a victim to death with a 

broken table leg.18 This extreme violence is possible in home robbery because incidents 

occur in private and are therefore less visible. By contrast, street and commercial robbers 

attack in public and must act more quickly in order to avoid detection. 
| 10 |

Home Invasion Robbery

Home robbery also causes fear among the victims and the general public, especially 

since it occurs inside one’s home where people expect privacy and safety. The fear of 

re-victimization is unique, because victims live day-to-day at the robbery location, unlike 

those robbed in public who can allay fears by avoiding risky places or the location of a prior 

victimization. 

Factors Contributing to Home Invasion Robbery

Understanding the factors that contribute to your community’s home invasion robbery 

problem will help you frame your own local analysis questions, determine good 

effectiveness measures, recognize key intervention points, and select appropriate responses.

You should base your local analysis on the home invasion robbery analysis triangle (Figure 

1). Local analysis may reveal unique situations, not on this list, that you may need to 

address. The home robbery triangle is a crime-specific modification of the widely used 

problem analysis triangle† and, more specifically, the street robbery analysis triangle.‡

It organizes the basic factors that may contribute to home invasion robbery problems. 

Though no single factor completely accounts for a home invasion robbery problem, the 

interrelated dynamics among offenders, victims, locations, and times may help explain 

these incidents. 

Home invasion robberies occur when motivated offenders encounter suitable victims 

(residential occupants) in an environment and dwelling that facilitate robbery. A home 

invasion robbery problem emerges when victims are repeatedly attacked by offenders in the 

same community or neighborhood. In short, a combination of circumstances will lead to 

a robbery, not any single circumstance. For example, a home robber needing cash learns 

of and targets a senior citizen who lives alone and possesses large amounts of money and 

valuables. A pattern of home invasion robberies could occur if a robbery is completed easily, 

and proves lucrative, and offenders notice similar victims and circumstances. 

General routines (e.g., special events, holidays, the beginning and end of the school day) 

that bring people together at certain locations and times are not emphasized on the home 

robbery analysis triangle because they have a less prominent role compared to other types 

of robberies where both offenders and victims move about in a variety of public and 

semipublic spaces. For home robbery, it is most important to understand how the everyday 

routines of occupants (e.g., leaving, returning, or spending time in the home) influence the 

timing of robberies and how knowledge of victims influences target selection.

† See www.popcenter.org for a description of the Problem Analysis Triangle.

‡ See Problem-Specific Guide No. 59, Street Robbery, for further information.
| 11 |

The Problem of Home Invasion Robbery

The relative importance of each side of the triangle varies, depending on the details of a 

home invasion robbery problem. Addressing any one element in Figure 1 might reduce 

a robbery problem, but addressing more than one element may be more promising for 

achieving a decline. The sections below describe each factor in more detail. 

Offenders

Home invasion robbers typically are young (usually under 30), uneducated, unemployed 

males.19 They usually rob in groups, which sometimes are well organized and specialize in 

home invasions.20 Some home robbers commit nonviolent property offenses before turning 

to home invasion robbery and continue to commit other types of crime.21

You should identify what factors affect offender decision-making to determine the most 

appropriate responses. The acronym ROBS summarizes some of these factors, as discussed 

on the following pages. 

FIGURE 1. Home Invasion Robbery Analysis Triangle
| 12 |

Home Invasion Robbery

Rehearsal. Home robbers spend considerable time planning home invasion robberies 

and sometimes even rehearse them.22 They prefer victims about whom they have inside 

information and, long before the robbery, may monitor them or talk to others who know 

their routines.23 In drug-related home invasions, offenders often conduct surveillance 

before the robbery. Some even meet with victims days before the attack to ensure that 

drugs and cash will be on hand during the robbery. The time spent monitoring victims 

varies, ranging from just 30 minutes to two weeks in one study.24 Robbers also consider 

neighborhood and dwelling access, security measures, disguises, and the expected rewards 

when planning attacks.25 Just before an attack, they may also count and locate occupants.26

Where offenders make no effort to disguise their identity, it is probable they know the 

victim and believe that the victim will not identify them to police.

Immediate circumstances might affect a set plan. A home robber might change targets after 

noticing an unexpected occupant or a new home security feature. You should consider how 

situational challenges make home robbery unattractive to some offenders. 

Operating methods. Offenders choose certain home invasion methods. These methods are 

not mutually exclusive and can change during the course of the robbery, depending on the 

circumstances. For example, a robber may use a con to get a person to open their door and 

then use blitz violence to complete the robbery. You should consider the combination of 

attack methods that offenders use in your community, some of which are described below. 

Blitzes. Offenders first break into an occupied dwelling with or without force (e.g., 

kicking in the door versus entering through an unlocked door). Upon entry, they 

use violence to physically immobilize, intimidate, and control victims, and then rob 

them. The offenders’ presence inside the home and intent to rob are immediately 

obvious to victims. Blitzes were common for drug-related home invasions in 

Madison, Wisconsin.27

Cons. Offenders use deception to mislead victims into allowing them entry into 

their home (e.g., posing as utility workers or police officers). The offenders’ presence 

and intent to rob are not immediately obvious to victims. Unlike blitzes, con 

robberies do not require physical violence. For example, some offenders could search 

for and take items while another distracts the victim. They may even openly take 

items from victims who are unaware they are being robbed,28 although this type of 

crime is usually classified as distraction burglary or distraction theft.
| 13 |

The Problem of Home Invasion Robbery

Push-ins. Like cons, push-in robbers also rely on victims to voluntarily open the door 

(this makes them different from blitzes), but they then use force to push their way 

into the home; moreover, they make no effort to conceal the attack. In one incident, 

offenders made noise in a hallway until an occupant opened the door, then pushed 

their way into the apartment.29 Other tactics include simply knocking on the door 

or waiting outside until a victim opens the door to leave or return home, then forcing 

the victim inside.30

Surprises. Offenders enter the dwelling when occupants are away and then ambush 

them upon returning home.31 They may not simply burglarize the home once inside, 

because they do not know where cash and valuables are located. Surprise robberies 

may not require violence, since the sudden fear can immobilize victims. A different 

type of surprise attack may occur in drug-related home invasions. An occupant may 

invite an individual inside the dwelling to purchase drugs; the buyer then robs them. 

Weapon use is common by offenders (e.g., firearms, knives, striking instruments)32 but 

the type of weapon varies by location. Studies of home invasion robberies in South Africa; 

Tulsa, Oklahoma; and Madison, Wisconsin, suggest home robbers prefer firearms.33

However, in South Australia weapons were used in just half of all incidents, and firearms 

were used much less frequently than other weapons.34

Some home invasion robbers use or threaten extreme violence (e.g., torture, rape, murder), 

but it is rare and victims are usually unharmed.35 Extreme violence, however, can be 

instrumental to committing the robbery; for example, torturing female and/or child 

occupants to gain compliance from males and assistance in locating hidden items.36

Benefits. Most home robbers seek cash and believe home robbery provides quick money 

and a relatively low risk of being caught.37 They might spend cash on recreational items 

(e.g., cars, clothes, drugs, alcohol) but also basic needs (e.g., food, rent).38 Some offenders 

may rob solely to meet drug needs, and take nothing else.39 The vast majority of home 

invasion robberies in Madison were drug rip-offs in which robbers took cash and/or 

drugs.40
| 14 |

Home Invasion Robbery

Special advantages. Home robbery offers offenders special advantages over similar crimes 

like residential burglary and street robbery, which have similar financial rewards. Home 

robbers can spend considerable time inside the home—sometimes hours41—whereas street 

robbers must subdue victims and take property quickly. Residential burglars also must 

search homes quickly to avoid detection, at the cost of greater rewards.42 Home robbers 

can also force occupants to identify valuables, while burglars must search for them and 

may overlook something.43 Burglars may also risk setting off home alarms, which may 

be disengaged when home robbers attack.44 Finally, home robbers can take greater hauls 

compared to street robbers, who can take only what pedestrians are able to carry (e.g., 

smaller items, smaller amounts of cash).45

Despite these advantages, home invasion robbery presents special challenges that increase 

the risk to offenders. Witnesses may be more effective, since offenders and victims interact 

for longer periods and probably under better lighting. Home robbery is a group crime, so a 

co-offender could “snitch.” Victims also have a “home field” advantage, if offenders are not 

familiar with the dwelling. Offenders likely must spend time and effort during planning to 

mitigate these and other risks. 

Victims

Both males and females can be home robbery victims: In Australia, crime reports indicate 

that most victims are young males, but victimization data indicate that most victims are 

young females.46 Home invasion victims and offenders are often strangers; still, compared 

to other types of robbery, they are more likely to know each other.47 For example, some 

home invasions stem from domestic disputes (e.g., an intoxicated boyfriend breaks into a 

residence to obtain personal property) or retaliation against known individuals. In some 

cases, the victim’s home is targeted by mistake and what is intended to be a drug rip-off or 

a retaliation robbery results in a wholly innocent victim.48

Home robbers target victims who appear vulnerable and are believed to have money and/

or desired property.49 Victims are usually alone during the robbery.50 Some home robbers 

target older homeowners specifically because they are perceived as less likely to resist the 

attack.51 However, some research finds that senior citizens are targeted for home robbery 

less often than are younger people.52 Still seniors are at greater risk of home invasion 

robbery than robbery in public.53 This is consistent with criminal opportunity perspectives: 

senior citizens probably spend more time at home, so the risk of robbery would be low 

overall, but greater in their home than in public.54
| 15 |

The Problem of Home Invasion Robbery

In general, victims report home robberies to the police more frequently than street 

robberies.55 However, there are several reasons why they might not: victims either are 

involved in crime, fear repeat victimization or retaliation, or distrust police.56

Victim demographics bear on routine activities and risk. Finding that certain individuals 

have a heightened risk of home invasion robbery is helpful only as a first step: you still have 

to discover why. Robbers might target people who keep large amounts of cash at home and 

are unlikely to report to police. Or, they could target senior citizens, because they are usually 

home during the day and unable to defend themselves. Linking victim demographics to 

routines can reveal intervention points otherwise concealed by examining demographics 

alone, but can also help identify less-promising responses. For example, property-marking of 

home electronics would not reduce home robberies against those senior citizens who possess 

cash but not these items. 

For prevention purposes, it is useful to look at victims from the offender’s perspective. 

The acronym VICTIM summarizes six important victim factors. These factors are 

distinct but all relate to a common idea: offenders know something important about 

victims before an attack that makes them more or less attractive (probably far more than 

is the case for street robbery). 

Most home invasions are committed by groups of young men.
| 16 |

Home Invasion Robbery

Vulnerable. Because home robbers confront victims for longer periods of time and try to 

avoid being injured, they are likely to prefer occupants who will not resist an attack. 

Insecure. Home robbers evaluate target attractiveness based on the security of people in 

their home, about which they may not always be certain. You will need to understand why 

occupants appear more or less insecure, and so more or less attractive to robbers, inside the 

home. Home robbers must consider victims’ access to weapons in the home, not just what 

they might carry in public. Home robbers also expect that occupants are alone, whereas 

street and commercial robbers can determine the number of victims in advance. A dog 

inside the home also makes the home a less attractive target.57

Consistent. Home robbers are likely to prefer occupants whom they can expect to be home 

in predictable situations (e.g., a day and time when they are alone, the neighbors are gone, 

and presumably no visitors are expected). 

Targeted items. Occupants might possess items that cannot be taken in other forms of 

robbery (e.g., artwork, large electronic items, large firearms), which may also be protected 

in ways that would defeat burglary. Home robbers may target occupants whom they know 

to possess valuable items that are hidden (because they need an occupant to locate them). 

Offenders in drug-related home invasions in Madison usually knew the location of specific, 

desired items.58

Though home robbers prefer cash, they sometimes take a variety of items, such as 

electronics, jewelry, clothing, food, drugs, and weapons, but other times they may take just 

one type of item, especially drugs.59 Home robbers in an Australian sample usually took 

less than $500AUD worth of items (AUD are roughly equivalent to U.S. dollars).60 This 

makes sense, because victims with more valuable items in their home are also more likely to 

have stronger security to protect those items. 

Intimidated. To reduce their risk of apprehension home robbers may target occupants 

unlikely to report the robbery. For example, victims of drug-related home invasions in 

Madison were reluctant to report and cooperate with the police, because they themselves 

were involved in the illegal drug trade and feared retaliation for “snitching.”61 They 

may also target those more easily intimidated by threats of violence (e.g., senior citizens, 

children), thereby avoiding the need for actual violence. 

Mindless of risk. Distracted occupants are apt to be easier to approach and overpower, 

especially in surprise or con robberies. Some home robbers target occupants watching 

television because it provides cover for the attack. Here again, senior citizens and children 

are attractive targets, because they are more likely to be initially trusting of strangers who 

approach or ask to enter the home.
| 17 |

The Problem of Home Invasion Robbery

Locations and Times

Home robbers prefer certain areas and dwellings, which both should be considered. For 

example, they may first select a particular neighborhood and then search for an attractive 

dwelling within it. Home robberies occur in apartments as well as houses.62 The acronym 

HOMES summarizes factors that influence location selection. 

Home access. Some home robbers break into homes but others use unlocked or open entry 

points or unsuspecting victims who allow them access. The front door is a common point 

of entry, but back doors and windows are also used.63 Robbers may break through a door 

or window to gain entry but might also push through an open door after knocking or enter 

through an unlocked door.64 This suggests that certain target-hardening measures (e.g., 

stronger locks, reinforced doors) may not be effective on their own.

On guard. Like burglars, home robbers consider natural guardianship such as their 

visibility to neighbors, something that is critical to entering the home, and other features 

that could thwart detection once inside (e.g., few windows). When guardianship is high, 

home robbers may use cons, since being seen outside is not a concern with this method. 

Offenders also consider other security features that provide guardianship, like home 

alarms, fencing, and dogs. 

Market for stolen goods. Home robbers may take noncash items solely for resale, 

not personal possession. They may prefer dwellings close to places that provide resale 

opportunities (e.g., pawn shops for consumer goods or open-air markets for drugs). This, of 

course, is less important for robbers who take only cash.

Escape routes. Neighborhoods with many paths in and out of them and easy access to 

major roads are attractive to home robbers.65 Some robbers prefer to target homes near their 

own, but will travel farther if the expected “take” from the robbery is high.66 In extreme 

cases, some gangs will travel across cities to find targets (some gang members have no 

permanent address and reside in motels).67

Schedules. Attack times and days may vary by the robbers’ preferences.68 Some prefer 

evening hours, because people are home, alarms are likely off, televisions are on, and doors 

or windows may be unlocked or open. Others, however, may prefer early morning, when it 

is quiet, neighbors are sleeping, and visitors are not expected.

Home robberies may increase slightly on weekends.69 On the other hand, that they would 

not be more common on weekends is also consistent with criminal opportunity: dwellings 

must be occupied and weekend-related activities tend to take occupants away from home. 

There is sometimes no clear monthly pattern to home robberies.70

| 19 |

Understanding Your Local Problem

Understanding Your Local Problem

The information provided above is a generalized description of home invasion robbery. You 

must combine the basic facts with a more specific understanding of your local problem. 

Analyzing the local problem carefully will help you design a more effective response strategy. 

The first step in conducting local analysis is determining that your community has a 

specific home invasion robbery problem, and not a problem with residential burglary or 

personal robbery near or outside residential dwellings. The next step is analyzing the home 

robbery process, which can vary from problem to problem. It helps to divide this process 

into four time blocks, which cover activities during the following periods as depicted in 

Figure 2:

Reveals insights about offender preparation and intent, 

which distinguishes home robbers from residential 

burglars who mistakenly offend when occupants are home

LONG BEFORE 

THE ROBBERY

JUST BEFORE 

THE ROBBERY

DURING THE 

ROBBERY

AFTER THE 

ROBBERY

Reveals actions of specic occupants, at specic times 

and in specic dwellings that put them at risk, and 

preparatory actions of prospective offenders

Reveals actions and interactions between offenders and 

occupants as the robbery occurs

Reveals how offenders exit the dwelling and dispose of 

stolen goods and how victims cope with the robbery, 

report it, and address injuries and property loss or damage

Figure 2. Home Invasion Robbery Process

Source: Adapted from Jacobs and Wright (1999); Jacobs, B., and R. Wright 

(1999). “Stickup, Street Culture and Offender Motivation.” Criminology

37(1): 149–173.
| 20 |

Home Invasion Robbery

Table 1 and Table 2 (on page 21) use this division of time to show the differences between 

two types of home invasion robberies. Table 1 describes the robbery of a senior citizen by a 

stranger. Table 2 describes the robbery of a drug dealer by a familiar person.

Table 1. Home Invasion Robbery of a Senior Citizen by Time Block 

Time Block Offender Victim (Senior Citizen) Location

Long 

before

An offender needs cash. He 

identifies the victim by posing 

as a utility worker. The offender 

can easily monitor the victim 

while appearing legitimate. 

A single senior citizen is 

usually home for predictable, 

long periods of time.

Neighborhood; 

homeowner’s 

property

Just before The offender notices that the 

victim is alone. 

The victim willingly opens 

the door to the offender (who 

is in uniform) and allows him 

inside.

Porch; home 

entry way 

During The offender switches from 

“con” to “blitz” tactics and uses 

force to restrain the victim and 

takes money and property after 

searching the home for a long 

period of time. 

Victim complies with 

offender’s demands and does 

not resist. The victim suffers 

minor injuries.

Inside home

After The offender casually exits the 

house and drives away. He later 

sells the stolen property.

The victim is left restrained 

and must free herself, so she 

cannot contact police until 

long after the robbery.

Destination will 

vary

Source: Table adapted from Tilley et al. 2004.
| 21 |

Understanding Your Local Problem

Table 2. Home Invasion Robbery of a Drug Dealer by Time Block

Time Block Offender Victim (Drug Dealer) Location

Long 

before

An offender needs drugs. He is 

an acquaintance of the victim 

and knows of his dealing and 

where he lives. He can easily 

visit the victim without raising 

suspicion. 

A drug dealer is known 

to sell narcotics out of his 

house.

Victim’s 

neighborhood 

and outside of 

dwelling

Just before The offender asks to buy drugs 

from the victim.

The victim presents drugs 

that are for sale.

Inside the home

During The offender threatens victim 

with a gun and quickly takes the 

drugs and cash, but not other 

property. 

The victim complies with 

the offender’s demands. He is 

not injured.

Inside the home

After The offender flees the home on 

foot to a nearby escape route 

and uses or sells the drugs.

The victim does not report 

the crime, because only drugs 

were taken and he doesn’t 

want police investigating his 

own crimes.

The location 

will vary

Source: Table adapted from Tilley et al. 2004.

Stakeholders

In addition to criminal justice agencies, the following groups have an interest in the home 

invasion robbery problem and ought to be considered for the contribution they might make 

to gathering information about the problem and responding to it:

•	 Community/neighborhood associations have local knowledge that could help identify 

potential offenders, locations, and other contributing factors.

•	 Local pawn shops want to avoid losing money and merchandise from buying or pawning 

stolen property and might help police identify offenders and/ or assist in investigations. 

•	 Local hospitals are interested in reducing injuries and deaths from home invasion 

robberies, and hospital staff may know of robbery-related injuries not reported to police.

•	 Residential service providers (e.g., utility companies) could provide information to 

customers that would help them protect themselves from cons. They could also train 

their employees not to give personal information about customers. 
| 22 |

Home Invasion Robbery

•	 Other local government agencies (such as city planning departments, city councils, public 

health departments, and social service providers) could provide data for analyzing the 

problem or assist in planning and implementing responses, including those too costly 

for community and neighborhoods associations. 

•	 Illicit drug sellers, gamblers, and other possible victims involved in illicit activities. They 

will want to avoid robberies, and while they may not cooperate to aid in the arrest and 

prosecution of robbers, they may provide general information that could be useful in 

developing prevention tactics. 

Asking the Right Questions

The following are critical questions you should ask in analyzing your particular problem of 

home invasion robbery, even if the answers are not always readily available. Your answers to 

these and other questions will help you choose the most appropriate set of responses later.

Incidents

•	 How many incidents occur in your community?

•	 Is the number of incidents increasing or decreasing? 

•	 How do the police record and classify reported home robberies (as burglary, robbery, 

theft, trespass, or some other crime)? 

•	 What percentage of completed home robberies is reported to the police? Of attempted 

home robberies?

•	 Why are attempted home invasion robberies not completed (e.g., victim resistance, 

mistaken identity, targets not found in home, crime interrupted by others)?

•	 What percentage of home robberies involves weapons?

•	 What percentage of home robberies is perpetrated by strangers and by familiar persons?

•	 What are the underlying motives for home invasions (retaliation, financial gain, 

intimidation, sexual assault)?

•	 What methods are used to gain entry (e.g., force, deception)? 

Locations/Times

•	 Where do most incidents occur? Is a particular neighborhood or housing area being 

targeted?

•	 When are incidents most common (e.g., day or night, day of week, time of year)?

•	 How much time elapses between home invasions in an area? Short time intervals may 

indicate a home invasion crew is operating; long intervals suggest a crew is not.
| 23 |

Understanding Your Local Problem

Victims

•	 Are there demographic patterns among victims (e.g., age, sex, and education)?

•	 What percentage of victims resist and how? How serious are injuries occurring from 

resisting, if any? 

•	 What are victims doing before the robbery?

•	 Are victims involved in illicit activities?

Dwellings

•	 Are repeat home invasions common?

•	 Are repeat and one-time home invasions different? If so, how?

•	 What are common entry points? 

Offenders

•	 Do offenders fall into a demographic pattern (e.g., age, sex, and race or ethnicity)?

•	 Are offenders local residents or from out of town? Where, in relation to the dwelling, do 

offenders live? How do they get to the dwelling?

•	 Do offenders work alone or in groups?

•	 What percentage of home invasions do repeat robbers commit?

•	 What percentage of offenders was on probation or parole at the time of their most 

recent offense?

•	 Are offenders on drugs or alcohol during the home invasion? Are offenders seeking 

drugs and/or alcohol before the incident?

•	 What types of items do offenders take?

•	 Where do offenders sell stolen goods and to whom?

•	 Do offenders commit other types of robbery and/or residential burglary of unoccupied 

dwellings?

Current and Previous Responses

•	 Have specific home invasion robbery strategies been tried? If so, what strategies have 

worked or failed?

•	 What agencies have been involved in previous responses? What did they do?

•	 Do police have a special unit assigned to address home robberies?

•	 How are home robbers prosecuted and sentenced? 
| 24 |

Home Invasion Robbery

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. You should take all measures in both the target area and the surrounding 

area. For detailed guidance on measuring effectiveness, see Problem-Solving Tools Guide 

No. 1, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers and 

Problem-Solving Tools Guide No. 10, Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion.

The following are potentially useful outcome measures of the effectiveness of responses to 

home invasion robbery. They assess the actual impact on the problem (i.e., reductions in 

the level and severity of incidents as opposed to arrests or clearances): 

•	 Reduced number of home invasion robberies in your community or targeted area

•	 Reduced number and severity of injuries or of deaths resulting from home robberies

•	 Reduced cash and property losses

•	 Reduced community fear of home invasions
| 25 |

Responses to the Problem of Home Invasion Robbery

Responses to the Problem of Home Invasion 

Robbery

Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better understanding of the factors 

contributing to it. Once you have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline for 

measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible responses to address the problem. 

The following response strategies provide a foundation of ideas for addressing your 

particular problem. These strategies are drawn from a variety of research studies and police 

reports. Several of these strategies may apply to your community’s problem. 

It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances and that you can justify 

each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve 

implementing several different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom 

effective in reducing or solving the problem. 

Do not limit yourself to considering what police can do: carefully consider whether 

others in your community share responsibility for the problem and can help police better 

respond to it. The primary responsibility of responding, in some cases, may need to be 

shifted toward those who have the capacity to make more effective responses. For detailed 

information on shifting and sharing responsibility, see Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and 

Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems.

For further information on managing the implementation of response strategies, see 

Problem-Solving Tools Guide No. 7, Implementing Responses to Problems.

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy

The relative rarity of home robberies suggests that opportunities for this crime are already 

low, so they may be perpetrated by only a few offenders.71 Therefore, controlling repeat 

offenders may be the most promising response, whereas location- and victim-based 

responses are likely to be less effective.

Many of the responses listed below could address general crime problems but could also 

help reduce home robberies. The responses that are not specific to home invasion robbery 

may be less effective as stand-alone or primary strategies. For example, recommending 

that the police disrupt stolen goods markets simply to reduce home robberies is less 

realistic (because they are so rare) than if it is also intended to address residential burglary, 

shoplifting, or street robbery. 
| 26 |

Home Invasion Robbery

Specific Responses to Reduce Home Invasion Robbery

The following specific responses are organized around the home invasion robbery analysis 

triangle. Responding specifically to home robbery is challenging, because incidents may 

consist of several related problems, such as assault, rape, stolen goods markets, or drug 

trafficking, each requiring a special type of response. Furthermore, cons and push-ins 

of senior citizens, for instance, differ from home robberies of drug dealers. Thus, some 

responses may be effective for all home robberies, but others may only work for one or 

certain types. You must determine which responses are useful for the specific problem you 

are addressing. After each response heading, we identify in parentheses the types of home 

robbery to which the response is most applicable and the time block it addresses.

Offender-Based Responses

1. Disrupting offender groups (home robberies in general; long before). Home 

robberies may occur sporadically (given the level of difficulty and planning), so 

identifying a series of them early and determining how to disrupt or deter the 

responsible group may be one of the most important strategies. Monitoring a robbery 

series could be part of a multi-strategy response. 

2. Using intelligence to target known offenders (robberies in general; long before).

Given their rarity and victims’ low level of reporting, gathering information on home 

robberies is likely to be difficult. As part of Operation Trio, South African police 

dealing with serious residential robbery problems were given resources to collect 

intelligence on offenders, which led to a 44 percent increase in arrests.72 Analyzing 

other robbery-related crimes (e.g., drug dealing) could also help you identify repeat 

home robbers in your community (who could be a relatively few). (This response is 

applicable to general crime problems and not specific to home invasion robbery.)

3. Using handlers to control offenders (robberies in general; long before). In some 

cases, family and friends know about a home robber’s criminal activities.73 These 

“handlers,” along with teachers, employers, and probation/parole officers, could exert 

some control over an offender’s actions. They could also remove excuses for offending 

by setting rules or controlling drugs and alcohol use, which may be a factor in 

offending.† (This response is applicable to general crime problems and not specific to 

home invasion robbery.)

† See Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps (Step 8) for more information on handlers.
| 27 |

Responses to the Problem of Home Invasion Robbery

4. Diverting potential offenders (robberies in general; long before). Diversion 

strategies depend on the offender’s needs (such as providing employment services to 

those without legitimate work). You could also work with local schools or parks and 

recreation departments to create after-school activities to divert young offenders. (This 

response is applicable to general crime problems and not specific to home invasion 

robbery.)

5. Disrupting stolen goods markets (noncash/drug robberies; after). This is 

appropriate if offenders target noncash items for resale. Pawn shops may partner in 

prevention, because they lose money from taking stolen items.74 Disrupting markets 

is less effective if offenders sell items to illegal fences or friends or online (e.g., eBay 

and Craigslist) and likewise if they take only cash, or keep the items, or trade them 

(e.g., for drugs), or give them away.75, † (This response is applicable to general crime 

problems and not specific to home invasion robbery.)

Victim-Based Responses

6. Improving victims’ reporting (varies by type of victim; after). Information provided 

by victims helps police identify offenders and offense patterns. Operation Eagle Eye, 

a U.K. anti-street robbery initiative, improved the victim’s reporting experience in 

several ways in an effort to encourage reporting.76 Victims were automatically referred 

to support groups, continually updated on their case, and could use pseudonyms to 

ensure anonymity and protection from retaliation. This response is less useful for 

victims who are involved in crime (thus drug dealers are unlikely to report regardless). 

In theory, victims who are themselves criminals might be induced to cooperate with 

police and prosecutors through offers of protection or qualified immunity or threats 

of their own prosecution. But in practice, most such offenders fear retaliation from 

other offenders for cooperating with authorities more than they fear arrest and 

prosecution.77 (This response is applicable to general crime problems and not specific 

to home invasion robbery.)

† See Problem-Specific Guide No. 57, Stolen Goods Markets, for further information. 
| 28 |

Home Invasion Robbery

7. Launching a home robbery awareness campaign (varies by attack type; long 

before). Citizens could underestimate their risk of victimization, let alone their 

risk of certain types of home robbery (e.g., blitzes versus cons). The New York City 

Police Department held meetings in neighborhoods where push-ins were common, 

warning residents about ruses (such as knocking on the door claiming to be a service 

worker).78 Your agency could pursue its own anti-robbery awareness campaigns, 

partnering with local media and government, and employ multiple tactics, such as 

radio call-in programs (so residents can speak to police about the problem), crime 

prevention displays in public places, and distribution of safety leaflets.79 Whatever 

the approach, the campaign should include information on improving home and 

personal safety.80 It should also target people directly at risk of robbery.† Since home 

robberies are rare and may involve familiar persons, you should consider whether 

raising awareness justifies potentially increasing fear, especially among senior citizens. 

At a minimum, you should signal in your press releases these characteristics: this helps 

alleviate citizens’ fear of being randomly targeted.81

8. Making senior citizens less vulnerable (varies by attack type; long before). If 

senior citizens are commonly targeted, focus on the factors causing this pattern. For 

example, police in Pelham Parkway in the Bronx, New York City, observed a 60 

percent increase in push-ins over a 2-month period (most involving seniors). They 

discovered many seniors did not have peepholes and were opening doors to strangers. 

With support from a state grant, the police, community organizations, and a local 

company, 750 peepholes were installed. A sharp reduction in robberies followed.82

† See Response Guide, No. 5, Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns, for further information. 

Door peepholes can help prevent home invasions.
| 29 |

Responses to the Problem of Home Invasion Robbery

9. Making some cultures less vulnerable (home robberies in general; long before).

Members of certain Asian communities, temporary workers, and illegal immigrants 

may be targeted because they keep cash at home, rather than in banks, and may not 

report crimes to police.83 Your agency could work with community social and cultural 

agencies to make these groups more aware of the risk of home invasion. In Virginia, 

for instance, a U.S. Representative met with community groups, police, and the Asian 

community to discuss the home invasion robbery problem.84 Such forums can be used 

to offer prevention tips (e.g., encouraging banking) and to build trust with police. 

10. Partnering with local service companies (con robberies; long before). Utility 

companies could attach crime prevention information to their bills, including a photo 

of the worker’s ID badge, along with a warning about allowing unauthorized persons 

access to one’s home.85

11. Encouraging victim compliance (home robberies in general; during). Victims may 

naturally want to defend themselves, but home robbers may avoid using violence if 

they comply.86 Information about victim compliance could be distributed as part of 

an awareness campaign. This response will not reduce home robbery incidents, but it 

could reduce deaths or injuries. 

Location-Based Responses

12. Increasing dwelling visibility (blitz and surprise robberies; long before).

Home robbers dislike homes highly visible to neighbors.87 Occupants should 

remove any potential hiding spots around their property or anything that 

obstructs natural surveillance by neighbors (including parked cars, overgrown 

trees, shrubbery, and planters). 

13. Securing dwellings externally (blitz, push-in, and surprise robberies; just before).

Home robbers who break in consider a variety of features related to home access, 

including fencing/razor wire, security lights, the strength of doors/gates, dogs, and 

perimeter alarms (e.g., in gardens or along outside walls).88 When facing a specific 

home robbery problem, consider what access-control measures would work best (e.g., 

reinforcing doors to address “door kick” blitzes).89
| 30 |

Home Invasion Robbery

14. Securing dwellings internally (blitz, push-in and surprise robberies; just before).

When planning a home invasion, robbers consider internal security, preferring homes 

in which security alarms are not likely to be on.90 You could encourage occupants to 

activate alarms when they are home or use alarms with panic buttons that they can 

quickly access if the main security system is off. Home robbers also dislike homes 

with drawn curtains, because they cannot locate or count occupants, so installing 

curtains is a quick and inexpensive response.91

15. Increasing occupancy indicators (home robberies in general; just before). This 

strategy is used to deter residential burglars who prefer unoccupied dwellings.†

For home robbery, the key is convincing offenders that more than one occupant is 

home (e.g., lighting multiple rooms), since they prefer dealing with one occupant. 

However, occupancy indicators could attract home robbers, since they target occupied 

dwellings. 

† See Problem-Specific Guide, No. 18, Burglary of Single-Family Homes for further information.

Clear indicators that dogs are in a home can deter home invasions.
| 31 |

Responses to the Problem of Home Invasion Robbery

Responses with Limited Effectiveness

16. Increasing broad surveillance and access control. As noted, home robberies may 

not be geographically concentrated, so identifying hotspots is likely to be difficult. 

This makes installing closed circuit television (CCTV), improving lighting, and 

closing streets and alleys less promising responses. For example, installing one or a few 

CCTV devices would be insufficient for a series of home robbery spanning multiple 

neighborhoods. Furthermore, in the unlikely event that CCTV captured a home 

robbery, only the offender’s entry would be visible (not the act of robbery inside the 

home). CCTV or lighting, however, could be more effective at apartment complexes 

or senior citizen homes, which have multiple residences and a single entry point.92

17. Deploying visible vehicle directed patrols. Directed patrols could be part of another 

task force or multi-response strategy. They are most effective when proactive and 

highly visible. You should not consider crackdown techniques, like directed patrols, a 

long-term strategy, because their impact is often temporary.† For home robbery, foot 

patrols are apt to be ineffective, since offenders may target entire neighborhoods as 

opposed to discrete places (such as an alley popular with street robbers). 

† See Response Guide No.1, The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns for further information.

| 33 |

Appendix 

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Home 

Invasion Robbery

The table below summarizes the responses to home invasion robbery, the mechanism by 

which they are intended to work, the conditions under which they ought to work best, 

and some factors you should consider before implementing a particular response. It is 

critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify each 

response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve several 

different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or 

solving this problem.

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Offender-Based Responses

1 26 Disrupting offender 

groups

Identifies and deters 

offender groups 

involved in repeat 

robberies

...a series of 

home robberies is 

identified, analyzed, 

and responded to 

immediately

Response is limited 

if home robberies 

are very infrequent 

or committed by 

unrelated offenders

2 26 Using intelligence 

to target known 

offenders 

Increases robbers’ 

risk of apprehension

...police can 

build intelligence 

databases containing 

information from 

different sources to 

target repeat robbers

Officers may need 

additional training 

or assistance 

from a civilian 

IT professional; 

continually working 

with other agencies 

to obtain real-time 

data (e.g., daily, 

weekly, or monthly 

updates) could be 

difficult
| 34 |

Home Invasion Robbery

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

3 26 Using handlers to 

control offenders

Individuals 

personally close 

to offenders exert 

control over their 

criminal behavior

...handlers have 

a strong enough 

influence to remove 

offender’s excuses for 

robbing

Family or friends 

may not want to 

strain relationship 

with the offender; 

family or friends 

may be co-offenders

4 27 Diverting potential 

offenders 

Removes excuses 

for offending 

(e.g., drug needs, 

unemployment, 

boredom) by 

connecting offenders 

to services and 

legitimate activities 

...your agency 

works with social 

services agencies, 

human resources 

departments, and 

schools

Offenders may 

prefer criminal 

lifestyle and ignore 

services and activities

5 27 Disrupting stolen 

goods markets

Reduces rewards 

for offenders, who 

cannot “cash-in” 

stolen items

...your agency 

works with local 

businesses (e.g., 

pawn shops, resale 

stores) that can 

identify offenders/

groups wanting 

to make these 

transactions

Will not affect 

robbers who take 

only cash or do not 

sell noncash items

Victim-Based Responses

6 27 Improving victims’ 

reporting

Helps identify 

offenders, investigate 

incidents, and learn 

about robbery 

patterns

...the reporting is 

easy, provides some 

benefit for victims, 

and victims receive 

support

Not applicable if 

victims are involved 

in illegal activities 

and so unlikely to 

report to police
| 35 |

Appendix 

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

7 28 Launching a home 

robbery awareness 

campaign

Encourages potential 

victims to better 

protect their homes 

and themselves

...awareness 

campaigns target the 

people most at risk 

of home robbery

Your agency may 

need to work with 

a local public 

relations firm to 

help create an 

effective campaign; 

may also want to 

work with residents 

to learn about the 

specific problem, 

so messages can be 

tailored 

8 28 Making senior 

citizens less 

vulnerable

Raises potential 

victims’ awareness 

of home robbery 

risk and reduces 

the likelihood of 

victimization

...special 

circumstances put 

senior citizens at 

particular risk

Consider carefully 

the particular needs 

of senior citizens in 

your community, 

which may be 

difficult for your 

agency to address if 

it has little contact 

with them

9 29 Making some 

cultures less 

vulnerable

Raises potential 

victims’ awareness 

of home robbery 

risk and reduces 

the likelihood of 

victimization

...special 

circumstances put 

certain cultural 

groups at particular 

risk

Consider cultural 

factors that influence 

perceptions among 

certain groups

10 29 Partnering with local 

service companies

Reduces the 

likelihood of “con” 

victimization by 

raising awareness of 

risk and teaching 

how to identify 

legitimate service 

workers 

...con robberies in 

which offenders pose 

as service workers 

are common in your 

community

Con robbers may 

tactically displace by 

posing as different 

figures (e.g., police 

officers or door-todoor salesmen)
| 36 |

Home Invasion Robbery

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

11 29 Encouraging victim 

compliance

Reduces the 

likelihood of victim 

injury during an 

attack

...victims can 

remain calm and 

fight the impulse to 

defend themselves

Will not reduce 

home robbery 

incidents

Location-Based Responses

12 29 Increasing dwelling 

visibility

Increases the risk of 

detection via natural 

guardianship 

...neighbors are alert 

and home to spot 

offenders

Not ideal for 

reducing con 

robberies where 

offenders don’t 

worry about being 

seen

13 29 Securing dwellings 

externally

Increases the effort 

needed to break into 

the home

...homes are not 

well-secured from 

the outside

Security upgrades 

may be costly and 

must be purchased 

by the homeowner

14 30 Securing dwellings 

internally

Increases the risk 

of detection of 

offenders inside the 

home

...security systems 

are activated when 

occupants are home

At-risk residents may 

not have security 

systems already in 

place

15 30 Increasing 

occupancy indicators

Deters robbers who 

believe more than 

one occupant is 

home 

...indicators are 

used throughout the 

home

Home robbers may 

be more attracted to 

homes that appear 

occupied
| 37 |

Appendix 

Response 

No.

Page 

No.

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations

Responses with Limited Effectiveness

16 31 Increasing broad 

surveillance and 

access control 

Increases the risk 

of detection and 

apprehension by 

installing CCTV, 

improving lighting, 

or closing streets and 

alleys

...tactics are focused 

at shared residence 

buildings

High-risk areas may 

be too large for such 

measures

17 31 Deploying visible 

vehicle directed 

patrol

Increases the risk 

of detection and 

apprehension by 

strengthening formal 

surveillance

...police make it 

part of a highly 

visible, proactive 

task force

Vehicle patrols may 

have to cover larger 

areas, making it less 

effective; foot patrols 

are probably not an 

effective option

| 39 |

References

References

Adame, Jaime. 2005. “Home Invasion Robberies.” Gotham Gazette, February 5. 

Bachman, Ronet, and Michelle L. Meloy. 2008. “The Epidemiology of Violence Against 

the Elderly.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 24(2): 186–197.

Budd, Tracey. 1999. “Burglary of Domestic Dwellings: Findings from the British Crime 

Survey.” Home Office Statistical Bulletin. London: Home Office.

Burke, T., and C. O’Rear. 1990. “Home Invaders: Asian Gangs in America.” Police Studies: 

The International Review of Police Development 13:154–156.

Chatterton, M., and S. Frenz. 1994. “CCTV: Its Role in Reducing Burglaries and Fear of 

Crime in Sheltered Accommodation for the Elderly.” Security Journal 5(3): 133–139.

Dauvergne, Mia. 2010. “Police-Reported Robbery in Canada, 2008.” Ottawa, Canada: 

Statistics Canada. 

Daye, Douglas D. 1997. A Law Enforcement Sourcebook of Asian Crime and Cultures: 

Tactics and Mindsets. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, Inc.

Erickson, Rosemary J. 1996. “Armed Robbers and Their Crimes.” Report. Seattle: Athena 

Research Corporation.

Gloucestershire Constabulary. 2003. “Forest and Gloucester Division: ROBBERY SARA 

Project and GCDRP Prioritized Robbery Action Plan.” Submission for the Tilley 

Award for Problem-Solving Excellence.

Hammer, Matt. 2012. Cincinnati Police Department. Communication with John Eck.

Hicks, David C., and Daniel Sansfaçon. 1999. “Reducing and Preventing Residential 

Burglaries and Home Invasions.” Quebec, Canada: International Centre for the 

Prevention of Crime.

Hunter, Nichole, and Jayne Marshall. 2000. “Robbery in a Dwelling or Home Invasion? 

Analysis of 1998 Police Incident Reports.” Information Bulletin, no. 12, March. 

Adelaide, South Australia: Australian Office of Criminal Statistics Law Department.

Hurley, James T. 1995. “Violent Crime Hits Home: Home Invasion Robbery.” FBI Law 

Enforcement Bulletin (June): 9–13.

Illinois State TRIAD. 1998. “Responding to Elderly Crime Victims: Model Protocol for 

Law Enforcement.” Springfield, Illinois: Illinois State TRIAD.

Indermaur, David. 1995. Violent Property Crime. Annandale, New South Wales: The 

Federation Press.
| 40 |

Home Invasion Robbery

KABC. 2011. “La Puente Couple Tied Up, Robbed in Home Invasion.” KABC-TV [Los 

Angeles], December 21.

Kelley, Kris. 2009a. “Home Invasions of Occupied Premises in Madison.” Report prepared 

for the Madison, Wisconsin, Police Department and the Dane County District 

Attorney’s Office. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Law School.

————. 2009b. “Hayes Police Prosecution Project Paper.” Report prepared for the 

Madison, Wisconsin, Police Department and the Dane County District Attorney’s 

Office. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Law School. 

Kopel, David B. 2001. “Lawyers, Guns, and Burglars.” Arizona Law Review 43(2): 

345–367.

Kowalski, Melanie. 1999. “Break and Enter.” Ottawa, Canada: Statistics Canada.

Krott, Rob. 2001. “Vietnamese Gangs in America.” Law and Order (May): 100–104.

Marshall, Jayne, and Joy Wundersitz. 1999. “Home Invasion in South Australia.” 

Information Bulletin, issue 11. August. Adelaide, South Australia: Office of Criminal 

Statistics and Research.

Mazzone, Gary L. 1994. “Traveling Criminals: Take the Money and Run.” FBI Law 

Enforcement Bulletin (July): 5–8.

Newark Police Department. 2009. “Armed Home Invasion of University of Delaware 

Students.” Press Release, December 1. Newark, New Jersey: Newark Police 

Department.

Newham, Gareth. 2008. “Reclaiming Our Homes: Tackling Residential Robbery in 

Gauteng.” SA Crime Quarterly 23:7–12. 

————. 2010. “Understanding and Preventing Home Invasions in South Africa.” 

Pretoria, South Africa: Institute for Security Studies.

Nugent, Stephen, Douglas Burns, Paul Wilson, and Duncan Chappell. 1989. “Armed 

Robbery from an Offender’s Perspective: Implications for Prevention.” Report. 

Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Stockdale, Janet E., and Peter J. Gresham. 1998. “Tackling Street Robbery: A 

Comparative Evaluation of Operation Eagle Eye.” Crime Detection and Prevention 

Series, Paper No. 87. London: Home Office Police Research Group.

South Australia Office of Crime Statistics and Research. 1999. What Is Home Invasion? 

Information Bulletin No.11. Adelaide: Office of Crime Statistics and Research.
| 41 |

References

Sutton, Mike. 1998. “Handling Stolen Goods and Theft: A Market Reduction Approach.” 

Home Office Research Study, No. 178. London: Home Office.

Tilley, Nick, Jonathan Smith, Stephen Finer, Rosie Erol, Corrine Charles, and John 

Dobby. 2004. Problem-Solving Street Crime: Practical Lessons from the Street Crime 

Initiative. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. 

Van der Merwe, Nicola. 2008. “Empirical Phenomenological Research on Armed Robbery 

at Residential Premises: Four Victims’ Experiences. CRIMSA Conference Special 

Edition 2:139–161. 

Vellani, Karim H. 2010. “Crime Analysis for Problem Solving Security Professionals 

in 25 Small Steps.” Houston, Texas: Karim H. Vellani. Accessible at 

www.popcenter.org/library/reading/pdfs/crimeanalysis25steps.pdf.

Wade, Jarrel. 2010. “More Home Robberies Involve Guns.” Tulsa World, September 6. 

Weaver, Gary. 2004. “Home Invasions & Identity Theft: The Role of Asian Gangs.” A 

Technical Report. Bethesda, Maryland: The Center for Asian Crime Studies.

White, Garland F. 1990. “Neighborhood Permeability and Burglary Rates.” Justice 

Quarterly 7(1): 57–67.

Wright, Richard T., and Scott H. Decker. 1994. Burglars on the Job: Streetlife and 

Residential Break-Ins. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
| 42 |

Home Invasion Robbery

Endnotes

1. Hurley (1995).

2. Indermaur (1995); South Australian Office of Crime Statistics and Research (1999); 

Kowalski. (1999).

3. Hurley (1995); South Australian Office of Crime Statistics and Research (1999).

4. Hunter and Marshall (2000); Kowalski (1999); South Australian Office of Crime 

Statistics and Research (1999); Indermaur (1995); Newham (2008).

5. Kelley (2009a, 2009b).

6. Hurley (1995); Kowalski (1999); Marshall and Wundersitz (1999); Van der Merwe 

(2008); Dauvergne (2010); Newham (2010); Kelley (2009a, 2009b).

7. Hicks and Sansfaçon (1999).

8. Indermaur (1995).

9. Marshall and Wundersitz (1999).

10. Budd (1999).

11. Adame (2005); Dauvergne (2010).

12. Erickson (1996).

13. Nugent et al. (1989).

14. Newham (2008); Adame (2005).

15. Wade (2010).

16. Dauvergne (2010).

17. Van der Merwe (2008).

18. Van der Merwe (2008); Krott (2001).

19. Newham (2008); Newham (2010); Burke and O’Rear (1990).

20. Hurley (1995); Burke and O’Rear (1990); Daye (1997); Krott (2001); Weaver (2004); 

Newham (2008); Kelley (2009a, 2009b).

21. Newham (2010); Newham (2008).

22. Newham (2010); Adame (2005); Daye (1997); Weaver (2004); Burke and O’Rear 

(1990); Newham (2008); Hunter and Marshall (2000); Kelley (2009a, 2009b).

23. Newham (2008).
| 43 |

Endnotes

24. Newham (2010).

25. Newham (2010); Newham (2008).

26. Newham (2010); Hunter and Marshall (2000).

27. Kelley (2009a, 2009b).

28. Mazzone (1994).

29. Newark Police Department (2009).

30. KABC (2011).

31. Kowalski (1999).

32. Hunter and Marshall (2000); Newham (2008); Newham (2010); Kowalski (1999).

33. Newham (2008); Wade (2010); Kelley (2009a, 2009b).

34. Hunter and Marshall (2000).

35. Krott (2001); Newham (2008, 2010).

36. Newham (2010); Kelley (2009a, 2009b).

37. Newham (2010).

38. Newham (2010); Burke and O’Rear (1990).

39. Hunter and Marshall (2000).

40. Kelley (2009a, 2009b).

41. Newham (2010).

42. Wright and Decker (1994).

43. Weaver (2004).

44. Kopel (2001).

45. Newham (2008).

46. Marshall and Wundersitz (1999).

47. Newham (2008); Dauvergne (2010); Kowalski (1999).

48. Kelley (2009a, 2009b).

49. Newham (2010).

50. Hunter and Marshall (2000).
| 44 |

Home Invasion Robbery

51. Kopel (2001); Illinois State TRIAD (1998).

52. Marshall and Wundersitz (1999).

53. Dauvergne (2010).

54. Bachman and Meloy (2008).

55. Newham (2008).

56. Marshall and Wundersitz (1999); Kelley (2009a, 2009b).

57. Newham (2010).

58. Kelley (2009a, 2009b).

59. Hunter and Marshall (2000).

60. Hunter and Marshall (2000).

61. Kelley (2009a, 2009b).

62. Hunter and Marshall (2000).

63. Hunter and Marshall (2000); Newham (2008); Newham (2010).

64. Hunter and Marshall (2000).

65. Newham (2010); see White (1990).

66. Newham (2010).

67. Daye (1997); Weaver (2004).

68. Burke and O’Rear (1990); Hunter and Marshall (2000); Newham (2008, 2010).

69. Hunter and Marshall (2000).

70. Hunter and Marshall (2000).

71. Hammer (2012).

72. Newham (2008).

73. Newham (2010).

74. Hicks and Sansfaçon (1999).

75. Sutton (1998).

76. Stockdale and Gresham (1998).

77. Kelley (2009a, 2009b).
| 45 |

Endnotes

78. Adame (2005).

79. Gloucestershire Constabulary (2003).

80. Burke and O’Rear (1990).

81. Kelley (2009a, 2009b).

82. Adame (2005).

83. Daye (1997); Weaver (2004).

84. Burke and O’Rear (1990).

85. Mazzone (1994).

86. Newham (2010).

87. Newham (2010).

88. Newham (2010).

89. Vellani (2010).

90. Newham (2010).

91. Newham (2010).

92. Chatterton and Frenz (1994).
| 46 |

Home Invasion Robbery

About the Authors

Justin A. Heinonen

Justin A. Heinonen is an assistant professor for the Anti-Counterfeiting and Product 

Protection Program (A-CAPPP) in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State 

University. Before taking this position, he was a crime analyst with Uptown Consortium, 

Inc. in Cincinnati, Ohio. Dr. Heinonen’s current research focuses on product counterfeiting, 

environmental criminology, and police administration. His recent work appears in Police 

Quarterly and the Journal of Criminal Justice and he has co-authored other guides in this 

series. Dr. Heinonen received his doctorate in criminal justice from the University of 

Cincinnati in 2010. 

John E. Eck

John E. Eck is a professor of criminal justice at the University of Cincinnati. He has 

contributed to several other POP guides and coauthored, with Ronald V. Clarke, Crime 

Analysis for Problem Solvers: In 60 Small Steps. Dr. Eck conducts research into crime places 

and crime prevention. In the late 1980s, he headed the team that created the SARA 

(scanning, analysis, response, assessment) process for problem solving and has since worked 

on other tools for problem solvers. Dr. Eck received his doctorate in criminology from 

the University of Maryland and his bachelors and masters degrees from the University of 

Michigan. 
| 47 |

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Problem-Specific Guides Series:

1. Assaults in and Around Bars, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly Dedel. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

2. Street Prostitution, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-01-0

3. Speeding in Residential Areas, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott with David K. 

Maddox. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-02-7

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. Rana Sampson. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-03-7

5. False Burglar Alarms, 2nd Edition. Rana Sampson. 2007. 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. 2003. 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 Methamphetamine Labs, 2nd Edition. Michael S. Scott and Kelly 

Dedel. 2006. 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

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
| 48 |

Home Invasion Robbery

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: 1-932582-39-8

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: 1-9325802-51-7

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. Antonacci, and Joel B. 

Plant. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6

37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1932582-56-8

38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. Newman. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-59-2

39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-60-6

40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-63-0

41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley and Stephen Smallbone. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-65-7

42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-67-3

43. Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites. Rachel Boba and Roberto 

Santos. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-00-2

44. Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. Rob T. Guerette. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-72-X

45. Domestic Violence. Rana Sampson. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-74-6

46. Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and Driveways. Todd Keister. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-76-2

47. Drive-By Shootings. Kelly Dedel. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-77-0

48. Bank Robbery. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-78-9

49. Robbery of Convenience Stores. Alicia Altizio and Diana York. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-79-7

50. Traffic Congestion Around Schools. Nancy G. La Vigne. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-82-7

51. Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities. Justin A. Heinonen and John E. Eck. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-83-5

52. Bicycle Theft. Shane D. Johnson, Aiden Sidebottom, and Adam Thorpe. 2008. 

ISBN: 1-932582-87-8
| 49 |

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

53. Abandoned Vehicles. Michael G. Maxfield. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-88-6

54. Spectator Violence in Stadiums. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 2008. 

ISBN: 1-932582-89-4

55. Child Abuse and Neglect in the Home. Kelly Dedel. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-00-3

56. Homeless Encampments. Sharon Chamard. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-01-0

57. Stolen Goods Markets. Michael Sutton. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-09-6

58. Theft of Scrap Metal. Brandon R. Kooi. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-12-6

59. Street Robbery. Khadija M. Monk, Justin A. Heinonen, and John E. Eck. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-13-3

60. Theft of Customers’ Personal Property in Cafés and Bars. Shane D. Johnson, Kate 

J. Bowers, Lorraine Gamman, Loreen Mamerow, and Anna Warne. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-15-7

61. Aggressive Driving. Colleen Laing. 2010. ISBN: 978-1-935676-18-8

62. Sexual Assault of Women by Strangers. Kelly Dedel. 2011. ISBN: 978-1-935676-43-0

63. Export of Stolen Vehicles Across Land Borders. Gohar Petrossian and Ronald V. 

Clarke. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-935676-59-1 

64. Abandoned Buildings and Lots. Jon M. Shane. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-01-7

65. Animal Cruelty. Kelly Dedel. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-05-5

66. Missing Persons. Kenna Quinet. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-20-8

67. Gasoline Drive-Offs. Bruno Meini and Ronald V. Clarke. 2012. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-15-4

68. Chronic Public Inebriation. Matthew Pate. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-07-9

69. Drug-Impaired Driving. Joe Kuhns. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-08-6

70. Home Invasion Robbery. Justin A. Heinonen and John E. Eck. 2012. 

ISBN: 978-1-932582-16-1

Response Guides Series:

1. The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns. Michael S. Scott. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-24-X

2. Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should You Go Down This Road?

Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-41-X

3. Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems. Michael S. Scott 

and Herman Goldstein. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-55-X

4. Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-58-4

5. Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns. Emmanuel Barthe. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-66-5

6. Sting Operations. Graeme R. Newman with assistance of Kelly Socia. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-84-3
| 50 |

Home Invasion Robbery

7. Asset Forfeiture. John L. Worall. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-90-8 

8. Improving Street Lighting to Reduce Crime in Residential Areas. Ronald V. Clarke. 

2008. ISBN: 1-932582-91-6

9. Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks. Jim Hilborn. 2009. 

ISBN: 1-932582-92-4

10. Assigning Police Officers to Schools. Barbara Raymond. 2010. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-14-0

Problem-Solving Tools Series: 

1. Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police ProblemSolvers. John E. Eck. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-19-3

2. Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. Schultze. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-48-7

3. Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem-Solving. Scott H. Decker. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5

4. Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-54-1

5. Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety Problems. Sharon Chamard. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-62-2

6. Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke and John E. Eck. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-75-4

7. Implementing Responses to Problems. Rick Brown and Michael S. Scott. 2007. 

ISBN: 1-932582-80-0

8. Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving.

Diane Zahm. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-81-9

9. Enhancing the Problem-Solving Capacity of Crime Analysis Units. Matthew B. 

White. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-85-1

10. Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion. Rob T. Guerette. 2009. 

ISBN: 1-932582-93-2
| 51 |

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police

Special Publications:

Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps. Ronald V. Clarke and 

John E. Eck. 2005. ISBN:1-932582-52-5

Policing Terrorism: An Executive’s Guide. Graeme R. Newman and 

Ronald V. Clarke. 2008.

Effective Policing and Crime Prevention: A Problem-Oriented Guide for Mayors, 

City Managers, and County Executives. Joel B. Plant and Michael S. Scott. 2009. 

Implementing POP: Leading, Structuring, and Managing a Problem-Oriented Police 

Agency. Michael S. Scott and Stuart Kirby. 2012. ISBN: 978-1-932582-61-1

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides

Prescription Fraud and Abuse, 2nd Edition

Physical and Emotional Abuse of the Elderly

Insurance Fraud by Arson

Hate Crimes

Robbery of Pharmacies

Problem-Solving Tools

Understanding Repeat Offending

Understanding Hot Products

Identifying and Defining Policing Problems

Response Guides

Monitoring Offenders on Conditional Release

Using Civil Actions Against Property to Control Crime Problems

Special Publications

Intelligence Analysis and Problem-Solving

For a complete and up-to-date listing of all available POP Guides, see the Center for 

Problem-Oriented Policing website at www.popcenter.org.

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series and other 

COPS Office publications, call the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770, 

via e-mail at AskCopsRC@usdoj.gov, or visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

Got a problem? We’ve got answers!

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website at 

www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help you deal 

more effectively with crime and disorder in your community, 

including:

•	 Recommended readings in problem-oriented policing 

and situational crime prevention

•	 A complete listing of other POP Guides

•	 A listing of forthcoming POP Guides

Designed for police and those who work with them to address 

community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great resource for 

problem-oriented policing.

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office).

Center for problem-Oriented Policing
Home Invasion Robbery begins by describing the problem of home invasion 

robbery and reviewing factors that increase its risks. It then identifies a series of 

questions to help you analyze your local home invasion robbery problem. Finally, it 

reviews responses to the problem and what is known about these from evaluative 

research and police practice.

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

145 N Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS Office programs, 

call the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770.

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

November 2012

ISBN: 978-1-932582-16-1 e051217474

Scan this QR code with your 

smartphone for more information 

about the POP Guides Series, or visit 

www.popcenter.org.