Known Burglars &amp Stolen Goods

crim e
R E S E A R C H
centre
“KNOWN” BURGLARS AND THE STOLEN

GOODS MARKET IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA:
RESEARCH REPORT
Anna Ferrante and Joe Clare
Crime Research Centre
University of Western Australia
Prepared for the
Office of Crime Prevention,
Department of Premier and Cabinet, WA
February 2006
DISCLAIMER
The findings and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the policies or views of the government departments who supported the research.
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors of this report would like to thank the WA Office of Crime Prevention, Department
of Premier and Cabinet, who showed keen interest in the research topic and who generously funded
the study.
We would also like to thank the members of the Study Reference Group for their support and
guidance throughout the project. As well as facilitating access to various areas within their own
departments, they provided the study with a positive and constructive sounding board throughout the
course of the project.
We are grateful also to management within the Department of Justice and WA Police, and
especially to the operational staff at the various adult prisons and juvenile detention facilities accessed
during the study. Thanks are also due to the staff at the various Community Corrections Centres who
supported the project even when their clients did not! Our thanks, in particular, to the staff at
Maddington Community Corrections Centre, where we began the study and trialled our questionnaire.
We are indebted to the services of the Survey Research Centre, University of Western
Australia. The professionalism, good humour and flexibility of management and interviewers resulted
in positive engagement by offenders and the efficient collection of data.
We thank, too, members of staff at the Crime Research Centre for comments on early drafts of
this report.
And finally, we thank the participants in our study – offenders and police officers alike – who
willingly gave of their time and shared their experiences.
Anna Ferrante and Joe Clare
28 February 2006
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................. XI

Types of Goods Stolen......................................................................................................................xi
Disposal of Stolen Goods..................................................................................................................xi
Process of Burglary..........................................................................................................................xii
Police Perceptions of Burglary and the Disposal of Stolen Goods..................................................xii
General Comments .........................................................................................................................xiii
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................1
Background..............................................................................................................................1
Purpose of Research........................................................................................................................... 1
Local Context..................................................................................................................................... 2
Literature Review ....................................................................................................................2
Incidence of Burglary in Australia..................................................................................................... 2
Previous Research Findings – An Integrated Model of a Typical Stolen Goods Market .................. 3
The Relationship Between Drugs and Burglary ................................................................................ 3
Who is Committing Burglaries? ........................................................................................................ 4
Sampling – Do Convicted Burglars Provide a Representative Sample? .................................5
Sampling Issues ................................................................................................................................. 6
Extrapolation of Findings .................................................................................................................. 7
METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................8
Offender Interviews.................................................................................................................8
Inclusion of Juvenile Offenders ......................................................................................................... 8
Recruitment of Participants – Incarcerated Offenders ....................................................................... 9
Recruitment of Participants – Community-Based Offenders............................................................. 9
Ethics Approvals.............................................................................................................................. 10
Consent.......................................................................................................................................... 10
Juveniles ........................................................................................................................................ 10
Indigenous Participation and Cultural Sensitivity ........................................................................ 11
Other Issues and Problems............................................................................................................... 12
The Interview Schedule ................................................................................................................... 13
Police Officer Interviews.......................................................................................................14
Study Reference Group.................................................................................................................... 14
RESULTS ..........................................................................................................15
Offender Analysis..................................................................................................................15
iii
Offender Profiles.............................................................................................................................. 15
Offender Age Groups (Adult Offenders vs. Young Offenders) ...................................................... 15
Indigenous Status .......................................................................................................................... 16
Offending Frequency..................................................................................................................... 16
Drug Use Frequency/Severity ....................................................................................................... 17
Modus Operandi .............................................................................................................................. 21
Mode of Transport to the Most Recent Offence............................................................................. 21
Use of Accomplices ....................................................................................................................... 23
Was the Property Empty During the Most Recent Burglary? ....................................................... 25
Disposal Avenues for Stolen Goods ................................................................................................ 27
Types of Goods Sold/Traded ........................................................................................................... 35
Selling/Trading Goods with Family/Friends.................................................................................... 37
Selling/Trading Goods with Legitimate Businesses ........................................................................ 42
Selling/Trading Goods with Drug Dealers....................................................................................... 47
Selling/Trading Goods with Fences................................................................................................. 53
General Offending Characteristics................................................................................................... 58
General Frequency of Offending................................................................................................... 58
Have You Ever Burgled a Property You Knew Was Not Empty?.................................................. 58
General Use of Avenues for Disposing of Stolen Goods ............................................................... 61
General Disposal of Specific Goods ............................................................................................. 61
Determining the Price for Stolen Goods ....................................................................................... 62
The Influence of Target Property Characteristics on Offending Behaviour ................................. 64
Police Analysis ......................................................................................................................70
Defining the Demographic Characteristics of the Police Participants ............................................. 70
Estimated General Frequency of Offending .................................................................................... 71
General Use of Avenues for Disposing of Stolen Goods................................................................. 71
General Disposal of Specific Goods ................................................................................................ 72
Estimated Influence of Selected Target Property Characteristics on Offending Behaviour............ 72
Comparison of Offender and Police Responses ....................................................................73
Estimates of the General Frequency of Offending........................................................................... 73
Estimated Use of the Various Disposal Avenues............................................................................. 75
Desired Disposal Avenues for Specific Goods: Jewellery, CDs/DVDs, and Computers ................ 77
Estimated Influence of Target Property Characteristics on Offending Behaviour .......................... 79
Police General Comments................................................................................................................ 81
Crime Reduction Approaches........................................................................................................ 81
Variation in Burglar Types............................................................................................................ 81
iv
The Changing Nature of the Market.............................................................................................. 82
Displacement of Crime.................................................................................................................. 83
Drugs............................................................................................................................................. 83
DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................84
Avenues of Disposal..............................................................................................................84
Other Market Aspects............................................................................................................88
Currency of Exchange...................................................................................................................... 88
Distribution Chain............................................................................................................................ 89
Price-Setting..................................................................................................................................... 89
Process of Burglary – Modus Operandi ................................................................................89
Mode of Transport ........................................................................................................................... 89
Accomplices..................................................................................................................................... 90
Entering Occupied Dwellings .......................................................................................................... 90
Effectiveness of Target Hardening Measures........................................................................90
Comparisons Between Police Perceptions and Offender Behaviour.....................................91
IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND CRIME REDUCTION ..................92
Focusing on Drug Dealers as a Primary Avenue for Stolen Goods ......................................92
Focusing on the Strong Drug Connection in the Trading of Stolen Goods...........................93
Focus on Disposal Processes .................................................................................................93
Acknowledging the Involvement of Family in the Stolen Goods Trade...............................94
Public Awareness Campaigns ...............................................................................................94
Focusing of Specific Types of Stolen Goods ........................................................................95
Other Possibilities..................................................................................................................95
CONCLUSION..................................................................................................97
REFERENCES..................................................................................................98
LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................102
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Offender Demographic Profile (N = 239)............................................................................ 18

Table 2. Adult Offenders (21+ at Most Recent Offence) Demographics by Indigenous Status,
Offending Frequency, and Drug-Use Frequency/Severity............................................................... 19
Table 3. Young Offenders (Under 21 at Most Recent Offence) Demographics by Indigenous Status,
Offending Frequency, and Drug-Use Frequency/Severity............................................................... 20
Table 4. Frequency of Use of the Various Mode of Transport (With % Stolen Where Applicable) to
Access the Most Recent Location the Offender Committed a Burglary.......................................... 21
Table 5. Frequency of Use of Accomplices for All Offenders During the Most Recently Committed
Burglary. .......................................................................................................................................... 23
Table 6. Frequency of Breaking In When Someone Was Home (and If It Was Known Someone
Was Home) for All Offenders During the Most Recently Committed Burglary. ............................ 25
Table 7. Frequency of Use, Mean Number of Goods Disposed Of, and Mean Time (Hours) Taken to
Access the Various Avenues of Disposal for Stolen Goods. .......................................................... 27
Table 8. Adult Offender (21+ at Most Recent Offence) Use of Avenues for Disposal of Stolen
Goods by Indigenous Status, Offending Frequency, and Drug-Use Frequency/Severity. .............. 29
Table 9. Young Offender (Under 21 at Most Recent Offence) Use of Avenues for Disposal of
Stolen Goods by Indigenous Status, Offending Frequency, and Drug-Use Frequency/Severity.... 30
Table 10. Adult Offender (21+ at Most Recent Offence) Use of Avenues for Disposal of Stolen
Goods by Indigenous Status, Offending Frequency, and Drug-Use Frequency/Severity
(Percentages Refer to the Total Number of Offenders Within Each Cell)....................................... 32
Table 11. Young Offender (Under 21 at Most Recent Offence) Use of Avenues for Disposal of
Stolen Goods by Indigenous Status, Offending Frequency, and Drug-Use Frequency/Severity
(Percentages Refer to the Total Number of Offenders Within Each Cell)....................................... 33
Table 12. Total Goods, Percentage of Total Goods, Mean Number of Goods, and Mean Time Taken
(Hours) to Sell/Trade Goods with Family/Mates for Adult Offenders (21+ at Most Recent
Offence); by Indigenous Status, Offending Frequency, and Drug-Use Frequency/Severity........... 37
(Hours) to Sell/Trade Goods with Family/Mates for Young Offenders (Under 21 at Most Recent
(Hours) to Sell/Trade Goods with Legitimate Businesses by Adult Offenders (21+ at Most
Recent Offence); by Indigenous Status, Offending Frequency, and Drug-Use Frequency/Severity.
......................................................................................................................................................... 42
(Hours) to Sell/Trade Goods with Legitimate Businesses by Young Offenders (Under 21 at
vi
Most Recent Offence); by Indigenous Status, Offending Frequency, and Drug-Use
Frequency/Severity. ......................................................................................................................... 43
(Hours) to Sell/Trade Goods with Drug Dealers by Adult Offenders (21+ at Most Recent
(Hours) to Sell/Trade Goods with Drug Dealers by Young Offenders (Under 21 at Most Recent
(Hours) to Sell/Trade Goods with Fences by Adult Offenders (21+ at Most Recent Offence); by
Indigenous Status, Offending Frequency, and Drug-Use Frequency/Severity. ............................... 53
(Hours) to Sell/Trade Goods with Fences by Young Offenders (Under 21 at Most Recent
Table 20. The General Frequency of Burglary, Shoplifting, and Receiving (% Offenders Providing
Each Response) when Most Busy Offending for All Offenders...................................................... 58
Was Home) for All Offenders During Their General Offending..................................................... 59
Table 22. The General Frequency of Use of Disposal Avenues (% Offenders Providing Each
Response) for All Offenders. ........................................................................................................... 61
Table 23. The General Disposal Avenues for 3 Commonly Stolen Goods (% Offenders Providing
Each Response) for All Offenders. .................................................................................................. 62
Table 24. The Common Factors Involved in Determining the Price for Stolen Goods During the
Trading Process (% Offenders Providing Each Response) for All Offenders. ................................ 63
Table 25. The Influence of Certain Property Characteristics (% Offenders Providing Each
Response) on the Decision to Burgle for All Offenders. ................................................................. 64
Table 26. Police Demographic Profile (N = 97). ................................................................................ 70
Table 27. Police Perceptions of the General Frequency of Burglary, Shoplifting, and Receiving (%
Police Participants Providing Each Response) for Experienced Burglars. ...................................... 71
Table 28. Police Perceptions of the General Frequency of Use of the Various Disposal Avenues (%
Police Providing Each Response) for All Police Participants.......................................................... 71
Table 29. Police Perceptions of how 3 Commonly Stolen Goods are Disposed Of (% Police
Providing Each Response) for All Police Participants..................................................................... 72
Table 30. Police Perceptions of the Influence of Certain Property Characteristics (% Police
Providing Each Response) on the Decision to Burgle for All Police Participants........................... 72
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Modes of Transport (%) to Most Recent Burglary Used by All Offenders (as a % Within-
Demographic Category) Across (a) Age, (b) Indigenous Status, (c) Offending Frequency, and
(d) Severity/Frequency of Drug Use................................................................................................ 22
Figure 2. Use of Accomplices (%) to Most Recent Burglary Used by All Offenders (as a % Within-
Figure 3. Breaking In When Someone Was Home (and If It Was Known Someone Was Home)
During the Most Recent Residential Burglaries (as a % Within-Demographic Category) Across
(a) Age, (b) Indigenous Status, (c) Offending Frequency, and (d) Severity/Frequency of Drug Use.
......................................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 4. Disposal Avenues Used by All Offenders (as a % Within-Demographic Category) Across
......................................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 5. The Percentage of All Offenders Surveyed Who Sold/Traded Stolen Goods with the
Various Disposal Avenues by Offender (a) Age, (b) Indigenous Status, (c) Offending Frequency,
and (d) Severity/Frequency of Drug Use. ........................................................................................ 34
Figure 6. (a) Relative Percentages of Goods Types Sold/Traded to, and (b) Relative Percentages of
Transactions Involved with, Sale/Trade with All Avenues for Stolen Goods (N = 522
Transactions).................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 10. Goods Types (%) Sold/Traded to Family/Mates, by Severity/Frequency of Drug Use by
the Offender. .................................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 11. The Type of Transactions Involved with Sale/Trade with Family/Mates, by Offender
......................................................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 12. Goods Types (%) Sold/Traded to Legitimate Businesses, by Age Group of the Offender.
......................................................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 13. Goods Types (%) Sold/Traded to Legitimate Businesses, by Indigenous Status of the
Offender. .......................................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 14. Goods Types (%) Sold/Traded to Legitimate Businesses, by Offending Frequency of the
Offender. .......................................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 15. Goods Types (%) Sold/Traded to Legitimate Businesses, by Severity/Frequency of Drug
Use by the Offender. ........................................................................................................................ 45
Figure 16. The Type of Transactions Involved with Sale/Trade with Legitimate Businesses, by
Offender (a) Age, (b) Indigenous Status, (c) Offending Frequency, and (d) Severity/Frequency of
Drug Use. ......................................................................................................................................... 46
viii
Figure 17. Goods Types Sold/Traded to Drug Dealers, by Age Group of the Offender. .................... 49
Figure 18. Goods Types Sold/Traded to Drug Dealers, by Indigenous Status of the Offender. ......... 49
Figure 19. Goods Types Sold/Traded to Drug Dealers, by Offending Frequency of the Offender..... 50
Figure 20. Goods Types Sold/Traded to Drug Dealers, by Severity/Frequency of Drug Use by the
Offender. .......................................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 21. The Type of Transactions Involved with Sale/Trade with Drug Dealers, by Offender
......................................................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 22. The Percentage of Times Specific Types of Drugs are Received from Selling/Trading
Goods with Drug Dealers, by Offender (a) Age, (b) Indigenous Status, (c) Offending Frequency,
and (d) Severity/Frequency of Drug Use. ........................................................................................ 52
Figure 23. Goods Types (%) Sold/Traded to Fences, by Age Group of the Offender. ........................ 55
Figure 24. Goods Types (%) Sold/Traded to Fences, by Indigenous Status of the Offender............... 55
Figure 25. Goods Types (%) Sold/Traded to Fences, by Offending Frequency of the Offender......... 56
Figure 26. Goods Types (%) Sold/Traded to Fences, by Severity/Frequency of Drug Use by the
Offender. .......................................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 27. The Type of Transactions Involved with Sale/Trade with Fences, by Offender (a) Age,
(b) Indigenous Status, (c) Offending Frequency, and (d) Severity/Frequency of Drug Use. .......... 57
Across General Offending History for All Offenders (as a % Within-Demographic Category)
Across (a) Age, (b) Indigenous Status, (c) Offending Frequency, and (d) Severity/Frequency of
Drug Use. ......................................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 29. The Influence of Alarms (% Offenders Providing Each Response) on the Decision to
Burgle by Offender (a) Age, (b) Indigenous Status, (c) Offending Frequency, and
Figure 30. The Influence of Dogs (% Offenders Providing Each Response) on the Decision to Burgle
by Offender (a) Age, (b) Indigenous Status, (c) Offending Frequency, and (d) Severity/Frequency
of Drug Use...................................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 31. The Influence of Dead Locks (% Offenders Providing Each Response) on the Decision to
Figure 32. The Influence of ID-Marking (% Offenders Providing Each Response) on the Decision to
Figure 33. Comparison Between Offender and Police Estimations (% of Each Group Providing
Each Response) of the Frequency of (a) Committing Burglaries, (b) Shoplifting, and (c) Receiving
Stolen Goods.................................................................................................................................... 74
ix
Each Response) of the Frequency of Using Disposal Avenues: (a) Family/Friends, (b) Pawn
Shops, (c) Jewellers, (d) Drug Dealers, (e) Fences, and (f) Strangers. ............................................ 76
Each Response) of the Frequency of Using Disposal Avenues for: (a) Gold/Jewellery,
(b) CDs/DVDs (Discs), and (c) Laptop Computers. ........................................................................ 78
Each Response) of the Influence on Offending Behaviour of: (a) Alarms, (b) Dogs, (c) Dead
Locks, and (d) ID-Marking. ............................................................................................................. 80
x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study has explored the process of burglary and the types of avenues used by burglars in the
disposal of stolen goods. The research project has been funded by the WA Office of Crime Prevention
(OCP) and is intended to provide empirical data to aid and inform the development of local policing
and crime reduction strategies, particularly those targeted at disrupting the stolen goods trade in
Western Australia (WA).
Two hundred and forty one incarcerated offenders, each having at least one prior conviction for
burglary, were interviewed. Of these, two-fifths were aged below 21 years and just over half were
Indigenous.
The study also interviewed currently serving WA police officers about their perceptions of the
stolen goods market. Ninety-seven officers responded to an on-line survey. The information collected
from these officers was then compared with that provided by burglars.
The most significant findings to emerge from the study were:
Types of Goods Stolen
• Jewellery was the most popular item stolen and traded following a burglary. Other ‘craved’ items
included TVs, cameras, laptop computers and CD/DVD players.
Disposal of Stolen Goods
• The majority (73%) of goods taken in a burglary were quickly on-sold or traded.
• The most frequent disposal avenues used by burglars were drug dealers (54%), family/friends
(18%), fences (13%) and legitimate businesses (8%). [Legitimate businesses included pawnshops
and businesses dealing in second-hand goods.]
• On average, it took less than a day for burglars to dispose of stolen goods.
• The average time taken to dispose of goods varied depending on the type of avenue used. Trading
goods with drug dealers occurred, on average, 5.5 hours after the goods were stolen. Disposing to
fences occurred within 8.2 hours (avg.), while transactions with legitimate businesses took the
longest – at 35.5 hours (avg.) after the burglary.
• Disposal time also varied with the age of the offender. Older offenders generally took less time to
dispose of stolen goods than younger offenders.
• Burglars traded goods for either money or drugs. There was nearly a 50:50 split between
receiving money or drugs in exchange for stolen property.
• Drug dealers frequently traded drugs for goods (in 60% of transactions), however, cash was also
frequently exchanged for goods (in about 40% of deals). Family and friends mostly exchanged
xi
cash for goods (in about 50% transactions), but drugs were traded in about one-third of family
deals. Fences traded mostly money for goods (in about 65% of transactions) but also some drugs
(in about 30% of transactions)
• Amphetamines (speed) and cannabis were the drugs most frequently used in selling/trading of
stolen goods.
• About one-quarter of offenders said that they set the price of stolen goods to about one-third of
the new price. However, price was also influenced by other factors, such as the relationship of the
offender to the person buying the goods and how desperate offenders were for money.
Process of Burglary
• Walking (44%) or using a car (46%) were the most common means by which offenders traveled
to their most recent burglary. Adult offenders and non-Indigenous offenders were more likely to
use a vehicle than their counterparts.
• Approximately half of all respondents operated with accomplices during their most recent
burglary. Adult offenders and non-Indigenous offenders were more likely to work alone than their
counterparts.
• About 10% of burglars knowingly entered occupied premises when committing their most recent
burglary. Young, Indigenous, high-frequency, and high-drug use offenders were more likely to
knowingly enter occupied premises than their counterparts.
• Offenders were quizzed on whether various target hardening measures influenced their decision to
break-in or take things during a burglary. Of four target-hardening measures presented (alarms,
dogs, deadlocks and property ID marking), alarms appeared to have the greatest deterrent effect,
with almost half of our respondents claiming to be put-off by this factor. The presence of dogs
also appeared to deter burglars, with more than 40% of respondents claiming this would put them
off to some degree. Deadlocks appeared to offer the least resistance to burglars, with less than
20% of respondents saying that they would be put off by these measures. Property marking (such
as engraved identification or microdots) appeared to have a moderate effect on burglars, with one-
quarter of respondents stating that this would put them off to some extent.
Police Perceptions of Burglary and the Disposal of Stolen Goods
Overall, when estimating the types and frequency of offending and distribution of stolen goods
the police appear to have an accurate and broad understanding of what is occurring. For example,
police were aware of the relative deterrent capacity of the target hardening measures examined here
and they understood the importance of drug dealers in the stolen goods market. However, there were
some instances where the police responses did vary quite markedly from offender admissions. For
xii
example, in over-estimating shoplifting and receiving frequency, and in estimating that burglars
dispose of stolen goods at pawnshops much more frequently than offenders suggest they do.
It is important to emphasise, however, that such discrepancies between police perceptions and
offender admissions do not mean that the police were incorrect. Instead, the police respondents may
have been reporting what they know about the stolen goods market generally (and the importance of
legitimate businesses in this network overall), while the convicted burglars were responding from a
more confined perspective concerning their own offending and how they enter property into the stolen
goods market.
General Comments
In the discussion of the findings, the study noted that:
• There appears to be a blurring of the roles between drug dealer and fence, with many drug dealers
prepared to accept non-cash items in exchange for drugs. Moreover, drug dealers often traded
cash (and not drugs) in exchange for stolen property. In all, drug-dealers appear to have become a
convenient ‘one-stop shop’ for many offenders and play a pivotal role in the initial disposal of
stolen goods. Given the speed and volume of these transactions, drug dealers appear to have
(access to) well-established and well-organised redistribution networks for the goods that come
into their possession.
• Fences, on the other hand, appear to have less direct involvement with burglars (we speculate that
they may have moved further down the distribution chain for stolen goods). However, it is notable
that they too appear to trade in both cash and drugs.
• While it is reasonable to expect that some stolen property will make its way into the second-hand
goods market, it was difficult to determine the extent to which these businesses knowingly buy
stolen goods. For starters, burglars do not appear to be the customers who are presenting stolen
goods over the counter. The study showed that burglars appeared to be reluctant to trade directly
with these outlets. One can conclude then that this disposal avenue is more likely to be used by
intermediaries or by individuals located further down the distribution chain of stolen goods.
The study offered a number of suggestions for ways in which crime reduction and law
enforcement initiatives might affect the stolen goods trade in Western Australia. The most significant
of these were:
• The police should actively incorporate investigations into property crime with investigations into
drug dealing. When the police have grounds for searching a suspected drug dealer’s premises for
drugs that they should also be empowered to search for stolen goods. Moreover, police should see
xiii
drug-related surveillance operations as opportunities for intelligence gathering into the stolen
goods market (and vice versa).
• Dealers who are found to be in possession of stolen goods should be actively prosecuted for these
offences. Police actions against drug dealers not only have the potential of disrupting a drug
distribution network but also a stolen goods disposal system.
• Consideration should be given to supporting policing efforts aimed at reducing or restricting the
availability of amphetamines (speed). A reduction in the supply of speed is likely to have a
significant ‘knock-on’ effect on the stolen goods market (through the types of goods stolen,
effects on the currency of transaction and so on) and, for many offenders, also on the motivation
for burglary. However, any operation aimed at restricting the supply of one particular drug should
be accompanied by others designed to limit displacement to other drugs and/or other crimes.
• Making the public aware of the relationship between community participation in buying stolen
property and how this directly supports the act of burglary should act to reduce the involvement of
at least some individuals in purchasing stolen property. For this reason, campaigns such as the
current ‘Don’t Buy Crime’ initiative should be supported and continued.
• Given that many offenders use vehicles as a mode of transport when committing burglary and that
much of the trading of stolen goods is committed soon after a burglary, there is an opportunity to
mount traffic-based operations to curtail burglary in localised (high burglary rate) areas. However,
such operations should not be considered as primary strategies for reducing burglary.
• As jewellery is the most frequently stolen/traded item, strategies to make these items harder to
steal and/or trade should be considered. Some possibilities include: improving/increasing the
identification of pieces of jewellery through available technologies; increasing the
regulation/control of the second-hand jewellery trade through the creation of a jewellery register;
undertaking further research to learn more about the fencing of jewellery; and reducing the market
demand for stolen jewellery through a highly publicized ‘Make Sure It’s Safe To Buy’ campaign
targeted at those most likely to buy second-hand jewellery.
• With regards to reducing the involvement of pawnshops and second-hand dealers in the stolen
goods trade, it is suggested that all purchases made by these outlets be transacted without cash
and only through the use of cheques or direct deposits to bank accounts. This approach offers a
number of advantages – it increases identification of sellers, removes the tag of these outlets being
‘a quick source of ready cash’; it provides a money/property trail for investigation and auditing
purposes; and generally makes the industry visibly cleaner and more accountable.
xiv
INTRODUCTION
Background
This research was a Western Australian interview-based study involving burglars and currently
serving police officers. The purpose of this study was to explore the process of burglary and the types
of avenues used by burglars in the disposal of stolen goods. The study was funded by the WA OCP
and was intended to provide empirical data to aid and inform the development of local policing and
crime reduction strategies, particularly those targeted at disrupting the stolen goods trade in Western
Australia.
Understanding the elements of the stolen goods trade is fundamental to the design of effective
crime reduction strategies. Policy-makers and law enforcement officers need accurate information
about the size of the market, the types of goods that make up the market, the supply and demand for
those goods, their prices, the distribution of those goods to different market segments, the size and
length of the distribution chain, and so on. While not all of these aspects were explored by this study,
it is hoped that the information this research does provide will fill many of the current knowledge-
gaps.
Crime reduction strategies that are aimed at disrupting the stolen goods trade are also likely to
have ‘spin-off’ effects in other areas. Research has shown that the existence of a market for stolen
goods provides motivation for theft and influences the types of goods that are actually stolen (Sutton,
1995). Consequently, efforts to disrupt or reduce the size of the stolen goods market may bring about
changes in burglary rates and patterns.
Purpose of Research
Overall, the specific aims of the project included:
• Determining the frequency with which offenders burgle, the types of property they burgle, and the
types of goods stolen;
• Identifying the avenues used by burglars to dispose of stolen goods and the relative importance of
these avenues;
• Identifying and examining offender characteristics affecting the disposal of stolen goods such as
age, drug use, and prior record;
• Investigating other ‘market’ aspects related to stolen goods (e.g., the number and speed of
transactions, price paid per item); and
• Exploring issues related to burglars’ journeys from crime (e.g., How soon after offending do they
travel? Where do they go? How far do they move from where they live?).
1
The study also aimed to explore other aspects of burglary such as:
• The factors that influence selection of targets within categories of property (e.g., Why one
residential house is targeted over a neighbouring one?);
• Metropolitan and non-metropolitan differences (if possible to comment on);
• Use of (stolen) vehicles;
• Involvement of accomplices; and
• Offenders’ perceptions of the effectiveness of property marking and other burglary-reduction
initiatives.
This research also aimed to compare the information provided by convicted burglars with
currently serving police officers’ perceptions of the stolen goods market. Such a comparison was
designed to identify if any discrepancies existed between offender admissions and police opinions
about the stolen goods market.
Local Context
This project addressed the OCP’s key priority area of burglary and the specific issue of disposal
of stolen goods. WA has the highest burglary rate in Australia (ABS, 2003b) and the financial costs of
this problem are significant (Mayhew, 2003). Moreover, there are associated social costs as burglary
is identified as the major crime problem in many areas and a contributor to community-level
insecurities and fear about crime (ABS, 2003a).
In the mid-1990s, legislative reforms such as the introduction of the Pawnbrokers and
Secondhand Dealers Act and ‘Three Strikes’ legislation were introduced to target burglary in WA. In
recent times, there has been considerable focus on reducing the Western Australian burglary rate
through a variety of initiatives under the umbrella ‘Burglar Beware’ program. These include the
establishment of a State Burglary Reduction Taskforce, the ‘Operation Burglary Countdown’ pilots
introduced in Bentley, Morley, and Carnarvon, and more recently the ‘Don’t Buy Crime’ strategy,
which has focused on targeting the stolen goods market to reduce the incidence of burglary. Since the
introduction of these schemes, reductions in the incidence of burglary have been noted (Cummings &
Angwin, 2005).
Literature Review
Incidence of Burglary in Australia
The trend for property offences in Australia, as discussed by Moffatt, Weatherburn, and
Donnelly (2005), has seen a general decrease in the incidence of reported property crime since 2002
(based on figures reported in ABS, 2004). Moffatt et al. discussed the reasons for this trend and
2
concluded that a multi-faceted explanation provided the most parsimonious available account;
appealing to factors such as a general reduction in heroin availability in conjunction with broad
economic prosperity, reduced unemployment, and increased imprisonment rates. 1
Previous Research Findings – An Integrated Model of a Typical Stolen Goods Market
Included in their analysis of the stolen goods market in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT)
Nelson, Collins, and Gant (2002) provided a comprehensive summary of much of the previous
research into stolen goods markets. The main findings of this previous research are summarised in the
figure displayed in Appendix 1, designed to show the nebulous, interactive nature of typical stolen
goods markets. This research was most interested in current offenders’ use of these entry points for
stolen goods into this market structure: namely commercial fences, residential fences, and hawking.
(See Appendix 1 for the origins of these terms. Hawking here refers to the act of selling stolen goods
to strangers.)
Based on previous research findings (e.g., Cromwell, Olson, & Avary, 1993; Finney, Wilson,
Levi, Sutton, & Forest, 2005; Nelson et al., 2002; Stevenson & Forsythe, 1998; Sutton, Johnston, &
Lockwood, 1998) it was expected that the majority of stolen goods in WA would be traded/sold
through residential fences (including family, friends, drug dealers, and professional fences). It was
also anticipated that commercial fences, particularly pawn shops, would be used less often (or at a
lower preference) than the other disposal avenues (Cromwell et al., 1993).
Previous research has found support for four factors that moderate the degree to which hawking
participants will be involved with the stolen goods market, including: (a) their frequency of
purchasing stolen goods, (b) the volume of stolen goods they purchase, (c) their reason for
purchasing, and (d) their commitment to purchasing (Cromwell et al., 1993). Overall, hawking
participants have been shown to demonstrate a tendency to neutralize/rationalize involvement in the
stolen goods market when they buy stolen goods (Cromwell et al., 1993). This is less straightforward
when the goods are obviously second hand and come without packaging, etc. (as discussed by Sutton,
1995). For the purposes of this research it was expected that hawking would be a non-preferred
disposal option for burglars.
The Relationship Between Drugs and Burglary
The links between illicit drug use and crime have been researched extensively. Explanations of
the relationship typically divide into those that address the relationship between illicit drug use and
1
By their own admissions Weatherburn, Hua, and Moffatt (2006) acknowledge this modelling process did not
control for simultaneity.
3
involvement in offending (prevalence) and those that address the relationship between the level of
drug use and the rate (incidence) of offending.
In terms of the link between drug use and the prevalence of offending, three main explanatory
pathways have been proposed. The first pathway posits a causal pathway from substance use to crime.
This has been variously attributed to the psychopharmacological effects of the drugs
(‘psychopharmacological model’), the need to financially support drug use (‘economic motivation
model’) or the involvement in violent crime inherent to illicit drug distribution systems. The second
pathway posits a causal pathway from crime to substance use. Under this model, it is argued that
involvement in criminal subcultures places individuals in an environment accepting or even
encouraging of drug use. The third pathway posits that both illicit drug use and offending share
common roots. These roots may be genetic, social, environmental or situational (White & Gorman,
2000).
In evaluating research to date on each of the three explanatory pathways, White and Gorman
(2000) noted that there is some limited support for each of the pathways. They summarized that “In
short, the drug-using/crime-committing population is not homogenous; rather, it is composed of
subgroups of individuals displaying different causal paths” (p.195).
Explanations of the link between illicit drug use and the rate (incidence) of offending often
draw upon what is referred to as the ‘intensification model’. This is based on the argument that heavy
involvement in drug use can lead to an increase in the rate of offending amongst existing offenders
(Goode, 1997, as cited in Bennett & Holloway, 2005).
Other research has focused on the associations between certain types of drugs and certain types
of offences. For example, in recent research, Bennett and Holloway (2005) identified links between
heroin use and shoplifting and crack using and drug-dealing. In their conclusion, Bennett and
Holloway (2005) suggest that generalized approaches to the problem of illicit drug use and crime
might not be as effective as targeted approaches. They argue that targeting specific drug-crime
combinations may be more effective strategies in the long run.
Who is Committing Burglaries?
Given this known relationship between drug-use and crime (and specifically burglary, e.g.,
Nelson et al., 2002; Schneider, 2005b; Stevenson, Forsythe, & Weatherburn, 2001; Sutton et al.,
1998) it was predicted that there would be a strong link observed between selling stolen goods and
drug use in this research (with one research example demonstrating that 44% of juveniles incarcerated
for burglary in Australia attributed their offending to the need to obtain money to buy drugs, Prichard
& Payne, 2005). However, as suggested by Moffatt et al. (2005), despite this proposed causal link
4
between drug use and burglary, it remains the case that many offenders become involved in property
crime to supplement their income generally, and not specifically to fund a drug addiction. This stance
was supported by the findings of research into juvenile crime trends in NSW (Baker, 1998). As such,
in addition expecting to find a link between disposing of stolen goods and drugs through this research,
it was also predicted that offenders would be selling/trading a significant percentage of the property
they stole for money.
Given previous research findings it was expected that a significant proportion of burglaries will
have been committed by young people. The analysis of residential burglaries in the ACT committed
between 1999 and 2000 found that a quarter of these offences involved offenders under 16 years, and
half were committed by people under the age of 18 years (Ratcliff, 2001, 2003). Furthermore,
Australian national crime statistics suggests that for the period between 2002-2003 juveniles
accounted for 25% of identified unlawful entry with intent offenders (AIC, 2004).
Furthermore, analysis of the offending histories of juveniles in detention across Australia

between 2003-2004 demonstrated that Indigenous offenders, who represented 59% of the sample,
were more likely than non-Indigenous offenders to have been detained for burglary and were also
more likely to self-report a lifetime history of burglary (Prichard & Payne, 2005). In conjunction with
WA crime statistics that demonstrated 42% of the distinct prisoners received in 2003 whose major
offence was burglary were Aboriginal (Crime Research Centre, 2003) it was clearly necessary to
make every effort to include Indigenous people in this research. The importance of having an
Indigenous representation in the offender sample was increased due to the omission of this group from
previous Australian research into stolen goods markets (Nelson et al., 2002; Stevenson & Forsythe,
1998).
Sampling – Do Convicted Burglars Provide a Representative Sample?

It is worth considering how representative the offending habits and use of avenues into the
stolen goods market of convicted, identified burglars are of active burglars overall. The movement
from victimisation through to prison results in a large degree of attrition of cases. For example, of the
38,400 burglaries (actual and attempted) recorded by a recent victim survey in WA (ABS, 2005) only
73% were reported to the police. Following this, only a small percentage of reported incidents actually
result in a person being processed by the police – for example of the 47,034 WA burglaries reported
to police in 2001 only 5.6% of these resulted in a processed person. 2 These rates are similar with
detection rates for burglars in other jurisdictions with approximately 7 per cent in The Hague
(Bernasco & Nieuwbeerta, 2005), and 10 per cent in the ACT (Ratcliff, 2003). Finally, this already
2
Remembering that it is not the case that each individual offence involved a unique offender (as discussed by
Weatherburn et al., 2006).
5
eroded sample of total offenders is then further diminished, with only 406 distinct prisoners received
in WA during 2001 with burglary as their major offence. This given, previous research that analysed
the representativeness of convicted, incarcerated offenders discovered some limitations but generally
concluded that this sampling was acceptable. This research is discussed further below.
Sampling Issues
With regards to limitations of this offender-sampling approach, Wright and Decker (1994) did
outline a number of weaknesses with relying solely on this line of evidence to gain an understanding
of the stolen goods market. First, they suggested it is questionable as to how naturally offenders
behave when involved with the justice system (particularly when incarcerated). Second, there is the
capacity for incarcerated offenders to distort accounts of their offending history in order to optimally
present their behaviour. Third, sampling only from those individuals already identified by the justice
system may well skew the information gathered towards “unsuccessful” offenders (this stance is
supported by various criminologists, including Hagedorn, 1990, and Watters & Biernacki, 1989, as
cited in Wright & Decker, 1994). It is arguable, based on the findings of Wright, Decker and
colleagues (Wright & Decker, 1994; Wright, Decker, Redfern, & Smith, 1992) that there are direct
limitations on these findings based on the sample interviewed.
However, as Wright and Decker (1994) concluded, based on their study of active offenders at
large in the community, “...much of what we found in regard to target selection simply parallels the
findings of the prison-based projects. While a smaller percentage of the active offenders typically
searched for their targets than was true for any of the prison samples, those who did search used the
same procedures described by the imprisoned burglars interviewed in the US and UK... Likewise, our
results concerning perceptual deterrence closely matched those of burglary studies carried out in
prisons...” (p211). The major difference Wright and Decker discussed was the contrast between the
controlled, thoughtful decision making process often reported by offenders in prisons, when
retrospectively reconstructing their burglary experiences, “…hurried, almost haphazard, decisions to
offend [made by active residential burglars] while in a state of emotional turmoil.” (p211). This
reflected how the prison environment is detached from the temptation-full, pressurised street life
offenders typically lived. Despite this, comparisons of the active offender sample with findings from
previous prison-based research raised no terminal criticisms of research involving the easier-to-access
prisoners. Furthermore, as in previous similar research (Nelson et al., 2002; Stevenson & Forsythe,
1998; Stevenson et al., 2001; Sutton, 1998; Sutton et al., 1998; Sutton, Schneider, & Hetherington,
2001) this study acted as a first examination of a stolen goods market about which no previous
research evidence existed (keeping in mind this sample reflects who has been caught, rather than
directly extrapolating to who commits the burglaries).
6
Extrapolation of Findings
Some of the key variants in the demographic composition of a sample of burglars include: race,
gender, age, offending success, experience, offending frequency/rate, and specificity of offending
type (Wright & Decker, 1994). It is important to consider that this sample is only targeting a
subsection of this broad spectrum of offender-types, and as such, firm extrapolation of conclusions is
restricted to those researched here.
Despite this qualification, it does appear a case can be mounted for the tentative generalisation
of the findings of this sample to a broader community of offenders. A recent study conducted by
Wiles and Costello (2000), which compared characteristics of convicted residential burglars with
those convicted of taking without consent in the United Kingdom concluded that, regardless of which
type of conviction offenders had received, most of the sample were generalists offenders rather than
specialists within their area of conviction. Wiles and Costello suggested that it appears unlikely that
there are ‘specialist’ offenders who only burgle. Instead, it is much more likely that offenders exhibit
generalistic and opportunistic behaviour all of the time, but get caught for certain offences which
result in their classification (Schneider, 2005a, also supports this position). This finding supported the
previously discussed conclusions drawn by Wright and Decker (1994), who found that the majority of
active offenders identified by their field study had committed a wide range of offences in addition to
residential burglary ― including theft, auto theft, assault, and drug possession. As such, although the
offenders contacted through this research can be categorised as ‘burglars’ given their prior convictions
for this offence, it is highly likely that many of them have exhibited a much broader range of criminal
behaviour than this arbitrary classification suggests.
Although this sample only draws on those offenders who have been identified as burglars, there
is also good grounds to consider the methods of selling stolen goods used by this group will also
capture the approaches adopted by offenders who commit other types of stealing (such as shoplifting).
Schneider (2005a; 2005b), in an interview study of 50 known burglars in the UK, found that the
primary method used by offenders to sell the proceeds of their crimes was the same when they
shoplifted as when they burgled. As such, information about the disposal avenues utilised by the
burglars in this sample will provide a mechanism for targeting the avenues used to dispose of goods
acquired via other illegal means (i.e., shoplifting or receiving).
7
METHODOLOGY
Our study comprised two surveys – one of offenders and one of police officers. This section
describes the process that was followed in each case, and outlines some of the logistical issues that
arose as a result of this research.
Offender Interviews
It was originally intended that 300 ‘known’ burglars would be interviewed face-to-face using a
semi-structured questionnaire (30 minutes in length). The criterion for selecting a ‘known’ burglar
was that the offender had at least one conviction for burglary offence(s) during the past five years.
Only eligible offenders were approached to participate in the interviews.
It was intended that this sample of 300 known offenders would be one-third juvenile and evenly
distributed across detention facilities and community corrections centres. By interviewing
incarcerated offenders (both adults and juveniles as in Stevenson & Forsythe, 1998; Stevenson et al.,
2001) and community-based offenders (as in Nelson et al., 2002, who only interviewed adults), the
results were intended to produce a highly diagnostic picture of the stolen goods market in WA.
However, as is discussed in detail on page 12, this desired sample became logistically impossible to
attain. As a result the final offender group consisted of 241 participants (with all but three collected
when in custody), with 96 individuals under 21 years of age.
It is important to explain from the outset that all offenders included in this sample were male.
The decision to exclude female offenders was not made through a lack of interest in females as a
distinct offender group with the possibility of unique properties. Instead, this decision was forced by
the logistical restrictions placed on this research. Given that national summary figures suggest that in
the period between 2002-2003, females accounted for only 10% of unlawful entry with intent
offenders (AIC, 2004) it was not possible to access a meaningful sample of female burglary offenders
within the time available. However, we believe this is an under-researched area and would be a
valuable line of inquiry for future research.
Inclusion of Juvenile Offenders
The inclusion of juvenile offenders in the sample was considered essential in light of research
findings that suggest a large proportion of burglary (estimates ranging from approximately 30 to 50
per cent) is committed by males under the age of 18 years (Nelson et al., 2002; Wright & Decker,
1994; Wright et al., 1992). Furthermore, additional research evidence suggests that residential
burglary is predominantly committed by inexperienced juvenile offenders (Cromwell, Olson, &
Avery, 1991a, 1991b).
8
Only juveniles aged 16 years and over were approached for the purposes of this research, as it
was considered too difficult (in terms of logistics and timeliness) to obtain parental consent for those
aged under 16 years. 3 (More about juveniles in following section.)
Recruitment of Participants – Incarcerated Offenders
Prior to any institutional visit, the Department of Justice was asked to produce a list of eligible
prisoners at selected institutions as per the criterion stated earlier. This list was then screened by
prison staff (filtering out errors, prisoner transfers, security risks, etc.) before prisoners were called to
interview. Interviews were conducted on-site at each institution in interview rooms adjacent to
visitor’s areas. These facilities ensured confidentiality while maintaining interviewer and interviewee
safety.
The selected institutions were:
• Casuarina (maximum security, adult prison);

• Hakea (large remand facility, adult only);
• Acacia (privately run, adult prison); and
• Banksia Hill juvenile detention facility (the only juvenile detention facility for 16+ year olds in
Western Australia).
These sites were selected on the basis of having sufficient eligible participants and proximity to
Perth (to keep travel time at a minimum for interview staff). These decisions were made in
consultation with the Study’s Reference Group (see page 14, below).
Prior to the interview commencing, an information sheet was given to the offender and
explained by the researchers, participants were invited to be involved, and where agreeable formal
consent to participate was obtained. Participants were free to withdraw from the interview at any time
subsequent to their initial consent.
Recruitment of Participants – Community-Based Offenders
With respect to the recruitment of offenders serving community-based orders, Community

Corrections Officers (CCOs) were asked to identify and refer suitable participants to the researchers
after case management meetings. As CCOs have access to offender files and are generally aware of
their clients prior criminal record, they were able to determine which offenders met the study
selection criterion. This process follows the precedent set by Nelson and colleagues (2002) in their
Australian Institute of Criminology funded research into the stolen goods market in the ACT.
3
As per advice provided by the WA Juvenile Justice staff members in the Department of Justice.
9
Four Community Corrections Centres were chosen as sites for the study – Maddington (also
used as the pilot site), Mirrabooka, Joondalup and Rockingham. As with the custodial institutions,
these sites were selected in consultation with the Study Reference Group, on the basis of having a
large client base drawn from around the Perth metropolitan area.
Ethics Approvals
Ethics approval from the University of Western Australia Human Research Ethics Committee
was granted in May 2005. Approvals were also obtained from the WA Police Service and from the
Research and Evaluation Committee of the Department of Justice (June 2005).
Three issues arose during the approval process(es) that required consideration by the research
team – obtaining informed consent, access to juveniles, and the involvement of Indigenous
representatives.
Consent
To protect the confidentiality of participants, interviewers did not record names on interview
notes and only verbal consent was obtained. 4 Previous research conducted by Crime Research Centre
staff and detailed methodological consideration led to the conclusion that the methodology which best
protects the interests and rights of offenders is one where no specific record of name or signature is
required or retained (see Roberts & Indermaur, 2003). This technique of attaining consent is gaining
wider acceptance in criminological research and has been followed by a recent Australian Institute of
Criminology (AIC) data collection exercise, Drug Use Careers of Offenders (DUCO) (AIC, 2004) that
interviewed adults and juveniles in correctional facilities. Moreover, this approach was incorporated
into data collection for both of the previous studies into the stolen goods market in Australia (Nelson
et al., 2002, in the ACT; and Stevenson & Forsythe, 1998, in NSW). As Roberts and Indermaur
suggest, “Consent forms constitute a record of participation in a research project, providing the
potential for research documentation to be subpoenaed. This is a threat to the offender's future
wellbeing in research where offenders are asked to report on illegal activities.”
Juveniles
Our original plan was that only juveniles aged 16 years and over would be approached to
participate in the study. Approval was obtained to approach these juveniles and obtain their approval,
without further consent from parents and/or significant others. Although this approach was endorsed
by both the UWA Ethics committee and the Department of Justice Research and Evaluation
4
The process of gaining verbal consent for this study conformed with the recorded agreement clause of the
Integrity, Respect for Persons, Beneficence and Justice Point 1.9, from the National Statement on Ethical
Conduct in Research Involving Humans, Part 1: Principles of Ethical Conduct.
10
committee, some alterations were required as a result of concerns that were raised by some Juvenile
Justice Officers (JJOs).
In the first instance, we needed to clarify our eligibility criteria. All the juvenile participants in
the study were required to have had at least one prior conviction for burglary. The burglary offence
did not have to be their current conviction. However, and most importantly, juveniles who had been
diverted (i.e., referred to Juvenile Justice Teams) as a result of committing a burglary were not to be
included, despite any admission of guilt.
Secondly, owing to obligations under the Young Offender’s Act, a new method of approaching
juveniles to participate in the study was devised. The approach went as follows:
(a) If the juvenile was 17 or over, and was considered to be independent, then they were the
only ones who needed to consent in order for them to participate.
(b) If the juvenile was not covered by (a), then verbal consent from the parent/guardian was
obligatory and must be obtained by the JJO.
(c) If parental consent was needed, as per (b), and obtained, JJOs were required to make a note
in the juvenile’s case file to this effect. If the juvenile also consented, then they could participate in
the research. If the parent did not give their consent, the juvenile could not participate in the research.
Indigenous Participation and Cultural Sensitivity
Unlike previous research into burglary and stolen goods markets in Australia (Nelson et al.,
2002; Stevenson & Forsythe, 1998), this study was keen to seek out and include the experiences of
Indigenous offenders. One of the major benefits seen to arise from Indigenous participation in the
research was the potential to develop culturally appropriate crime reduction strategies.
Given the lack of Indigenous voices in previous similar research conducted in NSW and the
ACT, priority was given to the development of a research environment that maximised the likelihood
of Indigenous participation (not only as participants in the survey but also as participants in the
research process.) To this end, the team engaged in the following:
• Sought after and consulted with a number of Indigenous representatives at inception to review the
appropriateness of the study and its objectives in terms of meeting the needs of Indigenous
people.
• Considered the use of a 'different' methodology and/or instrument that would be culturally
sensitive and would suitably engage Aboriginal offenders. After the development and finalisation
11
of our questionnaire and upon advice from our Indigenous advisors, separate/different
approaches/instruments were not necessary.
• Employed Aboriginal interviewers to interview Aboriginal offenders.
In the end, our efforts to engage with Indigenous offenders were well-rewarded. As the Results
section of this report shows, more than half of all respondents were Indigenous.
Other Issues and Problems
It is inevitable in all research projects that unforeseeable difficulties will present themselves
during the course of the project. In our case, the most significant problem that arose related to the
recruitment of community-based offenders.
A considerable amount of time and effort was expended by the research team in liaising with
the management and staff of community corrections centres. This included initial meetings,
preparation of briefing notes and instructions, conducting briefing sessions with centre staff (which
included devising centre-specific strategies for recruiting offenders), introduction of interviewers,
making logistical arrangements (arranging suitable days, times, rooms to conduct interviews), and so
on. However, despite this effort and despite the very positive support the study received from the
management and staff at each of the centres, the participation rate from community-based offenders
was extremely low.
Community-corrections staff provided a number of reasons for this apparent lack of

engagement. These included:
• Unreliability of clientele. It was the case that although some offenders agreed to participate in the
study, many did not return to be interviewed at the scheduled time. Community corrections staff
advised that this was a common problem in the community corrections area. The ACT study
(Nelson et al., 2002) reported similar difficulties with an unreliable client base.
• Added burden. Some staff felt that it was ‘hard enough to get offenders to engage with the basics’
(that is, the basic regime and responsibilities of community-based orders), let alone the additional
burden of participating in a research study.
• Incrimination/Suspicion. Some officers commented that participation in the study might be seen
as ‘lagging’ on their peers or potentially incriminating themselves, despite reassurances of
confidentiality. Some thought that offenders were not likely to overcome suspicions about the
project despite staff attempts to neutralise this suspicion.
• Lack of payment/incentives. Other than offering soft drinks and chips during the course of the
interview, the study was not permitted to offer offenders any payment for their time in
participating in the study (a condition stipulated by the Department of Justice Research and
12
Evaluation committee). Some community corrections officers thought that, without payment, the
study offered little incentive for community-based offenders to participate. Indeed, the first
question often asked by community-corrections officers at briefing sessions was “What’s in it for
them?” When it was explained that the study could not provide payment to participants, the
officers thought that this made recruitment much more difficult.
After several months of trying to recruit community-based offenders, only three questionnaires
had been completed. 5 In consultation with the Study Reference Group it was decided that this aspect
of the study would be abandoned and that additional participants should be drawn from prisons and
juvenile detention centres.
The Interview Schedule
The interview design for this study was largely informed by the questionnaires used by
Stevenson and Forsythe (1998) and Nelson et al. (2002). In addition to the general summary line of
questioning adopted in these previous studies (e.g., deciding what to steal; frequency of burglary; drug
use; disposal methods; types of avenues; price and speed of disposal), participants were also asked
specific questions about the most recent offence they committed and about the first burglary they
remember committing. This technique followed the precedent of Wright and Decker (1994), who also
asked their sample of active burglars about their most recent residential burglary. Although Wright
and Decker used a semi-structured interview and this study incorporated a more rigid questionnaire
style, both projects targeted information about various aspects of the most recent offence, including
target selection, motivation, and disposal of the stolen property.
Offenders were also asked a set of questions specific to the first burglary they could remember
committing. The motivation for this line of questioning was provided by Sutton’s (Sutton, 1998;
Sutton et al., 1998) suggestion that burglars develop a context specific set of skills as they move
through their offending career. The assumption that underlies this stance is that there are typical
characteristics of ‘first’ offences with respect to modus operandi, and that these characteristics change
as offenders gain experience. This argument is consistent with the points made by Wright and
colleagues (e.g., Wright & Decker, 1994; Wright & Logie, 1988; Wright, Logie, & Decker, 1995),
who propose that burglars generate expertise for their trade in the same way that people generate
expertise in any other domain. As such, this questionnaire was designed to formally test these theories
within offenders, to examine changes in their offending styles across time. The full offender
questionnaire is included in Appendix 2.
5
This included an attempt to raise the profile of the study by erecting posters about the study throughout the
foyer and waiting rooms at each of the selected community corrections centres. However, this did little to
increase participation rates.
13
Police Officer Interviews
A smaller, second survey targeting about 150-200 serving police officers was undertaken to
gauge police perceptions on the same range of topics, i.e., burglary motivations and modus operandi,
product selection by offenders, disposal routes, markets for specific types of stolen goods, relationship
between drug use and stolen goods, effectiveness of crime reduction initiatives, etc. As for the first
survey, an interview schedule was designed and piloted before final implementation. The
questionnaire took approximately 15 minutes to complete.
The Police survey was made available as an online option run via the Police intranet. This
removed the ‘leg work’ from the police side of the data collection and allowed the study to collect all
data concurrently. News of the survey and an invitation to participate was broadcast to all police
officers in WA through the WA Police intranet system in early December 2005. Almost 100
responses from a range of officers were received quickly.
The motivation for questioning currently serving police officers about their perceptions of
burglary trends and the stolen goods market in Western Australia is provided by Schneider’s (2005a;
2005b) comments about the possibly detrimental implications of segregating analysis of crime from a
policing perspective. By approaching burglary as a separate offence (with separate offenders, and
distinct motivations), Schneider suggests it is possible that the holistic relationship between offences
will be missed. Thus, if police opinions can be quantified with regards to burglary, it may be possible
to expose potentially detrimental ‘closed’ approaches to interpreting the causes of crime.
This fits well with Hirschi and Gottfredson (1994) theory or notion of the "generality of
deviance" and is a good reason for policing at the lower ends. At another level it also fits with
Maurice Cusson's (e.g., Cusson, 2000) belief that the great reductions in the level of crime in the
twentieth century have occurred through the development of greater abilities to identify and track
criminal individuals. The full police questionnaire is included in Appendix 3.
Study Reference Group
A Study Reference Group was formed in the early stages of the research. The role of the group
was to provide advice and assist with the planning and design of the study, to facilitate access to
offenders and to ensure that the project met its objectives within budget and time constraints. The
group consisted of representatives from the Office of Crime Prevention, the Department of Justice, the
WA Police and the Crime Research Centre. A number of meetings were held during the course of the
project and any changes to methodology and/or timelines were discussed and approved by the group.
14
RESULTS
The results section of this report is divided into three parts. In the first part, we describe the
findings from the offender survey. In the second part, we describe the findings from the police survey,
which explored police perceptions of the burglary process and the disposal of stolen goods, and in the
third and final part, we compare the results of both surveys and make some comment on the
differences observed.
In describing the results from the offender survey, which was the major component of the
study, we further subdivide our findings into four sub-sections:
• Demographic characteristics – describing their age, Indigenous status, offending frequency and
the frequency and/or severity of their drug use;
• Analysis of the most recent burglary committed by the respondents and description of their
‘modus operandi’ in terms of transport, use of accomplices and their inclination (or otherwise) to
enter occupied premises;
• Analysis of the use of the stolen goods market following the most recent burglary committed by
the respondents, describing the goods that were stolen and the avenues through which offenders’
disposed of them; and
• Analysis of the responses to general questions about burglary and patterns of disposal of stolen
goods.
Throughout, we categorise, compare and comment on the data according to the demographic
characteristics of offenders.
Offender Analysis
Offender Profiles
The study collected data from 241 respondents. These respondents were classified on the basis
of age, Indigenous status, offending frequency and level of drug use. 6
Offender Age Groups (Adult Offenders vs. Young Offenders)
Age groups were based on reported age at the most recent offence. Note that although our
methodology restricted respondents to those aged 16 years or over, it was possible that respondents
were aged under 16 years at the time of their most recent offence. Two offenders did not provide an
age at most recent offence, and were excluded from summary tables.
6
This approach was consistent with that taken in NSW by Stevenson and Forsythe (1998).
15
Indigenous Status
Indigenous status was determined by the self-report demographic question. Two offenders did
not provide a response to this question were excluded from the subsequent analyses.
Offending Frequency
For each offender, we estimated ‘lambda’, the average number of offences committed by an
offender per annum (technique developed by Blumstein & Cohen, 1979, cited in Wright & Decker,
1994; Wright et al., 1992). This figure was calculated by subtracting the age of first burglary from the
age of the most recent burglary and then subtracting time spent in custody. This value then provided
the denominator for the lambda measure, which constitutes the number of years ‘at risk’ of offending.
The estimated total number of burglaries committed provided the numerator in this calculation and the
lambda values were calculated accordingly.
The values for these calculations were drawn from responses to four questions in the survey.
However, for thirty offenders (12.5% of total), this measure of offending frequency could not be
estimated because they failed to respond to one or more of the questions. In order to overcome the
problem of missing data, an alternative measure of offending frequency was derived. This was based
on a question that asked participants to estimate how many burglaries they thought they had
committed in their lifetime.
Although significant lifetime involvement in offending does not necessarily imply that
offenders are high frequency offenders, a substantial body of evidence exists which has established
just such a relationship (e.g., Farrington, 1994; Moffitt, 1993; Wright & Decker, 1994, amongst
others). Longitudinal studies of the criminal careers of offenders have shown that high frequency
offending is often associated with a long and more serious criminal career (e.g., Farrington, 1994;
Moffitt, 1993). Wright and Decker (1994) found similar association between experience in, and
frequency of, burglary.
Accordingly, the mean number of break-ins was calculated from responses to this lifetime
question and offenders were then classified as either high- or low-frequency offenders based on their
responses in relation to the mean. High frequency offenders reported having committed over 30
burglaries in their lifetime, while low frequency offenders committed fewer than 30 burglaries in their
lifetime. Only five offenders were excluded because they failed to respond to this question. 7
7
To validate this alternate measure of offending frequency, we compared it against the earlier estimate of
lambda (for cases where lambda was able to be estimated). Offenders with a lambda value above the median
were classified as high frequency, while those below the median lambda value were classified as low frequency
offenders. Owing to the skewed nature of the distribution of lambda, the median value rather than the mean
16
Drug Use Frequency/Severity
The offenders responded to a series of questions asking them to rate the frequency of their use
of various drugs. Participants responded using a scale of frequency that included the options
‘Always’, ‘Mostly’, ‘Sometimes’, ‘Rarely’, and ‘Never’. Offenders were classified as ‘Frequent
and/or Serious Illicit Drug Users’ (labelled ‘High use’ throughout) if: (a) they ‘Sometimes’ or more
often used heroin, or (b) ‘Sometimes’ of more often used speed, or (c) ‘Mostly’ or more often used
ecstasy, or (d) ‘Always’ used cannabis. If none of these conditions were satisfied, the offender was
considered to not be a frequent and/or serious illicit drug user, and was subsequently labelled ‘Low
use’. No offenders were excluded from the analyses due to responses to this question.
Table 1 summarises the demographic characteristics of the respondents to the survey. As can be
seen, there was generally a reasonable representation in the sample of young offenders (40%) and
active (high frequency) offenders (55%). Furthermore, the study included responses from a large
proportion of Indigenous offenders (52%). This is a distinguishing feature of this study and serves to
highlight two important issues: First, that the study methodology (i.e., that of recruiting from the
population of incarcerated offenders) will produce a biased sample of offenders. In this case it reflects
the very high level of over-representation of Indigenous offenders in custodial institutions in Western
Australia. Second, it may be argued that the engagement of these offenders in the study shows that
efforts by the researchers to be ‘culturally sensitive’ were somewhat successful.
value was used as the cut-off mark. The correlation between the measures was 0.77, indicating a strong
association between them.
17
Table 1. Offender Demographic Profile (N = 239).
Demographic characteristic Sub-category N %N

Age (at most recent burglary) Adult offender (21 years and over) 143 59.8%
Young offender (under 21 years) 96 40.2%
Not stated 2 0.8%
Indigenous status Indigenous 125 51.9%

Non-Indigenous 114 47.3%
Not stated 2 0.8%
Offending frequency High frequency 132 54.8%

Low frequency 104 43.2%
Not stated 5 2.1%
Drug-use frequency/severity Frequent &/or severe illicit drug use 140 58.1%
No frequent &/or severe illicit drug 101 41.9%
Region Metropolitan 193 80.1%

Non-metropolitan 29 12.0%
Not stated 19 7.9%
Table 1 also shows that many in the sample were frequent/serious (high use) drug users (58%).
However, few offenders from the non-metropolitan area participated in the study (12%). This reflects
the study methodology which recruited participants from prisons and juvenile detention centres which
were located in the Perth metropolitan area only.
Interactions between age, Indigenous status, frequency of offending and level of drug use are
displayed in Tables 2 and 3. As these tables show, high-frequency offending tends to be aligned with
offender age, with younger offenders being more active. Highest drug use is associated with non-
Indigenous status, high-frequency offending and being adult.
18
Table 2. Adult Offenders (21+ at Most Recent Offence) Demographics by Indigenous Status,
Offending Frequency, and Drug-Use Frequency/Severity.
Indigenous status Offending frequency Drug-use frequency/severity N %N

Indigenous High frequency Frequent &/or severe illicit drug use 18 12.8%
High frequency total 33 23.4%
Low frequency Frequent &/or severe illicit drug use 13 9.2%
Low frequency total 30 21.3%
Indigenous total 63 44.7%
Non-Indigenous High frequency Frequent &/or severe illicit drug use 33 23.4%
Non-Indigenous total 78 55.3%
Grand total 141 100.0%
19
Table 3. Young Offenders (Under 21 at Most Recent Offence) Demographics by Indigenous Status,
Offending Frequency, and Drug-Use Frequency/Severity.
Indigenous status Offending frequency Drug-use frequency/severity N %N

Indigenous High frequency Frequent &/or severe illicit drug use 18 19.1%
Indigenous total 59 62.8%
Non-Indigenous High frequency Frequent &/or severe illicit drug use 17 18.1%
Non-Indigenous total 35 37.2%
Grand total 94 100.0%
20
Modus Operandi
Survey respondents were asked to think about the most recent burglary they had committed and
were questioned in relation to the mode of transport used, whether this was stolen or not, distance(s)
travelled, whether the offence was committed in company, whether they had entered occupied
premises, and so on.
Mode of Transport to the Most Recent Offence
As Table 4 shows, walking (44%) or using a car (46%) were the most common means by which
offenders travelled to their most recent burglary. Interestingly, of those offenders who used a car, one-
third admitted to it being a stolen vehicle. This suggests that in two-thirds of burglaries in which a car
is used, offenders either use their own vehicle or one that belongs to someone who has consented to
its use.
Table 4. Frequency of Use of the Various Mode of Transport (With % Stolen Where Applicable) to
Access the Most Recent Location the Offender Committed a Burglary.
Mode of transport N %N % Stolen

Walked 103 43.8% –
Bike/motor bike 8 3.4% 37.5%
Car 108 46.0% 31.5%
Van/truck 2 0.9% 50.0%
Taxi 3 1.3% –
Bus 3 1.3% –
Train 3 1.3% –
Other - specify 3 1.3% –
Not stated 2 0.9% –
Total 235 100.0%
Figure 1 shows that there were substantial variations in the mode of transport based on the
demographic characteristics of offenders. Cars were the predominant means of transport for adult
offenders, for non-Indigenous offenders, and for those with high drug use. In contrast, walking was
the most common mode of transport for young offenders, Indigenous offenders and those with low
drug use. There did not appear to be any substantial difference between high and low frequency
offenders in their ‘choice’ of transport. A similar proportion of both groups walked to their most
recent burglary. However, slightly more high frequency offenders used a vehicle.
21
(a) 60% (b) 60%
Adult offender (21 Indigenous
yrs +)
50% 50% Non-Indigenous
Young offender
40% 40%
% Journeys
% Journeys
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Taxi
Taxi
Walked
Car
Walked
Car
Train
Train
Not stated
Not stated
Mode of Transport Mode of Transport
(c) 60% (d) 60%

High frequency High use
50% Low frequency 50% Low use
40% 40%
% Journeys
% Journeys
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Taxi
Taxi
Walked
Car
Walked
Car
Train
Train
Not stated
Not stated
Mode of Transport Mode of Transport
Figure 1. Modes of Transport (%) to Most Recent Burglary Used by All Offenders (as a % Within-
(d) Severity/Frequency of Drug Use.
22
Use of Accomplices
Table 5. Frequency of Use of Accomplices for All Offenders During the Most Recently Committed
Burglary.
Use of accomplices N %N
None, offender was alone 125 53.2%
1 other person 61 26.0%
2 other people 28 11.9%
More than 2 other people 20 8.5%
Not stated 1 0.4%
Total 235 100.0%
Table 5 shows that approximately half of all respondents operated with accomplices during
their most recent burglary. The breakdowns of use of accomplices across the various demographic
variables are displayed in Figure 2. Within each category, there was some variation. For example, it
appears that adult offenders were more likely than young offenders to work alone. Indigenous
offenders were more likely than non-Indigenous offenders to work alone or in groups of three or
more. In addition, high frequency offenders were more likely to work with one accomplice, while low
frequency offenders were more likely to offend alone.
23
(a) 60% (b) 60%
yrs +) Non-Indigenous
50% Young offender 50%
40% 40%
% Burglaries
% Burglaries
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
More than 2
More than 2
None
One
None
One
Two
Two
Not stated
Not stated
Number of Accomplices Number of Accomplices
(c) 60% (d) 60%

High frequency High use
Low frequency Low use
50% 50%
40% 40%
% Burglaries
% Burglaries
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
More than 2
More than 2
None
One
None
One
Two
Two
Not stated
Not stated
Number of Accomplices Number of Accomplices
Figure 2. Use of Accomplices (%) to Most Recent Burglary Used by All Offenders (as a % Within-
24
Was the Property Empty During the Most Recent Burglary?
Was Home) for All Offenders During the Most Recently Committed Burglary.
Someone was home? N %N % Knew someone was home

Yes 50 21.3% 48.0%
No 99 42.1% –
Total 235 100.0%
As Table 6 shows, one in five respondents admitted to entering occupied premises during their
most recently burglary. Of these, almost half admitted to knowing the premises were occupied at the
time. Thus, approximately 10% of respondents knowingly entered occupied premises. Note,
however, that a significant proportion of respondents (nearly 37%) did not answer this question.
Caution should therefore be exercised in interpreting the results appearing in Table 6 and those
appearing in Figure 3.
25
(a) 50% (b) 50%
yrs +)
Non-Indigenous
Young offender
40% 40%
% Burglaries
% Burglaries
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Yes/Knew
Yes/Knew
Yes/Didn't
Yes/Didn't
Yes/Not stated
Not stated
Yes/Not stated
Not stated
No
No
know
know
Someone Home/Knew Someone Home/Knew
(c) 50% (d) 50%

High freq. High use
Low freq. Low use
40% 40%
% Burglaries
% Burglaries
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Yes/Knew
Yes/Knew
Yes/Didn't
Yes/Didn't
Yes/Not stated
Not stated
Yes/Not stated
No
Not stated
No
know
know
During the Most Recent Residential Burglaries (as a % Within-Demographic Category) Across
(a) Age, (b) Indigenous Status, (c) Offending Frequency, and (d) Severity/Frequency of Drug
Use.
26
Disposal Avenues for Stolen Goods
While still thinking about their most recent burglary, respondents were asked about the kinds of
things that they stole and what they did with these goods. While approximately one-fifth of all item-
types reported being stolen were retained by the respondent for personal use (21.7%), the majority
were on-sold or traded (73.1%, with the remaining 5.2% of goods-types stolen reportedly dumped).
Table 7 demonstrates that the most frequent disposal avenues used by burglars following their most
recent burglary were drug dealers (54%), family/friends (18%), fences 8 (13%), and legitimate
businesses (8%). In the case of legitimate businesses, this included pawnshops and businesses dealing
in second-hand goods.
Table 7. Frequency of Use, Mean Number of Goods Disposed Of, and Mean Time (Hours) Taken to
Access the Various Avenues of Disposal for Stolen Goods.
Disposal avenue N %N Mean goods Mean time (hrs)

Family/friends 36 17.5% 2.5 13.8
Legitimate businesses 17 8.3% 2.6 35.5
Drug dealers 112 54.4% 2.5 5.5
Fences 27 13.1% 2.5 8.2
Strangers 12 5.8% 2.7* 19.4*
Other sources 2 1.0% – –
Total 206 100.0%
* Given small cell counts this value has been calculated based on the combined findings for selling to strangers
and selling to ‘Other’ sources.
The average time taken to dispose of goods was found to vary depending on the type of avenue
used. As Table 7 shows, selling or trading goods with drug dealers was not only the most common
transaction, but also the fastest – occurring, on average, 5.5 hours after the good was stolen. Disposing
of goods to fences occurred soon after - within 8.2 hours after the burglary (avg.), while transactions
with legitimate businesses (including pawnshops) took the longest – at 35.5 hours (avg.) after the
burglary.
8
In the questionnaire, a ‘fence’ was described “as someone who regularly buys stolen property from their house,
and who knows that they are buying stolen things and are doing so for the purposes of re-selling them.”
27
Tables 8 and 9 provide breakdowns of disposal avenues (and times) by the demographic
characteristics of respondents (age, Indigenous status, offending frequency and extent of drug use)
and Figure 4 presents summarised information from these tables.
As Figure 4 illustrates, trading stolen goods with drug dealers was the most common disposal
avenue used by burglars of all persuasions, i.e., irrespective of personal level of drug use, age,
Indigenous status or frequency of offending. Within and across each demographic category,
transactions with drug dealers accounted for more than half of all disposal avenues used by burglars.
It is noteworthy that legitimate businesses (which include pawn shops) did not appear to be a
popular or preferred outlet for most respondents. However, as Figure 4(a) shows, young offenders
were less likely to do business with businesses or fences than older offenders. Similarly, Indigenous
offenders were less likely to deal with legitimate businesses than non-Indigenous offenders
(Figure 4 b)).
In general, however, there do not appear to be substantial differences within and across
demographic categories in the types of disposal avenues used by burglars.
28
Table 8. Adult Offender (21+ at Most Recent Offence) Use of Avenues for Disposal of Stolen Goods by Indigenous Status, Offending Frequency, and
Drug-Use Frequency/Severity.
Family Business Drug dealers Fences Strangers Other

Indigenous status Offending freq Drug-use freq./sev. N %N N %N N %N N %N N %N N %N
Indigenous High Frequent/severe 2 9.5% 2 13.3% 11 16.7% 1 5.6% 2 28.6% 1 100.0%
Not frequent/severe 3 14.3% 1 6.7% 5 7.6% 1 5.6% 1 14.3% 0 0.0%
High total 5 23.8% 3 20.0% 16 24.2% 2 11.1% 3 42.9% 1 100.0%
Low Frequent/severe 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7 10.6% 3 16.7% 1 14.3% 0 0.0%
Low total 1 4.8% 1 6.7% 12 18.2% 4 22.2% 2 28.6% 0 0.0%
Indigenous Total 6 28.6% 4 26.7% 28 42.4% 6 33.3% 5 71.4% 0 0.0%
Non-Indigenous High Frequent/severe 6 28.6% 3 20.0% 17 25.8% 3 16.7% 1 14.3% 0 0.0%
High total 8 38.1% 5 33.3% 22 33.3% 5 27.8% 2 28.6% 0 0.0%
Low total 7 33.3% 6 40.0% 16 24.2% 7 38.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Non-Indigenous Total 15 71.4% 11 73.3% 38 57.6% 12 66.7% 2 28.6% 0 0.0%
Column total 21 100.0% 15 100.0% 66 100.0% 18 100.0% 7 100.0% 1 100.0%
Overall outlet use (%) 16.4% 11.7% 51.6% 14.1% 5.5% 0.8%
29
Table 9. Young Offender (Under 21 at Most Recent Offence) Use of Avenues for Disposal of Stolen Goods by Indigenous Status, Offending Frequency,
and Drug-Use Frequency/Severity.

High total 6 40.0% 0 0.0% 24 52.2% 4 44.4% 2 40.0% 1 100.0%
Low total 5 33.3% 1 50.0% 8 17.4% 1 11.1% 1 20.0% 0 0.0%
High total 2 13.3% 1 50.0% 8 17.4% 1 11.1% 1 20.0% 0 0.0%
Low total 2 13.3% 0 0.0% 6 13.0% 3 33.3% 1 20.0% 0 0.0%
Column total 15 100.0% 2 100.0% 46 100.0% 9 100.0% 5 100.0% 1 100.0%
Overall outlet use (%) 19.2% 2.6% 59.0% 11.5% 6.4% 1.3%
30
(a) 60.0% (b) 60.0%
50.0% 50.0%
% Time Used Avenue

% Time Used Avenue
40.0% 40.0%
30.0% 30.0%
20.0% 20.0%
10.0% 10.0%
0.0% 0.0%
Family/mates
Family/mates
Strangers
Drug dealers
Strangers
Drug dealers
Fences
Businesses
Other
Fences
Businesses
Other
Adult Indigenous
Young
Non-
Disposal Avenue Indigenous Disposal Avenue
(c) 60.0% (d) 60.0%
50.0% 50.0%
% Time Used Avenue
% Time Used Avenue
40.0% 40.0%
30.0% 30.0%
20.0% 20.0%
10.0% 10.0%
0.0% 0.0%
Family/mates
Family/mates
Drug dealers
Strangers
Drug dealers
Strangers
Businesses
Fences
Businesses
Fences
Other
Other
High
freq. High use
Low
freq Disposal Avenue Low use Disposal Avenue
Figure 4. Disposal Avenues Used by All Offenders (as a % Within-Demographic Category) Across
Use.
31
Table 10. Adult Offender (21+ at Most Recent Offence) Use of Avenues for Disposal of Stolen Goods by Indigenous Status, Offending Frequency, and
Drug-Use Frequency/Severity (Percentages Refer to the Total Number of Offenders Within Each Cell).

High total 5 15.2% 3 9.1% 16 48.5% 2 6.1% 3 9.1% 1 3.0%
Low total 1 3.3% 1 3.3% 12 40.0% 4 13.3% 2 6.7% 0 0.0%
High total 8 20.0% 5 12.5% 22 55.0% 5 12.5% 2 5.0% 0 0.0%
Low total 7 18.4% 6 15.8% 16 42.1% 7 18.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Column total 21 14.9% 15 10.6% 66 46.8% 18 12.8% 7 5.0% 1 1.0%
32
Table 11. Young Offender (Under 21 at Most Recent Offence) Use of Avenues for Disposal of Stolen Goods by Indigenous Status, Offending Frequency,
and Drug-Use Frequency/Severity (Percentages Refer to the Total Number of Offenders Within Each Cell).

High total 6 15.8% 0 0.0% 24 63.1% 4 10.5% 2 5.3% 1 2.6%
Low total 5 23.8% 1 4.8% 8 38.1% 1 4.8% 1 4.8% 0 0.0%
High total 2 9.5% 1 4.8% 8 38.1% 1 4.8% 1 4.8% 0 0.0%
Low total 2 14.3% 0 0.0% 6 42.9% 3 21.4% 1 7.1% 0 0.0%
Column total 15 16.0% 2 2.1% 46 48.9% 9 9.6% 5 5.3% 1 1.1%
33
(a) 60% (b) 60%
Adult Indigenous
Young Non-Indigneous
50% 50%
% Surveyed Offenders
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Family/friends
Family/friends
Drug dealers
Strangers
Drug dealers
Strangers
Fences
Fences
Businesses
Businesses
Other
Other
Disposal Avenue Disposal Avenue
(c) 60% (d) 60%

High freq. High use
Low freq. Low use
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Family/friends
Family/friends
Drug dealers
Strangers
Drug dealers
Strangers
Fences
Fences
Businesses
Businesses
Other
Other
Disposal Avenue Disposal Avenue
Figure 5. The Percentage of All Offenders Surveyed Who Sold/Traded Stolen Goods with the
Various Disposal Avenues by Offender (a) Age, (b) Indigenous Status, (c) Offending
Frequency, and (d) Severity/Frequency of Drug Use.
Figure 5 presents the summarised information from Tables 10 and 11 and is different from
Figure 4 because it displays the percentage of offenders within each cell (interacting Age ×
Indigenous Status × Offending Frequency × Drug Use) who used each disposal avenue. As such, the
column percentages in Tables 10 and 11 do not sum to 100 per cent.
34
Types of Goods Sold/Traded
Respondents were asked to specify which types of goods they stole and then traded following
their most recent burglary. As can be seen from Figure 6(a), jewellery was the most popular item
stolen and traded by burglars – accounting for over 17% of all items to be stolen and traded. Indeed,
jewellery was nearly twice as likely as any other item to be stolen and traded following a burglary.
Other ‘CRAVED’ 9 items included TV’s (10%), cameras (9%), laptop computers (8%) and CD/DVD
players (8%). As Figure 6(b) shows, there is nearly a 50:50 split between receiving money and drugs
in exchange for stolen goods.
In the sections which now follow, we explore each of the disposal avenues in more detail.
Beginning with selling/trading with family and friends, we comprehensively and systematically
describe the demographic characteristics of offenders who use this avenue; the time taken for
transactions through this disposal route; the type of goods traded through this route; and then overlay
offender categories with the type of goods (and time taken) traded through this route.
9
CRAVED is an acronym referring to six elements that make items attractive to thieves: concealable,
removable, available, valuable, enjoyable and disposable (Clarke, 1999).
35
(a)
% of Items Sold/Traded 20%
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
Consumables
Computers
Jewellery
Drugs
Cameras
VCR/DVDplayers
Mobiles/PALMs
i-pods
Cash
Elect Appl
Credit cards
Stereos
Other
TVs
Tools
CDs/Tapes/DVDs
Goods Type
(b) 60%
50%
% Transactions
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Money
Drugs
Alcohol
Vehicle parts
Clothes
Other
Transaction Type
Figure 6. (a) Relative Percentages of Goods Types Sold/Traded to, and (b) Relative Percentages of
Transactions Involved with, Sale/Trade with All Avenues for Stolen Goods (N = 522
Transactions).
36
Selling/Trading Goods with Family/Friends
As can be seen from Tables 12 and 13, there is some evidence that serious drug users are
generally slower to dispose of goods to family/friends than infrequent/low level drug users. This
suggests this disposal avenue may not be their ‘preferred’ option. Young offenders also appear to take
longer to trade with family/friends than older offenders. Note, however, that the number of
respondents in each category are small, thus some caution should be exercised in the interpretation of
these findings.
Figures 7, 8, 9 and 10 each describe the types of goods traded with family/friends, by category
of offender (i.e., by age, Indigenous status, etc.).
(Hours) to Sell/Trade Goods with Family/Mates for Adult Offenders (21+ at Most Recent
Offence); by Indigenous Status, Offending Frequency, and Drug-Use Frequency/Severity.
Indigenous Mean Mean

status Offending frequency Drug-use freq./sev. N %N goods time
Indigenous High frequency Frequent/severe 2 9.5% 3.0 3.5
Not frequent/severe 3 14.3% 2.3 17.1
High frequency total 5 23.8% 2.6 11.6
Low frequency Frequent/severe 0 0.0% – –
Low frequency total 1 4.8% 1.0 0.5
Indigenous total 6 28.6% 2.3 9.8
Non- High frequency Frequent/severe 6 28.6% 2.3 10.7
Indigenous Not frequent/severe 2 9.5% 1.5 1.0
Low frequency Frequent/severe 5 23.8% 2.4 5.6
Non-Indigenous total 15 71.4% 2.8 6.0
Grand total 21 100.0% 2.7 7.1
Figure 7 suggests that adults trade electrical goods, DVD players, and TV’s with family and
friends, while young offenders trade in jewellery, DVD players, and mobile phones. Overall, both age
37
groups most frequently trade TV’s, VCR/DVD players, jewellery, electrical appliances, and mobile
phones/PALMs with family/friends.
(Hours) to Sell/Trade Goods with Family/Mates for Young Offenders (Under 21 at Most
Recent Offence); by Indigenous Status, Offending Frequency, and Drug-Use
Frequency/Severity.

Indigenous Not frequent/severe 0 0.0% – –
Grand total 15 100.0% 2.3 22.8
Figure 8 shows that Indigenous offenders trade DVD players, jewellery, cash, and phones with
family/friends. Non-Indigenous offenders, on the other hand, are trading electrical appliances, tools,
and TV’s through this disposal avenue. Interestingly, cash is not shared with family/friends by non-
Indigenous offenders, while Indigenous offenders seem much less likely to trade electrical appliances
and tools with family or friends.
Few differences were observed in the types of goods traded with family/friends by high
frequency versus low frequency offenders (refer Figure 9) and by high level versus low level drug
users (refer Figure 10).
38
% of Items % of Items
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
20%
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
20%
Adult
Young
Cash Cash
Indigenous
Non- Indigenous
Credit cards Credit cards
CDs/Tapes/DVDs CDs/Tapes/DVDs
TVs TVs
Stereos Stereos
VCR/DVDplayers VCR/DVDplayers
Jewellery Jewellery
Drugs Drugs
Elect Appl Elect Appl
Goods Type
Goods Type
Tools Tools
Cameras Cameras
Computers Computers
Mobiles/PALMs Mobiles/PALMs
i-pods
Figure 7. Goods Types (%) Sold/Traded to Family/Mates, by Age Group of Offender.
i-pods
Consumables Consumables
Figure 8. Goods Types (%) Sold/Traded to Family/Mates, by Indigenous Status of Offender.

Other
Other
39
Low
High
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
20%
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
20%
Low use
High use
frequency
frequency
Cash Cash
the Offender.
TVs TVs
Stereos Stereos
Jewellery Jewellery
Drugs Drugs
Goods Type
Goods Type
Tools Tools
Cameras Cameras
Computers Computers
i-pods i-pods
Figure 9. Goods Types (%) Sold/Traded to Family/Mates, by Offending Frequency of Offender.
Other Other
Figure 10. Goods Types (%) Sold/Traded to Family/Mates, by Severity/Frequency of Drug Use by
40
(a) 70% (b) 70%
Adult Indigenous
60% Young 60% Non-

Indigenous
50% 50%
% Transactions
% Transactions
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Alcohol
Drugs
Money
Clothes
Vehicle parts
Alcohol
Other
Drugs
Money
Clothes
Vehicle parts
Other
Transaction Type Transaction Type
(c) 70% (d) 70%

High freq. High use
Low freq. Low use
60% 60%
50% 50%
% Transactions
% Transactions
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Alcohol
Drugs
Money
Vehicle parts
Alcohol
Clothes
Other
Drugs
Money
Clothes
Vehicle parts
Other
Figure 11. The Type of Transactions Involved with Sale/Trade with Family/Mates, by Offender
Use.
Figure 11 shows that money was most frequently used by family/friends in exchange for stolen
goods. However, it is significant that drugs also featured prominently as payment for stolen goods.
Across all offender categories, money was used as payment in more than half of all transactions,
while drugs accounted for between 30% and 40% of payments by family/friends for stolen goods.
41
Selling/Trading Goods with Legitimate Businesses
Tables 14 and 15 present data on the trading of goods with legitimate businesses (which include
pawnshops). Please note that, as the number of respondents falling in each cell of the tables was
small, there was considerable variability in the mean number of goods traded and mean disposal times
shown. Therefore, findings in this section should be interpreted with some caution.
(Hours) to Sell/Trade Goods with Legitimate Businesses by Adult Offenders (21+ at
Most Recent Offence); by Indigenous Status, Offending Frequency, and Drug-Use
Frequency/Severity.

Grand total 15 100.0% 2.3 37.2
42
(Hours) to Sell/Trade Goods with Legitimate Businesses by Young Offenders (Under 21
at Most Recent Offence); by Indigenous Status, Offending Frequency, and Drug-Use
Frequency/Severity.

Indigenous High frequency Frequent/severe 0 0.0% – –
Not frequent/severe 0 0.0% – –
High frequency total 0 0.0% – –
Low frequency total 0 0.0% – –
Grand total 2 100.0% 4.5 24.0
Figure 12 through Figure 15 describe the types of goods traded with legitimate businesses, by
the various categories of offender (i.e., by age, Indigenous status, etc.). As Tables 14 and 15 and
Figure 12 demonstrate, it is mostly adults who are using legitimate businesses as disposal avenues
(with only 2 young offenders having reported using this avenue). Electrical goods and electronic items
are those getting traded most frequently. However, when young offenders did trade with these outlets,
the most frequently traded items were jewellery, laptops and cameras.
There do not appear to be any significant differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous
trading patterns with legitimate businesses (as displayed in Figure 13). There is some suggestion in
the data that non-Indigenous offenders bring a wider range of products to the trading desk, including,
for example, tools, electrical appliances, and computers. (Remembering there are only 5 Indigenous
participants here.)
43
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Adult
Young
Indigenous
Cash Cash
Offender.
Non- Indigenous
TVs TVs
Stereos Stereos
Jewellery Jewellery
Drugs Drugs

Goods Type
Goods Type
Tools Tools
Cameras Cameras
Computers Computers
i-pods i-pods
Figure 13. Goods Types (%) Sold/Traded to Legitimate Businesses, by Indigenous Status of the
Other Other
Figure 12. Goods Types (%) Sold/Traded to Legitimate Businesses, by Age Group of the Offender.
44
25%
20%
% of Items
15%
10%
5%
0%
Consumables
Computers
Jewellery
Cameras
VCR/DVDplayers
Drugs
Mobiles/PALMs
i-pods
Elect Appl
Credit cards
Other
Cash
Stereos
CDs/Tapes/DVDs
TVs
Tools
High
frequency
Low
frequency
Goods Type
Figure 14. Goods Types (%) Sold/Traded to Legitimate Businesses, by Offending Frequency of the
Offender.
25%
20%
% of Items
15%
10%
5%
0%
Consumables
Computers
Jewellery
VCR/DVDplayers
Drugs
Cameras
Mobiles/PALMs
i-pods
Elect Appl
Cash
Credit cards
Other
Stereos
TVs
Tools
CDs/Tapes/DVDs
High use
Low use Goods Type
Figure 15. Goods Types (%) Sold/Traded to Legitimate Businesses, by Severity/Frequency of Drug
Use by the Offender.
45
(a) 100% (b) 100%
Adult Indigenous
Young Non-
80% 80% Indigenous
% Transactions
% Transactions
60% 60%
40% 40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
Drugs
Alcohol
Money
Money
Drugs
Alcohol
Clothes
Vehicle parts
Clothes
Vehicle parts
Other
Other
(c) 100% (d) 100%

High freq. High use
Low freq. Low use
80% 80%
% Transactions
% Transactions
60% 60%
40% 40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
Money
Drugs
Alcohol
Money
Drugs
Alcohol
Clothes
Vehicle parts
Clothes
Vehicle parts
Other
Other
Figure 16. The Type of Transactions Involved with Sale/Trade with Legitimate Businesses, by
Offender (a) Age, (b) Indigenous Status, (c) Offending Frequency, and (d) Severity/Frequency
of Drug Use.
As can be seen from Figure 16 all offenders reported receiving cash only from trades with
legitimate businesses. It is perhaps reassuring that none of the businesses are being used as ‘fronts’ for
drug dealers.
46
Selling/Trading Goods with Drug Dealers
Tables 16 and 17 describe the offender characteristics and transaction amounts/time (mean
number of items and mean time) relating to trades with drug dealers. As trading with drug dealers
was the most commonly used disposal avenue used by our respondents, the cell counts in Tables 16
and 17 are larger, making these findings much more stable. As was demonstrated earlier (Table 7),
trading with drug dealers had the fastest turn around time at around 5.5 hours for all respondents.
However, as Tables 16 and 17 show, adult offenders tended to trade with drug dealers more quickly
than young offenders (compare 5.0 hours for adults with 6.3 hours for young offenders). Other
patterns in the mean time of trading for sub-groups of offenders are not evident. This is slightly
surprising, as it was expected that those with a high level of drug use would trade goods significantly
quicker.
(Hours) to Sell/Trade Goods with Drug Dealers by Adult Offenders (21+ at Most Recent

Grand total 66 100.0% 2.5 5.0
47
(Hours) to Sell/Trade Goods with Drug Dealers by Young Offenders (Under 21 at Most
Recent Offence); by Indigenous Status, Offending Frequency, and Drug-Use
Frequency/Severity.

Grand total 46 100.0% 2.5 6.3
48
Figures 17 to 20 describe the types of goods traded with drug dealers, broken down by the
various categories of offender. As can be seen from Figure 17, jewellery was the most common item
traded to drug dealers – accounting for more than one in five items traded.
25%
20%
% of Items
15%
10%
5%
0%
Consumables
Computers
Jewellery
Cameras
VCR/DVDplayers
Drugs
Mobiles/PALMs
i-pods
Elect Appl
Cash
Other
Credit cards
Stereos
CDs/Tapes/DVDs
TVs
Tools
Adult
Young
Goods Type
Figure 17. Goods Types Sold/Traded to Drug Dealers, by Age Group of the Offender.
25%
20%
% of Items
15%
10%
5%
0%
Consumables
Computers
Jewellery
Drugs
Cameras
VCR/DVDplayers
Elect Appl
Mobiles/PALMs
i-pods
Cash
Credit cards
Other
Stereos
CDs/Tapes/DVDs
TVs
Tools
Indigenous
Goods Type
Non- Indigenous
Figure 18. Goods Types Sold/Traded to Drug Dealers, by Indigenous Status of the Offender.
49
25%
20%
% of Items
15%
10%
5%
0%
Consumables
Computers
Jewellery
Cameras
VCR/DVDplayers
Drugs
i-pods
Elect Appl
Mobiles/PALMs
Other
Credit cards
Stereos
Cash
CDs/Tapes/DVDs
TVs
Tools
High
frequency
Low
frequency
Goods Type
Figure 19. Goods Types Sold/Traded to Drug Dealers, by Offending Frequency of the Offender.
25%
20%
% of Items
15%
10%
5%
0%
Consumables
Computers
Jewellery
VCR/DVDplayers
Cameras
Drugs
i-pods
Mobiles/PALMs
Elect Appl
Other
Cash
Credit cards
Stereos
Tools
TVs
CDs/Tapes/DVDs
High use
Low use Goods Type
Figure 20. Goods Types Sold/Traded to Drug Dealers, by Severity/Frequency of Drug Use by the
Offender.
Perhaps the most consistent finding displayed in Figures 17 to 20 is the willingness by drug
dealers to trade in items other than cash, and specifically jewellery, and portable, modern items such
50
as cameras, laptops, and mobile phones. Although there was some variation within offender
categories, overall these items are traded frequently by all types of offenders.
(a) 70% (b) 70%

Adult Indigenous
60% Young 60% Non-

Indigenous
50% 50%
% Transactions
% Transactions
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Drugs
Alcohol
Money
Money
Drugs
Alcohol
Clothes
Vehicle parts
Clothes
Vehicle parts
Other
Other
(c) 70% (d) 70%

High freq. High use
60% Low freq. 60% Low use
50% 50%
% Transactions
% Transactions
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Money
Drugs
Alcohol
Money
Drugs
Alcohol
Clothes
Vehicle parts
Clothes
Vehicle parts
Other
Other
Figure 21. The Type of Transactions Involved with Sale/Trade with Drug Dealers, by Offender
Use.
51
Figure 21 shows that in the majority (about 60%) of transactions with drug dealers, drugs were
supplied in exchange for stolen goods. This transaction pattern extended across all offender-types,
including (even) low level drug users. However, what is also evident from the figure is that drug
dealers are also very often giving offenders cash (in about 40% of transactions).
(a) 60% (b) 60%

Indigenous
Adult
50% Young 50% Non-

Indigenous
% Times Drug Received

40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Cannabis
Alcohol
Ecstacy
Other
Heroin
Speed
Cannabis
Alcohol
Ecstacy
Heroin
Other
Speed
Drug Type Drug Type
(c) 60% (d) 60%

High freq. High use
Low freq. Low use
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Cannabis
Alcohol
Ecstacy
Heroin
Other
Speed
Cannabis
Alcohol
Ecstacy
Other
Heroin
Speed
Drug Type Drug Type
Figure 22. The Percentage of Times Specific Types of Drugs are Received from Selling/Trading
Goods with Drug Dealers, by Offender (a) Age, (b) Indigenous Status, (c) Offending
Frequency, and (d) Severity/Frequency of Drug Use.
52
Figure 22 displays the types of drugs received by offenders following trades with drug dealers.
Across all offender-types the drugs of choice were speed and cannabis, with smaller amounts of
heroin received. It is interesting to consider here if these drug-types are being used by distinct
offenders (i.e., people who use speed exclusively) or if instead offenders generally are using a mixture
of speed and cannabis depending on the reason for drug use at the time.
Selling/Trading Goods with Fences
In this final sub-section on disposal avenues following the most recent burglary, we examine
offender characteristics and disposal patterns in relation to trades with fences. The term ‘fence’ was
used with respondents during the administration of the questionnaire and was defined in a standard
way (see Footnote 8, page 16).
Recall that few respondents reported trading with fences (only 27 offenders or 13%),
consequently cell counts in the tables which follow are low. Therefore, some caution should be
exercised in the interpretation of findings.
(Hours) to Sell/Trade Goods with Fences by Adult Offenders (21+ at Most Recent

Grand total 18 100.0% 2.8 5.1
53
(Hours) to Sell/Trade Goods with Fences by Young Offenders (Under 21 at Most Recent

Grand total 9 100.0% 1.9 14.5
As can be seen in the data displayed in Figures 23 to 26, it appears that jewellery is the most
common type of good traded with fences by all types of offenders. Computers and mobile phones also
feature prominently.
54
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Adult
Young
Indigenous
Cash
Cash
Non- Indigenous
Credit cards
Credit cards
CDs/Tapes/DVDs
CDs/Tapes/DVDs
TVs
TVs
Stereos
Stereos
VCR/DVDplayers
VCR/DVDplayers
Jewellery Jewellery
Drugs Drugs
Goods Type
Goods Type
Tools Tools
Cameras Cameras
Computers Computers
Figure 23. Goods Types (%) Sold/Traded to Fences, by Age Group of the Offender.
i-pods i-pods
Figure 24. Goods Types (%) Sold/Traded to Fences, by Indigenous Status of the Offender.
Other Other
55
25.0%
20.0%
% of Items
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Consumables
Computers
Jewellery
Cameras
Drugs
VCR/DVDplayers
Elect Appl
i-pods
Mobiles/PALMs
Credit cards
Other
Stereos
Cash
CDs/Tapes/DVDs
TVs
Tools
High
frequency
Low
frequency
Goods Type
Figure 25. Goods Types (%) Sold/Traded to Fences, by Offending Frequency of the Offender.
25%
20%
% of Items
15%
10%
5%
0%
Consumables
Computers
Jewellery
VCR/DVDplayers
Cameras
Drugs
Mobiles/PALMs
i-pods
Elect Appl
Cash
Credit cards
Other
Stereos
Tools
TVs
CDs/Tapes/DVDs
High use
Low use Goods Type
Figure 26. Goods Types (%) Sold/Traded to Fences, by Severity/Frequency of Drug Use by the
Offender.
56
(a) 80% (b) 80%
Adult Indigenous
70% Young
70% Non-
Indigenous
60% 60%
% Transactions
% Transactions
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Drugs
Alcohol
Money
Money
Drugs
Alcohol
Clothes
Vehicle parts
Clothes
Vehicle parts
Other
Other
(c) 80% (d) 80%

High freq. High use
60% 60%
% Transactions
% Transactions
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Money
Drugs
Alcohol
Money
Drugs
Alcohol
Clothes
Vehicle parts
Clothes
Vehicle parts
Other
Other
Figure 27. The Type of Transactions Involved with Sale/Trade with Fences, by Offender (a) Age,
(b) Indigenous Status, (c) Offending Frequency, and (d) Severity/Frequency of Drug Use.
It is notable, from the findings displayed in Figure 27, that drugs appear to be an accepted
‘currency’ used by fences. In many respects, it appears that fences and drug dealers are similar in the
types of stolen goods that they accept for trade. However, the most significant difference between
them is that fences are more likely to pay with money than with drugs.
57
General Offending Characteristics
In addition to being asked about their most recent burglary and the avenues used to dispose of
stolen goods, respondents in the survey were asked additional but more general questions about the
process of burglary. These included questions about the frequency of their offending (including
breaking and entering offences, shoplifting and receiving offences), breaking into occupied homes,
and the influence of certain property characteristics on offending behaviour (e.g., the presence of
dogs, ID marking and deadlocks). Respondents were also asked some general questions about the
disposal of stolen goods including how they determine the price for goods in transactions. This
section presents the findings from those questions.
General Frequency of Offending
Table 20. The General Frequency of Burglary, Shoplifting, and Receiving (% Offenders Providing
Each Response) when Most Busy Offending for All Offenders.
Type of offence
Offending frequency Breakins Shoplifting Receiving
Daily 36.6% 13.2% 11.1%
Every few days 20.0% 6.0% 6.0%
Weekly 11.1% 4.3% 8.1%
Every few weeks 3.4% 4.7% 8.5%
Monthly 6.8% 5.1% 7.7%
Never 0.4% 43.0% 31.9%
Not stated 21.7% 23.8% 26.8%
As can be seen from Table 20, more than one-third of respondents (37%) admitted to
committing burglaries on a daily basis. Few respondents were involved in either shoplifting or
receiving - indeed almost one-third claimed that they had never received anything stolen and 43%
claimed never to have shoplifted. (These latter results were somewhat surprising as our expectation
was that offenders are typically ‘generalist’ offenders who commit a variety of different offences).
Note, however, that a sizeable proportion of respondents did not answer these questions.
Have You Ever Burgled a Property You Knew Was Not Empty?
As can be seen from Table 21, more than one-third of respondents admitted to knowingly
breaking into occupied dwellings. This contrasts with the findings displayed in Table 6, previously,
which captured the offender’s decision making process for their most recent offence. The increased
58
percentage of offenders who admitted knowingly entering an occupied property at least once in their
life highlights the cumulative effect of asking questions which are posed as , “Have you ever…” as
distinct from, “What did you do last time…”. Such lifetime-based questions will accumulate and
therefore over-estimate the true incidence (and therefore, risk) of this behaviour by offenders.
Was Home) for All Offenders During Their General Offending.
Someone was home? (Ever) N %N % Knew someone was home

Yes 162 68.9% 51.2%
No 72 30.6% –
Total 235 100.0%
As can be seen from Figure 28, young offenders were more likely than older offenders to
knowingly enter occupied premises, Indigenous offenders were more likely than non-Indigenous
offenders to knowingly enter occupied premises. High level drug users and especially high frequency
offenders were also much more likely than low drug use/low frequency offenders to do similar.
This contrasts with the patterns for the most recent offence (shown in Table 6) which
demonstrated (a) no obvious differences between young and older offenders, (b) Indigenous offenders
being more likely to report knowingly entering an occupied offence (remembering non-Indigenous
offenders were very reluctant to respond to this question), and (c) similar patterns for high-use and
high-frequency offenders as demonstrated in Figure 28.
59
(a) 50% (b) 50%
yrs +)
Non-Indigenous
Young offender
40% 40%
% Burglaries
% Burglaries
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Yes/Knew
Yes/Knew
Yes/Didn't
Yes/Didn't
Yes/Not stated
Not stated
Yes/Not stated
Not stated
No
No
know
know
(c) 50% (d) 50%

High freq. High use
Low freq. Low use
40% 40%
% Burglaries
% Burglaries
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Yes/Knew
Yes/Knew
Yes/Didn't
Yes/Didn't
Yes/Not stated
Not stated
Yes/Not stated
Not stated
No
No
know
know
Across General Offending History for All Offenders (as a % Within-Demographic Category)
Across (a) Age, (b) Indigenous Status, (c) Offending Frequency, and (d) Severity/Frequency of
Drug Use.
60
General Use of Avenues for Disposing of Stolen Goods
The ‘typical’ disposal avenues used by offenders are described in Table 22. As the table shows,
the general pattern of use of the various disposal avenues do not vary greatly from those which
respondents described following their most recent burglary. Generally, the most common method of
disposing of goods was through drug-dealers – 74% of respondents reported that they ‘always’ or
‘mostly’ used this avenue. Fences and family/friends were sometimes used by respondents. The use
of fences is interesting and one of extremes – it appears that some burglars use them quite regularly
while other burglars ‘never’ seem to use them. Pawnshops, jewellers and strangers were used less
often by burglars to dispose of stolen goods. It is important to keep the context of this questionnaire in
mind, however, as this research only focused on how property taken from burglaries initially enters
the stolen goods market. As such, these findings do not mean avenues such as pawnshops and
jewellers are not used by others further down the disposal chain.
Table 22. The General Frequency of Use of Disposal Avenues (% Offenders Providing Each
Response) for All Offenders.
Disposal avenue
Frequency of Friends/ Pawn Jewellers Drug Fences Strangers
use family shops dealers
Always (1) 11.9% 4.3% 1.3% 53.2% 21.7% 0.4%
Mostly (2) 10.6% 3.4% 2.6% 21.3% 16.2% 1.3%
Sometimes (3) 25.1% 20.4% 14.0% 9.4% 17.4% 16.2%
Rarely (4) 16.2% 12.3% 12.3% 2.1% 6.8% 13.2%
Never (5) 35.7% 58.7% 68.1% 13.2% 37.0% 67.7%
Not stated 0.4% 0.9% 1.7% 0.9% 0.9% 1.3%
Mean use 3.5 4.2 4.5 2.0 3.2 4.5
General Disposal of Specific Goods
For some specific types of goods (e.g., gold, CDs or DVDs – disc only and laptop computers),
respondents were asked where they thought an experienced burglar might sell or trade them. As can
be seen from Table 23, the majority of respondents indicated that drug dealers were the most likely
avenue for all these goods. Trading these items with family and friends was also perceived as likely.
It is interesting that there was a high proportion of ‘not stated’ for CDs/DVDs – this may indicate that
the respondents do not often take such goods and therefore have less experience in disposing of them.
61
It is also interesting that pawnshops were perceived as being more likely avenues for jewellery and
CDs/DVDs but not laptop computers. Few respondents identified fences as being likely avenues for
any of the items specified.
Table 23. The General Disposal Avenues for 3 Commonly Stolen Goods (% Offenders Providing
Each Response) for All Offenders.
Goods type
Disposal avenue Gold CD/DVD disc Laptop computer
Family/mates 11.5% 23.0% 11.5%
Pawn shops 6.8% 12.8% 4.3%
Jeweller 8.9% 0.4% 0.9%
Drug dealer 58.7% 31.1% 62.6%
Fences 3.0% 1.3% 8.1%
Stranger 1.3% 1.3% 0.4%
Other 2.6% 5.5% 2.1%
Not stated 7.2% 24.7% 10.2%
Determining the Price for Stolen Goods
The respondents were asked how they generally work out how much to sell or trade the
property they took. They were able to provide a free-text response to this question. Thematic analysis
of their responses revealed some interesting trends. The most frequently occurring themes (and the
percentage of offenders who cited these factors) are displayed in Table 24.
As the table shows, there were a variety of responses indicating that there are a number of
different approaches being used. Many offenders were well informed about the goods that they were
selling or trading and cited the use of shop prices as a guide or the use of catalogues, advertisements
or the internet to set a price. Approximately one-quarter of respondents said that they set the price of
the goods to one-third of the new price.
62
Table 24. The Common Factors Involved in Determining the Price for Stolen Goods During the
Trading Process (% Offenders Providing Each Response) for All Offenders.
Factor involved with selling the goods Percentage of offenders citing factor
Shop price for new product is a guide 22.6%
Catalogue/papers/advertisement/internet is a guide 28.5%
Check what a pawn shop/cash converters is selling it for 4.6%
Reduce by the minimum necessary to sell 8.8%
Reduce price to 1/2 of new price 16.7%
Reduce price to 1/3 of new price 24.3%
Reduce price to 1/4 (or less) of new price 5.9%
Shop around (negotiate) for best price from dealers 17.6%
I just know (guess?) the price based on experience 10.0%
Take into consideration the condition/quality 8.4%
Take what I can get 6.7%
Let others do it for them (i.e., friends/family) 5.0%
Some additional insight into the price-setting process is provided by the quotes below, which
further demonstrates there are a few different styles of trading. First, there are those who take the
highest price they can (labelled ‘Highest Price’ below). Second, there are those who research the
current shop prices for these things and prefer one-half to one-third of the retail price (‘Discounted’).
Third, there are those who feel out of control in the process and just take what they are given (‘No
Control’). Other factors that influence the price people receive include (a) the relationship to the
person buying the goods, and (b) how desperate they are for money. There also seems to be a trend
that some offenders will be paid in drugs and money for the goods they have stolen.
Highest Price
“I have catalogues and from that price I work out how much its worth… If the dealer says no I just
move to another one. Sometimes I have to hold onto things for 3 wks to get the price I want… I mean there
are so many dealers you just keep on looking for one who will give you your price.”
“Usually do half and half drugs and cash… They'd make a deal saying they'd give me $200 I'd say
someone else offered me $400 so they'd say I'll give you half and half cash and drugs to $400 value.”
Discounted
“I check in pamphlets to see how much it worth then offer the dealer 1/3 of the price… 1/3 is
criminal rates otherwise you go somewhere else.”
63
“If its 2nd hand its a third of the cost/I check the cost on the internet or I call Vodafone… Vodafone
has a service where you call 1223 and they will give you the price of something, you just tell them the
model or make and they will give you the price if its new in the box you will get 1/2.”
“I look it up on the computer get a price for it… on manufacturers site and get model and narrow it
down to get a rough price and sell it for 1/3 or 1/2 price.”
No Control
“I look it up in a book to see the price, my mum helps me… Then the dealer makes an offer, and we
just settle.”
“Normally it would just be that you say it's a stolen item and then up to their discretion as to what
they want to give… You do sometimes get a raw deal… They know the balance of power is in their hands
and you're just the little man and they're trying to make more money out of you… Basically accept
whatever they give me for the goods.”
The Influence of Target Property Characteristics on Offending Behaviour
Respondents were provided with a list of target hardening factors (such as the presence of
alarms and dogs in the house, the use of deadlocks on doors and windows, and the existence of ID-
marking on property) and asked to consider whether each of these factors might affect the likelihood
that a burglar would break-in to a place or take things during the break-in. Table 25 summarises their
responses.
Table 25. The Influence of Certain Property Characteristics (% Offenders Providing Each
Response) on the Decision to Burgle for All Offenders.
Property characteristic
Offender response Alarms Dogs Dead locks ID-marking
Strongly put-off (1) 25.1% 16.6% 6.8% 13.2%
Moderately put-off (2) 22.6% 24.7% 12.8% 13.2%
No effect (3) 51.5% 57.9% 79.1% 69.8%
Moderately persuade (4) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Strongly persuade (5) 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4%
Not stated 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 3.4%
Mean response (scale from 1 to 5) 2.3 2.4 2.7 2.6
64
As the table shows, for each factor listed, more than half of all offenders claimed that the
feature would have no effect on their decision to burgle. However, some target hardening measures
appeared to be more effective than others. Alarms appeared to have the greatest deterrent effect on
burglars, with almost half of all respondents claiming that they would be put-off by this factor.
Indeed, one-quarter stated that they would be ‘strongly put-off’ by the presence of an alarm. The
presence of a dog was also a hindrance to burglars, with more than 40% of respondents claiming this
would put them off to some degree. Deadlocks appeared to offer the least resistance to burglars, with
less than 20% of respondents saying that they would be put off by these measures. Property marking
(such as engraved identification or microdots) appeared to have a moderate effect on burglars, with
one-quarter of respondents stating that this would put them off to some extent.
Figure 29 to Figure 32 provide a breakdown of each of the target hardening factors listed in
Table 25 by the demographic characteristics of the offenders. The purpose of these figures is to tell us
more about which offenders are likely to be deterred by each factor.
The most significant observations from these figures are:
• Adult offenders are more likely than young offenders to be put-off by the presence of alarms or
dogs.
• Indigenous offenders are much more likely than non-Indigenous offenders to be put-off by
presence of any of the four target-hardening factors described above.
• Low level drug users are more likely than high level drug users to be strongly put-off by the
presence of alarms or dogs.
• Low frequency offenders are more likely than high frequency offenders to be strongly put-off by
the presence of alarms or dogs.
65
(a) 80% (b) 80%
yrs +)
Young offender
60% 60%
% Respondents
% Respondents
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Strong put-off
Strong put-off
Mod. put-off
Mod. put-off
Strong persuade
Strong persuade
No effect
No effect
Mod. persuade
Mod. persuade
Not stated
Not stated
Response Response
(c) 80% (d) 80%

High freq. High use
60% 60%
% Respondents
% Respondents
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Strong put-off
Strong put-off
Mod. put-off
Mod. put-off
Strong persuade
Strong persuade
No effect
No effect
Mod. persuade
Mod. persuade
Not stated
Not stated
Response Response
Figure 29. The Influence of Alarms (% Offenders Providing Each Response) on the Decision to
66
(a) 70% (b) 70%
yrs +)
60% Young offender
60% Non-Indigenous
50% 50%
% Respondents
% Respondents
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Strong put-off
Strong put-off
Mod. put-off
Mod. put-off
Strong persuade
Strong persuade
No effect
No effect
Mod. persuade
Mod. persuade
Not stated
Not stated
Response Response
(c) 70% (d) 70%

High freq. High use
50% 50%
% Respondents
% Respondents
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Strong put-off
Strong put-off
Mod. put-off
Mod. put-off
Strong persuade
Strong persuade
No effect
No effect
Mod. persuade
Mod. persuade
Not stated
Not stated
Response Response
Figure 30. The Influence of Dogs (% Offenders Providing Each Response) on the Decision to Burgle
by Offender (a) Age, (b) Indigenous Status, (c) Offending Frequency, and
67
(a) 90% (b) 90%
80% yrs +) 80%
Non-Indigenous
Young offender
70% 70%
% Respondents
% Respondents
60% 60%
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Strong put-off
Strong put-off
Mod. put-off
Mod. put-off
Strong persuade
Strong persuade
No effect
No effect
Mod. persuade
Mod. persuade
Not stated
Not stated
Response Response
(c) 90% (d) 90%

High freq. High use
80% 80% Low use
Low freq.
70% 70%
% Respondents
% Respondents
60% 60%
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Strong put-off
Strong put-off
Mod. put-off
Mod. put-off
Strong persuade
Strong persuade
No effect
No effect
Mod. persuade
Mod. persuade
Not stated
Not stated
Response Response
Figure 31. The Influence of Dead Locks (% Offenders Providing Each Response) on the Decision to
68
(a) 80% (b) 80%
yrs +)
Young offender
60% 60%
% Respondents
% Respondents
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Strong put-off
Strong put-off
Mod. put-off
Mod. put-off
Strong persuade
Strong persuade
No effect
No effect
Mod. persuade
Mod. persuade
Not stated
Not stated
Response Response
(c) 80% (d) 80%

High freq. High use
60% 60%
% Respondents
% Respondents
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Strong put-off
Strong put-off
Mod. put-off
Mod. put-off
Strong persuade
Strong persuade
No effect
No effect
Mod. persuade
Mod. persuade
Not stated
Not stated
Response Response
Figure 32. The Influence of ID-Marking (% Offenders Providing Each Response) on the Decision to
69
Police Analysis
A total of 97 completed surveys were received from police officers who responded to our web-
based questionnaire. Table 26 provides a profile of these respondents: 83% of police respondents
were of uniform rank; 75% were based in the Perth metropolitan area; a small group (11%) were from
specialist groups (e.g., TIGs or Burglary Inquiry). In all, the average number of years of policing
experience for the group was over 12 years.
Defining the Demographic Characteristics of the Police Participants
Table 26. Police Demographic Profile (N = 97).
Demographic Mean Mean %

characteristic Sub-category N %N years Metro
Rank Uniformed Constable & Senior 60 61.9% 8.4 65.7%
Constable
Uniformed Sergeant & Above 21 21.6% 18.5 73.0%
Detective Constable & Senior 13 13.4% 11.6 78.9%
Constable
Detective Sergeant & Above 3 3.1% 20.7 93.3%
Broad rank Uniform 81 83.5% 11.5 68.0%

Detective 16 16.5% 14.1 83.3%
Broad region Country 24 24.7% 10.8 33.4%

Metropolitan 73 75.3% 12.5 80.8%
Section Detectives 15 15.5% 8.8 58.7%

Forensics 3 3.1% 9.0 76.5%
General Duties 44 45.4% 11.3 67.5%
Incident Management & Inquiry 11 11.3% 9.2 68.6%
Intelligence 4 4.1% 19.3 87.5%
TIGs & Burglary Inquiry 11 11.3% 14.4 82.8%
Other 8 8.2% 14.8 61.0%
Not stated 1 1.0% 11.0 100.0%
70
Estimated General Frequency of Offending
Table 27. Police Perceptions of the General Frequency of Burglary, Shoplifting, and Receiving (%
Police Participants Providing Each Response) for Experienced Burglars.
Type of offence
Offending frequency Breakins Shoplifting Receiving
Daily 19.6% 5.2% 6.2%
Every few days 53.6% 35.1% 29.9%
Weekly 19.6% 18.6% 27.8%
Every few weeks 5.2% 1.0% 11.3%
Monthly 1.0% 3.1% 1.0%
Never 0.0% 2.1% 2.1%
Not stated 1.0% 35.0% 21.6%
General Use of Avenues for Disposing of Stolen Goods
Table 28. Police Perceptions of the General Frequency of Use of the Various Disposal Avenues (%
Police Providing Each Response) for All Police Participants.
Disposal avenue
Frequency of Friends/ Pawn Jewellers Drug Fences Strangers
use family shops dealers
Always (1) 1.0% 2.1% 0.0% 9.3% 2.1% 0.0%
Mostly (2) 11.3% 30.9% 2.1% 70.1% 33.0% 1.0%
Sometimes (3) 67.0% 52.6% 18.6% 19.6% 41.2% 32.0%
Rarely (4) 0.0% 13.4% 62.9% 0.0% 6.2% 57.7%
Never (5) 2.1% 1.0% 9.3% 0.0% 1.0% 6.2%
Not stated 0.0% 0.0% 7.2% 1.0% 16.5% 3.1%
Mean use 3.1 2.8 3.9 2.1 2.7 3.7
Tables 27 to 30 display the police responses to the general offending questions in isolation.
This data is discussed further in the Comparison of Offender and Police Responses section on
page 91, below.
71
General Disposal of Specific Goods
Table 29. Police Perceptions of how 3 Commonly Stolen Goods are Disposed Of (% Police
Providing Each Response) for All Police Participants.
Goods type
Disposal avenue Gold/jewellery CD/DVD disc Laptop computer
Family/mates 3.1% 11.3% 8.2%
Pawn shops 51.5% 62.9% 18.6%
Jeweller 2.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Drug dealer 37.1% 15.5% 49.5%
Fences 5.2% 4.1% 14.4%
Stranger 0.0% 2.1% 2.1%
Other 1.0% 2.1% 4.1%
Not stated 0.0% 2.0% 3.1%
Estimated Influence of Selected Target Property Characteristics on Offending

Behaviour
Table 30. Police Perceptions of the Influence of Certain Property Characteristics (% Police
Providing Each Response) on the Decision to Burgle for All Police Participants.
Property characteristic
Offender response Alarms Dogs Dead locks ID-marking
Strongly put-off (1) 24.7% 38.1% 3.1% 6.2%
Moderately put-off (2) 67.0% 56.7% 49.5% 39.2%
No effect (3) 6.2% 5.2% 44.3% 52.6%
Moderately persuade (4) 2.1% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Strongly persuade (5) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Not stated 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 1.0%
Mean response (scale from 1 to 5) 1.9 1.7 2.4 2.5
72
Comparison of Offender and Police Responses
Estimates of the General Frequency of Offending
Figure 33 combines the data presented in Tables 20 (offenders) and 27 (police) on general
frequency of offending by burglars (across burglary, shoplifting, and receiving stolen goods). The
following trends emerged:
• When the ‘Daily’ and ‘Every few days’ percentages displayed in Figure 33(a) are combined for
both police and offenders it can been seen that the police have a relatively good understanding of
how frequently these offenders are committing burglaries (57% for offenders and 73% for police).
This similarity was observed despite the large percentage of ‘not stated’ responses from the
offender group in response to this question.
• Figure 33(b) displays that some major differences did appear between the offender admissions
and police perceptions about the frequency of shoplifting. In this case 19% of offenders admitted
shoplifting every few days (or more) but over 40% of police surveyed estimated that most
burglars were shoplifting with this frequency. Furthermore, 43% of the offender group denied
ever shoplifting. (Once again it is important to note the large percentage of offenders and police
participants who did not respond to this question.)
• Similarly, police appear to be over-estimating the extent to which burglars are receiving stolen
goods, with Figure 33(c) displaying only 17% of offenders ‘receive’ daily or every few days
while 36% of police estimate the activity to be this frequent. Once again, a large percentage of the
offender group (32%) reported never receiving stolen property. (Again, as with responses to the
previous two offending questions, there were large numbers of ‘Not stated’ responses to this
receiving question.)
73
(a) 60% (b) 60%
Offenders Offenders
Police Police
50% 50%
% Respondents
% Respondents
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Every few weeks
Every few weeks

Every few days
Every few days

Monthly
Monthly
Weekly
Weekly
Daily
Daily
Never
Never
Not stated
Not stated
Frequency Frequency
(c) 60%
Offenders
Police
50%
% Respondents
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Every few weeks
Every few days
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Never
Not stated
Frequency
Each Response) of the Frequency of (a) Committing Burglaries, (b) Shoplifting, and
(c) Receiving Stolen Goods.
74
Estimated Use of the Various Disposal Avenues
Figure 34 combines the percentages shown in Tables 22 (offenders) and 28 (police). Analysis
of the various panels of this figure shows that:
• Police over-estimated burglars’ use of family/friends to disperse stolen goods, with 36% of
offenders reporting they ‘never’ used this outlet (Figure 34(a)).
• Figure 34 panels (b) and (c) display that police also over-estimated the use of legitimate
businesses by burglars (looking at pawn shops and jewellers, respectively). Overall, 59% of
offenders said they never used pawnshops and 68% reported never selling stolen goods to
jewellers.
• Figure 34(d) demonstrates that police are aware of the importance of drug dealers as an avenue
for disposing of stolen goods. When responses for ‘always’ and ‘mostly’ using drug dealers were
combined results showed nearly 75% of offenders and 79% of police opinions were accounted
for.
• Use of fences displayed in Figure 34(e) is interesting with offender data indicating a pattern of
extremes where some offenders use them all the time and others use fences rarely (if ever). Police
perceptions are located somewhere in the middle.
• Figure 34(e) suggests that police over-estimate how often burglars trade stolen goods with
strangers with 68% of offenders reporting never using this outlet.
75
70% 70% 70%
(a) (b) (c)
60% 60% 60%
50% 50% 50%
40% 40% 40%
30% 30% 30%
20% 20% 20%
10% 10% 10%
0% 0% 0%
Always
Always
Always
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Mostly
Mostly
Rarely
Mostly
Rarely
Rarely
Never
Never
Never
Not stated
Not stated
Not stated
Offenders Offenders Offenders
Police Police Police
70% 70% 70%

(d) (e) (f)
60% 60% 60%
50% 50% 50%
40% 40% 40%
30% 30% 30%
20% 20% 20%
10% 10% 10%
0% 0% 0%
Always
Always
Always
Sometimes
Sometimes
Sometimes
Mostly
Rarely
Mostly
Rarely
Mostly
Rarely
Never
Never
Never
Not stated
Not stated
Not stated
Offenders Offenders Offenders

Police Police Police
Each Response) of the Frequency of Using Disposal Avenues: (a) Family/Friends, (b) Pawn
Shops, (c) Jewellers, (d) Drug Dealers, (e) Fences, and (f) Strangers.
76
Desired Disposal Avenues for Specific Goods: Jewellery, CDs/DVDs, and Computers
Figure 35 combines the percentages shown in Tables 23 (offenders) and 29 (police). Two main
points emerge:
• Police are over-estimating the desirability of pawnshops as an avenue for these specific goods
types. This is not unexpected given the findings displayed in Figure 34.
• Police are underestimating the use of drug dealers as burglars’ preferable first point of sale for
stolen goods.
77
(a) 70% (b) 70%
Offenders Offenders
Police Police
60% 60%
50% 50%
% Respondents
% Respondents
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Family/mates
Family/mates
Pawn shops
Pawn shops
Drug dealer
Stranger
Drug dealer
Stranger
Fences
Fences
Jeweller
Other
Jeweller
Other
Not stated
Not stated
Frequency Frequency
(c) 70%
Offenders
Police
60%
50%
% Respondents
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Family/mates
Pawn shops
Drug dealer
Stranger
Fences
Jeweller
Other
Not stated
Frequency
Each Response) of the Frequency of Using Disposal Avenues for: (a) Gold/Jewellery,
(b) CDs/DVDs (Discs), and (c) Laptop Computers.
78
Estimated Influence of Target Property Characteristics on Offending Behaviour
Figure 36 combines the percentages shown in Tables 25 (offenders) and 30 (police) and
suggests that:
• Police are generally aware of the effectiveness of the target hardening factors asked about here.
From these results it is clear that police understand dogs and alarms have the greatest deterrent
capacity. For example, over 91% of police predicted alarms would deter burglars, while only 53%
of police estimated that deadlocks would deter would-be burglars.
79
(a) 80% (b) 80%
Offenders Offenders
70% Police 70% Police
60% 60%
% Respondents
% Respondents
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Strongly put-off
Strongly put-off
Moderately put-off
Moderately put-off
Strongly persuade
Strongly persuade
Moderately persuade
Moderately persuade
No effect
No effect
Not stated
Not stated
Frequency Frequency
(c) 80% (d) 80%

Offenders Offenders
70% Police 70% Police
60% 60%
% Respondents
% Respondents
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
Strongly put-off
Strongly put-off
Moderately put-off
Moderately put-off
Strongly persuade
Strongly persuade
Moderately persuade
Moderately persuade
No effect
No effect
Not stated
Not stated
Frequency Frequency
Each Response) of the Influence on Offending Behaviour of: (a) Alarms, (b) Dogs, (c) Dead
Locks, and (d) ID-Marking.
80
Police General Comments
The general feedback provided by the police participants provided an interesting insight into
additional understanding/beliefs currently serving officers have about burglary and the stolen goods
market in WA. The following sections quote some of the comments and discuss the broader
implications of these attitudes to policing and crime reduction.
Crime Reduction Approaches
“Burglars don’t walk to do substantial offending...bring back concentrated vehicle stops and field
reports and not only will traffic offending be addressed burglary will also be addressed. Having recently
been a Prosecutor processing hundreds of briefs it is apparent by reading the SOMF the arrest is most
often made as a result of a vehicle stop or a vehicle is in some way connected to the burglary.”
This position is supported by the findings for use of motor vehicles – particularly from the
high-volume offenders.
“I believe not enough emphasis is placed on marking property for possible future ID / describing
property to Police when it is stolen. Victims and Police are equally guilty of this and as a result it’s difficult
(Nearly impossible) to identify owners when property is found at search warrants / pawn shops.”
“I believe a lot of burglaries are preventable with home owners being a little more vigilant with
locking doors/windows or thinking about the type of security they get. A lot of people actually weaken a
door by placing too many locks on it…”
Variation in Burglar Types
“Experience with "experienced burglars" indicates that they will target homes that show that there
are no one home and therefore less chance of being caught. (i.e., no cars in the driveway, garage door is
up or gates are open). I have found that the property stolen from burglaries tends to be used as currency to
pay for drugs from dealers. Also anything that cannot easily be traced will normally be sold to a
pawnbroker or sold through newspaper classifieds or at local markets.”
“There are a wide range of offenders, from very young juveniles to senior citizens who commit
burglary offences. Depending on what age bracket and ethnicity they are can influence what they steal and
how they dispose of the goods. There are no hard and fast rules that apply to all offenders.”
“Changes in laws and practices will cause a shift in offending behaviour, for instance tighter
regulation of the Pawnbroking Industry has resulted in offenders targeting property items that are more
easily sold through the drug trade. Also there are a number of experienced burglars who specialise in their
targets, i.e., commercial premises, and this will require a particular method, time of day, etc. It is difficult
to characterise all burglars in the one class…”
81
“A lot of burglary offenders have specialised targets, for example only doing schools or offices, or
only doing nursing homes. Others have specialised items, such as large screen TV's or Lap tops. Generally
speaking the younger offenders will only take items easily disposed of like cash or cigarettes. As they do
more burglaries and gain confidence in themselves (in respect to making up lies as to account for how they
came into possession of such property) they will steal larger or more valuable items to make more money.
And most offenders are creatures of habit. If it works well a couple of times, they stick to it a large
percentage of the time.”
These quotes demonstrate that police are aware of the diversity in offender-types. This supports
the mixed patterns of ‘normal’ behaviour from the offender questionnaire.
The Changing Nature of the Market
“My subdistrict gets hard hit for commercial burglaries involving the theft of laptop computers. The
number of these being stolen is huge and it cannot be imagined that a drug dealer will exchange 20 laptops
for drugs as he then has to get rid of the laptops himself. The majority of laptops stolen must be going to
organised fences who can offload them to other sources.”
“I feel that most young burglary offenders (15 & under) commit offences for spending money, food
or other things that they can't get at home because their parents don't pay them attention or are
alcohol/drug abusers. I feel that older offenders commit burglaries to support their own drug/alcohol
habits and mostly get rid of their goods through pawn shops. I think if pawn shops were made illegal and
shut down, we would cut our burglary rates to virtually nothing. If they had less places to hock their stolen
goods, they would be less likely to steal large items. The stealing would be limited to cash only.”
This type of position misses the possibility that the boundary/distinction between drug dealers
and fences has become blurred, particularly given the finding that drug dealers trade in cash and
fences trade in drugs.
“As one Magistrate stated the stolen goods trade is a supply and demand business… This is why I
believe that pawn brokers should be made much more accountable. In the past many put incorrect details
such as serial numbers on computer systems which then makes it difficult for police to link stolen goods
when they are reported. Greater resources and powers should be put into checking p/brokers on a regular
basis, this would make it very difficult for burglars to get rid of stolen property.”
This is contrary to the findings from the offender questionnaire, and is possibly a dated
perspective on the stolen goods market in WA.
“It is too difficult to describe the wide range of burglars in the survey, what applies to one, doesn't
apply to another in the same set of circumstances. Some will travel far and wide to dispose of goods in
many different ways, others will go to the nearest pawn shop, drug dealer or fence. My experience has
been that with the surge in popularity of car boot sales and flea markets, so has the use of this avenue for
82
selling stolen goods. I have(and still) observed markets where the goods on offer are completely out of
character with the seller (people selling near new heavy duty trade tools who clearly have never used them
and know nothing about them - for ridiculously low prices). Pawn shops and second hand dealers have
some element of regulation, drug dealers, fences and markets do not.”
This suggests a good understanding of the nature of the stolen goods market and identifies an
additional avenue for selling stolen goods to the public. This is possibly an outlet used by fences/drug
dealers to sell the goods they buy from the original burglars. This is not an avenue covered by the
offender-based survey.
Displacement of Crime
“Since the immobiliser scheme has been in place the number of burglaries committed in order to
steal ignition keys has risen dramatically. In true recidivist offenders the primary reason for at least one
burglary is to obtain the motor vehicle to assist in the commission of other offences.”
“…Most burglary offenders don’t want TV's, DVD players any more as they are easier to trace.
Most go for Jewellery or cash as they are hardest for Police to trace. Identity fraud is become more
common as offenders are stealing ID and using it to obtain credit cards before committing frauds.
Burglary offenders are now stealing mail from letter boxes to steal ID…”
Drugs
“I have been investigating primarily burglary offences in a variety of locations over the past four
years. During this time I have dealt with well over a hundred I have found it is extremely rare to deal with
an adult offender whose primary reason for committing a burglary is not to purchase drugs with the
proceeds from a the offence. Most adult offenders commit the offences only on a needs basis, that is when
they need drugs they commit an offence to obtain property or cash to purchase drugs.”
“Most burglary offences appear to occur so that the offender can swap property or sell it to obtain
money for drugs.... Drug users are the most prolific burglary offenders. Most burglary offenders don’t steal
items to use them they steal to sell or swap…”
“Mostly dealing with males between the age of 15-25 years. Most appear to have a Speed
(Methylamphetamine)/Cannabis Habit.”
The gist of these comments is totally consistent with the findings from our offender-based
survey.
83
DISCUSSION
The purpose of our research was to explore the stolen goods market in Western Australia.
Through interviews with offenders and police, it has provided empirical evidence about:
• The process of burglary;

• The range of goods stolen during a burglary;
• The range of avenues used by offenders to dispose of goods following a burglary;
• Other ‘market’ factors associated with trading stolen goods (such as speed of transaction and the
determinants of price-setting); and
• The effectiveness of various target hardening measures.
So as to uncover any offender characteristics that may affect the disposal of stolen goods, the
data was analysed along four demographic dimensions – age status, Indigenous status, drug use, and
offending frequency. Using data collected from 239 respondents (burglars who were serving time in
custodial institutions in WA), we found immediately that there were interactions between these
factors. Specifically, high-frequency offending tended to be associated with younger offenders, while
serious drug use was associated with being older, non-Indigenous, and being involved in high-
frequency offending. The link between frequency of offending and age has been the focus of much
research into the development of offending. The developmental literature has repeatedly established
that the individual rate of offending, ‘lambda’ (a technique developed by Blumstein & Cohen, 1979,
cited in Wright & Decker, 1994; Wright et al., 1992), peaks during late teens and then declines
through adulthood. 10 The link between age, serious drug use and high-frequency offending is also not
surprising as it has been argued that as some offenders age and their level of drug use becomes more
serious, their addiction becomes a significant ‘driver’ for committing burglary. This explanation fits
within the ‘intensification model’ (described earlier), which posits that heavy involvement in drug-use
leads to an increase in the rate of offending amongst existing offenders.
Avenues of Disposal
By far the study’s most significant findings relate to the avenues by which offenders dispose of
stolen goods. In this respect, it is notable that the study found little difference between offender
demographic categories in the types of disposal avenues used.
The most common avenue used by all types of offenders was drug dealers. More than half of all
stolen goods were traded directly with drug dealers to obtain either drugs or money. Similar findings
were uncovered in the NSW study of stolen goods (Stevenson & Forsythe, 1998). The NSW
10
A classic illustration of the relationship between age and frequency of offending is the ‘age-crime’ curve
which shows lambda increasing during adolescence, peaking in late teens and then declining through the adult
years.
84
researchers provided a number of reasons why this close relationship should not be viewed as
surprising. First, there is considerable literature that identifies property crime as an important source
of money for supporting drug use. Second, they argued that there had been a rationalisation of
processes over the past decade, with the role of the ‘middle man’ or ‘fence’ gradually diminishing.
Third, the researchers cited evidence of a number of drug raids in Sydney which, in addition to
uncovering drugs, had also revealed large caches of stolen goods. These findings were consistent with
the expected importance of the use of residential fences for entering stolen goods into the stolen goods
market.
The findings from our study support many of their views. Our data suggests that there is a
blurring of roles between drug dealer and fence. A consistent finding was the willingness by drug
dealers to accept non-cash items in exchange for drugs- especially jewellery, and portable, modern
items such as cameras, laptops, and mobile phones. We found also that even offenders with low or
infrequent drug use often traded goods with drug dealers. Indeed, they were trading as often as serious
drug users! Moreover, our data showed that offenders often received cash from drug dealers. In more
than 40% of transactions with drug dealers, cash was part of the deal. And the data suggested that
cash was more likely to be part of the deal if the offender was not a serious drug user. In all, the
evidence suggests that drug-dealers play a pivotal role in the initial disposal of stolen goods.
Cromwell et al. (1993) suggest that there are two major reasons why drug dealers are prepared
to barter drugs for stolen goods. First, this interaction increases their drug sales, and second, the
unequal power balance between drug dealer (buying the stolen goods) and addict (selling stolen
goods) ensures the dealer can acquire the stolen property for a vastly reduced price which they can
then easily make profit on through resale.
Like the NSW study, and in keeping with our expectations about the importance of family
networks in this market, our study found that the second most frequently used disposal route was
family and friends. This route was used by offenders about 18% of the time. However, unlike NSW
which did not explore this disposal avenue in any detail, we found that in transactions involving
family and friends, drugs and cash were frequently exchanged for goods. Our data showed that drugs
were exchanged in more than 30% of transactions. It is difficult to make clear interpretations of this
finding. One may speculate that drugs may be so prevalent in offender networks that they are being
used as an alternative currency in transactions between individuals. Alternatively, our notion of who
‘deals’ in drugs and who ‘uses’ drugs may be misconceived and that the roles of ‘dealer’ and ‘user’
are not as distinct or as discrete than first imagined. Research elsewhere has established that people
who use drugs can, and often do, deal to those around them who are also users. Thus, our findings
may be reflective of the fact that the prevalence of drug use, as well as the prevalence of drugs, in
85
offender networks is very high. A recent newspaper report (Titelius, West Australian, 13/02/2006)
also supports this conclusion.
Fences were the third most frequently used outlet for stolen goods. Offenders reported using
this avenue about 13% of the time. As with trades with drug dealers and with family and friends,
drugs and cash were often received for goods. Cash was the major currency used in exchanges with
fences. However, in over 30% of transactions, drugs were also part of the deal. The types of goods
traded with fences were also similar to those traded with drug dealers. These findings give further
weight to the suggestion that the roles of drug dealer and fence are now blurred. The evidence
overwhelming shows that the business of drug dealing now also incorporates elements of fencing.
Indeed, it appears as though drug-dealers have become a convenient “one-stop shop” for offenders.
Fences, on the other hand, still seem to exist but are dealing less frequently with burglars. In terms of
directly dealing with burglars, fences appear to have given up considerable market share to drug
dealers. However, it may also be argued that fences have adapted to a changing environment –
moving further down the distribution chain and learning to trade in an alternative medium of
exchange, namely drugs.
Given the similarities that exist between these two disposal outlets, it is reasonable to ask
whether offenders are able to distinguish between a drug dealer who exchanges cash for stolen goods
and a fence who might exchange drugs for stolen goods. That the respondents of our study were able
to do so suggests that the two roles may not have been rationalised into one (as suggested by the NSW
researchers) but, rather, are still separate entities which can be differentiated by their core business
(drugs for drug dealers, stolen goods for fences) and by their relative position in the disposal chain.
While much of their business interests overlap, these outlets appear to maintain separate and different
relationships with offenders and their associates.
The fourth most frequently used avenue of disposal involved the sale of stolen goods to
legitimate businesses. Offenders reported using this avenue about 8% of the time. Pawn-shops were
included in this category. However, no attempt was made to distinguish these businesses from other
jewellery stores and other local businesses (second-hand or otherwise). Our study found that it was
mostly adults who were using legitimate businesses to dispose of stolen goods, trading electrical and
electronic items. However, when young offenders did trade with these outlets, the most frequently
traded goods were jewellery, laptops, and cameras. There is some suggestion in the data that non-
Indigenous offenders brought a wider range of products to the trading desk than Indigenous offenders.
This included, for example, tools, electrical appliances, and computers. There was also some evidence
that high frequency offenders frequently traded jewellery with these outlets.
86
The relatively low level of involvement of pawn and second-hand shops in buying goods from
burglars may come as something of a surprise. To many, their involvement may be less than might
have been expected given the degree of law enforcement interest and regulatory control that surrounds
the pawnbroker and second-hand dealer industry. Of course, it may be argued that it is precisely this
control that has reduced the level of involvement of the industry in the stolen goods trade. Even so,
this contrasts with the perception of many experienced, street-wise police officers who consider that
the industry still plays a significant part in the distribution and re-sale of stolen goods (see the section
on page 91 discussing the comparisons between police perceptions and offender admissions).
While it is reasonable to expect that some stolen property will make its way into the second-
hand goods market (after all, it is the business of these dealers to buy and sell used goods!), it is
difficult to determine the extent to which these businesses knowingly buy stolen goods from
customers. For starters, burglars do not appear to be the customers who are presenting the stolen
goods over the counter. As the evidence from this study shows, burglars appear to be reluctant to trade
goods directly with these outlets. Though some burglars did trade with legitimate businesses, the
average disposal time was much longer than any other outlet (including dealing with strangers). In the
ACT, Nelson et al (2002) attributed some of the reluctance in using legitimate businesses on the low
price of the exchange. Burglars reported getting much less for goods traded with these outlets than
with others. This would in part explain why such outlets might be viewed as avenues of last resort by
burglars. The regulated nature of the second-hand goods business and the associated higher risk of
dealing directly with them might also account for a general disinclination on the part of offenders to
deal directly with these outlets. One can conclude that this disposal avenue is more likely to be used
by intermediaries or by individuals operating further down the distribution chain of stolen goods.
Our exploration of disposal times provided further insight into offenders’ preferences for
disposal avenues. Drug dealers were not only the most frequently used disposal avenue but they were
also accessed the fastest (on average, within 5.5 hours of the burglary). Fences were accessed second
fastest (on average, within 8.2 hours of the burglary). However, in terms of frequency of use, fences
were ranked below family and friends. This suggests that fences are not widely known to or used by
burglars, however, those that are known/used tend to be accessed reasonably quickly.
One may speculate as to why drug dealers are the ‘preferred’ outlet for stolen goods. It may be
that the convenience of being a “one-stop” shop for offenders outweighs other factors such as the
desire to get the best price for the goods. For offenders with a serious drug problem, it is likely that
their need to satisfy an addiction coupled with other factors such as convenience and the ‘trusted’
nature of the relationship with their dealer will outweigh all other factors. However, for many
offenders and indeed for many burglars, their involvement in property crime has more to do with
supplementing their income and not specifically to fund a drug addiction (Moffatt et al., 2005).
87
Whether the ‘convenience factor’ of trading stolen goods with a drug dealer is the only or major factor
driving low frequency drug users to use this disposal avenue is not clear. However, what is clear is
that the frequency with which burglars steal (daily) and then deal or trade with drug dealers (on
average, 5.5 hours later) means that drug dealers have (access to) well-established and well-organised
re-distribution networks for the goods which they receive.
It took burglars almost twice as long to dispose of goods to family and friends (average of 13.8
hours) than to a drug dealer or fence (if they knew one). This suggests that this avenue may not be a
preferred outlet for burglars. As mentioned previously, disposal of goods to legitimate businesses
took the longest time (average of 35.5 hours), suggesting that burglars may consider this avenue to be
a last resort. However, in dealing with legitimate businesses, it should be borne in mind that the
disposal time for goods will also be affected by the regulation of daily business hours and the
restrictions placed on weekend trading.
Our study found that older offenders generally took less time to dispose of stolen goods than
younger offenders (see table below). The most likely explanation for this is that older offenders will
generally have wider and more established networks, however, this may also be related to the urgency
of their drug-use. (Recall that older offenders generally had more serious levels of drug use than
younger offenders). Sutton (1998; and Sutton et al., 1998), too, found that serious drug users tended to
dispose of goods more quickly and at a lower price:
Disposal avenue Mean disposal time (hrs)

Young offenders Older offenders
Drug dealers 6.3 5.0
Fences 14.5 5.1
Family and friends 22.8 7.1
Legitimate businesses 24.0 37.2
Other Market Aspects
Currency of Exchange
Our study showed that drugs and money are the dual currencies used in the selling/trading of
stolen goods. Amphetamines (speed) and cannabis were the drugs most frequently used in
selling/trading of stolen goods. These findings differ somewhat from those of both the NSW and the
ACT studies (in which heroin featured more prominently) and no doubt reflect the localized nature of
drug markets in each state (Makkai, 2001). It is clear that amphetamines and cannabis are the most
widely available illicit drugs in Western Australia and the drugs most widely used by active burglars.
88
[It is interesting to consider here if these drug-types are being used by distinct offenders (i.e.,
people who use speed exclusively) or if instead offenders generally are using a mixture of speed and
cannabis depending on the reason for drug use at the time.]
Distribution Chain
It must be stated that our study did not explore the size and length of the distribution chain
associated with the trading of stolen goods. As only burglars were interviewed, the data is limited in
that they describe only the initial disposal avenues used by these offenders. Given that drug dealers
are the predominant primary avenue of disposal for stolen goods, one might wonder what they do
with the goods that come into their possession? In the ACT , Nelson et al (2002) found that drug
dealers used similar disposal avenues to those used by offenders. If we assume that the family and
friends of offenders also use similar avenues, then we can surmise that the distribution network
quickly becomes fragmented and diffuse.
Price-Setting
More than one-quarter of respondents said that they set the price of the goods to about one-third
of the new price. Offenders appeared to be surprisingly well informed about the goods that they were
selling or trading and cited the use of shop prices as a guide or the use catalogues, advertisements or
the internet to set a price. However, our study noted a few different styles of trading. First, there were
those who took the highest price they could get. Second, there were those who researched the current
shop prices for these things and preferred one-half to one-third of the retail price. Third, there were
those who felt out of control in the process and just took what they were given. In all, a number of
factors influence the price people receive for stolen goods, including (a) the relationship to the person
buying the goods, and (b) how desperate the ‘seller’ is for money.
Process of Burglary – Modus Operandi

In addition to exploring the disposal of stolen goods, our study also explored the process of
burglary and examined the effects of various target (hardening) characteristics on offenders’ decision
to burgle. A number of findings in relation of offender ‘modus operandi’ (that is, mode of transport,
distances travelled, use of accomplices, and so on) may provide opportunities for crime reduction
strategies.
Mode of Transport
As to mode of transport, about half of the burglars interviewed reported using vehicles (two-
thirds of which were not stolen). One may speculate as to whether ‘choices’ in the mode of transport
reflects a sense of purpose and organization. Some groups (in particular, adults, non-Indigenous,
89
serious drug users) are more organised and think about transport in advance. However, it was
surprising that the more active offenders did not do this.
Accomplices
Our study found that most offenders worked alone. This was surprising especially in the case of
younger offenders who we believed would be more likely to have worked with accomplices. Maybe it
was because our sample of offenders was drawn from prisons and detention centres and therefore,
more likely to be more serious offenders. But there may be other explanations. It has been suggested
that the desire to operate alone may be reflect a reluctance on behalf of some offenders to share the
things that they steal.
It is worth noting here the findings from Hodgson and Costello (2006), who discovered that
novice offenders who commit their initial burglary offence with equally inexperienced co-offenders
do not go on to prolonged burglary careers. Novices who either, (a) offend alone, or (b) are
accompanied by experienced burglars are more likely to have longer offending careers. This has
important implications to be linked with the variation in re-offending as a result of ‘ease of selling’
the proceeds of early career burglaries.
Entering Occupied Dwellings
Our findings suggested that young, Indigenous, high frequency, and high drug use offenders
tend to show more daring during a burglary by knowingly entering occupied premises. Conversely,
we may speculate whether low frequency offenders and low use drug users are actively avoiding
occupied premises. If this were the case, one could argue that this is an example of rational choice in
action. However, it needs to be noted that non-Indigenous respondents were more likely to ‘Not state’
whether they knew if someone was home during the most recent burglary incident.
Effectiveness of Target Hardening Measures

Our study asked offenders whether various target hardening measures influenced their decision
to break-in or take things during a burglary. Four target-hardening measures were considered: the
presence of an alarm, the presence of a dog, the use of deadlocks on doors and windows, and the use
of property ID marking. Of these, alarms appeared to offer the greatest deterrent effect, with just
under half of all offenders claiming to have been put off to some extent by the devices. Dogs also
appeared to have some effect, with 40% of offenders saying that they were either strongly put off or
moderately put off by canine company. Deadlocks, on the other hand, appeared to offer the least in
deterrent effect, with fewer than one in five offenders saying that they were put off by their presence.
90
Property marking appeared to have a moderate effect on burglar decision-making. This is not
surprising, given that without being forewarned (such as through stickers on external windows and
doors), offenders are unlikely to be aware of property marking until after they have broken-in. It has
been argued that property marking is more likely to influence the type of goods stolen rather than
whether or not a premise is broken into. Unfortunately, our questionnaire did not go into these issues
in any further detail. Our questionnaire was also limited in that we did not explore the cumulative
effect of these measures. In other words, we did not ask respondents about the deterrent effect of
combinations of these factors (for example, the presence of an alarm and a dog).
Comparisons Between Police Perceptions and Offender Behaviour

Overall police appeared relatively good at estimating the frequency with which offenders
burgle. However some discrepancies existed for shoplifting and receiving stolen goods, with police
over-estimating offending behaviour in both cases. It remains unclear why these results occurred and
a number of possible explanations exist. First, police could have genuinely over-estimated offenders’
shoplifting and receiving behaviours. Second, the offenders may have under-estimated the true extent
to which they commit these offences. Third, some of the offender-respondents may have been lying
about their involvement in these activities or were possibly ‘in denial’ about the goods in their
possession. Finally, a type of ‘job specialisation’ may exist within the property offenders group – and
possibly the majority of the burglars sampled were yet to ‘graduate’ to these types of activities.
While police were aware of the importance of drug dealers in the disposal of stolen goods, there
were some significant differences between police and offender estimates in respect of other outlets.
These were most obvious in police over-estimating the use of family/friend networks, legitimate
businesses, and selling to strangers. However, these discrepancies do not necessarily reflect error, as it
is possible that the route stolen goods take to these avenues is longer and less direct than the police are
assuming here and that goods are only traded with these types of outlets after they have ‘cooled’
through a series of transactions between burglars, drug dealers and their networks. (The police
perception that stolen goods travel in a direct route from burglar to pawnshop is emphasised by the
predicted outlets used for selling jewellery, CDs/DVDs, and laptops.) Thus, while discrepancies were
observed between police estimates and burglars’ admissions regarding avenues of disposal for stolen
goods, this is not the same as saying that stolen goods are not often channelled through these outlets.
With respect to the target hardening factors considered here it appeared that police had a good
understanding of the relative deterrent capacity of the different property characteristics. As with the
offender responses, police suggested dogs and alarms would have the strongest deterrent effect, while
the impact of dead-locks and id-marking were smaller (but still positive).
91
IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND CRIME REDUCTION
In this section we consider the significance of results and their contribution to the development
of effective policy making, law enforcement strategies, and other crime reduction initiatives aimed at
affecting the stolen goods market and reducing the level of burglary in WA.
Although a considerable body of knowledge about the disposal of stolen goods has been
collected from research in Australia (Nelson et al., 2002; Stevenson & Forsythe, 1998) and elsewhere
(e.g., Sutton, 1998; Sutton et al., 1998), the applicability of those research findings to the ‘local’ scene
is open to question. In his UK study, Sutton observed that, like other illegal markets, stolen goods
markets are ‘localised, fragmented and ephemeral enterprises’ (Reuter, 1985, as cited by Sutton, 1998,
p3). As such, the research findings based on one market or on one jurisdiction may not translate
effectively to other jurisdictions. That being the case, one may argue whether studies based on UK
data have relevance to Western Australia. Findings from Australian-based studies may also be less
relevant given the differences that exist between the states on a range of factors, such as the overall
level of burglary (and its seriousness compared to other types of crimes); the general geographical and
demographic construct of each state, which in turn affects the type of offences committed and the type
of offenders committing these crimes; opportunities to commit crime, journey to crime; and the level
and nature of drug use. Gaining a better understanding of local conditions and the nature of the local
stolen goods market means that strategies can be specifically tailored and in so doing have major
effect.
The study offers a number of opportunities for crime reduction and law enforcement initiatives
to affect the stolen goods trade in Western Australia. Some of these are as follows:
Focusing on Drug Dealers as a Primary Avenue for Stolen Goods

Firstly, since the data demonstrated that the most important initial avenues for disposal of
stolen goods were drug dealers, fences and the family and friends of burglars; these should be
considered as primary targets for special operations and surveillance. As more than half of all stolen
goods are traded with drug dealers, the police should actively incorporate investigations into property
crime with investigations into drug dealing. In terms of policing operations, this means, for example,
that when the police have grounds for searching a suspected drug dealer’s premises for drugs that they
should also be empowered to search for stolen goods. Moreover, police should see drug-related
surveillance operations as opportunities for intelligence gathering into the stolen goods market (and
vice versa).
Dealers who are found to be in possession of stolen goods should be actively prosecuted for
these offences. A drug dealer who is ‘taken out of action’ (albeit for a short time) will not only cause
92
his/her drug-using clients to shop elsewhere only for drugs but also to shop elsewhere for a suitable
fence for their stolen merchandise. In other words, police actions against drug dealers have the
potential of not only disrupting a drug distribution network but also a stolen goods disposal system.
Focusing on the Strong Drug Connection in the Trading of Stolen Goods

It was clear from the study that there is a strong connection between the drug market and the
trading of stolen goods. About half of all transactions involved the direct trade of drugs for stolen
goods. That being the case, any drug market interventions - particularly those which targeted the
availability of amphetamines (speed) – should have significant ‘knock-on’ effects on the stolen goods
market (through the types of goods stolen, effects on the currency of transaction and so on) and also,
for many offenders, on the motivations for burglary.
It may be worth reflecting here on the national heroin shortage (the ‘drought’) of 2000/01. The
shortage led to a fall in the consumption of heroin and, it was claimed, a drop in the burglary rate
(Degenhardt, Conroy, & Gilmour, 2004). In a more detailed analysis, the NSW Bureau of Crime
Statistics and Research showed that the fall in heroin consumption did ‘undoubtedly contribute’ to a
drop in burglary rates (Moffatt et al., 2005). However, it was argued that other factors also played an
important role. These included a real increase in average weekly earnings, an increase in the number
of heroin users returning to treatment, an increase in the imprisonment rate for convicted burglars and,
possibly, a fall in long-term unemployment (Moffatt et al., 2005).
An induced shortage of amphetamines or ‘speed’ (through law enforcement efforts targeted at

restricting supply) may bring about similar effects in WA. A danger, however, is that there may be
displacement effects to other drugs (e.g., cocaine) and to other crimes (e.g., those involving cash-rich
targets) or, indeed, both. In NSW, Moffatt et al (2005) showed that immediately after the heroin
shortage, there was a spike in the number of robberies which appeared to have come about as a result
of a temporary shift to cocaine use immediately following the onset of the heroin shortage. Therefore,
any operation aimed at restricting the supply of one particular drug should be accompanied by others
designed to limit displacement to other drugs and/or other crimes.
Focus on Disposal Processes

The rapid and diffuse dispersion of stolen goods through the offender networks presents a
considerable to challenge to law enforcement and crime reduction efforts. Given the speediness with
which goods are traded, it may be more effective for law enforcement efforts to concentrate on the
process of disposal than on the chance of finding burglars with stolen goods in their possession. As
was suggested earlier, two ways of achieving this would be to routinely incorporate the search for
stolen goods when conducting drug raids and vice versa.
93
However, a number of findings from this research suggest that some opportunities still exist for
police to pursue operations designed to apprehend burglars with stolen goods in their possession.
Given that many offenders use vehicles as a mode of transport when committing burglary and that
much of the trading of stolen goods is committed soon after a burglary, there may be an opportunity to
use traffic-based operations to curtail burglary. Auto-plate recognition technology, which has been
trialled and is available in WA, could be used to apprehend burglars while en route to drug-dealers
and fences. Such operations could be mounted in areas that have high burglary rates, which would
maximise the likelihood of detecting such activity. As there is some evidence too that burglars, fences
and drug-dealers operate within close range of each other, such traffic-based operations could yield
additional benefits such as providing intelligence about local networks. Moreover, it is possible that
highly visible operations such as these would inhibit the movement of offenders and their associates
in and around the target neighbourhood which may also reduce the level of burglary (albeit for a short
period of time). Note, however, that traffic-based operations should not be viewed as primary methods
of reducing burglary. Instead they should be considered as supplementing other, more direct efforts to
reduce property crime and the illicit drug trade.
Acknowledging the Involvement of Family in the Stolen Goods Trade

The study found that the family and friends of offenders often have an active involvement in
the stolen goods trade (either as end-users of stolen goods or as fences) and/or the drug trade (either as
dealers or users). Trading with family and friends accounted for almost 20% of all transactions by
burglars and, in these, drugs were frequently exchanged (30% of the time). Therefore, policing actions
targeted at this avenue of disposal should be given greater priority.
Public Awareness Campaigns

Public awareness and education campaigns such as the recent ‘Don’t Buy Crime’ initiative seek
to apply moral pressure on the public to stay out of the stolen goods trade. This campaign raises
awareness of the ‘other side’ of the stolen goods trade and asks people to consider such things as the
victims of crime, the risks of becoming involved with crime and the risks and harmful consequences
of drug taking. However, while these strategies may hold sway with some sections of the community,
it is unlikely that they would have much effect on the family and friends of burglars, as many of these
individuals appear to have pre-existing involvement in crime – either in dealing in stolen goods and/or
dealing/using drugs.
This is not to say that public awareness campaigns targeted at the ‘end-purchaser’ of stolen
goods should not be conducted. In the UK, Sutton (1998) concluded that ‘…markets for stolen goods
should be seen as both a downstream consequence of theft and also as an underlying motivational
force for much acquisitive offending’. Thus, making the public aware of the relationship between
94
community participation in buying stolen property and how this directly supports the act of burglary
could act to reduce the involvement of at least some individuals in purchasing stolen property. For
this reason, we would advocate a continuation of campaigns like the current ‘Don’t Buy Crime’
initiative.
Focusing of Specific Types of Stolen Goods

Our study has shown that the four goods which are most ‘craved’ by burglars are jewellery,
cameras, TVs, and laptop computers. The public needs to be reminded about the attractiveness of
these items and the likelihood of their theft in a burglary. Reinforcing messages to keep these valuable
items in safe places need to be maintained.
As jewellery is the most frequently stolen/traded item, there may be some merit in considering
specific strategies to make these items harder to stealing and/or trade. Possible options include:
• Promoting and improving the identification of jewellery through the expanded use of
microdotting (or other technologies, as and when they become available). The use of affordable,
shop-front services offering these services could be one way of achieving these ends.
• Increasing the regulation/control of the second-hand jewellery trade through the creation of a
jewellery register. In much the same way as the WA government operates a Register of
Encumbered Vehicles (REVS, Department of Consumer and Employment Protection), a jewellery
register would seek to protect consumers from purchasing stolen jewellery. Such a register could
also become an important resource for further/future investigations by the police.
• Technology-permitting, undertake research to track the disposal patterns for monitored pieces of
jewellery. This would provide valuable information about the fencing of jewellery, which is
neither well understood nor well documented, and would help answer questions such as: How
much jewellery is melted down and/or re-crafted? How much jewellery ends up in second-hand
shops? How quickly does it get there? How far away (from ‘home’) does stolen jewellery travel
before it emerges for re-sale?
• Attempt to reduce the demand for stolen jewellery through a highly publicized ‘Make Sure It’s
Safe To Buy’ campaign targeted at those most likely to buy second-hand jewellery.
Other Possibilities
As a final note, we reflect on the involvement of pawnshops and second-hand dealers in the
stolen goods trade and consider whether any options exist for reducing the involvement of these
businesses in crime without affecting commercial viability. We offer one suggestion in this regard -
the elimination of all cash-based purchases made by these outlets. Instead, we propose that purchases
95
made by the businesses be transacted only with the use of cheques or through direct deposits to bank
accounts. We believe this strategy offers a number of advantages:
• It increases identification requirements on customers wishing to sell goods. In order to cash

cheques or withdraw deposited funds, sellers will need to satisfy ID checks required by banking
institutions as well as those of pawnshops and second-hand dealers;
• It introduces a delay in the transaction process, as the proceeds from a sale cannot be withdrawn
until they have been cleared by the bank. This is likely to reduce the incentive to use second-hand
dealers as a quick source of ready cash. Although it may be argued that this may cause hardship
for those who legitimately need access to ready cash, the primary purpose of these businesses is
not to act as a social support system for those in need;
• It provides an identifiable money/property trail that could be used by police for further/future
investigations; and
• The approach is likely to make the industry visibly cleaner and more accountable. This would be
a step toward appeasing those second-hand dealers who consider themselves unfair targets of
policing attention.
96
CONCLUSION
This study has acted as an initial examination of the stolen goods market in Western Australia.
By exploring the process of burglary and, thereafter, the actions of burglars in disposing of stolen
goods, the study has plotted the earliest stage of the distribution chain for stolen property in this state.
What the study found, at this initial stage, is that the disposal of stolen goods is swift and efficient.
This poses a significant challenge to policing and crime reduction efforts aimed at disrupting the
stolen goods market and reducing overall levels of burglary in this state. Above all else, any policing
operations mounted against sectors of the disposal system will need timely intelligence and rapid
deployment if they are to have any chance of success.
Although our focus has been on addressing the utility of the findings in terms of crime
prevention and law enforcement, it is clear that the findings can inform the development of policy and
practices in other contexts – for example, in the prevention of drug abuse and in the regulation of the
second-hand goods market. Indeed, the strong link between drug use, burglary and the disposal of
stolen goods identified by this and earlier studies (e.g., Nelson et al., 2002; Stevenson & Forsythe,
1998), provides evidence that a more holistic approach to the development and application of policies
and practices in these areas is required. The findings from this study should provide the impetus for a
less segregated and more integrated approach to the development of drug and crime policy, and drug
law enforcement and crime reduction initiatives.
While the study makes a number of practical, action-oriented suggestions in relation to the
ways in which policing and crime reduction initiatives might affect the stolen goods market, it
remains for specialists to ‘action’ the findings of the study as they see fit. At the very least, the results
from this study should serve as a useful baseline for measuring and assessing the effectiveness of
future crime reduction initiatives targeting stolen goods and burglary in WA.
97
REFERENCES
AIC. (2004). Drug Use Careers of Offenders (DUCO), Juvenile Interview Form (WA)
(Questionnaire). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2003a). Crime and Safety - Australia 2002, Cat. No. 4509.0.
Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2003b). Recorded crime statistics: Victims Australia 2002, Cat. No.
4510.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2004). Recorded crime statistics: Victims Australia 2003, Cat. No.
4510.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2005). Home Safety and Security, Western Australia 2004,
Cat.No.4526.5.55.001. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Australian Institute of Criminology. (2004). Australian Crime: Facts and Figures. Canberra:
Australian Institute of Criminology.
Baker, J. (1998). Juveniles in Crime - Part 1: Participation Rates and Risk Factors. Sydney: NSW
Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
Bennett, T., & Holloway, K. (2005). Disaggregating the realtionship between drug misuse and crime.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 38(1), 102-121.
Bernasco, W., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2005). How do residential burglars select target areas? A new
approach to the analysis of criminal location choice. British Journal of Criminology, 45(3),
296-315.
Clarke, R. V. (1999). Hot products: Understanding, anticipating and reducing demand for stolen
goods. London: Home Office.
Crime Research Centre. (2003). Crime and Justice Statistics for Western Australia: 2003. Perth:
Crime Research Centre, University of Western Australia.
Cromwell, P., Olson, J., & Avary, D. A. W. (1993). Who buys stolen property? A new look at
criminal receiving. Journal of Crime and Justice, XVI(1), 75-95.
Cromwell, P., Olson, J., & Avery, D. A. (1991a). Drug and group effects on burglars' decision
making. In P. Cromwell, J. Olson & D. A. Avery (Eds.), Breaking and Entering: An
Ethnographic Analysis of Burglary (Vol. 8, pp. 53-70). Newbury Park, California: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Cromwell, P., Olson, J., & Avery, D. A. (1991b). Marketing stolen property. In P. Cromwell, J. Olson
& D. A. Avery (Eds.), Breaking and Entering: An Ethnographic Analysis of Burglary (Vol. 8,
pp. 71-80). Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Cummings, R., & Angwin, T. (2005, 10 February 2005). Putting burglary down for the count: How
"Operation Burglary Countdown" is dramatically reducing residential burglary in Perth's
98
burglary hot spots. Paper presented at the Australia and New Zealand Society of Criminology
(ANZSOC), Wellington.
Cusson, M. (2000). Prevention of the crime by the police force: Current tactics and orientations for
tomorrow. Revue de Droit Pénal et de Criminologie, February, 113-134.
Degenhardt, L., Conroy, E., & Gilmour, S. (2004). Changes in the health effects of drug use. In L.
Degenhardt & C. Day (Eds.), The Course and Consequences of the Heroin Shortage in
Australia (pp. 51-66). Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of
New South Wales.
Farrington, D. (1994). Human development and criminal careers. In M. McGuire, R. Morgan & R.
Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (pp. 511-584). Oxford: Clarendon.
Finney, A., Wilson, D., Levi, M., Sutton, M., & Forest, S. (2005). Handling stolen goods: Findings
from the 2002/03 British Crime Survey and the 2003 Offending, Crime and Justice Survey
(Online Report No. 38). London: Home Office.
Hill, R. P. (1992). Criminal receiving: The "fence" as a marketer. Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, 11(2), 126-134.
Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. R. (1994). The Generality of Deviance. New Brunswick, N.J.:
Transaction Publishers.
Hodgson, B., & Costello, A. (2006). The prognostic significance of burglary in company. European
Journal of Criminology, 3(1), 115-119.
Makkai, T. (2001). Drug use amongst police detainees: Some comparative data (Trends and Issues
No. 191). Canberra: Australian Institution of Criminology.
Mayhew, P. (2003). Counting the costs of crime in Australia: Technical report (Technical and
Background Paper Series No. 4). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Moffatt, S., Weatherburn, D., & Donnelly, N. (2005). What caused the recent drop in property crime?
(No. 85). Canberra: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A
developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674-701.
Nelson, D., Collins, L., & Gant, F. (2002). The stolen property market in the Australian Capital
Territory. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Prichard, J., & Payne, J. (2005). Alcohol, drugs and crime: A study of juveniles in detention (Research
and Public Policy Series No. 67). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Ratcliff, J. H. (2001). Residential burglars and urban barriers: A quantitative spatial study of the
impact of Canberra's unique geography on residential burglary offenders, Final Report.
Canberra: Criminology Research Council.
Ratcliff, J. H. (2003). Suburb boundaries and residential burglars (No. 246). Canberra: Australian
Institute of Criminology.
99
Roberts, L., & Indermaur, D. (2003). Signed consent forms in criminological research: Protection for
researchers and ethics committees but a threat to research participants? Psychiatry,
Psychology and Law, 10(2), 2003.
Schneider, J. L. (2005a). Research note - The link between shoplifting and burglary: The booster
burglar. British Journal of Criminology, 45(3), 395-401.
Schneider, J. L. (2005b). Stolen-goods markets: Methods of disposal. British Journal of Criminology,
45(2), 129-140.
Stevenson, R. J., & Forsythe, L. M. V. (1998). The stolen goods market in New South Wales: An
interview study with imprisoned burglars. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and
Research.
Stevenson, R. J., Forsythe, L. M. V., & Weatherburn, D. (2001). The stolen goods market in New
South Wales, Australia: An analysis of disposal avenues and tactics. British Journal of
Criminology, 41, 101-118.
Sutton, M. (1995). Supply by theft: Does the market for second-hand goods play a role in keeping
crime figures high? British Journal of Criminology, 35(3), 400-416.
Sutton, M. (1998). Handling stolen goods and theft: A market reduction approach (No. 69). London:
Home Office.
Sutton, M., Johnston, K., & Lockwood, H. (1998). Handling stolen goods and theft: A market
reduction approach (No. 178). London: Home Office.
Sutton, M., Schneider, J. L., & Hetherington, S. (2001). Tackling theft with the Market Reduction
Approach. London: Home Office.
Titelius, R. (2006, 13th February). Kids as young as 13 hooked on a flood of speed. West Australian,
p. 1.
Walsh, M. E. (1977). The Fence: A new look at the world of property theft. Westport, Connecticut;
London, England: Greenwood Press.
Weatherburn, D., Hua, J., & Moffat, S. (2006). How much crime does prison stop? The incapacitation
effect of prison on burglary (Crime and Justice Bulletin: Contemporary Issues in Crime and
Justice). Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics.
White, H. R., & Gorman, D. M. (2000). Dynamics of the Drug-Crime Relationship. In G. LaFree, J.
Short, R. Bursik & R. Taylor (Eds.), Criminal Justice 2000 - The Nature of Crime: Continuity
of Change (Vol. 1, pp. 151-218). Washington: National Institute of Justice.
Wiles, P., & Costello, A. (2000). The 'road to nowhere': The evidence for travelling criminals (No.
207). London: Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office.
Wright, R., & Decker, S. H. (1994). Burglars on the job: Streetlife and residential breakins. Boston:
Northeastern University Press.
100
Wright, R., Decker, S. H., Redfern, A. K., & Smith, D. L. (1992). A snowball's chance in hell: Doing
fieldwork with active residential burglars. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
29(2), 148-161.
Wright, R., & Logie, R. H. (1988). How young house burglars choose targets. Howard Journal of
Criminal Justice, 27, 92-104.
Wright, R., Logie, R. H., & Decker, S. H. (1995). Criminal expertise and offender decision making:
An experimental study of target selection process in residential burglary. Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency, 32(1), 39-53.
101
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Stolen Goods Markets: Theories Combined. ................................................................. 103
Appendix 2. Offender Questionnaire .................................................................................................. 104
Appendix 3. Police Questionnaire ...................................................................................................... 140
102
Appendix 1. Stolen Goods Markets: Theories Combined.
Commercial Fence (e.g., Sutton et al., 1998) – these businesses may or

may not know that the goods are stolen
• Legitimate business (i.e., corner stores, restaurants, mechanics etc.),

• Pawn shops, Commercial Sales
• Second-hand dealers, Key distinction is that eventual buyers do not know the goods are stolen.
• Jewellers, etc (from Stevenson & Forsythe, 1998).
These can be integrative fronts, functional-facilitating fronts, or dissonant

fronts (Hill, 1992).
Residential Fence (Sutton) – these people know the goods are stolen.
• Family (also called Kinship Networks by Walsh, 1977), Network Sales

• Friends (also called Work-A-Day Networks by Walsh, 1977), Key distinction is that any subsequent buyers will know that the goods are
• Drug dealers, stolen.
• Professional Fences, etc. (from Cromwell, Olson & Avery, 1993; Use of word of mouth to distribute stolen items and request an item to be
Stevenson & Forsythe, 1998; Walsh, 1977; and Wright & Decker, 1994). stolen.
Hawking (Sutton, et al., 1998; and Stevenson & Forsythe, 1998, also
called Amateur Receivers by Cromwell, Olson & Avery, 1993) – these
people know the goods are stolen.
103
Appendix 2. Offender Questionnaire
INTERVIEW FORM
Section I
To be completed prior to the interview.

Interview Date: _ _ / _ _ / 20 _ _
DD MM YY
Interview Location:
Unique Identifier:
Interviewer Initials:
Were the instructions (pg 105) read to the participant? Yes No
Did the participant agree to participate? Yes No
Time interview _ _ : _ _ AM / PM
commenced
HH MM
Section II
To be completed after the interview.

Was the interview completed? Yes No
Time interview _ _ : _ _ AM / PM
completed
HH MM
104
INTRODUCTION
My name is (first name) and I am from the University of Western Australia.

We are doing a study to find out how stolen goods are taken and traded and why people do break-ins.
I’d like to invite you to take part in this research. This is not a test of any kind – all that’s involved is
an interview, which will take about 30 minutes. I’m going to give you a copy of the information about
the project for you to keep.
Your name isn’t recorded anywhere on this form so everything you say is completely private and will
be kept confidential and secure. I don’t want you to give me the names of any other people involved
in illegal activities and I don’t want specific details (such as the time and place) of any crime that the
police don’t already know about. If you do, we won’t write it down, but if you do tell us about
something really serious (like hurting someone) we might have to tell the authorities.
It is important that you know you don’t have to do this interview if you don’t want to, and you don’t
have to answer any questions that you don’t want to. Also, you can stop the interview and ask to leave
at any time you want and no one will mind – nothing bad will happen to you (Custody-based
participants only) and this will not stop you being released.
If you feel upset about things that we talked about during the interview you can ask to talk with:
your Community Justice or Juvenile Justice Officer (Community-based participants only)
a group worker or psychologist (Custody-based participants only).
Also, I want to let you know that if I become worried about anything I may stop the interview.
If you have any questions about the research at a later time, the sheet I have given you has details of
who to contact. If you have any complaints about the research then you need to contact the Human
Research Ethics Committee at the University of Western Australia – the contact details are provided
on the sheet that I have given you.
Interviewer Initial
Are you willing to be interviewed for this study? Yes No
Do you understand you can stop the interview whenever you want, you can
refuse to answer any question I ask, and you won’t receive any payment or direct
Yes No
benefit from participating?
Do you have any questions or concerns about this study? Yes No
105
SECTION 1 – BURGLARY DEMOGRAPHICS
Interviewer: In this first section I will be asking you some questions about your history. These
questions may seem basic, and you may think we should know them already, but we really don’t
know anything about you.
1.1. Have you ever been convicted for burglary? (Circle single response)
Yes (1) Go to Q. 1.2.
No (2) Stop Interview
1.2. Roughly how many times have you been charged by the police for burglary?
times Unsure (-2) No Response (-1)
If interviewing a person in custody skip straight to Q.1.4. If interviewing a community-based person

then ask Q.1.3.
1.3. Have you ever spent any time in prison or juvenile detention? (Single response)
Yes (1) If Yes, go to Q. 1.4.
No (2)
Unsure (8) Go to Q. 2.1.
No response (9)
1.4. Roughly how many months have you spent in prison or juvenile detention?
months Unsure (-2) No Response (-1)
106
SECTION 2 – MOST RECENT BURGLARY
Interviewer: In this section I will be asking you some questions about the last break-in you’ve done.
Only tell me things about the last time you broke in somewhere. This doesn’t have to be anything
you’ve been convicted for and we are not asking for specific details about the incident. Also,
remember that we don’t know who you are and your name isn’t written anywhere here.
2.1. How old were you when you committed your last break-in?
years Unsure (-2) No Response (-1)
Interviewer: The next few questions ask about the place that you broke into the most recent time.
2.2. Where did you break into? (Tick single response)
House (includes flats, units, and other residential properties) (1) If Yes, go to Q. 2.3.
Shop (2)
Places selling alcohol (3)
Factory (4)
Office building (5) Q. 2.7.
Other (specify) (6)
Unsure (8)
No response (9)
2.3. Did you know anyone who lived in the house? (Single response)
No (2)
No response (9)
107
2.4. How did you know them? (Tick single response – prompt if needed, e.g., ‘they were in your
family,’ ‘they were you mate,’ etc.)
Family (1) Other (specify below) (5)
Mate (2) Unsure (8)
Neighbour (3) No response (9)
Acquaintance (4)
2.5. Was there anyone inside the house when you broke-in? (Single response)
No (2)
No response (9)
2.6. Did you know there was someone inside Yes No Unsure No response
before you went in? (Single response)
(1) (2) (8) (9)
2.7. Roughly where in the State was this place that you broke into?(Prompt as required)
City / Metro area Country Other Unsure No response
(1) (2) (3) (8) (9)
2.8. Had you, or anyone you knew, broken into this place before? (Single response)
Yes (1) Go to Q. 2.9.
No (2)
No response (9)
108
2.9. How long after that time did you break into it? (Single response)
Same day (1) More than a year after (5)
Same week (2) Unsure (8)
Same month (3) No response (9)
Same year (4)
2.10. Did you have information about this Yes No Unsure No response
place before you went there? (Single
response) (1) (2) (8) (9)
2.11. Why did you pick this place to break into? (Free-response)
2.12. What time of day was it when you committed the offence? (Tick single response)
Morning (6am – 12pm) (1) Night-time (12am – 6am) (4)
Afternoon (12pm – 6pm) (2) Unsure (8)
Evening (6pm – 12am) (3) No response (9)
Interviewer: The next few questions ask about where the place was that you broke into most recently.
2.13. Why were you in the area where you did you last break-in? (Tick single response – prompt if
needed, e.g., ‘it was near your home,’ ‘you were visiting friends,’ etc.)
To do a break-in (1) Leisure/shopping (5)
Near home (2) Other (specify below) (6)
Chance (3) Unsure (8)
Visiting friends (4) No response (9)
109
2.14. How did you get to the place you committed this burglary? (Tick single response – prompt if
needed, e.g., ‘you walked,’ ‘you used a car,’ etc.)
Walked (0) Go to Q. 2.16.
Bike/motor bike (1)
Car (2) Go to Q. 2.15.
Van/truck (3)
Taxi (4)
Bus (5)
Train (6) Go to Q. 2.16.
Other (specify) (7)
Unsure (8)
No response (9)
2.15. Was this vehicle stolen? Yes No Unsure No response
(Circle appropriate response) (1) (2) (8) (9)
2.16. (3 parts to question – prompt to discover the distance even if the participant is using time as a
gauge.)
(a) How far was the place you broke < 1km 1-2km 2-3km > 3km Unsure No Response
into from where you were living?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (8) (9)
(b) Did you sleep at home the night before the break-in? Yes No Unsure No Response
(If “No”, go to Part (c), else go to Q. 2.17.)

(1) (2) (8) (9)
(c) How far was the place you broke < 1km 1-2km 2-3km > 3km Unsure No Response
into from where you slept the

(1) (2) (3) (4) (8) (9)
night before?
110
2.17. How many people did the break-in with you? (Tick single response – prompt if necessary, e.g.,
‘you were alone,’ ‘you were with one other person,’ etc.)
None, offender was alone (1) More than 2 other people (4)
1 other person (2) Unsure (8)
2 other people (3) No response (9)
Interviewer: The next question asks about what was taken during your most recent break-in.
2.18. What was taken from your most recent break-in? (Multiple responses allowed – prompt with
anything not mentioned once the participant has finished responding.)
(a) Cash (i) Electrical appliances
(b) Credit cards (j) Tools
(c) CDs/Video tapes/DVDs (k) Cameras/Video cameras
(d) TVs (l) Computers/lap tops
(e) Stereos (m) Mobile phones/PALMs
(f) VCRs/DVD players (n) i-pods
(g) Jewellery (o) Food/drink/cigarettes
(h) Drugs (p) Other (specify)
Interviewer: The next few questions ask about how you got away from your most recent break-in.
2.19. Did you leave the place in the same way that you got there? (Single response)
Yes (1) Go to Q. 2.23.
No (2) Go to Q. 2.20.
No response (9) Go to Q. 2.23.
111
2.20. Did you get caught at the scene of the break-in? (Single response)
Yes (1) Go to Q. 2.24.
No (2) Go to Q. 2.21.
No response (9) Go to Q. 2.21.
2.21. How did you leave the place you broke into? (Tick single response – prompt if needed, e.g.,
‘you walked,’ ‘you used a car,’ etc.)
Walked (0) Go to Q. 2.23.
Bike/motor bike (1)
Car (2) Go to Q. 2.22.
Van/truck (3)
Taxi (4)
Bus (5)
Train (6) Go to Q. 2.23.
Other (specify below) (7)
Unsure (8)
No response (9)
2.22. Was this vehicle stolen? Yes No Unsure No response
(Single response) (1) (2) (8) (9)
2.23. Where did you go straight after you left the break-in? (Single response)
Home (1) Other (specify below) (4)
A friend’s house (2) Unsure (5)
To another break-in (3) No response (6)
112
Interviewer: Now I’m going to ask you a bit about how you felt about the break-in and whether this
was a typical break-in for you.
2.24. How likely did you think it was that you would get caught? (Read out the range of the scale
and circle the single response – do not offer ‘unsure’ or ‘no response’ options.)
Very unlikely Very likely Unsure No response
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
2.25. Was this a pretty typical burglary Yes No Unsure No response

for you? (Single response)
(1) (2) (8) (9)
2.26. Were you on drugs at the time you Yes No Unsure No response
broke-in? (Single response)
(1) (2) (8) (9)
Note: If “Yes” to question 2.20 previously then move to Section 9, page 127. Otherwise, continue to
question 2.27, below.
Interviewer: The following questions ask about what you did with the things you took from your
most recent break-in.
2.27. Did you keep any of the things that were taken for yourself? (Single response)
Yes (1) Go to Q. 2.28.
No (2)
No response (9)
113
2.28. What did you keep? (Multiple responses allowed – prompt with ‘Anything else?’ once the
participant has stopped responding.)
2.29. Did you dump any of the things that were taken? (Single response)
Yes (1) Go to Q. 2.30.
No (2)
No response (9)
2.30. What did you dump? (Multiple responses allowed – prompt with ‘Anything else?’ once the
participant has stopped responding.)
114
2.31. Did you store any of the things that were taken? (Single response)
Yes (1) Go to Q. 2.32.
No (2)
No response (9)
2.32. Where did you store most of these things? (Tick major response)
(a) Your own home (f) The bush
(b) A friend’s home (g) An empty house
(c) Your family’s home (h) Other (specify below)
(d) Lock-up garage (i) Unsure
(e) Car/van/truck (j) No response
2.33. How far was this storage place from where you broke into? (Single response – prompt with the
distance options, but do not read out the ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ options.)
< 1km 1-2km 2-3km > 3km Unsure No Response
(1) (2) (3) (4) (8) (9)
Interviewer: The next questions ask about the places that you sold or traded the things that you took.
One of the questions we ask refers to “fences”. For this research, we use this word to describe
someone who regularly buys stolen property from their house, and who knows that they are buying
stolen things and are doing so for the purposes of re-selling them.
115
2.34. Did you trade or sell any of the things that were taken with: Complete these
Sections for each
(6 parts to question) Yes No Unsure No
“Yes” response
response
(a) Family or mates (1) (2) (8) (9) Section 3, page 117
(b) Legitimate businesses (1) (2) (8) (9) Section 4, page 118
(like pawn shops or
jewellers)
(c) Drug dealers (1) (2) (8) (9) Section 5, page 120
(d) Fences (1) (2) (8) (9) Section 6, page 122
(e) Strangers (1) (2) (8) (9) Section 7, page 123
(f) Other (specify below) (1) (2) (8) (9) Section 8, page 125
Note: If “No”, “Unsure”, or “No response” to ALL of questions 2.34(a) to 2.34(f) then move to
Section 9, page 127. Otherwise, complete all appropriate Sections and then move to Section 9,
page 127.
116
SECTION 3 – FAMILY AND/OR MATES
Note: Only complete if previously responded “Yes” to Question 2.34(a), pg 116.
Interviewer: The next few questions ask about the things you sold or traded with your family and
mates.
3.1. What did you trade or give away to your family and mates? (Multiple responses allowed)
3.2. What did your family or mates give you for the stolen goods? (Multiple responses allowed)
(a) Money (f) Vehicle parts
(b) Drugs (g) Unsure
(d) Alcohol (i) No response
(e) Clothes (j) Other (specify)
3.3. Roughly how long did it take from stealing the goods to sell or trade them through family and
mates?
hours days Unsure (-1) No response (-2)
117
SECTION 4 – LEGITIMATE BUSINESSES
Note: Only complete if previously responded “Yes” to Question 2.34(b), pg 116.
Interviewer: The next few questions ask about the things you sold or traded with legitimate
businesses.
4.1. What stolen goods did you trade with legitimate businesses? (Multiple responses allowed)
4.2. What type of business(es) did you trade the goods at? (Multiple responses allowed)
(a) Pawn (second-hand) shops (f) Computer stores
(b) Jewellers (g) Restaurants
(c) Mechanics/garages (h) Unsure
(d) Antique shops (i) No response
(e) Corner shops (j) Other (specify)
118
4.3. Did you have to show any identification when you traded with these legitimate businesses?
(Single response)
Yes (1) Go to Q. 4.4.
No (2)
No response (9)
4.4. Did you use false ID? Yes No Unsure No response
4.5. What did these legitimate businesses give you for the stolen goods?
(Multiple responses allowed)
4.6. Do you think the business(es) knew the property was stolen? (Single response)
None did Some did All did Unsure No response
(1) (2) (3) (8) (9)
4.7. Roughly how long did it take from stealing the goods to sell or trade them through legitimate
business(es)?
119
SECTION 5 – DRUG DEALERS
Note: Only complete if previously responded “Yes” to Question 2.34(c), pg 116.
Interviewer: The next few questions ask about the things you sold or traded with drug dealers.
5.1. What stolen goods did you trade with drug dealers? (Multiple responses allowed)
5.2. What did these drug dealers give you for the stolen goods?
(Multiple responses allowed)
(a) Money
(b) Drugs If Yes, go to Q. 5.3, else go to Q. 5.4.
(d) Alcohol
(e) Clothes
(f) Vehicle parts .
(g) Unsure
(i) No response
(j) Other (specify)
120
5.3. What drugs did you get for the stolen goods? (Multiple responses allowed)
(a) Heroin (f) Alcohol
(b) Speed (g) Unsure
(d) Ecstasy (i) No response
(e) Cannabis (j) Other (specify)
5.4. Roughly how long did it take from stealing the goods to sell them to drug dealers or trade
them for drugs?
121
SECTION 6 – FENCES
Note: Only complete if previously responded “Yes” to Question 2.34(d), pg 116.
Interviewer: The next few questions ask about the things you sold or traded with fences.
6.1. What stolen goods did you sell or trade with fences? (Multiple responses allowed)
6.2. What did these fences give you for the stolen goods? (Multiple responses allowed)
6.3. Roughly how long did it take from stealing the goods to sell or trade them through fences?
122
SECTION 7 – SELLING TO STRANGERS
Note: Only complete if previously responded “Yes” to Question 2.34(e), pg 116.
Interviewer: The next few questions ask about the things you sold or traded with strangers.
7.1. What stolen goods did you sell or trade with strangers? (Multiple responses allowed)
7.2. Where did you sell this property to strangers? (Multiple responses allowed)
(a) Pub/hotel (g) Car-boot sales
(b) Party (i) E-bay
(d) Door-to-door (j) Unsure
(e) On the street/shopping centres (j) No response
(f) Advertising in the paper (k) Other (specify)
123
7.3. What did these strangers give you for the stolen goods? (Multiple responses allowed)
7.4. Roughly how long did it take from taking the goods to sell or trade them to strangers?
124
SECTION 8 – SELLING TO AN UNSPECIFIED SOURCE
Note: Only complete if previously responded “Yes” to Question 2.34(f), pg 116.
Interviewer: The next few questions ask about the things you sold or traded with the other source.
8.1. What stolen goods did you sell or trade with this person? (Multiple responses allowed)
8.2. Where did you sell this property to these people? (Multiple responses allowed)
(a) Pub/hotel (g) Car-boot sales
(b) Party (i) E-bay
(d) Door-to-door (j) Unsure
(e) On the street/shopping centres (j) No response
(f) Advertising in the paper (k) Other (specify)
125
8.3. What did these people give you for the stolen goods? (Multiple responses allowed)
8.4. Roughly how long did it take from stealing the goods to sell/trade them through these people?
126
SECTION 9 – YOUR FIRST BREAK-IN
Interviewer: In this section I will be asking you some questions about the first break-in you can
remember doing. I would like you to think back to the first break-in you did and use what you can
remember to answer the next few questions.
9.1. How old were you when you committed your first break-in?
Interviewer: The next few questions ask about the first place you broke-into.
9.2. Where did you break into? (Single response)
House (1) Office building (5)
Shop (2) Other (specify below) (6)
Places selling alcohol (3) Unsure (8)
Factory (4) No response (9)
9.3. How many people did the break-in with you? (Single response)
None, offender was alone (1) More than 2 other people (4)
1 other person (2) Unsure (5)
2 other people (3) No response (6)
Interviewer: The next question asks about how you felt during the first break-in you can remember
doing.
9.4. How likely did you think it was that you would get caught? (Read out the range of the scale and
circle the single response – do not offer ‘unsure’ or ‘no response’ options.)
Very unlikely Very likely Unsure No response
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
127
Interviewer: The following questions ask about what you did with the things you took from your first
break-in.
9.5. Did you keep any of the things you took? Yes No Unsure No response
9.6. Did you dump any of the things you took? Yes No Unsure No response
9.7. Did you sell or trade any of the things you took? (Single response)
Yes (1) Go to Q. 9.8.
No (2)
Unsure (8) Go to Section 10, page 129.
No response (9)
9.8. How easy was it to sell or trade what you took? (Read out the range of the scale and circle the
single response – do not offer ‘unsure’ or ‘no response’ options.)
Very difficult Very easy Unsure No response
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
9.9. Who did you sell or trade the things you took with? (Multiple responses allowed)
(a) Family / mates (e) Strangers
(b) Legitimate businesses (f) Other (specify below)
(c) Drug dealers (g) Unsure
(d) Fences (h) No response
128
SECTION 10 – GENERAL BURGLARY AND THEFT QUESTIONS
Interviewer: The next few questions ask about all of the break-ins you have done.
10.1. In general, when you commit break-ins, what do you prefer to take?
(Multiple responses allowed – prompt with ‘Any other things?’ if required.)
10.2. Have you ever bought or accepted stolen property? (Single response)
Yes (1) Go to Q. 10.3.
No (2)
No response (9)
129
10.3. What did you buy or accept? (Multiple responses allowed – prompt with ‘Any other things?’
when the participant has finished responding.)
10.4. Why did you buy or accept these stolen goods? (Multiple responses allowed)
(a) To sell for profit (d) No response
(b) Personal use (e) Other (specify)
(c) Unsure
10.5. How many break-ins do you think you have committed in your lifetime? (Single response)
< 10 10-20 20-30 30-50 50-100 > 100 Unsure No response
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (8) (9)
Q. 10.8. Go to Q. 10.6. Q. 10.8.
130
10.6. During a time in your life when you have been really busy doing break-ins, how often were
you:
Never Daily Every few Weekly Every few Monthly Unsure No

days weeks Response
(a) Doing break-ins? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (8) (9)
(b) Shoplifting? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (8) (9)
(c) Receiving stolen (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (8) (9)
goods?
10.7. (2 parts to question – read out the dollar options in each case, but do not provide the ‘N/A,’
‘unsure,’ or ‘no response’ options.)
When you were at your most active burgling, approximately how much money were you:
< $50 $100 $300 $500 > $1000 N/A Unsure No

response
(a) Earning from break-ins per (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (8) (9)
?
(b) And of that money, how much (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (8) (9)
were you spending on drugs
per ?
10.8. (5 parts to question – read the scale options as required, but do not read ‘unsure’ and ‘no
response’.)
Roughly how often do you take things from:
Always Mostly Sometimes Rarely Never Unsure No response
(a) Houses/flats (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(b) Garages/sheds (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(c) Shops (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(d) Factories/Offices (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(e) Anywhere else (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(Specify other location)
131
10.9. Have you ever broken-into a place that had someone inside? (Single response)
Yes (1) Go to Q. 10.10.
No (2)
No response (9)
10.10. Did you know there was someone inside No

before you went in? Yes No Unsure response
10.11. (6 parts to question – read the scale options as required.)
Roughly how often do you sell or trade stolen goods with:
(a) Friends/family (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(b) Pawn shops (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(c) Jewellers (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(d) Drug dealers (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(e) Fences (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(f) Strangers (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(g) Anyone else (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
10.12. Overall, how easy is it to sell or trade the things that you steal? (Read out the range of the
scale and circle the single response – do not offer ‘unsure’ or ‘no response’ options.)
Very hard Very easy Unsure No response
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Interviewer: I am now going to ask you to think about where you would like to sell or trade some
items. I will suggest some items, and I’d like you to tell me where you would probably try to sell them
and also what sort of price you would hope to get.
132
10.13. (10 parts to question – provide alternatives as required, but do not provide the options
‘unsure’ and ‘no response’.)
Family Pawn Jeweller Drug Fences Stranger Other Unsure No

/ mates shop dealer response
(a) Where would you sell or trade a gold necklace?
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
(b) What price would you expect to get for a gold necklace?
(c) Where would you sell or trade a CD or a DVD disc?
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
(d) What price would you expect to get for a CD or a DVD disc?
(e) Where would you sell or trade a mobile phone?
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
(f) What price would you expect to get for a mobile phone?
(g) Where would you sell or trade a laptop computer?
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
(h) What price would you expect to get for a laptop computer?
(i) Where would you sell or trade a digital camera?
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
(j) What price would you expect to get for a digital camera?
133
response’.) How often have you traded stolen goods for the following drugs:
(a) Heroin (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(b) Speed (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(d) Ecstasy (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(e) Cannabis (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(f) Alcohol (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(g) Any other drug (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(Specify)
10.15. How do you normally work out how much to sell or trade the property you take for? (Free-
response)
10.16. Have you ever broken-in somewhere to take things other people have asked you to get for
them? (Single response)
Yes (1) Go to Q. 10.17.
No (2)
Unsure (8) Go to Section 11, page 136.
No response (9)
134
10.17. What things have other people asked you to take for them? (Multiple responses allowed –
prompt if necessary.)
(g) Jewellery (o) Cigarettes
(h) Drugs (p) Other (specify below)
response’.)
How often have the following people asked you to take specific things:
Alwa Mostly Sometim Rarely Never Unsure No

ys es response
(a) Family / mates (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(b) Legitimate (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)

businesses
(c) Drug dealers (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(d) Fences (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(e) Strangers (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(f) Any other people (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(Specify)
135
SECTION 11 – ATTRACTIVENESS OF BURGLARY OPTION
Interviewer: The next few questions ask you to think about what things make some places better or
worse to try to break into?
11.1. (Provide the participant with the scale, excluding the ‘unsure’ and ‘no response’ options.)
How do the following things affect whether you break-in to a place or take things during a
break-in?
Strongly Moderately No Moderately Strongly Unsure No

put-off put-off effect persuade persuade response
(a) Alarms (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(b) Dogs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(c) Dead locks (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(d) Property is ID- (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
marked
(e) The house is in a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
wealthy suburb
(g) The place is (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
empty
How often do you break into places when:
Always Mostly Some Rarely Never Unsure No

times response
(f) The opportunity arises? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(h) You’re near home? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(i) You’re near where you can sell (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
the stuff you steal?
(j) It’s the morning? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(k) It’s the afternoon? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(l) It’s the evening? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
136
How often do you break into places when:

times response
(m) You’re alone? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(n) You’re in a group? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(o) You want drugs? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(p) You want alcohol? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(q) You’re bored? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(r) You’re out walking? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(s) You’re out on your bike? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(t) You’re out in a car? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(u) You’re near a bus stop? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(v) You’re near a train station? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(w) You’re broke? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
137
SECTION 12 – ADDITIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS
Interviewer: These final few questions ask you a few more general things about you?
12.1. Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin? (Circle single response)
Yes (1)
No (2)
Unsure (8)
No response (9)
12.2. How old are you now? No Response (-1)

years
12.3. In the last 5 years, have you mostly lived in Western Australia? (Single response)
Yes (1) Go to Q. 12.5.
No (2)
Unsure (8) Go to Q. 12.4 .
No response (9)
12.4. In the last 5 years which State or Territory have you mostly lived in?
(Circle appropriate response)
No
NSW Victoria Qu SA Tas NT ACT Overseas Unsure Response
(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
12.5. In the last 5 years which part of the State have you mostly lived?
(Prompt as required and circle appropriate response)
City / Metro area Regional Remote Unsure No response
(1) (2) (3) (8) (9)
Interviewer: Read to participant and record any additional comments if appropriate.

Thank you very much for your time and your help with this questionnaire. Would you like to make
any additional comments before we finish?
138
SECTION 13 – INTERVIEWER NOTES
Qu. # Comment
Termination Code (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
If (5) please specify:
139
Appendix 3. Police Questionnaire
POLICE PERCEPTIONS OF BURGLARY AND THE STOLEN GOODS

MARKET IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Project Information
This research is part of a joint initiative between the Crime Research Centre, the University of
Western Australia, and the Office of Crime Prevention, the Department of Premier and Cabinet.
This research is examining the stolen goods in Western Australia, examining the types of property
targeted for theft, how these goods are sold/traded, and the motivation for offenders to commit
burglaries.
In addition to asking known burglars about what they steal and how they dispose of stolen goods, we
are interested to uncover additional information that serving Police Officers have about burglary and
the stolen goods trade here in Western Australia.
We would like to invite you to take part in this research. The questionnaire that follows is anonymous
and will take about 15 minutes. All the information you provide will be kept confidential and secure.
It is important that you know you don’t have to do this questionnaire if you don’t want to, and you
don’t have to answer any questions that you don’t want to. You can also decide not to complete the
questionnaire at any stage without prejudice.
The Research Team
Any questions about this research can be directed to either of the researchers involved:
Anna Ferrante,
6488-3837
anna.ferrante@uwa.edu.au
Joe Clare,
6488 7878
joe.clare@uwa.edu.au
The Questionnaire
If you are interested in participating in this research, please click on the link below:
Begin Survey
Click the link below to download a pdf version of an information sheet about this research:
Information Sheet
140
SECTION 1 – GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU
1.1. How long have you been a serving officer with the WA Police? (Please respond in years – if
less than 1 year, just type ‘1’.)
years No Response (-1)
1.2. What rank are you?
1.3. Over the last 5 years what percentage of your time have you been based in the Perth
metropolitan area? (Estimate percentage)
% Unsure (-1) No Response (-2)
1.4. What region of WA are you currently serving in?
1.5. What section are you currently working in? (e.g.,

Detective’s Offices, Burglary Inquiry, TIGs, etc.)
SECTION 2 – WHAT WAS STOLEN AND FROM WHERE?
Thinking back to the offender you apprehended most recently for residential burglary, please answer
the following questions about the property they targeted and the location that they broke into.
2.1. How far was the victim house from where the offender lived? (Estimate as best you can)
< 1km 1-2km 2-3km > 3km Unsure No Response
(1) (2) (3) (4) (8) (9)
2.2. What time of day did this offender commit this break in?
Morning (6am – 12pm) (1) Night-time (12am – 6am) (4)
Afternoon (12pm – 6pm) (2) Unsure (8)
Evening (6pm – 12am) (3) No response (9)
141
2.3. Did the offender know the people who lived in the house they broke into?
Yes No Unsure No response
(1) (2) (8) (9)
2.4. What year was it when you made this most recent burglary arrest? (Please respond in year,
e.g., YYYY.)
(YYYY) Unsure (-1) No Response (-2)
2.5. How did the offender get to the house they burgled? (Single response?)
Walked (0) Go to Q.2.7
Bike/motor bike (1)
Car (2) Go to Q. 2.6
Van/truck (3)
Taxi (4)
Bus (5)
Train (6) Go to Q.2.7
Other (specify) (7)
Unsure (8)
No response (9)
2.6. Was this vehicle stolen?
(1) (2) (8) (9)
142
2.7. What types of things did the offender take during this burglary? (Multiple response)
SECTION 3 –OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS
Thinking about the person you most recently arrested for residential burglary, please answer the
following:
3.1. How old was the offender? (Please provide your best estimate for the offender’s age in years,
e.g., YY.)
3.2. Was this offender of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin?
(1) (2) (8) (9)
3.3. Did they have any accomplices? (Single response)
No, they were alone (1) Yes, more than 2 other people (4)
Yes, 1 other person (2) Unsure (5)
Yes, 2 other people (3) No response (6)
143
3.4. How many burglaries do you think this offender has committed in their lifetime (before you
arrested them)? (Please make your best estimate.)
< 10 10-20 21-30 31-50 51-100 > 100 Unsure No

response
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (8) (9)
SECTION 4 – GENERAL BURGLARY QUESTIONS
Thinking generally about EXPERIENCED burglars please answer the following questions:
4.1. Where do you think they prefer to break into?
Houses (1) Other (specify below) (5)
Shops (2) Unsure (8)
Factories (3) No response (9)
Office buildings (4)
4.2. What percentage of burglaries do you estimate they get caught for? (Estimate the percentage.)
% Unsure (9)
4.3. How often do you think they are:
Daily Every Weekly Every few Monthly Never Unsure No

few days weeks Response
(a) Committing (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (8) (9)
burglaries?
(b) Shoplifting? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (8) (9)
(c) Receiving stolen (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (8) (9)
goods?
4.4. How easy do you think it is for them to sell or trade the goods they steal? (Please use the scale,
where 1 = ‘Very hard’ and 7 = ‘Very easy’.)
Very hard Very easy Unsure No response
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
144
SECTION 5 – WHAT HAPPENS TO THE STOLEN GOODS?
5.1. What do you think EXPERIENCED burglars do with the goods they steal?
(a) Keep the goods for (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
themselves?
(b) Dump or throw away the (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
goods?
(c) Give the goods away? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(d) Sell or trade the goods? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
SECTION 6 – OUTLETS FOR STOLEN GOODS
6.1. Roughly how often do you think EXPERIENCED burglars sell or trade stolen goods through
these outlets?
(a) Friends/family? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(b) Pawn shops? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(c) Jewellers? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(d) Drug dealers? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(e) Fences? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(f) Strangers? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(g) Anyone else (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
145
SECTION 7 – OUTLETS FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF STOLEN
PROPERTY
7.1. Where do you think an EXPERIENCED burglar would sell or trade these goods?
Family Pawn Jeweller Drug Fences Stranger Other Unsure No

/ mates shop dealer response
(a) Jewellery? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
(b) CD’s or DVD’s (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
(discs only)?
(c) Small electrical (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
items, such as
mobile phones or
digital cameras?
(d) Lap top (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
computers?
SECTION 8 – FACTORS INFLUENCING OFFENDING
8.1. How do the following things affect whether a burglar will break-in to a place or take things
during a break-in?

put-off put-off effect attract attract response
(a) The property has (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
an alarm?
(b) There is a dog (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
there?
(c) The property has (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
dead locks?
(d) The property is (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
ID-marked
(e) The property is in (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
a wealthy suburb
146
8.1. How do the following things affect whether a burglar will break-in to a place or take things
during a break-in?

put-off put-off effect attract attract response
(g) There is no one (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
home?
SECTION 9 – CIRCUMSTANTIAL FACTORS INFLUENCING

OFFENDING
9.1. How often do you think an offender breaks into places when the following occur:

times response
(a) The opportunity arises? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(b) The offender is near home? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(c) The offender is near where they (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
can sell the stuff they steal?
(d) It’s the morning? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(e) It’s the afternoon? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(f) It’s the evening? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(g) The offender is alone? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(h) The offender is in a group? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(i) The offender wants drugs? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(j) The offender wants alcohol? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(k) The offender is bored? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(l) The offender is out walking? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(m) The offender is out on their (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
bike?
(n) The offender is out in a car? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
(o) The offender is near a bus stop? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
147
9.1. How often do you think an offender breaks into places when the following occur:

times response
(p) The offender is near a train (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
station?
(q) The offender is broke? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) (9)
SECTION 10 – FINAL COMMENTS
10.1. Please enter any further information that you think might be of interest to this research study in
the text box bellow:
148

Known Burglars &amp Stolen Goods

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Known Burglars &amp Stolen Goods

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

crim e

“KNOWN” BURGLARS AND THE STOLEN

Anna Ferrante and Joe Clare

Crime Research Centre

University of Western Australia

Prepared for the

Office of Crime Prevention,

Department of Premier and Cabinet, WA

Anna Ferrante and Joe Clare

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................. XI

Table 1. Offender Demographic Profile (N = 239)............................................................................ 18

The most significant findings to emerge from the study were:

Types of Goods Stolen

Disposal of Stolen Goods

Police Perceptions of Burglary and the Disposal of Stolen Goods

In the discussion of the findings, the study noted that:

Overall, the specific aims of the project included:

Incidence of Burglary in Australia

Previous Research Findings – An Integrated Model of a Typical Stolen Goods Market

The Relationship Between Drugs and Burglary

Who is Committing Burglaries?

Furthermore, analysis of the offending histories of juveniles in detention across Australia

Sampling – Do Convicted Burglars Provide a Representative Sample?

Inclusion of Juvenile Offenders

Recruitment of Participants – Incarcerated Offenders

The selected institutions were:

• Casuarina (maximum security, adult prison);

Recruitment of Participants – Community-Based Offenders

With respect to the recruitment of offenders serving community-based orders, Community

Indigenous Participation and Cultural Sensitivity

Other Issues and Problems

Community-corrections staff provided a number of reasons for this apparent lack of

The Interview Schedule

Study Reference Group

Offender Age Groups (Adult Offenders vs. Young Offenders)

Demographic characteristic Sub-category N %N

Indigenous status Indigenous 125 51.9%

Offending frequency High frequency 132 54.8%

Region Metropolitan 193 80.1%

Indigenous status Offending frequency Drug-use frequency/severity N %N

Indigenous status Offending frequency Drug-use frequency/severity N %N

Mode of Transport to the Most Recent Offence

Mode of transport N %N % Stolen

(c) 60% (d) 60%

50% Low frequency 50% Low use

Mode of Transport Mode of Transport

(c) 60% (d) 60%

Number of Accomplices Number of Accomplices

Someone was home? N %N % Knew someone was home

(c) 50% (d) 50%

Someone Home/Knew Someone Home/Knew

Disposal avenue N %N Mean goods Mean time (hrs)

Family Business Drug dealers Fences Strangers Other

Family Business Drug dealers Fences Strangers Other

% Time Used Avenue

(c) 60.0% (d) 60.0%

Family Business Drug dealers Fences Strangers Other

Family Business Drug dealers Fences Strangers Other

(c) 60% (d) 60%

Disposal Avenue Disposal Avenue

Indigenous Mean Mean

Indigenous Mean Mean

Elect Appl Elect Appl