You also have to take into account the huge levels of support available for offenders. An awful lot of research shows that it costs far less to support someone away from crime than it does to punish them afterwards. The worst crime rates I remember were in the early 90s when there was something like an 80% correlation between heroin addiction and repeat offenders. People were stealing to support habits.
For the last decade or so the police and partners have concentrated on prevention. Compulsory drug testing on arrest for acquisitive and other "trigger" crimes means that an offender cannot disguise a habit. Anyone testing positive for crack or heroin MUST by law attend an assessment session with a drugs worker. They are given priority access to treatment and rehab if appropriate.
Anyone convicted of acquisitive crime is monitored post conviction. Offenders are banded into risk levels, again, depending on assessments made by police and partners (usually probation and adult services) and intervention is planned and delivered to reduce reoffending. There are three tiers of intervention, depending on offender types, their willingness to engage with support, and what are called their "criminogenic needs" (ie what makes them offend in the first place... poverty, substance misuse, decision making and thinking skills to name but a few). The green band engage well and are given whatever support they need to rehabilitate. The amber band have multiple needs and need pushing in order to make them engage, this is the Prevent and Deter band. Regular targeted intervention and support is given by lead professionals from whichever service is best placed to deal with their needs. Red offenders are most likely to reoffend, have multiple complex needs and fail to engage. They are given every opportunity to get with the programme, but often fail or refuse to the extent that we move onto "catch and control" tactics. These offenders are visited daily by officers from local teams and left in no doubt that they are being monitored and are at constant risk of arrest should step out of line. Disruption tactics include for example making a note of every item of clothing they own, especially footwear, making detection more likely if they leave footwear impressions at scenes of burglaries.
It is no accident that the number of domestic burglaries are falling. Burglaries rarely go unreported, and victims receive platinum service. In our division, the largest division in West Yorkshire, we record fewer than 5 burglaries daily. In my "patch", a residential area of 10,000 dwellings with a population of 30,000 souls, I record one domestic dwelling house burglary per fortnight on average. That's 1.6 burglaries per 1000 population per year, the lowest rate in West Yorks by quite a margin.
There are arguments around acceptable levels of offending, or what the local population will tolerate before reporting. That differs from area to area, and from culture and community to culture and community, but my residents will make phone calls about stuff even I raise an eyebrow at. A stray dog generated six calls on Thursday last week. A got a call from woman who met a man from a dating website and wanted to report that he didn't look like his photo. I get many calls regarding neighbours looking at each other in an unfriendly fashion, whereas in one patch where I worked they only rang in if weapons were actually being used at the time. Different strokes and all that. My lot are NOT afraid to report.
