For example, in the USA, approximately 17 million intruder and fire alarms have been installed (Hakim et al., 1995). Personal and property alarms are a widely used tactic aimed at reducing levels of offending or harm. Therefore, the focus on effective methods for preventing DA harm by the police is on a specific subgroup of DA dyads for whom at least one incident was reported to the police and potential for re-victimisation exists (Sherman et al., 2017). Overall, it seems that the risk factors with the most robust prediction validity for subsequent, future DA are the offender’s prior suicidal ideation, stalking, and separation from their partner (see Bland & Ariel, 2020 Goussinsky & Yassour-Borochowitz, 2012), but these factors are mostly not found within police records. ( 2017) to identify risk factors based on police records concluded that the majority of severe DA cases came ‘out of the blue’ with no prior police awareness about the dyads, hence the difficulty in primary prevention. Footnote 1 Furthermore, efforts led by Thornton ( 2017), Chalkey and Strang ( 2017), Button et al. Indeed, most reported DA, particularly of the high-harm type, occurs without any prior contact with the police and without additional reported incidents (Bland & Ariel, 2015 Bridger et al., 2017). Reports to the police of first-time DA involving intimate partners are usually the last instance of DA reported to them (Sherman & Berk, 1984). The police are involved in prevention at the secondary and tertiary levels after at least one report has been made to them.

Tertiary crime prevention concentrates on those who have already been victimised (Radford et al., 2011). Primary crime prevention is focused on the whole population, whereas secondary crime prevention is more targeted and focuses on those at greater risk. To determine the methods that reduce harm and repeat victimisation in high-risk DA, it is essential to understand the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary crime prevention. Compared to ordinary panic alarms for high-risk domestic abuse victims, audio-recording systems provide valuable evidence that increases subsequent charges, and thus, these systems should be explored further. Using deterrent stickers to warn domestic abuse offenders of panic alarm systems does not lead to a reduction in subsequent harm to victims.

Nevertheless, the estimation model indicated a significant 57% increase in charges using the audio-recording alarm relative to the standard panic alarm system. Pre-post comparisons of recidivism suggested an overall reduction in both treatment arms, but there were no statistically significant differences between the two types of alarm systems across these crime measures. The gain scores of multiple measures at 6 months prior and 6 months post-randomisation were used to assess the treatment effects (including the number of calls for service, recorded crimes, and harm score), and a negative binomial generalised linear model was utilised to estimate the likelihood of criminal charges for domestic abuse offenders in the two systems. Each sticker was well lit to ensure maximum visibility. This study used a pre-test-post-test, control group design, in which 300 eligible high-risk domestic abuse victims in London, UK, were randomly allocated to either a standard panic alarm system or a panic alarm system with audio-recording capabilities and a red warning sticker on a durable, A6-size sign displayed at eye level at the entrance to the premises. Measuring the efficacy of warning stickers and audio recordings will enhance understanding of the overall effectiveness of panic alarm systems for domestic abuse. There is also a lack of data regarding whether adding an audio-recording feature to the panic alarm results in more prosecutions of domestic abuse offenders compared to standard panic alarm systems. Consequently, it is presently unknown whether domestic abuse offenders are deterred by warning stickers informing them that a panic alarm system is installed on the premises, or whether alarm systems reduce domestic abuse recidivism. However, tests of these devices are rare.

The use of panic alarm systems for victims of domestic abuse is becoming increasingly popular.

Panic alarms personal