Clear, Hold, Build (CHB) has been promoted by the United Kingdom Home Office as a place-based framework for tackling serious and organised crime (SOC), with official reporting suggesting an almost 25% reduction in acquisitive offences. This article assesses whether CHB represents substantive innovation beyond established crime-prevention and reduction approaches and evaluates the robustness of the claimed impacts. The analysis examines CHB doctrine and compares its operational tactics with existing SOC literature, and evidence synthesised in systematic reviews of crime prevention and reduction, providing an independent methodological reappraisal of the Home Office impact evaluation, including re-examination of the accompanying community survey findings. The findings indicate that CHB largely repackages existing disruption, prevention and enforcement methods rather than introducing a distinct intervention logic. Further, the reported acquisitive-crime reductions are not supported robustly when set against identified evaluation limitations and potential confounding from concurrent initiatives, including hotspot policing. Survey results show little corresponding improvement in community outcomes and instead point to less favourable perceptions of safety, cohesion, and police effectiveness in pilot areas. The article concludes with recommendations for clearer phase-specific success metrics, stronger evaluation transparency, and greater alignment of CHB delivery with evidence-based approaches that balance enforcement with legitimacy and durable guardianship.
Eric Halford (2026) studied this question.