Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 65–75 | Cite as

The Burglary Boost: A Note on Detecting Contagion Using the Knox Test

  • Joseph T. OrnsteinEmail author
  • Ross A. Hammond
Original Paper



A large body of literature in quantitative criminology finds that the spatio-temporal clustering of burglary is greater than one would expect from chance alone. This suggests that such crimes may exhibit a “boost” effect, wherein each burglary increases the risk to nearby locations for a short period. In this study, we demonstrate that standard tests for spatio-temporal dependence have difficulty distinguishing between clustering caused by contagion and that caused by changing relative risks. Therefore, any estimates of the boost effect drawn from these tests alone will be upwardly biased.


We construct an agent-based model to generate simulated burglary data, and explore whether the Knox test can reliably distinguish between contagion (one burglary increases the likelihood of another burglary nearby) and changes in risk (one area gets safer while another gets more dangerous). Incorporating insights from this exercise, we analyze a decade of data on burglary events from Washington, DC.


We find that (1) absent contagion, exogenous changes in relative risk can be sufficient to produce statistically significant Knox ratios, (2) if risk is changing over time, estimated Knox ratios are sensitive to one’s choice of time window, and (3) Knox ratios estimated from Washington, DC burglary data are sensitive to one’s choice of time window, suggesting that long-run changes in relative risk are, in part, driving empirical estimates of burglary’s boost effect.


Researchers testing for contagion in empirical time series should take precautions to distinguish true contagion from exogenous changes in relative risks. Adjusting the time window of analysis is a useful robustness check, and future studies should be supplemented with new approaches like agent-based modeling or spatial econometric methods.


Burglary Contagion Knox test Agent-based modeling 



The authors thank John Roman and Akiva Liberman for valuable discussions on earlier work that informed the present study, the Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department for access to data, Austen Mack-Crane for research assistance, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on the manuscript.


  1. Bernasco Wim (2008) Them again? Same offender involvement in repeat and near repeat burglaries. Eur J Criminol 5(4):411–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowers KJ, Johnson SD (2004) Who commits near repeats? A test of the boost explanation. West Criminol Rev 5(3):12–24Google Scholar
  3. Bowers KJ, Johnson SD (2005) Domestic burglary repeats and space–time clusters. Eur J Criminol 2(1):67–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braithwaite A, Johnson SD (2012) Space–time modeling of insurgency and counterinsurgency in Iraq. J Quant Criminol 28:31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Farrell G (1995) Predicting and preventing revictimisation. Building a safer society: Crime and justice, vol 19. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  6. Glaeser Edward L, Sacerdote Bruce, Scheinkman José A (1996) Crime and social interactions. Quart J Econ 111(2):507–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grubesic TH, Mack EA (2008) Spatio-temporal interaction of urban crime. J Quant Criminol 24:285–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Johnson SD (2008) Repeat burglary victimization: a tale of two theories. J Exp Crimonol 4:215–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnson SD, Bernasco W, Bowers KJ, Elffers H, Ratcliffe J, Rengert G, Townsley M (2007) Space-time patterns of risk: a cross national assessment of residential burglary victimization. J Quant Criminol 23:201–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson SD, Summers L, Pease K (2009) Offender as forager? A direct test of the boost account of victimization. J Quant Criminol 25:181–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Knox EG, Bartlett MS (1964) The detection of space–time interactions. J R Stat Soc C (Appl Stat) 13(1):25–30Google Scholar
  12. Marchione E, Johnson SD (2013) Spatial, temporal and spatio-temporal patterns of maritime piracy. J Res Crime Delinquency 50:504–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Morenoff Jeffrey D, Sampson Robert J, Raudenbush Stephen W (2001) Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology 39(3):517–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pitcher AB, Johnson SD (2011) Explaining theories of victimization using a mathematical model of burglary. J Res Crime Delinquency 48(1):83–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ratcliffe JH (2001) Policing urban burglary. Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice, No. 213. Australian Institute of CriminologyGoogle Scholar
  16. Ratcliffe JH, Rengert GF (2008) Near-repeat patterns in Philadelphia shootings. Secur J 21:58–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schmertmann CP, Assuncao RM, Potter JE (2010) Knox meets Cox: adapting epidemiological space–time statistics to demographic studies. Demography 47(3):629–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Townsley M, Homel R, Chaseling J (2003) Infectious burglaries: a test of the near repeat hypothesis. Br J Criminol 43:615–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Townsley M, Johnson SD, Ratcliffe JH (2008) Space time dynamics of insurgent activity in Iraq. Secur J 21:139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Weisel DL (2002). Burglary in single family houses. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Series No. 18Google Scholar
  21. Wells W, Wu L, Ye X (2012) Patterns of near-repeat gun assaults in Houston. J Res Crime Delinquency 49:186–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Youstin TJ et al (2011) Assessing the generalizability of the near repeat phenomenon. Crim Justice Behav 38:1042–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of MichiganSt. Ann ArborUSA
  2. 2.Center on Social Dynamics and PolicyBrookings InstitutionWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations