Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 307–330

The Distribution of Household Property Crimes

  • Denise R. Osborn
  • Andromachi Tseloni
Article

Abstract

Previous studies have established that repeat victimizations occur more frequently than would be expected if households within a particular area were victimized randomly. This implies that characteristics of the household affect the victimization rate. Even controlling for these characteristics, we find that a Poisson model does not capture the distribution of victimizations because repeat victimizations are more concentrated than it would indicate. This leads us to adopt the negative binomial generalization of the Poisson model. Our analysis uses sociodemographic attributes of the household and community-level characteristics to predict victimizations, with the victimization data being the observed number of property crime victimizations from the 1992 British Crime Survey. The negative binomial generalization is found to be highly statistically significant and the crime concentration it implies becomes much more marked as the predicted number of victimizations increases.

property crime repeat victimization heterogeneity state dependence Poisson model negative binomial model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Cameron, C. A., and Trivedi, P. K. (1986). Econometric models based on count data: Comparisons and applications of some estimators and tests. J. Appl. Econometr. 1: 29-53.Google Scholar
  2. Chenery, S., Ellingworth, D. E., Tseloni, A., and Pease, K. (1996). Crimes which repeat: Undigested evidence from the British Crime Survey 1992. Int. J. Risk Security Crime Prev. 1: 207-216.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, L. E., and Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rates trends: A routine activity approach. Am. Sociol. Rev. 44: 588-608.Google Scholar
  4. Ellingworth, D. E., Farrell, G., and Pease, K. (1995). A victim is a victim is a victim? Chronic victimization in four sweeps of the British crime survey. Br. J. Criminol. 35: 360-365.Google Scholar
  5. Ellingworth, D., Hope, T., Osborn, D. R., Trickett, A., and Pease, K. (1997). Prior victimization and crime risk. Int. J. Risk Security Crime Prev. 2: 201-214.Google Scholar
  6. Fienberg, S. (1980). Statistical modeling in the analysis of repeat victimization. In Fienberg, S., and Reiss, A. (eds.), Indicators of Crime and Criminal Justice: Quantitative Studies, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. Garofalo, J. (1987). Reassessing the lifestyle model of criminal victimization. In Gottfredson, M. R., and Hirschi, T. (eds.), Positive Criminology, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  8. Gottfredson, M. (1984). Victims of Crime: The Dimensions of Risk, Home Office Research Study 81, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
  9. Greene, W. H. (1991). LIMDEP Version 6.0: User's Manual and Reference Guide, Econometric Software, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Hales, J. (1993). 1992 British Crime Survey (England and Wales) Technical Report, Social and Community Planning Research, London.Google Scholar
  11. Heckman, J. (1981). Statistical models for discrete panel data. In Manski, C. F., and McFadden, D. (eds.), Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  12. Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R., and Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  13. Kennedy, L. W., and Forde, D. R. (1990). Routine activities and crime: an analysis of victimization in Canada. Criminology 28: 137-152.Google Scholar
  14. Lauritsen, J. L., and Davis-Quinet, K. F. (1995). Repeat victimization among adolescents and young adults. J. Quant. Criminol. 11: 143-166.Google Scholar
  15. McCullagh, P., and Nelder, J. A. (1989). Generalized Linear Models, 2nd ed., Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  16. Nelson, J. F. (1980). Multiple victimization in American cities: A statistical analysis of rare events. Am. J. Sociol. 85: 870-891.Google Scholar
  17. Osborn, D. R., Trickett, A., and Elder, R. (1992). Area characteristics and regional variates as determinants of area property crime levels. J. Quant. Criminol. 8: 265-285.Google Scholar
  18. Osborn, D. R., Ellingworth, D., Hope, T., and Trickett, A. (1996). Are repeatedly victimized households different? J. Quant. Criminol. 12: 223-245.Google Scholar
  19. Reiss, A. (1980). Victim proneness in repeat victimization by type of crime. In Fienberg, S., and Reiss, A. (eds.), Indicators of Crime and Criminal Justice: Quantitative Studies, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  20. Sampson, R. J., and Groves, B. W. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social disorganization theory. Am. J. Sociol. 94: 774-802.Google Scholar
  21. Sampson, R. J., and Wooldredge, J. D. (1987). Linking the micro-and macro-level dimensions of lifestyle-routine activity and opportunity models of predatory victimization. J. Quant. Criminol. 3: 371-393.Google Scholar
  22. Shaw, C. R., and McKay, M. D. (1942). Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  23. Sparks, R. F. (1981a). Multiple victimization: Evidence, theory, and future research. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 72: 762-778.Google Scholar
  24. Sparks, R. F. (1981b). Surveys of victimization—An optimistic assessment. In Tonry, M., and Morris, N. (eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Vol. 3, pp. 1-60.Google Scholar
  25. Sparks, R. F., Genn, H. J., and Dodd, D. J. (1977). Surveying Victims: A Study of the Measurement of Criminal Victimization Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Trickett, A., Osborn, D. R., Seymour, J., and Pease, K. (1992). What is different about high crime areas? Br. J. Criminol. 32: 81-89.Google Scholar
  27. Trickett, A., Osborn, D. R., and Ellingworth, D. (1995a). Property crime victimization: The roles of individual and area influences. Int. Rev. Victimol. 3: 273-295.Google Scholar
  28. Trickett, A., Ellingworth, D., Hope, T., and Pease, K. (1995b). Victimization in the eighties: Changes in area and regional inequality. Br. J. Criminol. 35: 343-359.Google Scholar
  29. Tseloni, A. (1995). The modeling of threat incidence: Evidence from the British Crime Survey. In Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., and Noaks, L. (eds.), Crime and Gender, University of Wales Press, Cardiff, pp. 269-294.Google Scholar
  30. Tseloni, A., and Pease, K. (1996). Repeat victimization and policing: Whose home gets victimized, where and how often? Presented at the Conference of the Swedish Police College, Stockholm, Sept.Google Scholar
  31. Winchester, S., and Jackson, H. (1982). Residential Burglary: The Limits of Prevention Home Office Research Study No. 74, Home Office Research and Planning Unit, London.Google Scholar
  32. Xekalaki, E. (1983). The univariate generalized Waring distribution in relation to accident theory: Proneness, spells or contagion? Biometrics 39: 887-895.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denise R. Osborn
    • 1
  • Andromachi Tseloni
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Economic StudiesUniversity of ManchesterManchesterU.K
  2. 2.Department of Criminology and Criminal JusticeUniversity of MarylandCollege Park

Personalised recommendations