The risk of property crime victimization is examined from a routine activities approach using data from six neighborhoods in Atlanta, Georgia. Indicators of the concepts of motivated offenders, suitable targets, and capable guardians are identified, and their individual and combined explanatory power are examined. The findings reveal that measures of neighborhood crime and housing type are the only variables that consistently relate to victimization in the hypothesized direction; employment status is the only guardianship measure that has the predicted effect on victimization. The analyses provide limited support for the routine activities approach, but are also consistent with hypotheses derived from other theoretical perspectives on criminal victimizations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Clark, David D. 1988 “An Analysis of Guardian Effectiveness in the Prevention of Residential Burglary.” Ph.D. Dissertation. State University of New York at Albany.
2.
Cohen, Lawrence E.
and David Cantor1980. “The Determinants of Larceny: An Empirical and Theoretical Study.”Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency17:140-159.
3.
Cohen, Lawrence E.
and David Cantor1981. “Residential Burglary in the United States: Lifestyle and Demographic Factors Associated with the Probability of Victimization.”Journal Research in Crime and Delinquency18:113-127.
4.
Cohen, Lawrence E.
and Marcus Felson1979. “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activities Approach.”American Sociological Review44:588-608.
5.
Cohen, Lawrence E.
, Marcus Felson, and Kenneth C. Land. 1980. “Property Crime Rates in the United States: A Macrodynamic Analysis, 1947-1977; with Ex-Ante Forecasts for the Mid-1980's.”American Journal of Sociology86:90-118.
6.
Cohen, Lawrence E.
, and Kenneth C. Land. 1987. “Sociological Positivism and the Explanation of Criminality.” Pp. 43-55 in Positive Criminology, edited by M.R. Gottfredson and T. Hirschi. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7.
Elliott, Delbert S.
, David Huizinga, and Suzanne S. Ageton. 1985. Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use. Beverly Hills, CASage.
8.
Garofalo, James
. 1987. “Reassessing the Lifestyle Model of Criminal Victimization.” Pp. 23-42 in Positive Criminology, edited by M.R. Gottfredson and T. Hirschi. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
Garofalo, James
, Leslie Siegel, and John Laub. 1987. “School-Related Victimizations Among Adolescents: An Analysis of National Crime Survey (NCS) Narratives.”Journal of Quantitative Criminology3:321-338.
10.
Gottfredson, Michael
. 1981. “On the Etiology of Criminal Victimization.”Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology72:714-726.
11.
Greenberg, Stephanie W.
, William M. Rohe, and Jay R. Williams. 1982a. Safe and Secure Neighborhoods. Washington DC: Community Crime Prevention Division, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
12.
Greenberg, Stephanie W.
, William M. Rohe, and Jay R. Williams. 1982b. “Safety in Urban Neighborhoods: A Comparison of Physical Characteristics and Informal Territorial Control in High and Low Crime Neighborhoods.”Population and Environment5:141-166.
13.
Hindelang, Michael
, Michael Gottfredson, and James Garofalo. 1978. Victims of Personal Crime. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
14.
Hirschi, Travis
. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
15.
Hough, Mike1987. “Offenders' Choice of Target: Findings from Victim Surveys.”Journal of Quantitative Criminology3:355-370.
16.
Kim, Jae-On
, and Charles W. Mueller. 1978. Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical Issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17.
Lynch, James P.1987. “Routine Activity and Victimization at Work.”Journal of Quantitative Criminology3:283-300.
18.
Massey, James L.
and Marvin D. Krohn. 1986. “A Longitudinal Examination of an Integrated Social Process Model of Deviant Behavior.”Social Forces65:106-134.
19.
Maxfield, Michael G.1987a. “Lifestyle and Routine Activity Theories of Crime: Empirical Studies of Victimization, Delinquency, and Offender Decision-Making.”Journal of Quantitative Criminology3:275-282.
20.
Greenberg, Stephanie W.
, William M. Rohe, and Jay R. Williams. 1987b. “Household Composition, Routine Activity, and Victimization: A Comparative Analysis.”Journal of Quantitative Criminology3:301-320.
21.
Miethe, Terance D.
, Mark C. Stafford, and J. Scott Long. 1987. “Social Differentiation in Criminal Victimization: A Test of Routine Activities/Lifestyle Theories.”American Sociological Review52:184-194.
22.
Messner, Steven F.
and Kenneth Tardiff. 1985. “The Social Ecology of Urban Homicide: An Application of the `Routine Activities' Approach.”Criminology23:241-267.
23.
Newman, Oscar
. 1972. Defensible Space: Design for the Improvement of Security in Urban Residential Areas. New York: MacMillan.
24.
Reppetto, Thomas A.
1974. Residential Crime. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
25.
Sampson, Robert J.1985. “Neighborhood and Crime: The Structural Determinants of Personal Victimization.”Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency22:7-40.
26.
Sampson, Robert J.
and John D. Wooldredge. 1987. “Linking the Micro- and Macro-Level Dimensions of Lifestyle-Routine Activity and Opportunity Models of Predatory Victimization.”Journal of Quantitative Criminology3:371-393.
27.
Sherman, Lawrence W.
, Patrick R. Gartin, and Michael E. Buerger. 1989. “Hot Spots of Predatory Crime: Routine Activities and the Criminology of Place.”Criminology27:27-55.
28.
Skogan, Wesley
. 1981. “Assessing the Behavioral Context of Victimization.”Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology72:727-742.
29.
Stark, Rodney
. 1987. “Deviant Places: A Theory of the Ecology of Crime.”Criminology25:893-909
