Research Airef91808 Fullreport

FinalReportto
AIREF
THEIMPACTOFHOMEBURGLARALARMSYSTEMS
ONRESIDENTIALBURGLARIES
SEUNGMUG(A.K.A.ZECH)LEE
PH.D.
THESCHOOLOFCRIMINALJUSTICE
RUTGERS,
THESTATEUNIVERSITYOFNEWJERSEY
2008
SeungmugLee
ALLRIGHTSRESERVED
TABLEOFCONTENTS
ExecutiveSummary............................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements...........................................................................................................................vi
TableofContents................................................................................................................................ix
ListofTables......................................................................................................................................xiv
ListofFigures....................................................................................................................................xvi
ListofEquations.............................................................................................................................xvii
Chapter1.Introduction...................................................................................................................1
I.
II.
III.
ImportanceoftheStudy.........................................................................................................1
BurglarAlarmSystemsDefined..........................................................................................6
ChapterOrganization...............................................................................................................9
Chapter2.TheDevelopmentoftheAlarmSecurityIndustryinthe
UnitedStates................................................................................................................13
I.
PrivateSecurityIndustriesintheUnitedStates........................................................13
AmericanSocietyforIndustrialSecurity(ASIS)................................20
PinkertonandPinkertonism...................................................................21
II.
AlarmIndustries......................................................................................................................25
1.
The18th19thCentury..................................................................................26
2.
TheEarlyTwentiethCentury.....................................................................29
3.
TheMidTwentiethCentury.......................................................................30
4.
Afterthe1990s.................................................................................................33
III.
OtherSecurityDevelopments............................................................................................36
IV.
ChapterConclusion.................................................................................................................37
1.
2.
Chapter3.TheoreticalFrameworkandPriorStudies......................................................39
I.
TheoreticalFrameworkfortheStudy............................................................................39
RoutineActivitiesTheory............................................................................41
RationalChoiceTheory.................................................................................48
SituationalCrimePrevention.....................................................................52
II.
SituationalCrimePreventionandResidentialBurglarAlarms..........................58
1.
TheConklinBittnerStudy(1973)...........................................................59
2.
TheReppettoStudy(1974).........................................................................60
3.
TheBennettWrightStudy(1984)...........................................................62
4.
TheRengertWasilchickStudy(1985;2000).....................................64
5.
TheHakimBuckStudy(1991)..................................................................65
6.
TheCromwellOlsonAvaryStudy(1991)............................................67
7.
TheWrightDeckerStudy(1994).............................................................69
8.
TheLeBeauVincentStudy(1998)...........................................................70
9.
TheBuddStudy(1999).................................................................................72
10.
TheOSheaStudy(2000)..............................................................................73
III.
1.
2.
3.
Chapter4.LimitationsofPriorResearchandResearchQuestions.............................78
I.
1.
LimitationsofPriorResearch............................................................................................78
DataSource.........................................................................................................78
ix
II.
III.
IV.
2.
3.
4.
ResearchDesign...............................................................................................80
ResearchMethod.............................................................................................83
StatisticalAnalysis..........................................................................................86
SolutionstoMethodologicalIssues.................................................................................88
ResearchQuestionsandNullHypotheses....................................................................90
Chapter5.DataSourcesandResearchDesign.....................................................................98
I.
II.
OverviewoftheResearchDesign.....................................................................................98
DataSources...........................................................................................................................102
1.
TheCFSDatabase.........................................................................................102
2.
ThePoliceIncidentReports(PIR)Database....................................104
3.
TheAlarmInstalled(AI)ResidentialBurglaryDatabase...........105
4.
TheAlarmPermitRecordsDatabase...................................................106
5.
TheU.S.CensusDatabase..........................................................................107
6.
DataTransformation...................................................................................108
7.
UnitofAnalysis..............................................................................................110
III.
ResearchDesigns..................................................................................................................111
1.
ResearchDesignandStatisticalPowerAnalysis............................111
2.
DescriptiveAnalysesofBurglarAlarmsandResidential
Burglaries........................................................................................................117
3.
RelationshipbetweenBurglarAlarmsandResidential
Burglaries........................................................................................................119
4.
DescriptiveSpatialAnalysesofBurglarAlarmsand
ResidentialBurglaries...............................................................................120
5.
SpatialAnalysesoftheImpactofBurglarAlarmson
6.
MeasurementofDisplacementandDiffusionofBenefitsof
BurglarAlarmsonResidentialBurglaries........................................124
IV.
ChapterConclusion..............................................................................................................125
Chapter6.PatternsandCharacteristicsofBurglarAlarmsand
ResidentialBurglaries...........................................................................................127
I.
II.
Introduction............................................................................................................................127
TrendsofResidentialBurglarAlarms.........................................................................127
1.
ResidentialBurglarAlarmPermitsRecords....................................127
2.
NonRegisteredResidentialBurglarAlarms....................................130
III.
TrendsofResidentialBurglaries...................................................................................131
1.
TrendsinNAIResidentialBurglary.....................................................131
2.
AIResidentialBurglaries...........................................................................132
IV.
TemporalPatternsofResidentialBurglaries..........................................................133
1.
BurglariesbySeason...................................................................................133
2.
BurglariesbyMonth....................................................................................134
3.
BurglariesbyWeek......................................................................................135
4.
BurglariesbyTimeofDay........................................................................136
5.
BurglarybyHourofDay............................................................................137
V.
Chapter7.QuantitativeAnalysesoftheImpactofBurglarAlarmson
I.
II.
Introduction............................................................................................................................141
OverallRelationshipbetweenBurglarAlarmsandResidential
Burglaries.................................................................................................................................142
1.
ChiSquareAnalyses....................................................................................142
2.
TheRelationshipbetweenBurglarAlarmsandNAIBurglary
accordingtotheChangedProportions..............................................145
III.
CorrelatedRelationshipofBurglarAlarmsandResidential
Burglaries.................................................................................................................................148
1.
MultipleCorrelationAnalyseswithVariables.................................148
2.
BinaryCorrelationAnalysesforBurglarAlarmsand
BurglariesintheCensusTract...............................................................150
IV.
BivariateRegressionsofBurglarAlarmsandResidentialBurglaries..........153
V.
MultipleRegressionAnalysesofBurglarAlarmsandResidential
Burglaries.................................................................................................................................155
1.
ForwardSelectionMultipleRegressionAnalysesofBurglar
Alarms...............................................................................................................157
2.
HierarchicalMultipleRegressionAnalysesofNAIBurglary.....167
VI.
Chapter8.DescriptiveSpatialAnalysesofBurglarAlarmsand
I.
II.
Introduction............................................................................................................................182
MacroLevelSpatialPatternsofBurglarAlarmsandResidential
Burglaries.................................................................................................................................184
1.
PointMapsofBurglarAlarmsandNAIandAIResidential
Burglaries........................................................................................................184
2.
DensityMapsofBurglarAlarmsandNAIandAIResidential
Burglaries........................................................................................................188
III.
SpatialCharacteristicsofBurglarAlarmsandResidential
BurglariesBasedonCensusTracts..............................................................................194
1.
SpatialCharacteristicsofResidentialBurglarAlarms.................196
2.
SpatialCharacteristicsofNAIResidentialBurglary......................210
IV.
Chapter9.SpatialAnalysesoftheImpactofBurglarAlarmson
I.
II.
Introduction............................................................................................................................225
SpatialCentrographicAnalysesforBurglarAlarmsandResidential
Burglaries.................................................................................................................................226
1.
MeasuresofSpatialCentralityforBurglarAlarmsand
2.
MeasuresofSpatialDispersionforBurglarAlarmsand
III.
SpatialAutocorrelationAnalysesforBurglarAlarmsand
ResidentialBurglaryattheMacroLevel...................................................................235
xi
1.
MeasureoftheNearestNeighborIndex(NNI)forBurglar
AlarmsandResidentialBurglaries......................................................238
2.
MeasureoftheGlobalMoransIforBurglarAlarmsand
IV.
SpatialClusteringAnalysesforBurglarAlarmsandResidential
BurglariesattheMicroLevel..........................................................................................247
1.
GeographicClusteringAnalyses.............................................................249
2.
LocalMoransIAnalysesforBurglarAlarmsandResidential
Burglaries........................................................................................................252
3.
LocalHotspots(Gi*)AnalysisforBurglarAlarmsand
V.
Chapter10.Displacement/DiffusionofBenefitsofBurglarAlarmson
I.
II.
Introduction............................................................................................................................264
NonequivalentGroupsResearchDesignfortheMeasurementof
DisplacementandDiffusionofBenefits.....................................................................265
1.
MeasurementIssues....................................................................................265
2.
MeasurementattheIndividualandHouseholdLevels...............266
3.
NonequivalentGroupsQuasiExperimentalResearchDesign268
4.
WeightedDisplacementQuotient(WDQ).........................................273
5.
ApplicationoftheNonequivalentGroupsDesignandWDQ....275
6.
MeasuringProcessofAppliedNonequivalentGroupsDesign
andWDQAnalysis.......................................................................................278
III.
AppliedWDQAnalysisofBurglarAlarmsonResidentialBurglaries...........281
1.
ALandParcelMap........................................................................................281
2.
TheSelectionProcessofBufferandControlZones......................282
3.
TheValuesofAppliedWDQAnalysis..................................................285
4.
TheDiffusionofBenefitsofBurglarAlarmsonResidential
Burglaries........................................................................................................289
IV.
Chapter11.DiscussionandConclusion...............................................................................294
I.
II.
Introduction............................................................................................................................294
FindingExplanationsandPolicyImplications........................................................294
1.
ResultsSummary..........................................................................................294
2.
PolicyImplications.......................................................................................298
III.
LimitationsofthePresentStudy...................................................................................305
1.
NonequivalentGroupsQuasiExperimentalDesign.....................305
2.
ThePotentialDrawbacksofRecordedCrimeData.......................306
3.
SomeProportionofInUse,butNonRegistered,Burglar
AlarmsExists.................................................................................................307
4.
ASuddenIncreaseinResidentialAlarmPermitRecords..........308
5.
SomeProportionofUnmatchedGeocodingAddresses...............310
6.
LackofaMultipleFactorApproachinExaminingtheImpact
ofAlarmSystemsonCrime.....................................................................310
7.
TheGeneralizationoftheStudyIsinIssue.......................................311
IV.
FurtherResearchAgenda.................................................................................................312
xii
V.
Conclusion...............................................................................................................................314
Appendices........................................................................................................................................317
Appendix1. ChiSquarestatisticsbetweenburglaralarmsandresidential
burglariesannuallyinNewark,NJ.......................................................317
Appendix2. TheratesofalarminstallationandNAI/AIresidential
burglariesannuallyfor90censustractsinNewark,NJ.............318
Appendix3. Listsofthevariablesforcorrelationandregressionanalyses.320
Appendix4. Multiplecorrelationcoefficients(Personsr)fortheratesof
burglaralarminstallationsfor90censustractsannually,in
Newark,NJ......................................................................................................321
Appendix5. Multiplecorrectioncoefficients(Pearsonsr)oftheratesof
NAIburglaryfor90censustractsannuallyinNewark,NJ.......322
Appendix6. Aseriesofforwardselectionmultipleregressionsforburglar
alarmannuallyinNewark,NJ(N=90censustracts)....................323
Appendix7. AseriesofhierarchicalmultivariableregressionsforNAI
residentialburglaryannuallyinNewark,NJ(N=90census
tracts)................................................................................................................326
Appendix8. Pointsmapsofresidentialburglaralarmsannually.....................329
Appendix9. PointsmapsoftheNAIresidentialburglaryannually.................330
Appendix10. DensitymapsofresidentialburglaralarmsAnnually.................331
Appendix11. DensitymapsoftheNAIresidentialburglaryannually..............332
Appendix12. Superimposeddensitymapsbetweenburglaralarmsandthe
NAIresidentialburglaryannuallyinNewark,NJ..........................333
Appendix13. CensustractmapsofLocalMoransIforresidentialburglar
alarmsannuallyinNewark,NJ..............................................................334
Appendix14. CensustractmapsofLocalMoransIforNAIresidential
burglaryannuallyinNewark,NJ..........................................................335
Bibliography.....................................................................................................................................336
VITA
........................................................................................................................................347
xiii
LISTOFTABLES
[Table3.1]SummaryofPriorStudies..............................................................................................................77
[Table5.1]Totalnumbersofpopulation,household,householdw/oburglaralarm,
residentialburglaryw/oalarm,residentialburglaralarminuse,and
residentialburglaryw/burglaralarmannuallyinNewark,NJ................................108
[Table5.2]Overallminimumnumberofcasesforavariableforthe2X2tablechi
squaretest(df=1)withdifferentdegreesofeffectsize(ES)withthe0.80
statisticalpower(SP)andthe0.05significancelevel...................................................115
[Table5.3]The2X2dummytable(4cells)withminimumnumberofcasesfora
variablewiththe0.80SPand10%ES.................................................................................115
[Table5.4]Thechisquaretestbetweenresidentialburglaralarmsusedinhouseand
victimizationofresidentialburglarywiththe0.80SPand10%ESin
Newark,NJ,2001*..........................................................................................................................115
[Table6.1]NumberofresidentialburglaralarmpermitsannuallyinNewark,NJ..................128
[Table6.2]Numberandproportionoftherenewedandnonrenewedresidentialalarm
permitsannuallyinNewark,NJ(%).....................................................................................129
[Table6.3]Numberoftheexpiredandunlicensedburglaralarmsinuseannuallyin
Newark,NJ........................................................................................................................................130
[Table6.4]NumberofresidentialburglariesatNAIhomesannuallyinNewark,NJ..............132
[Table6.5]NumberofresidentialburglariesattheAIhomesannuallyinNewark,NJ.........133
[Table6.6]ProportionofNAIandAIresidentialburglariesseasonallyinNewark,NJ.........134
[Table6.7]ProportionoftheNAIandAIresidentialburglariesmonthlyinNewark,NJ......135
[Table6.8]ProportionoftheNAIandAIresidentialburglariesweeklyinNewark,NJ.........136
[Table6.9]ProportionoftheNAIandAIresidentialburglariesbytimeofdayin
Newark,NJ........................................................................................................................................137
[Table6.10]ProportionofNAI/AIresidentialburglarieshourlyinNewark,NJ......................138
[Table7.1]Thechisquaretestbetweenresidentialburglaralarmsandresidential
burglariesinNewark,NJ,2001a..............................................................................................143
[Table7.2]Valuesofchisquaretestsbetweenburglaralarmsandresidential
burglariesannuallyinNewark,NJ(df=1)a.........................................................................143
[Table7.3]ThechisquaretestbyyearandNAI/AIresidentialburglariesinNewark,NJ...145
[Table7.4]ChangedpercentagesandproportionsofAIandNAIresidentialburglaries
annuallyinNewark,NJ................................................................................................................147
[Table7.5]MultiplecorrelationstatisticsbetweenyearandburglaralarmsandNAI/AI
residentialburglariesinNewark,NJ.....................................................................................149
[Table7.6]Ratesofalarminstallation1andNAI/AIresidentialburglaries2for90census
tractsinNewark,NJ,2001.........................................................................................................151
[Table7.7]Binarycorrelationcoefficients(Pearsonsr)forburglaralarmswithNAI/AI
burglariesfor90censustractsannuallyinNewark,NJ...............................................152
[Table7.8]B\ivariateregressioncoefficientsofburglaralarmsonNAIresidential
burglaryannuallyinNewark,NJ1(N=90censustracts)..............................................154
xiv
[Table7.9]Forwardselectionmultipleregressionofburglaralarmsforoverall(2001
2005)inNewark,NJ(N=90censustracts)........................................................................159
[Table7.10]HierarchicalmultipleregressionofNAIresidentialburglaryforoverall
period(20012005)inNewark,NJ(N=90censustracts)...........................................170
[Table9.1]NearestNeighborIndex(NNI)ratiosandresults............................................................239
[Table9.2]NNIrationsandzscoresforburglaralarmsandNAI/AIburglariesannually
inNewark,NJ...................................................................................................................................240
[Table9.3]GlobalMoransIIndexvaluesandresults...........................................................................244
[Table9.4]GlobalMoransIvaluesforburglaralarmsandNAI/AIburglariesannually
inNewark,NJ...................................................................................................................................244
[Table10.1]Threeexamplesofnonequivalentgroupsquasiexperimentaldesigns.............270
[Table10.2]Nonequivalentgroupsquasiexperimentaldesignforthecurrentstudy.........272
[Table10.3]InterpretationguideforWDQratios...................................................................................281
[Table10.4]Numberofparcelmappedresidentialalarmrecordsannually,Newark,NJ....285
[Table10.5]ValuesofappliedWDQanalysisinNewark,NJ..............................................................286
[Table11.1]Numbersofthreedifferentresidentialalarmsystemusagesannuallyin
Newark,NJ........................................................................................................................................307
[Table11.2]NumberofresidentialburglaralarmpermitsannuallyinNewark,NJ,
20012005........................................................................................................................................309
xv
LISTOFFIGURES
[Figure3.1]Aconceptmapoftheeffectivenessofcrimepreventionforresidential
burglaries.............................................................................................................................................76
[Figure5.1]AdensitymapofNAIresidentialburglaryoverburglaralarmsinNewark,
NJ,2005..............................................................................................................................................123
[Figure8.1]PointmapsforburglaralarmsandNAI/AIresidentialburglariesin
Newark,NJ,2004and2005......................................................................................................185
[Figure8.2]OverlaidpointmapsofburglaralarmsandNAIresidentialburglaryin
Newark,NJ,2004and2005......................................................................................................187
[Figure8.3]DensitymapsforburglaralarmsandNAIresidentialburglaryinNewark,
NJ,2004and2005.........................................................................................................................190
[Figure8.4]OverlaiddensitymapsbetweenburglaralarmsandNAIresidential
burglaryinNewark,NJ,2004and2005..............................................................................192
[Figure8.5]Censustractmapsofthegeneralpopulationbyracewithdensitymapsof
burglaralarmsinNewark,NJ,2005......................................................................................198
[Figure8.6]Censustractmapsforthepopulationagegroupswithdensitymapsof
[Figure8.7]Censustractmapsofsocioeconomiccharacteristicswithdensitymapsof
[Figure8.8]Censustractmapsofhouseholdersbyraceandagewithdensitymapsof
[Figure8.9]Censustractmapsofhousingcharacteristicswithdensitymapsofburglar
alarmsinNewark,NJ,2005.......................................................................................................209
NAIburglaryinNewark,NJ,2005..........................................................................................211
[Figure8.11]CensustractmapsofpopulationagegroupswithdensitymapsofNAI
burglaryinNewark,NJ,2005...................................................................................................213
[Figure8.12]Censustractmapsofsocioeconomicconditionswithdensitymapsof
[Figure8.14]Censustractmapsofhousingcharacteristicscompositionwithdensity
mapsofNAIburglaryinNewark,NJ,2005........................................................................220
[Figure9.1]Meancentersofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesannuallyin
Newark,NJ........................................................................................................................................228
[Figure9.2]Standarddistancedeviation,standarddeviationalellipse,andmeancenter
ofburglaralarmsandNAI/AIburglariesinNewark,NJ,2005.................................233
[Figure9.3]TheresultsofNNIanalyses......................................................................................................240
[Figure9.4]TheresultsofGlobalMoransIanalysisforburglaralarmsandNAI/AI
burglaries..........................................................................................................................................244
[Figure9.5]OverlaiddensitymapofburglaralarmsandNAIburglaryinNewark,NJ,
2005.....................................................................................................................................................251
xvi
[Figure9.6]LocalMoransIforburglaralarmsandNAI/AIburglariesinNewark,NJ,
2005andoverall............................................................................................................................254
[Figure9.7]Gi*forburglaralarmsandNAIburglaryinNewark,NJ,2005andoverall.........258
[Figure10.1]Nestedbufferandcontrolzones.........................................................................................274
[Figure10.2]FourringbufferingmapsofburglaralarmsandNAIburglaryinthe
westernandnortheasternpartsofNewark,NJ,2005..................................................275
[Figure10.3]Applicationofthenestedbufferandcontrolzonesinatypicalhousing
layout...................................................................................................................................................276
[Figure10.4]Applicationofthenestedbufferandcontrolzones...................................................278
[Figure10.5]ExampleofthelandparcelmapofthewesternpartinNewark,NJ...................282
[Figure10.6]Landparcelmapsof9metercontrolzone(C1)and18metercontrolzone
(C2)with9meterbufferzone(B)..........................................................................................285
LISTOFEQUATIONS
[Equation10.1]........................................................................................................................................................279
[Equation10.2]........................................................................................................................................................279
xvii
CHAPTER1.INTRODUCTION
I.
ImportanceoftheStudy
PrivatesecurityintheUnitedStateshasalongandrichhistory.Since1851when
AlanPinkertonfoundedwhatwouldbecomethePinkertonDetectiveAgency,
privatesecurityhasgrowntobecomea$104billionindustry,withrecent
expendituresforpoliceprotectionatalllevelsofgovernmentalspendingbeing
about$50billionannually.Theratioofprivatesecurityemployeestolocallaw
enforcementisreportedtobe3:1(FischerandGreen,2004;Collins,Ricks,andVan
Meter,2000).Privatesecurityprofessionalsarenowemployedtoprotectboth
publicandprivateplaces,providingservicessuchasphysicalsecurity,loss
prevention,informationsecurity,andtheprotectionofpersonnel.Nowmorethan
ever,thepeopleoftheUnitedStates,aswellasmanyotherplacesintheworld,are
givensurveillanceandprotectionbytheprivatesecurityindustry.
Sincethelate1960s,thepublicpolicehavebeensubjecttoaresearch
revolutionthathasenormouslyexpandedtheirbodyofknowledge(National
ResearchCouncil,2004;Button,1998).Policeforceshavebeenthefocusof
numerousstudiesandamajortopicofconsiderationwhenstudyingthedropin
crimerates,partlybecausethepolicearethefirstlineofresponsetoviolentactivity.
Thesteadyreductionofviolenceinthe1990sisespeciallyunprecedentedin
contemporarycrimestatistics,anditscauseshavebecomeamajorresearchtopic
(BlumsteinandWallman,2000).Forexample,NewYorkCityexperienceda
dramaticreductioninallformsofcrimeanddisorder.Amongthecompeting
explanationsforcrimereductioninthiscity,policingstrategiesandtheNewYork
CityPoliceDepartmentsimpacthavegeneratedconsiderablediscussionin
academic,political,andmediacircles.Severalstudieshaveexaminedthe
contributionsofthepublicpolicetotheeffectivenessofcrimecontroland
prevention(Sousa,2003;EckandMaguire,2000).KellingandSousa(2001)
concludedthatthepolicingvariablehadadirecteffectoncrimereductioninNew
YorkCity.
However,inthepublicsectorofthecrimecontrolandpreventionindustry,
costsarehighandrising.Boththequalityandthequantityoftheeffectivenessof
thecriminaljusticesystemclearlyhaveroomforimprovement.Developmentsin
crimepreventionhavegraduallyandsystematicallydrivendowncostswhile
increasingboththequantityandthequalityofcrimepreventionefforts(Kirzner,
1997).Duringthelastthreedecades,governmentofficials,scholars,politicians,and
avastarrayofotherprofessionalshaverespondedwithprogramsandprojectsall
designedtoreducecrime.Althoughmanyoftheseinitiativeshavemade
improvements,thecostofcrimeandthedamagescausedbycrimecontinuetorise.
Sincethemid1990s,theactualnumberofcrimeshasdropped,yetthefearofcrime
hasincreased.
Theprivatesecurityindustryhasofferedalternativesforcopingwithcrime
unlikeanyotherandthedevelopmentoftheprivatesecuritysectorregardingcrime
preventionmayhaveadvantages(Benson,1998).Ithasundertakenasignificant
rangeoffunctionsandislargerinnumericaltermsthanthepublicpolice.The
goodsandservicestheindustrysuppliestofacilitatealltypesofcrimecontrol
activitiesarequitesubstantial.In2002,securityguardsaloneheldmorethan1.1
millionjobs(BLS,2004).Thesecurityalarmindustryhasbeendevelopedwithsales
ofmorethan$20billionannually(SecuritySales&Integration,2004).A1976
NationalAdvisoryCommissiononCriminalJusticeStandardsandGoalsreport
notedthat:
Onemassiveresourcehasnotbeentappedbygovernmentsinthe
fight against criminality. The private security industry offers a
potentialforcopingwithcrimethatcannotbeequaledbyanyother
remedyTheprivatesecurityprofessionalmaybetheonlyperson
inthissocietywhohastheknowledgetoeffectivelypreventcrime.
Thisconclusionhadnonoticeableimpactonpublicpolicytowardcrime.A
1985NationalInstituteofJusticereportbyCunninghamandTaylor(1985)
explainedthatdespitecontinualincreasesintaxpayerdollarsspentonthecriminal
justicesystem,neitherlocal,State,norFederalresourceshadseriouslyaffectedthe
problemofcrimeandthatyetstillconspicuouslyabsentfromcrimeprevention
programsistheinputoftheprivatesecurityindustry.
IntheUnitedStatesoverthelast30years,therehavebeenanumberof
significantgovernmentfundedreports.Forinstance,the1971fivevolumeRand
reportisprobablythemostextensivestudyofprivatesecuritythathaseverbeen
undertaken(KakalikandWildhorn,1972).Itwasfollowedbyanothersignificant
governmentfundedresearchprojectconductedbytheNationalAdvisoryCommittee
onCriminalJusticeStandardsandGoals(1976).Thesehavebeensucceededbythe
HallcrestReportsIandII(CunninghamandTaylor,1985;Cunningham,Strauchs
andvanMeter,1990).Thesubstantialcontributionsmadebythesereportswere:(1)
toprofiletrendsinallocationofresourcestoprivatesecurity;(2)todescribethe
currentstructureandfunctioningofthevarioustypesofprivateforces;(3)to
describetheproblemsandissuesintheprivatesecuritysector.
Thegrowthofprivatesecurityraisesnewchallengesforresearchersand
policymakers,butthesestudiesmainlyfocusedonthegeneraldescriptionand
overviewoftheprivatesecurityindustryintheUnitedStates.Scientificallydriven
investigationshaveseldombeenconductedtoexaminetheeffectivenessofcrime
controlandpreventionbyprivatesecurityentrepreneursingeneral(OShea,2000).
AsButton(1998)argued,thefieldofprivatesecurityhasbeenunderutilized,
underresearched,andunderestimated.Whenpolicingandcrimepreventionare
considered,theprivatesecurityindustrysusefulnessisoftenoverlooked.The
standardsoftheindustrycouldbeimprovedbystatutoryregulation,whichcould
impactcrime.Theprivatesecurityindustrycouldalsobegivenagreaterroleinthe
crimepreventioninfrastructurethatexistsatanational,regional,andlocallevel,
andmoreeffectivepartnershipscouldbeestablishedwiththepolice.Butthepolice
oftenneglectthepotentialbenefitsofworkingwiththeprivatesecurityindustry.
Garland(2001)arguedthatdespitethesubstantialsizeofprivatesecurity,
theeffectsoftheseprivateadaptationshavenotbeencarefullyevaluated.Button
(1998)arguedthatpolicinghasbecomeincreasinglysynonymouswiththepublic
policeservice.Asaconsequence,theprivatesecurityindustryhasreceivedvery
littleattention.Theattentionofresearchersandpolicymakersinterestedin
policinghasbeenfirmlyfixedonthepublicpoliceservice.Whentheactivities
undertakenbytheprivatesecurityindustryandtheestimatedsizeoftheindustryin
relationtothepoliceareconsidered,theamountofresearchthathasbeen
conductedontheprivatesecurityindustryseemshighlydisproportionate.The
publicpolicehavebeenthesubjectofnumerousstudies,buttherehavebeen
relativelyfewontheprivatesecuritysector.AsJonesandNewburn(1998)
observedintheirstudyontheprivatesecurityindustry:
Over the past two decades, criminologists have become
increasingly preoccupied with policing. However, their gaze has
been almost exclusively fixed upon that body of state officials
whichformswhatisknownasthepoliceservice.
Inparticular,thedeterrenteffectofburglaralarmsystemsandtheirimpact
oncrimeinresidentialareashasnotbeenadequatelyresearched(OShea,2000;
BennettandWright,1984),thoughalarmsystemshavepotentialtoprevent
residentialburglaryasarguedintheNationalAdvisoryCommitteeonCriminal
JusticeStandardsandGoals(1976):
Inmanyinstances,thepresenceofanalarmsystemcanserveas
apsychologicaldeterrenttocrimemostwouldbeoffendersstay
awayfrompremisestheysuspectareprotectedbyalarmsystems
In short, alarms provide a valuable, viable means of achieving
overallsecurity.
Itis,thus,imperativetohavemoreresearchintheimpactofalarmsystems
onburglary.Forexample,Sorensen(2005)notedthatdespiteitswidespread
implementation,thereisstilllittleconcreteevidencethatonepopularcrime
preventionapproach,thesituationalcrimepreventionwhichisthecoretheoretical
foundationofthisstudy,toresidentialburglaryhaveanymarkedeffectonburglary
reduction.Whilenumerousevaluationsareavailableinconnectionwithsome
situationalcrimepreventionapproaches,1othershavereceivedverylittleattention.
Heconcludedthatgivenitsintuitiveappealandwidespreaduse,itissurprisinghow
fewstudieshaveexaminedtheeffectivenessofburglaralarms.Thisdearthof
evidencemaystemfromthefactthatveryfewoftheprogramsenactedtodatehave
beenevaluatedundercontrolled,experimentalconditions.Withthese
considerationsinmind,thisstudywillcarefullyexamineindepththeimpactof
homeburglaralarmsystemsonresidentialburglary.
II.
BurglarAlarmSystemsDefined
FischerandGreen(2004)describethatthreebasictypesofalarmsystemsareinuse
toprovideprotectionforasecuritysystem:(1)burglar(intrusion)alarms;(2)fire
alarms;and(3)specialusealarms.Thefirealarmsoperatetowarnoffiredangers
invariousstagesofdevelopmentofafireorrespondprotectivelybyannouncingthe
flowofwaterinasprinklersystem.Thespecialusealarmsusetowarnofaprocess
reachingadangeroustemperature,orofthepresenceoftoxicfumes.Theburglar
alarmssignaltheentryofpersonsintoafacilityoraprotectedareawhilethesystem
isinoperation.Ofthethreetypesofalarmsystems,thefireandspecialusealarms
areexcludedinthepresentstudy.Onlytheburglaralarmsystemisincluded
(FischerandGreen,2004;CentralStationAlarmAssociation,1994;Cunninghamand
Taylor,1985;NationalAdvisoryCommitteeonCriminalJusticeStandardsandGoals,
1976;Moolman,1970).
1)SeeClarke,RonaldV.(1997).Situationalcrimeprevention;Successfulcase
studies(2nded.)andCrimePreventionStudies(volumes1~20)editedbyRonaldV.
Clarke.
Theprimarypurposeofaburglaralarmsystemistodetecttheentryor
attemptedentryofintrudersintoaprotectedfacilityandsignaltheirpresenceto
otherseitherlocallyorataremotelocation.Theburglaralarmsystemhasthree
commoncomponents:detectiondevices,controlunit,andreportingdevice.The
detectiondevicesareinstalledattheprotectedpremisestodetecttheburglar.They
areusuallyconnectedbyanelectricalcircuittothecontrolunit.Thecontrolunit
providespowerforthesensors,andreceivesandevaluatessignalsfromthem.
Uponreceiptofanalarmsignal,thecontrolunitcommunicateswiththereporting
device,alsocalledthealarmindicatingdevice,toannunciateanalarm.Thisalarm
canbeeitherasounding/visualdeviceinstalledattheprotectedpremisesand/ora
signaltoanalarmreceivingunitataremotelocation(CentralStationAlarm
Association,1994;Moolman,1970).
Eachofthesedevicesareintegratedanddevelopedintoavarietyof
applicationdevicesandsystems,dependingonsecurityneedsandcost
considerations.Forexample,UnderwritersLaboratoriesInc.(UL)classifiesburglar
alarmsystemsintofivetypesofsystemsaccordingtothemethodofannunciatingan
alarm:centralstation,proprietary,policestationconnected,local,andresidential
(CentralStationAlarmAssociation,1994).First,inacentralstationburglaralarm
system,anintrusionisautomaticallytransmittedtoacommercialagencycalleda
centralstation.There,trainedoperatorsandalarminvestigatorsarepresentatall
timestosupervise,record,andrespondtothesignal.Theoperatorcanimmediately
dispatchalarminvestigatorsandtelephonesthepolice.Second,inaproprietary
burglaralarmsystem,thedetectiondevicesandcircuitsareconnectedtoconstantly
monitoredreceivingequipmentatacentralsupervisingstation,whichislocatedat
theprotectedpropertyandisoperatedbypersonnelresponsibletotheownerofthe
property.Third,apolicestationconnectedburglaralarmsystemconsistsof
protectivedevicesandcircuitsconnectedthroughacontrolunittoaconstantly
mannedpolicedepartment.Anintrusioncausesthesounding/visualdevicetobe
actuatedandasignaltobetransmittedtothepolicedepartment.Sothepolicecan
respondtoasilentalarm.Butitsoperationissolelyunderthecontrolofthe
propertyowner.Thereisnooutsideagencytoassurethatthealarmsystemhas
beenturnedon.Butthissystemgenerallyisnotavailable.Fourth,alocalburglar
alarmsystemoperatesasounding/visualdeviceattheprotectedpropertyinthe
eventofanunauthorizedorattemptedintrusion,assumingthatthedevicewould
scareofftheintrudersbeforealossoccursbyattractingtheattentionofaneighbor
orpasserbywhowouldnotifythepolice.Buttheoperationofthissystemisunder
thecontroloftheowneroftheproperty.Asaresult,thereisnoguaranteethatthe
systemcanbeturnedonwhentheprotectionisneeded.Finally,aresidential
burglaralarmsystemconsistsofdevicesandcircuitsconnectedthroughacontrol
unittoasounding/visualdevice,whichmayhavearemoteconnectiontoacentral
station,policestation,proprietarystation,orresidentialmonitoringstation.A
residentialmonitoringstationisafacilitythathaspersonnelondutytrainedto
handlesignalsreceivedfromburglaralarmsystems.
Aburglaralarmsystemforthepresentstudyisacombinedsystemwith
sensors,sendingdevices,andsoundingdeviceswiththeprimarypurposeof
detectingtheentryorattemptedentryandsignalinganintrusiontootherseither
locallyorataremotelocation,includingseveraltypesofburglaralarmsystems.
III.
ChapterOrganization
Ahistoricalcontextofseveraldistinctivedevelopmentsofprivatesecurity
industriesintheUnitedStatessincethemiddleof1850sisdiscussedinChapter2.
Asoneofthemajordevelopmentsofsecurityindustries,togetherwitharmoredcar
servicesandsecurityguardservices,thealarmindustryhasexpandedrobustlyfor
decades,drivenbytechnologicalefficienciesandtheexpansionoftheresidential
securitymarket.Thosesecuritydevelopmentshavealongtraditionoffilling
perceivedgapsingovernmentinitiatedpolicingservicesbyplayingacriticalroleto
providecrimepreventionandsecurityservicesinthesociety.
Chapter3discusses,firstly,therelevanttheories(e.g.,routineactivities
theory,rationalchoicetheory,andsituationalcrimepreventionapproach)forthe
presentstudy.Aburglaralarminresidentialareaisanexampleoftargethardening
techniquebysubstitutingfortheabsenceofcapableguardiansagainstresidential
burglariesand/ortheexistenceofinadequatesurveillanceinordertoprevent
residentialburglariesfromarationallycalculatedandmotivatedburglar.Then,
severalpriorstudiesofresidentialburglaryconductedsincethe1970sare
presentedaccordingtothedatasource,researchdesign,andstudyfinding.Inspite
ofasubstantialbodyofresearchprojectstostudytheproblemofburglary,few
studieshaveexaminedtheeffectivenessofhomeburglaralarmsortheirimpacton
residentialburglary.
10
Chapter4presentstheresearchlimitationsdrawnfromthediscussionof
priorburglarystudiesaccordingtodatasource,researchdesign,researchmethod,
andstatisticalanalysis.Thoughthisonestudydoesnotovercomeall
methodologicallimitations,severalsolutionsaresoughtandpresentedtoremedy
someofthem.Then,giventhereviewofrelevanttheoriesandpriorstudiesonthe
effectivenessofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries,sixresearchquestionsand
nullhypothesesarebeproposed.
Chapter5discussesthedatasourcesandresearchdesignforthepresent
study.Thethreeprimarydatabases(e.g.,residentialburglaralarmspermits,
residentialburglaries,andU.S.Censusinformation)arepreparedbyretrievingfrom
theNewarkPoliceDepartment,CityHall,andU.S.Census.Theissueofresearch
designandstatisticalpoweranalysisisdiscussed.Inaddition,anonequivalent
quasiexperimentalresearchdesigntomeasurespatialdisplacementanddiffusion
ofbenefitsisdiscussedbriefly.
Chapters6and7focusondescriptiveandnumericalanalyses.Chapter6
presentsdescriptiveanalyses(e.g.,generalandtemporaltrends)ofbothburglar
alarmsandresidentialburglariesoverthemultipleyears.Chapter7discussesthe
overallandcorrectionrelationshipsbetweenburglaralarmsandresidential
burglaries.Variousnumericalstatistics,suchaschisquareandbiandmultivariate
correlationtestsareemployed.Inaddition,theregressionstatisticsareusedto
examinetherelationshipsbetweenburglaralarmsandresidentialburglarieswith
otherindependentvariables.Theprimarypurposeistoidentifytheindicatorsto
showsignificantrelationshipstotheincreaseofburglaralarmsinuseandthe
11
decreaseofresidentialburglaryincidents.Biandmultivariateregressionand
advancedmultipleregressionstatistics(e.g.,forwardselectionmultipleregression
andhierarchicalmultipleregression)areused.
Chapters8,9,and10focusonspatialanalysesofburglaralarmsand
residentialburglaryandtheirspatialrelationshipswithothervariables.Chapter8
discussesthedescriptivespatialanalysesofburglaralarmsandresidential
burglaries,usingpointanddensitymappingmethods.Chiefaimsaretoexaminethe
spatialdistributionsandpatternsofbothburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries
andtoverifyquantitativeanalysesanalyzedinChapter7inaspatialdimension,
usingthegeographicinformationsystem(GIS)computerprogram.
Chapter9discussesspatialimpactanalysesofbothburglaralarmsand
residentialburglaries.Somesimplespatialstatistics(e.g.,spatialcentralityand
spatialdispersionanalyses)andadvancedspatialstatistics(e.g.,spatial
autocorrelationanalysesandspatialclusteringanalyses)forburglaralarmsand
residentialburglariesareemployed.
Chapter10discussesthespatialdisplacementanddiffusionofbenefitto
examinetheimpactofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.Acknowledgingthe
absenceofastandardizedstudydesignforthemeasurementofthisissue,
nonequivalentgroupquasiexperimentalresearchdesignandthetheoretical
approachoftheweighteddisplacementquotient(WDQ)arediscussedandutilized
todevisetheresearchdesigntomeasurespatialdisplacementanddiffusionof
benefitswithnestedbufferandcontrolzonesapproachattheindividualhousehold
level.
12
TheresearchquestionsandhypothesesproposedinChapter4arerevisited
inChapter11.Inadditiontosummarizingthefindingsofthepresentstudy,Chapter
11discussesimplicationforpolicy,limitationsofthecurrentstudy,andproposals
forfutureresearchfocusingontheimpactofalarmsystemsoncrimes.
CHAPTER2.THEDEVELOPMENTOFTHEALARMSECURITYINDUSTRYIN
THEUNITEDSTATES
I.
PrivateSecurityIndustriesintheUnitedStates
Privatesecurityorganizationshavealongtraditionoffillingperceivedgapsin
governmentprovidedpolicingservices.InAmerica,colonialsettlementofnewly
discoveredlandsgaverisetodifferentsecurityneedsthanthoseofEurope.Frontier
life,withitsmanydangers,promotedtheideasofselfhelpandmutualaid.Asearly
as1699thecolonyofMassachusettsinstitutedaformalnightwatch.Other
measuresandprecautionsfollowedsuit(Lipson,1988).
EarlyAmericanlawenforcement,forthemostpart,resembledthatof
England.Colonialtowns,liketheirEnglishcounterparts,reliedonthemedieval
institutionsoftheconstable,thenightwatch,andhueandcryinstitutionsthat
drewnoclearlinesbetweenpublicandprivatesectors.AsinEngland,althoughthe
constableswerelegallyandtraditionallyagentsofthecourts,theynotonlyserved
warrantsandtookresponsibilityforanydaytimepatrolling,butalsolookedafter
theconditionofstreets,sidewalks,privies,slaughterhouses,andoversawthe
miscellaneousactivitieswhichaffectedthehealth,safety,andwellbeingofthe
urbanpopulation.Servingasconstableorwatchmanwasgenerallyanunpaidcivic
obligation,butinpracticeeveryonewhocouldaffordtohireasubstitutedidso.In
thedecadesfollowingindependence,thereexistedaconstantchorusofcomplaints
abouttheconstablesandwatchmen.Thosewithsufficientresourceshired
additionalprotection,thoughtheboundarybetweenprivateguardsandpublic
watchmenoftenremainedindistinct(Sklansky,1999).
13
CHAPTER2.THEDEVELOPMENTOFTHEALARMSECURITYINDUSTRYINTHEUNITEDSTATES
14
AstheUnitedStatedbecameanindependentnation,thefoundingfathers
madeaconsciousdecisionnottofollowtheFrenchtypeofnationalpolice.Thus,
commonlaw,whichwasalreadyestablishedduringthecolonialperiod,continued
afterthedeclarationofindependence.Thefirstquarterofthenineteenthcentury
sawthegrowthofcitiesintheUnitedStates.Eachhaditsownversionofanight
watch,andsomehadanewlyorganizeddayforcecalledaward.Thesewerelater
consolidatedandorganizedintoformallocalpoliceorganizationsafter1844,when
theNewYorklegislaturecreateddayandnightpoliceforthecity.Thenextdecade
witnessedthecreationofsimilardepartmentsincitiesacrossthenation(Lipson,
1988).
Atthesametime,thenineteenthcenturywastheperiodwestwardexpansion.
Themovementfollowednaturalroutes,suchasriversandlakes,andwasfurthered
bythebuildingofcanals.Alongnewlyopenedroutes,peopleandbothlocaland
foreigngoodsmovedinincreasingvolume.Thegoodsneededprotection,and
watchmenmanneddocks,barges,andotherinstallationsvitaltothistraffic.Soon
thereafter,thedevelopingrailroadsfollowedsuitwithprivatesecurityoftheirown
(Lipson,1988).
But,inmanyrespects,thesecurityneedsoftherailroadsandother
companiescoincided.Littlesecurityassistancewasavailablefromthenewlocal
policedepartments,whichlackedjurisdictionapartfromtheirownlimitedareasas
wellasthenecessaryfinancialsupportforeffortsbeyondtheirowntaxpayers
borders.Atthesametime,nofederalserviceexistedtowhichtheycouldturnfor
15
help.Thesecompaniescouldnotwaitforlegislationtobeinstitutedtofillthese
voids.Pulledintothegapwerethenewlyemergingprivatesecurityfirms.
TheresponsetotheneedforprivatesecurityduringandaftertheCivilWar
includedthecreationofexpresscompaniesengagedinhandlingandtransporting
valuables.Forexample,theAmericanExpressCompanywasformallystartedin
1850byHenryWellsandWalterFargo.Inaddition,withtheopeningofthe
railroads,theexpresscompaniesbegantosendvaluablesinsafesaccompaniedby
messengersintheircars.Bythelate1850s,bothAdamsExpressandAmerican
Expressweredesigningandusingtheirownexpresscarsontherailroads(Lipson,
1988).
Othercompaniesalsobecameinvolvedinsupplyingsecurityservices.The
railroadssoonhadtheirowninhousepoliceasdidsteamshiplines,freightcarriers,
forwarders,banks,factories,mines,andretailestablishments.Majorcompetitionon
anationalscaleemergedin1909withtheWilliamJ.BurnsInternationalDetective
Agency.Burnshadreceivedagreatdealofpublicityinconnectionwithhisworkas
anoperativeoftheUnitedStatesSecretServiceincasesinvolvingmunicipal
corruptioninSanFrancisco,HomesteadscandalsintheWest,andcriminal
manipulationoftimberlandsinOregon.Hissuccessfulcareerinarrestingnotorious
criminals,followingpainstakingfactfindingmeasures,earnedBurnsareputationof
reliability,persistenceandeventualsuccessinpursuingcasesthatwerebecoming
morecomplexintheearlytwentiethcentury.WhenBurnsopenedaprivateoffice
fordetectiveservices,hewasbynomeanspioneeringafieldandpromotedarigor
andorganizationintheinvestigativeservicesbusiness.Burnsagreedtoprovide
16
protectiveservicesfortheAmericanBankersAssociation,winningthecontractfrom
thePinkertonfirmandtheAmericanHotelAssociation(Lipson,1988;McCrie,1997).
TheentryoftheUnitedStatesintoWorldWarImarkedthefederaltakeover
ofrailroadsandexpresscompanies,withallinhousesecuritystaffsbecoming
governmentemployees.BeforeandduringWorldWarI,concernforsecurity
intensifiedthroughoutAmericanindustriesbecauseofthefearofsabotageand
espionage.Privatesecurityforceswereusedtoprotectwarindustriesandthe
docksagainstdestructionbysaboteurs.Theendoftheconflict,though,sawthese
propertiesandemployeesreturnedtoprivateownershipandcontrol(Hessand
Wrobleski,1996).
WorldWarIIgavesignificantimpetustothedevelopmentoftheprivate
securityindustry.BytheendofWorldWarII,Americancommerceandindustry
wereservedbyscoresofwellestablishedinvestigativeagenciesandbyhundredsof
companiesthatprovidedwatch,guard,andpatrolservices.Forindustrialclients,
detectivesprimarilyundertookspecificlossinvestigations.Whensolved,theclient
couldpursuecriminalchargesand/orinitiateacivilsuitforrecoveryoflosses.
Generally,thelargerandbetterestablishedinvestigativefirmsshunned
matrimonialassignmentsandrefusedtoconductindustrialspyingforaclient
againstcompetitors.However,freelancedetectivesoperatedwithoutsuchacode,
sometimesprovidingservicesofambivalentlegality(McCrie,1997).
InthefourdecadesfollowingWorldWarII,theuseofprivatesecurity
servicesexpandedtoencompassallsegmentsoftheprivatesector.Infact,people
employedinprivatesecurityfaroutnumberedthoseemployedinallphasesoflaw
17
enforcement(HessandWrobleski,1996;Lipson,1988).AccordingtoShearingand
Stenning(1987,9),sinceWorldWarIIthephenomenonofprivatesecurityhas
beengrowingexponentially,andcontinuestodoso.
Bythe1950s,largescalepersonnelprotectionhadbecomethemainsource
formanytraditionallyinvestigativeorientedservices.Whilemostmanufacturing
corporationsmaintainedtheirownsecuritydepartments,increasinglythese
serviceswerebeingcontractedouttoexistingsecurityguardandpatrolcompanies.
Althoughneverasprofitableasinvestigationsonanhourlybasis,guardandpatrol
servicesneverthelessprovidedlargergrossrevenues.Theseservicescouldcreate
substantialbusiness;andtheydid(McCrie,1997).
In1955,theprivatesecurityfieldtookamajorleapforwardwiththe
formationoftheAmericanSocietyforIndustrialSecurity(ASIS).Formostpeoplein
theindustry,1955signifiesthebeginningofthemodernepochofsecurity.Before
1955,therewerenoprofessionalorganizationsofnote,nocertifications,nocollege
programs,andnocohesivebodytoadvancetheinterestsofthefield(Fisherand
Green,2004).
Bytheendofthe1960s,thegovernmentfinancedRandReport(Kakalikand
Wildhorn,1972)madeitclearthattheindustrywasgrowingrapidlywithoutthere
beinganyunderstandingofhowitspracticesmightimpingeuponpublicconcerns.
Thereportdocumentedachasmbetweenprivatesecurityandpubliclaw
enforcement.Thetwosectorscooperatedonlywhentheyhadtoandwere
conceptuallyandadministrativelyquitedifferent,drawingfromseparatelabor
poolsandfollowingsubstantiallydifferentvetting(preemploymentscreening)and
18
trainingpractices.Whilesecuritydirectorsoftenhadlawenforcementexperience,
therestillseemedtobenoconstructivebasisofinteractionwithpubliclaw
enforcement(McCrie,1997).
Bythemid1970s,therewerenosubstantialchangesinfederal,state,orlocal
policiesrelatingtoguards,watchmen,andprivateinvestigators.However,theRand
Reportwasnotforgotten.TheU.S.LawEnforcementAssistanceAdministration
(LEAA)sponsoredinitiativesoughttotakeactiononsomeoftheconcernsidentified
intheRandReport;theNationalAdvisoryCommitteeonCriminalJusticeStandards
andGoalsconvenedaTaskForceonPrivateSecurity(1976)tostudytheindustry,
toofferpublicandprivatesectorguidance,andtoreporttheirfindingstothepublic
(McCrie,1997).
Bythemid1990s,muchofthedirectionprovidedbytheRandReportand
theTaskForceonPrivateSecurityresultedinmeasurablechangeswithinthe
industry.AccordingtoTheHallcrestReportII,around10,000operatingprivate
securityguardandpatrolcompaniesexisted,andabout67,000privateinvestigators
hadregisteredwithstateregulatorsin37.Totalindustryrevenuesforguard
serviceswereestimatedat$9.8billionin1990andprojectedtogrowto$21billion
by2000,atanannualgrowthrateof8percent.Additionally,revenuesforprivate
investigationswereestimatedtobe$2.4billionin1990,growingtoabout$4.6
billionbytheyear2000(Cunninghametal.,1990).By1996,twocompanieshad
achievedannualrevenuesofmorethan$1billiondollarsfromsecurityguard,patrol,
andinvestigativeservicesaloneagrowthachievedthroughinternalandexternal
acquisitions.Thedourpictureoftheagingwhitemalepoorlyeducatedand
19
poorlypaidpaintedbytheRandReportnolongerwaswhollyaccurate(McCrie,
1997).
McCrie(1997;1988)notedthatthemodernU.S.securityservicesindustry
hasdevelopedthreedistinctforms:alarmmonitoringandservicing;armoredcar
services;andsecurityguardservices,whichincludeprivateinvestigativeservices.
Amongthem,theguardandinvestigationbusinessesremainthelargest,as
measuredbyrevenues,andthemostvisible.Companiesinthissectorare
characterizedgenerallyashavingeaseofentrytothemarketplace;thus,theytend
tobehighlycompetitive,lowprofitandflexibleatmeetingchangingmarketneeds.
Thealarmindustryhasexpandedrobustlyforthreedecades,drivenby
technologicalefficienciesandtheexpansionoftheresidentialsecuritymarket.The
futureentryofatleastsomeRegionalBellOperatingCompanies(RBOCs)as
securityalarmservicesproviderstothemarketwillassurethecontinuedshuffling
ofalarmaccountsamongconsolidatingserviceoperators(McCrie,1997).
Thearmoredcarrierandsecurityhardwarebusinesseshavebeenmarked
bysteadyandmodestgrowthinrecentdecades.Bothrequireaccesstocapitalto
financetheiractivities(purchasingandmaintainingtrucks,andmanufacturingand
distributingproducts)andhaveexperiencedvariableprofitability.Theelectronic
accesscontrolindustryishighlydynamicandsubstantiallyaffectsothersegments
oftheindustryduringthisperiodofgrowth,innovation,andconsolidation(McCrie,
1997).
Thesefigures,however,arenotnecessarilyprecise.Sklansky(1999)argued
alongtwoseparatelinesconcerningthismatter.Thefirstisempirical:Reliable
20
informationonthesizeandcompositionoftheprivatesecurityindustryis
notoriouslysparse.Thesecondreasonisdefinitional:Oneofthehallmarksof
privatesecurityisitsnonspecializedcharacter,i.e.,itstendencytobeimplemented
inpartbyemployeessuchasstoreclerks,insuranceadjusters,andamusement
parkattendantswhoseprincipaldutiesatleastostensiblylieelsewhere.
Butstill,therecanbenodoubtthatspecializedprivatesecuritypersonnel
playalargeandgrowingroleinpolicingAmerica.Onanygivenday,many
Americansarealreadyfarmorelikelytoencounterasecurityguardthanapolice
officer.Norisprivatepolicinglimitedtouniformedsecurityguards.Americahas
morethan70,000privateinvestigatorsandover26,000storedetectives;together
theseindividualsoutnumberFBIagentsbyalmosttentoone.Inaddition,an
estimated15,000policeofficersmoonlightasprivatesecurityguards,ofteninpolice
uniform.Thispractice,too,appearstohaveescalatedsharply;morethanhalfofthe
officersinmanymetropolitanpolicedepartmentsnowsupplementtheirincome
withprivatesecuritywork(Sklansky,1999).
1.
AmericanSocietyforIndustrialSecurity(ASIS)
OneofthemostsignificantdevelopmentsinprivatesecurityintheUnitedStatesis
theestablishmentoftheASIS.In1955,privatesecurityprofessionalgroups
foundedtheASISwhenthechilloftheColdWarbroughttogetherindustrialsecurity
practitionerswholargelywerechargedtomanagegovernmentmandated
protectivemeasuresforfederallyfinancedresearchanddevelopment,aswellas
militaryandtechnicalarmamentsandmaterialsproviders.
21
Soon,membershipbroadenedtoincludesecuritydirectorsinnonmilitary
orientedindustrialcategoriesandeventuallyprotectionmanagersfromother
manufacturingandserviceinstitutions.ASISbecameameetingplacewherethe
tensionsandmistrustamonglocalpolice,federalsecurityauthorities,andlocal
privateprotectionexecutivescouldbediscussedandreduced.Representativesof
thesecurityindustryitself,includingguardcompanyandalarmbusinessoperators
andsalespersonnel,wereacceptedasassociatemembersbutwerenotpermittedto
holdnationalofficesinthesociety(McCrie,1997).
McCrie(1997),however,notedthatbythemid1990s,manyASISchapters
werechairedbysecurityindustrymembers.Followingadeclineinsecurity
directorASISmembersduetocorporatedownsizingfromthelate1980sthrough
themid1990s,thesocietysoughtaggressivelytoexpandmembershiptonew
managerswhosecorporatedutiesmightincludesecurityoversight,amongother
responsibilities.
2.
PinkertonandPinkertonism
AllanPinkertonwasakeyfigureinthedevelopmentoftheprivatesecurityindustry
intheUnitedStates.BorninScotland,hejoinedtheradicalChartistgroupasa
youngmanandwasforcedtofleefromScotlandorfaceimprisonment.In1984,he
andhisyoungwifecametoAmerica,wherePinkertonsetuphiscoopering(making
barrels)businessinChicago(Lipson,1988).
In1849,hewasappointedasChicagosfirstdetective,butheresignedhis
positionfromtheChicagoPoliceDepartmentin1850andbecameanagentofthe
UnitedStatesPostOfficewithamandatetosolveaseriesofpostaltheftsand
22
robberiesinthearea.Hearrangedtobehiredasapostalclerk,apositioninwhich
heworkedforseveralweeks.Later,hewasabletoarrestamailclerkandrecovered
almost$4,000fromthemailclerksroom.ThisarrestmadePinkertongainmuch
publicattention.Hedecidedtoformabusiness,theNorthWesternPoliceAgencyin
1855,andin1858,heformedPinkertonsProtectivePatrol,asmalleroperationthat,
alongwithseveralothercompetitors,offereduniformednightwatchserviceto
Chicagobusinesses(McCrie,1997;Sklansky,1999).
Pinkertonsagencywasasuccess.By1853,hehadastaffoffivefulltime
detectives,includingawoman(Lipson,1988).In1855,oneofhisclients,theIllinois
CentralRailroad,wasonaretainerof$10,000ayear.Otherrailroadsthatusedhis
servicesatthattimeincluded:theMichiganCentral;MichiganSouthernand
NorthernIndiana;ChicagoandRockIsland;andtheChicago,Burlington,andQuincy.
AnotherclientwastheUnitedStatesPostOffice,andEasternrailroads,includingthe
PennsylvaniaRailroad,joinedthegrouplater.Workforrailroadsandexpress
companieshadbecomethemainsourceofincomefortheNorthWesternPolice
Agency,whichhadbroadeneditsgeographicalscopeandbecomePinkertons
NationalDetectiveAgency(Sklansky,1999).
Pinkertonsserviceswereimportanttohisclientsmainlybecausepublic
enforcementagencieseitherwereinadequateorlackedjurisdiction.WhentheCivil
Warbrokeoutin1861,PresidentLincolncalledPinkertontoWashingtontodiscuss
establishingasecretservicedepartmentandlaterappointedPinkertonashischief
ofintelligence.DuringtheCivilWar,Pinkertonorganizedacountersurveillance
networkbehindConfederatebattlelinesandbrieflyprovidedpersonalsecurity
23
servicestoLincoln.HedidintelligenceworkfortheUnionarmy,workwhichtoday
wouldbeperformedbyagovernmentalagency(Lipson,1988;McCrie,1997).
WiththeendoftheCivilWar,industrialgrowthinthenorthsurgedandwith
itgrewthefortunesandprominenceofthePinkertonagency.Relyingonits
reputationasacreativeandtirelessinvestigativegrouptheeyethatnever
sleepsPinkertoncoinedthetermprivateeye(Lipson,1988;McCrie,1997).His
agencyconcentratedoncatchingtrainrobbersandsettingupsecuritysystemsfor
therailroads.
Duringthe1870s,theagencysworkbegantoshifttowardprotectingclients
againstgrowinglaborunrest,andthisshiftacceleratedafterPinkertonsdeathin
1884.Bythelate1880sandearly1890s,thePinkertonagencyspecializedin
infiltratinglaborunions,guardingindustrialproperty,and,toalesserextent,
supplyingsubstituteworkersduringstrikes.Aturningpointoccurredin1892when
theagencywasinvolvedintobreakingastrikeoftheCarnegie,PhippsSteel
CompanyatHomestead,Pennsylvania,nearPittsburgh.Althoughthiswasnotallit
did,antiunionassignmentscametobethecompanysmainstayandtheworkfor
whichitwasbestknown.Theguardservicesitprovidedwerecompletedbyan
expanded,militarizedversionofPinkertonsPrivatePatrol,anditchieflyprotected
industrialfacilitiesduringlabordisturbances(McCrie,1997).
Thepublicgenerallydidnotdistinguishbetweentheplantguardsandthe
industrialspies;bothwerereferredtoasPinkertons.Oftenthesamenamewas
usedforthegrowingnumberofoperativesemployedbyagenciesformedto
competewithPinkerton,andbytheendofthecentury,thetermPinkertonismhad
24
becomesynonymouswiththepracticeofemployinglargenumbersofprivate
securitypersonnelintheserviceofindustrialcapitalism,aswellaswiththe
underlyinglaissezfaireideologythispracticegrewtosymbolize.Duetothe
negativeimageofPinkertons,hostilitytowardprivatepolicingmountedduring
thesecondhalfoftheninthcentury.Bythe1890s,agrowingnumberofAmerican
thoughtprivatepolicewereatbestanecessaryevil,andatworstaninexcusableone
(HessandWrobleski,1996;McCrie,1997;Sklansky,1999).
Intheaftermathofthelaborcapitalconflict,CongresspassedanAnti
PinkertonAct(1893)prohibitingthefederalgovernmentfromemployingthe
servicesofprivateinvestigativefirms.ThePinkertonagencysubsequentlyvowed
neveragaintoacceptstrikerelatedassignments(McCrie,1997).Sincethen,the
Pinkertoncompanyitselfhadfoundnewrolesprotectingbanks,jewelrystores,and
othercommercialoperationsagainstprofessionalrobbersandthievesworkthat
wasmoreinlinewiththecrimefightingpublicimagetheagencyhadalwaystriedto
craftforitself(Sklansky,1999).
Withthebackingofitscommercialclients,Pinkertonintroducedasystemof
substantialrewardsforarrestsandinformation,resultinginanetworkofreward
seekingsheriffsandinformants.Theymaintainedgoodrecordsandwerewillingto
sharetheirinformationwithothersintheirownfieldaswellaswithlaw
enforcement.Therecordsweretheclosestthingtoanationalcrimeinformation
servicethatexistedatthetimeandwereregardedassuchevenbyofficiallaw
enforcement(Lipson,1988).
25
Thecompanybecameapubliccorporationin1965,andchangeditsnameto
PinkertonsInc.Currentlyitemploysbetween36,000to40,000peopleand
concentratesonsecurityinindustryandinstitutions,securityforsportingfacilities,
investigationsofindustrialtheft,andinvestigationsforinsuranceclaims(Hessand
Wrobleski,1996).
II.
AlarmIndustries
McCrie(1997)notedthatalarmsystemshaveseveralpurposes:(1)ameansto
decreasedependenceonhourlyemployeeswhoare,nonetheless,asubstantial
aggregatecostovertimeandsometimesarelessreliablethanasystemsapproachto
security;(2)awayofalertingguards,propertyowners,orthepublicatlargeto
investigateandrespondtothesignal;and(3)amethodofdeterringburglarsfrom
attackingpremisesfittedwithalarms.
Whenreducedtoitsbasicformofasignalorcallforhelp,alarmsecurityis
thousandsofyearsold.Longbeforerecordedhistory,peopleactedastheirown
alarmsystem.Thefivesensesactedassensors,andvocalcordsasthemeansfor
soundinganalarm(Greer,1991).Animals,ontheotherhand,providedtheearliest
nonhumanalarms.Overthecenturies,offensiveanddefensivearmiesused
animals,runners,smoke,noise,mirroredsurfaces,andothermeanstowarnagainst
invaders.Theprivatesectorreliedmostlyonanimalsandwatchmen(McCrie,1997).
LandownersineighteenthcenturyEnglandemployedarmedgamekeepersto
protecttheirproperty.Associetygrewandbecamemorecomplex,public
protectionwithpaidpolicebeganreplacingprivateprotection.InEngland,theearly
26
effortsoftythingmen,watchmen,constables,sheriffsandspecialpoliceunitswere
directedprimarilytowardmaintainingorderinagrowingsociety.Inthemid
1800s,watchmen,beltmen,anddoorrattlerswerereplacedbyorganizedpolice
departmentsintheUnitedStates.In1829,duringthebeginningoforganizedpolice
protection,thefounderofthefamousLondonBobbies,SirRobertPeel,explained
tothepeople,Wereformingabodyofmenwhowillbepaidtodowhatevery
citizenhasamoralandlegalobligationtodoforthemselves(Kaye,1987).
1.
The18th19thCentury
ThefirstmodernalarmwasinventedintheearlyeighteenthcenturybyanEnglish
promoternamedTildesley.Asetofchimeswasmechanicallylinkedtothedoorlock.
TildesleyschimecontraptionwasoneofseveralvariantsfoundintheAmerican
coloniesintheearly1700s.Forexample,abankinPlymouth,Mass.,hadanalarm
thatcarriedasignalbywirefromthesafedoortothecashiershousenextdoor;it
wasthenationsfirstbankalarm(McCrie,1988).
InOctober1852,aninventorinSomerville,Mass.,aBostonsuburb,fileda
patentforanimprovementinelectormechanicalarms.AugustPopepatentedone
ofthefirstelectricburglaralarmsystems.Thesystemhadelectromagneticcontacts
mountedondoorsandwindowsthatwerethenwiredtoabatteryandbell.Heused
electricitytosoundacontinuousalarmwhenadoororwindowwasopenedwithout
authorization.Hissystemhadanotherinnovation:magneticcontactsonthedoors
andwindowswerewiredinaseriescircuit.However,itisnotknownifPopeever
marketedhissystem.In1857,hesoldhisalarmpatenttoEdwinHolmeswhotook
ittoNewYorkCityandsoldalarmstowealthyhomeowners.In1858,Holmes
27
establishedthefirstcentralburglaralarmserviceinthecountryandhisoperation
evolvedintoHolmesProtection,Inc.Popealsousedelectrifiedmetalfoiland
screensstillwidelyusedbymanyalarmcompanies.Inaddition,hebuiltthefirst
centralcommunicationscenterwiredtobankandjewelryvaults.Heapparently
purchasedthealarmpatentasaspeculativeinvestment.Ascrimewaslowin
Boston,andBostonbusinessmendidnottrustelectricity,hesoughtmorefertile
groundforhisenterpriseinNewYorkCity.OnceinNewYork,Holmesconcentrated
onprovidingalarmsignalsforthewealthy.Overtime,anumberofingenious
featuresweredeveloped.Thefirstmultiplexedalarmsystemwasintroduced.Thus,
whenelectriclightswereintroducedin1880,Holmesaddedadevicethat
illuminatedpartsofthehousewhenanalarmsignalwasactivated.Thus,wellover
acenturyago,manyoftheelementsintodaysautomatedalarmsystemwere
alreadyinplacesuchasmagneticcontacts,timingmechanisms,multiplexedsignals,
bells,andlights(Greer,1991;HessandWrobleski,1996;Kaye,1987;McCrie,1988).
TheHolmesorganizationwasnottheonlyfirmprovidinginstallationof
alarmequipment,monitoringofalarms,andresponsestoalarms.By1890,several
competingcompaniesexistedinNewYorkCityalone.Someofthemdevelopedas
firesignalingservicesinconjunctionwithHolmesconcentrationonburglarysignals.
Thedistricttelegraphcompaniessoonproducedasignalboxthatwouldaccept
threedifferentmessages:fire,police,andmessenger.Buteventuallythedistinction
betweenfiresignalonlyandburglarysignalonlycompanieslargelydisappeared.
Thedevelopmentofpublicfiresignalservicesbymunicipalitiesfurtherdecreased
themarketdrivefortheseseparatetypesofsignalcompanies(McCrie,1988).
28
WhilestillinBoston,Holmesmettheinventorofthetelephone,Alexander
GrahamBell,whousedtheservicesofthesameelectricaltechnician,ThomasA.
Watson.HolmeswatchedthedevelopmentofthetelephoneeverydayinWatsons
shopandevidentlywasimpressed.Eventually,Holmesofferedhisalarmstationsto
becomethefirsttelephoneexchanges,firstinBostonandlaterinNewYorkCity
(McCrie,1988).
HolmesbecameaninvestorandofficerintheBellTelephoneCompanyof
NewYork,aninteresthesoldin1880.In1900,Holmesmaintainedcontactwiththe
companiesthatformedAmericanTelephone&Telegraph(AT&T),andin1905,
AT&TboughtHolmescompany.Thecombinationoftheleadingphonecompany
withHolmescompanyaidedenormouslyinthenationalexpansionofthealarm
system.EdwinHolmesson,EdwinT.Holmes,whowasinchargeofthecompany
afterhisfathersdeath,hadturneddownpreviousacquisitionoffers,includingone
fromR.C.Clowry,presidentofWesternUnion,thenationslargesttelegraphservice
(McCrie,1988).
Whilethetwomajorburglaralarmcompanieswerecarvingupthemarket,
thetwomajorfireprotectionfirms,AutomaticFireAlarmofNewYorkand
AutomaticFireProtection,weredoingthesamething.Theformeragreedto
operateintheNortheastandexclusivelyinBoston,NewYorkCity,andPhiladelphia.
Thelatterwastoreceivetheremainingterritory.Bythe1870sand1880s,
mansionsandbusinesseswerebeingprotectedagainstfirewithheatsensors.
WilliamWatkinsestablishedacompanycalledAFAProtectionandwasthefirstto
usesuchsensorsinacentralmonitoringstation.Othercompaniesfollowedsuit,
29
addingburglaralarmstothefireprotectionsystems.Theuseofalarmsand
detectiondevicesgrewtoprovideprotectiveservicesthroughtheuseofmessengers
andtelegraphlines.By1889,theuseofsuchalarmsanddetectiondevicesin
industrialandcommercialenterpriseswaswellestablished.In1901,Western
UnionconsolidatedseveraloftheselocalalarmcompaniesintoAmericanDistrict
TelegraphCompany(ADT)(Kaye,1987).
Withinafewyears,theburglarandfirealarmbusinesshadbecomeaclosed
industry,withonlyafewcompaniescontrollingthemajorindustrialand
commercialaccounts,andthesemajornationalcompanieswouldremaindominant
forthenexthalfcentury.
2.
TheEarlyTwentiethCentury
Bythetwentiethcentury,aHolmeswassynonymouswithanalarminstalledand
centrallymonitoredbytheHolmesBurglarAlarmCompany.Whiletheinitial
applicationoftelegraphywasforfireprotection,defenseagainstburglarysoon
becameanimportantreasonforinstallingalarmsystems.Partofthesuccessofthe
HolmesorganizationwastheearlypersonalassociationestablishedinBoston
betweenHolmesandAlexanderGrahamBell.Withthegrowthofbothbusinesses
burglaryalarmandtelephones,whichbothneededthecostlylayingofwireBells
companyagreedtolaysubvoicegradelinesatthesametimetheylaidvoicegrade
wiresfortheirowngrowingservicerequirements.Holmesheldanequityposition
inthetelephonebusinessforyears,buteventuallydivestedittoconcentratecapital
onhisownbusiness.Nonetheless,thetwobusinessescontinuedtocooperate
(McCrie,1997).
30
Theearlytwentiethcenturywasatimeofrapidgrowthoftelegraphicbased
burglaryalarmservicesamongbusinessesandoftheconsolidationofmanysuch
operationsintoasingleholdingcompany.InadditiontotheWesternUnion
consolidation,anagentofAmericanTelephoneandTelegraph(AT&T),CharlesF.
Cutler,whoheadedtheNewYorkTelephoneCompany,succeededinpurchasingthe
Holmesentityin1905.Thenjustfouryearslater,AT&Tboughtacontrolling
interestinWesternUnion;thus,theleadingalarmbusinesseswereownedbythe
sameconsolidatingcompanyortrust.Themonopolizationofthecommunications
industryresultedinaJusticeDepartmentinvestigation,andin1914,afederalcourt
orderedAT&TtodivestitselfofWesternUnion(McCrie,1997).
3.
TheMidTwentiethCentury
Bythemidtwentiethcentury,thealarmbusinesscontinuedtoexpand,butanother
monopolyemerged.Themostdominantpersonalityinthealarmindustryto
emergeduringtheseyearswasJamesDouglasFleming.StartingataGrinnell
subsidiaryin1919asasprinklerfittershelper,FlemingsteadilyroseinGrinnell,
whichwasthenthedominantmanufacturerofsprinklerequipment.Hebecame
presidentofthecompanyin1948,andbeganaperiodofheatedacquisitionfor
Grinnell.
Withinafewyears,hepurchasedtheassetsofHolmes,ADT,andAFA
(AutomaticFireAlarmofNewYork).Manyhundredsofalarmcompaniesalso
competedinthemarketplace,butFlemingsassemblagedominatedthemost
profitable,regulatedserviceresponsecategoryofalarmbusinesses:thosewhich
31
providedcertificatedserviceslistedbythestandardgroup,Underwriters
Laboratories(UL)(McCrie,1997;Greer,1991).
Butin1958,theAntitrustDivisionoftheDepartmentofJusticebeganan
investigationoftheGrinnellholdings.ThedivisionconcludedthatGrinnell
controlled90percentoftheaccreditedcentralstationmarket.Grinnellcountered
thatitwasnotamonopolywhentheentiremarket,includingallbusinessesand
residences,wasconsidered,butthecourtsdidnotaccepthisargument.In1964,
FederalJudgeJ.WyzanskiruledagainstGrinnelloneverylegalissueraisedbythe
DepartmentofJusticeandinvokedtheShermanAntitrustActinhis1964opinion
orderingthebreakupofthisalarmbusiness.Hefurtherorderedthecompanyto
divestitselfofallitsholdings.AfteranappealtotheSupremeCourt,theterms
againstGrinnellweremodifiedsomewhat,butthecompanywassubstantially
liquidated.Asaresult,newcompaniesincludingHoneywellProtection,Wells
Fargo,Westinghouse,and3MCorporationwereabletoentertheindustry(McCrie,
1988).
Sincethen,theindustryhasbeenmorecompetitivethanever,helpedbynew
lowcosttechnologythathasproducedeasytoinstallsensorsandmodularcentral
alarmequipment.Competitionandinnovationinthealarmindustryhavemade
protectionmoreavailabletomiddleincomefamiliestheharshrealitythatcrime
existseverywhere,intheinnercity,thesuburbs,andeverywhereinbetweenhad
takenhold.Thenewoptionsforlinesignalsystemsasaresultofthebreakupof
AT&Thavealsoaidedinmarketopportunityforindependentcompanies.
32
Kaye(1987)describedWestecSecurity,Inc.,asaperfectindicationofthe
risingfearofcrimeacrossthecountryinthelate1960s.Thiscompanyhadits
originsasWestinghouseSecuritySystems,Inc.,asubsidiaryofWestinghouse
Electric,andwasformedin1968todesignandmarketsecuritysystemsforthe
home.WestinghousehadpurchasedasmallMinneapolis,Minn.,companywhich
haddevelopedsomeinnovativeconceptsforresidentialsecurity,including:thefirst
alarmactivationtalkindevice;thefirstprestigioussophisticatedhome
demonstrator;andthenovelsalesconcept(forthealarmindustry)ofoutrightsale
oftheproductandthesystem.In1979,Westinghousedecidedtoconcentrateon
otherareasanddiscontinuemarketingconsumerproducts.Asthelargestandmost
successfuldealerofWestinghousesecuritysystems,Westecpurchasedthesecurity
divisionfromWestinghouse.Thiswasaperiodofrapidgrowththroughoutthe
industry.ByNovember1982,WestecwasacquiredbySecomLtd.,thelargest
securitycompanyinJapan.Westecsmanufacturingoperationsweremovedto
OrangeCounty,Calif.,anditbecamenotonlythelargestmanufacturerofhome
securitysystems,butalsooneofthelargestcompaniestohavedirectsalesand
installationexperience.
TotalNorthAmericansecurityindustryrevenuesfromthecommercial,
industrial,andintegratedsystemsmarketsegmentswereapproximately$4billion
in1986.In1988,about$500millionwasspentonresidentialsecurityservices;the
majorrevenuesderivedfromcommercial,industrial,andinstitutionalservices.
Over13,000companiesprovideelectronicsecurityservices.Only11percentof
thesehaveannualrevenuesofmorethan$1million,while49percenthave
33
revenuesunder$100,000.Thetrendstronglyfavorsapatternofconsolidationby
largercompanies,butwherewellmanagedregionalorganizationswouldbeableto
thrivebyemphasizingsuperiorservice(McCrie,1988).Theproportionofhomes
withalarmsystemsincreasedfrom1percentin1975to10percentin1985(Gest,
1995),withnosignsthatthetrendhasabatedintheyearssince.
4.
Afterthe1990s
Bythemid1990s,theburglaralarmindustryremainedadynamiccomponentofthe
securityindustry.Formostofthepastcentury,reliablealarmsystemsnecessitated
acostlyinstallationofsensorsfortheperimeter(doorsandwindows)andthespace
inside(volumetricdetectors),oftenrequiringthesupervisionofalicensed
electrician.Theserequirementslimitedalarmservicestoindustrialandlarge
commercialandretailapplications,anditexcludedmostresidentialinstallations.
However,sincetheadventofradiofrequencycommunicatingsensors,cheaper
telephoniccommunicationsandmodularcentralmonitoringstations,residential,
smallercommercialandretailalarminstallationshaveproliferated(McCrie,1997).
AccordingtoTheHallcrestReportII,theindustrygeneratedabout$4.5billion
inrevenuesin1990andwaspredictedtogrowata12percentcompoundrateto
$14billionby2000.About100alarmcompaniesprovideULcertificatedservices,
whileanadditional12,600companiesin1990provideduncertifiedandlesscostly
alarmservices(Cunninghametal.,1990).
Aspointedoutpreviously,competitionandinnovationintheindustryhave
maderesidentialsecuritymoreaffordable.Thereusedtobethenotionthat
residentialsecuritywasavailableonlyfortheveryrich,butinrecentdecades,
34
technologicalinnovationshaveincreasedtheavailabilityofhomesecuritysystems.
Althoughthebasicconceptremainsthesameasensorofsometypedetectsan
emergencyandsignalsforassistancetodaysequipmentismorereliablebecause
ofthenewelectronictechnology.Computers,printedcircuits,digital
communicators,andmicroprocessorshaverefinedmonitoringandsignaling
technology,andmodernelectronicsensorsnowincludeultrasonic,infraredand
microwavedeviceswhichwereformerlyavailableonlyinmoresophisticated
commercialandindustrialapplications.Indeed,thesystemsavailabletodaycanbe
personalizedtooffermaximumprotectionwherevertheyareinstalled.Inaddition,
suchvariablesasthesize,constructionandaccessibilityofthehome;lifestyle
patterns;presenceofchildrenandpets;domesticduties;andcontentsvalueareall
weightedinthetailoringofaworkableresidentialsystem.Todayssystemscome
completewithmanydevicestoprovideprotectioninthehome.Theyoffermultiple
levelsofhomesecurity,dependingupontheneedsoftheclient.Systemscaneven
beprovidedforeverythingfromasinglecondominiumwithonlytwoentrancesto
anentiregatedcommunitywherethousandsofsensorsareindependently
supervisedbyanonsitecomputerizedcentralstation(Kaye,1987).
AccordingtothereportpreparedbytheSecuritySales&Integration(2004),
25percentoftheU.S.householdsin2003installedelectronichomesecuritysystems.
Althoughthepenetrationrateofsecuritysystemsinhomeshasslowedfromthe
boomofthe1990s,itcontinuestomoveupward.Oneinfourhomeownershada
securitysystem,whileaboutoneinfiveofthoseweremonitoredbyacentralstation.
35
Therevenueoftheelectronicsecuritymarket2in2003was$20.3billionandwas
estimatedtobe$21.9billionin2004.Theserevenueshaveincreasednearly44
percentinthepast10years.Theentireelectronicsecurityindustry,alongwith
fencing,lighting,guardservices,armoredtransport,andpatrolgeneratesan
estimated$100billionannually.In2004,residentialinstallationaccountedfor32
percentofnewalarmsystems,whilecommercialinstallationaccountedfor50
percentandlargeindustrialinstallation(e.g.,government,utilities,airports,
stadiums)for18percent.Amongdifferenttypesofbusinessforelectronicsecurity
revenuesin2004,burglaralarmsystemswereindustrysNo.1sourceofrevenue
(24percent),followedbyCCTV(22percent),accesscontrol(14percent),firealarm
system(12percent),andothers3(28percent).
ThosefiguresaremorepromisingaccordingtheSecurityAnnual2006bythe
reportofLehmanBrothers(2006).Itsprojectedmarketforthealarmsecurity
industrywasabouta$30billionannually,growingatacompoundannualrateof78
percent.Severalfactorscontributeindustrygrowth,suchasheightenedsecurity
awarenessduetoterroristactivitiesandthreats,newtechnologiesdrivenconsumer
adoptionandproductinnovation,increaseindualincomehouseholdsortwocareer
families,improvementincapitalspendingdynamicsforbusiness,andrequirements
byinsuranceunderwritersthatmanycommercialenterprisehavemonitoredalarm
systems.
2)Securityitemsincludedareaccesscontrol,burglary,CCTV,fire,andsystems
integration.
3)Othersincludemonitoringservices,structuredwiring,intercoms/telephones,
homecontrols,andoutdoordetection.
III.
36
OtherSecurityDevelopments
McCrie(1997)explainedthatthesecurityindustryalsoincludesseparatecategories
ofcompaniesthatdesign,manufacture,distribute,andsellawidevarietyof
products,components,andsystems.Examplesofsuchcategoriesarelocks,safes
andvaults,accesscontrol,communicationandidentification,andotherservices.
Safetylocksinventedintheeighteenthcenturywereenhancedthroughthe
ninthcenturyinEurope,buttheAmericanlockindustry,centeredinitiallyin
Connecticut,madenumerousotheradvancesinmechanicallocking.Electroniclocks
wereonlyintegratedintoaccesscontrolsystemsinrecentdecades.Thelocking
industryandlocksmithsareoftenclassifiedinthehardwareindustry;however,they
mayalsobeconsideredpartofthesecurityindustry.AccordingtoTheHallcrest
ReportII,almost70,000peoplewereemployedaslocksmithsin1990,withindustry
reachingrevenuesabout$2.9billion(Cunninghametal.,1990).
Thecreationoflockedchests,safes(foursidedsecuredcontainers),and
vaults(securedchamberscapableofbeingwalkedinto)iscenturiesold.Inthe
UnitedStates,theindustrytracesitsoriginstobusinesseslikeDiebold(foundedin
1858),theMoslerCompany(begunin1867),andLefebure(startedin1892).In
1995,23companiesbasedintheUnitedStatespossessedUnderwriters
Laboratories(UL)certificationforburglaryresistivesafesandanother12based
abroadsoughtULcertificationandmarketingopportunitiesintheUnitedStates
(McCrie,1997).
ThesecurityindustryintheUnitedStateshasbeenenergizedbyrapid
increasesinawidevarietyofelectronicproductsandsystems,andaidedbythe
37
adventofthepersonalcomputer,innovativesoftware,semiconductortechnology,
andadvancesinradiofrequencyandmicrowavecommunication.Thenewest
technologyaccesscontrolwithitsramificationsistheonethatisreshapingthe
securityindustryintheUnitedStates.For1990,TheHallcrestReportIIidentified
annualrevenuesamongequipmentsalesprovidersof$11.7billionwithanaverage
anticipatedgrowthrateforthedecade1980to1990of15percent(Cunninghamet
al.,1990).
Inaddition,abroadvarietyofspecialistsecurityconsultingserviceshave
evolvedovertheyears.TheHallcrestReportIIestimatedthat800security
consultantsandengineerswereactivein1990,operatinginamyriadofspecialties.
Theconsultantsareavailableforprivate,publicandinstitutionalclienteletohelp
resolveawidevarietyofproblems(Cunninghametal.,1990).Insomeofthese
categories,securityisonemarketsegmentamongmany,particularlyinnewer
technologicalindustries.Allhaveearlierhistoricalantecedents.
IV.
ChapterConclusion
Abriefhistoryofthedevelopmentofprivatesecurityindustries,includingthealarm
securityindustryintheUnitedStateswasdiscussed.Privatesecurityorganizations
havealongtraditionoffillingperceivedgapsingovernmentinitiatedpolicing
services.InheritedfromEnglishtradition,thepublicpolicehaveplayedacritical
roletoprovidecrimepreventionandsecurityservicesinthesociety.Atthesame
time,theprivatesecurityindustryhasundertakenasignificantrangeoffunctions
andservicesandbecomelargeinnumericaltermsthanthepublicpolice.
38
Thealarmindustryamongseveraldistinctivesecuritydevelopments(e.g.,
armoredcarrier,securityhardwarebusinesses,andsecurityguardservices)has
grownsteadilyatcompoundratesforthelastseveraldecades.Competitionand
innovationinthealarmindustryandlowcosttechnologythathaveproducedeasy
toinstallsensorsandalarmequipmenthavemaderesidentialburglaralarmsmore
availableandaffordablesincethenationsfirstbankalarmwasusedinPlymouth,
Mass.,inthemiddleofeighteenthcentury.
Inthefollowingchapter,relevanttheories(e.g.,routineactivitiestheory,
rationalchoicetheory,andsituationalcrimepreventionapproach)forthisstudy
willbediscussed.Aburglaralarminresidentialareaisanexampleoftarget
hardeningtechniquebysubstitutingfortheabsenceofcapableguardiansagainst
residentialburglariesand/ortheexistenceofinadequatesurveillanceinorderto
preventresidentialburglariesfromarationallycalculatedandmotivatedburglar.
Then,severalpriorstudiesofresidentialburglaryconductedsincethe1970s
willbepresentedaccordingtothedatasource,researchdesign,andstudyfinding.
Inspiteofasubstantialbodyofresearchprojectstostudytheproblemofburglary,
fewstudieshaveexaminedtheeffectivenessofhomeburglaralarmsortheirimpact
onresidentialburglary.
CHAPTER3.THEORETICALFRAMEWORKANDPRIORSTUDIES
I.
TheoreticalFrameworkfortheStudy
Inordertodiscussandevaluateanycrimepreventionprograms,itiscriticalto
considerthetheoreticalbackgroundthroughwhichcrimemanifestsitself.One
shortcomingofpreviousempiricalstudiesontheeffectivenessofthehomeburglar
systemonresidentialburglaryisalackoftheoreticaldiscussion.Burglarydoesnot
occurrandomlyacrossspaceandtime;bothburglaryopportunitiesandoffenders
availabilityinteract.Inthechapterthatfollows,thegenerictheoreticalframework
forthisproject,includingthefactorsbelievedtoinfluencetheoccurrencesofcrimes
andtheeffectivepreventiveapproachagainstresidentialburglarywillbediscussed.
Garland(2001)arguesthatoneofthemostsignificantdevelopmentsofthe
lasttwodecadesincriminologyhasbeentheemergenceofanewstyleof
criminologicalthinking.Hetermsthisasthenewcriminologiesofeverydaylife.He
contrastsnewcriminologicalapproacheswiththeearliercriminologies:
Thenewcriminologicalapproachesbeginfromthepremisethatcrimeisa
normal,commonplaceaspectofmodernsocietyandthatitisregardedasa
routinelyproducedformofbehaviorbythenormalpatternsofsocialand
economiclifeincontemporarysociety,whiletheearliercriminologiesbegin
fromthepremisethatcrimeisadeviationfromnormalcivilizedconduct
andisexplicableintermsofindividualpathologyoffaultysocialization.
Thenewapproachesseecrimeascontinuouswithnormalsocialinteraction
andexplicablebyreferencetostandardmotivationalpatterns.Crime
39

40
comestobeviewedasaroutinerisktobecalculatedoranaccidenttobe
avoided,ratherthanamoralaberrationthatneedstobeexplained.
Whiletheoldapproachhasviewedcrimeretrospectivelyandindividually
forthepurposeofitemizingindividualwrongdoingandallocating
punishmentortreatment,thenewapproachestendtoviewcrime
prospectivelyandaggregativelyinordertocalculaterisksandshape
preventativemeasures.
Theoldcriminologiesviewtheproblemofcrimefromtheperspectiveof
thecriminaljusticesystem,insistingonseeingcrimeasaproblemof
individualoffenders,butthenewcriminologiesrejectthisinstitutional
pointofview,approachingcrimeinasocialandeconomicperspectivethat
owesnothingtotheprocessoflawenforcement.
Manyofthepracticalprescriptionsfortheoldcriminologiesareaddressed
tostateagenciessuchasthepolice,thecourts,andtheprisons,butforthe
newapproachesaddressedbeyondthestateapparatus,totheorganizations,
institutions,andindividualsofsociety.
Wheretheoldercriminologyconcernsitselfwithdiscipliningdelinquent
individualsorpunishinglegalsubjects,thenewapproachidentifies
recurringcriminalopportunitiesandseekstogovernthembydeveloping
situationalcontrols.Criminogenicsituations,hotproducts,andhotspots
arethenewobjectsofcontrol.
Thus,thesenewcriminologicalapproacheshavesucceededinattractingthe
interestofgovernmentofficialsandhavefunctionedasacrucialsupportformuch

41
recentcrimepreventionpolicies.Ithasbecomeoneofthekeystrandsofofficial
criminology,shapinggovernmentpoliciesandorganizationalpracticesinmany
areasaroundtheworld,includingtheU.S.,U.K.,Canada,Australia,NewZealand,
Scandinavia,WesternEurope,andAsia.
Thesenewcriminologiesofeverydaylifeareasetofkindredtheoretical
frameworksthatincluderoutineactivitiestheory(CohenandFelson,1979),rational
choicetheory(CornishandClarke,1986),crimeasopportunity(FelsonandClarke,
1998),andsituationalcrimeprevention(Clarke,1997).Inparticular,the
theoreticalbackgroundforstudyingburglaryandtheoffendersperspectivehas
beenbuiltuponwellestablishedtheories:Routineactivitiestheoryandrational
choicetheory.Thesetheorieshavebecomethebasisofthedevelopmentof
preventionapproachknownassituationalcrimeprevention,whichisemployedin
examiningtheimpactofthehomeburglaralarmsystemonresidentialburglary.
Situationalcrimepreventionistheactionorientedoutgrowthofrationalchoiceand
routineactivitiestheories.Rationalchoicetheory(CornishandClarke,1986)takes
theneoclassicalpositionthatthedecisiontocommitaspecificcrimeresultsfroma
rationalcalculationoftheperceivedcostsandbenefitsofdoingsoinaspecific
context.Routineactivitytheory(CohenandFelson,1979)complementsrational
choicetheorybyspecifyingthefactorsnecessaryforcrimetooccur.
1.
RoutineActivitiesTheory
Crawford(1998)arguesthatcrimepreventionstrategiesneedtobebasedonwide
rangingtheories.Thesetheoriesneedtoaddressthecausesofcrimeaswellasthe

42
interactionsbetweenkeyactorsincertainsituationsovertime.RoutineActivities
theoryoffersonesuchmodel.
Inaninfluentialpaper,CohenandFeslon(1979)suggestthatchangesin
AmericansroutineactivitieswereresponsibleforincreasesincrimeratesintheU.S.
from1947to1974.TheynotethatthenumberofAmericanswhoroutinelyleft
theirhomesonadailybasistogototheworkplaceincreasedsignificantlyduring
theseyears.Asaconsequence,guardianshipoverhomesdecreased,leaving
opportunitiesforoffenderstocommitcrimes.Forexample,theyexplainthe
escalatingresidentialburglaryrateintheU.S.afterthe1960sbyreferringtothe
increasingproportionofemptyhomesinthedayandtheincreasingavailabilityof
valuable,lightweightportableelectronicgoods.Theproliferationofemptyhomes
wascausedinpartbythegreaternumberofsinglepersonhouseholdsandthe
expandedparticipationofwomenintheworkplace.Inaddition,morepeopleinthe
workplaceincreasedthenumberofpotentialvictimsandtargets,andthe
opportunitiesforrobbery,rape,andvehicularcrime.
Inordertoexplainsuchanescalationofcrimerates,theypresenttheir
routineactivitiestheory,whichstatesthatforcrimestooccur,thefollowingmust
convergeinspaceandtime:
Thepresenceofamotivatedoffender;
Theabsenceofcapableguardiansagainstcrimeortheexistenceof
inadequatesurveillance;and
Thepresenceofsuitabletargets(theopportunitytocommitcrime).

43
Inshort,thistheoryidentifieselementsandaudiencesinspecificstrategies
whichcanbeadaptedtospecifictypesofcrimeindifferentplaces.Capable
guardiansarenotrestrictedtopoliceofficersorsecurityguards,butratheranybody
whosepresenceorproximitywoulddiscourageacrimefromhappening.Theymay
includehousewives,neighbors,andemployeeswhobybeingpresentatagiven
placeandtimeserveasguardiansagainstcrime.Guardianshipisofteninadvertent,
yetstillhasapowerfulimpactagainstcrime.Mostimportantly,whenguardiansare
absent,atargetisespeciallysubjecttotheriskofcriminalattack(FelsonandClarke,
1998).
Later,Felson(1995)updatedthenotionsofguardians,whocandiscourage
crimefromoccurringatspecifictimesandplacesevenbytheirsimplepresence.
Originallytheroutineactivityapproachtookoffenderasgiven,butlaterworktook
intoaccountinformalsocialcontrolofoffenders.Thiswasaccomplishedbylinking
theroutineactivityapproachtoHirschis(1969)controltheory.Thus,Felson(1995)
identifiesthreetypesofguardiansorsupervisorswhichinclude:
Aguardianwhokeepswatchoverpotentialcrimetargets;
Ahandlerwhosupervisespotentialoffenders;and
Aplacemanagerwhomonitorsorcontrolsplaces.
Thecategoryofhandlerswhosupervisepotentialoffendersisbasedon
informalsocialcontrol.Thismechanismrequiresbothattachinghandlerstoyouths
andorganizingcommunitylifesothatsuchhandlescanbegrasped.Handlers
includeparentswhodevelopanemotionalattachmentwiththeirchildren.The
parentsbecomeanintimatehandlerwhoseproximitytoandknowledgeofthe

44
childsbehaviorbecomesinstrumentalforinformalsocialcontrol.Justasa
guardiansupervisesthesuitabletarget,ahandlersupervisesthelikelyoffender.In
bothcases,directphysicalcontactservestodiscouragecrimefromoccurring.Thus,
socialcontrolrequireskeepingsuitabletargetsnearcapableguardiansandlikely
offendersnearintimatehandlers.
Thethirdcategoryofaplacemanagerwhomonitorsorcontrolsplacesis
basedonEcksstudy(1994)ofthespatialstructureofillegaldrugmarkets.
Importantrolesindiscouragingcrimegotothosewhocontrolormonitorplaces.
Theexamplesofplacemanagersincludehomeowners,doormen,concierges,
buildingmangers,janitors,residentowners,facilitymangers,closeneighbors,
receptionists,privatesecurityofficers,busdrivers,andrestaurantmanagerseach
ofthesecanservetodiscouragecrimebylookingafterparticularplaces.
IntegratingEckswork,threeobjectsofsupervisioncanbepossible:the
suitabletargetofcrime,thelikelyoffender,andtheamenableplaceforthecrimeto
occur.Thus,crimeopportunityisleastwhentargetaredirectlysupervisedby
guardians;offenders,byhandlers;andplaces,bymanagers.Thesevariousactors
candirectlydiscourageanoffenderbyproximitytotargets,places,ortheoffenders
themselves.Inaddition,suchdiscouragementmaydependuponsocialtieswith
targets,offenders,orplaces,respectively(Felson,1995).
Buttheguardiansarenotnecessarilyindividuals,suchastheguardians,
handlers,ormanagersdiscussedabove.Theprincipalresponsibilityofthose
guardiansistomonitororcontrolcertainterritoriesandareas(e.g.,highrising
apartmentcomplexes,commercialareas,businessdistricts,andresidentialareas).

45
Electronicdevices,suchasCCTVandfireandburglaralarmsystemscanbeused
effectivelyasalternativestoguardians.
Inaddition,itshouldbenotedthatinthetheory,thetermtargetispreferred
overvictim,whomightbecompletelyabsentfromthesceneofthecrime.Targetsof
crimecanbeapersonoranobject,whosepositioninspaceortimeputsitatmore
orlessriskofcriminalattack.Forexample,FelsonandClarke(1998)explainthe
fourmainelementswhichinfluenceatargetsriskofcriminalattack,summedupby
theacronymVIVA:values,inertia,visibility,andaccess.Accordingtotheir
explanation,allfouroftheseareconsideredfromanoffendersviewpoint.
Offenderswouldonlybeinterestedintargetswhichtheyvalue.Forinstance,the
latestpopularCDhitcouldbestolenmorefromrecordstoresthanaBeethovenCD
ofroughlyequalmonetaryvaluebecausemostoffenderswouldliketohavethe
former,notthelatter.Inertiaissimplytheweightoftheitem.Forinstance,small
electronicproductsarestolenmorethanweightyitems,unlesstheselatterare
wheeledormotorizedtoovercometheirweight.Visibilityreferstotheexposureof
thefttargetstooffenders,aswhensomeoneflashesmoneyinpublicorputsvaluable
goodsbythewindow.Accessreferstostreetpatterns,placementofproductsnear
thedoor,orotherfeaturesofeverydaylifemakingiteasyforoffenderstogetto
targets.Thus,fortheusualpredatorycrimetooccur,alikelyoffendermustfinda
suitabletargetintheabsenceofacapableguardian.Thistheoryimpliesthatcrime
canincreasewithoutmoreoffendersiftherearemoretargets,orifoffenderscanget
totargetwithnoguardianspresent.

46
Inaddition,itshouldbenotedthatopportunitiestocommitcrimes,in
particular,residentialburglaries,areneitheruniformlynorrandomlydistributed
acrosstheurbanenvironment,butareclusteredintohotspotsofcriminalactivity
duetosituationalfactors(Ratcliffe,2002).Threecomponentsofroutineactivities
theoryarenotevenlyorrandomlydistributedoverspaceandtime,norareall
targetssuitable,alloffendersmotivated,andallguardianscapable.For
example,asRatcliffe(2002)argues,thesupplyofsuitabletargetsislimited.Inmore
affluentareas,homeownersmaybepreparedandabletospendmoneyonalarms,
locks,andmoresophisticatedcrimepreventiondeviceswhicharebeyondthe
meansoflesswelloffhomeownersandtenants.Inlowerincomecommunities,the
housingstockmaybeolderandpoorlymaintained,thusofferingeasierentry
opportunitiestotheoffender,becauseresidentsoflessaffluentareasoftenlack
resourcesorpoliticalinfluence,leavinglowincomehousingvulnerableto
Thesupplyofmotivatedoffendersisalsolimited.Studieshaveshownthata
smallnumberofoffendersareresponsibleforasignificantamountofcrimeinan
area.Byconcentratingonknownrepeatoffenders,crimepreventionprograms
aimedtoreduceresidentialburglarywouldhavehadaconsiderableimpactonthe
numberofmotivatedoffenders.Thismaybringaninitialreductioninthenumber
ofburglariesandadecreaseinoffendersableorwillingtoexploreburglary
opportunitiesinthesameorotherareas(Ratcliffe,2002).
Theavailabilityofcapableguardianstoinhibitcrimehassituationaland
spatialdimensions.Inlowerincomeareas,itmaybenecessaryforeveryadultin

47
thehometoworkfulltime,leavingapropertyorgroupofhousesunattendedduring
theday.Onthecontrary,moreaffluentareas,orareaswithahighproportionof
preschoolchildrenmayhavemorepeoplearoundduringthemiddleoftheday.
Thesepeoplecanprovidesurveillanceoraguardianshiprolefornearbyhouses.
Thus,indynamicandeverchangingdaytodayroutines,opportunitiesfor
crimevaryoverspaceandtime.Thepresenceofoffenderswillalsovaryoverspace
andtimeandbeinfluencedbyamyriadoffactors.Accordingtoroutineactivity
explanation,anypoliciesaimedatpreventingandreducingcrimegenerallydosoby
wieldinginfluenceoveroneormoreofthethreeroutineactivitytheoryelements
(JohnsonandBowers,2003;Crawford,1998).Forexample,oneapproachtoaffect
changewouldbetoimprovesurveillancebyhelpingensurethatsufficientguardians
arepresentatspecifictimesofthedaytomakeitmoredifficultforamotivated
offendertotargetasuitablevictim,perpetrateacrime,andmakeanescape.
Anotherexampleistoreducethevulnerabilityofpotentialvictims,andhence
opportunitiesforcrime,byprotectingthemfrommotivatedoffenders.Thiscanbe
donethroughtheinstallationofnewdoor/windowlocksandotherphysicalsecurity
measures,whichareeffectiveinreducingtheriskofburglary.
Routineactivitiestheoryhascontributedtothegrowingtheoretical
underpinningsofsituationalcrimeprevention.Theroutineactivityapproachseeks
toexplainthesupplyofcriminalopportunities.Itsfocusisoncriminaleventsrather
thaninclinations.So,routineactivitiestheoryisacausaltheoryinthatitlinks
changesinroutineactivitiestochangesincrimerates.

2.
48
RationalChoiceTheory
Therationalchoiceperspectivefocusesupontheoffendersdecisionmaking
process(FelsonandClarke,1998).Asdiscussedabove,thepremiseoftraditional
criminologicalthoughtisthatcrimeisadeviationfromnormalcivilizedconductand
thatitisexplicableintermsofindividualpathologyoffaultysocialization.Butthe
neweverydaycriminologicalapproachbeginswiththepremisethatcrimeis
regardedasageneralizednormalformofbehaviorincontemporarilymodern
society,routinelyproducedbythenormalpatternsofsocialandeconomiclife
(Garland,2001).
Basedonthisrationale,rationalchoiceregardscriminalactsascalculated,
utilitymaximizingconduct,resultingfromastraightforwardprocessofindividual
choice.Itseesoffendersasrationalopportunistsorcareercriminalswhoseconduct
isvariouslydeterredbythemanipulationofincentives.Offendersarenodifferent
fromotherindividuals.Crimeisveryhumanandordinarypeopledoordinary
crimes.Offendersmakechoicesaboutcommittingcrimesbasedonanticipated
opportunitiesandrewards.Ifgivenachoiceortherightopportunity,anyperson
maycommitacrime(FelsonandClarke,1998).Thus,themajorityofcriminal
eventsaretheresultofaconsciousdecisiononthepartoftheoffender.Although
theseoffendersmaybeplaguedwithsocialorpsychologicalproblems,andtheir
decisiontocommitcrimesmaynotbeentirelyvoluntary,mostoffendersmay
choosetheirtargets,locations,andtimeswithacertaindegreeofregularityusing
rationalchoicewhenmakingtheirdecisiontocommitaspecificcriminalact.

49
Inshort,thegeneralpremiseofrationalchoiceperspectiveoncrimesisthat
offendersaredecisionmakersandthattheyseektobenefitthemselvesbytheir
criminalbehavior.However,itisimportanttounderstandthatoffendersdecisions
andchoicesmightbeconstrainedbytimeandspace,theoffenderscognitive
abilities,andtheavailabilityofrelevantinformation.CornishandClarke(1987)
madetheadditionalpremisethatthedecisionprocessesandthefactorstakeninto
accountarelikelytovarygreatlyatthedifferentstagesofdecisionmakingand
amongdifferentcrimes.Forthisreason,theyfurtherdiscusstheneedstobecrime
specificwhenanalyzingcriminalchoicesandtotreatdecisionsrelatingtothe
variousstagesofcriminalinvolvementinparticularcrimes(e.g.,initialinvolvement,
continuation,anddesistance).Decisionstooffendareinfluencedbythe
characteristicsofbothoffensesandoffenders,andaretheoutcomeofinteractions
betweenthesetwo.Thepropertiesofthoseoffensecharacteristicsaretypeand
amountofpayoff,perceivedrisk,andskillsneeded.Theyareperceivedbyoffenders
asbeingsalienttotheirgoals,motives,experience,abilities,expertise,and
preferences.Suchpropertiesprovideabasisforselectingamongalternative
coursesofaction,andeffectivelystructuretheoffenderschoice.CornishandClarke
(1987)termthesecharacteristicsofoffenseswhichrenderthemdifferentially
attractivetoparticularindividualsorsubgroupsaschoicestructuringproperties.
Theconceptofchoicestructuringpropertiesisthereadinesswithwhichthe
offenderwillbepreparedtosubstituteoneoffenseforanotherwilldependuponthe
extenttowhichalternativeoffensessharecharacteristicswhichtheoffender

50
considerssalienttohisorhergoalsandabilities.Inshort,theindividualchoose
onlyfromamongcriminalalternativeswhenseekingtoachievehisgoals.
Forexample,burglarsarerationalintheirchoiceofatargetinthatthey
considerboththerevenuegeneratedbytheburglaryandthepossibilityand
consequencesofbeingapprehended.Intheirstudy,RengertandWasilchick(2000)
arguethatthedecisiontocommitburglariesisapurposeful,rationaldecisionin
almosteverycase.Afterinterviewingtheburglars,theynotedthattheprimary
reasontodecidetocommitaburglarywassimplytoobtainmoney.Without
describingfamilybackground,demographiccharacteristics,andsocioeconomic
standingindetail,theneedformoneydidnotresultfromastruggletofeedand
clotheafamily.Manyoftheseindividualsweremiddleclassorlowermiddleclass,
andmanyhademployableskills.Theneedformoneyroseoutofpsychologically
definedneeds,notsubsistenceneeds.Thesepsychologicallydefinedneedsare
thingslikeafasterlifestyle,drugs,andgambling.Theseactivitiesdemandmore
moneythanthesepeoplecouldlegitimatelyearn.Thus,thedecisiontocommit
burglariesisapurposeful,rationalchoicetosatisfytheirneeds.
However,itshouldbenotedthatanoffendersrationalityisalsolimitedin
manywayswherecrimepreventiontacticscanbedevelopedeffectively.Bennett
andWright(1984)saythattherationalapproachisbasedontheviewthat
offendersarerationalactorswhofreelychoosetooffend;itislesscertaintowhat
extentoffendersdecisionmakingprocesstooffendcanbecalledrational.Instead,
anemphasisshouldbeplacedonthelimitednatureofrationalitybecauseitis
assumedthatoffendersweighupalltherelevantfactorseverytimeanoffenseis

51
contemplated.Practicallytheyrarelyhaveafullpictureofallthevariouscostsand
benefitsofthecrime(FelsonandClarke,1998;WrightandDecker,1994).Offenders
rationalitymaybeconstrainedbytheinfluenceofmoods,feelings,immediate
motives,andintentions;moraljudgmentsregardingtheactinquestion;alcoholor
drugintoxication;andtheeffectofothersandtheirwillingnesstotakerisks.Itcan
alsobelimitedbytheamountoftimeandeffortthatoffenderscangivetothe
decisiontocommitacrimeandthequalityoftheinformationavailabletooffenders.
Prevention,therefore,isaimedatalteringthedecisionmakingprocessin
ordertoincreasetheriskortheeffortinvolvedinthecommissionofacrime,andto
decreaseanyrewardassociatedwithit.Itisalsoimportanttonotethatrational
choicetheorysuggeststhatindividualswilldecidenottocommitcrimeswhenthe
risksaretoohighortherewardsarenotadequateafteranindividualsrational
calculation.Thisrationaleisquitedifferentfromtraditionalcriminologicaltheories,
whichimplythatcriminalbehaviorisinevitable.Thusunderstandingwhy
individualschoosetocommitcrimesinparticularcircumstancescanleadtocrime
prevention(Boba,2005).
Rationalchoicetheoryisusefulforcrimeanalysisandpolicingbecauseofthe
importanceofdeterminingwhyoffenderschoosetocommitparticularcrimes
systematically.Ifoffenderschoosetooffendbasedontheperceivedrisksand
anticipatedrewardsoftheircrimes,anunderstandingoftheoffendersperceptions
ofrisksandrewardscanhelppoliceagenciesandcommunitiestotakemeasures
thatcanchangeopportunitiesforcrimeanddeteroffenses.

52
Inconclusion,whatisnotableaboutroutineactivitytheoryandrational
choicetheoryisthattheybeginwiththepremisethatcrimeisausualandnormal
aspectofmodernlife.Incontrasttoearliercriminologicalapproaches,crimeis
understoodasaseriesofeventswhichrequirenoparticularmotivationor
pathology,butratherisseenasinscribedwithintheroutinesofcontemporarysocial
existence.Collectively,thesetheoriesrepresentwhatGarland(2001)callsthenew
criminologiesofeverydaylife,forwhichcrimeisseenasarisktobecalculatedand
henceavoidedormanaged,ratherthanamoralabnormalityinneedofexplanation.
Inparticular,rationalchoicetheoryhelpsadvocatesofsituationalcrimeprevention
toshiftthefocusofcrimecontrolawayfromanindividualsdispositionandtoward
situationalopportunity.
3.
SituationalCrimePrevention
Thedevelopmentofasituationalapproachtocrimeprevention,itstheoretical
premise,andbasisofempiricalresearchiscloselyassociatedwiththeworkinthe
late1970sandearly1980sbytheHomeOfficeResearchandPlanningUnit
(Crawford,1998).Duringtheseyears,doubtsabouttheeffectivenessoftreatment
andrehabilitationprogramshadledtoamajorreappraisalofcrimeprevention
strategies.Outofthisdebateemergedsituationalcrimeprevention,whichinvolves
theuseofsituationalmeasuresaimedtoaltertheenvironmentinwhichcrimes
typicallyoccur(BennettandWright,1984).Theintroductionofthemethod
indicatesaradicalshiftinthinkingaboutthenatureofcriminalbehavior.
Asdiscussedearlier,oneoftheunderlyingassumptionsoftraditional
criminologicalapproachesisthatcriminalbehavioriscausedbyinheritedor

53
acquiredcharacteristicswhichpredisposeapersontocommitacrime.Situational
crimeprevention,however,doesnotsharethispremise.Instead,itisbasedonthe
viewthatthemotivationtooffendistosomedegreedeterminedbysituational
factors.Theoffenderisnotseenassomeonecompelledtocommitacrime,but
someonewhoactivelychoosesanddecidestocommitaparticularcrimeinresponse
toparticularsituations(BennettandWright,1984).Situationalcrimeprevention
approacheshaveprovidedaradicalshiftincriminologicaldiscussionandanew
theoreticalframeworktostudycrimesandoffendersforcrimeprevention.
Crawford(1998)notesthat,incriminologicalterms,situationalcrimeprevention
representsashifttoward:
Theprioritizationofthecontrolofcrime,throughpracticalyetlimited
policyorientedmeasures;
Anemphasisonalterationstothephysicalenvironment;
Thesignificanceofprocessesofinformalsocialcontrol;and
Theoffenseratherthantheoffenderastheprimaryfocusofattention.
AccordingtoClarke,(1997)situationalcrimepreventionisdefinedas:
opportunityreducing measures that (1) are directed at highly
specific forms of crime, (2) involve the management, design or
manipulation of the immediate environment in as systematic and
permanentwayaspossible,(3)makecrimemoredifficultandrisky,
or less rewarding and excusable as judged by a wide range of
offenders.
Situationalcrimepreventionisdesignedtoreducecriminalopportunityfor
criminalacts.Oneofthekeyelementsofthisperspectiveisopportunity,whichis
regardedasacauseofcrime(FelsonandClarke,1998)toexplaincriminaloffenses

54
andoffenders.Opportunitymayincludebothpersonalopportunitiestooffend,such
asapersonsage,sex,oroccupation,andsituationalopportunities,suchasthe
abundanceofgoodsincirculation,thephysicalsecurityoftheobjectsinvolvedin
crime,andthedegreetowhichobjectsareundersurveillance(BennettandWright,
1984).FelsonandClarke(1998)explainthelinkbetweencrimeandopportunity
throughtenprinciples4.Theymaintainthatopportunitycausesallcrimesviolent
crimes,propertycrimes,whitecollarcrimes,andvictimlesscrimes,suchasdrug
salesandprostitution.Eventheoccurrenceofsuicidehasbeenlinkedto
opportunity(ClarkeandMayhew,1988).Crimeopportunitiesarehighlyspecificto
eachoffenseandoffendersubset.Forexample,residentialburglaryhasdifferent
motives,risks,rewards,andtechniquesthancommercialburglary.Evenifonly
residentialburglariesareconsidered,subcategoriesmustalsobeconsideredwith
respecttothetargettype(e.g.,singlefamilyhomes,apartmentdwellings,and
duplexes),pointofentry(windowsversusdoors,frontorrear)oreventhetimeof
day(daytimeversusnighttime).
Crimeopportunitiesarenotrandomlydistributedbutconcentratedintime
andspace.Certainlocationsandtimesaremoredangerousthanothers.Crime
opportunitiesdependoneverydaymovementsofactivity.Onecrimeproduces
opportunitiesforanother.Forexample,onceaburglarhasenteredahome,
additionalopportunitiestocommitcrimesmaydevelop.Iftheoffendercomes
acrossagunandchoosestotakeit,theoffenderhasnowcommittedarmed
4)Foradetaileddiscussionanddescriptionofthetenprinciplesofopportunityand
crime,seeFelsonandClarke(1998).

55
residentialburglary.Ifthehomeownersuddenlyreturnstotheresidence,the
burglaryisnowpresentedwiththeopportunitytocommitrobbery,battery,orrape.
Thecommissionofburglarymayalsoleadtootheropportunities,suchasdealingin
stolengoods(FelsonandClarke,1998).
Thus,situationalcrimepreventionapproachesfocusonopportunity
reduction,whichattemptstocombatcrimesbyfundamentallyreducingcrime
opportunitiesforoffending.Withinthisschema,opportunityreductioncantake
severalinterrelated,andsometimesoverlappingformsbyeither(1)increasingthe
amountofeffortamotivatedoffendermustexert,(2)increasingthelevelofriskof
apprehensionanddetection,or(3)reducingthepotentialrewardsforcommitting
crimes.
Situationalcrimepreventionapproacheshavebecomeamajorforceinpolicy
andresearchsincetheearly1980s.Ithasenjoyedaperiodofconsiderablepolitical
successandinfluenceintheU.K.(Crawford,1998).Alsomanysituationalcrime
preventiontechniqueshavebeendevelopedbytheprivatesectorratherthanthe
government(Hughes,1998).Forexample,duringthelastthreedecades,several
newcrimepreventiontheorieshavebeendeveloped,suchasneighborhood
surveillance(Jacobs,1962),crimepreventionthroughenvironmentaldesign
(CPTED)(Jeffery,1971),defensiblespace(Newman,1972),andenvironmental
criminology(BrantinghamandBrantingham,1991).
Inshort,situationalcrimepreventionaimsatreducingcriminal
opportunitiesintheroutinesofeverydaylife.Itencompassesawiderangeofcrime
reductionmethods.AccordingtoCornishandClarke(2003),fivebroadcategories

56
ofopportunityreducingtechniquesareimplicitintherationalchoiceassumptions
ofsituationalprevention:
Increasingtheoffendersperceivedefforttocommitacrime(whichmakes
itmoredifficultfortheoffendertocommitthecrime);
Increasingtheoffendersperceivedriskincommittingacrime(which
makestheoffenderthinktwicebecausehe/sheperceivesapossibilityof
apprehension);
Reducingtheoffendersanticipatedrewardsfromcommittingacrime
(whichreducesthevaluetotheoffenderofthecrimeitself);
Reducingprovocationsofanantisocialresponse(whichreducesaversive
emotionalarousals);and
Removingexcusesforcrime(whichisintendedtochangesocialpracticesas
awayofencouragingcompliancewiththelaw).
Eachofthesefivecategorieshasanadditionalfivespecificpreventive
techniques,whichtogetherproducetwentyfivecrimepreventiontactics5.For
example,thefirstcategoryoftechniquesismadeupofthosethatpreventcrimeby
increasingtheoffendersperceivedefforttocommitthecrime.Inotherwords,
thesetechniquesmakeitmoredifficultfortheoffenderstocommitthecrime,
therebyaddressingtheoffendersmotivationandanticipatedrewards.Practical
preventiontechniquescanbedividedintofourtypes,whichinclude:
5)CornishandClarke(2003)presentsadetaileddescriptionofthosefivecategories
andtwentyfivepreventivetechniques.

57
Targethardening(e.g.,antirobberyscreens,alarmsystems,andsteering
wheellocks);
Controllingaccesstofacilities(e.g.,parkinglotbarriers,reducingnumbers
ofentrances/exits,entryphones,andinstallinggatedbarriers);
Screeningexits(e.g.,ticketneededforexit,exportdocuments,and
electronicmerchandisetags);
Deflectingoffenders(e.g.,closingstreets,separatebathroomsforwomen,
busstopplacement,streetclosures,andtavernlocation);and
Controllingtools/weapons(e.g.,smartguns,disablingstolencellphones,
callerID,andrestrictingspraypointsalestojuveniles).
Thesedetailed,specificapplicationsofsituationalcrimepreventionseekto
providemeasuresthataredirectlyrelatedtotheimmediatesituationsofcriminal
events,andjustastheopportunitiesthatfacilitatecrimemaybeunique,unique
preventivemeasuresmaybeneededtopreventthoseopportunities.Analarm
systemcanbedirectlyandpowerfullyutilizedasatargethardeningtechniqueto
reduceanopportunityofresidentialburglary,asNationalAdvisoryCommitteeon
CriminalJusticeStandardsandGoals(1976)puts:
The major goal of alarm systems is to prevent crime by reducing
criminalopportunity Another goal is to reduce crime through
apprehension of offenders. A reliable alarm system increases the
likelihoodofapprehensionandprosecutionofcriminalsalarms
can also provide protection against other criminal intrusions, as
well as smoke, fire, and other life and propertythreatening
hazards alarms provide a valuable, viable means of achieving
overallsecurity.(emphasisadded)

58
Inconclusion,asGarland(2001)arguesthatthepresentdayworldof
privatesectorcrimepreventionexistsinareflexiverelationshiptothesetheories
(e.g.,rationalchoicetheory,routineactivitytheory,CPTED,anddefensiblespace)
andprescriptionsofsituationalcrimeprevention,oneofthemostpopulartarget
hardeningtechniquesforpreventingresidentialburglarieshasbeentheinstallation
ofburglaralarms(Reppetto,1974;LeBeauandVincent,1998).Severalstudies
discussedlaterbelowhavesupportedthetheoreticalunderpinningsofsituational
crimepreventionmethodsinrelationtoresidentialburglaryandalarmsystems.
II.
SituationalCrimePreventionandResidentialBurglarAlarms
Therehasbeenasubstantialbodyofresearchprojectstostudytheproblemof
burglary.Inparticular,eversinceasuddenincreaseofcrimesintheUnitedStates
afterthe1960sand1970s,manygovernmentsponsoredprojectshavebeencarried
out,aswellassomestudiessponsoredbyprivateinterestorganizations.Inspiteof
alargeamountofresearchandevaluationstudies,fewstudieshaveexaminedthe
effectivenessofhomeburglaralarmsortheirimpactonresidentialburglary.But
thesestudiesaretypicallypartofotherlargerevaluationprojects.Inotherwords,
thereisnoindependentevaluationstudyorexperimentaltesttoexaminethe
deterrenteffectoftheburglaralarmsystemonresidentialburglary.
Whatfollowsisabriefreviewofseveralburglarystudiesconductedsincethe
1970s.Onlycasesexamininganddiscussingtheimpactoftheburglaralarmsystem
oncrimeandcriminalbehaviorwillbementioned.Therearemorestudiesabout
residentialburglary,butnotallofthemcoveranddiscussburglaralarmsystems.In

59
addition,afewcasesfocusonlyoncommercialburglary.Thus,thestudieswhichdo
notexamineanddiscussthedeterrentimpactofburglaralarmsystemsoncrime
andwhichfocusonlyoncommercialburglaryareexcludedfromthisreview.Most
ofthefollowingstudieswerecarriedoutintheUnitedStates,butafewwere
conductedintheUnitedKingdom.
1.
TheConklinBittnerStudy(1973)
ConklinandBittner(1973)conductedoneoftheearlieststudiesasaresponsetoa
recentcrimewaveofburglaryinalargeresidentialsuburbduringthe1960s.Oneof
theproblemsoftheirstudywasthatvirtuallynothingwasknownaboutburglaryat
anintermediatelevelandthattheyhadnodetailedinformationaboutthe
experienceofacommunitywithburglary.Sotheytooktheinitiativetoundertakea
modeststudyofburglaryinasuburblocatedinalargemetropolitanareainthe
Northeast.Theireffortsweredirectedtowardtheassemblyofarelativelydetailed
cumulativepictureofcrimeoverasignificantperiodoftime.
Thestudywasasecondarydataanalysisbasedontherecordsofthelocal
policedepartmentfortheperiodfromJuly1,1968,toJune30,1969.Theyhada
totalof945burglaries,whichincluded602casesfromprivateresidences,239from
commercialestablishments,63fromschoolsorchurches,and41fromothertargets
duringtheoneyearperiod.
Inrelationtoalarmsystems,ConklinandBittner(1973)foundthatonly53
oftheburglaryincidentsinthe945samplewhichconstituted5.6percentofall
cases,involvedbuildingswithalarmsystems.Amongthe53alarmsystems,32
(60.4percent)werelocatedinprivatehomes,while19(35.9percent)werein

60
commercialestablishmentsand2wereinschools.Theyarguedthatnotonlywere
fewbuildingsprotectedbyalarmssystems,buteventhosethatwereprotectedwere
oftenburglarizedbecausethealarmfailedtoworkatthetimeofthecrime.In21
cases,analarmwaspresentbutfailedtosoundbecause:1)ithadbeenturnedoffby
theoffenderorbythevictims;2)theoffenderhadcircumventedthealarmsystem;
or3)thesystemwasnotinworkingcondition.Sothechancethatanalarmwould
bepresentandfunctionalwassmall.Infact,only2.9percentoftheburglariesledto
analarmbeingactivated.
Althoughitwasdifficulttoassesstheusefulnessofburglaralarmsystemson
crimewithoutknowinghowmanyhouseshadalarmsystems,ConklinandBittner
(1974)notedthattheproportionofburgledhousesinwhichnolossoccurredwas
muchhigheramongthosewithaburglaralarmthanamongthosewithoutone
(threequarterscomparedwithonethird).Theyspeculatedthatalarmsmightdeter
offendersafterthealarmshavebeenactivated.
2.
TheReppettoStudy(1974)
Crimehastraditionallybeenstudiedbyfocusingontheoffenderandhisbackground
(Garland,2001;BennettandWright,1984;Clarke,1997;Jeffery,1972).The
situationalcrimepreventionapproachhastakenanewapproachbyfocusingthe
offenseratherthantheoffenderinordertoexplicitlyconsidertheeffectivenessof
alternativepreventionstrategies.ThestudycarriedoutbyReppetto(1974)isa
goodexampleofthisapproach.Byevaluatingthephysicalandsituational
circumstancesofburglary(e.g.,easeofaccess,frequencyofpolicepatrols,
availabilityofloot,proximitytotheburglarsownresidence,andsocialcomposition

61
oftheneighborhood),heplacedtheresidentialburglaryinitscontexttosuggest
howcriminalmotivationinteractedwithopportunityandsituationalfactorsto
constructaparticularpatternofburglary(Reppetto,1974).
Reppettosstudy(1974)wasconductedintheBostonMetropolitanAreaand
focusedonresidentialburglaryandrobbery.Thestudysoughttoidentify,describe,
andexplaininasystematicandquantitativemannertheratesandpatternsofthese
crimesandtheircorrelationtokeyvariables(e.g.,housingtype,race,income,and
crime).Thetwomajordatasourceswere:(1)asurveyofhouseholdswhich
includedbothadetailedinterviewwithnearly1,000victimsandnonvictimsof
residentialrobberiesandburglaries;and(2)interviewswith97convictedburglars
inordertoobtaindetailedinformationonhowandwhyparticularburglarsattacked
particulardwellings.
Theinterviewswith97adjudicatedburglarsproducedrichethnographic
informationregardingresidentialburglary.Inrelationtotargetselectionfor
offenses,singlefamilyhouseswereselectedmoreoftenthanhousingprojectsdue
totheapparentaffluenceofthosehomeswastheprimefactorintheirchoiceof
targets.Aboutthreequartersoftheintervieweesindicatedthattheyengagedin
somekindofplanning,andallofthegroupswereprimarilyconcernedwithwhether
ornotthedwellingwasoccupiedbecausetheypreferredtotargetunoccupied
residences.Onethirdwantedtoknowwhetheraburglaralarmsystemwasinuse.
Onehalfoftheintervieweesindicatedtheirunwillingnesstotravelmorethanone
hourfromtheirhomestomakeahit.Intervieweesestimatedtheentrytime
requiredfiveminutesforadoorandthreeminutesforawindow,andtheyindicated

62
thattheywouldnotspendmorethantenminutesonadoorandfiveminutesona
window(Reppetto,1974).
Intermsofburglaralarms,noevaluationcouldbemadeoftheireffectiveness
asadetectionmeasurebecauseveryfewofthehouseholdssurveyedpossessed
them.However,theinformationobtainedfromtheoffenderinterviewsgavesome
insightssothatatentativeassessmentoftheeffectivenessofburglaralarmsystems
couldbemade.Reppetto(1974)reportedthatapproximatelyonefifthofthe
burglarsheinterviewedsaidthattheywouldadvisehouseholderstouseaburglar
alarmasameansofpreventingburglary.
3.
TheBennettWrightStudy(1984)
Thedominantmethodofcrimecontrolwastreatmentandrehabilitationuntilthe
late1960sandearly1970s,butseveralstudiesinthe1970sshowedthat
rehabilitationwasineffectiveinthecontrolofcrime.Doubtsabouttheeffectiveness
oftreatmentledtoamajorreappraisalofcurrentcrimepreventionstrategies.
Situationalcrimepreventionwhichaimstoaltertheenvironmentinwhichcrimes
typicallyoccurhasemergedfromthisdebate.AstudyconductedbyBennettand
Wright(1984)appliedthisnewcrimepreventiontheorytoresidentialburglaryby
focusingontheoffendersperspectiveintotheirperceptionsanddecisionmaking
process.
Inordertoexamineburglarsperceptionsanddecisionmakingprocess,
BennettandWright(1984)employedasemistructuredinterview.Interviews
usuallylastedtwotofourhours.Intotal,309offenderswereselectedfroma
numberofprisonsfiles;128participatedinthesemistructuredinterview,51were

63
givenastructuredinterview,and130tookpartinoneofthreeexperimental
methods.Inaddition,theyusedavideotapingmethod,whichwasdesignedto
discoverwhichsituationalcuesburglarsusedintheirassessmentofpotential
targets.Avideorecordingwasmadeof36dwellings,comprisingeightblocksof
threeorfourhousesandoneblockofthreeflats.Therecodingwasfilmedfroma
vantravelingalongtheroadatawalkingpace.Thevideotapewasshown
individuallyto40offenderscurrentlyservingsentencesinprisonforburglaryofa
dwelling.Theresearchersalsotookthreephotographsofdifferentaspectsoffive
houses6inordertoexaminetheinfluenceofparticularsituationalcuesonoffenders
choiceoftargets.
Oneoftheobjectivesofburglaralarmsistoincreasethepotentialoffenders
perceivedriskofdetectionandapprehension.Inrelationtoburglaralarms,the
assumptionisthattheoffenderwouldbelievethepresenceofanalarmincreases
theriskofdetectiontoanunacceptablelevel.Inthephotographvisualization
experiment,thefirstthreeofthefivesituationalfactors(alarm,occupancy,cover,
locks,andneighbors)hadasubstantialinfluenceonthenumberofoffenders
decidingthatthehousewassuitableforburglary.Themostinfluentialfactorwas
thepresenceorabsenceofanalarm,whichhadastatisticallysignificanteffecton
thenumberofoffendersfindingthehousesuitable(p<.001)(BennettandWright,
1984).
6)Thedifferentaspectsoffivehousesare:afullshotfromthefront,acloseupshot
ofthefrontdoor,andacloseupshotofagroundfloorwindow.Bothofthecloseupshots
revealeddetailsoflocksandanyothersecuritydevicesfitted(BennettandWright,1984).

64
Furthermore,duringthesemistructuredinterview,theincarcerated
burglarswerequestionedabouttheirperceptionsofavarietyofsituationalfactors
andtheinfluencethatthesehadontheirchoiceoftargets.Themostfrequently
mentionedfactorwasagainthepresenceofaburglaralarm.Justlessthanthree
quartersoftheoffenderssaidthatanalarmwouldhavedeterredthemduringtheir
lastperiodofoffending(BennettandWright,1984).Overall,thestudyshowedthat
thealarmsystemisanimportantdeterrent.
4.
TheRengertWasilchickStudy(1985;2000)
RengertandWasilchick(1985)interviewed35convictedburglarsfromthe
DelawareCountyPrisonoverthecourseofseveralmonths.Theresearchers
questionedtheoffendersaboutburglariestheycommitted,theirmethodoftarget
selection,andtheirpersonalknowledgeoftheareaandtheareaspotentialasa
burglarysite.
Theirstudy,however,mainlyfocusedontheuseoftimeandspacein
burglaryandthetechniquesofburglary.RengertandWasilchick(1985,2021)
analyzedtimeblocksbyresidentialburglarsanddirectionsandfamiliarityof
targetedspaces.Inspiteofthedetailedinformationandinsightsregarding
residentialburglaryinsuburbanareas,theydidnottouchontheimpactofalarm
systemsonresidentialburglary.
Inthesecondeditionoftheirbook,RengertandWasilchick(2000)included
theresultsofasurveytoresidentsinGreenwich,Connecticut,asuburbofNewYork
City.Thepurposeofthesurveywastorevealwhichhousesburglarshadchosen
andtocontrastthemwithhousesthathadneverbeenburglarizedwhileoccupied

65
bythecurrentresidents.WhiletheirfirststudyinDelawareCounty,Pennsylvania,
focusedonwhichcommunitiesattractedburglarsbyanalyzingthetimeandspacein
residentialburglaryfromtheoffendersperspective,thesecondstudyinGreenwich,
Connecticut,centeredonwhichhomeswithinasuburbancommunitywerechosen
byresidentialburglars.
Thedataforanalysesofthesecondpartofthestudyweretakenfroma
surveymailedtothe22,192householdsinGreenwich.Thismethodresultedin
3,014questionnairesreturned(14percent).Themosteffectivesecurityprecaution
wasanalarmsystem,withotherprecautions(e.g.,deadboltlocks,dog,exterior
lights,pinsinwindowframes,andbarsinwindows)beingsignificantlylesseffective.
Anotherinterestingfindingwasthatthosehouseholdstakingprecautionsother
thanburglaralarmsweremorelikelytobeburglarizedthantheaveragehousehold
intheentiresurvey(RengertandWasilchick,2000).
5.
TheHakimBuckStudy(1991)
Theinstallationofaburglaralarmsystemataprivateresidenceindicatesthatthe
houseisunderthecontrolandprotectionofacentralmonitoringsystem,butan
alarmsystemdoesnotnecessarilyprotectthehousefromburglaryorother
criminalactivities.Itmayormaynotserveasacrimedeterrent.TheHakimBuck
study(1991),whichwassupportedbytheAlarmIndustryResearch&Educational
Foundation(AIREF),aimedtoanalyzewhetherthisassumptionrestsonfactual
grounds.Whatmakesthisstudyuniqueisthatitmainlyfocusesontherelationship
betweenburglaralarmsystemsandresidentialburglarybyexamininghomeowners

66
motivesforbuyingalarms,theirexperienceandsatisfactionwiththem,andthefalse
alarmproblem(HakimandBuck,1991).
Forthisproject,threesuburbancommunitiesinthreedifferentcountiesof
Philadelphiasmetropolitanarea(UpperMerionTownshipinMontgomeryCounty,
TredyffrinTownshipinChesterCounty,andSpringfieldTownshipinDelaware
County)wereanalyzedindetailusingdatacoveringatwoandahalfyearperiod.
Theresearchmethodsforthisstudywerecomprisedofmailingquestionnairesto
burglaryvictims,alarmowners,andmembersofcontrolgroups,whowereneither
victimsofburglarynorownersofanalarm.Atotalof1,149(766inresidentialarea
and387incommercialarea)of2,730mailedsurveyswerereturned.Both
residentialandcommercialestablishmentsweresurveyed.Theymatchedthedata
theyobtainedviathesurveywithdatafromtheassociatedpolicedepartmentsand
municipalgovernments(HakimandBuck,1991).
HakimandBuck(1991)calculatedtheprobabilitiesofburglaryofproperties
thathadalarms,andofthosethatdidnothavealarmsystems.Theprobabilitythat
apropertyprotectedbyanalarmwasavictimofburglarywasconsideredtobethe
ratioofthenumberofpropertieswhichwereburgledandalarmedtothenumberof
alarmedpropertiesinthecommunity.Alsotheprobabilitythatthepropertiesthat
remainedunprotectedbyanalarmbecameavictimofburglarywastheratioofthe
numberofburgledpropertieswhichdidnothaveanalarmtothenumberofnon
alarminstalledproperties.Theratioofthetwoprobabilitiesshowedthedegreeto
whichnonalarminstalledresidenceswereless/moreatriskofburglary.They
reportedthatthechancethataresidencewhichwasnotprotectedbyanalarmwas

67
burgledwas2.71greaterthanthatofalarminstalledproperties.Thehighest
deterrenteffectofalarmownershipwas2.94,occurringinTredyffrin.Therisk
factorwasdownto2.83inUpperMerion,whileSpringfieldobtainedthelowest
valueof2.26.Thechancethatanonalarminstalledpropertywouldbeburgledwas
atleast2.26greaterforthelowestvaluedsuburbanhomes,andbecame3.117
greaterforthehomeswithmarketvaluegreaterthan$100,000.HakimandBuck
(1991)concludedthatalarmsystemsdiddeterintruders.Themoreexpensivethe
homewas,themoreeffectivealarmsystemswereindeterringintrusion.
6.
TheCromwellOlsonAvaryStudy(1991)
ThestudyconductedbyCromwell,OlsonandAvary(1991)wascarriedoutinan
urbanTexasmetropolitanarea.Theprimarypurposeofthisresearchconcerned
notonlytheunderstandingoftheoffendersperceptionsoftherisksandrewards
involvedincriminalactivityparticularlyinresidentialpropertycrimebutalso
howresidentialburglarsselectedtargets,howthepresenceofcooffenders
influenceddecisionmakingprocesses,andwhatroledrugsplayedintarget
selectionandtheriskgaincalculusemployedbyburglars.
Thirtyactiveburglarscomprisedof27malesand3femaleswererecruitedas
researchsubjects,usingasnowballsamplingprocedure.Threesubjectswere
recruitedinitiallybyreferralfromlocalcriminaljusticeagencies.Fordata
collection,theresearchersselectedstagedactivityanalysisasanalternative

68
strategytoethnographicdesigns7.Accordingtothisstagedactivityanalysis
method,thesubjectswereaskedtoreconstructandsimulatetheirpastburglariesas
clearlyaspossibleinthesamemannerinwhichtheywereoriginallycommitted.
Theresearcherobserved,questioned,andrecordedtheeventsandanswers.This
methodconsistedofextensiveinterviewsandridealongs,duringwhichthe
subjectswereaskedtodiscussandevaluateresidentialsitestheyhadpreviously
burglarized(Cromwelletal.,1991).8
Inrelationtotheimpactofburglaralarmsystems,ingeneral,burglars
agreedthatalarmswereadefinitedeterrenttotheiractivities.Otherfactorsbeing
equal,theypreferredtoidentifyingatargetwhichdidnothaveanalarmratherthan
totaketheadditionalriskinvolvedinattemptingtoburglarizeahousewithan
alarmsystem.Morethan90percentoftheintervieweessaidthattheywouldnot
chooseatargetwithanalarmsystem.Furthermore,about75percentofthestudy
subjectsmentionedthattheyweredeterredbyasignorwindowstickerwhich
statedthatthehousewasprotectedbyanalarmsystem(Cromwelletal.,1991).
Basedonthesefindings,Cromwelletal.(1991)arguedthataburglarwas
morelikelytorespondtocrimepreventionstrategiesattheneighborhood,block,or
individualresidencelevelthantothoseatthecommunity,state,ornationallevel.
Forexample,crimepreventionprogramsatthecommunitylevel(e.g.,increased
7)Therearetwogenerallyacceptedmethodsfordatacollectionwithinan
ethnographicdesign:(1)directparticipantobservationand(2)theethnographicinterview
(Cromwelletal.,1991).
8)Forthedetailedmethodologicaldiscussionofthestagedactivityanalysis,see
Cromwelletal.(1991).

69
levelsofprosecution)oratthestatelevel(e.g.,increasingstatutorypenaltiesfor
burglary)werenotperceivedbytheconvictedintervieweesasbeingaseffectiveas
microlevelprogramsinitiatedbytheresidentsofapotentialtargetsites(e.g.,
buyingadogorinstallinganalarmsystem).Themajorreasonfortheseresultswas
thatoffendersweremoreconcernedwiththepossibilityofimmediatedetectionand
withimmediaterewards.
7.
TheWrightDeckerStudy(1994)
AstudyconductedbyWrightandDecker(1994)focusesontheoffenders
perspectiveontheprocessofcommittingresidentialburglariestounderstandhow
criminalsmakedecisionsinrelationto(1)thethreatofapprehensionandofficial
penalties,and(2)thealterationofsituationalfeatures.
TheirresidentialburglarystudywasconductedonthestreetsofSt.Louis,
Missouri.WrightandDecker(1994)wereabletolocateandinterview105
currentlyactiveoffenders,focusingspecificallyontheirthoughtsandactionsduring
burglaries.Theyemployedasnowballsamplingstrategytolocatetheactive
offenders,whichbeganwiththerecruitmentofaninitialsubjectwhothenwas
askedtoreferfurtherparticipants.Theyavoidedseekingreferralsfromcriminal
justiceofficials.Theinterviewsweresemistructuredandconductedinaninformal
manner,whichallowedtheoffenderstospeakfreelyusingtheirownwords.
Interviewsusuallylastedbetweenoneandahalfandthreehours.Thequestions
askedtotheoffenderswere:motivation,targetselection,gainingentrytothe
dwelling,searchingforvaluables,anddisposingofthegoods.

70
Inregardstotheprocessofchoosingacriminaltarget,theoffenderswere
notwillingtobreakintoadwellingwheretheyperceivedtheoddsofgettingcaught
tobeexcessivelyhigh.Inassessingrisk,theburglarsfocusedprimarilyontheissue
ofoccupancy.Theyweredisinclinedtoburglarizearesidencewhileanyonewas
inside.Almostnineoutoftenoftheoffendersinterviewedsaidthattheyalways
avoidedbreakingintoaresidencewhentheykneworsuspectedthatsomeonewas
athome(WrightandDecker,1994).
Itshouldalsobenotedthattheoffenderswerecautiousofoccupancy
proxiesassubstitutesforoccupancybytheresidents.Burglaralarmscould
functionassuchoccupancyproxies,somanyoffenderswantedtoavoidhomeswith
alarms.Oncetheoffendersdecidedtoenteranintendedtarget,theywerestill
worriedaboutthepresenceofaburglaralarm.However,alarmsystemswere
seldominstalledinresidencescontaininglittleofvalue.Indeed,afewofthe
offendersreportedthattheyregardedthedevicesnotsomuchasdeterrentsas
indicatorsofpotentialreward.Nevertheless,almostthreeoutfourofthesubjectsin
thestudyweredeterredbythepresenceofanalarmatleastsometimeinthecourse
ofchoosingandenteringatarget(WrightandDecker,1994).
8.
TheLeBeauVincentStudy(1998)
TheLeBeauVincentstudy(1998)focusedonfalsealarmcallsandrepeat
victimizationofpeople,property,places,andsituations.Thepurposeofthestudy
wastonumericallyexamineandcartographicallydisplaytherelationshipsamong
burglaralarms,burglaries,repeataddressalarms,andrepeataddressburglaries.
Burglaralarmcallscausedproblemsforthepolicebecausetheywerenumerousand

71
usuallyturnedouttobefalse.Respondingtoalargevolumeofburglaralarmcalls
drainedpoliceresourcesandessentiallymadethepolicetheservantoftheprivate
securityalarmindustry.
Thisstudyusedsecondarydataofalarmsandburglariesfromthecomputer
aideddispatch(CAD)filesoftheCharlotte,NorthCarolina,PoliceDepartmentfor
1990.Thepertinentvariablesformappingwerethetotalnumbersofalarmcalls
andburglaryincidents,whichincludedthesumofallforcedandattempted
burglaries.Thevariablesweremodifiedbyascertainingthenumberofcallsand
burglariesatthesameaddress.Thebasicunitofanalysiswastheincident,orcall,
anditsstreetblockaddress.Intheirstudy,itwasnotpossibletodeterminethe
totalnumberofcommercialorresidentialalarmsandburglaries(LeBeauand
Vincent,1998).
Accordingtotheirresearchfindings,during1990,burglaryalarmcalls
numbered48,622andconstituted12.7percentofthetotalcallsforservice
workloadtothepolicedepartment.Theproportionoffalsealarmsencounteredby
thepolicewasalmost98percent.Therewere10,828residentialandcommercial
burglariesreportedtothepolice.Thealarmdataindicatedthat1.57percentofthe
alarmcallsaccountedfor7percentofallburglaries.Furthermore,only117on
scenearrests(81forburglary)weremadefromalarmactivationcalls,while130on
scenearrestsweremadeduringburglariesthatdidnotinvolvealarms.Fromthese
data,theauthorsconcludedthatalarmsareneithereffectivenorefficient(LeBeau
andVincent,1998).

9.
72
TheBuddStudy(1999)
Buddsreport(1999)wasbasedontheresultsfromthe1996and1998sweepsof
theBritishCrimeSurvey(BCS)9regardingburglaryagainstdomesticdwellings.It
providedrichinformationaboutburglaryvictimization.Forexample,the1998BSC
surveyedtheownershipofhomesecuritydevices.Thereportestimatedthatalmost
half(48percent)ofallhouseholdsinstalledeitheranexternalorinternalsecurity
lightwhichoperatedonatimerorsensor.Almostaquarter(24percent)had
burglaralarmsinstalled.Since1992,theownershipofsecuritydevicesincreased
considerably.Between1992and1998,theproportionofhomeswithsecuritylights
morethandoubled(from22percentofhouseholdsin1992to48percentin1998)
andtheownershipofburglaralarmsystemsalmostdoubled(from13percentof
homesin1992to24percentin1998)(Budd,1999,3637).
Inrelationtosecuritydevices(e.g.,windowlocks,deadlocks,burglaralarm,
securitylights,orwindowgrilles)atdomesticdwellings,eachofhomesecuritywas
stronglyassociatedwiththeriskofburglaryvictimization.Theriskofvictimization
increasedwithdecreasinglevelsofsecurity.Householdswithoutanyofthesecurity
devices(nosecurity)weremostatrisk.Thosewithonlywindowslocksor
9)TheBritishCrimeSurvey(BCS)beganin1982andmovedtoanannualcyclefrom
2001/02,withover50,000interviewsofpeopleaged16orovernowtakingplaceperyear.
ThelatestfullresultsareCrimeinEnglandandWales2005/2006.Thefirstsurveywas
carriedoutinEngland,Wales,andScotland,butScotlandnowhasitsownsurveyashas
NorthernIreland.TheBSCquestionsadultsinprivatehouseholdsabouttheirexperienceof
crimevictimizationintheprevious12months.Itcoversnotonlycrimecountsbutalso
othercrimerelatedissues.Butsometypesofcrimes(e.g.,crimesagainstthoseunderthe
ageof16andthehomeless,victimlessoffences,andoffencesinwhichthevictimisno
longeravailableforinterview)werenotincluded.Forthedetailedinformationanda
varietyofreportsoftheBCS,seetheWebsiteoftheBritishCrimeSurveyandBudd
(1999).

73
deadlocksreducedtheirrisksofvictimizationsubstantially.Furthermore,those
withaburglaralarm,securitylights,orwindowgrilleshadevenlowerrisksof
victimization(Budd,1999).
Thisreportexaminedtheeffectivenessofburglaralarmsystemson
residentialburglary,usinganexpostfactocomparisonwhichmightbedoneby
comparingthesecuritylevelsofnonvictimswiththatofvictims.Accordingtothe
results(Budd,1999),victimsofburglaryatdomesticdwellingsmaintainedlower
levelsofsecuritythannonvictimsatthetimetheincidentoccurred.Forexample,
19percentofvictimsofburglarywithentryhadaburglaralarmatthetimethe
incidentoccurredcomparedto24percentofnonvictims.Inaddition,theBCS
measuredtheeffectivenessofburglaralarmsystemsforhouseholdsthathadan
alarmsysteminstalledwithinthelastfiveyears.Thenumberofattempted
burglariesatdomesticdwellingsperyearaftertheinstallationofanalarmsystem
waslowerthanbeforethealarmwasinstalled.Budd(1999)concludedthatburglar
alarmsystemsatdomesticdwellingswerebeneficialinreducingtheriskofburglary
atresidentialareas,althoughtheydidnotcompletelypreventvictimization.
10. TheOSheaStudy(2000)
TheOSheastudy(2000)soughttotestthepracticalefficacyofhomesecurity
measures.Theprimarydatasourcewastwotelephonesurveysinthejurisdictionof
theMobileCountySheriffsOffice.Thereweretwodifferentsamplegroups:326
nonvictimsfromresidentialburglaryand231victimsofthecrime.
Therewerefourcategoriesofindependentvariables(cohesion,
confrontation,security,andsurveillance)andaburglaralarmbelongedtothe

74
surveillancecategory.Thedependentvariablereflectedtheburglaryvictimization
experienceofthestudysubject,whichincludedthetwodifferentsamplegroups.A
logisticregressionanalysis10wasusedtoestimatetheeffectsofaburglaralarmon
crime.Inrelationtoburglaralarmsystems,analarmsystemreducedthechancesof
aburglary.Inotherwords,theoddsofbeingburglarizedwerereducedwhenthe
respondentsaidtohaveaburglaralarmwiththeoddsratio0.51,whichhada
significantdifferenceatthe.05level(OShea,2000).OShea(2000)concludedthat
thefindingsfromthestudysupportedearlierworkthataddressedsomeeffective
situationalcrimepreventionprograms,suchastargethardening,propertymarking,
andneighborhoodwatchprogram,includingburglaralarmsystems.
Figure3.1andTable3.1provideaconceptmapofeffectivenessofcrime
preventionprogramsforresidentialburglaryandasummaryofpriorstudies
conductedoutpreviouslyfocusingonresidentialburglaralarms.
III.
ChapterConclusion
Thenewstyleofcriminologiesofeverydaylifewhichembracesrelevanttheories
(e.g.,routineactivitiestheory,rationalchoicetheory,andsituationalcrime
preventionapproach)isthetheoreticalfoundationforthisstudy.Burglarydoesnot
occurrandomlyacrossspaceandtime.Bothburglaryopportunitiesandoffenders
availabilityinteract.Rationalchoicetheoryregardscriminalactsascalculated,
10)Whendependentvariablescomesdichotomous,notcontinuous,percentagesand
proportionsareabetterwaytomeasurevariables.Alogisticregressiontechniqueis
employedtoassesstheassociationofrelationswhendependentvariablescomes
dichotomous(Knoke,Bohrnstedt,andMee,2002).

75
utilitymaximizingconductbasedonaconsciousdecisionbetweenanticipated
opportunitiesandrewardsandprobablerisktobeseenandcaught.Sucharational
decisionmakingtocommitaresidentialburglaryismaximizedwhenamotivated
burglarobservesthepresenceofsuitabletargetforthecrimeafterdetectingthe
existenceofinadequatesurveillanceortheabsenceofcapableguardiansin
residentialarea.
Aburglaralarminresidentialareaamongavailableinterventionsecurity
measures(e.g.,doorlock,lighting,yardsign,anddogs)isanexampleoftarget
hardeningtechniqueaccordingtosituationalcrimepreventionapproach.Itisused
tosubstitutefortheabsenceofcapableguardiansagainstresidentialburglariesand
theexistenceofinadequatesurveillancetoprovidenecessaryprotectionoverthe
propertyagainstresidentialburglary.Severalpriorstudiessupportedthe
theoreticalunderpinningsofsituationalcrimepreventionmethodsinrelationto
residentialburglaryandburglaralarms.
Inthefollowingchapter,thelimitationsdrawnfromthediscussionofprior
burglarystudieswillbepresentedaccordingtodatasource,researchdesign,
researchmethod,andstatisticalanalysis.Thoughthisonestudydoesnotovercome
allmethodologicallimitations,severalsolutionswillbesoughtandpresentedto
remedysomeofthem.Then,giventhereviewofrelevanttheoriesandpriorstudies
ontheeffectivenessofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries,sixresearch
questionsandnullhypotheseswillbeproposed.

76
[Figure3.1]Aconceptmapoftheeffectivenessofcrimeprevention
forresidentialburglaries
EffectivenessofCrimePreventionforResidentialBurglaries
Policeactivities
Neighborhood
watch
Environmental
design
Doorlock
Lighting
Yardsign
Windowsticker
Dogs
Proximityto
highwaysor
thoroughfares
ALARMSYSTEMS
Research
Design
Data
Collection
Intervention
Measures
Beforeafter
design
Snowball
samplingdesign
Ethnography
design
Retrospective
design
Experimental
designw/control
group
Policedata
Inmateinterview
Mailsurvey
Telephonesurvey
Ethnographical
interview&
observation
Prior
Studies
1.
2.
3.
4.
TheConklinBittner(1973)
TheReppetto(1974)
TheBennettWright(1984)
TheRengertWasilchick
(1985;2000)
5. TheHakimBuck(1991)
6. TheCromwellOlsonAvary
(1991)
7. TheWrightDecker(1994)
8. TheLebeauVincent(1998)
9. TheBudd(1999)
10. TheOShea(2000)

77
[Table3.1]SummaryofPriorStudies
STUDIES
ConklinBittner
Reppetto
BennettWright
Year
1973
1974
1984
1985
RengertWasilchick
2000
HakimBuck
1991
CromwellOlsonAvary 1991
WrightDecker
1994
LeBeauVincent
1998
Budd
1999
OShea
2000
DataSource
ResearchDesign
Study
Police Interview Survey Secondary Snowball Inmate Ethnographic Survey Finding
data
Data
Sampling Interview
Interview
Research
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
X
O
O
CHAPTER4.LIMITATIONSOFPRIORRESEARCHANDRESEARCH
QUESTIONS
I.
LimitationsofPriorResearch
Despiterichinformationaboutburglarythatpreviousstudieshaveproduced,and
despitethisinformationtopolicy,priorstudiessufferfromsomemethodological
shortcomings.Inparticular,inmostofthesestudies,themethodsofevaluation
employedmeetminimalstandards,followupisoftenshort,andreliablecontrol
groupsaregenerallyabsent(Clarke,1995;Weisburd,1997).Theseshortcomings
arediscussedinmoredetailbelow.
1.
DataSource
(1) First,thestudiesaggregatedallthedata.
Theyputthedataforoneyear,orsometimesseveralyears,intoonedatasetand
examinedwhetherornotthehomeswithalarmsystemswerelessvictimizedthan
thehomeswithoutalarmsystems.Theproblemwiththisisthatmanyofthehomes,
eveninthesameblockorneighboringblocks,hadinstalledhomeburglaralarm
systemsatdifferenttimes.Inaddition,afewstudiesaggregatedresidentialand
commercialburglariesintoonedataset.Thesetwotypesofburglarieshave
differentpatternsandcharacteristics.
Forexample,ononeparticularblockin2004,Ainstalledanalarmsystem
inJanuary,BinstalledasysteminMay,CinstalledinSeptember,andD
installedinNovember.Unfortunately,allofA,B,C,andDwereburglarizedin
December.Ifwelookatthisdatainaggregate,theywouldsuggestthatthesystemis
notaneffectivedeterrent.Butifwelookatthedataonlyinthefirsthalfoftheyear,
78
CHAPTER4.LIMITATIONSOFPRIORRESEARCHANDRESEARCHQUESTIONS
79
wemightsaythatitwaseffective.Eventhoughitisthesamedata,itcanbe
distortedduetothedifferentdatesofsysteminstallation.Somestudiesshowthat
thesystemiseffective(e.g.,theHakimBuckstudyandtheRengertWasilchick
study),andsomestudiesshowthatitisineffective(e.g.,theLeBeauVincentstudy).
Therefore,itisnecessarytohaveseparatedatasetsbetweencommercialand
residentialburglariesanddisaggregatetheresidentialburglarydatasetbasedonthe
installationdateanddifferenttypesofalarmsbymonthoryear.
(2) Second,therangeofyearswhichthedatacoveredwasnotlongenough.
Ashorttimeperiodmayproducetoofewcasestorunstatisticalteststoexaminethe
impactofalarmsystemsonresidentialburglary.Itisalsonotsuitabletoobserve
longtermpatternsofalarmownershipchanges,residentialburglarieswith/without
burglaralarmsystems,andtherelationshipsbetweenthesechangesandsocio
economicfactorsinlocalareas.Forexample,theConklinBittnerstudy(1974)
coversonlyaoneyearperiodfromJuly1,1968,toJune30,1969,andhasatotal53
burglaryincidentswhichinvolvedbuildingwithalarmsystems.Amongthesecases,
32caseswerelocatedinprivatehomes,while19caseswereincommercial
establishments,andtwowereinschools.Thirtytworesidentialburglaries
involvingburglaryalarmsystemsaretoosmallforstatisticalanalyses.
TheLeBeauVincentstudy(1998)coversonly1990,whichproduces762
burglarycases.Althoughthisnumberisnotsmallforanalyses,thedatadonot
distinguishresidentialburglaryfromcommercialburglary.Withoutseparatingto
differenttypesofburglaries,itisnoteasytoarguethatalarmsystemsoncrimeare
80
noteffective.Ifthedataaredistinguishedinthisway,thetotalnumberofeachtype
ofcrimemaynotbeenoughforstatisticalanalyses.
Inaddition,whensecondarydataareusedforanalysessuchasinthe
ConklinBittnerstudy(1974)andtheLeBeauVincentstudy(1998),thesedonot
includenonreportedburglaryincidents.Thepolicedatadonotincludeallcrime
incidents,butrecordonlytheincidentsknowntothepolice.
2.
ResearchDesign
(1) Third,lackofacontrolgrouptoexaminetheimpactofalarmsystems.
Asmentionedabove,oneoftheproblemsofthepreviousstudieswhenconsidering
therelationshipbetweenanalarmsystemandresidentialburglaryistoemploy
simplestatistictests.Itispartlybecauseofthenatureofthedataavailabletothe
researchersasdiscussedalreadyandalsobecauseofthenatureofstudymethods
mostlyusingethnographicinterviewsandsurveys.Thequalitativedataarelimited
whenconductingfurtherstatisticaltests,suchasthechisquare,correlation,and
regressionanalyses.
Rubensteinetal.(1980)arguedthatthereweretwotypesofresearch
designswhichcouldhelptostudythedeterrenteffectofcrimepreventionstrategies
(whichincludeddefensiblespace,CPTED,andsituationalcrimeprevention):a
prepoststudyandanexpostfactocomparison.Thefirstmethodistocomparethe
collecteddatabeforeandaftertheinstallationofthecrimepreventionstrategy.The
secondtypeofstudyistocomparethehousesorpropertiesthathavebeen
victimizedwithonesthathavenotbeenvictimized.Thedifferencebetweenthe
81
targethardeningcharacteristicscanprovidesomeinsightintotheimpactofvarious
crimepreventionprogramsoncrime.
Amongthereviewedstudiesabove,nostudyappliesthefirstmethodofthe
prepostapproachtoexaminetheimpactofanalarmsystemonresidentialburglary.
ButtheConklinBittnerstudy(1973)andtheReppettostudy(1974)employthe
secondmethodofexpostfactocomparisononapartialscale.Thereisaneedto
studytheimpactofburglaralarmonresidentialburglaryusingafullscalemethod
withthesetwoapproaches.Inaddition,aquasiexperimentalresearch11andatime
seriesdesign12,whichareexperimentalapproaches,canbeusedtofullystudythe
impactofburglaralarmsystemsoncrime.
(2) Fourth,lackofresearchonthedisplacementanddiffusionofbenefits.
Asdiscussedpreviously,thesituationalcrimepreventionapproachseekstoalter
opportunitiesforcrimeinparticularcontexts.Butthereisasideeffectofthis
approachthatcrimepreventionmeasuressimplymoveoffendersaroundwithout
everreducingcriminalintent(Crawford,1998).Ifcrimeweremerelydisplacedto
surroundingareasinspaceortime,thenanycrimepreventionprogramswould
appeartopresentweakorlittleevidenceoncrime.Theissueofdisplacementhas
11)Whenrandomizationisnotpossible,aquasiexperimentisoftenused.One
advantageofthisdesignistohavecomparisongroupandcontrolgroupforbeforeandafter
comparisons(MaxfieldandBabbie,2008;PawsonandTilley,2000).
12)Atimesseriesdesigninvolvesexaminingaseriesofobservationsonsome
variableovertime(MaxfieldandBabbie,2008).
82
becomeacriticalcriticismforcrimepreventionprograms.13Thus,itisimperative
toexamineanddiscussthedisplacementofcrimepreventionmeasures.
Amongthestudiesreviewedabove,fewofthemexaminedanddiscussedthe
displacementissueinrelationtotheeffectofalarmsystemsonresidentialburglary.
Buttheybrieflydiscussthisissuebasedonanecdotalaccountsfromeitherthe
incarceratedoffendersortheactiveburglarsonthestreets.Forexample,Reppetto
(1974)arguedthatdisplacement,whethergeographicorfunctional,loomedasone
ofthemajorobstaclestoanystrategyforthepreventionofresidentialburglary.
However,sincetheconcertedprogramsforcrimereductioninburglaryforthemost
partoriginatedinthe1970s,verylittleinformationexists.
TheBennettWrightstudy(1984)discussedcrimedisplacementbasedon
interviewswith128offendersimprisonedfordomesticburglary,askingthemwhat
courseofactiontheytookifunabletocompleteaburglary.Nearlyhalfofthe
respondentssaidthattheyhadneverexperiencedasituationinwhichtheycould
notcompletetheirburglaries.Oftheremainingrespondents,43percentofthose
whoansweredthequestionsaidthattheyusuallycommittedanotheroffense
againstanothertargetduringthesameday,therebydisplacingcrime.
However,asCrawford(1998)discussed,thereisaneedtospeculatethat
thereisadiffusionofbenefitsfromacrimepreventioninitiative.Displacement,
whichisthereverseofcrimedisplacement,isnotnecessarilyanundesirable
13)Displacementcantakeanumberofforms,suchasspatial,temporal,tactical,
target,andtypeofcrime(CornishandClarke,1987;Gabor,1990;HakimandRengert,1981;
HamiltonSmith,2002;Hesseling,1994;Reppetto,1976).
83
consequenceofpreventiveintervention(ClarkeandWeisburd,1994).Noneofthe
reviewedstudiesexaminesordiscussesthediffusionofbenefitfromcrime
reductionschemes.Itseemsthattheterm,thediffusionofbenefit,isnot
discussedintensivelyinthecrimepreventionresearchandevaluationstudiesand
doesnothaveenoughacademicattentionincrimepreventiondiscourse.AsClarke
andWeisburd(1994)argued,onepossiblereasonforthisisthatthedevelopmentof
theformsofdiffusionofbenefitsfromthecrimepreventionschemehasbeen
hamperedbyexaggeratedconcernsaboutdisplacement.Itisimperativetopay
someacademicattentiontotheissueofdiffusionofbenefits,aswellasthe
displacementofcrimepreventionschemes(Weisburd,1997).
3.
ResearchMethod
(1) Fifth,moststudieswereconductedemployinganethnographicapproach.
Theessentialprogramofethnographicactivityistounderstandanotherwayoflife
fromanativepointofview.Insteadofcollectingdataaboutpeople,theresearcher
usingtheethnographicapproachseekstolearnfrompeopledirectlythrough
observationanddialogue(Spradley,1979).Ethnographicinterviewsand
observationshavebeenusedfrequentlyinstudyingcrimesandcriminals,including
residentialburglary.Tobetterunderstandtheimportantcontextualaspectsof
burglary,researchershaveemployedethnographicinterviewswithactiveburglars
onthestreetsorincarceratedoffenders(OShea,2000).Amongthetenreviews
above,theReppetto(1974),theBennettWright(1984),theRengertWasilchick
(1985),theCromwellOlsonAvary(1991),theWrightDecker(1994),andthe
OShea(2000)haveemployedthisresearchmethod.Thisuniqueapproachprovides
richinsightandinformationfromtheoffendersperspectiveaboutthedecision
makingprocessbeginningwiththemotivationtocommitaresidentialburglary,to
thedecisiontocarryoutthecrime,tooffenseplanning,totargetselection,to
enteringanintenttarget,andtosubsequentdisposal.
However,asWrightandDecker(1994)discussed,ethnographicapproaches
areopentocriticismonseveralgrounds.First,criminologistshavelongsuspected
thatoffendersdonotbehavenaturallywhentheyareincriminaljusticesettings.
ExcepttheCromwellOlsonAvarystudy(1991)andtheWrightDeckerstudy
(1994),otherstudiesinterviewedtheconvictedoffendersinprisons,acriminal
justicesetting.Theoffendersmightbeexaggeratingwhenconveyingtheir
experiencesandskillstocommitaresidentialburglary.RengertandWasilchick
(1985)notedthattheyweresurprisedtorealizethattheoffendersattheprison
werewillingtotalkanddiscussatlengthabouttheircareersandburglary.The
interviewswereinterestingandexciting.Buttheywerealsoacutelyawareofthe
problemofthevalidity.Thestatementsandreportsdrawnfromtheconvicted
offendersmightnotbetrustworthyenough.Thus,theyverifiedtheinterviewdata
withasmuchinformationaspossiblethroughpolicerecords.
Second,accountsofferedbysomeincarceratedoffendersaredistorted
becausetheyaregatheredintheprisonenvironment.Thecredibilityoftheir
accountsmaybeinquestionbecausesometimestheoffenderscanhaveaproblem
recallingpreviouscrimeexperiences.Inaddition,studiesofincarceratedoffenders
arevulnerabletothechargethattheyarebasedonunsuccessfulcriminals,onthe
suppositionthatsuccessfulcriminalsarenotapprehendedoratleastareableto
84
85
avoidincarceration.OShea(2000)notedthatattentionshouldbepaidtothe
potentialforsystematicdifferencebetweenburglarswhowerecaughtandthose
whoavoideddetectionandthatanappreciationfordifferencesbetweenactive
burglarswhovolunteeredforinterviewsandthosewhodeclinedtodoso.
(2) Sixth,researchresultswerebasedonsecurityprecautionsresultedin
interviewsandsurveys.
Bothpolicecrimereportsandvictimizationsurveyscangiveatleastsomeestimate
ofactualcrimefiguresinlocalcommunities,thoughthisfiguredoesnotreflecta
true,precisenumberduetothedarkfigureofcrime(MaxfieldandBabbie,2008).
Themajorityofthestudiesonresidentialburglaryandalarmsystemsarecarried
outbyethnographicinterviewandsurvey.Asaresult,theexaminationofthe
deterrentimpactofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaryreliesonthereportsof
theintervieweesandsurveyrespondents.Thus,thefindingsarebasedonsecurity
precautionsratherthantherealfigureofalarmownershiporpermits.
Forexample,inboththeReppettostudy(1974)andtheRengertWasilchick
study(2000),theprimarydatasourcewasasurveyofhouseholds.Theresidents
wereaskedwhethertheyhadaburglaralarm.IntheBennettWright(1984)and
RengertWasilchick(1985)studies,theincarceratedburglarswereaskedabout
theirperceptionsofsecurityprecautionsontheirchoiceoftargetselection.The
CromwellOlsonAvarystudy(1991)andtheWrightDeckerstudy(1994)useda
snowballsamplingmethodtorecruitcurrentlyactiveburglarsonthestreets,asking
themwhethertheymightbedeterredfromcommittingaburglarybyaburglar
alarm.
4.
86
StatisticalAnalysis
(1) Seventh,lackofstatisticaltests.
Severalstudiesfocusingontherelationshipbetweenalarmsystemsandresidential
burglaryemployedasimplecomparisonoraprobabilityofbeingburglarizedto
examinetheeffectivenessofaburglaralarmsystem.Forexample,theconclusions
drawnfromtheHakimBuckstudy(1991)arebasedontheprobabilitiesofburglary
ofpropertiesthathavealarmsandofthosethatdonothavealarm,then,theratioof
thetwoprobabilitiesexhibitsthedegreeatwhichnonalarmedresidencesare
less/moreatriskofburglary.Therearenostatisticaltests,exceptthesimple
comparisonamongthreecommunitieswiththeprobabilisticratios.Thereshould
bemoredatasourcesandadvancedstatisticalanalysesofthedatatoconcludethat
burglaralarmsystemsmakeadifference.
IntheLeBeauVincentstudy(1998),thecomparisonwasmadebetweenthe
numbersofonscenearrests.Only81onscenearrestsforburglaryweremade
fromalarmactivationcalls,while130onscenearrestsweremadeduringburglaries
thatdidnotinvolvealarmsystems.Ofcourse,among81oftheonscenearrestsfor
burglary,therewerenoindicationsofhowmanycaseswereresidentialor
commercial.Basedonthissimplecomparison,thestudyconcludedthatalarms
wereneithereffectivenorefficient.
Onereasonforthelackofstatisticaltestsisthatmanystudiesonresidential
burglaryarebasedonethnographicinterviewswitheithertheincarcerated
offendersoractiveoffendersonthestreets.Thisapproachisalsorelatedtothe
secondissuediscussed,theshorttermcoverageofthedata.Theethnographic
87
interviewmaytakealongtime,butthetimeperiodcoveredisuncertain.The
researchfindingsofsuchanapproachareprimarilydrawnfromqualitativedata,
whicharemoreanecdotalthannumerical.Inthatcase,advancedstatisticaltests
(e.g.,correlationandregressionstatistics),evensampletests,arenotsuitable.
Percentages,proportions,andratioswouldbetheonlyavailabletechniques.
(2) Eighth,thestudiesdidnotuseanalarmownershipasadenominator.
Thedichotomousanalyses(e.g.,percentageandproportion)requireanappropriate
denominator.Butseveralstudieswhichusepercentagesandproportionsto
examinethedeterrentimpactofaburglaralarmdonothavetheproper
denominator.Forexample,HakimandBuck(1991)didsomeadjustmentsoftheir
rawdataforthecalculationoftheprobabilitiesfortwodifferentgroups:the
propertiesthathadalarmsystemsandthepropertiesthatdidnothavethesystems.
Therawdataweredrawnfromthenumberofalarmactivationspersystemperyear,
includingthenumberoffalsealarmactivations.Iftheresearchersreliedsolelyon
alarmactivationsidentifiedbythepoliceinordertocounttheownershipofburglar
alarmsystems,itwouldtakethemalongtimetofigureoutthetotalnumberof
alarmsinthecommunity.Thus,inordertoimprovetheestimatedalarmownership,
theresearchersadjustedthenumberofalarmswhichwerereportedbylocalpolice
departmentsbyaddingthenumberofalarmsystemswhichsurveyedresidences
reportedhaving.Thisadjustmentgivesabetterestimateofalarmownershipthan
therawdatawiththenumberofalarmsystemsreportedtothepolice.Theprimary
reasonforsuchanadjustmentisthattheydidnothavearealnumberforalarm
ownershipatthethreeresearchsites.Butthiscorrectednumberstilldoesnot
88
accuratelyreflectalarmownership.Iftherewereatleastarealnumberofalarm
permitsorownership,theresearcherswouldhaveabetterestimation.Asa
consequence,anyexaminationortestbasedonthisestimatednumbermaynot
reflectthetruecharacteristicoftherelationshipbetweenalarmsystemsand
InboththeConklinBittnerstudy(1974)andtheLeBeauVincentstudy
(1998),thetruenumberofalarmsystemsorevenanycloseestimationofthe
burglaralarmownershipdoesnotexist.Withoutknowinghowmanyhouseshave
alarmsystems,itisalmostimpossibletoconcludewhethertheburglaralarm
systemmayactuallydeterordetectburglars.
II.
SolutionstoMethodologicalIssues
Thecurrentstudyisbasedonsecondarydataanalyses,notonexperimental
approachesorfromethnographicinterviewsorobservations.Thus,thisonestudy
doesnotdealwithallmethodologicalproblemsdiscussedinthepreviouschapter,
butitdoesresolveseveralissues.
First,thisstudyusesaggregatedanddisaggregateddatafortheanalyses.
Twoseparateapproacheswillbeemployedtoexaminetheimpactofburglaralarm
systemsonresidentialburglaries:macrolevelandmicrolevel.Aggregateddata
willbeusedforthemacrolevelapproach,anddisaggregateddataforthemicro
levelapproach.
Second,thedatacollectedfromthepolicedepartmentcoverafiveyear
rangefrom2001to2005.Thisrangeofdatacanbeusednotonlyformorestatistical
89
tests,butalsoforthetimeseriesanalysis,whichexamineslongtermpatterned
changesinalarmownership,residentialburglarieswith/withoutalarmsystems,
andtherelationshipbetweenthesechangesandsocioeconomicvariables.
Third,bothaggregatedanddisaggregateddataandafiveyearrangeofdata
canenablemorenumericallyadvancedstatisticaltests(e.g.,binary/multiple
correlationsandbivariate/multipleregressionanalyses).Inaddition,usingthese
data,crimemappinganalyses,andspatialstatisticalanalysescanbeusedto
examinetheimpactofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglary.
Fourth,therecordofresidentialburglaralarmpermitsinNewark,N.J.is
availableforthisstudy.Thus,alarmownershipwillbeusedasthedenominator
whendeterminingtheratesofresidentialburglarieswithburglaralarms.These
ratesarecomparedwithratesofresidentialburglarieswithoutalarmsystemsto
examinetheimpactoftheburglaralarmoncrime.
Fifth,anonequivalentquasiexperimentaldesignusingbufferandcontrol
zonesisdevisedtoexaminethespatialdisplacementanddiffusionofbenefits.This
studyisnotanexperimentalapproachthathasexperimentalandcontrolgroupsto
examinetheeffectsize.Theexperimentalresearchdesignisinappropriatewhen
undertakingsecondarydataanalysis.However,asdiscussedlater,inthisstudy,a
researchdesignsimilartotheexperimentalapproachcanbedevisedbyusinga
bufferingmethodand,thus,beusedtoexaminetheimpactofburglaralarmson
residentialburglaries.Inparticular,thisresearchdesignwillbeemployedto
investigateseparatelythedisplacementanddiffusionofbenefitsofthealarm
systemonresidentialburglary.
III.
90
ResearchQuestionsandNullHypotheses
Giventhepreviousreviewoftheliteratureandpriorstudiesontheeffectivenessof
residentialburglaralarmsoncrimereduction,adiscussionofrelevanttheories,and
anoverviewoftherationale,thediscussionoftheimpactofburglaralarmsystems
canbebrokendownintothefollowing:(1)theoverallrelationshipbetweenburglar
alarmsystemsandresidentialburglariesoverthemultipleyears;(2)thecorrelated
andregressedrelationshipsbetweenburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries
accordingtodemographic,socioeconomic,andhousingcharacterindicators;(3)
theoverallspatialrelationshipbetweenburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries;
(4)thespatialautocorrelationandclusteringanalysesforburglaralarmsand
residentialburglaries;and(5)thespatialdisplacement/diffusionofbenefitsof
burglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.Thus,theresearchquestionsandtesting
hypothesestobeaddressedinthisstudyinclude:
ResearchQuestion1:Towhatextentdohomeburglaralarmsaffectresidential
burglaries?Doalarmsystemsreducetheactualnumberofburglariesafter
theirinstallation?Whatistheoverallrelationshipbetweenburglaralarmsand
residentialburglaries?Whatistherelationshipbetweenthechangesin
burglaralarminstallationsandnonalarminstalled(NAI)residentialburglaries?
NullHypothesis1:Thereisnosignificantrelationshipbetweentheincreaseofburglar
alarminstallationsandthedecreaseofresidentialburglaryincidents.
91
Thiscanbeansweredbycomparingtwodifferentcrimedatasets;thatis,
alarminstalled(AI)residentialburglarydataandNAIburglarydata.Thesedataare
drawnfrompoliceincidentreports(PIRs)databaseinthepolicedepartment.In
ordertofindtheratesofthetwodifferentconditionedresidentialburglaries,the
twodataaredividedbythetotalnumberofalarmpermitsandthetotalnumberof
householdsinNewark,N.J.Theresidentialalarmpermitsdatahavebeenobtained
fromtheNewarkCityHall.Theinformationonhouseholdshasbeenretrievedfrom
theU.S.Censusdata.Thechisquareandchangedrateandpercentagestatisticsare
usedtoanswerthequestions.
ResearchQuestion2:Towhatextentdoburglaralarmsystemscorrelatetoresidential
burglaries?Arethereanysignificantcorrelationsbetweenburglaralarmsand
residentialburglaries?Towhatextenddoresidentialburglariescorrelateto
burglaralarmsbasedonindependentvariables?Arethereanysignificant
correlationsbetweenresidentialburglariesandburglaralarms?
NullHypothesis2:Therearenosignificantlycorrelatedrelationshipsbetweenthe
increaseofburglaralarmsinuseandthedecreaseofresidentialburglary
incidents.
Thepolicedatashowthatsince2001inNewark,N.J.,thetotalnumberof
incidentsofresidentialburglarieswithoutburglaralarmshasdecreased,whereas
thetotalnumberofresidentialburglaralarmpermitshasincreased.Gradual
increasesofresidentialburglaralarmsystemsmayormaynotaffectslowdecreases
92
ofresidentialburglaries.Therelationshipbetweenthesetwoobservationsmaybe
inverse,direct,ornone.Itmayexplaintheimpactofburglaralarmsonresidential
burglaries.Biandmultivariatecorrelationstatisticsneedtoanswerthequestions.
ResearchQuestion3:Towhatextentdoburglaralarmsregresswithresidential
burglariesandotherrelevantvariables?Whichindicatorhasasignificant
relationshiptotheincreaseofburglaralarminstallations?Towhatextentdo
residentialburglariesregresswithburglaralarmsandothervariables?Which
variablehasasignificantrelationshiptothedecreaseofresidentialburglaries
overtheyears?Whatisaregressedrelationshipbetweenburglaralarmsand
residentialburglaries?
NullHypothesis3:Therearenosignificantlyregressedrelationshipsbetweenburglar
alarmsandresidentialburglariesandbetweenthemandotherrelevant
variables.
Supposedthereverserelationshipexistsbetweentheincreaseofresidential
burglaralarminstallationsandthedecreaseofNAIburglaries.Inotherwords,the
moreburglaralarmshaveinstalled,thelessresidentialburglarieshavebeen
committed.Butcrimeissocialproblems,andmanyotherfactorsaffectcrime
changesovertheyears.Socioeconomicvariablesshouldbeincludedinexamining
theimpactofalarmsystemsonresidentialburglaries.TheU.S.Censusdataare
incorporatedwiththedataofresidentialburglariesandalarmpermitrecords.Bi
andmultivariateregressionstatisticsareusedtoanswerthequestions.
93
ResearchQuestion4:Towhatextentareburglaralarmsinstalledspatiallythroughout
thecity?Whatarespatialstatisticsofburglaralarms?Areburglaralarms
installedevenlygeographicallyacrossthecity?Whatarethespatial
relationshipsofburglaralarmswithresidentialburglariesandother
independentvariables?Towhatextentdoresidentialburglariesoccur
throughouttheentirecity?Whatarethespatialstatisticsofresidential
burglaries?Dohotspotsofresidentialburglariesexist?Whatarethespatial
relationshipsofresidentialburglarieswithburglaralarmsandotherrelevant
variables?
NullHypothesis4:Thereareevendistributionsofburglaralarmsandresidential
burglariesacrossthecityandnospatialrelationshipsofthemwithother
variables.
Descriptivespatialanalysesarenecessarytoverifyquantitativeanalysesof
bothburglaralarmsandresidentialburglarieswithothervariousvariablesand,in
addition,tolinkthesequantitativefindingstogeographicapproachesonthecity
map.Suchanalyseswillpresentnotonlyspatialstatisticsfordistributionsof
burglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries,butalsospatialrelationshipswithother
relevantvariablesbeingusedinquantitativeanalyses.Usingthegeographic
informationsystem(GIS)program,pointmappinganddensitymethodstodescribe
thedistributionsofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesandtoidentify
hotspotsofbothburglaralarmsandresidentialburglarieswillbeemployedto
answerthequestions.
94
ResearchQuestion5:Towhatextentdoresidentialburglaralarmsandresidential
burglarieshavethespatialimpactoneachother?Inwhatdegreeareboth
burglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesclusteredordispersed?Inwhat
degreedobothburglaralarmsandresidentialburglarieshavespatial
autocorrelation?
NullHypothesis5:Bothresidentialburglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesare
randomlydistributedthroughoutthecity.
DisplacementhasbeentheAchillesheelofcrimepreventionprograms,butit
isnotinevitable.Itisnotnecessarilyanundesirableconsequenceofcrime
preventioninterventionprograms.Itisimperativetoexamineamacrolevelof
spatialimpactofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.Thisissuecanbe
approachedbylookingatwhethervictimizedhousesbyresidentialburglariesare
spatiallyclusteredtogetherorisolatedfromeachotherthroughstatisticaltests.
Spatialclusteringmayoccurwhenahousewithoutburglaralarmhasoncebeen
victimizedandneighboringhouseshavealsobeentargetedbecausethevictimized
houseproducesanegativeimpacttosurroundinghouses.Ifitshowsstatistical
significance,theissuesofdisplacementcanbeargued.UsingGISprogram,simple
andadvancedspatialanalyses(e.g.,spatialcentrographic,autocorrelation,and
clusteringmethods)willbeemployedtoanswerthequestions.
ResearchQuestion6:Towhatextentdoburglaralarmsaffectthespatial
displacementofresidentialburglaries?Towhatextentdoburglaralarms
95
impacttothediffusionofbenefitonresidentialburglaries?Istherethe
potentialforthediffusionofbenefitsarisingfromalarmsystemswhereby
securityeffectsmayextendbeyondthetargetedarea?
NullHypothesis6:Thereisnoindicationofdisplacementofresidentialburglariesdue
toburglaralarmsandspatialdiffusionofbenefitsfromburglaralarmson
residentialburglaries.
Theexaminationofeitherspatialdisplacementofresidentialburglariesor
geographicdiffusionofbenefitsofburglaralarmstoresidentialburglariesincrime
preventioncircleshasbeengivenverylittleattentioninresearchliterature.
Acknowledgingtheabsenceofastandardizedstudydesignforthemeasurementof
displacement/diffusionofbenefitsofcriminalpreventionprograms,nonequivalent
quasiexperimentalresearchdesignwillbediscussedanddevised.Theweighted
displacementquotient(WDQ)approachandtheconceptofbufferandcontrolzones
willbeutilizedandcustomizedtodevelopresearchdesigntoscrutinizeeither
spatialdisplacementofresidentialburglariesduetoburglaralarmsorspatial
diffusionofbenefitsofburglaralarmstoresidentialburglaries.Alandparcelmapof
thecity,insteadofaregularcenterlinecitymaps,willbeusedfortheanalysisata
singlehouselevel(nonequivalentquasiexperimentalresearchdesignofthiswill
bediscussedinChapter5).
IV.
ChapterConclusion
Therehasbeenasubstantialbodyofresearchprojectstostudytheproblemof
burglarysincethe1970s.Yet,fewstudieshavefocusedonexaminingthe
96
effectivenessofhomeburglaralarmsonresidentialburglary.Eveninthosestudies,
theresearchdesignsanddatasourcesemployedmetminimalstandardsand
sufferedfromsomemethodologicalshortcomings.Thequalityofthedatabeing
analyzedwaseitherfewcasesorjustaggregated,andonlybasicandsimple
statisticaltestswereused.Withregardtoresearchdesign,controlgroupswerenot
inuse,andnodesignwasdevisedtoexaminethedisplacementanddiffusionof
benefitsofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.Furthermore,moststudies
werebasedonanethnographicapproachusinginterviewswithincarcerated
inmatesandactiveburglarsonstreetsandmailsurveys.Finally,priorstudiesdid
notuseanalarmownershipasadenominator.Thus,thecomprehensive
understandingofcrimeproblemofresidentialburglariesandtherigorous
examinationoftheimpactofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglarieswerestillfar
off.
Thoughthisonestudydoesnotovercomeallmethodologicallimitations,
severalsolutionsweresoughtandpresentedtoremedysomeofthem.Forexample,
theprimarydataofresidentialburglariesandalarmpermitsrecordscoveredafive
yearrangefrom2001to2005withbothaggregatedanddisaggregatedforms.The
burglaralarmownershipwouldbeusedasthedenominator.Furthermore,all
addressesfromthedataofresidentialburglariesandburglaralarmpermitswere
geocoded.Thosedevelopmentsupgradedthequalityofthedatacomparedtoprior
studiesandmadeitpossibleofnotonlyemployingvariousadvancedstatisticaltests
butalsoconductingsimpleandadvancedgeographicanalyses,aswellasdevisinga
97
quasiexperimentalresearchdesigntotestspatialdisplacementanddiffusionof
benefits.
Then,giventhereviewofrelevanttheoriesandpriorstudiesonthe
effectivenessofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries,sixresearchquestionsand
nullhypotheseswereproposed.Theyaddressedtheoverallrelationshipbetween
burglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries;correlationsofandbetweenburglar
alarmsandresidentialburglarieswithvariousindependentvariables;regressionsof
andbetweenburglaralarmsandresidentialburglarieswithseveralindicators;the
overallspatialrelationshipbetweenalarmsandresidentialburglarieswith
independentvariables;thespatialautocorrelationofbothburglaralarmsand
residentialburglaries;andthespatialdisplacementofresidentialburglariesandthe
diffusionofbenefitofburglaralarmonresidentialburglaries.
Inthefollowingchapter,thedatasourcesandresearchdesignforthisstudy
willbediscussed.Thethreeprimarydatabases(e.g.,residentialburglaralarms
permits,residentialburglaries,andU.S.Censusinformation)arepreparedby
retrievingfromtheNewarkPoliceDepartment,CityHall,andU.S.Census.Anon
equivalentquasiexperimentalresearchdesignwillbediscussedbriefly.
CHAPTER5.DATASOURCESANDRESEARCHDESIGN
I.
OverviewoftheResearchDesign
Theresearchdesignforthisstudyinvolvesseveralsequentialsteps,themajor
proceduresbeingnumericalandspatialanalyses.Thestatisticalpoweranalysiswill
beincludedfromtheoutsetasthegeneralguidelineforthisstudy.Detailed
descriptionanddiscussionofeachstepandmethodwillfollowinSectionsIIIandIV.
1.
Statisticalpoweranalysis
Onecrucialissueinmanystudiesoncrimepreventioniswhetheraparticular
researchdesignforastudyispowerfulenoughtodetectanyimpactofaparticular
crimepreventionprogramand,thus,tofairlytestbothnullandresearchhypotheses.
Manystudiesoftenfailtoidentifytheimpactofcrimepreventionprogramsand
falselytestbothhypothesesnotbecauseofinappropriatetheoriesexplainingthe
contextofcrimepreventionprogramsbutbecauseofresearchmethodsdesignedby
researchers.Statisticalpoweranalysisconcernsthedevelopmentofpowerfuland
sensitiveresearchdesign.
Onecorepointofthisissueistodeterminetheminimumnumberofcasesfor
thegroups(e.g.,residentialalarmpermits,nonalarminstalled[NAI]residential
burglary,andalarminstalled[AI]residentialburglary)accordingtothedifferent
crimereductionlevels(e.g.,10,20,or30percentreductionofNAIburglary)forthis
study.Thisprocedurewilldeterminewhetherthedatasetsofthecurrentstudy
haveenoughcasenumbersforpowerfulresearchdesignandfornumericaland
spatialstatisticalanalyses.Thenextstepwillinvolvenumericalstatisticalanalyses.
98
2.
99
Descriptiveanalysesofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries
Descriptiveanalysesoftheresidentialburglarieswithtwoconditions(NAIandAI)
andburglaralarmswillbepresented.Theywillincludetemporalanalysesand
generaltrendsovermultipleyears,usingatimeseriesmethod.Theywillpresent
thepatternsandcharacteristicsofbothresidentialburglariesandburglaralarms.
3.
Relationshipbetweenburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries
Becausedatatestinginthisstudy(i.e.,whetheranincidentofresidentialburglaries
involvesaburglaralarmandwhetherahousehasinstalledaburglaralarm)are
categorical,thechisquarestatisticaltestwillbeusedtoexaminewhetherthe
changeinburglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesovermultipleyearsis
statisticallysignificantorsimplyduetorandomfluctuation.Testingwillcompare
thechangeratesofburglaralarmswiththechangeratesofresidentialburglaries
overfiveyearsusingthechisquaretest.Then,biandmultivariatecorrelation
analyseswillbeemployedtoseethestrengthofonevariable(e.g.,yearandalarm
permit)asitisrelatedtoothervariable(e.g.,AIandNAIburglaries).Bothchi
squareandcorrelationstatisticswillprovideinsightintotherelationshipbetween
burglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries.
Inaddition,biandmultivariateregressionanalyseswillbeusedtoexamine
thepossiblecausalfactor(s)toexplaintherelationshipbetweenburglaralarmsand
residentialburglaries.Thevariablesincludedfortheanalysisaredemographic
variables(e.g.,white,black,andotherpopulationraces),socioeconomicvariables
(e.g.,unemployment,povertylevel,andincomelevel),andhousingcharacteristic
100
variables(e.g.,householdersrace,houseoccupancy,andoccupancybyownersand
renters).ThesevariablesarefromU.S.Censusinformation.
4.
Descriptivespatialanalysesofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries
Forspatialanalyses,first,descriptivespatialanalyseswillbeusedtoseethespatial
distributionsandgeographicpatternsofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries.
Theseanalyseswillbebasedonboththesinglehouseaddressandcensustract
levels.Alladdressesofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglarieswillbegeocoded
accordingtocensustractlevels.Thereare90censustractsinNewark,N.J.The
numbersandratesofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglarieswillbecountedand
calculatedineachcensustract.Thesedatawillbeshownonthecitymapto
examinethepatternsandcharacteristicsofburglaralarmsandresidential
burglaries.Inaddition,severalspatiallystatisticaltechniques(e.g.,centrographic
statisticsandspatialdependencestatistics)willbeemployedtotestspatial
relationship.Thespatiallydescriptiveanalyseswillbeusedtovisualizethe
distributionsofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesonthecitymapandto
identifythehotspotsofthealarmsandburglariesforfurtheranalyses.
5.
Spatialanalysesoftheimpactofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries
Tomeasuretheimpactofburglaralarmsystemsonresidentialburglaries,two
approacheswillbeused:macrolevelandmicrolevel.Macrolevelanalysiswillbe
employedtoexaminetheimpactofalarmsystemsoncrimesatacitylevel.Forthis
approach,theclustering(ordensity)functionwillbeusedtoidentifyhotspotsof
burglaralarmsandNAIburglary,usingcomputermappingsoftware(e.g.,ArcGIS).
101
Thismethodisusefulinanalyzingthepatternbetweenresidentialburglariesand
alarmsystemsandinexaminingvisuallywhetherthehotspotsforburglaralarms
andresidentialburglariesoverlap.Furtherspatialstatisticalanalyses(e.g.,cluster
statisticandnearestneighborindex)willbeusedtoteststatisticalsignificanceof
thispattern.Thisanalysiswillshowthemacrolevelimpactanditsdirectionality
(e.g.,positiveornegativeimpact)ofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.One
shortcomingofthemacrolevelapproachwithaggregateddataisthatitlacksa
microlevelanalysisattheaddressorstreetblocklevel.Itisnecessarytohave
moresensitivespatialanalyseswithdisaggregateddataatamicrolevelinorderto
examinetheimpactofalarmsystemsoncrime.
6.
Measurementofdisplacementanddiffusionofbenefitsofburglaralarmson
residentialburglaries
Tomeasuretheimpactofalarmsystemsoncrimeatamicrolevel,anonequivalent
quasiexperimentalresearchdesign,incorporatingthebufferzoneapproachat
singlehouselevelswiththeweighteddisplacementquotient(WDQ)willbedevised.
Thenestedbufferandcontrolzoneapproachwillbegeneratedtodetectthe
displacement/diffusionofbenefitsofburglaralarmsoncrimeovertime.Thenested
bufferandcontrolzoneshavethreeareas(theinnertargetarea[i.e.,housewith
burglaralarm],middlebufferarea,andoutercontrolarea).Tomeasuretheextent
towhichburglaralarmshaveanimpactonresidentialburglaries,theWDQwillbe
used.TheWDQexaminestheratesofburglaralarmsandcrimeinthebufferzones
andcomparesthemwiththepreviousrates.WDQvalueswillshowthesize(e.g.,net
102
effect,noeffect,ornobenefit)anddirectionality(e.g.,positive,negative,ornoeffect)
oftheimpactofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglary.
II.
DataSources
Therearefivedifferentdatasourcesforthisproject:(1)thecallsforservice(CFS)
databasefromtheNewarkPoliceDepartment;(2)thedatabaseofpoliceincident
reports(PIRs)fromtheNewarkPoliceDepartment;(3)thealarmpermitrecords
fromtheNewarkCityHall;(4)thedatabaseofAIburglary;and(5)theU.S.Census
data.Thesefivedifferentdatasourcesconsistofthefulldatasetfortheanalysesof
theproject.
1.
TheCFSDatabase
Themanyactivitiescarriedoutbypoliceincluderesponsestononcriminalactivities,
suchasmotorvehicleaccidents,loudparties,andburglaryalarmcalls.Citizenscall
apolicedepartments911emergencynumbertorequestpoliceservices.Allcitizen
callstowhichanofficerdoesrespond,whethercriminalornoncriminal,aretermed
callsforservice.Callscanbecitizengeneratedcallsforserviceorofficer
generatedcallsforservice.Thedatarepresenttheinitialreportsofcrimeand
problemstopolicedepartments.Bynature,themajorityofthecallsarenotdirectly
relatedtocrimes.SotheCFSdataarearathercrudemeasureofthelevelofcriminal
activityinanyjurisdiction.Theyincludesuchinformationasthenumberofcalls,
thepreliminarynatureofthecall,thetimethatthecallwasreceived,andthe
103
locationofthecomplaint.PolicedepartmentsmostlyclassifysuchCFSintoseveral
categoriesbasedonthedisposition14(Boba,2005).
Althoughcriminologistsknowofthemethodologicallimitationsofofficial
policerecorddata,especiallyinregardtotheirfailuretocapturecrimesunreported
toauthorities(Maxfield&Babbie,2008;Sorensen,2004),agencydataremain
importanttoresearch.AsSherman,Gartin,andBuerger(1989,36)noted,theCFS
datamayprovidethemostextensiveandfaithfulaccountofwhatthepublictells
thepoliceaboutcrime,withthespecificerrorsandbiasesthatentails.
FromtheNewarkCFSdata,severalsubdatasetscoveringthefiveyear
periodfrom2001to2005werecreated.Thesedatasetsare:(1)theentire
residentialburglariesrecordwhichisnotinvolvedwithalarmsystems;and(2)the
entireresidentialburglariesrecordwhichisinvolvedwithalarmsystems.Both
datasetsarebasedontheRPTcategoryamongseveraldispositionoutcomes(e.g.,
clearedbyarrest,pending,unfounded,checked,andsecured).TheRPT(an
acronymforreport)isthecasewhichareportwassubmitted.Thedatasets
includesuchvariablesasdate,time,casenumber,thenameoftheCFSoffense(e.g.,
burglaryresidential,andburglarycommercial),address,deposition(e.g.,report,
check,noresponse,andunfound),locationtype(e.g.,residence,government
building,andchurchbuilding),weaponused(e.g.,physicalforce,knife,and
handgun),anddamageamount.
14)Examplesarerobberyinprogress,burglaryinprogress,burglaryreport,rapein
progress,theft,homicide,shoplifting,familyfight,assault,suspiciousvehicle,loudnoise,
dogbarking,accident,911hangup,burglaryalarm,neighbordispute,criminaltrespassing,
andspeedinginaneighborhood.
104
However,theCFSdatadonotincludedetailedinformationabouteachcase.
Asaresult,somevariables(e.g.,damageamount,thepointofentry,thepointofexit,
themethodofcrime,andstartandendtime15)donothavethenecessary
informationneededtoansweralltheresearchquestionsthisstudyaddresses.In
thesecases,thepoliceincidentreportscanprovidemoredetailedinformation.
2.
ThePoliceIncidentReports(PIR)Database
WheneverthereisaCFS,thepolicearesupposedtorespond.Theirresponsecanbe
donebyeitherdispatchordeployment.Ifadeployedpatrolpoliceisavailableon
thespot,thepolicecalloperatorcanaskforaresponsetothecallassoonas
possible.Butwhenapoliceofficerisnotavailableimmediately,thecalloperator
willaskanyavailablepoliceofficerfordispatchtorespondtothecall.Ineithercase,
policeofficerswillchecktheplacewherethecalloriginatedandinterviewthecaller
ifpossible.Ifthereisnosuspiciousactivityorcrime,thepoliceofficermaynottake
furtheractionorrecordfurtherinformationforthereport.Insuchcases,theCFS
dataisthebestinformationontheparticularcase.
Butifthereisanysuspiciousactivityorifacrimeoccurred,thepoliceofficer
willtakesomeaction,suchascollectevidence,investigatethecrime,orinterview
victim(s)and/orwitness(es).Thepoliceofficerwillthenprepareareportwiththis
information.Thereport,knownaspoliceincidentreports(PIR),willbeanew
documentwithinanewdatabase.Thisdatabaseisbasedonthedisposition,which
15)Starttimeisthedateandtimeresidentsreporthavinglastlefttheirhomes
intactandendtimeisdateandtimeresidentsdiscoveredtheirburglaries.These
variableswillbeusedtoanalyzetemporalpatternsofresidentialburglary.
105
istheoutcomeoftheincident,intheRPTcategory.Itisassignedwhentheinitial
reportiswrittenandisthenupdatedifandwhenaninvestigationleadstoanarrest
orotherstatuschange.
ThevolumeofPIRsdatabaseislessthantheCFS,butthedatabaseincludes
richerinformationthantheCFS.Thisdatabasestoresinformationabouteachcrime
reported,suchasthetimerangeofcrimescommitted,item(s)takenbytheoffender,
pointofentry,pointofexit,relationshipbetweenthevictimandoffenderifpossible,
andothersituationalfactors,aswellas,how,when,andwherethecrimeoccurred.
Theinformationiscrucialtostudyingcrimeproblems.
TheNewarkPoliceDepartmenthaskeptandmaintainedaseparatedatabase
ofburglaryrecords.ThisdatabasewillbeincorporatedwiththeCFSdatabaseto
recreatethefullrangeofthedatasetforthisproject.Table5.1(onpage108)shows
thetotalnumberofincidentsofresidentialburglaryatNAIhousesinNewark.
3.
TheAlarmInstalled(AI)ResidentialBurglaryDatabase
Asdiscussed,theCFSdatabasecontainsinformationonresidentialburglariesin
generalwhethereachcaseinvolvesalarmsystemsornot.Fromthisdatabase,
informationonalarminstalledresidentialburglarycanbeobtained,butthecontent
isnotindepth.Fromthepoliceincidentreportsdatabase,anewdatasetofAI
burglaryisbuilt.Table5.1presentsthetotalnumberofincidentsofresidential
burglaryatAIhousesinNewark.
4.
106
TheAlarmPermitRecordsDatabase
InNewark,thosewhowanttoinstallhomeburglaralarmshavetofilloutanalarm
permitapplication.Thereisnoapplicationfeetoapplyorannualfeeforrenewal.
TheDivisionofTaxAbatementandSpecialTaxeshandlesallgovernmentpermitsin
thecity,includinghomeandcommercialburglaralarmpermits.Thedivisiondoes
notdealwithanyviolationofalarmpermitsorissuingofasummonstothosewho
arechargedwithpenalties.
AllsuchdutiesbelongtotheAlarmSectionoftheNPDbecausepoliceofficers
arethefirstrespondentstotheCFS.ThedutiesoftheAlarmSectionoftheNPD
include:(1)toenforcealarmrelatedordinances;(2)totestifyinacourt;and(3)to
buildandmaintaintheresidentialburglaryalarmdatabase.Themostimportantof
thethreeistoenforcetheordinances.Tobuildandmaintaintheburglaralarm
databaseisjustasupportivetaskforordinanceenforcement.Forexample,acitizen
maycallthepoliceforservicethrougheither911orapersonshomephone.Many
citizensalsouseacellularphonefortheCFS.Also,whenaburglaralarmisactivated,
thesignalmaygotothepolicedepartmenteitherdirectlyorafterbeingverifiedbya
securitycompany.Ineithercase,thepolicearethefirsttorespondtosuchcalls.As
aconsequence,thepolicedepartmenthasalotofinformationregardingcrime
relatedcalls.
TheDivisionofTaxAbatementandSpecialTaxeshasprovidedalarmpermit
recordsfrom2001to2005.ThoughCityHallcannotprovidepersonalinformation
andothercriticalinformationbylaw(e.g.,thenamesofthealarmcompanies),the
datasetcontainssomeinformationcrucialforthisproject.Thedatabaseiswell
107
maintainedandtimelyupdatedbydesignatedpersonnel.Table5.1showsthe
numberofresidentialburglaralarmpermitsinNewark.
ThetotalnumberinthealarmpermitcategoryinTable5.1isthecombined
numberoflegitimatealarmpermitsandexpiredandunlicensedalarmsystems.For
thisstudy,notonlythenumberoflegitimatealarmpermits,butalsothenumberof
thetwotypesofillegitimatealarmsystemsareincluded,therationaleforthisbeing
thatthetotalnumberofAIburglaryalsomayincludesomenumberofillegitimate
alarmsystemsinuse.Ifthesenumbersareexcludedfromthetotalnumberofalarm
permitsinuse,theactualnumberofAIburglariesmaybeunderestimated.Thus,
thesenumbersshouldbeincludedinthisstudyforbothnumericalandspatial
analyses.
5.
TheU.S.CensusDatabase
U.S.Censusdata,inconjunctionwiththefourpreviousdatabases,arenecessaryfor
advancedstatisticalanalyses.Itisapublicinformationsourceandcanbeaccessed
andretrievedviatheInternet.AnewdatabaseforNewarkfromtheU.S.Censuswas
built,includingpopulation,incomelevels,numberofhouseholds,povertyrate,
unemploymentrate,ethnicity,etc.Thecensustractdataareincorporatedwiththe
geocodedNAIandAIburglaries,andalarmpermitdatasetsforadvancedspatial
statisticalanalyses.
108
[Table5.1]Totalnumbersofpopulation,household,householdw/oburglaralarm,
residentialburglaryw/oalarm,residentialburglaralarmsinuse,and
residentialburglaryw/burglaralarmannuallyinNewark,NJ.
2004
2005
2001
2002
2003
Populationestimated1
Householdestimated1
Presumedhousehold
w/oburglaralarm2
Residentialburglary
w/oburglaralarm3
Presumedresidential
burglaralarminuse4
Residentialburglary
w/burglaralarm5
272,537
99,989
250,782
96,150
262,504
102,128
98,429
94,683
99,919
98,063
98,211
2,621
2,570
2,331
2,254
1,568
1,560
1,467
2,209
2,627
2,829
107
108
75
54
57
251,352 254,217
100,690 101,040
Source:
1. TheU.S.Census
2. Thepresumednumberwascalculatedbysubtractingthenumberofresidentialburglaryw/o
alarmfromthetotalnumberofhousehold.
3. NewarkPoliceDepartment
4. NewarkPoliceDepartmentandCityHall
5. NewarkPoliceDepartment
6.
DataTransformation
Databasesarevitaltoolsforconductingcrimeanalysisandcrimemappingbecause
theyallowanalyststousecomputerstoanalyzelargenumbersofobservations
efficiently.Butthedatafromagencyrecordshavebeencollectedforpurposesother
thancrimeanalysis.Thustheyarenotalwaysadequatetofullyexamineresearch
topics.Underthesecircumstances,datatransformationisanecessaryprocessfor
furthercrimeanalyses.
AhugedatabaseofpolicefilesfromtheNewarkpolicedepartmentwillbe
brokendownbyapplyingthepatternidentificationmethodology(Boba,2005)in
ordertoobtainrecordsofhouseholdburglaryandalarminvolvedhousehold
109
burglary.Adeductionprocessmaybeaproperapproachtocompletethetask.This
processwillstartwithallcrimecategories,thenwithburglaries,andthenwitha
focusonresidentialburglaries.Commercialburglariesorburglariesingovernment
buildingswillnotbepartofthestudy.Burglaryisatypeofpropertycrime(e.g.,
theftfromvehicle,autotheft,residentialandcommercialburglaries,criminal
trespass,andcriminaldamage)inwhichpropertyisthetarget.Becausewitnesses
aretypicallynotpresentwhensuchcrimesarecommitted,thereisusuallylittleor
nosuspectinformationavailabletouseinidentifyingpatternsofpropertycrime.
Therefore,thevariablesincludedintherecreateddatasetarefromexamining
informationontypesofcrimes(e.g.,residentialversuscommercialburglaries),
typesoftargets(e.g.,officebuildings,apartments,andsinglefamilyhomes),address,
pointofentry,othercrimescommittedinthecourseofburglary(e.g.,assaultand
rape),propertytaken,anddamageamount.
Inordertoanalyzethetabulardatasetsofhouseholdburglariesalongwith
geographicdata,thetabulardatamustbegeocoded.Geocodingistheprocessof
linkinganaddress(e.g.,anincidentaddressortheaddressofthevictimized
household)withitsmapcoordinates(Boba,2005).Afterconvertingtextbased
documentsintodatabaseformatfiles,thegeographicandtabularfileswillbe
preparedandmatchedwithinGIS.Thesuccessratesofthegeocodingforthisstudy
wereinexcessof93percent,whereanacceptableminimumis85percent(Ratcliffe,
2001a).
7.
110
UnitofAnalysis
Severaldifferentunitsofanalysesthroughoutthisstudycanbeusedtoexaminethe
impactofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaryatmacroandmicrolevelanalyses.
AsingleaddressofhouseholdsinNewarkcanbeaunitofanalysis.Therearethree
differenttypesofaddressesofhouseholds:addressesofresidentialburglaries
withoutburglaralarms,addressesofresidentialburglarieswithalarms,and
addressesofresidentialburglaralarmpermits.Theseaddressesareusedfor
differentlevelsofapproach.Forexample,formacrolevelanalysis,aggregateddata
ofsingleaddressesfromresidentialburglarieswithandwithoutalarmsystemsand
residentialburglaralarmpermitscanbeutilizedtoidentifyhotspotsofcrimesand
highconcentratedareasofalarmpermitsandtoexaminedistinctivepatternsof
them.Formicrolevelanalysis,disaggregatedsingleaddressesofresidential
burglarieswithandwithoutalarmsystemsandresidentialalarmpermitsareunits
ofanalysisandcanbebufferedinseveralvariousringsandclusteredbythenearest
neighborindextechniquetoexaminetherelationshipbetweenhomealarmpermits
andresidentialburglariesandthediffusionofbenefitsofalarmsystemson
Furthermore,atthegrouplevel,bothpolicebeatboundariesandcensus
tractsmayalsobeusedasunitsofanalysis.Apolicebeatandcensustractcanbe
describedintermsofthetotalnumberofincidentsofresidentialburglaries,the
totalnumberofalarmpermits,thetotalnumberofresidents,andothervariables
withinitsboundary(e.g.,thenumberofhouseholds,annualincomelevel,youth
population,etc.).Forexample,inNewark,N.J.,90censustractboundariesexist.
111
Thethreedifferenttypesofaddressesofhouseholdswillbegeocoded,andseparate
datasetswereconstructedaccordingtocensustracts.Then,theywillbeusedfor
randomizedsamplingtohavepropersamplesizeswithmediumandlargeeffect
sizes.
III.
1.
ResearchDesigns
ResearchDesignandStatisticalPowerAnalysis
Oneofthemostimportantquestionsinastudyishowtheresearchercandesigna
powerfulstudy,whichallowsforafairtestofitsresearchhypothesis.Research
designsemployedbytheresearcheroftenmakeitdifficultforastudytoobtain
statisticalsupportfortheresearchhypothesis.Weisburd(1993)notedthatsuch
studiesmaybeseenasbeingdesignedforfailure,notbecauseofinadequaciesin
thetheoriesorprogramsevaluated,butbecauseofthemethodsemployedby
researchers.Whenastudyisunderpowered,itisunlikelytoyieldastatically
significantresultevenwhenarelativelylargeprogramorinterventioneffectis
found.Thus,researchshouldbedesignedtobesensitiveenoughtodetectaneffect.
Thisissueisdirectlyrelatedtostatisticalpower,whichconcernsaTypeIIerror
(P)16.Statisticalpowerisdefinedas1P.ThevalueoftheTypeIIerror(P)should
beassmallaspossiblesothatthepowerofthetestofsignificanceshouldbeaslarge
aspossibleforareliableresearchdesigntodetectanystudyeffect.Atminimum,it
isgenerallyrecommendedthatastatisticaltesthaveapowerlevelgreaterlevel0.05,
16)TypeIIerrorrefersdirectlytotheriskofacceptingthenullhypothesisand
occurswhentheresearcherfailstorejectthenullhypothesiswhenitisfalseinthe
populationofinterest(BachmanandPaternoster,2004).
112
whichindicatesthatthetestismorelikelytoshowsignificanceresultthannot.But
itisgenerallyacceptedthatthemostpowerfulstudiesseekapowerlevelof0.80or
above.
Therearefourfactorsmakingresearchdesignpowerful:significance
criterion,directionality(eitheraonetailedortwotailedtest),effectsize,and
thesizeofthesample.Onewaytoincreasethestatisticalpowerofatestisto
changethesignificancelevelusedinthestudy.Forexample,atestwitha
significancelevelof0.05ismorepowerfulthanatestwithasignificancelevelof
0.01becauseitiseasiertorejectthenullhypothesisusingamorelenient
significancecriteria.However,anybenefitgainedinreducingtheriskofaTypeII
errorisoffsetbyanincreaseintheriskofaTypeIerror17.Incriminaljustice
research,generallya0.05levelofstatisticalsignificanceisusedasathresholdwith
anondirectionaltest.
Anothermethodtoincreasethestatisticalpowerofatestistohaveahigher
effectsize.18Effectsizemeasuresthedifferencebetweentheactualparametersin
thepopulationandthosehypothesizedinthenullhypothesis.Thus,whenthe
17)TypeIerrorisconcernedwithrejectionofthenullhypothesisandoccurswhen
theresearcherrejectsthenullhypothesisonthebasisofsamplestatistics,butitisinfact
true.TheamountofTypeIerroristhesignificancelevelinatestofstatisticalsignificance.
Incriminaljusticea5%levelofstatisticalsignificanceisgenerallyconsideredrigorous
enoughfortestingahypothesis(Cohen,1988).
18)Effectsizemeasuresthedifferencebetweentheactualparametersinthe
populationandthosehypothesizedinthenullhypothesis.Itiscalculatedbyfirst
subtractingthepopulationdifferenceasstatedinthenullhypothesisfromthedifference
betweenthetruemeansinthepopulation.Thisvalueisthendividedbythecommon
standardsdeviationforthetwopopulationsstudies(fortheequation,seeWeisburd,1993,
573).
113
populationparametersdifferstronglyfromthenullhypothesis,researchersare
morelikelytoobserveasignificantdifferenceinaparticularsample.Thereisa
directrelationshipbetweeneffectsizeandstatisticalpower.Studiesthatexaminea
largereffectsizewill,allelsebeingequal,haveahigherlevelofstatisticalpower.In
addition,effectsizeisunrelatedtothecriteriaforstatisticalsignificanceusedina
test.Inthissense,effectsizeincreasesthestatisticalpowerofastudyand,thus,
reducestheriskofTypeIIerror,whileminimizingtheriskofTypeIerror.However,
althougheffectsizeisoftenconsideredthemostimportantcomponentofstatistical
power,itisgenerallyverydifficultfortheresearchertomanipulateitinaspecific
studybecauseinmanycasestheresearchereitherhasnoinfluenceovertheraw
differencesornoinfluenceonthevariabilityofthescoresofthemeasuresexamined
(WeisburdandBritt,2003).Atminimum,itisgenerallyrecommendedthata
statisticaltesthaveapowerlevelgreaterthan0.50,whichindicatesthatthetestis
morelikelytoshowsignificance.Butitisgenerallyacceptedthatthemostpowerful
experimentsseekapowerlevelof0.80orabove.Suchstudiesarehighlylikelyto
provideevidenceforsignificantfindings.
Themethodusedmostoftentomanipulatestatisticalpoweristovarythe
samplesizebecause(1)itisdirectlyrelatedtostatisticalpower,(2)itisafactor
usuallyunderthecontroloftheresearcher,and(3)itcanbemanipulatedwithout
alteringtheriskofaTypeIerrorinastudy(Cohen,1988;Brown,1989;Weisburd
andBritt,2003).Thus,samplesizeoftenisaprimaryconcerninstatisticalpower
analysis,and,inmostcases,researchersmaximizethestatisticalpowerofastudyby
increasingsamplesize,withotherassumptions(e.g.,statisticalpowerlevel,
114
statisticalsignificancelevel,andeffectsize)beingheldconstant.Here,the
relationshipbetweenstatisticalpowerandsamplesizeisstraightforwardbecause
largersamplesleadtosmallerstandarderrorsandsmallerstandarderrorsleadto
largerteststatistics.
Basedonfourfactorsforpowerfulandsensitiveresearchdesign(Cohen,
1988),itispossibletodeterminetheminimumnumberofcasesnecessarytodetect
notonlystatisticallysignificance,butalsothespecifiedmeaningfulimpactforthis
currentstudy.Thereshouldbeapriorifourassumptionsofotherthresholdsof
statisticalanalysesinordertohavetheminimalsamplesize:(1)thechisquare
statisticaltest;(2)astatisticalsignificancelevelof0.05;(3)anondirectionaltest;
and(4)astatisticalpowerlevelof0.80.Effectsizeisdirectlyconnectedtosample
size,andsamplesizevariesdependingoneffectsize.
Forexample,assumingthat2,000residentialburglarieswerereportedin
2004,alocalpolicedepartmentinitiatedanewprogramtocombatthiscrime
problemduring2005.Asaresult,in2005,1,600incidentswerereported.Thenull
hypothesisherewouldbethatthenewprogramhadnoimpactonthecrime
problemin2005.Inotherwords,theeffectsizeoftheprogramiszero.Inthiscase,
duetothenewprogram,thetotalnumberofresidentialburglariesdecreasedfrom
2,000to1,600,a20percentreduction.Theeffectsizeis20percent.Ifthetotal
numberofincidentshaddroppedto1,800,theeffectsizeis10percent.
Samplesizevariesalsoaccordingtodifferentstatisticaltests.Theprimary
statisticaltestforthisstudyisthechisquarewithtwogroups(e.g.,thenumberof
residentialalarmpermitsandthenumberofnonalarminstalledresidential
115
burglaries).Accordingly,thefollowingsamplesizeisbasedonthechisquaretest,
whichhascategoricalvariableswithdifferentnumbersofcategoriesofthese
variables(e.g.,2X2,2X3,3X3,or3X4tables).
[Table5.2]Overallminimumnumberofcasesforavariableforthe2X2tablechisquare
test(df=1)withdifferentdegreesofeffectsize(ES)withthe0.80statistical
power(SP)andthe0.05significancelevel
Chisquare
10%ES
20%ES
30%ES
785
196
87
(Source:Cohen,1988:258)
[Table5.3]The2X2dummytable(4cells)withminimumnumberofcasesforavariable
withthe0.80SPand10%ES
Variable2
3*
4*
A**
B**
C**
D**
Variable1
1*
2*
ColumnMarginals
A+C
TOTAL
RowMarginals
A+B
C+D
B+D
785(=A+B+C+D)
*Twocategoriesofeachvariable.
**Cellfrequencies.Inthechisquaretest,thenumberofrowmarginals(A+B+C+D)isthesametothatof
columnmarginals(A+C+B+D),whichisalsothetotalnumberofthesumof4cells(A+B+C+D).
Theminimumexpectedfrequencyforeachcellisgenerally5.
[Table5.4]Thechisquaretestbetweenburglaralarmsusedinhouseandvictimization
ofresidentialburglarywiththe0.80SPand10%ESinNewark,NJ,2001*
BurglarAlarmsUsedinHouse
HouseBurglarized
TOTAL
Yes
No
RowMarginals
Yes
107
1,453
1,560
No
2,621 95,808
98,429
ColumnMarginals
2,728
97,261
99,989
*Thechisquarevalueofthistestis101.887,anditisstatisticallysignificantatthe.001level.
Table5.2clearlyshowsthattheminimumsamplesizesforthe2X2chi
square(df=1)decreasewithahigherESandSP.Moresensitivedesignshavelarger
samplesizeswithhigherstatisticalpowerandlowereffectsize.Table5.3displays
116
howtheguidelineinTable5.2canbeappliedinatypical2X2tablewithtwobinary
variables.Forexample,eachcellwithA,B,C,andDcanhaveadifferentnumberof
cases,buttheaddednumberofeithertherowmarginalsorthecolumnmarginalsis
785,whichisthesamenumbertothetotalnumber.Thus,inthe2X2table,there
shouldbeaminimumof785casesintotal.Anotherrequirementforthechisquare
testistohavetheminimumexpectedfrequencyforeachcell.In2X2tables,the
requirementforhavingallexpectedfrequenciesshouldbeatleastequalto5.
Table5.4demonstratestheapplicationoftheprincipleofTables5.2and5.3,
usingthedatafromthecurrentstudy.Inthepresentstudy,therearethreegroups
ofdatasets:(1)residentialburglaralarmpermits,(2)NAIburglary,and(3)AI
burglary.Amongthem,AIburglaryhasthesmallestnumberoftotalcases.Asseen
inTable5.1,thereareatotalof401casesofAIburglaryoverfiveyearswith107
casesin2001.Burglaralarmsinusehave2,138casesonaverageovertheyears.
NAIburglaryhas2,269casesonaverageovertheyears.Therefore,thecurrent
projecthaslargenumbersofcaseswithotherthresholdsfullysatisfyingthe
guidelinesofminimalcasenumbersforstatisticalanalysestoexaminetheimpactof
alarmsystemsonresidentialburglary.
Inaddition,itshouldbenotedthatstudiesinwhichthesizesofthegroups
examinedarerelativelysimilararemorepowerfulthanthoseinwhichthesizesof
thegroupsaremarkedlydifferent.Itcanbelargewhenthenumberofcases
includedindifferentgroupsexaminedinastudydifferwidely,eventhoughthetotal
117
minimumsizeislargeenough.19Thus,whenthesizesofthegroupsinastudydo
notvarygreatly,statisticalanalyseswouldbemorepowerfulandsensitive.Forthe
currentstudy,asseeninTable5.1,thetotalnumbersofburglaralarmpermitsand
NAIburglaryarenotmarkedlydifferent,indicatingthatthisstudyispowerful
enoughtodetectanyimpactofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglariesbecauseof
thelargetotalnumbersofcasesandlittledifferenceoftotalnumbersofcases
betweenthetwogroups.
Therefore,thefirstfourassumptions,togetherwithimpactsizeandminimal
casenumbersofthetwogroups,mayleadthecurrentprojecttobepowerfulenough
toexaminetheimpactofalarmsystemsonresidentialburglary.Inotherwords,it
maybesensitiveenoughtorejectthenullhypothesisifaneffectofacertainsize
existsinthepopulationunderstudy.
2.
DescriptiveAnalysesofBurglarAlarmsandResidentialBurglaries
Onemethodtoexamineanychangeafterlaunchinganewcrimepreventionscheme
istodoatimeseriesanalysis(RatcliffeandMakkai,2004).Timeseriesanalysishas
beenemployedtoexaminetheeffectivenessofcrimepreventionschemesbypublic
policedepartmentsbecauseitisrelativelyeasytocollecttheprepostdata.For
19)Thisissueisbasedonaformulaforstandardizingsamplesizeinstudies(Cohen,
1988;Weisburd,1993).Theequationis:
[Equation5.1]
Forexample,ifthereareatotalof500subjectsinastudy,but400areinonegroup
and100inanother,thestandardizedsamplesize(N)pergroupusedinstatisticalpower
andsignificancecalculationsisonly160,whiletheNforatwogroupstudyequallydivided
is250.Theoverallsizesofbothstudiesarethesame,butthedesignofthelatterismore
powerful.
118
example,oncelocalpolicedepartmentsdecidetotacklecrimeproblems(e.g.,
residentialandcommercialburglaries,autotheft,androbbery)afteranalyzingthe
currentcrimedata,theydevelopanewtargetedcrimepreventioninitiativeand
implementittotacklecrimeproblemsinthecommunity.Afterimplementingthe
program,theywouldevaluatewhetherornottheprogramiseffectiveatreducing
crimerate.Thetimeseriesanalysisisoneusefulmethodtoevaluate.
However,unlikethepublicpolicescrimecontrolinitiatives,theinstallation
timeofburglaralarmsystemscannotbepinpointed.Thedecisionoftheburglar
alarminstallationispurelyatthehandsofhomeowners.Itseemstobedifficultto
collectthealarmpermitrecordsonabeforeandafterbasis.But,iftheinstallation
dataareavailableforseveralyears,thetimeseriesanalysiscanbepossiblebyyear
toyearbaseswithpercentages,proportions,andrates.
Forthepresentstudy,aseriesofdatasetsisnecessary:residentialalarm
permitrecords,AIresidentialburglary,NAIresidentialburglary,andthetotal
householdnumber.Inaddition,allthesedatashouldcoverseveralyears.Five
years(from2001to2005)ofthefirstthreecategoriesofdataareavailablefromthe
NewarkCityHallandPoliceDepartment.Thetotalhouseholdnumberisavailable
fromtheU.S.Censusdata.Then,eachyearsdatacanbecomparedtoexamineany
significantchanges.Thechisquare,multiplecorrelation,andbiandmultinominal
logisticregressionstatisticaltestscanbeusedtoexaminethesignificanceofyearly
changesbetweenresidentialburglarieswithandwithoutburglaralarmsandalarm
permits.
3.
119
RelationshipbetweenBurglarAlarmsandResidentialBurglaries
(1) Chisquareanalyses
Sincetheimportantvariablesofdata(i.e.,whetheranincidentofresidential
burglaryinvolvesaburglaralarmandwhetherahousehasinstalledanalarm
system)arecategorical(e.g.,nominalorordinallevel),thechisquaretest(X2)is
usedtoexaminethestatisticallysignificantrelationshipbetweenNAIandAI
burglariesovertimes.
Threeapproacheswillbeemployedusingthechisquaretest.Thefirstisto
checkthestatisticalsignificanceofchangesbetweenNAIandAIburglariesover
multipleyears.Overtheyears,thenumberofbothNAIandAIburglarieshad
decreased.Thetestwilldeterminewhethersuchchangesarestatisticallysignificant.
Therawnumbersofbothcategoriesaccordingtoyearwillbeusedinthestatistical
test.Thesecondapproachistoexaminethestatisticalsignificanceoftheratesof
NAIandAIburglariesoverfiveyears.Theformercanbefoundbydividingthetotal
numberofAIburglarybythetotalnumberofalarmpermits.Thelatterwillbe
calculatedbydividingthetotalnumberofNAIburglarybythetotalnumberof
households.Then,thesechangeratesovermultipleyearswillbecomparedusing
thechisquaretesttocheckwhetherastatisticallysignificantrelationshipexists.
ThethirdtestistocomparethechangedproportionsofalarmpermitsandNAI
burglaryovermultipleyears.Theformervalueswillbecalculatedbysubtracting
thevalueofthepreviousyear(e.g.,2001)fromagivenyear(e.g.,2002)and,then,
dividingthesubtractedvaluebythepreviousyearsrawnumberofcounts.Allthree
120
testsconcernthestatisticalrelationshipbetweenburglaralarmsandNAIandAI
burglaries.
(2) Correlationanalyses
Thechisquarestatisticaltestisusefulasawaytodeterminewhetherthereisa
statisticallysignificantrelationshipamongvariables.Butitislimitedinprovidinga
measureofthestrengthoftherelationshipamongvariables.Correlationanalysisis
adescriptivestatisticalapproachthatdefinesthestrengthofonevariableasitis
relatedtoothervariable(s).Severalvariables(e.g.,year,NAIburglary,AIburglary,
andresidentialalarmpermits)willbeusedinthecorrelationstatisticaltesttocheck
forsignificantrelationshipsandthestrengthofsuchrelationships.Forexample,the
relationshipbetweentheincreaseofburglaralarmsandthedecreaseofNAI
burglaryoveryearswillbetested.Bothchisquareandcorrelationtestswill
providesomeinsightofstatisticalrelationshipsamongburglaralarmsand
4.
DescriptiveSpatialAnalysesofBurglarAlarmsandResidentialBurglaries
Forthespatialanalysesinthisstudy,spatiallydescriptiveanalyseswillbe
conductedtoseethedistributionofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries.Two
separateapproacheswillbeused.Thefirstwillbebasedonthesinglehouse
addresslevelsofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries.Alladdressesof
residentialburglaralarmsandNAIandAIburglarieswillbepinpointedonthecity
parcelmapovermultipleyears,usingGIScomputersoftware(e.g.,ArcGIS).The
temporalfactorsdescribedabovewillbeincludedintheanalysisofresidential
burglariestoexaminethespatialpatternsandcharacteristicsofresidential
121
burglaries.Thesecondapproachwillusethecensustractlevel.All90censustracts
inthecitywereidentified,andalladdressesofbothburglaralarmsandresidential
burglariesweregoecodedwithamorethan90percentaddressmatchingrateon
averageformappingpurposes.Theaddresseswereregroupedaccordingtocensus
tracts.Eachcensustractincludesthetotalnumberofaddressesofburglaralarms
andNAIandAIburglaries.Thisinformationwillbeusedtocalculatetheratesof
NAIandAIburglariestoexaminethepatternsandchangesovertheyears.In
addition,severalspatiallystatisticalmethods(e.g.,centrographicstatisticsand
spatialdependencestatistics)willbeemployedtoanalyzethespatialrelationship.
Thespatiallydescriptiveanalyseswillprovidevisualizationsofthedistributions
andbeusedtoidentifythehotspotsofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesfor
furtheranalyses.
5.
SpatialAnalysesoftheImpactofBurglarAlarmsonResidentialBurglaries
Theissueofhowtomeasuretheimpactofcrimepreventionschemesiscritical.For
example,situationalcrimepreventionthroughthemanipulationofenvironmental
factorshasbeenplaguedwiththeissueofwhetherornotcrimespreventedare
simplydisplacedtoothertypesofcrime,times,places,and/ortargets(Cornishand
Clarke,1987;Gabor,1990;HakimandRengert,1981;HamiltonSmith,2002;
Hesseling,1994;Reppetto,1976).Thestudyofdisplacementmayprovidecritical
researchfindingsandusefulinsightsintotheeffectivenessofcrimeprevention
programs.Inaddition,itisalsopossiblethatcrimereductionschemesmayhavea
diffusionofbenefits(Gabor,1990;Hesseling,1994;ClarkeandWeisburd,1994).
Displacementhasbeenthecriticalproblemofcrimepreventionprograms,butitis
122
notinevitable.Itisnotnecessarilyanundesirableconsequenceofcrimeprevention
interventionprograms.
Thissectionandthesectionthatfollowsdiscussthetopicofhowtheimpact
ofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglariescanbemeasured.Thetwoapproachesto
examinethespatialimpactofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglariesusingvarious
crimemappingtechniquesaremacroandmicrolevelanalyses.
(1) Hotspotanalysesatthemacrolevel
Ahotspotisidentifiedinageographicdistributioneitherwhenfeaturesarefoundin
closeproximityorwhengroupsoffeatureswithsimilarlyhighorlowvaluesare
foundtogether(Mitchell,2005).Inthecontextofspatialanalysis,theconceptof
clusteroffeaturesissimilartothatofahotspot.Forexample,whensimilarlyhigh
valuesoffeatures(e.g.,thenumbersofresidentialburglaryandrobbery)arefound
closelybeingclustered,thesevaluescanbeidentifiedashotspots.Itcanbeapplied
toNAIandAIburglariesandburglaralarms.
Clusteringatthemacrolevelwillbeusedtoexaminetheimpactofburglar
alarmsoncrimesatacitylevelandcanbedonebyusingthedensityfunction(or
smoothingout)fromArcGIS.Withthismethod,theindividualdatapointsdepicting
theaddressesofeitherresidentialburglariesorburglaralarmaresmoothedoutto
createanimagethatshowstheareaswiththehighestdensityorconcentration.
Twocomparisondensityestimations(i.e.,burglaralarmsandNAIburglary)are
produced.Theoutcomesaretwoseparateimagesofhotspots.Anexaminationof
distinctivedistributionpatternscandetermineiftheyoverlap,andstatisticaltests
canshowtheirrelationship.Seeingtheimpactofalarmsystemsonresidential
123
burglariescanbeuseful.Figure5.1isoneexampleofadensitymapofresidential
burglarywithoutalarmsystemoverburglaralarminthecityin2005.Themap
visuallydisplaysthattherearemultiplehotspotsofNAIburglary(redcolor)and
multiplehotspotsofburglaralarms(bluecolor).Inbothcases,darkercolorsshowa
greaternumberofincidentsandalarmsinuse.
[Figure5.1]AdensitymapofNAIburglaryoverburglaralarmsinNewark,NJ,2005
Furtherspatialanalyses(e.g.,clusterstatisticandnearestneighborindex
[NNI])willbeusedtoteststatisticalsignificanceofthispattern.Thisanalysiswill
showthemacrolevelimpactanditsdirectionality(e.g.,positiveornegativeimpact)
124
ofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.Forexample,theNNItechniquecanbe
usedtoidentifyclustersofhotspots.Theoutcomecanbeappliedtoestimate
changingcrimepatternsandtoexaminetheimpactofburglaralarmsonresidential
burglaries.MoransIisaclassicmeasureofglobalspatialdependencetomeasure
wherethereissignificantclusteringforagivenvariable.
Onedrawbackofthemacrolevelapproachwithaggregateddataisthatit
lacksamicrolevelanalysisattheaddressorstreetblocklevel.Asobservedin
Figure5.1,theoverlappinghotspotsbetweenNAIburglaryandburglaralarmsmay
exist(e.g.,inwestandcenterareasofthecity).Thisphenomenoncanmisleadthe
impactofalarmsystemsonresidentialburglaries.Inotherwords,becauseofthe
overlappinghotspots,issuesofdisplacementanddiffusionofbenefitscannotbe
examinedoritmaybeconcludedthatnorelationshipbetweenresidentialburglary
andburglaralarmsexists.Thus,moresensitivespatialanalyseswithdisaggregated
dataatthemicrolevelarerequiredinordertoexaminetheimpactofalarmsystems
oncrime.
6.
MeasurementofDisplacementandDiffusionofBenefitsofBurglarAlarms
onResidentialBurglaries
Inthecontextofstudyingtheimpactofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries,itis
imperativetoexaminethenatureofcrimedisplacementcausedbyalarmsystemsin
thetargetedareaandtoinvestigatethepotentialforadiffusionofbenefitsfrom
alarmsecuritymeasures,whichhasbeengivenlittleattentioninresearchliterature.
AsBarnes(1995)argued,however,themeasurementofdisplacementisnotoriously
125
difficult,andintheabsenceofastandardizedapproach,severalresearchershave
usedavarietyoftechniquestoquantifythephenomenon.
Forthismeasurement,thebufferfunctionasamicrolevelspatialanalysisat
thesinglehouselevelswillbeused.Theappliednestedbufferandcontrolzone
approachwillbegeneratedtodetectanyimpactofburglaralarmsoncrimeover
time,usingtheWDQ.WDQvalueswillshowthesize(e.g.,neteffect,noeffect,orno
benefit)anddirectionality(e.g.,positive,negative,ornoeffect)oftheimpactof
alarmsystemsonresidentialburglary.Thedetaileddescriptionofresearchdesign,
theoreticalexplanation,andmeasuringprocesswillbediscussedinChapter10.
IV.
ChapterConclusion
Thethreeprimarydatabases(e.g.,residentialburglaralarmpermits,residential
burglaries,andU.S.Censusinformation)fromseveraldifferentdatasourcesare
preparedbyretrievingfromtheNewarkPoliceDepartment,CityHall,andU.S.
Census.Thedatabasesofalarmpermitrecordsandpoliceincidentreportswere
accessedtogaintheinformationofresidentialburglaralarmsandresidential
burglaries.Thecensusdata,inconjunctionwiththedatabasesofburglaralarm
permitsandresidentialburglaryincidents,wereretrieved.Afterbuildingthe
primarydatabases,geocodingprocesswasdonewithalladdressesofbothburglar
alarmpermitsandresidentialburglaryincidentsforthedescriptiveandadvanced
geographicanalyses.
Theissueofstatisticalpoweranalysiswasdiscussedtoseewhether
statisticaltestsandresearchdesigninthisstudyarepowerfulenoughforafairtest
126
ofresearchhypothesesbychieflycheckingtheminimalsamplesizeofstatistical
tests.Itdemonstratedthatthepresentstudywaspowerfulenoughtoexaminethe
impactofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglary.
Researchmethodsfornumericalanalyses,descriptivespatialanalyses,and
measurementofspatialdisplacementanddiffusionofbenefitsofburglaralarmson
residentialburglarieswasdiscussed.Inparticular,anonequivalentgroupquasi
experimentalresearchdesignwasadoptedtomeasuregeographicdisplacement
anddiffusionofbenefits.
Inthefollowingchapter,temporalanalysesandgeneraltrendsbothburglar
alarmsandresidentialburglariesovermultipleyearswillbepresented.
CHAPTER6.PATTERNSANDCHARACTERISTICSOFBURGLARALARMSAND
RESIDENTIALBURGLARIES
I.
Introduction
Inthissection,descriptiveanalysesofresidentialalarmpermitsandtwodifferently
conditioned(nonalarminstalled[NAI]andalarminstalled[AI])residential
burglarieswillbepresented.Suchanalysesarenecessarytoobservegeneraltrends
ofburglaralarmpermitsandresidentialburglariesbeforeapplyinganyanalytical
approaches.Theywillincludetemporalanalysesandgeneraltrendsovermultiple
years,usingatimeseriesmethod.
II.
TrendsofResidentialBurglarAlarms
AccordingtotheNewarkcityordinance,itisvoluntaryforbusinessownersto
installaburglaralarmsystemontheirpremises.Oncetheydecidetodoso,theyare
requiredtopayafeefortheinitialapplicationfortheburglaralarmandforrenewal.
Italsoisvoluntaryforhomeownerstoapplyforaburglaralarmpermit.However,
thereisnoinitialapplicationorrenewalfee.Duetotheregulations,acertain
numberofhomeownersoroccupantseitherhadinstalledandusedtheburglar
alarmsystemsinthepastbutdidnotrenewthesystemsonaregularbasis(expired
burglaralarms),orhaveinstalledandusedthesystemwithoutthecityslicense
(unlicensedburglaralarms).
1.
ResidentialBurglarAlarmPermitsRecords
AlegitimatealarmpermitisissuedfromNewarkCityHall.Butthenumberof
expiredandunlicensedburglaralarmsismostlyidentifiedbypoliceofficers,who
127
CHAPTER6.PATTERNSANDCHARACTERISTICSOFBURGLARALARMSANDRESIDENTIALBURGLARIES
128
respondedto911callswhenaburglaralarmwasactivated.Theserecordsare
storedattheNewarkPoliceDepartment.AccordingtodatafromNewarkCityHall,
in2005therewere2,205residentialburglaralarmpermitsapplications.
[Table6.1]NumberofresidentialburglaralarmpermitsannuallyinNewark,NJ
Year
Average
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
NumberofPermits 1,261 1,081 1,649 1,887 2,205 1,617
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
(Source:NewarkCityHall)
2005
Table6.1showsthatduringthelast5years,thetotalnumberofalarm
permitshasincreasedfrom1,261in2001to2,205in2005,anincreaseof74.9
percent.Thesenumbersrepresentthelegitimateresidentialalarmpermitsfrom
cityhall.Ofcourse,aspreviouslystated,someproportionofillegitimatealarm
usageexistsinthecity.Itisdifficulttoestimatethenumberofnonregistered
residentialalarmpermitsinuse.
Inaddition,Table6.2presentsthepercentageofrenewedalarmpermitsand
thepercentageofthefirsttimenoticesofresidentswhodidnotrenewtheirpermits.
AccordingtotheNewarkcityordinance,July1istheexpirationdateforall
previouslylicensedalarmpermits.However,ifapermitwasgrantedtwomonths
129
beforeJuly(anywherefromMay1toJune30),itwouldexpireonJuly1ofthe
followingyear.Thus,Table6.2doesnotincludethe2005recordbecausethe
researcherreceivedthedatafromNewarkCityHallonMay8,2006.
[Table6.2]Numberandproportionoftherenewedandnonrenewedresidentialalarm
permitsannuallyinNewark,NJ(%)
Year
Average(%)
2001
2002
2003
2004
616
737
1,212
1,326
Renewed(%)
65.2
(48.9) (68.2)
(73.5)
(70.2)
NonRenewed 645
344
437
561
34.8
TOTAL
1,261 1,081
1,649
1,887
Type
Renewed
nonrenewed
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
Theproportionofthenonrenewedresidentialalarmpermitsis34.8percent
onaveragefrom2001to2004.Thoughthisnumberissomewhatsubstantial,the
OfficeofTaxAbatementandSpecialTaxesatNewarkCityHalldoesnothave
enforcementpowerandthuscannotforceresidentstorenewtheiralarmpermits,
increasingthisproportion.Theofficeonlysendsarenewallettertothosewhodid
notrenewtheirpermits.Thereisnofollowupactivity.
2.
130
NonRegisteredResidentialBurglarAlarms
TheAlarmSectionwithintheNewarkPoliceDepartmenthasseveralduties.Among
them,theprimaryresponsibilityistoenforcealarmordinances,specificallyissuing
asummonstothosewhoviolateanordinance.AccordingtotheAlarmSection,
therearethreecategoriesofresidentialburglaralarmusers:(1)thelegitimate
burglaralarmuserwithacitypermit;(2)theexpiredalarmuserwhoonceapplied
forthecitypermitbutdidnotrenewit;and(3)theunlicensedburglaralarmuser
whohasinstalledanalarmsystembuthasneverappliedforacitypermit.
[Table6.3]NumberoftheexpiredandunlicensedburglaralarmsannuallyinNewark,NJ
Type
2001
Expired
88
Unlicensed 211
TOTAL
299
2002
120
266
386
Year
Average
2003 2004 2005
80
40
72
80
480 700 552
442
560 740 624
522
Expired
1000
Unlicensed
800
600
400
200
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
(Source:NewarkPoliceDepartment)
2005
AsTable6.3shows,theproportionofusersinthesecondcategoryis
substantial.Forexample,in2001,51.1percentofalarmusersdidnotrenewtheir
permitsthefollowingyear.Theresponsibilityforenforcementagainstthosewho
donotrenewalarmpermitsandthosewithunlicensedalarmsystemsbelongstothe
NewarkPoliceDepartment.Ifapoliceofficerfindseitheranonrenewedalarmor
131
anunlicensedalarmafterrespondingtotheCFS,thepoliceofficerwillreportitto
theAlarmSection.TheAlarmSectionthenwillinvestigateandissueasummons,if
necessary.
Table6.3presentsthetotalnumberofsummonsbythetypeofresidential
burglaralarmuserfrom2001to2005.Itshowsthatthenumberofsummons
issuedtothosewhohaveanunlicensedalarmsystemishigherthanother
categories.Eventhoughthesenumbersarehigh,thefactisthepolicedepartment
andcityhallcannotestimateeventheapproximatetotalnumberofunlicensed
alarmusers.
Althoughsomeresearchhasbeenconductedonfalsealarmproblems
(Sorensen,2003),studiesontheusageofexpiredandunlicensedalarmsystemsare
limited.Itisnotknownwhymanyhomeownershaveinstalledandusedburglar
alarmsystemswithoutacitypermit.AsseeninTable6.3,theproportionofthis
typeofalarmuserissubstantial.Italsoisnotclearwhysomehomeownerswould
notrenewthepermitfortheircurrentalarmsystem,evenwhentheyreceivea
noticefromcityhall.
III.
1.
TrendsofResidentialBurglaries
TrendsinNAIResidentialBurglary
ThenatureofresidentialburglarieswillbeexaminedbothattheNAIandAIhouses,
includingtheextentofresidentialburglariesfrom2001to2005andtrendsin
residentialburglariesfrom2001to2005,suchaswhentheburglariesoccurandthe
temporalvariation.
132
TheCFSrecordscontainatotalof1,568residentialburglariesatNAIhouses
and57residentialburglariesatAIhousesin2005.Forexample,inNewarkbetween
2001and2005,thetotalnumberofresidentialburglariesatNAIhouseswas11,344.
Thenumberdecreasedby40percentfrom2,621incidentsin2001to1,568in2005.
Theremaybeseveralfactorstobringsuchadropinthecrimerateinthecity,
includingburglaralarmsystemsatresidentialhouses(BlumsteinandWallman,
2000).
[Table6.4]NumberofresidentialburglariesatNAIhomesannuallyinNewark,NJ
Year
Average
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
2,621 2,570 2,331 2,254 1,568
2,269
3000
2000
1000
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2.
AIResidentialBurglaries
Between2001and2005,therewere401residentialburglariesthatinvolved
burglaralarms.ThetotalnumberofresidentialburglariesatAIhomesdecreasedby
46.7percent,from107incidentsin2001to57in2005.Theincidentsofresidential
burglariesatAIhomesdecreasedtogetherwithNAIburglaries.
133
[Table6.5]NumberofresidentialburglariesatAIhomesannuallyinNewark,NJ
Year
2001
107
2002
108
2003
75
2004
54
2005
57
2002
2003
2004
Average
80
150
100
50
0
2001
2005
IV.
1.
TemporalPatternsofResidentialBurglaries
BurglariesbySeason
Untilrecently,thetemporalcomponentofthecriminaleventhadbeenneglectedin
criminologicalstudies(AndresenandJenion,2004).Table6.6showsresidential
burglariesfrom2001to2005distributedbyseasonatbothNAIandAIhouses.In
general,burglarsstrucklessfrequentlyatNAIhousesduringspringandwinter.The
peakseasonforNAIburglaryissummer,presumablyduetoacombinationofhigher
temperaturesandlongerhoursofdaylight.Warmer,lighterseasonsusuallyare
characterizedbyinformalsurveillanceofgardenusers,difficultyjudginghome
occupancyonthebasisofinteriorlighting,andthelackofcoverofdarkness.In
addition,theabsenceofresidentswhovacationduringthesummermonthsmay
accountfortheincrease.Ontheotherhand,forAIburglary,springandwinter
maintainedahighernumberofincidents,withthepeakseasonbeingspring.
134
[Table6.6]ProportionofNAIandAIresidentialburglariesseasonallyinNewark,NJ
Season
Total
Spring Summer Fall Winter Number
NAIBurglary
23.3
27.1 25.6
23.9
11,344
AIBurglary
27.2
23.7 22.7
26.4
401
Type
NAIBurglary
28
AIBurglary
26
24
22
20
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
ItshouldbenotedthatthetrendsbetweenNAIandAIburglariesseemtobe
crossing.ThetrendofNAIburglaryisclosetothatdescribedintheliteratureon
residentialburglary,inthatburglaryhaslimitedseasonalvariationandtendsto
increasesignificantlyinJuneandJuly(Shover,1991).ButlessisknownaboutAI
burglary,particularlyasitdisplaysseasonalvariationoppositeofthatofNAI
burglary.
2.
BurglariesbyMonth
Table6.7displaystheproportionofresidentialburglariesrecordedbythepolice
departmentbymonthfrom2001to2005.WithNAIhouses,Septemberisthepeak
forresidentialburglaries.July,June,andAugustalsomaintainhigherproportionsof
occurrences.Thistrendmatchestheseasonalvariationpatterns,withalower
proportionofincidentsinFebruary(seeTable6.6).Ontheotherhand,thelowest
numberofAIburglaryoccurredinJune,butthehighestnumberexistedinJanuary,
135
followedbyAprilandMarch.Asdiscussedintheprevioussection,seasonal
patternsinoccupancy,daylighthours,andtemperatureforoutdooractivitiescanall
belikelyexplanationsforthesepatterns.
[Table6.7]ProportionoftheNAIandAIresidentialburglariesmonthlyinNewark,NJ
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Jan
Feb March April
May
June
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
NAIBurglary
9.1
7.2
8.5
7.6
7.2
8.9
9.2
9.3
8.4
7.9
7.7
AIBurglary
11.5
7.7
10.2
10.5
6.5
6.2
8.5
8.7
7.2
6.7
7.2
3.
BurglariesbyWeek
Table6.8,whichshowstheproportionofresidentialburglariesreportedbytheday
oftheweek,clearlydemonstratesthatdifferencesinthenumberofburglariesare
dependentontheday.Forexample,bothNAIandAIhouseshaveamuchlower
proportionofburglariesduringtheweekends.Inparticular,SaturdayandSunday
recordthelowestproportionforNAIburglaryandSundayforAIburglary.This
trendcouldbeinterpretedastheburglarsperiodofrestafterthebusyweekdays
andpriortothebusyday,Monday.
Ontheotherhand,thereisasubstantialdifferencebetweenthepeakdaysfor
NAIandAIhouses.Forexample,MondayisthepeakdayforNAIburglary,after
whichtheproportionsdecline.AtAIhouses,asimilartrendoccurred,butthepeak
dayisFridaywithasuddendroptothelowestpointontheweekends.Thereason
136
forthispatternisunclear,thoughitmaybeduetoalowerresidentialoccupancy.
[Table6.8]ProportionofNAIandAIresidentialburglariesweeklyinNewark,NJ
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
NAIBurglary
19.6
16.1
15.2
14.9
14.1
10.0
10.1
AIBurglary
14.0
17.7
18.2
13.2
19.7
9.2
8.0
4.
BurglariesbyTimeofDay
Table6.9presentstheproportionsofburglariesbythetimeofday.Thedayis
brokendownintofour,sixhoursegments.Morningistheperiodfrom6:00a.m.to
11:59a.m.;afternoon,12:00p.m.to5:59p.m.;evening,6:00p.m.to11:59p.m.;and
night,12:00a.m.to5:59a.m.
Burglarstrytoavoidcontactwithresidents.Residentialburglarytendstobe
adiurnalaffair,andtheproportionofdaytimeburglarieshasrisensharplywiththe
rateoffemaleemploymentbecausemorehousesarenowcompletelyunoccupied
duringtheday.Burglariesaremostcommonduringthemorningandafternoon.
ForNAIhouses,64.5percentofburglaryincidentsoccurredduringdaylighthours.
MoreorlessthesametrendoccurredatAIhouses,with77.5percentofburglaries
takingplaceduringdaylighthours.Apossibletheorytoexplaintheincreasein
burglariesduringthedayisthathousesaremorelikelytobeunoccupiedduring
137
thesehours.Nighttimeburglaries,ontheotherhand,arelesslikelytobecommitted.
Thelowerproportionofnighttimeburglariesmayreflectagreatereffortfor
burglarstoavoidcontactwiththeirvictims.
[Table6.9]ProportionoftheNAIandAIresidentialburglariesbytimeofdayinNewark,
NJ
50.0
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Morning
Afternoon
Evening
Night
NAIBurglary
30.7
33.8
26.8
8.7
AIBurglary
33.4
44.1
15.2
7.2
5.
BurglarybyHourofDay
Asdiscussedpreviously,ahigherproportionofresidentialburglariesoccurinthe
morningandafternoon,andthepeaktimeframeistheafternoonbetween12:00
p.m.and5:59p.m.Table6.10showsprecisetemporalestimatesforresidential
burglarieswithinthattimeframe,withtheproportionofburglariesbrokendown
accordingtothehouroftheday.
Forexample,thepeakhoursforNAIburglaryare8:00a.m.and4:00p.m.to
6:00p.m.Theloweroccupancyduetoresidentscommutingtoandfromworkcould
explainthehigherratesinthesetimeframes.NewarkislocatednearNewYorkCity.
MoreofNewarkspopulationleaveshomeearlyinthemorningtotraveltowork,
andmoreofthefemalepopulationworksthaninothersuburbancities.Sucha
138
lifestylemayresultinloweroccupancy.
[Table6.10]ProportionofNAIandAIresidentialburglarieshourlyinNewark,NJ
NAIBurglary
AIBurglary
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
ResidentialburglariesatAIhouses,ontheotherhand,showadifferenttrend.
Duringthelunchhour,thereishigherproportionofresidentialburglaries,which
alsocanbeexplainedbyloweroccupancybecauseasmallerproportionofNewark
residentsstayorreturnhomeduringthishour.
Overall,residentialalarmusagehassteadilyincreasedoverthefiveyear
period.Moreresidentsinthecityhaveboughtandinstalledresidentialalarm
systemsforprotection.Atthesametime,bothNAIandAIburglarieshave
progressivelydecreased.Theoveralldecreaseinresidentialburglariesmightoccur
asaresultoftheincreaseinalarmsystemusageinresidentialareas.However,
thesesimpledescriptiveillustrationsdonotindicatethatalarmsystemshaveany
139
substantialimpactonresidentialburglaries.Itisnecessarytofurtherexaminethe
impactbyusingotheranalyticalapproaches.
Temporalvariationsbyseason,day,timeofday,andhourlargelyreflecta
combinationoftimespecificchangesinoccupancy,levelofsecurity(e.g.,windows
leftopen),andnocturnalcover.Whileallofthesefactorsaretheoreticallyamenable
toprevention(e.g.,stayhome,closewindows,increaseoutdoorlighting),itis
difficulttoconvincepeopletochangetheirlifestyles.Nonetheless,examinationof
temporaltrendsinresidentialburglarycanaidinaddressingspecificcrime
problemsandpossiblepolicyimplications.
V.
ChapterConclusion
Thegeneraltrendanalysesshowedthatresidentialburglaralarmsinusehad
steadilyincreasedoverthefiveyearperiod,whilebothofNAIandAIburglarieshad
progressivelydecreased.Moreresidentsinthecityhadboughtandinstalled
residentialalarmsystemsforprotection.Thisfindingisabenchmarkdirectly
relevanttolaterrigorousanalysesinthefollowingchaptersbecausetheantithetical
trendsbetweenburglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesoverthemultipleyears
indicatethattheoveralldecreaseinresidentialburglariesmightoccurasaresultof
theincreaseinalarmsystemusageinresidentareas.
TemporalanalysesshowedthatthepeakseasonforNAIburglarywas
summer.Inparticular,SeptemberwasthepeakwithJuly,June,andAugust
maintaininghigherproportionsofoccurrences.MondaywasthepeakdayforNAI
burglary,whileSaturdayandSundayrecordedthelowestproportion.Residential
140
burglariesweremostcommonduringthemorningandafternoonwith64.5percent
ofNAIburglaryincidentsbeingoccurredduringdaylighthours.Morespecially,the
peakhoursforNAIburglarywere8:00a.m.and4:00p.m.to6:00p.m.Temporal
variationsbyseason,day,timeofdayandhourlargelyreflectacombinationof
timespecificchangesinoccupancy,levelofsecurity,andnocturnalcover.
Inthefollowingchapter,theoverallandcorrectionrelationshipsbetween
burglaralarmsandresidentialburglarieswillbeanalyzedanddiscussed,whichlink
directlytoResearchQuestions1and2.Question1istoexaminetheoverall
statisticalrelationshipbetweentheincreaseofburglaralarmsinuseandthe
decreaseofresidentialburglaryincidentsandbetweenthechangesinalarm
installationsandNAIburglary.Ontheotherhand,Question2istoexaminethe
correlatedrelationshipsbetweenburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries.Various
numericalstatistics,suchaschisquareandbiandmultivariatecorrelationtests
willbeemployed.
CHAPTER7.QUANTITATIVEANALYSESOFTHEIMPACTOFBURGLAR
ALARMSONRESIDENTIALBURGLARIES
I.
Introduction
Inthepreviouschapter,thegeneraltrendsofresidentialburglaralarmsand
residentialburglarieswereanalyzedanddiscussed.Thischapterprimarilyfocuses
onquantitativeanalysesfortherelationshipbetweenburglaralarmsandresidential
burglaries.ThistopicisrelateddirectlytoResearchQuestions1through3.
Question1isabouttheoverallrelationshipbetweenburglaralarmsandresidential
burglariesoverthemultipleyears,whereasQuestions2and3arelinkedto
correlationandregressionanalyses,respectively.
Thenumberofresidentialburglaralarmsinusehasincreasedforthelast
fiveyears.Moreresidentshaveboughtandinstalledburglaralarmsintheirhomes
forsafety.Accordingtopolicedata,progressivedecreaseinresidentialburglary
incidentshasoccurred,butfewerhomesinNewark,N.J.,havesufferedfromthe
crime.Therehasbeenagradualdecreaseinthenumberofresidentialburglariesat
nonalarminstalled(NAI)homes.Furthermore,residentialburglariesatalarm
installed(AI)homesalsohavedecreasedduringthesameperiod.Atfirstglance,the
increaseintheuseofresidentialburglaralarmsandthedecreasesofNAIandAI
burglariesseemtocorrelate.Inordertoverifythisrelationship,statisticaltestsare
required.Severalnumericalstatisticalanalyses(e.g.,chisquare,biand
multivariatecorrelationsandregressions,andadvancedmultipleregression
statistics)willbeusedanddiscussed.
141
CHAPTER7.QUANTITATIVEANALYSESOFTHEIMPACTOFBURGLARALARMSONRESIDENTIALBURGLARIES
II.
142
OverallRelationshipbetweenBurglarAlarmsandResidential
Burglaries
1.
ChiSquareAnalyses
Sincetheimportantvariablesofdata(i.e.,whetheranincidentofresidential
burglaryinvolvesaburglaralarmandwhetherahousehasaresidentialburglar
alarminstalled)arecategorical(e.g.,nominalorordinallevel),thechisquare
statisticaltestisusedtoexaminewhetherthechangeinburglaralarmuseand
residentialburglariesovermultipleyearsisstatisticallysignificantorduetoa
randomfluctuation.Twoapproacheswillbeemployedusingthechisquaretest.
(1) TherelationshipbetweenNAIandAIresidentialburglariesaccordingto
therawnumbers
ThefirstapproachistocheckthestatisticalsignificanceofchangesbetweenNAI
burglaryandAIburglaryovermultipleyears.Overtheyears,thenumberofboth
differentconditionedresidentialburglariesdecreased.Thechisquaretestcan
determinewhethersuchchangesarestatisticallysignificant.Therawnumbersin
bothcategories,accordingtoyears,wereusedinthisstatisticaltest.
Table7.1presentshowthechisquaretestisemployedinthepresentstudy
(seeAppendix1onpage318fortableswithchisquaretestsfrom2002to2005).
Twovariablesareincludedinthetest,usingthedatafromTable5.1(seepage106).
Table7.2showsthechisquarevaluesoverfiveyears,aswellastheirstatistical
significance.Though2004and2005donotshowsignificantrelationships,thefirst
threeyearshavesubstantiallystrongrelationshipsbetweenthetwovariables.
143
[Table7.1]Thechisquaretestbetweenresidentialburglaralarmsandresidential
burglariesinNewark,NJ,2001a
HouseBurglarized
BurglarAlarmsUsedinHouse
No
Yes
No
95,836
1,453
ColumnMarginals 97,289
Yes RowMarginals
2,631
98,467
107
1,560
2,738
100,027
Thechisquarevalueofthistestis99.52,anditisstatisticallysignificantatthe.001level.
[Table7.2]Valuesofchisquaretestsbetweenburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries
annuallyinNewark,NJ(df=1)a
Value
Chisquare
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004 2005
***
***
***
99.52
115.246
11.840
1.063 3.040
AseriesofchisquaretestsisbasedondatafromTable5.1fromthedatasourcesectionandon22
tables(df=1).
***
Statisticallysignificantatthe.001level.
Itshouldbenotedthatthevaluesofthechisquaretestsfrom2003to2005
suddenlydrop,ascomparedwiththevaluesfrom2001and2002,andtheyarenot
statisticallysignificant.Onepossiblereasonforthedropoffisthenumberofcases
ineachcellinTable7.1.Inotherwords,thetotalnumberofhousingunitsand
houseswithoutburglaralarms,whichproducemarginalratesofNAIburglary,istoo
large,whereasthetotalnumberofestimatedburglaralarmsinuseistoosmall
relativetothatofhousingunits,whichconsequentlyhavearelativelyhigher
proportionofAIburglary.Thisfactmayskewtherelationshipofthechisquare
statisticsbetweenburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries.Thoughthechisquare
testisusefultoexamineastatisticalrelationshipandshowsstatisticalsignificances
inthisstudy,itisnecessarytoconductadvancedstatisticalanalysestoscrutinize
thisrelationship.
144
Twopossibleapproachesmaydisentanglethisissue:(1)tohavethetrue
numberofresidentialburglaralarmsinuseinthecity;and(2)tousetherates
(whichrangefrom0to1regardlessofthevolumeofactualcases)ratherthanraw
numbersforfurtherstatisticalanalyses.Forthecurrentstudy,thefirstoptionis
impossible;onlytheestimatednumberbasedonresidentialburglaralarmpermits
fromCityHallisavailable.Thesecondoptionisplausibleandavailable.Manyofthe
followingstatisticalandspatialanalysesusetheratesbasedonrawnumbersofNAI
andAIburglariesandburglaralarms.Theunitofanalysisforthisisthecensustract.
(2) TherelationshipbetweenNAIandAIresidentialburglariesaccordingto
thechangedrates
InNewark,N.J.,policedatashowthattheincidencesofbothNAIandAIburglaries
havedecreasedsince2001.Thequestioniswhetherthedifferencesinthedegreeof
changearestatisticallysignificantovertheyears.Thesecondapproachisto
examinethestatisticalsignificanceofthesechangedratesofNAIandAIburglaries
overafiveyearperiod.Theformerwillbecalculatedbydividingthetotalnumber
oftheNAIburglariesbythetotalnumberofhouseholds.Thelattercanbefoundby
dividingthetotalnumberoftheAIburglarybythetotalnumberofresidential
burglaralarmpermits.Then,thesechangerateswillbecomparedusingthechi
squaretesttodeterminewhetherastatisticallysignificantrelationshipexists.
Table7.3illustratestheresultsofthechisquareanalysis.Thechisquare
valueis14.021withfourdegreesoffreedom,demonstratingthateventhoughthe
twodifferentlyconditionedresidentialburglarieshavedecreasedovertheyears,
thedifferencesinthedegreeofdecreasearestatisticallysignificantatthe0.01level.
145
TheresultsuggeststhatthedecreaseinincidencesofresidentialburglaryatAI
housesisgreaterthanthatofNAIhouses.Thisfindingconfirmstheargumentthat
therehavebeensubstantialdecreasesinresidentialburglaryincidentsatbothNAI
andAIhousessince2001.
[Table7.3]ThechisquaretestbyyearandNAI/AIresidentialburglariesinNewark,NJ
Type
Year
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

NAIBurglary
2,621 2,570 2,331 2,254 1,568
AIBurglary
107
108
75
54
57
TOTAL
2,728 2,678 2,406 2,308 1,625
2
ChiSquareTest X =14.011**(df=4)
**
TOTAL
11,344
401
11,745
Statisticallysignificantatthe.01level.
Inaddition,itshouldbenotedthattheseanalysesonlyconsidertwo
variables(yearandNAI/AIburglaries).Itisnotclearwhetherthesestatistically
significantrelationshipsbetweenthetwotypesofresidentialburglariesaresolely
basedonthetwovariablesorwhetherthereareotherfactorsinfluencingthe
relationships.Itisexpectedthatifothersocioeconomicfactorsareincluded,the
statisticalanalysismayshowdifferentresults.Furtheradvancedstatisticalanalyses
arenecessarywithmorerelevantvariables.
2.
TheRelationshipbetweenBurglarAlarmsandNAIBurglaryaccordingtothe
ChangedProportions
Togetherwiththechisquaretest,thechangedproportionsofresidentialalarm
permitsandNAIburglariescanbecomparedovermultipleyears.Theformer
valueswillbecalculatedbysubtractingthevalueofthepreviousyear(e.g.,2001)
146
fromagivenyear(e.g.,2002),andthendividingthesubtractedvaluebythe
previousyearsrawnumber.
Table7.4showsthepercentageofresidentialburglariesatAIhousesfrom
2001to2005.Forexample,in2005therewere2,937burglaralarmsystemsand57
reportedresidentialburglariesatAIhouses,translatingintoonly1.94percent,or
twooutof100,oftheAIhouseswerevictimizedbyresidentialburglary.Onthe
otherhand,in2005therewere1,568NAIburglaries.Basedontheestimated
numberoftotalhousingunits,theproportionofNAIburglariesis1.6percent.This
numberislowerthanthatofAIburglaries,andthusitmaybearguedthatahouse
witharesidentialburglaralarmsystemisnobetterprotected.
Thereareseveralpossibleexplanationstoconsiderthatmayhavecaused
thisresult.Thetotalnumberofresidentialburglaralarmsisbasedonthealarm
permitrecordsfromCityHall.AsdiscussedbrieflyinChapter5,therecordscome
fromvoluntarypermitapplicationsbyresidents.Buttheserecordsdonotreveal
thetruenumberofburglaralarmsinuse.SomeNewark,N.J.,residentshave
installedalarmsystemsintheirhouses,butdidnotapplyforanalarmpermit.
Thereisnowayeventoestimatethetotalnumberofburglaralarmsinusewithout
adoortodoorsurvey.Thus,thetotalnumberofburglaralarmsinusemaybe
muchhigher,andthepercentageofAIburglariesmaybefarlowerthanthe
numbersshowninTable7.4.
147
[Table7.4]ChangedpercentagesandproportionsofAIandNAIresidentialburglaries
annuallyinNewark,NJ
Year
Type
TotalBurglarAlarms
AIResidentialBurglary
ChangeoverYear(%)
PercentageofAIBurglary
ChangeoverYear(%)
TotalHousingUnit
Nonalarm NAIResidentialBurglary
installed
ChangeoverYear(%)
(NAI)
PercentageofNAIBurglary
Burglary
ChangeoverYear(%)
Alarm
installed
(AI)
Burglary
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
1,560
1,476
2,164
2,701
2,937
107
108
75
54
57
+0.93
30.56
28.00
+0.06
6.86
7.32
3.47
1.99
1.94
+7.71
52.60
42.65
2.51
98,429
94,683
99,919
98,063
98,211
2,621
2,570
2,331
2,254
1,568
1.95
9.30
3.30
30.43
2.66
2.71
2.33
2.30
1.60
+1.88
14.02
1.29
30.43
Althoughthisconsiderationmayshowbiasagainstthetruepictureof
changedproportionsofAIandNAIburglaries,thesenumbersstillgivesome
insightfulinformationabouttherelationshipbetweenburglaralarmsand
residentialburglaries.Forexample,numbersandpercentagesofAIburglaryhave
persistentlydecreased,whilethepercentageofNAIburglaryhasremained
relativelystableovertheyears.Inparticular,thefactthatalarmpermitshave
increasedrapidlyandAIburglaryoccurrencesremainstablemayindicatethatthe
relationshipbetweentheinstallationofburglaralarmsandNAIburglaryis
statisticallysubstantial.
III.
1.
148
CorrelatedRelationshipofBurglarAlarmsandResidential
Burglaries
MultipleCorrelationAnalyseswithVariables
Thechisquarestatisticaltestisusefulasanapproachtodeterminewhethera
statisticallysignificantrelationshipexistsamongvariables,butitislimitedin
providingameasureofthestrengthoftherelationshipamongvariables.
Correlationstatisticsaredescriptivestatisticalanalysesthatdefinethestrengthof
onevariableasitisrelatedtoanothervariableorvariables.Severalvariables(e.g.,
year,NAIburglary,AIburglary,andresidentialburglaralarms)areusedin
correlationstatisticstocheckforsignificantrelationshipsandthestrengthofsuch
relationships(e.g.,therelationshipbetweentheincreaseofresidentialburglar
alarmsandthedecreaseofAIburglaryovertheyears).Thenmultiplecorrelation
analysiswillbeemployedtotestthestrengthofonevariable(e.g.,yearandalarm
permit)asitisrelatedtoothervariables(e.g.,NAIandAIburglaries).
Table7.5displaysmultiplecorrelationstatisticsbetweenyearandseveral
othervariables.Asdiscussedpreviouslyinchisquaretests,thestatistical
significanceexistsbetweentheyearandthetwodifferentlyconditionedresidential
burglaries,butthetestdoesnotexplainthemagnitudeanddirectionofsuch
statisticalrelationships.Table7.5showsbothstatisticalrelationshipsusing
multiplecorrelationstatisticswiththeyearandothervariablesthroughtheuseof
rawnumbersandratesofburglaralarmsandburglaries.Bothcorrelationstatistics
revealverysimilarresults.
149
Forexample,asdiscussedpreviously,thenumberofresidentialburglar
alarms(BurglarAlarms[2])inusehadincreasedovertheyearswithapositiveand
verystrongstatisticalsignificanceatthe0.05level.Ontheotherhand,three
categoriesofburglaries(e.g.,TotalBurglary[3],NAIBurglary[4],andAIBurglary
[5])havenegativeandverystrongsignificancesatthe0.05or0.01levels.
Correlationstatisticsbetweenburglaralarms[2]andtheNAIburglary[4]
showanegativedirection,suggestingthatwhereasthenumberofburglaralarmsin
useincreases,thenumberofNAIburglarydecreasesovertheyears(thoughthereis
nostatisticalsignificanceusingtherawnumbers).Thesamerelationshipisfound
betweenburglaralarms[2]andtheAIresidentialburglaries[5].Butthecorrelation
valueforthelatterishigherthantheformer,indicatingthatthemagnitudeofthe
decreaseislarger.
[Table7.5]MultiplecorrelationstatisticsbetweenyearandburglaralarmsandNAI/AI
residentialburglariesinNewark,NJ
ByRawNumbers
Variable
Year(1)
BurglarAlarms(2)
TotalBurglarya (3)
NAIBurglary(4)
AIBurglary(5)
(1)
1
.953*
.922*
.909*
.930*
(2)
(3)
(4)
*
.882 1
**
.863 .999 1
.986** .797 .774
ByRates
(5)
(1)
1
.936*
.968**
.962**
.914*
(2)b
1
.934*
.912*
.956*
(3)c
1
.998**
.881*
(4)d
1
.864
ItiscalculatedbyaddingnumbersofbothNAIandAIburglaries.
Itiscalculatedbydividingthenumberofalarmpermitsbythetotalnumberofhouseholds.
c
Itiscalculatedbydividingthetotalnumberofburglariesbythetotalnumberofhouseholds.
d
ItiscalculatedbydividingthenumberofNAIburglarybythetotalnumberofnonalarminstalled
households.
e
ItiscalculatedbydividingthenumberofAIburglarybythetotalnumberofburglaralarmpermits.
*
Statisticallysignificantatthe.05level
**
Statisticallysignificantatthe.01level
b
(5)e
150
Unlikethepreviouschisquarestatistics,Table7.5showsthedirectionsand
magnitudeofthesestatisticallysignificantrelationshipsamongvariables.Thus,
thoughbothstatisticsarepreliminarytofurtherstatisticalanalyses,togetherwith
Tables7.2,7.3,and7.5,chisquareandmultiplecorrelationapproachesplayarole
inthefundamentalanalyticalrationaleandassumptionforthisstudyandfurther
analyses.
However,theissueofacausalrelationshipamongthevariablesmustbe
noted.Forexample,correlationstatisticsinTable7.5showthatovertheyearsthe
numberofburglaralarmsinuseincreased,whilethenumberofNAIburglary
decreased.Thoughasignificantrelationshipexistsbetweenthesetwovariables,
whichonecomesfirstisuncertain.DoesNAIburglarydecreasebecauseofan
increaseofburglaralarmsbeinginstalledinneighborhoodsoristhecausal
relationshipjusttheopposite?Thecausecannotbeexplainedusingthesestatistical
methods,anditmaybetooearlytomakeanysuggestionsaboutthoserelationships.
Advancedmultipleregressionanalysismaygivesomeinsightsandanswerthese
questions.
2.
BinaryCorrelationAnalysesforBurglarAlarmsandBurglariesintheCensus
Tract
Forbinarycorrelationanalysis,90censustractsinthecitywereused,andall
incidencesofburglaralarmsandNAIandAIburglarieswereregroupedaccordingto
eachcensustract,producingatablewithratesofburglaralarminstallationsand
NAI/AIburglariesfor90censustracts.Table7.6presentsthenumbersfor2001.
Fivemoretableswerepreparedforfurtheranalyses,includingtheremainingfour
151
yearsandanoverallfiveyeartable(seeAppendix2onpages319320).Thus,
statisticalresultsfromcorrelationandregressiontestsarepresentedforeachyear
andtheoverallperiodfrom2001to2005.Theunitofanalysishereisthecensus
tract(N=90).
[Table7.6]Ratesofalarminstallation1andNAI/AIresidentialburglaries2for90census
tractsinNewark,NJ,2001
Tract Alarm
NAI
AI Tract Alarm
NAI
AI
Tract Alarm
NAI
AI
ID Installation Burglary Burglary ID Installation Burglary Burglary ID Installation Burglary Burglary
1
0.016
0.013 0.056 31
0.079
0.129
0.056 61
0.004
0.018 0.000
2
0.093
0.022 0.043 32
0.007
0.037
0.728 62
0.009
0.009 0.000
3
0.008
0.014 0.000 33
0.035
0.033
0.136 63
0.004
0.015 0.000
4
0.004
0.016 0.364 34
0.017
0.047
0.081 64
0.012
0.015 0.049
5
0.025
0.018 0.000 35
0.053
0.036
0.070 65
0.008
0.066 0.000
6
0.018
0.011 0.000 36
0.014
0.023
0.073 66
0.008
0.034 0.000
7
0.009
0.023 0.097 37
0.008
0.037
0.000 67
0.003
0.028 0.000
8
0.014
0.011 0.000 38
0.038
0.029
0.045 68
0.004
0.015 0.000
9
0.004
0.015 0.182 39
0.008
0.021
0.104 69
0.010
0.013 0.000
10
0.025
0.029 0.061 40
0.038
0.032
0.000 70
0.003
0.013 0.000
11
0.027
0.035 0.073 41
0.034
0.026
0.045 71
0.004
0.018 0.000
12
0.010
0.041 0.182 42
0.026
0.019
0.058 72
0.000
0.074 0.000
13
0.010
0.027 0.000 43
0.028
0.026
0.029 73
0.001
0.022 0.728
14
0.019
0.014 0.000 44
0.041
0.014
0.042 74
0.002
0.011 0.000
15
0.006
0.029 0.000 45
0.014
0.029
0.146 75
0.017
0.109 0.000
16
0.003
0.029 0.000 46
0.006
0.024
0.073 76
0.002
0.009 0.000
17
0.022
0.056 0.056 47
0.026
0.009
0.022 77
0.014
0.056 0.000
18
0.023
0.053 0.052 48
0.031
0.040
0.000 78
0.011
0.026 0.000
19
0.011
0.021 0.097 49
0.017
0.011
0.000 79
0.004
0.025 0.364
20
0.059
0.037 0.111 50
0.042
0.035
0.052 80
0.001
0.008 0.000
21
0.015
0.009 0.094 51
0.029
0.027
0.000 81
0.013
0.029 0.000
22
0.039
0.017 0.097 52
0.007
0.019
0.104 82
0.010
0.047 0.121
23
0.041
0.034 0.148 53
0.012
0.104
0.437 83
0.010
0.040 0.121
24
0.023
0.025 0.000 54
0.008
0.023
0.000 84
0.021
0.011 0.020
25
0.016
0.020 0.128 55
0.018
0.020
0.038 85
0.008
0.008 0.156
26
0.007
0.047 0.000 56
0.019
0.021
0.121 86
0.012
0.033 0.000
27
0.087
0.047 0.036 57
0.001
0.014
0.000 87
0.007
0.014 0.162
28
0.030
0.055 0.000 58
0.002
0.026
0.000 88
0.037
0.452 0.000
29
0.014
0.050 0.364 59
0.011
0.045
0.081 89
0.006
0.026 0.291
30
0.007
0.037 0.000 60
0.009
0.027
0.000 90
0.000
0.020 0.000
1
Thealarminstallationrateiscalculatedbydividingthenumberofalarmpermitsbythenumberof
housingunitsineachcensustract.
2
TherateofNAIburglaryiscalculatedbydividingthenumberofNAIburglariesbythenumberofhousing
unitsineachcensustract,whiletherateofAIresidentialburglariesiscalculatedbydividingthe
numberofAIburglariesbythenumberofthetotalnumberofalarminstallationsincensustracts.
152
[Table7.7]Binarycorrelationcoefficients(Pearsonsr)forburglaralarmswithNAI/AI
burglariesfor90censustractsannuallyinNewark,NJ
Variable
NAIResidentialBurglary
AIResidentialBurglary
Year
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Overall 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Overall
Pearsonsr .217* .247* .320** .259** .137 .257* .123 .081 .095 .022 .004 .030
*Statisticallysignificantatthe.05level
**Statisticallysignificantatthe.01level
Thefirstapproachisabinarycorrelationanalysisbetweentheinstallation
ratesofresidentialburglaralarmsandtheratesofNAI/AIburglariesonacensus
tract.Table7.7presentsthebinarycorrelationcoefficientandstatistical
significances.ThevalueofPearsonsrfortheoverallperiod(20012005)withthe
NAIburglaryis0.257withastatisticalsignificanceatthe0.05level,demonstrating
thatthecorrelationbetweenburglaralarmsandNAIburglaryispositiveand
moderate.Astherateofresidentialalarminstallationsincreases,sodoestherateof
NAIburglaryinthetracts.Inotherwords,thepositivecorrelationbetweenthese
variablesindicatesthattractswithhigherratesofalarminstallationsalsotendedto
havehigherratesofNAIburglary,whereastractswithlowerratesofalarm
installationstendedtohavelowerratesofNAIburglary.Thestrengthofthis
relationshipeachyearis0.236onaverageand0.257withtheoverallperiod.As
Cohen(1988)suggests,acorrelationaround0.30maybedefinedasamoderate
relationship.Thus,therelationshipbetweentheratesofalarminstallationsandNAI
burglaryisnotastrongone.Butthismoderaterelationshipmayexplainthateven
thoughanincreasedrateofalarminstallationcanbeapositivecausalfactortoNAI
burglary,itsrelationshipisnotdirect.Otherfactorsmightmoreplausiblyexplain
thisrelationship.However,asdiscussedbefore,thesestatisticsdonotshowa
153
causalrelationship.ItisstilluncertainifanincreaseofNAIburglarycausedan
increaseofresidentialburglaralarms,orviceversa.
IV.
BivariateRegressionsofBurglarAlarmsandResidential
Burglaries
Thebivariateregressionanalysisusestheratesofburglaralarminstallationsand
NAIburglary.Table7.8showsthevaluesofbivariateregressionmodelofNAI
burglary.Forexample,inaregressionmodelofburglaralarmsonNAIburglary,the
regressioncoefficient,whichestimateshowthechangeinanindependentvariable
(NAIburglary)influenceschangeinadependentvariable(burglaralarm),isaround
0.14onaverage,indicatingthatachangeofoneunit(i.e.,1percent
increase/decrease)intheNAIburglaryratecanproduceachangeofunitsinthe
estimatedvalueoftheinstallationrateofburglaralarms.Inotherwords,on
average,foreveryoneunitincreaseintheNAIburglaryrateinacensustract,the
installationrateofresidentialburglaralarmsincreasesbyabout0.14percent.
Furthermore,valuesincreaseoveryears.In2001,valuewas0.08,butin2005,it
was0.179,showingthatwiththesameoneunitincreaseintheNAIburglaryrateat
thecensustractlevel,theinstallationrateofburglaralarmshasmorethandoubled
from8percentto17.9percentthroughouttheyears.
154
[Table7.8]BivariateregressioncoefficientsofburglaralarmsonNAIresidentialburglary
annuallyinNewark,NJ1(N=90censustracts)
Variable
Year
2
R
b
Coefficient()
StandardError
Beta
t
2001 2002 2003

.048* .062* .103**
.015 .014
.018
*
*
.080
.111
.203**
.038 .046
.064
.219 .248
.321
*
*
2.10
2.40
3.18**
2004 2005 overall

.067*
.019
.066*
.025
.028
.019
*
.120
.179
.138*
.048
.138
.055
.258
.137
.257
*
2.51
1.30
2.50*
Dependentvariableistherateofalarminstallation.
***Statisticallysignificantatthe.001level
Inaddition,thevaluesofR2,whichisthepercentofvarianceexplained,for
NAIburglaryare,onaverage,0.06,indicatingthatabout6percentofthevariancein
installationratesofresidentialburglaralarmsinNewarkcensustractsisexplained
bytherateofNAIburglary.Asageneralruleincriminaljustice,regressionmodels
seldomresultinR2valuesgreaterthan0.40.Ifitsvalueislargerthan0.40,itis
usuallyassumedthatthepredictionmodelisapowerfulone.Conversely,whenthe
percentofvarianceexplainedislessthan0.15or0.20,themodelislikelytobe
viewedasrelativelyweakintermsofprediction(WeisburdandBritt,2003).Since
R2valuesforratesofburglaralarminstallationsandNAIburglaryis0.06,the
predictionmodelwouldbeconsideredweak.However,inthisbivariateregression
analysisofburglaralarmsonNAIburglary,theR2valueclearlyshowsthatthe
installationpatternofburglaralarmscansomehowbeexplainedbyNAIburglary.
Furthermore,thoughthisregressionanalysisindicatesaweakpredictivepower,the
statisticaltestfortheoverallregressionmodelissignificantatboth0.05and0.01
levels.
V.
155
MultipleRegressionAnalysesofBurglarAlarmsandResidential
Burglaries
Asobserved,thoughthereweresignificantrelationshipsinthebivariateregression
analysesforbothburglaralarmsandNAIburglary,thevaluesofR2weretoosmall
tobepowerfulpredictorsthatexplainrelationships.Ofcourse,itisnotsurprisingin
thesocialsciencefieldthatoneindependentvariablehasaratherweakmagnitude
andthusweakabilitytoexplainthedependentvariables.Theweakpowerofone
independentvariableonadependentvariableinabivariateregressionanalysis
indicatesthatotherdependentvariablesthathavemoreexplanatoryandpredictive
powerexist.Itisnecessarytoconductmultipleregressionanalysestocomplement
theshortcomingsofthebivariateregressionanalysesandtodisentanglethevarious
potentialfactorsthathaveanimpactonthedependentvariable.Suchanapproach
canprovideabetterandmoreaccurateunderstandingoftherelationshipofburglar
alarmsandNAIresidentialburglarywithothervariables.
Multipleregressionapproachesherehavethreeaims.Thefirstistoidentify
whichvariable(s)isthemostpowerfulormorepowerfulamongthevarious
independentvariablestoexplainthedependantvariables(e.g.,burglaralarmsor
NAIburglary).Thesecondaimistoexaminetherelationshipsorchangesof
independentvariablesinregressionmodelsondependantvariables(e.g.,burglar
alarmsandNAIburglary).Thethirdaimis,holdingconstantthetwodependant
variables,toexaminehowmuchindependentvariablescanexplainandpredictthe
dependantvariables.
156
Thereareseveralmethodsofmultipleregressionanalysistoestimatea
causalrelationshipandpredictionlevelbetweenadependantvariableand
independentvariablesthatcanbeused.Forexample,fourdifferentmethodsare
availabletoputindependentvariablesintoaregressionmodel(e.g.,enter,stepwise,
backwardelimination,andforwardselectionusingSPSSstatisticalsoftware).They
canbeincorporatedwithablockingtechniqueoftheindependentvariables.One
advantageoftheblockingtechnique(overotherenteringmethodsofindependent
variables)isthatitholdsimportantindependentvariable(s)constantduringfurther
analysessothatvariationsoftheimportantindependentvariablesonthedependant
variablecanbeeasilyobservedandexamined.
Asdiscussedearlier,theprimaryconcernofthisstudyistoexaminethe
relationshipbetweenresidentialburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries.Thechi
squareandcorrelationstatisticsshowthatthesetwovariablesconstantly
maintainedastatisticallysignificantrelationshipovermultipleyearswithsomeof
theindependentvariables.Forthefollowingtwoadvancedmultivariateregression
models,burglaralarmsandNAIburglaryareusedasdependentvariablesamong,
withseveralindependentvariables,whicharestatisticallysignificantincorrelation
andregressionanalyses(seeAppendices4and5)amongthelistsofthevariables
forcorrelationandregressionanalyses(seeAppendix3).
Amongthevariouslinearregressionvariableselectionmethods,allofwhich
haveadvantagesanddisadvantageswhenused,forwardselectionandhierarchical
selectionareusedhere.Forexample,entermethodisaprocedureforvariable
selectioninwhichallvariablesinablockareenteredinasinglestep(SPSSInc.,
157
2004).Onedisadvantageofthisapproachisthatiftherearetoomanyindependent
variables,multivariateregressionanalyseswillbeinconsistentandpointless
becausenotallvariablesmayshowsignificantrelationshipswiththedependent
variable,and,thus,theoverallregressionmodelmaybemisleadingconcerningthe
relationshipbetweenthedependentvariableandindependentvariables.
Theforwardselectionregressionapproachwillbeusedwithresidential
burglaralarmsasthedependentvariable,andthehierarchicalselectionregression
methodwillbeusedwithNAIburglaryasthedependentvariableforfurther
multivariateregressionanalyses.Thesemethodscandisentangletherelationship
betweenburglaralarms,NAIburglaryandotherindependentvariables,aswellas
provideaclearerunderstandingofthatrelationship.
1.
ForwardSelectionMultipleRegressionAnalysesofBurglarAlarms
Forwardselectionisastepwisevariableselectionprocedureinwhichvariablesare
sequentiallyenteredintoaregressionmodel.Thefirstvariableconsideredforentry
intotheequationistheonewiththelargestpositiveornegativecorrelationwiththe
dependentvariable.Thisvariableisenteredintotheequationonlyifitsatisfiesthe
criterionforentry.Ifthefirstvariableisentered,theindependentvariablenotin
theequationthathasthelargestpartialcorrelationisconsiderednext.The
procedurestopswhentherearenovariablesthatmeettheentrycriterion(SPSSInc.,
2004).Thebackwardeliminationmethod20isoppositetoit.Theadvantageofthe
20)Thebackwardeliminationmethodisavariableselectionprocedureinwhichall
variablesareenteredintotheequationandthensequentiallyremoved.Thevariablewith
thesmallestpartialcorrelationwiththedependentvariableisconsideredfirstforremoval.
158
forwardselectionapproachoverthebackwardeliminationapproachisthatitcan
identifysequentiallywhichindependentvariableisthemostpowerfulpredictorof
thedependentvariableamongvariousindependentvariables.
Table7.9showstheforwardselectionregressionmodelstoscrutinizethe
effectofindependentvariablesonthedependentvariableburglaralarm.The
analysesforeachyearfrom2001to2005arepresentedinAppendix6.Atfirst,nine
independentvariables21,whichshowedstatisticalsignificancefromthePearson
correlations,wereenteredintothisregressionmethod.Amongthem,fivevariables
wereincludedintheforwardselectionmodels,whileotherswereexcluded.The
selectionoftheindependentvariableineachregressionmodelisbasedonthe
statisticalsignificancefromhighertolowervalue.
Thefivemodelsareincludedwitheachmodelhavingadifferentnumberof
independentvariables.Eachregressionmodeladdsonemorevariablesequentially.
Thus,thefinalmodelhasfiveindependentvariables.Blackpopulationisincludedin
thefirstmodel,beingfollowedbyhouseoccupiedbyhomeowner,householderage
groupfrom25to34,NAIburglary,andgeneralpopulationagegroupunder14years
old.
Ifitmeetsthecriterionforelimination,itisremoved.Afterthefirstvariableisremoved,the
variableremainingintheequationwiththesmallestpartialcorrelationisconsiderednext.
Theprocedurestopswhentherearenovariablesintheequationthatsatisfytheremoval
criteria(SPSSInc.,2004).
21)TheyareNAIburglary,blackpopulation,nonblackpopulation(bothwhiteand
otherspopulations),populationwithagesunder14,unemployment,blackhouseholder,
nonblackhouseholder(bothwhiteandothershouseholderpopulation),householderages
25to34,andhomeoccupiedbyowner.
159
[Table7.9]Forwardselectionmultipleregressionofburglaralarmsforoverall(20012005)inNewark,NJ(N=90censustracts)
Independent
Variables
DependentVariable(=BurglarAlarm)
Model1
Model2
Model3
Model4
Model5
b SE Beta
t
b SE Beta
t
b SE Beta t
b SE Beta
t
b SE Beta
t
**
***
***
***
.021.006 .354 3.55 .021 .006 .355 3.74 .025 .005 .424 4.70 .024 .005 .406 4.59 .015 .006 .253 2.47*
BlackPopulation
OwnerOccupied
HouseholderAges2534
PopulationAges<=14
F
Constant
R2
.045 .014 .303 3.19** .051 .013 .340 3.82*** .049 .013 .327 3.77*** .058 .013 .389 4.47***
.141 .037 .343 3.78*** .137 .036 .335 3.78*** .113 .036 .276 3.13**
.107 .047 .200 2.30*
.161 .049 .299 3.27**
.092 .034 .293 2.69**
12.590**
.011
.125
12.054***
.000
.217
14.034***
.031
.329
12.377***
.033
.368
12.073***
.049
.418
160
Someinsightfulfindingsareworthdiscussingintheinstallationpatternof
residentialburglaralarms.Thefirstmodelisabivariateregressionwithblack
populationastheindependentvariable.Theregressioncoefficientfortheeffectof
blackpopulationonburglaralarmsis0.011,indicatingthatwithevery1percent
increaseintheblackpopulationinthecity,theinstallationrateofburglaralarms
increasesbymorethan1percent.TheR2valueforthevariableis0.125,which
indicatesthattheblackpopulationexplains,onaverage,about13percentofthe
variationinburglaralarms.Thestatisticaltestofthisfirstregressionmodelis
significantatthe0.01level.Thoughtheblackpopulationisthevariableamongthe
independentvariablesthathasthelargestpositivecorrelation(Pearsonr=0.354)
withthedependentvariableofburglaralarms,theR2valueisrelativelylow.
InthefollowingmodelsinTable7.9,theregressioncoefficientfortheeffect
ofotherindependentvariablesonthedependentvariableofburglaralarmsshowsa
widerangeofvalues,butisconsistentamongdifferentmodels.Forexample,the
valueforblackpopulationinthefiveregressionmodelsis,onaverage,0.028.The
valueofowneroccupiedhousesinthefourregressionmodelsis,onaverage,0.051.
Eachvalueoftheotherindependentvariables,whichareincludedinModels2to5,
maintainsasimilarrange,indicatingthateachvariablehasacomparableimpacton
thedependentvariable,thoughitisjoinedwithothervariablesinthedifferent
regressionmodels.
Thesevaluesprovideamethodforestimatinghowchangeinan
independentvariableinfluencesadependentvariable,andcanbeusedtomake
predictionsinthemultipleregressionequation,thoughitoftendoesnotprovidea
161
solidbasisforpredictionsbeyondacertainrange.Forexample,inaseriesof
regressionmodels,valuesshowthatthehouseholderagegroupfrom25to34and
NAIburglaryproducethemostimpactonthedependentvariableburglaralarms
withthehighestvaluesinmodelsfourandfive,respectively.Thevariable,owner
occupiedhousingalsohassubstantialimpactonburglaralarms.Buttheblack
populationdoeshaveahighervaluecomparedwiththeotherindependent
variables.Thepopulationagegroupunder14yearsoldhasarelativelyhighvalue,
butitisincludedonlyinthelastregressionmodel.Thus,thisregressionapproach
basedonvariousvaluesshowsthatamongtheindependentvariables,owner
occupiedhouses,householderagegroup25to34,andNAIburglaryconsistently
haveagreaterimpactonburglaralarmsovertheothervariables.
Anotherwaytocomparetheimpactofthedifferentindependentvariables
examinedintheregressionmodelsistocheckthestandardizedregression
coefficientBeta.Table7.9alsoshowsvaluesofBeta,whichisusedtocomparethe
influencetheindependentvariableexaminedintheregressionmodelhasonthe
dependantvariable,usingthestandardizedregressioncoefficients.Unlikethe
regressioncoefficient,whichisusedforbothexplanationandpredictiononthe
dependentvariable,Betavaluesmostlycomparewhichindependentvariable,
amongmultiplevariables,hasthelargesteffectonthedependentvariable.Itisnot
usedforpredictionintheregressionequation.Inthefirstmodel,theblack
populationisincludedbecausethisvariablehasthehighestcorrelationvalueamong
thegroupofindependentvariables,implyingthatithasthegreatestimpactonthe
dependantvariableofburglaralarms.Inthefollowingfourregressionmodels,
162
whichenablethecomparisonofBetavaluesamongtheindependentvariables
withinandamongthemodels,theblackpopulationgenerallyhasthegreatest
impactonthedependantvariableovertheotherindependentvariables.For
example,inModels2,3,and4,theblackpopulationvariablehasthehighestBeta
value.ButinModel5,itranksthirdafterowneroccupiedhousingandNAIburglary.
R2valuesintheregressionmodelsincreasefrom0.125to0.418,indicating,
ingeneral,thataregressionmodelwithmorecorrelatedindependentvariableshas
ahigherpercentofthevariationintheburglaralarminstallation.Themore
independentvariablesthatareincludedinregressionmodels,thehigherthe
explanatorypowerofthemodel.Inaddition,theFvaluesshowthatoverall
statisticalsignificancesofthefiveregressionmodelsarestatisticallysignificantat
the0.01levelforthefirstmodeland0.001levelfortheremainingmodels.
Consideringtheabovestatistics,itispossibletolistthebestvariable(s)to
explainandpredictthedependentvariableofburglaralarms.Inparticular,the
valuesamongtheregressionmodelsindicatethatNAIburglary,householderage
group25to34,andpopulationagelessthan14yearsoldhaveagreaterimpactin
predictingandexplainingthedependentvariable.Ontheotherhand,Betavalues
showthattheblackpopulation,owneroccupiedhouses,householderagegroup25
to34,andNAIburglaryhaveagreaterimpactonthedependentvariable.
Asforthepredictionofinstallationpatternsofresidentialburglaralarmsin
Newark,N.J.,thebestpredictoramongthegroupofindependentvariablescanbe
owneroccupiedhousing.Yet,othervariablessuchasblackpopulation,
householderagegroup25to34,andNAIburglaryalsoaresubstantiallyimportant
163
inpredictingtheinstallationpatternofresidentialburglaralarms.Itmaybemore
plausibletosuggestthatagroupofpowerfulindicatorsratherthanasingle
independentvariablebestexplainsandpredictsthedependentvariablebecause
somevariationsexistintheandBetavaluesforeachvariableinthedifferent
regressionmodels.Thus,singlingoutthemostinfluentialvariableonthe
dependentvariablemaybedisputable.Butitisconceivabletosuggestthatagroup
ofvariablessharearelativelygreatimpactonthedependentvariable.Therefore,
owneroccupiedhousing,blackpopulation,householderagegroup25to34,andNAI
burglaryarethegroupofindependentvariablesthatbestexplainandpredictthe
dependentvariableburglaralarminNewark,N.J.
Forexample,from2001to2005,thenumberofresidentialburglaries
decreasedsteadily,whereasthenumberofresidentialburglaralarmsinstalledhad
increasedprogressively.Asdiscussedearlier,oneoftheresearchquestionswas
abouttherelationshipbetweenthedecreaseofresidentialburglariesandthe
increaseofburglaralarminstallation.Thepreviouscorrelationstatisticsshowthat
thisrelationshipisstatisticallysignificant.Butitdoesnotexplainthecausal
relationship.Inotherwords,doesthesteadyincreaseofresidentialburglaralarm
installationdirectlyproducetheconsistentdecreaseofresidentialburglaries?
Theaboveforwardselectionregressionapproachcananswerthisquestion.
OnlythefourthandfifthmodelsincludetheNAIburglaryvariableintheregression
analyses.AlthoughthevalueofNAIburglaryisthehighestinModel5,Betavalues
inModels4and5showthatNAIresidentialburglarydoesnothavethehighest
value.Thus,NAIburglarydoesnothavethegreatestimpactonthedependent
164
variableinthisregressionmodel.Inotherwords,residentialburglaries,amongthe
groupofindependentvariables,isnotthemostpowerful(orinfluential)predictor
fortheresidentstodecidetoinstallburglaralarmsystemsintheirhouses.Butas
discussed,itismoreplausibletosuggestagroupofindependentvariables,rather
thantosingleoutonevariabletoexplainandpredictthedependentvariable.NAI
burglaryisonevariableofthisgroup.
Theresultsimplythatsomepositivecausalrelationshipexistsbetween
burglaralarmsandNAIburglary.Peopleinneighborhoodswithrelativelyhigher
numbersofNAIburglaryaremorelikelytohaveburglaralarmsinstalled.Even
thoughthetotalnumberofresidentialburglarieshaddecreasedinthecity,the
neighborhoodswithahigherproportionofresidentialburglariestendtohave
relativelymorecrimes.Asaconsequence,theleveloffearofcrimemaybehigher
thanneighborhoodswithlowercrimerates,andthus,itmayboosthouseownersin
thesehighercrimeneighborhoodstohavemoreresidentialburglaralarmsinstalled.
Thisobservationisconsistentinasensethatthebivariatecorrelationbetween
burglaralarmsandNAIburglaryshowedastrongpositiverelationshipintheearlier
analysis.
Asdiscussed,thevariable,owneroccupiedhouses,hasabetterexplanatory
andpredictivepowerthanNAIburglary.Homeownersdefinitelytendtobemore
concernedaboutthesafetyoftheirhouseresidentsandsecurityinandaroundtheir
housesthanrenters.Suchconcernsforsafetyandsecuritymaygivesomeincentive
fortheownerstohaveburglaralarmsinstalled.Thevariablealsoisrelatedto
165
economiccondition.Inotherwords,homeownersareinabetterfinancialsituation
toputtheirconcernsintopracticebyinstallingresidentialburglaralarms.
Inaddition,forthelastfewyearsinthestudy,thenumberofresidential
burglaralarmsinstalledinNewark,N.J.,increased.Butresidentialburglaralarms
werenotequallydistributedthroughouttheentirecity.Inareaswithahigherblack
populationasthelargestpopulationcategory,burglaralarmsweremorelikelytobe
installed.Thereasonforthisbehaviorisunknown,buttwopossibleanswersexist.
First,eventhoughtheoverallnumberofresidentialburglarieshaddecreasedfrom
2001to2005throughouttheentirecity,thefearofcrimeamongtheblack
populationinparticularhadnotdecreased,encouragingmoreresidentsinthese
neighborstoinstallresidentialburglaralarmsattheirhomes.Second,theseblack
dominantneighborhoods,thoughtheoverallnumberofcrimeshaddecreased,still
havearelativelyhighernumberofresidentialburglariesthancommunitieswith
whiteorotherraces.
Furthermore,thehouseholderagegroupof25to34isasubstantialvariable
inexplainingthedependentvariableofburglaralarms,whichimpliesthatrelatively
youngerhouseholderstendtohavemoreburglaralarmsystemsthanolder
householderagegroups,mostlikelybecausetheytendtobeconcernmoreabout
securityandsafetywithinandaroundtheirhouses.Thisobservationcanbe
explainedinseveralways.First,thoughyoungeragegroups,inparticular,between
25and34yearsoldhavehouses,ingeneral,theystillneedtoworkfulltimedueto
financialresponsibilities.Consequently,thesehousesarelesslikelytobeoccupied
duringthedaytimeonweekdaysthanthehousesoftheolderowners.So,younger
166
householderstendtoconsidersecurityamoreseriousconcernandhaveresidential
burglaralarmsinstalledasaguidanceanddeterrent.Second,youngerpeopleare
morelikelytohavemoreexpensiveandportableelectronicproducts(e.g.,DVD
players,HDTV,computergames,computers),whichtoresidentialburglarsarehot
itemsthatareeasytocarryandfence.Thus,houseswithyoungeroccupantsand
lighterandmoreexpensiveelectronicproductsaremorelikelytobevictimizedby
residentialburglary.Third,youngerhouseholderstendtohavemorebabies,
toddlers,orchildrenattheirhousesthanolderhouseholders.Theypaymore
attentiontotheirchildrenssafetybyinstallingresidentialburglaralarmsattheir
houses.Allthesefactorsmayexplaintherelationshipbetweentheresidential
burglaralarminstallationpatternandthehouseholderagegroupof25to34.The
argumentsabovehavetobeverifiedwithfurtheranalyzedtohaveabetter
understandingoftherelationshipbetweentheinstallationpatternofresidential
burglaralarmsandothervariables.Ageographicanalysisusingacrimemapping
techniquewillbeemployedinChapters8and9.
Also,aseriesoftheforwardselectionregressionmodelsimpliesthateven
thoughallstatisticallysignificantvariablesareincludedintheanalysis,theoverall
R2valueinthelastmodelis0.418,indicatingthattheregressionmodelexplains
onlyabout42percentofthevariationsinresidentialburglaralarms.Inotherwords,
thisapproachgivessomeinsightintothepatternofresidentialburglaralarms,but
theexplanatorypowerisrelativelyweak.Morethanhalfofthevariation(about58
percent)inresidentialburglaralarmsisunexplainedbythisforwardselection
regressionapproach,implyingthatthereareothermorerelevantvariablestobetter
167
explaintheinstallationpatternofresidentialburglaryalarms.Thus,further
researchisimperativetostudytheotherindependentvariablesinorderto
disentangletherelationshipofburglaralarms.
2.
HierarchicalMultipleRegressionAnalysesofNAIBurglary
Asdiscussedabove,severaldifferentmethodstoanalyzetheeffectofindependent
variablesonthedependentvariableinmultivariateregressionareavailable,with
thehierarchicalmultipleregressionapproachamongthem.Asmentionedearlier,
oneoftheprimarypurposesofthisstudyistoexaminetherelationshipbetween
burglaralarmsandNAIburglary.Fortheanalysisoftheeffectofburglaralarms
withotherindependentvariablesonNAIburglary,ahierarchicalmultivariate
regressionapproachisemployed.Thus,theindependentvariable,burglaralarms,
washeldconstantinthisanalysis,whileotherindependentvariableswereentered
intofurtherregressionmodels.
Liketheforwardselectionregressionmethod,thehierarchicalregression
methodincorporatesablockingtechniquewiththeindependentvariables,which
holdsimportantindependentvariable(s)constantduringfurtheranalysessothat
variationsoftheimportantindependentvariablesonthedependantvariablecanbe
easilyobservedandexamined.Thehierarchicalmultivariateregressionmethodcan
beusedtodeterminewhichindependentvariableismoreimportantthanother
independentvariablesinpredictingthedependentvariable.Itispossibleinthe
hierarchicalregressionmethodtomanipulatethenumberofregressionmodelsand
independentvariablesineachregressionmodel,whereasintheforwardselection
regressionapproachtheselectionprocessofthenumberofmodelsand
168
independentvariablesiscarriedoutbySPSSsoftware,accordingtothedegreeof
statisticalsignificance.Thus,insteadofenteringalltheindependentvariablesinto
multipleregressionequationsimultaneously,thisapproachenablestheisolationof
theinfluenceofoneparticularindependentvariable.
Theprocessforthishierarchicalmultipleregressionistoenterone
independentvariableintotheanalysis,andthenaddtheremainingvariablesby
blockingthevariablesintoagroup,whichwillbeenteredinsequence.Forinstance,
theindependentvariableburglaralarmsisanimportantvariabletoexplainthe
patternofNAIburglary.Thus,burglaralarmswouldbeenteredintothe
hierarchicalmultivariateregressionfirst,andthenthefourgroupsofindependent
variables,whicharebasedonstatisticalsignificance,wouldbeenteredsequentially
intotheremaininganalyses.Thenumberofregressionmodelsdependsonthe
numberofthesequence.
Table7.10showstheresultsofthehierarchicalmultipleregressionforthe
overallperiod(20012005)withfivemodelstoexaminetheeffectofthegroupsof
independentvariablesonthedependentvariable,NAIburglary.Theanalysesfor
eachyearfrom2001to2005arepresentedinAppendix7.
Sevenindependentvariables,whichshowedconsistentstatistical
significancesfromthePearsoncorrelation,wereincludedinthisregression
approachwithfivedifferentgroups.Unlikethepreviousforwardselection
regressionmethod,inthehierarchicalregressionapproachtheconsecutive
regressionmodelsdonotnecessarilyaddoneindependentvariableineachmodel.
Forexample,thefirstregressionmodelincludesoneindependentvariable,burglar
169
alarms.Models2,4,and5alsohaveonemorevariableaddedtothepreviousmodel.
ButModel3hasthreemorevariablesadded.Thecompositionofeachgroupof
independentvariablesdependsonthestatisticalsignificanceandrelevance.For
instance,thegeneralpopulationagecategoryhastenrelevantvariables,butnotall
ofthemshowconsistentstatisticalsignificance.Thesevariableswereregrouped
accordingtothestatisticalsignificanceanddirectionasdiscussedpreviously.
Finally,threereordered(e.g.,populationagebelow17,25to44,andover45years
old)wereenteredintoModel3inthisregressionmethod.
170
[Table7.10]HierarchicalmultipleregressionofNAIresidentialburglaryforoverallperiod(20012005)inNewark,NJ(N=90censustracts)
Independent
Variables
DependentVariable(=NAIResidentialBurglary)
Model1
b
Model2
SE Beta
.479 .192 .257

BurglarAlarm
Unemployment
PopulationAges<=17
PopulationAges2544
PopulationAges>=45
HouseholderAges6064
HouseholderAges>=65
6.236*
F
.018
Constant
2
.066
R
Model3
SE Beta
2.50 .715 .166 .384 4.32
***
SE Beta
.731 .118
.212 .034 .547 6.15*** .195 .024
23.299
Model4
t
.393 6.190
b
***
Model5
SE Beta
.565 .106 .303 5.34
b
***
SE Beta
.566 .107 .304 5.32***
.505 8.034*** .152 .022 .392 6.81*** .154 .023 .397 6.64***
.153 .057 .300 2.672*** .138 .049 .272 2.81** .136 .050 .268 2.74**
.116 .065
.213 1.79
***
.228 .058 .371 3.91
***
***
40.206
.075 .056 .138 1.34

**
.241 .050 .391 4.80
.074 .057 .136 1.31

.229 .063 .371 3.63***
.387 .070 .325 5.56*** .386 .070 .324 5.49***
50.565
***
.014 .044 .026 .75
42.885***
.065
.010
.013
.012
.349
.705
.785
.785
171
SomeobservationalfindingsaremeaningfulindiscussingthepatternofNAI
burglary.Theindependentvariableburglaralarms,whichhasapositivebut
relativelyweaksignificantrelationship(Pearsonr=0.257),wasincludedto
examinetheeffectofitonthedependentvariable,NAIburglary.Theregression
coefficientfortheburglaralarmvariableis0.479.TheR2valueis0.066,which
indicatesthatburglaralarmsexplain,onaverage,about7percentofthevariationin
NAIburglary.Thestatisticaltestwiththismodelissignificantatthe0.05level.
ThesevaluesimplythatthoughNAIburglaryeffectsresidentialburglaralarms,its
explanatoryandpredictivepowerisrelativelyweakinthisfirstbivariatemodelof
thehierarchicalregressionapproach.
Inthefollowingfourregressionmodels,theregressioncoefficientforthe
impactofthegroupsofindependentvariablesonthedependentvariable,NAI
burglary,showalargerangeofvalues.Butvaluesforeachindependentvariable
overthemodelsareconsistentinmanner.Forexample,eachvalueforburglar
alarmsinthefivemodelsishighestoverotherindependentvariables,rangingfrom
0.479to0.731.Theaveragevalueforburglaralarmsfromallfivemodelsis0.611,
whichisstillthehighestvalueovertheothervariables.Theaveragevalueofthe
populationageover45yearsoldis0.233amongModels3,4,and5,whichhavea
closerangeofvalues.Theresultsimplythatthougheachindependentvariableis
enteredindifferentregressionmodelswithanotherindependentvariable,it
maintainsaconsistentandcertaindegreeofimpactonthedependentvariableof
NAIburglary.
172
Thesevaluescanbeusedtoestimatehowchangeinanindependent
variableeffectschangeinadependentvariableandpredictsthemultivariate
regressionequations.Forinstance,inaseriesofhierarchicalregressionmodels,
valuesforburglaralarmsproducethehighestdependentvariableofNAIburglary
amongtheModels.Theindependentvariableforthehouseholderagegroup60to
64hasacomparableimpactonNAIburglary.Inaddition,thegeneralpopulation
agegroupover45yearsoldhasanegative,butrelativelyhigherimpact,onthe
dependentvariable,NAIburglary,whencomparedwiththeotherremaining
variables.Thus,thisregressionapproach,basedontheregressioncoefficient
values,showsthatamongsevenvariables,burglaralarms,householderagegroup
60to64,andpopulationagegroupover45yearsoldhaveacontinualandgreater
impactovertheothervariablesinexplainingandpredictingthedependentvariable,
NAIburglary.
Inadditiontotheregressioncoefficient,thestandardizedregression
coefficientBeta,asdiscussedandusedinthepreviousanalyses,comparesseveral
independentvariablesindifferentregressionmodelstoexaminewhichofthe
variableshasthemostinfluenceonthedependantvariable.Amongthegroupof
independentvariables,unemploymenthasthehighestBetavaluethroughoutthe
fivemodelswiththeaverageof0.46,indicatingthatithasthegreatestimpactonthe
dependentvariable.Thepopulationagegroupover45yearsold,householderage
groupfrom60to64,andburglaralarmsalsohavesimilarandrelativelyhigher
valuescomparedwiththeremainingvariables.Thus,theBetavaluesshowthatfour
ofthesevenindependentvariables(e.g.,unemployment,populationageover45,
173
householderageover65,andburglaralarms)haveasignificantandgreaterimpact
onthedependentvariable,NAIburglary.
TheR2valuesinthefiveregressionmodelssteadilyincreasefrom0.06to
0.785,indicatingthat,ingeneral,thelaterregressionmodelswithmorerelevant
independentvariablescauseahigherpercentageofthevariationinNAIburglary.
TheFvaluessupportthefactthattheoverallstatisticaltestsofthefiveregression
modelsaresignificantatthe0.05levelforthefirstmodelandatthe0.001levelfor
theremainingmodels.
Someoftheseinsightsneedtobediscussed.First,bothandBetavalues
fromTable7.10disclosethatburglaralarm,unemployment,populationagegroup
over45,andhouseholderagegroup60to64arethebestpredictors,thoughnot
necessarilyinthatorderofdegreeofpredictability,toexplainandpredictthe
dependentvariable,NAIburglary,inNewark,N.J.
Second,unemploymentisoneofthemostpowerfulvariablesinthe
hierarchicalregressionmodel,basedonitsBetavalues,inexplainingthe
phenomenonofNAIburglary.ItisincludedinModels2to5,maintainingthe
highestBetavalueovertheotherindependentvariablesintheregressionmodels.A
similarargumentcanbemadetotheonediscussedinTable7.9,whichshowsthat
theindependentvariableofowneroccupiedhousingisoneofthepowerful
predictorsforresidentialburglaralarms,inthateconomicconditionalsocanbe
associatedwithunemployment.NAIburglaryalsoiscloselycorrelatedtothe
economicconditionofaneighborhood,inparticular,asitrelatestounemployment
status.Theliteratureonresidentialburglarypersistentlyshowsthispositive
174
relationship(CromwellandOlson,2004;Shover,1996;BennettandWright,1984;
Reppetto,1974).Thisstudyconfirmsthatunemployment,toadegree,canpredict
Third,thegeneralpopulationagegroupover45yearsold,thoughitcoversa
widerangeofages,isoneofthemorepowerfulpredictorstoexplainandpredict
NAIburglary.Inparticular,unlikesuchotherpowerfulindependentvariablesas
unemployment,burglaralarms,andhouseholderageover65,itsrelationshiptoNAI
burglaryisinanegativedirection.Inotherwords,ifthenumberofNAIburglaries
decreases,thenumberofresidentsinthepopulationagegroupover45yearsold
increases.Thisphenomenoncanbeexplainedinthewaythatyoungeragegroups
inthiscategory(e.g.,between45and55yearsold)withahigherpopulation
proportionthanolderagegroups(e.g.,over60yearsold)tendtolivewiththeir
teenagechildren.Theseteenagershaveelectronicproductsandgadgetsformusic
andgames.Theseitemsaregoodtargetstoburglarsbecausetheyareeasytocarry
andresell.
ThisargumentcanbeinterrelatedwiththeearlierfindingsinTable7.9,
whichshowsthatthegeneralpopulationagegroupunder14yearsoldisoneofthe
predictiveindependentvariablesonthedependentvariable,burglaralarms.In
otherwords,anincreaseofthisagegroupcontributestotheincreaseofburglar
alarminstallationsbecauseparentsaremoreconcernedaboutsafetyandsecurity
fortheirchildren.Puttingtheseresultstogether,itcanbeconcludedthatwhere
therearemoreresidentsover45yearsoldwiththeirchildren,therearemore
175
houseswithresidentialburglaralarmsbeinginstalledandfewerhousesbeing
victimizedbyresidentialburglary.
Fourth,unlikeanyothercategorywithinthehouseholderagegroups,only
thehouseholderagegroupof60to64yearsoldhassomepositiveandsubstantial
impactinexplainingNAIburglary.Thepossibleexplanationforthisobservationis
thatthehouseholdersinthisagegroupmayonlyhavetwopeopleinthehouse,a
husbandandwife,withanychildrennowlivingliveselsewhereasadults.Mostof
thosepeoplehaveyettoretireorarepreparingtodoso.Thosewhohaveretired
stillmaybebusydoingotheractivitiesorvolunteerwork.Asaconsequence,their
housesaremorelikelytoremainunoccupiedduringthedaytimewhencompared
withmucholderagegroups(e.g.,over65yearsold).Thus,houseswithoccupants
inthehouseholderagerangefrom60to64yearsoldhavearelativelyhigherchance
tobevictimsofNAIburglary.
Finally,burglaralarmsisoneofthemostsubstantialindependentvariables
toexplainandpredictNAIburglary.AlthoughithasrelativelylowerR2valuein
Model1,intheconsecutiveregressionmodels,burglaralarmskeepaconsistentand
powerfulrelationshipwithNAIburglary.Asdiscussedinpreviousanalyses,the
relationshipbetweenNAIresidentialburglaryandburglaralarmsispersistent.
Itshouldbenoted,however,thatthefindingsfromboththeforward
selectionandhierarchicalregressionmethodsinTables7.9and7.10,regardingthe
relationshipbetweenburglaralarmsandNAIburglary,maybecontradictory.In
otherwords,eachofthetwovariableshasacertaindegreeofimpactontheotherin
thepositivedirection,indicatingthatburglaralarmshavesomecontributiontothe
176
effectofNAIburglaryandviceversa.Thus,itisnotcertainwhichofthetwocomes
firstasanexplanatoryandpredictivevariable.SimplecomparisonoftheandBeta
valuesdoesnotanswerthiscausalrelationship.Onepossiblesolutiontothisissue
isaspatial(orgeographic)approach.Accordingtotheliterature,thedistributionof
bothNAIburglaryandresidentialburglaralarmsarenotevenlydispersed
throughoutneighborhoods,implyingthatalthoughquantitativeanalysesprovide
someinsightsintotheresearchquestionsinthisstudy,therelationshipofburglar
alarmsandNAIburglarycanbebetterunderstoodthroughspatial(orgeographic)
analyses.TheseapproacheswillbepresentedinChapters8through10.
AsforpredictingNAIburglaryinNewark,N.J.,thebestindicatoramongthe
groupofindependentvariablesisunemployment.Yet,othervariables,suchas
burglaralarms,householderagegroupsfrom60to64yearsold,andpopulationage
groupsover45yearsold,alsoarecriticaltoexplainingandpredictingNAIburglary.
Asargued,itmaybemoreplausibletosuggestagroupofpowerfulindicators,
ratherthanlistingasingleindependentvariablethatbestexplainsandpredictsthe
dependentvariable,becausesomevariationintheandBetavaluesforeachof
thesevariablesexists.Thus,itmaybeinappropriatetosingleoutthemost
influentialvariableonthedependentvariable.Therefore,burglaralarms,
householderagegroupsfrom60to64yearsold,andthepopulationagegroupover
45yearsoldarethegroupofindependentvariablestobestexplainandpredictthe
dependentvariable,NAIburglary,inNewark,N.J.
VI.
177
ChapterConclusion
ResearchQuestion1wastoexaminetheoverallstatisticalrelationshipbetween
burglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesandbetweenthechangesinalarm
installationsandNAIresidentialburglaryoverthemultipleyears.Chisquareand
changedproportionstatisticsshowedthatthecrossingrelationbetweenthe
increaseofresidentialburglaralarmsinuseandthedecreaseofresidentialburglary
incidentswasstatisticallysignificantandpersistentovertheyears,whichindicated
thatburglaralarmsimpactedonthedecreaseofresidentialburglaryincidents.
Theseanalyseswerebasedontherawnumbersoftotalresidentialburglary
incidentsandburglaralarmpermits.Butadvancedstatisticalanalyseswere
necessarytoscrutinizethisrelationshipwithmorerelevantvariables.
ResearchQuestion2wastoexaminethecorrelatedrelationshipsbetween
burglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries.Thebiandmultivariatecorrelation
statisticconfirmedthechisquarestatisticfindingthatthestatisticalsignificance
existedbetweentheincreaseofburglaralarminstallationsandthedecreaseof
residentialburglaryincidents.
ResearchQuestion3focusedontheextentoftheregressionrelationshipof
bothburglaralarmsandresidentialburglarieswithothervariables.Twoprimary
purposeswereserved:(1)toidentifytheindicatorstoshowsignificant
relationshipstotheincreaseofburglaralarmsinuseandthedecreaseofresidential
burglaryincidents;and(2)toestimateacausalrelationshipandpredictionlevel
betweenadependantvariable(e.g.,eitherburglaralarmsorNAIburglary)and
independentvariables.Bivariateregressionstatisticwasusedforthefirstanalytical
178
purposewithNAIburglaryasadependantvariables.Inaddition,theforward
selectionandhierarchicalmultipleregressionstatisticswereusedforthesecond
analyticalpurposewithburglaralarmsasadependentvariablefortheformer
methodandwithNAIburglaryasadependentvariableforthelattermethod.
WithregardtobivariateregressionstatisticsofthevariablesonNAIburglary
asadependentvariable,onlytwoindependentvariableswerestatistically
significant:burglaralarmsandunemployment.Theseanalysesshowedthatasthe
correlatedrelationshipsbetweenburglaralarmsandNAIburglarywerefoundtobe
statisticallysignificant,theregressedrelationshipsalsoweresignificantandhad
someexplanatorypowerforregressionmodels.Unemploymentwascloselyrelated
tothepatternsofnotonlyburglaralarminstallationsbutalsoNAIburglary
incidents.
Multipleregressionstatisticsforburglaralarmsasadependantvariable
revealedthatbasedontheFstatistictheracesofbothgeneralpopulationand
householdershadanoverallsignificantrelationship.Itsfindingwasconsistentwith
thepreviousfindingthat,holdingconstanttheimpactofblackvariable,whiteand
othervariableswerenegativelyrelatedtotheburglaralarminstallation,indicating
thatneighborhoodswithgreaterthesepopulationsgroupswerelesslikelytohave
burglaralarmsinstalledthanblackneighborhoods.
Ontheotherhand,multipleregressionstatisticsforNAIburglaryasa
dependentvariableshowedthat,basedonthevaluesofR2,thevariablesofburglar
alarms,unemployment,populationagegroups(e.g.,below17,25to44,andover
45),andhouseholdersagegroups(e.g.,60to64andover65)werestatistically
179
significant.Amongthem,unemploymentandhouseholderages60to64weremore
closelyrelatedto,andpowerfulpredictorsof,NAIburglarythanothervariables
usedintheanalyses.
Twoadvancedmultipleregressionstatistics(e.g.,forwardselectionmultiple
regressionandhierarchicalmultipleregression)wereusedbeingincorporatedwith
ablockingtechniqueoftheindependentvariables.Achiefadvantageofitsmethod
isthatitholdsimportantindependentvariable(s)constantduringfurtheranalyses
sothatvariationsoftheimportantindependentvariablesonthedependantvariable
canbeeasilyobservedandexamined.
Theforwardselectionregressionapproachcapableofidentifying
sequentiallywhichindependentvariablewasthemostpowerfulpredictorofthe
dependentvariableamongvariousindependentvariableswasemployedwith
burglaralarmsasthedependentvariable.Aseriesofannualforwardselection
regressionmodelsshowedthatonlyfivevariableswereincluded(e.g.,black
population,owneroccupancy,householderages25to34,NAIburglary,andgeneral
populationagegroupunder14yearsold).Consideringseveralstatisticalvalues
fromtheforwardselectionregressions(e.g.,coefficient,Beta,andR2)withsome
variationsinvalues,itmightbemoreplausibletoproposeagroupofpowerful
indicatorsratherthantosingleoutthemostinfluentialvariableonthedependent
variable.Thus,owneroccupiedhouse,blackpopulation,householderagegroup25
to34,NAIresidentialburglary,andpopulationagegroupunder14werethegroup
ofindependentvariablesthatbestexplainedandpredictedtheinstallationpattern
ofresidentialburglaralarms.
180
Inaddition,thehierarchicalselectionregressionmethodwasusedtoanalyze
theeffectofburglaralarmswithotherindependentvariablesonNAIburglaryasthe
dependentvariable.Severnindependentvariableswereincludedinthisanalysis
(e.g.,burglaralarms,unemployment,populationagegroupsofunder17,25to44,
andover45,andhouseholderagegroupsof60to64andover65)withfive
regressionmodels.Amongthesevariables,burglaralarms,unemployment,
populationageover45,andhouseholderage60to64werethebestpredictors,
thoughnotnecessarilyinthatorderofdegreeofpredictability,toexplainand
predictthedependentvariable,NAIburglary.Inparticular,unemploymentwasone
ofthemostpowerfulvariablesinthehierarchicalregressionmodelinexplainingthe
phenomenonofNAIburglary,whosefindingwasconsistentwiththeprevious
analysesandtheliteratureonresidentialburglary.Thegeneralpopulationage
groupover45yearsoldalsowasoneofthemorepowerfulpredictorstoexplainand
predictNAIburglarywithanegativedirection,thatis,asthenumberofNAI
burglarydecreased,thenumberofresidentsinthispopulationagegroupsincreased.
Itsagegroupparticularlywithahigherpopulationproportionofages45to55
tendedtolivewiththeirteenagechildrenwhoseparentsweremorelikelytohave
burglaralarmsinstalledandlesslikelytobevictimizedbyresidentialburglary.
Furthermore,thevariableburglaralarmswasoneofthemostsubstantial
independentvariablestoexplainandpredictNAIburglarywithaconsistentand
powerfulstatisticalsignificanceoverthemultipleyears.
Thesefindingsanddiscussions,thoughprovidingrichandinsightful
informationonthepatternandrelationshipofbothburglaralarmsandresidential
181
burglarywithotherrelevantvariables,werelimitedinnumericalanalyses.Spatial
approachesandanalyseswillfollowinChapters8to10.
Inthenextchapter,spatiallydescriptiveanalyseswillbeconductedand
discussedtoanswerResearchQuestion4,whichhastwoprimaryfocuses:(1)to
examinethespatialdistributionsandpatternsofbothburglaralarmsand
residentialburglaries;and(2)toverifyquantitativeanalysesconductedand
discussedinChapter7inaspatialdimension.Usingthegeographicinformation
system(GIS)computerprogram,pointanddensitymappingmethodswillbe
employedfortheanalysesofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries.Thesemaps
willbeincorporatedwithandoverlaidoverthecensustractbasedmapsgenerated
fromthedemographic,socioeconomic,andhousingcharacteristicdata(e.g.,
populationraceandage,unemploymentrate,povertylevelinpopulation,
householderraceandage,andowneroccupancy).
CHAPTER8.DESCRIPTIVESPATIALANALYSESOFBURGLARALARMSAND
I.
Introduction
Priortothespatialimpactanalysesofbothresidentialburglaralarmsand
burglarieswithothervariables,spatiallydescriptiveanalysesareconductedtoview
thedistributionandpatternofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries.Research
Question4isdirectlyrelevanttothischapter.Therearetworationalesbehindsuch
analyses.First,therehavebeensubstantialqualitativeandquantitativeanalysesof
residentialburglaryinliterature,butfewspatialanalyseshavebeenconducted.
Suchananalysismayproducemoreusefulknowledgeinexplainingthedistribution
andpatternofresidentialburglariesanditsrelationshiptoburglaralarmsandsuch
variablesasdemographic,socioeconomic,andhousingcharacteristics.
Second,evensimplespatialanalysesforresidentialburglaralarmshavenot
beenconductedinliterature.Asdiscussedpreviously,thereisalackofresearchon
thistopicingeneral,andtheexistingstudiesarebasedonobservationaland
anthropologicalapproacheswithlittlequantitativeanalyses.Spatiallyanalytical
approacheshavenotbeenusedtoexaminethedistributionandpatternof
residentialburglaralarms.
Twoseparateapproachesareusedhere.Thefirstmethodisbasedonthe
singlehouseaddresslevel.Alladdressesofresidentialburglaralarmsandnon
alarminstalled(NAI)andalarminstalled(AI)burglariesarepinpointedonthe
Newarkstreetmap,annuallyandfortheperiodfrom2001to2005,usingthe
geographicinformationsystem(GIS)computersoftware.Theunitofanalysisfor
182
CHAPTER8.DESCRIPTIVESPATIALANALYSESOFBURGLARALARMSANDRESIDENTIALBURGLARIES
183
thisfirstapproachistheindividualaddressofhousesvictimizedbyresidential
burglarieswith/withoutalarms.
Thesecondapproachisbasedonthecensustractlevel.All90censustracts
inNewarkwereidentified,andalladdressesofbothburglaralarmsandNAI/AI
burglariesweregeocodedwithabouta93percentaddressmatchingrate,on
average,intheGISgeocodingprocess.Then,alltheaddresseswereregrouped
accordingtothe90censustracts.Thus,eachcensustractwasassociatedwiththe
totalnumberofaddresseswithalarmpermitsandNAI/AIburglariesinthattract.
ThisinformationwasusedtocalculatetheratesofNAI/AIburglariestoexamine
patternsandchangeovertheyears.
Severalspatialstatisticaltechniques(e.g.,pointmaps,densitymaps,
centrographicstatisticsmaps,andspatialdependencestatistics)wereemployedto
examinethespatialrelationshipsofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglarieswith
selectivedemographic,socioeconomic,andhousingcharacteristicvariables.There
aretwoprimarypurposesforthesespatiallydescriptiveanalyses.First,theyare
usedtovisualizethedistributionofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesonthe
citymap,aswellasidentifythehighandlowconcentrationareasofburglaralarms
andburglariesforfurtheranalyses.Second,theyareusedtolinkthefindingsof
previousquantitativeanalysesinChapter7tospatialpatterns.Inotherwords,to
answerthequestion:Arethestatisticallysignificantvariablesfromvarious
correlationandregressionstatisticsalsoconsistentwithspatialdistributionsand
patterns?Theassumptionisthatitwillbeconsistentbecauseofissuesofreliability
andvalidity.
II.
184
MacroLevelSpatialPatternsofBurglarAlarmsandResidential
Burglaries
Asthefirststepofthedescriptivespatialanalysis,acityboundaryaroundNewarkis
settomapresidentialburglaralarmsandburglaries.Pointmapsanddensitymaps
arethenadded.Themostcommonmethodfordisplayinggeographicpatternsof
burglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesispointmapping,whichplacespins
representingeventsontoamap.Ontheotherhand,adensitymapvisualizesthe
distributionofcrimeandidentifieshighlyconcentratedareasbycreatingasmooth
continuoussurfacetorepresentthedensityorvolumeoftheeventsdistributed
acrossthecity.Adensitymapisbasedonthepointmaptodisplayhigherand/or
lowerconcentratedareaswithinthecityboundary.
1.
PointMapsofBurglarAlarmsandNAIandAIResidentialBurglaries
Aseriesofpointmapsisdisplayedtoseethedistributionsofresidentialburglar
alarms,basedonalarmpermits,andNAI/AIresidentialburglaries.Allthegeocoded
addressesofthesethreecategoriesarepinpointedthroughthegeocodingprocess,
withacoordinatesystem,usingArcGIScomputersoftware.
Figure8.1displaysexamplesofthepointmapsshowingresidentialburglar
alarms(mapsAandB),NAIburglary(mapsCandD),andAIburglary(mapE)ona
citystreetmap.MapsforotheryearsareincludedinAppendixes8and9.These
mapsshowtheoveralldistributionsofthesethreevariables.Atfirstglance,both
burglaralarmsandNAIburglaryaredistributedcitywideacrossmanyofthestreets
andstreetblocksinthecity.Inparticular,inmapsCandD,NAIburglaryaffected
mostpartsofthecityin2004and2005.Burglaralarms,ontheotherhand,have
185
beeninstalledacrossthecity,butthewestern,northeastern,andsouthwestern
areashavemorepointsthantheeasternandcentralpartsofthecity.
[Figure8.1]PointmapsforburglaralarmsandNAI/AIresidentialburglariesinNewark,
NJ,2004and2005
186
MapEdisplaysthedatafromAIburglary.Sincethiscategoryhasasmall
numberofcases,relativetoNAIburglaryandburglaralarms,theoveralldatafrom
2001to2005areusedformapping,showingthatAIburglaryisspreadacrossthe
city.Butthemapdisplaysmorepointsinthewesternpartofthecity,probably
becausetheseareashavemoreresidentialburglaralarmsinstalledthanotherparts
ofthecity.
Inadditiontothesemaps,whichbasedonasinglevariable,itispossibleto
overlaytwovariablesonasinglemap.Figure8.2displayssuperimposedpoint
mapsofbothresidentialburglaralarm(black)andNAIburglary(red)in2004and
2005.ThoughmanyaddresseswithburglaralarmsoverlaythosewithNAIburglary,
inparticularinthewesternpartofthecity,therearestillsomenonoverlaying
neighborhoods(e.g.,northeasternandeasternpartsofthecity).Thedistribution
mayindicatethatonthemacrolevel,incidentsofburglaralarmsandNAIburglary
187
insomepartsofthecity,andmanyofthestreetsandstreetblocks,donot
superimposeoveroneanother.ManyNAIburglariesarecommittedonthestreets
wherenoburglaralarmhadbeeninstalled.
[Figure8.2]OverlaidpointmapsofburglaralarmsandNAIresidentialburglaryin
Newark,NJ,2004and2005
However,thesemapsdonotprovidesomeinformationandinsightabout
spatialdistributionsandpatterns.Althoughthesemapsareusefultoseebotha
generaldistributionofthethreevariablesandsomeindicationofisolatedpatterns
betweenburglaralarmsandresidentialburglary,theystilldonotdemonstratea
particularspatialpatternovertheyearsorillustratehigherorlowerconcentrated
areasactivity.
188
Twoissuescanaccountfortheseproblems.First,thelargevolumeofdata
thatareusedforthemapsmakesitdifficulttovisualizeandinterpretaccurate
patternsinthespatialdistribution.Second,certainlocationsonthemapappearto
beasinglepointwithasinglecrimeincident,butmay,infact,havemultipleevents
overlappedatthesameaddressbecausemultipleeventsatthesamelocationhave
beengeocodedbythesamecoordinatingsystem.Thus,whenonlysmallnumbersof
eventsaredisplayedonamap,crimepointmapsmayprovideasnapshotlevelview.
Butiftheprimarypurposeofthesemapsistoconductfurtherindepthanalysisand
identifyhighlyconcentratedareasofdistribution,crimepinpointmapsmaynotbe
thebestvisuallydescriptiveexampleorthebestmapdesigntointerpretanddiscuss
patterns.Itisimperativetouseadditionalmappingmethodstoexaminetheactual
distributionofthesevariablesandtodiscussthepatternsofburglaralarmand
2.
DensityMapsofBurglarAlarmsandNAIandAIResidentialBurglaries
Inthissection,aseriesofdensitymapsispresentedtoexaminethedistributionsof
residentialburglaralarmsandNAI/AIburglaries.Densitymapsarebasedonthe
datafromthepointmapsabove.Whilepointmapspinpointedalladdressesof
burglaralarmsandNAIburglaryonthecitystreetmap,densitymapsdisplayspatial
concentrationsofthesevariables.
Figure8.3displaysseveralgraduallyconcentratedareasofresidential
burglaralarms(blue)andNAIburglary(red),usingadensityfunctioninArcGIS.
Thedarkerthecolors,themorehighlyconcentratedtheareas.Asdiscussed
previously,thesimpleandoverlaidpointmapsshowthatburglaralarmsandNAI
189
burglaryaredistributedcitywide.ButthedensitymapsinFigure8.3illustratethat
bothresidentialburglaralarmsandNAIburglaryarenotevenlydistributed
throughoutthecity.Forexample,withresidentialburglaralarms(mapsAandB),
thelargestconcentrationsarelocatedinthewesternpartofthecity.Several
smallerscaleconcentrationsalsoexistinthecentralandnortheasternpartsofcity.
Ontheotherhand,mostoftheeasternpartofthecitydoesnothaveany
concentratedareasofresidentialburglaralarms,illustratinginstallationpatternsof
residentialburglaralarmsacrossthecityandthattheresidentsincertain
neighborhoodsdefinitelytendtohavemoreburglaralarmsinstalledthanother
areas.Suchobservationsarefoundconsistentlythroughoutthetimeperiod
analyzed(seeAppendixes10and11).
ForNAIburglaryinmapsCandD,severalconcentratedareasexistacrossthe
city,exceptforsectionsinthecentralandnorthernpartsofthecity.Inparticular,
severalconcentratedareasarelocatedalongsidethenorthernboundaryofthecity.
Thoughmanyofstreetsandcityblockshavebeenaffectedbyresidentialburglary,
therearecertainareasorneighborhoodswithmoreincidentsthanothers,implying
thatthedistributionandpatternofNAIburglarydoesnotnecessarilyevenly
distributedacrossthecityandthatitisinfluencedbyaneighborhoodsconditions,
suchasdemographic,socioeconomic,andhousingcharacteristics.
190
[Figure8.3]DensitymapsforburglaralarmsandNAIresidentialburglaryinNewark,NJ,
2004and2005
191
Inadditiontothedensitymapsabove,Figure8.4showssuperimposed
densitymapsbetweenresidentialburglaralarms(blue)andNAIburglary(red),
withtheprimarypurposebeingtoexaminewhetherhighlyconcentratedareasof
burglaralarmsandNAIburglarycoincide.Oneofthecorequestionsofthisstudyis
toexaminetheimpactofresidentialburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.In
otherwords,doburglaralarmshaveapositiveimpactonresidentialburglaryora
negativeimpact?Therationalefortheoverlappinganalysisisthatifburglaralarm
systemshaveapositiveimpactonresidentialburglary,theconcentratedspotsof
bothalarmsystemsandresidentialcrimeshouldbeisolated,indicatingthatthecity
blocksorneighborhoodswithburglaralarmsystemsmaypushawaypotential
burglar(s)andpreventcrime.Thus,insuchacase,itmayindicatethatthereis
eitherpossiblespatialdiffusionofbenefitsfromburglaralarmsoverresidential
burglaryordisplacementofNAIburglaryfromthehighlyconcentratedareasof
burglaralarmstotheareaswithlessconcentratedlevelsofburglaralarms.
Ontheotherhand,ifthehighlyconcentratedareasofburglaralarmsystems
andNAIburglaryarenotisolatedbutoverlayeachother,itmayimplythatthereis
nonoticeableimpactofburglaralarmsystemsonresidentialburglaryorthatthe
occurrenceofresidentialburglaryisnotaffectedbyburglaralarmsystems.Inother
words,aburglaralarmmaynotbeapowerfuldeterrenttoresidentialburglary.
Figure8.4plainlyillustratesthatinmostpartsofthecity,theheavilydense
spotsofbothburglaralarmsandNAIburglarydonotoverlap(seeAppendix12).
Theyareseparatefromeachother,thoughsomelessconcentratedareasdooverlap.
Streetblocksorsmallsectorsofthecitywithhighinstallationratesofburglar
192
alarmstendtohavelessNAIburglary,especiallyinsomewestern,southern,and
northeasternpartsofthecity.Streetsegmentsorsomesectorsofthecitywith
higherresidentialburglarytendtohavelessburglaralarmsystemsinstalleda
patternobviousinthecentralandeasternpartofthecity.Itmayberudimentaryto
beconclusiveandconsiderablyindicativethat,atfirstglanceinthedensitymaps,
residentialburglaralarmsmayshowsomepositiveimpactonresidentialburglary
bypushingawaypotentialburglar(s)fromthehighlyconcentratedareasbecause
theareawithdensestspotsofburglaralarmshavealmostno,ordefinitelyless
denseareas,NAIburglary.
[Figure8.4]OverlaiddensitymapsbetweenburglaralarmsandNAIresidentialburglary
inNewark,NJ,2004and2005
193
Asdiscussedabove,densitymaps,incomparisonwithpointmaps,allowfor
aneasierinterpretationofwherebothburglaralarmsandNAIburglarycluster.The
mapsalsomoreaccuratelyreflectthelocation,relativescale,andspatial
distributionofhighlyconcentratedareas,comparedwiththepointmaps.Thus,this
mappingmethodcanproducemoreaccurateresultswhenidentifyingthelocation
andorientationofareasofconcentration.
However,certainissueswithdensitycrimemappingareworthdiscussing.
Forexample,densitymapsareasmoothingtechnique,wherearesearchradius
determinesthelevelofsmoothing.Thiscanresultinthesevariablesbeing
smoothedoverandintoareaswherenoburglaralarmsand/orNAIburglaryhave
occurred,and,thus,exaggeratethedistributionofburglaralarmsandNAIburglary.
Inaddition,amapshowingthedistributionofdataasadensityestimation
canhaveavariousnumberofhighlyconcentratedareas,dependingontheranges
selectedbytheresearcher.ThesourceofthedataforbothburglaralarmsandNAI
burglaryremainthesame,butthenumberofhighlyconcentratedareascanvary.
Thus,suchspatiallyanalyticalmapsshouldbeincorporatedwithothervariables
(e.g.,demographic,socioeconomic,andhousingcharacteristics)atamicrolevelfor
moreaccurateandreliableanalyses.
Furthermore,thedegreesofthedensitylevelsforbothburglaralarmsand
NAIburglary,whichareillustratedbycolorbrightness,arebasedonrates,rather
thanactualcounts.Forexample,thetwodensestspotsofburglaralarmsandNAI
burglarydonotnecessarilyhavethesamenumberofpoints.Theactualnumberof
pointsinthedensestspotforburglaralarmsmayhavelargernumbers,orsmaller,
194
thanthatofNAIburglary.Thus,itisimportanttounderstandtheshortcomingsof
densitymaps.Atthesametime,itisnecessarytodostatisticaltestsonthe
distributionsofthosedenseareas,whichwillbeexaminedanddiscussedinthe
followingchapter.
III.
SpatialCharacteristicsofBurglarAlarmsandResidential
BurglariesBasedonCensusTracts
Intheabovesections,pointanddensitymapswerepresentedbypinpointingthe
addressesofburglaralarmsandNAIburglaryonacitymaptoviewspatial
distributionsandpatterns.Inthissection,thefocusisonspatialcharacteristicsof
thepatternsbetweenburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries.Theunitofanalysis
isthecensustract.Thereare90tractsinthecity,andalladdressesofresidential
burglaralarmrecordsandNAI/AIburglariesweregoecodedaccordingtothecensus
tracts.
Theprimarypurposeofthisanalysisistolinkthepreviousfindingsfromthe
correlationandregressionstatisticsinChapter7intoaspatialdimension.Suchan
approachisnecessaryandvaluableintwoways.First,itcanfurtherexaminethe
consistencyandreliabilityoftheearlyobservations,whicharebasedon
quantitativeanalyses.Severalvariablesshowedstatisticallysignificant
relationshipswithbothburglaralarmsandNAI/AIburglaries.Ifspatialanalyses
canbeincorporatedwiththesequantitativeanalyses,showingsimilarobservations
andfindings,theresearchdesignandanalyticalmethodbehindthisstudycanbe
foundmoretrustworthy,andtheresultsmorereliable.Forexample,inthemultiple
regressionanalysesinChapter7variableblackpopulationhasamoderateand
195
positivestatisticalrelationshipwithburglaralarms,whereasbothwhiteandothers
populationsmaintainthesamemoderatebutnegativesignificantrelationship.Thus,
dothoseobservationsdemonstratethesamepatterninthespatialdimensionas
well?Somevariablesalsodonothavestatisticallysignificantrelationshipsfor
burglaralarmsandNAI/AIburglaries,andthus,furtherargumentwith
quantitativelynonsignificantvariable(s)arenotneeded.Butanalysesof
quantitativelynonsignificantvariablesmaybesignificantfromaspatialapproach.
Suchanapproachmayillustratemeaningfulpatternsforburglaralarmsand
Second,thespatiallyanalyticalapproachcangivefurtherknowledgeand
insightintotherelationshipbetweenburglaralarmandburglarieswithvarious
explanatoryvariableswithinspatialdimensions.Aquantitativeapproachproduces
usefulandvaluableknowledge,asdiscussedinChapter7.Butitinvolvesmany
variousvaluesandnumbers,anditrequiresanintensivefocuson,andenough
backgroundof,thosevaluesandnumberstocorrectlyunderstandandinterpretthe
results.Inaddition,inmostcasesonlystatisticallysignificantvariablestendtobe
includedinananalyticalprocess.Thus,someimportantvariables,whichshowno
statisticalsignificance,wouldbeignored.Onthecontrary,aspatiallyanalytical
approachcanvisualizethedistributionandpatternonthemap,inasimpleand
clearway,toseeandunderstandrelevantvariablesbecauseitisstraightforward
andeasiertointerpretobservationsbeingdepictedonamap.
Fourcategoriesofindependentvariables(seeAppendix3)wereusedforthis
spatiallyanalyticalapproach.Asdiscussed,theinformationforthosevariableswas
196
retrievedfromtheU.S.Censusbasedonthe90censustractsinthecity.Then,this
informationwascombinedwiththedataofalladdressesofburglaralarmsand
NAI/AIburglaries,accordingtothe90censustracts,usingthejoinsandrelates
functionintheArcGISsoftware.
1.
SpatialCharacteristicsofResidentialBurglarAlarms
(1) Burglaralarmsanddemographiccomposition
Figure8.5presentscensustractmapsofgeneralpopulationratesbythreerace
categories(e.g.,white,black,andothers22)withresidentialburglaralarms(blue)
beingoverlaidfortheyear2005.Forbothcases,thedarkercolorsrepresenthigher
rates.Thesemapsshowthatthesepopulationracesarenotdistributedequally
throughoutthecity.White(mapA)andothers(mapC)populationsare
concentratedinthenortheasternandeasternpartsofthecity(darkerblack),
whereastheblackpopulation(mapB)asthelargestpopulationcategoryclusters
areinthewesternandsouthwesternneighborhoods.Furthermore,thehighly
concentratedareasofburglaralarms,asobservedinChapter7,arelocatedinthe
neighborhoodswheretheblackpopulationisdense.Ontheotherhand,thesespots
arelesslikelytoexistinareaswithwhiteandotherpopulations.Suchpatternsare
consistentfrom2001to2005.
Thisobservationimpliesthatneighborhoodswithahigherblackpopulation
tendtohavemoreburglaralarmsbeinginstalledthanneighborhoodswithahigher
22)OtherscategoryincludessuchracesasAmericanIndianandAlaskaNativealone,
Asianalone,NativeHawaiianandotherPacificIslanderalone,Someotherracealone,andtwoor
moreraces(U.S.Census2000).
197
numberofpeopleofotherraces.Atthesametime,itpresentssomecritical
questions.Doesitindicatethattheblackpopulationorblackdominant
neighborhoodshaveabettersocioeconomicstatustoaffordburglaralarmsystems
thanotherracialpopulations?Ordotheyhaveaworseburglaryproblemthanthe
whiteandotherpopulationgroups,sotheyhaveagreaterneedforburglaralarms
toprotecttheirproperties?
198
burglaralarmsinNewark,NJ,2005
199
Itisnotclear,however,whetherthoughanexplicitspatialpatternof
residentialburglaralarmsexistsaccordingtodifferentpopulationraces
populationraceistheonlyfactortoexplainthispattern.Therecouldbeother
factorstoexplainthepattern,anditisnecessarytoexaminethem.Oneapproachto
examinethespatialpatternsofburglaralarmsandpopulationracewithrelated
variablesistooverlayothercensustractinformation(e.g.,ratesofNAIburglaryand
unemployment)onthemap.
(2) Burglaralarmsandgeneralpopulationagecomposition
Withinthepopulation,10differentgroupsandmedianagevariableswerecreated
(seeAppendix3).Amongthem,onlysuchthreeagegroupsagesbelow14,ages
between15and17,andagesover75showsporadicstatisticalrelationshipsover
thefiveyearperiod.Itispossibletoaggregatethefirsttwoagegroupsintoone
variable,agesbelow17,becausetheysharesomestatisticalsignificance.
Figure8.6illustratesthecensustractmapsofseveralagegroups.Forages
below14yearsold(mapA)andagesbelow17yearsold(mapB),thecensustracts
inthewesternandcentralpartsofthecityhaveahighernumberofthese
populationgroups.Thesetractsmatchwiththehighlyconcentratedareasof
burglaralarminstallations,implyingthattheneighborhoodswithahigher
proportionoftheyoungerpopulationinparticular,agesbelow17yearsoldare
morelikelytohaveburglaralarmsystemsinstalled,inlinewiththeresultsfromthe
correlationstatistics(seeAppendix4).Theregressionstatisticsshowthatthe
overallrelationshipbetweenburglaralarmsandthepopulationgroupunder14
yearsoldismoderateandpositive,indicatingthatastheinstallationrateofburglar
alarmsincreases,sodoesthenumberofthepopulationunder14yearsold.The
resultscanbeexplainedasparentsofyoungchildrenbeingconcernedwithsafety
andsecurityissuesintheirneighborhoodsandbeingwillingtopayforburglar
alarmstoprotectandsecuretheenvironment.
200
201
[Figure8.6]Censustractmapsforthepopulationagegroupswithdensitymapsof
202
Italsomaybemeaningfultoexaminethepatternsofthepopulationage
groupsfrom25to34(mapC)andover45(mapD).Theassumptionfortwoage
groupsisthatbecausethepopulationagegroupbelow17iscloselyrelatedto
burglaralarminstallations,theagegroupof25to34maynotberelatedtothe
patternofalarminstallationbecause,byandlarge,thisparticularpopulationgroup
tendstoliveindependentfromtheirparentsandnothavetheirownchildren.On
theotherhand,thepopulationagegroupover45tendstoformtheirownfamily
withchildrenandbemoreattachedtotheyoungerpopulationagegroup.Thus,it
mightbeassumedthatburglaralarminstallationislinkedtotheneighborhoods
withalowerdensityoftheyoungerpopulationgroupbetween25and34yearold
andahigherdensityforthemiddleagepopulationover45.Thethirdandfourth
203
mapsinFigure8.6supportthisargument,showingthatthepatternofalarm
distributionintheneighborhoodsiscloselyconnectedtothedistributionofthe
differentpopulationagegroups.
Onthecontrary,themapfortheagegroupover75(mapE)showsthe
oppositepatternofdistributiontotheagegroupsbelow14andbetween15and17.
Thecorrelationcoefficientanddirectionoftherelationshipforthepopulationage
groupover75arerelativelyweakandnegative,indicatingthatastheresidentsover
75inaneighborhoodincrease,theinstallationrateofburglaralarmsdecreases.
(3) Burglaralarmsandsocioeconomiccomposition
Amongthethreevariablesinthesocioeconomiccategory(e.g.,medianincome,
unemployment,andpovertylevel),onlyunemploymentdemonstratesasporadic
statisticalsignificancewithburglaralarmsinthecorrelationstatistics(see
Appendix4).Thoughtheothertwovariablesdonothavestatisticalrelationships,it
maybemeaningfultoexaminetheirpatternsinthecensustracts.
Figure8.7presentscensustractmapsforthesocioeconomicvariables,
includingthevariablepovertylevelinhouseholders,withdensitymapsofburglar
alarms.Censustractswithhigherunemploymentrates(mapA)arelocatedinthe
northeasternandcentralpartsofthecity,whereaslowerunemploymentratesare
inthewesternandcentraleasternpartsofthecity.Adefinitivepatternbetweenthe
installationofburglaralarmsandunemploymentincensustractscannotbe
determined,butthecensustractswithhigherratesofalarminstallationdocluster
inandaroundthecensustractswitharelativelylowerunemploymentrate.A
clearerpatternbetweenmedianincome(mapB)inthepopulationandalarm
204
installationexists,indicatingthatneighborhoodswithahighermedianincometend
tohaveahigherrateofalarminstallation,whereasalowermedianincome(e.g.,in
thecentralandnorthernpartsofthecity)hasthelowestrateofalarminstallation.
[Figure8.7]Censustractmapsofsocioeconomiccharacteristicswithdensitymapsof
205
Furthermore,Figure8.7displaysspatialpatternsbetweenburglaralarms
andpovertylevelsamongthegeneralpopulation(mapC)andhouseholders(map
D).Thedistributionpatternsofthepovertylevelsofboththepopulationand
householdersaresimilarwithrelativelyhigherlevelsinmanyofthecentralpartsof
thecity.Thesemapsshowthatthecensustractswithcomparativelyhigher
populationandnumberofhouseholderslivingbelowthepovertyleveltendtohave
ahigherrateofalarminstallation.Thisisanunexpectedobservationbecause,first
ofall,theresidentslivinginhigherunemploymentneighborhoodsmaynotbeable
toaffordtobuyburglaralarmsystems,and,second,unemploymentconditionsmay
keepadultfamilymembersintheirhouseslonger,producingextendedoccupant
hoursforthehouses.Inshort,thisobservationindicatesthattheneighborhoods
withhigherunemploymentratesdonotnecessarilyhavefewerresidentialburglar
alarmsinstalled.Moreanalyseswithothersocioeconomicfactorsareneededto
explainandverifytheseresults.
(4) Burglaralarmsandhouseholdersraceandagecomposition
Thevariablehouseholdersbyraceisoneofthehousingcharacteristiccategories
withastatisticallymoderateandsignificantrelationshipwithburglaralarmswhen
usingcorrelationstatistics.Butthedirectionofthesestatisticalrelationshipsis
positiveoneforblackhouseholderandnegativeforwhiteandothers
householders.
MapsA,B,andCinFigure8.8displayanexplicitpatternbetweenburglar
alarmsandhouseholdersbyraceonthecensustractlevel.Thecensustractswith
white(mapA)andothers(mapC)householdersarepredominantlylocatedinthe
206
northeasternandsomeeasternpartsofthecity,whereasblackhouseholders(map
B)predominantlyresideinthewesterncentralpartofthecity.Theneighborhoods
withhigherproportionsofwhiteorothershouseholderstendtohavefewer
residentialburglaralarmsthanthoseofblackhouseholders.Thispatternis
intriguingbecauseitbecomesmoreconcretewhencomparedwiththecensustract
mapsbetweenburglaralarmsandtheraceofthegeneralpopulationinFigure8.5,
implyingthatblackhouseholdersinthecitytendtohavemoreburglaralarmsbeing
installedintheirhouses.
Inaddition,mapDinFigure8.8illustratesthecensustractmapof
householdersintheagegroupfrom25to34withadensitymapofburglaralarms.
Amongtheeighthouseholdersagegroups,onlytheages25to34variablehas
intermittentsignificancedependingontheyear,butalsosignificantintheoverall
timeperiodfrom2001to2005,withamoderateandpositiverelationshipusing
correlationstatistics(seeAppendix4).Comparedwiththemapforthepopulation
agegroupfrom25to34inTable8.6,whichdisplaysthatthepatternofpopulation
distributionofthisagegroup,thecensusmapofthehouseholdersagegroupfrom
25to34,exceptinthecentralpartofthecity,doesnotshowaclearpattern.
However,thecensustractswitharelativelyhigherrateofhouseholdersintheage
groupfrom25to34resideinsectionsinthenortheastern,central,eastern,and
westernpartsofthecity,correspondingtoareaswithhigherratesofalarm
installation.Thus,youngerhouseholderstendtohavemoreburglaralarmsbeing
installed.
207
208
(5) Burglaralarmsandhousingcharacteristiccomposition
Twocorevariablesinhousingcharacteristiccompositionarehouseoccupancyand
owneroccupancy.MapsAandBinFigure8.9displaycensustractmapsofhouse
occupancyandvacancy.Thewestern,northern,andeasternpartsofthecity
maintainhigherratesofhousingoccupancythanthecentralandsouthwesternparts.
Atfirstglance,intractswherehousesareoccupied,itseemsthatthehouseshave
fewerburglaralarmsthaninareaswithmorevacanthouses.Inaddition,mapsC
andDshowthatthewestern,southwestern,andnorthernpartsofthecityhave
relativelyhigherratesofowneroccupancywithmoreburglaralarmsbeinginstalled.
However,thesemapsinFigure8.9donotillustrateaclearpatternbetween
residentialburglaralarmsandthestatusofhouseoccupancyandowneroccupancy,
indicatingthatthesetwovariablesarenotsubstantialfactorsindecidingtoinstalla
burglaralarm.Otherfactorsmaybemoreplausibleinexplainingtheinstallation
patternofresidentialburglaralarms.
209
[Figure8.9]Censustractmapsofhousingcharacteristicswithdensitymapsofburglar
alarmsinNewark,NJ,2005
2.
210
SpatialCharacteristicsofNAIResidentialBurglary
(1) NAIresidentialburglaryanddemographiccomposition
Asdiscussedbefore,thedenseareasofNAIburglaryarespreadacrossthecity.
Figure8.10presentsthemapofthoseareassuperimposedoncensustractsofthe
population.Thesamecensustractmapsareusedastheywerefortheanalysesof
burglaralarms.Aclearpatternisobservedbetweentwopopulationgroups:black
(mapB)andwhiteandothers(mapsAandC).Censustractswithhigherblack
populationasthenumberonepopulationcategoryshareamorehighly
concentratedrateofNAIburglarythanthosewithwhiteandotherspopulation.
Thisobservationisfairlysimilartothepatternofburglaralarms,indicatingthatthe
distributionofburglaralarmsandNAIburglaryarecloselylinkedtothedistribution
ofraceamongthepopulation.
Combiningtheinformation,blackdominantneighborhoods,comparatively,
havemorehighlyconcentratedspotsofburglaralarmsandburglary,explaininga
causalrelationshipbetweenalarminstallationandNAIburglary.Asdiscussedin
Chapter7,thequantitativeanalysescouldnotexplainwhichoneofthemmight
causetheothertohappen,butspatialapproachesshowthatcensustracts
dominatedbyblackpopulationshavemoreburglaralarmsinstalledandNAI
burglary.Undersuchcircumstances,itcouldbeassumedthatthehigherinstallation
rateofburglaralarmsmightcausemoreNAIburglaryincidents.However,itis
morereasonabletopresumethathigherNAIburglaryratemayurgeresidentsin
certainneighborhoodstoinstallmoreburglaralarms.Thus,foracausalargument,a
211
higherNAIburglaryratemayprecedeburglaralarminstallation.Butfurther
analysesarenecessarytoverifythisargument.
NAIburglaryinNewark,NJ,2005
212
(2) NAIresidentialburglaryandgeneralpopulationagecomposition
Intheabovesection,residentialburglaralarmsshowedaclearpatternin
relationshiptothegeneralpopulationagegroups.AsFigure8.11illustrates,an
explicitpatternexistsbetweenNAIburglaryandthedistributionofthegeneral
populationaccordingtocensustract.Forexample,mapAshowsthatcensustracts
withahigherdensityofthepopulationbelow14yearsoldcoincidewithmany
highlyconcentratedareasofNAIburglary,thoughthosespotsarespreadacrossthe
city.However,theremainingthreemapsB,C,andDdonothaveaclearpattern.
Thusitcanonlybeconfidentlyarguedthatthepopulationagegroupbelow14years
oldisstronglyrelatedtothedistributionsofNAIburglary.
However,scrutinizingthedataleadstoaninterestingobservation.One
commonpatternisfoundamongthefourmapsinFigure8.11;almostallcensus
tractswithwhitecolors,whichrepresentthelowestdegreeofgeneralpopulation
density,donotoverlapthemosthighlyconcentratedspotsofNAIburglary.For
instance,thecentraleasternsectioninmapAcontainingdatafromagesbelow14,
thecentralsectioninmapBofages25to34,theuppereasternsectioninmapCof
agesover45,andtheuppereasternandsouthernsectionsinmapDofagesover75
donotsharehighlydensespotsofNAIburglary.
213
[Figure8.11]CensustractmapsofpopulationagegroupswithdensitymapsofNAI
burglaryinNewark,NJ,2005
214
Thisobservationimpliestwopoints.First,asdiscussedinChapter7and
showninFigure8.11,bothNAIburglaryandtheagegroupsofthegeneral
populationarenotdistributedevenlythroughoutthecity,generatinganobvious
patternofdistribution,whichrelatestounderlyingsocioeconomicconditionsinthe
neighborhoods.Second,thedistributionsofbothNAIburglaryandtheagegroups
ofthegeneralpopulationhaveastronglylinkedpattern,suggestingthatNAI
burglaryismorelikelytobeassociatedwithyoungerpopulationagegroups,in
particularbelow14yearsold,andthatNAIburglaryisdefinitelylesslikelyto
correlatewiththinlypopulatedneighborhoodsbeyondanydistinctiveagegroups.
Thus,connectingthosearguments,thedatademonstratethatresidentialburglaryis,
toalargeextent,relatedtothedistributionofthegeneralpopulationandassociated
withayoungerpopulation.
(3) NAIresidentialburglaryandsocioeconomiccomposition
Intheabovesection,thespatialpatternbetweenburglaralarmsandfoursocio
economicvariableswasdiscussed.Thesamevariablesareusedtoexaminepossible
relationshipswiththespatialdistributionforNAIburglary.Figure8.12illustrates
censustractmapsofsocioeconomicvariablesoverlaidwithNAIburglary.Atfirst
glance,noexplicitpatternsappear.Forexample,NAIburglarydoesnothavean
obviouspatternwiththeunemploymentrate(mapsA)onthecensustractlevel
oneofthereasonsbeingthatdensespotsofNAIburglaryarespreadacrossthecity.
Unlessindependentvariables(e.g.,unemployment,medianincome,andpoverty
levels)maintainovertandconsistentpatternsinthespatialdimension,itisnoteasy
tofindandconfidentlyarguethataspatialrelationshipbetweenthosevariables
215
exists.However,Figure8.12showssomeinsightintothisrelationship.Regarding
theunemploymentrateinmapA,severalhighlydensespotsaresuperimposedwith
areasofNAIburglary,thoughitisnotthecaseinthewesternsectionofthecity.
ThemedianincomeinmapBhasanexplicitpatternwiththedistributionof
NAIburglary.Thecentralsectionandsomeofthenorthernpartsofthecityhavea
lowerlevelmedianincome,whereasmostotherpartsofthecitymaintaina
relativelyhigherlevelmedianincome.Thisobservationisreliablewhencompared
withmapAbecausethelevelsofunemploymentandmedianincomeare
presupposedtobeopposite,meaningthatthehighertheunemploymentrate,the
lowerthemedianincomelevel.Thewesternsectionofthecity,inparticular,
illustratesthisrelationship.Thus,mapBclearlyshowsthatmedianincomeis
associatedwithNAIburglaryinthatthedensestspotsofNAIburglaryresideinand
aroundthecensustractswithrelativelyhighermedianincome,whereasmost
censustractswithlowermedianincomeinthecentralandnorthernpartsofthecity
donotcoincidewithNAIburglary.
Povertylevelsbothinthegeneralpopulation(mapC)andamong
householders(mapD)haveasimilarpatterninthatmostofthecentralsection
maintainsacomparativelyhigherlevel.Furthermore,censustractsinthisareaare
closelyassociatedwithhighlevelsofNAIburglary.Ontheotherhand,lowerlevels
ofpovertyinthepopulationandamonghouseholdersislesslikelytoberelatedto
NAIburglary.
Linkingtheseobservations,socioeconomicconditionsdemonstratean
explicitpatternthatneighborhoodswithhigherlevelsofunemploymenttendto
216
havealowerlevelmedianincomeandhigherlevelsofpovertyinthepopulation
andamonghouseholders.Thecentralsectionofthecityillustratesthispatternon
allfourmaps,indicatingthatNAIburglaryisgreatlyaffectedbysocioeconomic
conditions.
[Figure8.12]CensustractmapsofsocioeconomicconditionswithdensitymapsofNAI
burglaryinNewark,NJ,2005
217
(4) NAIresidentialburglaryandhouseholdersraceandagecompositions
ThedistributionsofhouseholdersbyraceinFigure8.13aresimilartothoseofthe
generalpopulationinFigure8.11,illustratingthatcensustractswithwhite(mapA)
andotherrace(mapC)householdersprimarilyresideintheeasternandnorthern
sectionsofthecity,whereasthosewithblackhouseholders(mapB)are
predominantlylocatedinthewesternandcentralsectionsofthecity.Someareas
dominatedbywhiteandotherhavedensespotsofNAIburglary,butmostareas
withhighlevelsofNAIburglaryoverlapwithneighborhoodswithhigh
concentrationsofblack.Thepatternindicatesthattheneighborhoodsdominated
byblackaremorelikelytobevictimizedbyresidentialburglarythan
neighborhoodsdominatedbywhiteandothers.
Thisobservationcanlinkthecausalrelationshipbetweenburglaralarmsand
NAIburglarywiththepatternofthegeneralpopulationbyrace.Asdiscussedwith
quantitativestatisticsinChapter7,astatisticallysignificantcorrelationbetweenthe
increaseofburglaralarmsandthedecreaseofNAIburglaryexisted,buttheorderof
causalitywasunclear.Spatialanalysescanincorporatethoseobservationstoobtain
abetterexplanationandunderstandingofthisissue.Theneighborhoodswith
denseNAIburglaryalsotendtohaveahigherrateofburglaralarms,butthe
numberofNAIburglariesbeginsdecreasing.Althoughtheneighborhoods
dominatedbyblackpopulationandhouseholdersenjoydecliningresidential
burglaryovertheyearsalongwiththeotherneighborhoods,thoseneighborhoods
stillhavecomparativelyhigherratesofresidentialburglary.Consequently,theyare
morelikelytoinstallburglaralarmsthanneighborhoodswiththepopulationand
218
householdersdominatedbywhiteandothers.Ontheotherhand,neighborhoods
withwhiteandotherspopulationandhouseholdershaverelativelylowerratesof
NAIburglary,whichmaydirectlyconnecttothelowerrateofinstallationofburglar
alarms.But,theresultsarenotconclusive.
NAIburglaryinNewark,NJ,2005
219
(5) NAIresidentialburglaryandhousingcharacteristiccomposition
MapsAandBinFigure8.14presentthedistributionofhouseoccupancywithNAI
burglary.Thewestern,eastern,andnorthernpartsofthecityhavedenseratesof
housingoccupancy(mapA),whereasthecentralwestandsouthwesternsections
showrelativelydenseratesofhousingvacancy(mapB).Aclearpatternisnot
conclusive,butmanyofthedensestspotsofNAIburglaryexistingalongthecentral
westlineofthecityinmapBsharethesamespatialdimensionswithtractshaving
highervacancyrates.
Inaddition,mapsCandDillustratethattheneighborhoodswithrelatively
higherratesofhouseoccupancybyowners,inparticularinthewesternand
southwesternsectionsofthecity,tendtohavemoreNAIburglarythanother
neighborhoods.Theexistenceofanexplicitpatterncannotbeconclusivelyargued.
220
[Figure8.14]Censustractmapsofhousingcharacteristicscompositionwithdensity
mapsofNAIburglaryinNewark,NJ,2005
IV.
221
ChapterConclusion
SpatiallydescriptiveanalyseswereconductedtoexamineResearchQuestion4with
twoprimaryfocuses:(1)toexaminethespatialdistributionsandpatternsofboth
burglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries;and(2)toverifythefindingsbasedon
quantitativeanalysespresentedinChapter7.Alladdressesofburglaralarmsand
residentialburglariesweregeocodedforthepurposeofmapprojectiononastreet
linecitymapusingGIScomputerprogram.Severalspatialstatisticaltechniques
(e.g.,pointmaps,densitymaps,andoverlayingmapswithindependentvariables)
wereusedtoexaminethespatialrelationshipsofburglaralarmsandresidential
burglarieswithotherselectivedemographic,socioeconomic,andhousing
characteristicvariablesbyincorporatingwithandoverlayingoverthecensustract
basedmaps.
First,pointanddensitymappingmethodswereusedasamacrolevel
approach.Thepointmappingapproachbypinpointingalleventsontoacitymap
illustratedsomeindicationofisolatedpatternsbetweenburglaralarmsand
residentialburglaries,butdidnotdemonstrateclearspatialpatternovertheyears.
Ontheotherhand,thedensitymappingapproachbycreatingasmoothcontinuous
surfacetorepresentthedensityorvolumeoftheeventsdistributedacrossthecity
clearlyvisualizedseveralgraduallyconcentratedareasofbothburglaralarmsand
NAIresidentialburglary,showingthatthepatternsofburglaralarmsinstallations
andresidentialburglaryincidentswerenotevenlydistributedthroughoutthecity.
Thoughmanyofstreetsandcityblockshadburglaralarmsinstalledandwere
affectedbyresidentialburglaries,certainareasorneighborhoodsobviouslyexisted
222
witheithermoreburglaralarmsormoreburglaryincidents.Suchpatterns
occurreddependentuponneighborhoodsconditions,suchasdemographic,socio
economic,andhousingcharacteristics.
Inaddition,superimposeddensitymapsbetweenburglaralarmsandNAI
burglaryplainlydemonstratedthatinmostpartsofthecity,theheavilydensespots
ofbothburglaralarmsandNAIburglarydidnotoverlap,showingthatstreetblocks
orsmallsectorsofthecitywithhighinstallationratesofburglaralarmshadlessNAI
burglaryincidents,whereasstreetsegmentsorsomesectorswithhigherresidential
incidentshadlessburglaralarmsinstalled.Thesemappinganalysesindicatedthat
theinstallationpatternofresidentialburglaralarmsshowedsomepositiveimpact
onresidentialburglarybypushingawaypotentialburglar(s)fromthehighly
concentratedareasofburglaralarms.
Anoverlayingmappingmethodwasused:(1)toexaminespatial
characteristicsofbothburglaralarmsandresidentialburglarieswithsome
independentvariables(e.g.,populationraceandagegroup,unemployment,median
income,householdersraceandagegroup,houseoccupancy,andowneroccupancy);
and(2)toexaminetheconsistencyandreliabilityoftheearlyquantitative
observationsbylinkingthemtocensustractmappinganalyses.Regardingthe
spatialinstallationpatternofresidentialburglaralarms,neighborhoodswitha
higherblackpopulationhadmoreburglaralarmshadmoreburglaralarmsbeing
installedthanneighborhoodswithahighernumberofpeopleofotherraces.
Neighborhoodswithahigherproportionoftheyoungerpopulationagesbelow
17hadmoreburglaralarmsinstalledbecauseofitsparentsconcernofsafety.
223
Neighborhoodswithgreaterburglaralarmsdidclusterinandaroundthe
neighborhoodswitharelativelylowerunemploymentrate,whileneighborhoods
withahighermedianincomelevelhadmoreburglaralarmsthanthoseofalower
medianincome.Furthermore,neighborhoodswithhigherproportionofwhiteor
othershouseholdershadlessburglaralarmsinstalledthanthoseofblack
householders.
WithregardtothepatternofNAIburglary,neighborhoodswitharelatively
higherblackpopulationsharedamorehighlyconcentratedrateofNAIburglary
thanthosewithawhiteandotherspopulation.Inshort,blackdominant
neighborhoodshadmorehighlyconcentratedspotsofburglaralarmsand
residentialburglary.Neighborhoodswithahighlydensityofthepopulationbelow
14yearsoldcoincidedwithmanyhighlyconcentratedareasofNAIburglary,
showingthatNAIburglarywas,thoughnotapersonalcrime,toalargeextent,
relatedtothedistributionofthegeneralpopulationandassociatedwithayounger
population.Neighborhoodswithhigherlevelsofunemploymenthadalowerlevel
medianincomeandhigherlevelsofpovertyinthegeneralpopulationandamong
householders,showingthatNAIburglarywasgreatlyaffectedbysocioeconomic
conditionsintheneighborhoods.Inshort,thesedescriptivespatialanalyses
generallyconfirmedmostoftheearlierfindingsbasedonquantitativestatisticsin
Chapter7.
Inthenextchapter,spatialimpactanalysesofbothburglaralarmsand
residentialburglarieswillbeconductedanddiscussedtoanswerResearchQuestion
5,whichprimarilyfocusesonspatialimpact.UsingGISprogram,somesimple
224
spatialstatistics(e.g.,spatialcentralityandspatialdispersionanalyses)and
advancedspatialstatistics(e.g.,spatialautocorrelationanalysesandspatial
clusteringanalyses)forburglaralarmsandresidentialburglarieswillbeemployed.
CHAPTER9.SPATIALANALYSESOFTHEIMPACTOFBURGLARALARMSON
I.
Introduction
InChapter7,theanalysesanddiscussionsfocusedonquantitativestatisticsto
examinetherelationshipbetweenburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries.In
Chapter8,thedescriptivespatialanalysesexaminedthedistributionandpatternof
burglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesinconjunctionwithquantitativeanalyses.
Inparticular,thecombineddescriptivespatialapproachwithquantitativestatistics
inthepresentstudyisanadvancedmethodinthesensethatresearchonburglary
previouslyhaslackedaunifiedanalysisusingboththesemethods.
AsdiscussedandobservedinChapter8,inmanycasesproducingand
presentingamapportrayingtherelevantvariablescanbeenoughtogetthe
answerstotheresearchquestions.Butexaminingaseriesofmapsandtryingto
drawconclusionsfromthosemapsarenotalwayseasy,particularlywhentheyare
basedonadescriptiveapproach.Oneshortcomingofsuchdescriptivespatial
analysesisthattheydonotprovidestatisticalscrutiny.Thus,conductinga
geographicanalysisusingspatialstatisticsisimperative.Thisstatisticalapproach
onaspatialdimensioncanproducemorereliableandvalidconclusions.Research
Question5withtheemphasisonspatialimpactanalysesofbothburglaralarmsand
residentialburglariesisdirectlyrelatedtothischapter.
Withthisinmind,thischapterfocusesongeographicanalysisusingspatially
statisticalapproachestodeterminetheimpactofresidentialburglaralarmson
residentialburglaryandviceversa.Thetwoprimaryquestionsrelatedtothis
225
CHAPTER9.SPATIALANALYSESOFTHEIMPACTOFBURGLARALARMSONRESIDENTIALBURGLARIES
226
analysisare:(1)Howarethefeaturesofresidentialburglaralarmsandburglaries
distributedinaspatialdimension;and(2)Wherearetheclusters?Answeringthese
questionsinvolvesfindingclustersofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesto
examinethecauseofclusters,todeterminewhetherthosefeaturesoccurtogether
andtomeasurethestrengthoftherelationship.Byidentifyingarelationship,itmay
bepossibletopredictwherethesefeatureswilloccur.Severalspatiallyanalytical
toolsareemployed.
II.
SpatialCentrographicAnalysesforBurglarAlarmsandResidential
Burglaries
Geographicstatisticscanunveilthedistributionandcharacteristicsoffeatures(e.g.,
burglaralarms,nonalarminstalled(NAI)residentialburglary,andalarminstalled
(AI)residentialburglary),suchastheirgeographiccenters,theextenttowhichthe
featuresareclusteredordispersedaroundthecenter,orwhetherthefeaturestrend
inaparticulardirection.Theprimarypurposeofusingthisspatialcentrographic
approachistoexamineagraphicrepresentationanddispersionofbothburglar
alarmsandNAI/AIburglaries.
1.
MeasuresofSpatialCentralityforBurglarAlarmsandResidentialBurglaries
Findingthegeographiccenterofagroupoffeaturesisusefulfortrackingchangein
thedistribution.Threemeasuresofsuchacenterareused:meancenter,median
center,andcentralfeature.Theunderlyingconceptsandassumptionsofthese
featuresarequitesimilartothoseinquantitativestatistics(e.g.,mean,mode,and
median).Forexample,themeancenteristheaveragexcoordinateandy
227
coordinateofallthefeaturesintheregionthisstudycovers.Themediancenteris
thelocationthathastheshortesttotaldistancetoallfeaturesinthestudyarea,
beingcalculatedusingthestraightlinedistancefromthexcoordinateandy
coordinate.Thecentralfeatureisthefeaturethatistheshortesttotaldistancefrom
allotherfeatures(Mitchell,2005).Amongthesethree,themeancenter,which
representsthemostcentrallylocatedfeature,isprimarilyused.
Asobservedanddiscussedinthepreviouschapter,thedistributionof
residentialburglaralarmsandNAIburglarywerespreadthroughoutthecity,
thoughmanyhighlyconcentratedspotsexisted,andwereunevenlylocated,inthe
city.Inadditiontotheseconcentratedareas,italsoisworthwhiletomapthespatial
pointsofrepresentationofallspotsforburglaralarmsandNAI/AIburglaries.
Figure9.1showsthegeographicmeancentersofburglaralarmsandNAI/AI
burglaries.MapsAandBillustratethatthemeancentersofresidentialburglar
alarmsarelocatedtotheleftofthemeancentersofNAIburglary,whichresidein
thecenterofthecity.MapCputsthesemeancenterstogether,showingthateach
spatialmeancenterforbothburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaryisclosely
clusteredinoneproximategeographicareawithintwodistinctivepartsofthecity.
ThemeancenterforAIburglaryisnearthemeancentersofresidentialburglar
alarms.
228
[Figure9.1]Meancentersofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesannuallyin
Newark,NJ
229
Thedistributionofmeancentersisareflectionoftheoveralldistributionof
burglaralarmsandNAI/AIburglaries.AsdiscussedinChapter8,theareaswith
moreburglaralarmsweremorelikelytobelocatedinthewesternandcentral
sectionsofthecity,whereasthoseofNAIburglaryresidedinthesamesectionsof
thecity,aswellasintheeasternsectionofthecity(seeFigure8.3).Thispattern
pushesthemeancentersforNAIburglarytowardtheeasternboundaryofthecity,
awayfromthoseofburglaralarms,indicatingthatthedistributivepatternof
burglaralarmstendstobeclusteredmoregeographicallythanthatofNAIburglary,
whichislessclustered,ormorespatiallydispersed,throughoutthecity.Inother
words,thecityitselfis,toalargeextent,affectedbyresidentialburglary,whilesome
certainsectionsofthecityareinfluencedbyburglaralarms.Inparticular,some
easternpartsofthecitydefinitelyhavefewerburglaralarmsinstalledthanother
sectionsofthecitywithsimilarlevelsofNAIburglary(seeFigure8.3).
Itshouldbenotedthat,likewithanyquantitativestatistic,oneormore
outlierscanskewthemeancenterormediancenter.Anoutliermaybeafeature
thatislocatedincorrectlyespeciallyifthestreetaddresswasincorrectlygeocoded.
Furthermore,multipleeventsatasinglelocationarestoredasindividualfeaturesin
thegeographicinformationsystem(GIS)database.
2.
MeasuresofSpatialDispersionforBurglarAlarmsandResidentialBurglaries
Measuringthecompactnessofdistributionprovidesasinglevaluerepresentingthe
dispersionoffeaturesaroundageographiccenter.Therearetwomeasuresfor
spatialcompactnessofanydistribution:standarddistancedeviationandstandard
deviationalellipse.Standarddistancedeviationisthespatialequivalentofthe
230
standarddeviation,astatisticmainlyemployedtodescribethedispersalofvalues
aroundthemean.Thedifferenceliesinthatthestandarddistancedeviationisa
distance,sothecompactnesscanberepresentedonamapbydrawingacirclewith
theradiusequaltothevalue.Thevaluecanbeusedtocomparetwoormore
distributionsortocomparethesametypeoffeatureoverdifferenttimeperiods(e.g.,
daytimeandnighttimeburglaries).Thestandarddistancedeviationvalueis
expressedintheunitsinwhichthefeaturesarerepresented.Thegreaterthe
standarddistancevalue,thegreaterthedistancevariesfromtheaverage,andthe
morewidelydispersedthefeaturesarearoundthecenter(ChaineyandRatcliffe,
2005;Mitchell,2005).
Ontheotherhand,thestandarddeviationalellipsemeasurestheorientation
anddirectionofspatialcompactness.Itcanbethoughtofasadirectionalequivalent
ofthestandarddistance.Theellipsemeasuresthestandarddeviationofthe
featuresfromthemeancenteronthexcoordinatesandtheycoordinates
individually.Anellipsecanbedrawnusingtwo,ormore,standarddeviations.An
ellipsecalculatedusingonestandarddeviationshowswherefeaturesare
concentrated.Anellipsecalculatedusingtwoormorestandarddeviationsshows
wheremostofthefeaturesoccur(Mitchell,2005).
Thus,thestandarddeviationalellipseprovidesanaccurateexaminationif
thedistributionoffeaturesiselongated,andhencehasaparticularorientation.It
givesamoreaccuratepicturethanusingthestandarddistancecirclebecausethe
resultisbasedonastatisticalcalculationratherthanavisualinterpretationofmap
output.Theinformationalsocanbeusedincomparingthedistributionsof
231
categoriesoffeaturesandforcomparingasinglefeatureatdifferenttimes(Chainey
andRatcliffe,2005).Thesetwoanalyticaltoolscanbeincorporatedinconjunction
withthemeancenters.
MapsAandBinFigure9.2presentthestandarddistancedeviationsand
standarddeviationalellipseofburglaralarms(red)andNAIburglary(blue),
togetherwiththemeancenters.Boththestandarddistancesandellipsessharethe
samespatialpointasmeancentersanduseonestandarddeviationdistancefrom
themean,whichcontainsabout68percentoftheaddressesofbothburglaralarms
andNAIburglary.Thestandarddistancedeviationcircleofburglaralarmsislarger
thanthatofNAIburglary,showingthatthedistributionofburglaralarmstendsto
bemoredispersedfromthemeancenterthanresidentialburglaryandindicating
thatanequalmeasureofthestandarddistancefromthemeancenterforallburglar
alarmpointsislongerandlessconcentratedthanNAIburglary,despitethefactthat
theoverallgeographicareacoveredbythedensestdistributionsofburglaralarmsis
smallerthanthatofNAIburglary(seeFigure8.1andFigure8.3).Ontheotherhand,
thedistributionofNAIburglaryseemstobemoreclusteredaroundthemeancenter
incomparisonwiththewiderdistributionofburglaralarms,implyingthatthe
measureofthestandarddistanceforNAIburglaryisshorterthanthatofburglar
alarms.
RegardingthestandarddeviationalellipseinFigure9.2,bothellipsesfor
burglaralarmsandNAIburglary(mapC)showanexplicitorientation,bothbeing
incliningtowardtheeastbecausebothdistributionsforburglaralarmsandNAI
burglaryinthecityhavedenseareastowardtheuppernortheasternandlower
232
southwesternsections(seeFigure8.3),whichelongatethestandarddeviation
distancesintothecurrentshapes.
Butthoughtheellipseshavethesameorientation,thesizesaredifferent.For
example,mapC,whichoverlaysburglaralarmsandNAIburglarydatafromFigure
9.2,illustratesthattheellipseshapeforburglaralarms(red)isathinnerovalthan
thatofNAIburglary(blue).Thisobservationindicatesthatwhilemanydenseareas
ofburglaralarmsresideinthewesternsectionofthecity,NAIburglaryhasdense
areasofdistributionsinthesamewesternsection,butalsointheeasternsectionof
thecity(seeFigure8.3).Inotherwords,thedistributionofNAIburglaryiswider
spreadthanthatofburglaralarms.Itstretchestheovalshapeofthestandard
deviationalellipseforNAIburglarywidertowardthewesternandeastern
boundariesofthecitythanburglaralarms.
MapDoverlaysthestandarddeviationalellipseforAIburglaryonthe
ellipsesforburglaralarmsandNAIburglary,togetherwiththemeancenters.The
orientationofthethreefeaturesisfairlysimilar,andthesizeforAIburglaryis
matchestheothertwofeatures.Thesimilarpatterncanbeexplainedmainlybythe
distributionofAIburglarybeingbaseduponthoseofNAIburglary.
Figure9.2clearlydemonstratesthatthestandarddeviationalellipseismore
sensitivetothegeographicdistributionsofburglaralarmsandresidential
burglariesthanthestandarddistancedeviation.Thus,itsmeasuresprovidebetter
informationandunderstandingaboutgeographicdistributionsandpatternsof
thesefeatures.
233
[Figure9.2]Standarddistancedeviation,standarddeviationalellipse,andmeancenter
ofburglaralarmsandNAI/AIburglariesinNewark,NJ,2005
234
Butsomeoftheseobservationscontradictthefactualobservationsfromthe
previouschapter(seeFigure8.3).Thenumberofdenseareasofburglaralarmsin
thecityarefewerthanthatofNAIburglaryandcoversmallergeographicsectionsof
thecity,inparticular,inthewesternsectionofthecity.Atthesametime,theareas
ofNAIburglaryarespreadmorewidelythroughoutthecitybecause,itcanbe
assumed,asmallergeographicareacoveredbythefeaturesshouldhaveasmaller
standarddeviationdistance.Thus,thesizeofthestandarddistancedeviationfor
burglaralarmsshouldbesmallerthanthatofNAIburglary.Buttheactualmaps
aboveshowtheopposite.
Thisphenomenoniscloselyassociatedwiththeassumptionthatthe
standarddistancedeviationisanequalmeasureineverydirectionfromthemean.
AsobservedinFigure9.2,thegeographicareacoveredbyboththedensespotsand
theoveralldistributionofburglaralarmsissmallerthanthatofNAIburglary,but
thisdoesnotmeanthatthesizeofthestandarddistancealsocoincideswiththe
geographicareaofburglaralarmsand,thus,issmallerinsizeincomparisontoNAI
burglary.Thesameassumptionforthestandarddeviationinquantitativestatistic
explainsthisphenomenoninthesensethatthoughdistributionsofburglaralarms
coverasmallergeographicarea,thestandarddeviationaldistancecanbelarger
whenallpointsofthosefeaturesareclusteredneareachotherbutlocatedfarther
fromthemeancenter,becauseboththestandarddeviationandstandard
deviationaldistancearesolelybasedonthemeanandmeancenter.Thus,boththe
standarddeviationaldistancesandstandarddeviationalellipses,inconjunction
withthepointsanddensitymapsinChapter8,indicatethatthedistributionof
235
residentialburglaralarmscoversarelativelysmallergeographicareathanNAI
burglary,butburglaralarmsaremuchclusteredthanNAIburglary.
Inaddition,twoissuesshouldbementioned.First,thestandarddistance
deviationlacksdirectionalfocus(ChaineyandRatcliffe,2005).Irrespectiveofthe
spreadofthepointsinaparticulardirection,thestandarddistanceisanequal
measureineverydirection.Amoreusefultypeofglobaldispersalmeasureisthe
standarddeviationalellipse.Second,boththestandarddistancedeviationalandthe
standarddistanceellipseareaffectedbyoutliers.Inparticular,regardingthe
orientationorsizeoftheellipse,thelattercanbeskewedbyafewoutlyingfeatures
and,thus,notprovideanaccuratepictureofthedistribution.
Furthermore,thoughthoseanalysesareusefulandnecessarytoexamine
spatialpatternsandcharacteristicsforburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries,
theyhavebeenanalyzedanddiscussedwithoutstatisticaltests.Inotherwords,
withoutastatisticalapproachforthespatialdata,thegeographicobservations
presentedanddiscussedpreviouslycannotbeconfirmedand,thenullhypotheses
forthespatialpatternanalysiscannotbetested.Thus,itisimperativetoconduct
spatiallystatisticaltests.Butevenwiththeselimitationsandissues,standard
deviationalellipsesareanimprovementoverstandarddistancedeviationsinterms
ofindicatingpointdispersionanddirectionofthatdispersion.
III.
SpatialAutocorrelationAnalysesforBurglarAlarmsand
ResidentialBurglaryattheMacroLevel
Intheabovesection,thegeographicrepresentationanddispersionofthefeatures
forburglaralarmsandNAIburglaryatthecitylevelwerepresentedanddiscussed.
236
Butspatialstatisticsmeasuringpatternsismoreaccuratethanidentifyingpatterns
byexaminingmaps.Forspatialstatisticmeasures,theconceptsofglobalandlocal
statisticsareused.Globalstatisticsfocusonwhetherthefeaturesformapattern
acrossthestudyareaandthetypeofpatternthatexists,whereaslocalstatistics
focusonindividualfeaturesandtheirrelationshiptonearbyfeatures(Mitchell,
2005).Inotherwords,theglobalmethodcalculatesasinglestatisticthat
summarizesageographicpatternforthestudyarea,whilethelocalmethod
calculatesastatisticforeachfeaturebasedonitssimilaritytoitsneighbors.
Forexample,thespatialimpactofresidentialburglaralarmsonresidential
burglarycanbeexaminedonthecitylevelasasingleunitofanalysis,ratherthanon
theneighborhoodlevelorbysectionswithinthecity.Thisapproachcanbeaglobal
statisticinordertoidentifyandmeasureoverallgeographicpatterns.Ifthe
approachfocusesonlocalorneighborhoodvariationsfortheimpactofburglar
alarmsonresidentialburglarywithinthecity,itwouldbeconsideredlocalstatistic.
Thissectionusesthefirstapproach,aglobalstatistictoidentifyaclustered
patterninthecityatdifferenttimeslookingforthegeographicdistributionimpact
betweenburglaralarmsandresidentialburglary.Anydistributionoffeaturesor
valueswithinadefinedareacancreateapattern.Geographicpatternsrangefrom
completelyclusteredatoneextremetocompletelydispersedattheother.Apattern
thatfallsatapointbetweentheseextremesissaidtoberandom.Thus,knowingif
thereisapatterninthedataisusefultohaveabetterunderstandingofageographic
phenomenon,monitorconditionsontheground,comparepatterns,ortrackchanges.
237
Onewayofidentifyingpatternsingeographicdataistousestatisticsto
measuretheextenttowhichfeaturesorvaluesareclustered,dispersed,orrandom.
Withthatmeasure,itcanbepossibletocomparethepatternsfordifferentsetsof
featuresorcomparepatternsovertime.Usingstatisticstomeasurepatternsis
moreaccuratethanidentifyingpatternsbylookingatamap.Globalstatisticsare
usedtodeterminewhetherthefeaturesformapatternacrossthestudyareaandon
whattypeofpatternexists.
Forinstance,asseenanddiscussedinthepreviouschapter(seeFigure8.3),
manyheavilydensespotsexistacrossthewholecityforthedistributionofboth
burglaralarmsandNAIburglary.Oneobservationfromthedataisthatallthe
pointsofburglaralarmsandNAIburglaryarenotrandomlydistributedbuthave
explicitpatterns,whichimpliesthatresidentialburglaralarmshavesomepositive
impactonresidentialburglarybypushingawayNAIburglary.Ifaspatialstatistical
testconfirmsthisobservationasbeingstatisticallysignificant,thespatial
relationshipbetweenburglaralarmsandNAIburglaryismorereliableand
supportiveofthepositiveimpactofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglary.
Twoprimaryapproachescanbeappliedforspatialautocorrelationatthe
globalstatisticlevel:(1)measurementofthespatialpatternbydiscretefeatures23
(e.g.,points,lines,ornoncontiguousareas),usingquadrantanalysis,nearest
neighborindex(NNI),andkfunction;and(2)measurementbyattributevalues
23)Discretefeaturescanbepoints,lines,orareas.Pointsareusedtorepresent
eitherstationaryfeaturesoreventsthatoccurataspecificplaceandtime.Linescanbe
disjunctiveorconnectedinanetwork.Discreteareasareusuallydistinctandseparate,but
mayshareaborderorevenoverlapasfireboundariesoftendo(Mitchell,2005).
238
associatedwiththefeatures(e.g.,censustractsorcensusblocks),usingjoincount,
GearysCandglobalMoransI,andgeneralG(ChaineyandRatcliffe,2005;Mitchell,
2005).Amongthesemeasures,NNIandglobalMoransIapproachesaremost
commonlyappliedtocrimedata.
1.
MeasureoftheNearestNeighborIndex(NNI)forBurglarAlarmsand
ResidentialBurglaries
AsobservedinChapter8,severaldenseareasofburglaralarmsandresidential
burglariesexistacrossthecity.Acriticalquestionaboutthoseareasiswhetherthe
distributionofthepointswithineachareaisclusteredordispersedwithstatistical
significance,whichcanexplainthespatialimpactofresidentialburglaralarmson
TheNNIisadistancestatisticforpointpatterndatasetsthatgivesan
indicationofthedegreeofclusteringofthepoints.Thesimpleassumptionforthe
NNIanalysisisbasedonthecomparisonoftheactual(orobserved)distributionof
featurestoahypotheticalrandom(orexpected)distributionofthesamenumberof
featuresoverthesamestudyarea,whichenablesthenullhypothesistestforspatial
data.Thus,theanalysiscomparesthecharacteristicsofanobservedsetofdistances
betweenpairsofclosestpointswithdistancesthatwouldbeexpectedifpointswere
randomlyplaced.Itfindsthedistancebetweeneachfeatureanditsclosestneighbor,
thencalculatestheaverage(ormean)ofthesedistances.TheresultsofNNIvalues
areusedforstatisticalsignificance(ChaineyandRatcliffe,2005).
Therearethreegeneraltypesofgeographicpattern(seeTable9.1).A
clusteredpatternisoftenthemostcommonformofspatialpatternseenwithcrime
239
databecauseneitheropportunitiesnortheroutineactivitiesofoffendersand
victimsarerandomlydistributed.Ifapatternismorewidespread,itispossiblethat
isexhibitsthesecondtypeofspatialpattern:arandomdistribution.Inthistypeof
pattern,althoughtheremaybesomelocalclusters,theoverallpatternofthecrime
seriesisspreadacrossthestudyareawithoutanyapparentpatternaneventhas
anequalchancetoappearanywhereinthestudyarea.Thethirdtypeofpatternisa
disperseddistribution.Thisoccurswherepointsarespacedroughlythesame
distanceapart(ChaineyandRatcliffe,2005;Mitchell,2005).
[Table9.1]NearestNeighborIndex(NNI)ratiosandresults
NNIRatio
Pattern
Ratio=1 Random(noapparentpattern)
Ratio<1 Clustered(similarvaluesarefoundtogether)
Ratio>1 Dispersed(highandlowvaluesareinterspersed)
(Source:Mitchell,2005)
NNIratioscanrangefrom0.0,forthedistributionoffeatures(e.g.,burglar
alarmsandNAI/AIburglaries)thathaveallthepointsatthesamegeographic
location,through1.0,forarandomdistributionofpoints,uptoamaximumvalueof
2.15.Valueslessthan1.0indicateaclusteredpattern(ChaineyandRatcliffe,2005).
Thus,iftheNNIvalueislessthan1.0andthepvalueislessthan0.05,the
probabilitythatthedistributionofthefeaturesisclusteredduetorandomvariation
islessthan5percent,whichisastatisticallysignificantfinding.
Table9.2displaysthevaluesofNNIratioandzscoreswiththestatistical
significancelevelforburglaralarmsandNAI/AIburglaries.Figure9.3
demonstratestwopositioningcontinuaofNNIratiovaluesandzscores:oneatthe
240
fiveclasscontinuumbetweenclusteredanddispersed,andtheotheratthenine
classcontinuumforthepositionofzscoresbetweenplus(+)andminus()three
standarddeviations.24Thenullhypothesisisthatthefeatures(e.g.,burglaralarms
andNAI/AIburglaries)arerandomlydistributedinthecity.
[Table9.2]NNIrationsandzscoresforburglaralarmsandNAI/AIburglariesannuallyin
Newark,NJ
Type
ResidentialBurglarAlarms
AI
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 overall 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 overall overall
Year
0.13 0.38 0.39 0.37 0.40 0.44
0.24 0.49
NNIRatio 0.39 0.42 0.38 0.37 0.37
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Zscore 39.3 34.5 45.1 49.8 53.8 142.5 58.9 57.6 55.9 52.3 40.9 150.4** 18.6**
[Figure9.3]TheresultsofNNIanalyses
Clustered
Dispersed
SignificanceLevel:
CriticalValues:
0.01 0.05 0.10

(2.58) (1.96) (1.65)
Random
0.10 0.05 0.01

(1.65) (1.96) (2.58)
RegardingtheNNIratioforresidentialburglaralarms,thevaluesarearound
0.4,onaverage,withastatisticalsignificanceatthe0.01level,rejectingthenull
hypothesisthatburglaralarmsarerandomlydistributedinthecityandindicating
thatthedistributionofburglaralarmsisnotrandomlyscatteredbutheavily
clusteredatcertaingeographicspotsbeingaffectedbysocioeconomicconditions.
24)Thesetwopositioningcontinuaareatypical,visualoutputforgeographic
statisticalanalysisintheArcGIScomputersoftware.
241
TheresultsclearlysupportearlierobservationsanddiscussionsinChapter8about
thepatternofburglaralarms.
TheNNIratiosforbothNAI/AIburglariesalsoarearound0.4,onaverage,
withastatisticalsignificanceatthe0.01level,whichimpliesthatNAI/AIburglaries
arenotevenlyscatteredacrossthecity,butclusteredwithincertainareasor
neighborhoods.Thisfindingalsosupportstheearlierobservationsaboutthe
distributionofNAI/AIburglariesinChapter8.Asubstantiallyspatialrelationship
betweenburglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesexists.Thus,forbothburglar
alarmsandNAIburglary,thenullhypothesesthatthefeaturesarerandomly
distributedthroughoutthecityarerejected.
Furthermore,combiningTable9.2andFigure9.3,thisobservationproposes
thatthedistributionsofbothburglaralarmsandNAI/AIburglariesareinfluenced
byneighboringlocations.Thisphenomenoniscalledaspatialautocorrelation(or
spatialdependency),whichmeansthat,ingeneral,placesclosertogetheraremore
likelytohaveasimilarvalue(ChaineyandRatcliffe,2005).
Thiscanexplaintheinstallationpatternofresidentialburglaralarmsby
residentsincertainneighborhoods.Forexample,whentheNNIratioforburglar
alarmsshowsaclusteredpatternwithstatisticalsignificance,aninstallationofa
alarmsystematonegeographicpointdirectlyaffectstheproximateornearest
locationcausingtheinstallationofburglaralarms,andfromthenextnearest
locationtothesurroundingarea,andsoforth.Then,afteracertaintimeperiod,a
relativelydense,butlimited,geographicareaforresidentialburglaralarmscanbe
created.Oncesuchaspecificspotiscreated,itbecomesselfsustainingandgrowing.
242
Suchaprocessandphenomenoncanoccurinmanysmallgeographicareasinthe
citysimultaneouslyoraccordingtodifferenttimelines.
Thus,thesedensespotsofresidentialburglaralarmsthroughoutthecity
tendtobeclusteredtogetherinageographicdimension,toprovideprotectiveseals
overtheseparticularareasandtokeepresidentialcrimeratescomparativelylower
thantheareaswithoutenoughburglaralarmsbypushingawayresidential
burglar(s).Oneburglaralarmsystematahousecreepsintothenexthouse.Sucha
spatialphenomenondemonstratesthepositiveimpactofburglaralarmson
residentialburglaries.ThedescriptivegeographicanalysesinChapter8visualize
suchspatialdistributions(seeFigure8.1andFigure8.3).Inparticular,mostofthe
heavilydensespotsofburglaralarmsareisolatedfromthoseareasofNAIburglary.
Moreimportantly,thisisthebasicconceptofthediffusionofbenefitsofcrime
preventionschemes,whichwillbediscussedingreaterdetailinthefollowing
chapter.Nonetheless,residentialburglaralarmscanbeselfsustainableandcan
spreadthediffusionofbenefitsofcrimepreventiontotheneighborhood.
Bythesametoken,thevictimizationpatternofresidentialburglarycanbe
explainedbyasimilarprocessandphenomenonusingthepatternforresidential
burglaralarms.Inotherwords,twocrucialquestionscanbeansweredbasedonthe
valuesoftheNNIratiosandzscoreswithstatisticalsignificance:(1)WhyisNAI
burglarynotspreadevenlythroughoutthecity?;and(2)Whydomanyheavily
denseareasofNAIburglaryexistacrossthecity?Thesamespatialeffectmayoccur
forthepatternofcrimevictimizationbyresidentialburglary.
2.
243
MeasureoftheGlobalMoransIforBurglarAlarmsandResidential
Burglaries
MoransIisaclassicmeasureofglobalspatialautocorrelationandiscommonly
appliedtocrimedata.TheadvantageofMoransIoverNNIanalysisisthatwhile
NNImeasurestheclusteringinpoints,MoransIcanshowifthereissignificant
clusteringinavariable(ChaineyandRatcliffe,2005).Thismeans,forexample,that
theprocessisabletodeterminewhetherthereisclusteringinthepatternsfor
burglaralarmsorresidentialburglaries,evenifthosepatternsareaggregatedtothe
samesetofpolygons.Thus,globalMoransIcandeterminewhetherthedenseareas
ofbothburglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesalsoaresurroundedbyother
denseareasofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries,andwhetherlessdense
areasaresurroundedbyotherlessdenseareas.Ifso,thenthepatternsofburglar
alarmsandresidentialburglariesaresaidtodisplaypositivespatialautocorrelation.
If,however,lessdenseareasaresurroundedbydenseareasofburglaralarmsand
residentialburglary,anddenseareasaresurroundedwithlessdenseareas,the
serieswoulddisplaynegativespatialautocorrelation.Ifthereisnopatterntothe
distributionofdenseandlessdenseareas,thentheserieswouldhavezerospatial
autocorrelation(Mitchell,2005).
Table9.3showstherangeofpossiblevaluesofMoransIindexfrom1to1.
Ifallneighboringfeatureshaveclosetothesamevalue,theindexvaluewillbenear
1withapositivezscore,indicatingcompleteclusteringofvalues.Conversely,ifthe
valuesarecompletelydispersed,thevalueoftheindexisnear1withanegativez
score.
244
[Table9.3]GlobalMoransIIndexvaluesandresults
MoransIIndex
Pattern
Ratio=0
Random(zerospatialautocorrelation)
Ratio<1
Clustered(positivespatialautocorrelation)
Ratio>1
Dispersed(negativespatialautocorrelation)
(Source:Mitchell,2005)
Table9.4displaysindexvaluesofMoransIforburglaralarmsandNAI/AI
burglariestoexaminethespatialrelationships.Figure9.4demonstratesthe
positionofMoransIindexesinthecontinuumbetweenclusteredanddispersedand
thepositionofzscoresinthecontinuumbetweenplus(+)andminus()three
standarddeviations.
[Table9.4]GlobalMoransIvaluesforburglaralarmsandNAI/AIburglariesannuallyin
Newark,NJ
Type
ResidentialBurglarAlarms
AI
Year
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 overall 2001 2002 2003 20042005overall overall
MoransIndex0.04 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Zscore
3.7** 3.9** 7.4** 7.6** 5.0** 6.5** 1.4 0.9 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.3
0.8
[Figure9.4]TheresultsofGlobalMoransIanalysisforburglaralarmsandNAI/AI
Clustered
Dispersed
SignificanceLevel:
CriticalValues:
0.01 0.05 0.10

(2.58) (1.96) (1.65)
Random
burglaries
Forresidentialburglaralarms
ForNAI/AIresidentialburglaries
0.10 0.05 0.01

(1.65) (1.96) (2.58)
245
Forresidentialburglaralarms,theaveragevalueofMoransIIndexisabout
0.06withastatisticalsignificanceatthe0.01level.Figure9.4showsthatthespatial
patternofresidentialburglaralarmsisclustered,confirmingthepreviousfinding
withtheNNIanalysisanddemonstratingthatfeaturesneareachotheraremore
alikethanfeaturesfarapart.Manydenseareasofburglaralarmsinthecityexist
because,asdiscussedintheprevioussection,thedistributionofburglaralarmsina
certaindenseareaisnotisolatedfromotherdenseareas,butsurroundedbydense
areasofdistributionofburglaralarms,whichconsequentlycreatesaheavilydense
spotinthecity.Furthermore,thedenseareasofburglaralarmsthemselvesarenot
isolatedfromotherspotsbutsurroundedbythem,whichenablesallthesedense
areastobeclustered.
Thus,notonlydoheavilydensespotsofburglaralarmsexistinthecity,but
alsothesespotsresideinconsiderableproximity,beingboundbythemutual
gravitationofsurroundingdensespots.Thisobservationsupportsthepositive
impactofresidentialburglaralarmstoneighboringgeographicareas.Inother
words,theeffectofdiffusionofbenefitsofburglaralarmsdeliversacomparatively
highlevelofdiffusionofbenefitstotheneighborhoodswhereburglaralarmshave
beeninstalled.
NAIresidentialburglary,however,theaveragevalueofMoransIindexis
0.00withnostatisticalsignificances(butthezscoresarenotcloseto0.0),which
indicatesthatunlikeburglaralarms,statisticalanalysisdoesnotsupportspatial
clusteringforNAIburglary.Theresultsdonotmeanthatspatialclustering
completelydoesnotexistthroughoutthecity.Itdoesshowthatalthoughthe
246
individualdistributionofpointswithinindividualspotsisclusteredandmanydense
spotsofNAIburglaryexist,thedistributionofthesedensespotsatthecitylevelis
notclustered,butratherdispersed,becausethosespotsarenotdistributedclosely
toeachother,butareinsteadrandomlyspreadthroughoutthecity.
ThreeissuesfortheaboveobservationsoftheMoransIvalueshouldbe
noted.First,unlikeburglaralarmswithastatisticalsignificanceatthe0.01level,
NAIburglaryhasalmost0spatialautocorrelationwithnostatisticalsignificance.
However,byandlarge,thisfindingmaycoincidewiththedistributionofburglar
alarmsandNAIburglarybecausethepositivespatialautocorrelationforburglar
alarmsisassociatedwiththemostheavilydensespots,locatedinthewestern,
central,andsouthwesternsectionsofthecity,whereasthe0spatialautocorrelation
forNAIburglaryisrelatedwithmanyheavilydensespotsspreadthroughoutthe
city.Inotherwords,theformerisconcentratedinsmallergeographicsectionsof
thecity,whilethelatterisscatteredaroundthecity,whichglobalMoransItest
doesnotshowastatisticalsignificance.
Second,thedifferentobservationsbetweenburglaralarmsandNAIburglary
accordingtotheMoransIarecloselyrelatedtothegeographicdensitymap
discussedinthepreviouschapter(seeChapter8).Theaveragenumberofburglar
alarmsandNAIburglaryoverthefiveyearsare2,138and2,269,respectively(see
Table5.1),thougheachyearhasdiscrepancies.Thus,thetotalnumberofburglar
alarmsandNAIburglaryperyearissimilar,butthegeographicdistributionofthem
showsaquitedifferentpattern.Thedistributionofdensespotsforburglaralarms
isconcentratedinthewestern,central,andsouthwesternareasofthecity,whereas
247
thedistributionofNAIburglaryisspreadacrossthecity.Theoverallsizeofthe
geographicareaforburglaralarmsisdefinitelysmallerthanthatofNAIburglary.It
producesahighergeographiccompactnessforburglaralarmsandalower
compactnessforNAIburglary.Therefore,globalMoransIshowsthepositive
spatialautocorrelationforburglaralarmsandthezerospatialautocorrelationfor
NAIburglary.
Third,suchglobalspatialstatisticsasNNIratioandMoransImayprovide
littleinsightintothelocation,relativescale,size,shape,andextentofhotspots.
Thosespatialassociationstatisticsexaminewhetherthenumberofpointeventsin
anareaissimilartothenumberofpointeventsinneighboringareas.Ingeneral,
theyexplorethespatialautocorrelationbetweendatavariablesandcandetermineif
positivespatialautocorrelationissaidtoexist.Buttheseglobalstatisticalmeasures
oftentendtosummarizeanenormousnumberofpossibledisparatespatial
relationshipsincrimedata(ChaineyandRatcliffe,2005).Itisimperativeto
examinethespatialimpactofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglariesatthemicro
levelwithlocalspatialstatistics.Nevertheless,thecriticalpointhereisthatthis
observationfromtheMoransIanalysisisnotcontradictorytothepositiveimpact
ofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglary.
IV.
SpatialClusteringAnalysesforBurglarAlarmsandResidential
BurglariesattheMicroLevel
Intheabovesection,thespatialpatternandimpactforbothresidentialburglar
alarmsandburglarieswerepresentedanddiscussedonacitylevelwiththeoverall
featuresofalldistributionsofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries,usingglobal
248
geographicstatistics.Localspatialstatisticsalsocanbeusedtofocusonindividual
featuresandtheirrelationshiptonearbyfeatures.
Localspatialstatisticsareusefultoidentifythespatialassociationbetweena
singlevalueanditsneighbors.Usingalocalstatisticcanhelpfindhotspotswhena
globalstatisticindicatesthatthereisaclusteredpattern.Inotherwords,ifaglobal
statisticindicatesthereisspatialautocorrelation,themeasureoflocalvariationcan
helppinpointwhichfeatureorfeaturesarecontributingtoit.Forexample,the
clearlyclusteredpatternforbothburglaralarmsandNAIresidentialburglariesare
identifiedattheentirecitylevelintheprevioussection.Arethoseobservations
consistentevenatthelocallevelwithinthecity?Localindicatorsofspatial
associationstatistics(ChaineyandRatcliffe,2005)canbeusedtoprovideabetter
understandingandinsightofthegeographicpatternsandimpactbetweenburglar
alarmsandresidentialburglaries.
Unlikethespatialautocorrelationstatisticswiththewholecityasaunitof
analysis,censustractofthecityareusedasaunitofanalysisforlocalindicatorsof
spatialassociationstatistics.Thus,localspatialstatisticscanshowconsistencyand
validityoftheearlierobservationsanddiscussionsregardingthespatial
relationshipandimpactforburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries,andprovide
betterinsightintothespatialpatternsandrelationshipsatthemicrolevel.
Threemeasuresofspatiallocalstatisticsareavailable:localGearysC,local
MoransI,andGeneralGi*.Theyarecalculatedandusedindifferentwayseachwith
itsstrengthsandweaknesses.Forexample,localGearysCcomparesthevaluesof
neighboringfeaturesbycalculatingthedifferencebetweenthem.Itemphasizes
249
howfeaturesdifferfromtheirimmediateneighborsbecauseitcomparesthevalues
ofneighboringfeaturesdirectlywitheachother.Ontheotherhand,LocalMoransI
compareseachvalueinthepairtothemeanvalueforallthefeaturesinthestudy
area.Thus,itemphasizeshowfeaturesdifferfromthevaluesinthestudyareaasa
wholebecauseitcomparesthevalueofeachfeatureinapairtothemeanvaluefor
allfeaturesinthestudyarea.Gi*comparesneighboringfeatureswithinanareathat
aresearcherspecifies.Itisusefultofindhotspotsorcoolspotsbecausetheresults
indicatetheextenttowhicheachfeatureissurroundedbysimilarlyhighorlow
values(Mitchell,2005).Amongthem,localMoransIandGi*areemployedherefor
spatialclusteringanalyses.
1.
GeographicClusteringAnalyses
Tomeasuretheimpactofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries,twoapproaches
willbeused:macrolevelandmicrolevel.Asobservedanddiscussedpreviously,
themacrolevelanalysiscouldbeemployedtoexaminetheimpactofalarmsystems
oncrimesatacitylevel.Forthisapproach,thedensityfunctionwasusedtoidentify
thedensespotsofresidentialburglaralarmsandNAI/AIburglaries.Thismethodis
usefulinanalyzingthepatternbetweenburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries,as
wellasforvisuallyexaminingwhetherthedensespotsofburglaralarmsand
residentialburglariesoverlap.
FurtherglobalstatisticalmeasureswiththeNNIratioandMoransIindexare
usedtotestspatiallystatisticalsignificanceforthegeographicpattern.Those
analysespresentedthemacrolevelimpactanddirectionality(e.g.,positiveor
negativeimpact)ofalarmsystemsonresidentialburglaries.Oneshortcomingofthe
250
macrolevelapproachwithaggregateddataisthatitlacksamicrolevelanalysisat
thelevelofthesinglehouse,censusblock,orcensustract.Itisnecessarytohave
moresensitivespatialanalyseswithdisaggregateddataatamicrolevelinorderto
examinetheimpactofburglaralarmsystemsonresidentialburglaries.
Thefundamentalconceptforthislevelsapproachiscluster.Clustersoccur
inageographicdistributioneitherwhenfeaturesarefoundincloseproximityor
whengroupsoffeatureswithsimilarlyhighorlowvaluesarefoundtogether
(Mitchell,2005).Inthecontextofcrimeanalysis,theconceptofahotspotissimilar
tothatofaclusteroffeatures.Forexample,whensimilarlyhighvaluesoffeatures
arefoundcloselyclustered,itcanbeidentifiedasahotspot.Themethodcanbe
appliedtobothburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries.
Clusteringatthemacrolevelisusedtoexaminetheimpactofburglaralarms
oncrimeatacitylevelandcanbedonebyusingthedensityfunction(orsmoothing
out)inArcGIS.Withthismethod,theindividualdatapointsdepictingtheaddresses
ofeitherresidentialburglariesorburglaralarmsaresmoothedouttocreatean
imagethatshowstheareaswiththehighestdensityorconcentration.Two
comparisondensityestimationsforburglaralarmsandNAIburglaryareproduced.
Theoutcomeistwoseparateimagesofhotspots.Anexaminationofdistinctive
distributionpatternscandetermineiftheyoverlap,andstatisticaltestscanshow
theirrelationship.Thus,seeingtheimpactofalarmsystemsonresidential
burglariescanbeuseful.Figure9.5isoneexampleofadensitymapofNAIburglary
overlaidwithinformationforburglaralarmsinthecityin2005.Themapvisually
251
displaysmultiplehotspotsforbothburglaralarms(blue)andNAIburglary(red).In
bothcases,darkercolorsshowhighernumbers.
[Figure9.5]OverlaiddensitymapofburglaralarmsandNAIburglaryinNewark,NJ,
2005
Onedrawbackofthemacrolevelapproachwithalargerstudyareaisthatit
lacksamicrolevelanalysisatlevelsofasinglehouse,censusblock,orcensustract.
Forexample,aspresentedinFigure9.5,theoverlappinghotspotsbetweenburglar
alarmsandNAIburglaryexist,inparticular,inthewesternandcentralsectionsof
thecity.Suchaspatialobservationmayleadtomisinterpretingtheimpactofalarm
systemonresidentialburglaries.Inotherwords,becauseofthoseoverlapping
hotspots,theissuesofdisplacementanddiffusionofbenefitsarequestionable.
252
Furthermore,itcanbearguedthatthespatialrelationshipbetweenburglaralarms
andresidentialburglarydoesnotexist.Therefore,moresensitivespatialanalyses
withdisaggregateddataatthemicrolevelarerequiredinordertoexaminethe
impactofalarmsystemsoncrime.
2.
LocalMoransIAnalysesforBurglarAlarmsandResidentialBurglaries
LocalMoransIclusterisusedtoidentifythelocationsofstatisticallysignificant
hotspots.Inparticular,itidentifiesthoseclustersofpointswithvaluessimilarin
magnitudeandthoseclustersofpointswithheterogeneousvalues.Thecluster
analysisoutputisaLocalMoransIvaluewithanassociatedzscoreforeachfeature.
Thezscorerepresentsthestatisticalsignificanceoftheindexvalue.It,ineffect,
indicateswhethertheapparentsimilarityordissimilarityinvaluesbetweenthe
featureanditsneighborsisgreaterthanwouldbeexpectedbychance.
Ahighpositivezscoreforafeatureindicatesthatthesurroundingfeatures
havesimilarvalues,eitherhighorlow.Agroupofadjacentfeatureshavinghighz
scoreindicatesaclusterofsimilarlyhighorlowvalues.Alownegativezscorefora
featureindicatesthatthefeatureissurroundedbydissimilarvaluesthatis,ifa
featurehasanegativezscore,itsvalueisdifferentthanitsneighbors(i.e.,ahigh
valuerelativetoaneighborhoodthathaslowvaluesoralowvaluerelativetoa
neighborhoodthathashighvalues)(Mitchell,2005).
Thisapproachcandeterminethedegreetowhicheachfeatureissimilaror
dissimilartoitsneighborswherehighvaluesaresurroundedbyhighvaluesor
lowvaluesaresurroundedbylowvalues.Thismethodcalculatesastatisticforeach
featureandmapsthefeaturesbasedonthisvaluetofindthelocationsoffeatures
253
withsimilarvalues.Italsocanlocatehotspotsandcoolspotsasthisapproachlooks
atvaluesofadjacentfeaturesorfeatureswithinaspecifieddistanceandcompares
theaveragevaluefortheneighborhoodtotheaveragevalueforthestudyarea.The
methodalsoindicateswhetherclustersarecomposedofhighorlowvalues.Thus,
LocalMoransIshowslocalvariation,thatiswhatisoccurringimmediately
surroundingeachfeature.Forthisapproach,90censustractsinthecitywereused
asaunitofanalysis.CensustractmapsbasedonLocalMoransIanalysisillustrate
geographicclusteringfortheattributes(e.g.,burglaralarmsandNAI/AIburglaries)
amongthefeatures(e.g.,censustract).
Figure9.6presentsthecensusmapsofLocalMoransIforburglaralarms
andNAI/AIburglariesfor2005andtheoverall.Forthisanalysis,allcountsofboth
burglaralarmsandresidentialburglarieswereregroupedandgeocodedaccording
tothe90censustracts.Thebestwaytoviewandinterpretthesemapsisto
examinewhetherthesamecolorcensustractappearnexttoeachotherorsharethe
sametractboundaries.Thegreaterthenumberofareaswiththesamecolorgather,
themoretractsthataresimilar.MapsAandBforburglaralarmsinFigure9.6
presentthesamelevelofburglaralarmsneighboringeachother.Forexample,
yellowcoloredcensustractswithhighratesofburglaralarmsgathertogetherinthe
central,eastern,andcentralnorthernsectionsofthecity,whereasbrowncolored
censustractswiththehighestratesofburglaralarmsarenexttoeachotherinthe
westernandcentralpartsofthecity.
254
[Figure9.6]LocalMoransIforburglaralarmsandNAI/AIburglariesinNewark,NJ,2005
andoverall
255
ThesimilarpatternsofspatialclusteringforNAIandAIburglariesare
identifiedintheremainingmapsofC,D,andEinFigure9.6,showingthatcensus
tractswithNAI/AIburglariesaresurroundedbyneighboringcensustractswith
substantiallysimilarratesofresidentialburglariesatseveralgeographicsections
withinthecity.
SeveralindicationsareobservedfromthesemapsbasedonLocalMoransI
analysis.First,asdiscussedintheprevioussectionandchapters,thedistributions
ofbothburglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesonthecensustractlevelarenot
evenlyscatteredacrossthecity.Thesamegeographicobservationwasfoundonthe
citylevel.Thus,notonlyonthecitylevel,butalsoonthecensuslevel,the
distributionofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesarespatiallyclustered,
meaningthatthelocalvariationsofthelevelsofalarminstallationandNAIburglary
existandthoselocalvariationsarestronglylinkedtoeachotherbyformingspatial
256
closeness.Therefore,geographicclusteringofbothburglaralarmsandNAIburglary
basedontheGlobalandLocalMoransIanalysesareconsistentovertheyears.In
otherwords,theseobservationsdonotoccurbyrandomchance,butarecloselylink
toneighborhoodssocioeconomicfactors.
Second,someofthedensestspotsofbothburglaralarmsandNAIburglary,
indarkbrown,arescatteredacrossthecitybecausethesamelevelsofburglar
alarmsandNAIburglarytendtogathernexttoeachotheronthecensustractlevel,
withtheresultbeingrelativelylargegeographicareasoccupiedwiththesamecolor.
ThisobservationconfirmstheearlierfindingsanddiscussionsbasedontheNNI
ratioandGlobalMoransIindexregardingthespatialclusteringofthedistributions
ofburglaralarmsandNAIburglary,whicharespreadevenlythroughoutthecitybut
spatiallyclusteredinneighborhoodswithdensespotsformingacrossthecity.
ThesespatialobservationsfromLocalMoransIaremoderatelyconsistentoverthe
years(seeAppendixes13and14).
Third,thesegeographicobservationsconfirmthattheeffectofdiffusionof
benefitscanexplaintheinstallationpatternofburglaralarmsandNAIburglaryin
Newark,N.J.Thedensestcensustract,shownwithadarkbrowncolor,ofburglar
alarmscanaffecttheneighboringtractandcreatebothyellowandgreencolors,
whicheventuallycreatesagroupofcensustracts.Itsgroup,thus,producesone
geographicboundarywiththedensestrateofalarminstallation.Thesameprocess
canbeusedtoexplainNAIburglary.However,thediffusionofbenefitsofburglar
alarms(mapsAandBinFigure9.6)ismoreapparentandvisualthanthatofNAI
burglary.
3.
257
LocalHotspots(Gi*)AnalysisforBurglarAlarmsandResidentialBurglaries
ThelocalGi*analysisdescribeswheregeographicclustersofhighorlowvaluesare
located.Gi*statisticsidentifytheextenttowhicheachfeatureissurroundedby
similarlyhighorlowvaluesinanefforttofindhotspotsorcoolspots.Agroupof
featureswithhighGi*valuesindicatesaclusterorconcentrationoffeatureswith
highattributevalues.Conversely,agroupoffeatureswithlowGi*valuesindicatesa
coolspot.Thus,aGi*valuenear0indicatesthereisnoconcentrationofeitherhigh
orlowvaluessurroundingthetargetfeature(Mitchell,2005).
Figure9.7presentsthecensustractmapsofGi*forburglaralarmsandNAI
burglaries.LiketheLocalMoransI,thebestwaytoobserveandinterpretthese
mapsistoexaminewhethercensustractsofsimilarcolorsgathertogetherorshare
boundarieswithothersimilartracts.Thehigherthenumberofsamecolorclusters,
themoreeachtractinagroupissimilar.Inaddition,acensustractwiththedensest
color(brown)canbeidentifiedasahotspot,andthecensustractwiththelightest
color(white)canberecognizedasacoolspot.Yellowcoloredcensustractswitha
relativelyhigherlevelofbothburglaralarmsandNAIburglaryalsocanbeidentified
ashotspots.
MapsAandBforburglaralarmsbycensustractinFigure9.7showthatmost
ofthesamecoloredtracts,dependingondifferentlevelsoftheGi*values,are
clearlyneighboringeachother,formingagroupofcensustractswiththesamelevel.
Forexample,thefirstlevelofseveralhotspots(browncoloredcensustracts)of
burglaralarmsisseeninthecentralandnorthernsectionsofthecity.Inaddition,
thesecondlevelofhotspots(yellowcoloredcensustracts)forburglaralarmsis
258
locatedinthewesternandsouthwesternneighborhoodsinthecity.Butthe
coolspotsforburglaralarmsarefoundinsomecentralsections,mostoftheeastern
section,andthecentralnorthernsectionofthecity.
[Figure9.7]Gi*forburglaralarmsandNAIburglaryinNewark,NJ,2005andoverall
259
AsimilarpatternofspatialclusteringforNAIburglaryisidentifiedinmapsC
andDinFigure9.7,showingthatmostofcensustractsforNAIburglaryare
surroundedbytheneighboringcensustractswithasubstantiallysimilarrateof
residentialburglariesatseveralgeographicsectionsinthecity.Inparticular,the
firstandsecondlevelsofhotspots(brownandyellowcoloredtracts)forNAI
burglaryarefoundinthesouthernandcentraleasternsectionsofthecity,whilethe
coolspotsareobservedthroughoutthecity.
Asdiscussedearlier,theGi*approachcanbeusedtoidentifybothhotspots
andcoolspotsofdistributionofburglaralarmsandNAIburglary.Themapsin
Figure9.7illustratethatthehotspotsandcoolspotsforbothfeaturesexist
throughoutthecity.Thisobservationisconsistentwiththeearlierfindingsin
Chapters7and8.Forexample,inChapter7,itwasarguedthatthedistributionof
bothburglaralarmsandresidentialburglarieswasnotevenlyspreadthroughout
thecity,indicatingthatthevariationwasduetoseveralkeyvariablesofthe
neighborhoodscharacteristics(e.g.,burglaralarms,NAIburglary,blackpopulation,
ownersoccupancy,unemployment,populationagegroupover45yearsold,and
householderagegroupof60to64yearsold).InChapter8withaseriesof
geographicmappingapproaches,thosedescriptivemappinganalysessupported
mostofthefindingsfromquantitativeapproachesinChapter7.Inparticular,those
mapsindicatedthattheinstallationpatternofresidentialburglaralarmshadsome
positiveimpactonresidentialburglaries.Furthermore,severalstatistically
geographicanalysesconfirmedthoseearlierfindingsandtheexistenceoftheeffect
ofdiffusionofbenefitsofburglaralarms.
V.
260
ChapterConclusion
ResearchQuestion5wasrelatedtothespatialimpactanalysesofbothburglar
alarmsandresidentialburglaries.UsingGISprogram,somesimplespatialstatistics
(e.g.,spatialcentralityandspatialdispersionanalyses)andadvancedspatial
statistics(e.g.,spatialautocorrelationandspatialclusteringanalyses)were
employedforburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries.
Withregardtospatialcentrographicanalyseswiththefocusonspatial
distributionsofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries,threegeographiccenters
wereused:meancenter,mediancenter,andcentralfeature(whicharequitesimilar
tothoseinquantitativestatistics,suchasmean,mode,andmedian).The
distributionofmeancentersreflectedtheoveralldistributionsofburglaralarms
andNAI/AIburglaries.Forexample,asseeninChapter8,theareaswithmore
burglaralarmsweremorelikelytobelocatedinthewesternandcentralsectionsof
city,whereasthoseofNAIburglaryresidedinthesamesectionsofthecity,aswell
asintheeasternsectionofthecity.ThispatternpushedthemeancentersforNAI
burglarytowardtheeasternboundaryofthecity,awayfromthoseofburglaralarms.
Itshowedthatthedistributivepatternofburglaralarmstendedtobeclustered
morespatiallythanthatofNAIburglarythroughoutthecity.Inotherwords,the
cityitselfwas,toalargeextent,affectedbyresidentialburglary,whilesomecertain
sectionsofcityareinfluencedbyburglaralarms.
Spatialdispersionanalysesshowedthatthedistributionofburglaralarms
wasmoredispersedfromthemeancenterthanresidentialburglaryandthatthe
ovalshapeofthestandarddeviationalellipseforNAIburglarystretchedwider
261
towardthewesternandeasternboundariesofthecitythanburglaralarms,because
manydenseareasofburglaralarmsresidedinthewesternsectionofthecity,
whereasNAIburglaryhaddenseareasinthesamewesternsection,aswellasinthe
easternsectionofthecity.
Withregardtospatialautocorrelationanalyses,boththeNNIratioandglobal
MoransIforburglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesshowedthatthedistribution
ofthemwasnotrandomlyscatteredbutheavilyclusteredatcertaingeographic
spotsacrossthecitybeingaffectedbysocioeconomicconditions.Bothfindings
clearlysupportedearlierobservationsaboutthedistributionsofburglaralarmsand
residentialburglariesthatasubstantiallyspatialrelationshipbetweenthemwith
othervariablesexisted.
Moreimportantly,thedistributionsofbothburglaralarmsandresidential
burglarieswereinfluencedbyneighboringlocations,meaningthatplacescloser
togetherweremorelikelytohaveasimilarvalue,whichiscalledaspatial
autocorrelation.Inotherwords,aninstallationofaburglaralarmatonegeographic
pointdirectlyaffectedtheproximateornearestlocationcausingtheinstallationof
burglaralarms,andfromthenextnearestlocationtothesurroundingarea,andso
forth.Then,afteracertaintimeperiod,arelativelydense,butlimited,geographic
areforburglaralarmscanbecreated.Oncesuchaspecificspotiscreated,it
becomesselfsustainingandgrowing.Thus,thesedensespotsofburglaralarms
throughoutthecitywereclusteredtogetherinageographicdimension,provided
protectivesealsovertheseparticularareas,andkeptresidentialcrimerates
comparativelylowerthantheareaswithoutenoughburglaralarmsinstalledby
262
pushingawayresidentialburglar(s).Asaresult,mostoftheheavilydensespotsof
burglaralarms,asvisualizedinChapter8,wereisolatedfromthoseareasofNAI
burglary.Thus,notonlydoheavilydensespotsofburglaralarmsexistedinthecity,
butalsothesespotsresidedinconsiderableproximity,beingboundbythemutual
gravitationofsurroundingdensespots.Suchaspatialobservationisthebasic
conceptofthediffusionofbenefitsofcrimepreventionschemes,supportingthat
burglaralarmshadthepositiveimpactonthedecreaseofresidentialburglary
incidentstoneighboringgeographicareas.
Regardingspatialclusteringanalyses,localMoransIforburglaralarmsand
residentialburglariesshowedthat,onboththecitylevelbutalsothecensuslevel,
thedistributionofburglaralarmsandresidentialburglarieswerespatiallyclustered,
demonstratingthatthelocalvariationsofthelevelsofalarminstallationandNAI
burglaryexistedandthoselocalvariationswerestronglylinkedtoeachotherby
formingspatialcloseness.Inotherwords,thesespatialdistributionsdidnotoccur
byrandomchance,butwerecloselylinktoneighborhoodssocioeconomicfactors.
Furthermore,localhotspots(Gi*)analysisforburglaralarmsandNAI
burglaryshowedthateitherhotspotsorcoolspotswasclearlyneighboringeach
otherbyformingagroupofcensustractswiththesamelevel,indicatingthatthe
installationpatternofburglaralarmshadsomepositiveimpactonthedecreaseof
Inthefollowingchapter,ResearchQuestion6willbeexaminedand
discussed,whichfocusesonthespatialdisplacementanddiffusionofbenefitsof
burglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.Acknowledgingtheabsenceofa
263
standardizedstudydesignforthemeasurementofspatialdisplacementand
diffusionofbenefitsofcriminalpreventionprograms,nonequivalentgroupquasi
experimentalresearchdesignwillbediscussed.Inaddition,thetheoretical
approachoftheweighteddisplacementquotient(WDQ)willbediscussedand
utilizedwithnestedbufferandcontrolzonesapproachattheindividualhousehold
leveltodevisetheresearchdesigntomeasurethespatialdisplacementand
diffusionofbenefits.AlandparcelmapusingGISprogramalsowillbeused.
CHAPTER10.DISPLACEMENT/DIFFUSIONOFBENEFITSOFBURGLAR
ALARMSONRESIDENTIALBURGLARIES
I.
Introduction
ThischapterisdirectlyrelatedtoResearchQuestion6,whichexaminesthespatial
displacementanddiffusionofbenefitsofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.
Inthepreviouschapters,spatialanalyseswereconductedtoscrutinizethe
relationshipbetweenburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries.Thoseanalytical
approachesuseddatasetsfromtwoprimaryagencydatasources(e.g.,police
departmentandcityhall)tocreatenewsubdatasetsbygrouping,regrouping,
recountingbytopic,andanalyzing.Unitsofanalysisweretheaddressesofboth
burglaralarmsandnonalarminstalled(NAI)/alarminstalled(AI)residential
burglariesforquantitativeanalysesandtheentirecityandthecensustractsfor
spatialanalyses.Thoseapproachesproducedinsightfulandusefulknowledgeto
understandtherelationshipbetweenburglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesby
answeringResearchQuestions1through5.Inaddition,nospecifiedresearch
designwasusedforthepreviousanalyses.Theprimaryresearchmethodwasa
secondarydataanalysis,which,byandlarge,usesagencydata(e.g.,federal,state,
andlocalcriminaljusticeagencies)(MaxfieldandBabbie,2008).
However,inordertoanswerResearchQuestion6,itisnecessarytodevisea
customizedresearchdesignatthestreetand/orsinglehouseholdlevel.The
questionrequiresawholedifferentapproachforresearchdesign,measurement,
andanalysis.Itshouldfittothetheoreticalbackground,anditsanalyticalprocess
shouldbereasonableandcleartoobtainanaccurateanswertoResearchQuestion6.
264
CHAPTER10.DISPLACEMENT/DIFFUSIONOFBENEFITSOFBURGLARALARMSONRESIDENTIALBURGLARIES
265
Nonequivalentgroupsquasiexperimentalresearchdesignwithbufferfunctionat
theindividualhouseholdlevelcanbeemployedtoexaminethespatialdisplacement
anddiffusionofbenefitsofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.
II.
NonequivalentGroupsResearchDesignfortheMeasurementof
DisplacementandDiffusionofBenefits
1.
MeasurementIssues
Oneofthemostpotentiallynegativeconsequencesofcrimepreventionprogramsis
thatofcrimedisplacement,whethersuchprogramsareaimedatwelldefined
geographiclocationsorspecificpopulationgroups.Theideaofpreventingcrime
throughthemanipulationofenvironmentalfactorshasbeenplaguedwiththeissue
ofwhetherornotcrimespreventedaresimplydisplacedtoothertypesofcrime,
times,places,ortactics(BowersandJohnson,2003).
Inanefforttounderstandtheextenttowhichdisplacementoccurs,some
researchershavecompiledinformationfromanumberofstudiesthathave
examinedcrimedisplacementingeneral.Forinstance,Hesselings(1994)review
foundthatreportedcasesofspatialandotherformsofdisplacementwereinthe
minority.Ecks(1993)reviewalsofoundthatspatialandotherformsof
displacementincrimepreventionprogramswereminor.Reppetto(1974)argues
thatdisplacement,whethergeographicorfunctional,loomsasoneofthemajor
obstaclestoanystrategyforthecontrolofresidentialcrime.
Thoughliteraturereviewshowsthatspatialdisplacementisgenerallynota
commonphenomenon,rigorforscrutinizingsuchanobservationincrime
preventionresearchhasbeenrequired.AsBowersandJohnson(2003)noted,the
266
measurementofdisplacementisnotoriouslydifficult,anddifferentresearchers
haveusedavarietyoftechniquestoquantifythephenomenon.Severalrelevant
issuesareworthdiscussing.
Oneoftheproblemsofthelackofrigorousstudiesistheabsenceofa
standardizedmethod.AsWeisburdandGreen(1995)argued,findingtherightsize
forabufferzoneisanimportantissueindisplacementanddiffusionofbenefit
analysis.Itshouldnotbesolargethatanyincreaseincrimeduetodisplacement
willbeimperceptible,butlargeenoughtoensurethatanychangeisdetectable.
2.
MeasurementattheIndividualandHouseholdLevels
Inparticular,thehouseholdlevelapproachisimperativetoexaminingspatial
displacementanddiffusionofbenefitsofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.A
numberofstudieshaveexaminedthedisplacementanddiffusionofbenefitsof
crimepreventioninitiativestargetingburglaries.Theunitsofanalysisforthose
studieswererelativelylargegeographicareas,suchasacensustractandpolice
district(Bowers,Johnson,andHirschfield,2003;Ratcliffe,2005)orstreetblock
(Weisburdetal.,2006).Inaddition,afewstudiesusedthetimeseriesapproachto
studyaburglaryreductionprograminAustralia(Ratcliffe,2004).Thisapproach
incorporatedgeographicboundaries(e.g.,hotspots).
Thepreviouschaptersofthisstudyemployedsimilarapproachesand
demonstratedthatresidentialburglaralarmsmaintainedapositiveimpacton
residentialburglary,showinganeffectofdiffusionofbenefitsbycreatingan
invisibleprotectivesealoverthedensespotsofburglaralarms.However,these
methodslackanyexaminationofthedisplacementanddiffusionofbenefitsof
267
crimepreventionschemesatahouseholdlevelintheirresearchdesignandanalysis.
Thoughburglaralarmspositivelyimpactresidentialburglaryatthecitylevelorina
relativelylargegeographicarea(e.g.,censustractandpolicedistrict),ahousehold
levelanalysismayproducesimilarorquitedifferentspatialanalyses.
Thus,itisnecessarytoexaminethedisplacementanddiffusionofbenefitsof
residentialburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.Inthecontextofstudyingthe
impactofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries,itisimperativetoexaminethe
natureofcrimedisplacementcausedbyalarmsystemsinthetargetedareaandto
investigatethepotentialfordiffusionofbenefitsfromalarmsecuritymeasures,
whichhavebeengivenlittleattentionintheresearchliterature.Thisapproachhas
severalbenefits.First,unlikeotherstudiesthatusedalargegeographicunittotest
thisissue,thisapproachisafirstattempttousethesinglehouseasaunitofanalysis
tocloselyinvestigatethespatialdisplacementanddiffusionofbenefitsofresidential
burglaralarmsoncrime.
Second,thisexaminationmayormaynotconfirmthepreviousobservations
andfindingsinChapters7through9,whichindicatethatthereisastatistically
significantrelationshipbetweenburglaralarmsystemsandresidentialburglaries
andidentifiesaspatiallypositiveimpactofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.
Ifthisanalysisshowsthesameoutcome,itprovesthatalarmsystemshavea
positiveimpactonreducingorpreventingresidentialburglaries.Ontheotherhand,
ifthisspatialapproachrevealstheoppositeresult,itcontradictstheprevious
observationsandarguments,meaningthatitisnotconclusivethatburglaralarm
systemsactasadeterrentinpreventingresidentialburglaries.
268
AsBarnes(1995)argued,however,themeasurementofdisplacementis
notoriouslydifficult,andintheabsenceofastandardizedapproach,several
researchershaveusedavarietyoftechniquestoquantifythephenomenon.Forthis
measurement,thebufferfunctionasamicrolevelspatialanalysisatthesingle
houselevelwillbeused.Thebufferandcontrolzonesapproachwillbegeneratedto
detectthedisplacementanddiffusionofbenefitsofalarmsystemsoncrimeover
time.Thenestedbufferandcontrolzoneshavethreerings(theinnertargetarea
[e.g.,housewithburglaralarm],middlebufferarea,andoutercontrolarea).To
measuretheextenttowhichalarmsystemshaveanimpactonresidentialburglary,
theWeightedDisplacementQuotient(WDQ)willbemodifiedandapplied.The
WDQexaminestheratesofburglaralarmsandNAIburglariesinthebufferand
controlzonesinaparticularyearandcomparesthemwiththepreviousyearsrate.
WDQvalueswillshowthesize(e.g.,neteffect,noeffect,ornobenefit)and
directionality(e.g.,positive,negative,ornoeffect)oftheimpactofalarmsystemson
3.
NonequivalentGroupsQuasiExperimentalResearchDesign
Quasiexperimentalresearchdesign(MaxfieldandBabbie,2008;Shadish,Cook,and
Campbell,2002)canbeusedwhenrandomization25isnotpossible.Inmostcases,
25)Theclassicalexperimenthasseveralrequirementsandcomponents.Themost
conventionaltypeofexperimentinthenaturalandthesocialsciencesinvolvesthreemajor
pairsofcomponents:(1)independentanddependentvariables;(2)pretestingand
posttesting;and(3)experimentalandcontrolgroups.Butbeforebeginninganyexperiment,
twocrucialdecisionsmustbemade:(1)whowillparticipate;and(2)howparticular
membersofthetargetpopulationwillbeselectedfortheexperiment.Ideally,these
processesmustmeetthescientificnormofgeneralizability.Forthatpurpose,
269
quasiexperimentsdonotrandomlyassignsubjectstotreatmentandcomparison
groupsand,therefore,maysufferfromtheinternalvaliditythreatsthatarewell
controlledintrueexperiments.MaxfieldandBabbie(2008)regroupquasi
experimentalresearchdesignsintotwocategories:(1)nonequivalentgroups
designsand(2)timeseriesdesigns.
Oneoftheassumptionsofrandomassignmentistheequivalencein
experimentalandcontrolgroups.Butifanonrandomprocedureisusedto
constructgroups,thedesignusesnonequivalentgroups.Ontheotherhand,atime
seriesdesigninvolvesexaminingaseriesofobservationsofvariablesovertime.In
particular,aninterruptedtimeseriesisaspecialtypeoftimeseriesdesignthatcan
beusedincauseandeffectstudies(MaxfieldandBabbie,2008).
Itshouldbenotedthattherearenosimpleformulasfordesigningan
experimentalorquasiexperimentalstudy.Eachcategoryhasseveralmodified
approaches,dependingonthenatureofresearchtopicandsubject.Forthepresent
study,atimeseriesdesignisnotappropriatebecauseoneoftherequirementsofit
istohaveaspecifictimeorderinthedatasets.Inotherwords,aseriesof
observationsiscomparedbeforeandaftersomeformofinterventionisintroduced.
TheunitofanalysisinthisstudyistheaddressofburglaralarmpermitsandNAI/AI
burglaries.Ifthecurrentdatasetofburglaralarmshadthedateofalarminstallation,
thetimeseriesdesignwouldhavebeenabettermethod.Butsuchinformationis
randomizationisrequired.Thus,randomizationisacentralfeatureoftheclassical
experiment.Theimportantcharacteristicofrandomizationisthatitproducesexperimental
andcontrolgroupsthatarestatisticallyequivalent.However,inmostcriminaljustice
research,randomizationisnoteasytoexecute(MaxfieldandBabbie,2008).
270
notavailable,eventhoughthedateofNAI/AIburglariesisavailable.Thus,no
propercomparisongroupsexistforburglaralarmsandNAI/AIburglariesif
comparingexactdates.Asaconsequence,thenonequivalentgroupsresearch
designismorefeasibletoadoptforthepresentanalysis.MaxfieldandBabbie(2008)
suggestthreedifferentnonequivalentgroupsdesignexamples.Table10.1
illustratesadiagramofthem,usingtheX(interventionprogram),O(data
measurement)andt(timeorder)notation.
[Table10.1]Threeexamplesofnonequivalentgroupsquasiexperimentaldesigns
Widom(1989)
Treatmentgroup XO
Comparisongroup O
t1t2
Clarke(1997)
Treatmentgroup
Comparisongroup
OXO
OO
t1t2t3
X=officialrecordofchildabuse X=calleridentificationandcall
O=countsofjuvenileoradult
tracing
arrest
O=customercomplaintsofobscene
calls
Source:MaxfieldandBabbie(2008)
GillandSpriggs(2005)
Targetarea1
Comparisonarea1
Targetarea2
Comparisonarea2
Targetarea13
Comparisonarea13
OX1 O
OO
OX2O
OO
OXiO
OO
t1t2t3
Xi=CCTVinstallationinareai
O=policecrimedata,surveydataon
fearofcrime
AsMaxfieldandBabbie(2008)argue,thefirstexampleusedbyWidom
(1989)forthestudyoftherelationshipbetweenchildabuseandlaterarrestwas
producedusingexperimentalandcomparisongroupsmatchingindividualsubjects
withouthavingabeforeandafterresearchdesign.Thesecondexamplewasused
forthestudyofdeterringobscenephonecallsbyClarke(1997a)andemployedthe
beforeandafterdesignbecausethestudyhasdataonthetreatmentand
comparisongroupswithpreandpostinterventionmeasures.Thethirdexample,
usedfortheevaluationstudyofCCTVandcrimepreventionbyGillandSpriggs
271
(2005),wasdesignedtoevaluate13CCTVprojectsinstalledinavarietyof
residentialandcommercialsettings.Itemployedthebeforeandafterdesignby
creatingtwotypesofcomparisonareas:(1)comparisonareaswithsimilarsocio
demographicandgeographiccharacteristicsandcrimeproblems,and(2)buffer
zonesasintheareawithina1mileradiusoftheedgeofthetargetareawhereCCTV
cameraswereinstalled.
Thesequasiexperimentaldesignexamplesabovereflectthenatureofthe
researchtopicanddatacollected.Forexample,inthechildabusestudy(Widom,
1989),itwasnotpossibletoassignchildrenrandomlytogroupsinwhichsome
wereabusedandotherswerenot.Thus,aresearchdesignwasdevelopedwithout
preandpostinterventionmeasures.Thesecondexample,thestudyofthe
effectivenessofnewlyintroducedcalleridentification(ID)andcalltracing
programsagainstobsceneorthreateningphonecalls(Clarke,1997b),wasdesigned
basedontwocriteria:(1)thenewtelephoneserviceswereavailable(thetreatment
group);and(2)theserviceswerenot(thecomparisongroup).Therecordsof
formalcustomercomplaintsaboutannoyingphonecallsinthesetwogroupswere
comparedtoexaminewhetherthenumberofformalcomplaintsinthetreatment
groupdropped.Thisdesignemployedpreandpostinterventionmeasureswith
thetreatmentandcomparisongroups.
Thethirdexample,theevaluationstudyofCCTVoncrime(GillandSpriggs,
2005),issimilartothesecondexampleofresearchdesignusingboththetreatment
andcomparisongroupsandpreandpostinterventionmeasures.Theunique
featureofthestudysdesignisthatitusestheconceptofbufferzonesasa
272
comparisonarea.Thebufferzoneshavebeendividedintothreeconcentricrings
aroundatargetarea.Therationaleforbufferzonesascomparisonareasisthatif
CCTViseffectiveinreducingcrime,eithercrimeshoulddeclineintargetareasbut
notinbufferareas,oranyreductionincrimeshouldbegreatestinthetargetareas
andthedegreeofthereductionshoulddeclinemovingawayfromthetargetareas.
AsseeninTable10.2,forthecurrentstudy,amodifiedresearchdesignfrom
thesecondandthirdexamplesofnonequivalentgroupsdesignisdevisedand
employedbyborrowingtheassumptionsoftreatmentandcomparisongroups,pre
andpostinterventionmeasures,andbufferzones.Itisnotpossibletousethesame
treatmentandcomparisongroups,butinsteadthetwononequivalentgroupsof
residentialburglaralarmsandNAIburglaryareused.However,asdiscussedbriefly
intheprevioussection,acleartimeorderfortheinstallationdateofallresidential
burglaralarmsisnotavailable.Onlyaggregateinstallationdatabyyear(from2001
to2005)isavailable.Itwouldbebettertousetheyearasaunitofintervention
timeorder.Detaileddatesofallresidentialburglariesareonhand,buttheyalso
shouldbeaggregatedbyyearforcomparisonpurposeswithburglaralarms.
[Table10.2]Nonequivalentgroupsquasiexperimentaldesignforthecurrentstudy
TheImpactofBurglarAlarmsonResidentialBurglaries
Burglaralarms2001
NAIresidentialburglary2001
Burglaralarms2002
Burglaralarms2005
OX1O
OY1O
OX2O
OY2O
OaXiOa
ObYiOb
t1 t2
Xi=Residentialburglaralarmpermitsbyyeari
Yi=NumberofinstancesofNAIresidentialburglarybyyeari
Oa=PoliceincidentreportdataonNAIresidentialburglary
Ob=CityHalldataonresidentialburglaralarmpermitrecord
t1andt2=Consecutivetwoyears
273
ThebufferzoneapproachwillbeincorporatedwiththeWDQapproach,
whichcalculatesWDQratiostointerpretspatialdisplacementanddiffusionof
benefitsofthecrimepreventionscheme.Thus,togetherwiththisbufferzone
approach,theconceptofWDQisutilizedtodevelopaflexibleandusable
nonequivalentgroupsquasiexperimentalresearchdesignforthisstudyinthe
followingsection.
4.
WeightedDisplacementQuotient(WDQ)
Thenestedbufferandcontrolzoneapproachisbasedonastatisticaltechnique,the
WDQ(BowersandJohnson,2003),whichaimstomeasurespatialdisplacementof
crimepreventionprograms.Therationaleisthatthedisplacementanddiffusionof
benefitscanonlybeattributedtocrimepreventionschemesifcrimeisreducedin
thetargetarea.Thus,theWDQnotonlymeasureswhatoccursinthebufferzone,
butalsorelateschangesinthebufferzonetothoseinthetargetareaovertheyears.
WDQvalueswillshowthesizeanddirectionalityoftheimpactofalarmsystemson
AsseeninFigure10.1,theconceptualapproachoftheWDQhasthree
concentriczonesnestedwithineachother.Thetargetzone(A)istheareainwhich
acrimepreventionschemeisapplied.Surroundingthetargetzoneisabufferzone
(B),whichmayhavebeeninfluencedbytheoperationofthecrimepreventioninthe
targetzoneandrepresentsthedisplacementordiffusionofbenefitszone.
Surroundingthebufferzoneisawidercontrolzone(C),whichisunlikelytobe
affectedbychangeswithinthetargetorbufferzone.Inaddition,itisequally
possibletohaveone,orseveral,controlzonesthatdonotsurroundthebufferand
274
targetzones.BowersandJohnson(2003)arguedthatsinceitwaspossibletodefine
morethanonecontrolzonesinthisway,thereliabilityofanyanalysisconducted
couldbeincreasedusingthisprocedure.
[Figure10.1]Nestedbufferandcontrolzones
ControlZone(C)
BufferZone(B)
Target
Zone(A)
ThreeNestedConcentricZones
Figure10.1isbasedonatheoreticalapproach.However,itislimitedinits
explanationandapplicationtoareallifesituation.Forexample,inFigure10.2the
fourbufferringscanbeusedasauniversalandconsistentmethodtoviewall
residentialalarmpermitsinthecity.Blackdotsrepresenttheaddressesofhouses
withresidentialburglaralarmsinstalled.Thus,theprogramcanproducefoursame
sizebufferringswiththesameradiithroughoutthecitybecausethispinmap
applicationisbasedonatheoreticalassumption,andnotontherealsizeofhouses
orthedistancebetweenhouses.Thoughmosturbanneighborhoodshavewell
plannedstreetblocksandhousingarrangements,somepartsofneighborhoodshave
differentstructures.ItisnecessarytoapplytheWDQconceptualapproachintoa
275
realsituation.Doingsomayproducedifferentshapedbufferzones(B)andcontrol
zones(C).
[Figure10.2]FourringbufferingmapsofburglaralarmsandNAIburglaryinthewestern
andnortheasternpartsofNewark,NJ,2005
Addressofburglaralarm
5.
ApplicationoftheNonequivalentGroupsDesignandWDQ
Figure10.3showsatypicalstreetblockandhousingarrangement.Theentrancesof
eachhousefacethestreets.Forexample,housesA,Bs,B1sandCshavethesame
entrancesfacingStreet2.Ontheotherhand,allC1sfaceeitherStreet1orStreet3.
Thetargetzonewithaburglaralarm(Agreencolor)issurroundedbythefive
bufferhouses(BandB1bluecolor),which,then,bordertheoutercontrolzone
276
with18houses(CandC1redcolor).ThereasontheC1houses,whicharelocated
directlybehindhouseA,arenotincludedamongthebufferhousesisthattheir
entrancesfaceStreet1,meaningthateventhoughtheyarelocatednexttoeach
other,inordertocheckwhethertheC1houseshaveburglaralarms,anoffender
mustuseStreet1orStreet3,ratherthanStreet2.Moretimeisneededtocheckand
enterthehouseBsonStreet2becausetheoffendermustwalktheentirestreet
block.Asaconsequence,C1housesdirectlybehindhouseAmaybelesslikely
targetsofcrimethanthehouseBs,whicharenexttohouseAonbothsidesofStreet
2.
[Figure10.3]Applicationofthenestedbufferandcontrolzonesinatypicalhousing
layout
street1
C1 C1 C1 C1 C1
C C B A B C C
street2
C C B1 B1 B1 C C
C1 C1 C1 C1 C1
street3
Also,thefourChousesnexttothehouseBsareincludedtothecontrolzone
withallC1houses.Therationaleforthisassignmentisthat,first,accordingtothe
literatureondisplacementanddiffusionofbenefitsofcrimepreventionprograms
(BowersandJohnson,2003;Bowers,Johnson,andHirschfield,2003;Johnson,
Bowers,Young,andHirschfield,2001),thebufferareadirectlyneighborsthetarget
277
area,whilethecontrolareacoversarelativelywiderareabeyondthebufferarea.
Secondly,assumingthatanoffenderspends5to10minutesononestreettocheck
forahousewithaburglaralarm,andthen,findshouseA,theoffendermayspend
theremainingtimecarefullyseekingotherpossibletargetsaroundhouseA.The
offenderwouldnotspendalongerperiodoftimetospyoutcrimetargets,butuseas
shortaperiodaspossible.Thus,thetimeperiodwouldbelessthan5minutes,and
thefourhouseCscanbevulnerablealternativetargetstohouseA.
Inaddition,thethreeB1housesacrossStreet2areincludedinthebuffer
area,theassumptionbeingthatifanoffenderfindsthathouseAhasaburglaralarm
installed,theoffendermayseekanearbytargetforcrime.Eventhoughthese
housesareontheothersideofthestreet,duetotheircloseproximityandthe
alarmsystemyardsignsforhouseA,theywouldbeincludedinthebufferzone
housestoexaminetheimpactofdisplacementanddiffusionofbenefitsofburglar
alarmsystemsonresidentialburglaries.Thus,eachtargethousewithaburglar
alarmhasfivebufferhousesand18controlhouses.
Figure10.3showsatypicallayoutofsinglefamilyhousingunitsinurban
neighborhoods.However,somepartsofthecitydisplaydifferentlayoutsanddonot
conformtothepatterninFigure10.3.Thus,theselectionprocessshouldbeflexible
andadaptablebasedonthelayoutofthehousingunitsorstreetblocks,eventhough
thesameprincipleofthenestedbufferandcontrolzonesappliesintheselectionof
bufferandcontrolareas.Accordingly,theshapeofbufferandcontrolareasmaybe
differentfromthatofFigure10.3.Figure10.4isoneexampleofaslightlydifferent
shapeofbufferandcontrolzones.Buttheconceptandassumptionsofthenested
278
bufferandcontrolzoneswillstillapply.Itshouldbenotedthatthesimplestreet
mapofacityisinappropriateforthisdetailedapproach.Thecityparcelmap,which
isbasedontherealsizeandlocationofhouses,isnecessaryforthisanalysis.
[Figure10.4]Applicationofthenestedbufferandcontrolzones
C C C C C
street1
C C B B B C C
C C B A B C C
street2
C C C C C
6.
MeasuringProcessofAppliedNonequivalentGroupsDesignandWDQ
Analysis
TheassumptionofthisWDQapproachisthatoveranygiventimeperiod,thebuffer
zone(BsandB1s)wouldaccountforaparticularproportionofthecrimecommitted
withinacontrolarea(CsandC1s).Ifaburglaralarmhassomepositiveimpacton
residentialburglary,thediffusionofbenefitsshouldspreadfromthetargetzone
intothebufferzonethatsurroundsitwiththecrimerateinthebufferzone
decreasing.Theunitofanalysisforthismethodisasingleaddressofhomeswith
burglaralarms.
Theselectionprocessofthethreedistinctareasfollowsas:
Toselecttheaddressesofrepeatedalarmpermitsfrom2001to2005.
Theseaddresseswillbethetargetzones(AinFigure10.3).
279
Toselectthebufferhouses(BandB1inFigure10.3)surroundingthetarget
zone,eachtargetzonewithaburglaralarminstalledmayhavefive
neighboringhouseswithoutburglaralarms.Iftheneighboringhouseshave
burglaralarmsinstalled,theyeachcanbeonetargetzonewithfivebuffer
houses.
Toselectthecontrolhouseswithoutburglaralarms(CandC1inFigure
10.3)surroundingthebufferzone.Thecontrolareawillinclude18houses
inatypicalhousinglayout.
Tocountthenumberofcrimesinthethreeareasoverthefiveyearperiod
andcalculatethechangesintheburglaryrateinthebufferzone(expressed
asaproportionofthatinthecontrolarea)fordifferenttimes.Thenthis
figureisweightedbyanindexthatmeasurescrimerateinthetargetarea
bythecontrolarea.
Theequationis:
B
C
A
C
[Equation10.1]
whereB=crimerateinbufferzone,C=crimerateincontrolarea,andA=
crimerateintargetarea.Thisindexonlyexaminesthedifferingproportionsinthe
variousareasatonepointoftime.Thus,itisnecessarytoexaminethechangesover
years.ThemodifiedequationfortheWDQaboveis:
B
C
A
C
B
C
A
[Equation10.2]
280
Equation11.2takesintoaccountthechangesobservedinthecontrolarea
overtimebycomparingthesituationafterimplementation(t1)withthesituation
beforeimplementation(t0).Insteadofthebeforeaftertimeframe,afiveyeartime
framecanbeappliedforthisstudy.
Therearetwopossibleoutcomesforthenumerator.Ifitispositive,thisis
indicativeofpossibledisplacement.Butifitisnegative,itmaysuggestthatthere
mayhavebeenadiffusionofbenefitsbecausethebufferzone(B)suffered
proportionallylesscrimeincomparisonwiththecontrolarea(C)overtheyears
examined.Therearealsotwopossibleoutcomesforthedenominator.Ifitis
negative,itshowsthataburglaralarmwassuccessfulinreducingburglaryrelative
tothecontrolarea(C).Ifitispositive,thenthismeansthataburglaralarmhas
beenunsuccessful,andthus,itisdifficulttorelateanychangeinthebufferzone(B)
tothetargetarea(A).
Then,asTable10.3shows,theWDQcanbeinterpretedinseveralways
(BowersandJohnson,2003;ChaineyandRatcliffe,2005).PositiveWDQvalues
indicatediffusionofbenefitstothebufferzone,andnegativeWDQvaluesindicate
geographicdisplacementofcrime.WiththeWDQvalues,afigureof+1showsa
diffusionofbenefitswheretheburglaryreductioninthebufferzoneisequaltothat
inthetargetarea.Inotherwords,thereisapositivenetimpactofburglaralarmson
residentialburglaries.Avalueof1indicatesadisplacementwhereaburglary
reductionisoffsetentirelybyanincreaseinthebufferzone.AWDQof0represents
ascenariowheretherewasapparentlynochangeinthebufferzone,orwherethis
changecouldnotbeattributedtochangesinthecontrolarea.
281
[Table10.3]InterpretationguideforWDQratios
WDQRatios
Displacement/Diffusion
OverallInterventionEffect
WDQ>1
WDQnear1
1>WDQ>0
WDQ=0
0>WDQ>1
WDQnear1
WDQ<1
Diffusiongreaterthandirecteffect
Positiveneteffectoftheintervention
Diffusionaboutequaltodirecteffect
Diffusion,butlessthandirecteffect
Nodisplacementordiffusion
Displacement,butlessthandirecteffect
Displacementaboutequaltodirecteffect Nonetbenefittointervention
Displacementgreaterthandirecteffect
Interventionworsethandoingnothing
Source:ChaineyandRatcliffe(2005)
III.
1.
AppliedWDQAnalysisofBurglarAlarmsonResidentialBurglaries
ALandParcelMap
ThepreviousanalysesusedaregularstreetmapofthecityofNewark,N.J.Butfor
appliedWDQanalysis,aparcelmapisnecessary.Theparcelmapisbasedona
polygonfeature,amultisidedfigurerepresentedbyaclosedsetoflines.Examples
ofpolygonfeaturesarecensustracks,policebeats,andlandparcels(Boba,2001).
Thisvaluabletool,unlikeregularstreetmaps,allowsfordetailedspatialanalysesof
asmallarea.Italsoismorespecificandprecisethanacenterlinemapinindicating
theexactlocationofafeature,suchasanincidentofresidentialburglaryorapermit
recordofaburglaralarm.Figure10.5showsoneexampleofthelandparcelmapin
thewesternpartofthecity.ThelandparcelmapofNewarkidentifies48,249
parcels.Eachrectangleshapelotisanexactlandparcelandidentifiedasasingle
polygon.Whenanaddressofanalarmpermitisgoecoded,thepointisplacedinthe
exactmiddleofthepolygon.
282
[Figure10.5]ExampleofthelandparcelmapofthewesternpartinNewark,NJ
2.
TheSelectionProcessofBufferandControlZones
TheWDQanalysisforthestudyofdisplacementofcrimeand/orthediffusionof
benefitsofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglariesinvolvesseveralsequential
selectionprocesseswithaparcelmapofthecity.
Thefirststepistoidentifyallpolygonsofresidentialburglaralarmpermits
onthecityslandparcelmapbyoverlayingtheaddressesofeachyearsalarm
permitrecords.ThisstepcanbeaccomplishedusingthejoinfunctionintheArcMap
computersoftware.Theaddresslevelpointdata(e.g.,eachyearsaddressesof
alarmpermitrecords)arejoiningtothepolygondata(e.g.,alandparcelmapofthe
city).Thisproducesanewlayerthatincludesanewvariable,calledcount,onthe
283
originallandparcelmap.Thecountvariablehasthenumberofpointsoccurringin
eachpolygonannually.ThesecondrowinTable10.4showsthenumberof
residentialburglaralarmrecordsannuallyafterbeingjoinedwiththepolygondata
onthecitysparcelmap.
Thesecondstepistoidentifythespatialtargetzone(A)onthejoinedland
parcelmap.TheprocessstartsbyusingtheselectionfunctionintheArcMap
software.Afteruploadingthenewjoinedlandparcelmap,alladdressesofNAI
burglariesareselectedbylocation.Severalselectionfeatures26areavailableinthe
ArcMap.ThisstudyusedtheAreCompletelyWithinselectionfeature,which
selectsfeaturesinonelayerthatfallcompletelyinsidethepolygonsofanother
withoutapplyinganybufferdistance.Thesamemethodisrepeatedfivetimesusing
eachyearsNAIburglariesdata.Thus,thisapproachproducesfivenewlayersof
thenumberofNAIburglariesuponthejoinedlandparcelmap.Thethirdrowin
Table10.4presentsthenumbersinthetargetzone(A).
Thethirdstepistocreatethespatialbufferzone(B)onthejoinedland
parcelmapandtocountthenumberofNAIburglariesinthesezones.Thismethod
startsbycreatingthefirstzone(B)usingthebufferfunctionintheArcMap.The
bufferdistanceforthiszoneis9meters(approximately29.53feet),whichalmost
completelycoversatleastthesurroundingthreelandparcels(seeFigure10.6with
redcolorrims).Aftercreatingthebufferzonessurroundingthetargetzones,all
26)ExamplesofavailableselectionfeaturesareAreCrossedByTheOutlineOf,
Intersect,AreWithinDistanceOf,HaveTheirCenterIn,AreCompletelyWithin,
CompletelyContain,ShareALineSegmentWith,ToughTheBoundaryOf,Are
IdenticalTo,Contain,andAreContainedBy(CMAP,2007).
284
addressesofNAIburglariesareselectedbylocationbyusingtheselectionfunction
intheArcMapwiththeAreCompletelyWithinselectionfeature.Thesesteps
produceanewlayerwiththenumberofNAIburglarieswithinthe9meterbuffer
zoneparcelmap.ThefourthrowinTable10.4showsthenumberofNAIburglaries
inbufferzones(Bs)throughouttheyears.
Thefourthstepistocreatethespatialcontrolzone(C1)onthejoinedparcel
mapbyusingthebufferfunctioninArcMapandtocountthenumberofNAI
burglariesinthesezoneswiththeselectionfunction(seemapAinFigure10.6with
bluecolorrims).Theprocedureisthesameasthethirdstep.Butthebuffer
distanceforthecontrolzoneisanother9metersfromtheboundaryofeachofthe9
meterbufferzones(Bs).ThefifthrowinTable10.4showsthenumberofNAI
burglariesinthecontrolzones(C1s).
Inaddition,onemorespatialcontrolzone(C2s)iscreatedandidentifiedwith
an18meter(approximately59.06feet)bufferdistance(seemapBinFigure10.6
withbluecolorrims).ThelastrowinTable10.4showsthenumbersofcontrolzone
(C2s).Theprimarypurposeofhavinganothercontrolzonesurroundingthetarget
andbufferzonesisthattwocontrolzonesallowsforthecalculationandcomparison
ofWDQvaluestoexaminewherethevaluesareconsistentordiscrepant.The
assumptionisthatwhenWDQvaluesfromtwocontrolzonesshowasimilarpattern
(e.g.,increaseordecreasetogetherovertheyears),theargumentoverthe
displacementand/ordiffusionofbenefitsofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries
isstrongerandmorereliable.
285
[Figure10.6]Landparcelmapsof9metercontrolzone(C1)and18metercontrolzone
(C2)with9meterbufferzone(B)
[Table10.4]Numberofparcelmappedresidentialalarmrecordsannually,Newark,NJ
YEAR
ZONES
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Parcelmappedalarmpermits
670 601 921 1,020 1,188
Targetzone(A)
124 132 149
183
101
Bufferzone(B)
77
72
69
109
65
Controlzone(C1)w/9meters
61
54 105
79
75
Controlzone(C2)w/18meters
117 128 171
150
137
3.
TheValuesofAppliedWDQAnalysis
Aftercreatingthethreespatialzonesbasedonthejoinedlandparcelmap(e.g.,
target,buffer,andcontrolzones)andcountingthenumberofNAIburglaryoneach
286
ofthesedifferentzones,WDQvaluesarecalculatedbyusingEquation10.2to
scrutinizegeographicdisplacementand/ordiffusionofbenefitsofburglaralarms.
Table10.5presentsthevaluesoftheappliedWDQanalysisbasedonthe
abovespatialapproachesandnumbers.Atfirstglance,allvaluesarepositive,
showing,accordingtotheinterpretationguideforWDQratiosinTable10.3,the
phenomenonofspatialdiffusionofbenefitsfromburglaralarmsagainstresidential
burglaries.Thereisnoindicationofanyspatialdisplacementofresidential
burglariesduetoburglaralarms.
[Table10.5]ValuesofappliedWDQanalysisinNewark,NJ
ControlZones
20012002
20022003
20032004
20042005
ControlZoneC1
ControlZoneC2
0.17
3.28
0.66
0.99
0.81
0.93
0.53
0.53
WDQvaluesinthecontrolzoneC1arelessthan1,indicatingthatthe
diffusionofbenefitsisnogreaterthanthedirecteffect.Inotherwords,thepositive
neteffectofburglaralarmsagainstresidentialburglariesdoesnotexist.However,
thelessthandirecteffort,butclosetodirecteffect,ofburglaralarmsisfound.
Forexample,theWDQvalueof20032004is0.81,indicatingthatthereisapositive
andsubstantialimpactofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.WDQvaluesfor
20022003and20042005alsoindicatethatthereisnodirecteffectofburglar
alarms,butasizableimpactonthecontinualdecreaseofresidentialburglaries
existsovertheyears.TheWDQvaluefor20012002is0.17,whichisrelatively
lowerthantheothervalues.Stillitsvalueindicatesthatsomegeographically
positiveeffectofburglaralarmsexistsagainstresidentialburglaries.
287
Inaddition,WDQvaluesinthecontrolzoneC2showasimilarpatternto
thoseincontrolzoneC1,exceptthevaluefrom20012002.Ingeneral,thevalues
arehigherthanthoseinthecontrolzoneC1.Inparticular,thevaluesfor20022003
and20032004arecloseto1,whichcanbeinterpretedasthedirecteffectof
diffusionofbenefitsbyburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.Itismainly
becausecontrolzoneC2scoverawidergeographicareaandconsequentlyincludea
largernumberofNAIburglarieswith65.8moreburglaries,a93percentincreaseon
average.
TheWDQvaluefor20012002is3.28.Accordingtotheinterpretationguide
forWDQratiosinTable10.3,thisunexpectedvalueindicatesthatthereisafar
greaterthandirecteffectofdiffusionofbenefits.Inotherwords,thepositivenet
effectofburglaralarmsagainstresidentialburglariesisobserved.However,
concludingthatthishighWDQvaluereflectsthetrueeffectofburglaralarmson
residentialburglariesshouldbedonecautiouslybecause,asdiscussedinthe
previouschapters,therealsoareseveralotherindependentvariablesthatcould
explainthedecreaseofNAIburglariesovertheyears.Thus,althoughtheWDQ
valueisfargreaterthan1,showingthatthereisagreaterdiffusionofbenefits,the
discussionofthediffusionofbenefitsofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries
shouldbepresentedincontextwithothervariables.
Nevertheless,itisconclusivethatWDQvaluesincontrolzoneC2sshowthe
geographicdiffusionofbenefitsofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglariesandthat
thegeographicdisplacementofresidentialburglariesduetoburglaralarmsisnot
288
found.Thus,theseobservationsandargumentsareconsistentwiththoseincontrol
zoneC1s.
Severalpointsareworthyoffurtherdiscussion.First,theappliedWDQ
valuesclearlydonotshowthegeographicdisplacementofNAIburglariesduetothe
installationofburglaralarmsthroughouttheyears.Instead,thesubstantialand
consistentgeographicdiffusionofbenefitsofresidentialburglaralarmsagainst
residentialburglariesisfound.
Second,althoughtheabovefindingsexplainthediffusionofbenefitsof
burglaralarmsagainstresidentialburglaries,itshouldbecautiouslyconcludedthat
suchdiffusionofbenefitsistheneteffectorabsolutebenefit.Rather,burglaralarms
haveasizeable,direct,andconsiderableimpactontheconstantdecreaseof
residentialburglariesovertheyears.Thereareotherfactorsthatcouldexplainthe
sametrendinresidentialburglaries,suchaspopulationcomposition,householders
agecomposition,andhousingcharacteristics.However,theaboveanalysesreveal
thatresidentialburglaralarmsystemsdonotnegativelyimpactthespatial
displacementofresidentialburglaries,buttheymaintainapersistentdiffusionof
benefitsonresidentialburglaries.
Third,anunexpectedobservationwasfoundinthat,accordingtoWDQ
valuesinTable10.5,residentialburglaralarmsnotonlyhaveashortgeographic
ambitofdiffusionofbenefits(controlzoneC1),butalsoawidergeographicrangeof
diffusionagainstresidentialburglariesbasedonthehigherWDQvaluesinthe
controlzoneC2,whicharehigherthanthoseinthecontrolzoneC1.Thisfindingis
consistentovertheyears.
289
Thisobservationislinkedtothecurrentliteratureontheargumentof
displacementincrimepreventioncircles.Inparticular,ithasbeenarguedthatwith
geographicdisplacement,thereislikelytobeadisplacementgradient,meaningthat
displacementismostlikelytooccurwithincloseproximitytoatargetareawherea
crimepreventionprogramisintroducedandthatitwilldecreaseasthedistance
fromthetargetareaincreases.Thisassumptionisbasedonthenotionoffamiliarity
decay(Eck,1993).Thealternativetofamiliaritydecayordistancedecayeffects
(BowersandJohnson,2003)isthatastheeffectofgeographicdisplacement
weakenswithdistancefromthetargetzone,theeffectofdiffusionofbenefitsofa
crimepreventioninterventioncanstrengthen.Inotherwords,thedistancedecay
effectofthegeographicdisplacementofcrimecanbeexplainedbythedistance
strengtheffectofthegeographicdiffusionofbenefits.Asdiscussedabove,WDQ
valuesincontrolzoneC2s,withwidergeographicareas,aregreaterthanthosein
controlzoneC1s.ThoughthespatialdisplacementofNAIburglaryduetoburglar
alarmsisnotfoundintwocontrolzones,WDQvaluesindicatethatthegeographic
diffusionofbenefitsofalarmsystemsfromtargetzoneAsgetsstrongerincontrol
zoneC2sthancontrolzoneC1s.
4.
TheDiffusionofBenefitsofBurglarAlarmsonResidentialBurglaries
Asdiscussedinthepreviouschapterswithquantitativeanalyses,arelationship
betweenburglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesexists,inthatthedecreaseofthe
totalnumberofNAIburglariesandtheincreaseofthetotalnumberofalarm
permitsoverthefiveyearperiodmaintainedastatisticallysignificantrelationship.
Whenotherindependentindicators(e.g.,demographic,socioeconomic,andhousing
290
characteristicvariables)wereaddedinadvancedstatisticalanalyses,the
relationshipbetweenthesetwoprimaryvariables(e.g.,burglaralarmpermitsand
NAIburglary)stillshowedastatisticallyconsistentandsignificantrelationship.
Basedonsuchobservations,thecausalrelationshipbetweenthetwovariablescan
berecognizedinthatthesteadydecreaseofthenumberofNAIburglaryoverthe
yearswasdirectlyorindirectlyimpactedbythesteadyincreaseinthetotalnumber
ofresidentialburglaralarms.Atthesametime,advancedmultipleregression
modelsshowedthatbothburglaralarmsandNAIburglary,whenusedasan
independentvariable,wasastrongpredictoroftheother,whenusedasa
dependentvariable.However,anyargumentsweremadecautiouslyastothedirect
andpositiveimpactoftheincreaseofburglaralarmsonNAIburglary,pending
verificationbyfurtherspatialanalyses.
Inadditiontothequantitativeapproach,mostspatialanalysesconfirmedthe
earlierobservationsandfindingsofthequantitativeanalyses.Furthermore,such
analysesstronglysuggestedthatresidentialburglaralarmshadapositiveimpacton
thesteadydecreaseofNAIburglaryduetotheeffectofdiffusionofbenefits,an
invisibleprotectivesealbeingspreadfromahousewithaburglaralarminstalledto
thenearestneighboringhousesinarelativelysmallgeographicarea.Theargument
isinterrelatedwiththehotspotapproach.Suchananalysiswasdoneatthemacro
levelwithboththeentirecityandcensustract.
Moreover,amicrolevelapproachatsinglehouselevelwascompletedinthis
chapter,utilizingthecityslandparcelmapandtheappliedWDQmethod.As
discussedabove,ageographicdisplacementofNAIburglaryovertheyearswasnot
291
observed,butthediffusionofbenefitsofburglaralarmsagainstNAIburglarywas
found.
Therefore,itisconclusivethatthereisnotonlyastatisticallysignificant
relationshipandcausalrelationshipbetweentheincreaseofresidentialburglar
alarmsandthedecreaseofresidentialburglaries,butalsoageographicdiffusionof
benefitsofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.Thehouseswithresidential
burglaralarmsinstalledarelessvictimizedandbetterprotectedthanthehouses
withoutburglaralarms.Houseslocatednexttoahousewithaburglaralarm
installedarealsolesslikelytobevictimizedandarebetterprotected.These
relativelysmallgeographicprotectedhotspotsarespreadacrosstheentirecity.
Suchaphenomenoncanbeexplainedastheresultofthespatialdiffusionofbenefits
ofahousewithaburglaralarmovertheimmediateandsurroundinghouses.
Furthermore,thisspatialeffectalsodirectlylinkstothedistancestrengtheffectof
thespatialdiffusionofbenefitsofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.
Havingaburglaralarmsystematahomedefinitelybringsapositiveimpact
inprotectingthehomeandpreventingresidentialburglaries.Ahomeburglaralarm
canbeusedasaeffectiveandpowerfuldeterrentagainstresidentialburglaries.
IV.
ChapterConclusion
ResearchQuestion6focusedontheexaminationofspatialdisplacementand
diffusionofbenefitsofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.Unliketheprevious
analyseswithnospecifiedresearchdesign,acustomized,flexible,andusable
measuringdesignwasdevised.Acknowledgingtheabsenceofastandardizedstudy
292
designforthemeasurementattheindividualhouseholdlevel,thenonequivalent
groupsquasiexperimentalresearchdesignwasdiscussed,borrowingand
modifyingtheassumptionsoftreatmentandcomparisongroups,preandpost
interventionmeasures,andbufferzones.Thebufferzoneapproachwas
incorporatedwiththeWDQconcept,whichaimedtomeasuregeographic
displacementofcrimepreventionprograms.TheWDQnotonlymeasuredwhat
occurredinthebufferzone,butalsorelatedchangesinthebufferzonetothosein
thetargetareaovertheyears.Itsvaluesshowedthesizeanddirectionalityofthe
impactofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglary.Forthisapplicationtothe
measurement,thecitylandparcelmap,whichisbasedontherealsizeandlocation
ofhousebuildings,wasutilized.
Aftercreatingthethreespatialzonesbasedonthejoinedlandparcelmap
(e.g.,target,buffer,andcontrolzones)withburglaralarmpermitsandcountingthe
numberofNAIresidentialburglaryoneachofthesedifferentzones,WDQvalues
werecalculated.TheappliedWDQanalysesclearlyshowedthattherewasno
indicationofanyspatialdisplacementofresidentialburglariesduetotheincreaseof
burglaralarminstallationsandthattherewasapositiveandsubstantialimpactof
burglaralarmsonthedecreaseofresidentialburglariesovertheyears.
Furthermore,WDQanalysesshowedthatadistancestrengtheffectofthespatial
diffusionofbenefitsofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglarieswasobserved.
Inconclusion,havingaburglaralarmsystematahomedefinitelybroughta
positiveimpactinprotectingthehomeandpreventingresidentialburglaries.A
293
homeburglaralarmcanbeusedasapowerfuldeterrentagainstresidential
burglaries.
Inthefollowingchapter,asummaryofthepreviousstudyfindingsandpolicy
implicationswillbepresented.Limitationsofthepresentstudyandfurther
researchagenda,focusingontheeffectofburglaralarmssystemsoncrimealsowill
bediscussed.
CHAPTER11.DISCUSSIONANDCONCLUSION
I.
Introduction
Thisstudyquestioned,analyzed,andexaminedtheimpactofhomeburglaralarms
onresidentialburglaries,usingmultiplevariables.Quantitativeandspatialanalyses
wereprimarilyemployedforthepresentstudy.Thischapterdiscussesthe
significanceofthefindingspresentedanddiscussedinChapters6through10and
offersexplanationsfortheseresults.Implicationsforpolicyandcrimeprevention,
limitationsofthepresentstudy,andsuggestionsforfurtherresearch,focusingon
theimpactofburglaralarmsystemsoncrimealsoarediscussed.
II.
FindingExplanationsandPolicyImplications
1.
ResultsSummary
Thegeneraltrendanalysesaccordingtothedatafrompolicedepartmentandcity
hallshowedthatresidentialburglaralarmsinusehadsteadilyincreasedoverthe
fiveyearperiod,whilebothNAIandAIresidentialburglariesalsohadprogressively
decreased.Thiscrossingobservationbecamethedeepseatedresearchquestion
penetratingthroughoutthepresentstudyinordertoscrutinizethedeterrenteffect
ofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.OfthehypothesesproposedinChapter
4,mostaresupportedbyeitherthequantitativeanalysesinChapter7orthespatial
analysespresentedinChapters8through10.
Thefirstresearchquestionandhypothesisconcernedtheoverall
relationshipbetweenburglaralarmsandresidentialburglariesovertheyears.The
continualdecreaseofthenumberofresidentialburglarieswascloselyand
294
295
statisticallyassociatedwiththeconsistentincreaseofburglaralarminstallationsin
Newark,N.J.Chisquareandchangedproportionstatisticssupportedthecrossing
relationwasstatisticallysignificantandpersistentovertheyears,whichindicated
thatburglaralarmsimpactedonthedecreaseofresidentialburglaryincidents.
Followedbyrudimentaryquantitativeinquiries,correlationandregression
statisticsnotonlyconfirmedthecrossingrelationshipbetweentheincreaseof
burglaralarmsinuseandthedeceaseofresidentialburglaryincidentbutalso
identifiedkeyvariableswithstatisticalsignificancetoexplainaboutandlinktothe
patternsofburglaralarminstallationsandresidentialburglaryincidents.Both
patternsweredependentonsuchvariablesaspopulationrace(white,black,and
others),populationagegroups(agesunder17,25to34,and60to64),
unemploymentrate,householderraceandagegroups,andhouseoccupiedby
owner.
Forexample,regardingincreasedinstallationtrendsofresidentialburglar
alarms,neighborhoodswithgreaterblackpopulations,populationages12to17,
blackhouseholders,householderswithinthe25to34agegroup,andhouses
occupiedbyownerweremorelikelytohaveburglaralarmsinstalledbecauseof
safetyissueintheirhouses.Theinstallationpatternofburglaralarmsalsowas
closelyrelatedtoemploymentstatus,showingthatneighborhoodswithlower
unemploymentratesweremorelikelytohaveburglaralarmsinstalledthan
neighborhoodswithhigherunemploymentrates.
Withregardtothepatternofresidentialburglaries,neighborhoodswith
greaterpopulationgroupsofagesunder14,ages15to17,andagesover45,
296
householderagegroupover65yearsoldwerelesslikelytobevictimizedby
residentialburglary.Theinterrelationbetweenthisfindingandtheinstallation
patternofburglaralarmsclearlyrevealedthattheincreaseofburglaralarmsinuse
hadpositiveimpactonthedecreaseofresidentialburglaryincidentsduetothefact
thatneighborhoodswithgreaterpopulationages12to17weremorelikelytohave
burglaralarmsinstalledandlesslikelytobevictimizedbyresidentialburglary.The
elderlypopulationover65yearsoldwaslesslikelytobevictimized.Butthemost
vulnerabletargetforresidentialburglarywaswithinthe60to64householderage
group.Furthermore,neighborhoodswithhigherunemploymentratestendedto
havehighernumberofresidentialburglary.Theunemploymentratewasone
substantialindicatortoexplainthepatternsofbothburglaralarminstallationsand
residentialburglaries.Inshort,bothpatternsofburglaralarminstallationsand
residentialburglariesweredependentupon,andexplainedby,thosekeyindicators.
Thefurtheradvancedmultipleregressionstatisticsenabledtosuggesta
groupofpowerfulpredictors,ratherthantosingleoutthemostinfluentialvariable
onthedependentvariable,tobothburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries.The
forwardselectionmultipleregressionshowedthatamongthegroupofindicators
wereblackpopulation,owneroccupancy,householderages25to34,NAIburglary,
andgeneralpopulationagesunder14tobestexplainandpredicttheinstallation
patternofresidentialburglaralarms.Ontheotherhand,thehierarchicalselection
multipleregressionshowedthatsuchvariablesasburglaralarms,unemployment,
populationagesover45,andhouseholderages60to64werethebestindicators,
297
thoughnotnecessarilyinthatorderofdegreeofpredictability,toexplainand
predictthepatternofNAIburglary.
Aseriesofspatialanalyseswasaneyepoppingvisualizationtoexaminethe
spatialdistributionsandpatternsofbothburglaralarmsandresidentialburglary
andtoverifythefindingsbasedonquantitativeanalysespresentedinChapter7.An
overlayingmappingmethoddemonstratedconsistentquantitativefindingsevenon
aspatialdimensionandidentifiedspatialrelationshipswithkeyindicatorswhich
wereusedincorrelationandregressionstatistics.Forexample,neighborhoods
withthedensespotsofhigherblackpopulationandyoungerpopulationagesunder
17sharedthesameorneighboringdensespotsofhigherinstallationofburglar
alarms.
Pointanddensitymappingmethodsshowedthatdistributionpatternsof
bothburglaralarminstallationsandresidentialburglarieswerenotevenly
distributedthroughoutthecity.Thoughmanyofstreetsandcityblockshadburglar
alarmsinstalledandwereaffectedbyresidentialburglaries,certainareasor
neighborhoodsobviouslyhadheavilydensespotscrossthecitywitheithermore
burglarormoreburglaryincidents.Suchaspatialpatternoccurreddependent
uponneighborhoodsconditions(e.g.,demographic,socioeconomic,andhousing
characteristics).Moreimportantly,thosedensespotsofburglaralarmsand
residentialburglariesdidnotoverlap,showingthatstreetblocksorsmall
geographicsectionsofthecitywithhighinstallationrateofburglaralarmshadless
residentialburglaryincidentsandvisaverse.Furtherspatialstatisticsandanalyses
(e.g.,spatialautocorrelationandclusteringanalyses)confirmedthisspatial
298
observationthathotspotsandcoolspotsofbothburglaralarmsandresidential
burglariesexistedandthatthedistributionofthosespotswerenotrandomly
scatteredbutheavilyclusteredatcertaingeographicareasacrossthecity,being
affectedbydemographic,socioeconomic,andhousingconditions.Inshort,those
spatialpatternsdemonstratedthattheincreasedinstallationofresidentialburglar
alarmshadsomepositiveimpactonthedecreasednumberofresidentialburglary
incidentsovertheyearsbycreatingaprotectivesealaroundthehotspotsofburglar
alarminstallationsandpushingawaypotentialburglar(s)fromthesehotspots.
Finally,theappliedWDQanalysisrevealedthatnoindicationofspatial
displacementofresidentialburglaryduetotheincreaseofburglaralarm
installationswasobservedandthattherewasapositiveandsubstantialimpactof
burglaralarmsontheprogressivedecreaseofresidentialburglariesovertheyears.
Suchananalysisexplicitlysupportedspatialdiffusionofbenefitsofburglaralarms
onresidentialcrime.Inshort,allthequantitativeandspatialfindingswere
consistentandexplainedtheimpactofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.
2.
PolicyImplications
TheresearchoutcomespresentedanddiscussedinChapters7through10support
priorfindingsshowingthatresidentialburglaralarmshaveadeterrenteffectin
reducingincidentsofresidentialburglaries.Inaddition,thisstudyfindsthatthe
geographicdisplacementofresidentialburglariesbyburglaralarmsisnotobserved,
butthatthediffusionofbenefitsofburglaralarmsisshown.Thestudysresults
throughoutthevariousanalysesarereliablyconsistentandpredictablewithseveral
keyvariables.Attachedtothosefindingsaresomepromisingimplicationsforpolicy
299
andpractice.Thepolicyimplicationspresentedbelowaddressthekeyvariables
showntobethestrongestpredictorsofpatternsofburglaralarminstallationand
residentialburglariesinthecurrentstudy.Thesepolicyimplicationswillbe
directedtothesecurityindustryandpotentialbuyersofalarms,aswellasthelocal
policedepartments,governments,insuranceindustrythatareabletoaddresscrime
problemsinourneighborhoodstobuildsaferandmoresecurecommunities.
Thediscussionofpolicyimplicationshereisdirectlyrelatedtothe
theoreticalbackgroundpresentedinChapter3.Thetheoreticalbackgroundfor
studyingburglaryandtheoffendersperspectivehasbeenbuiltuponwell
establishedtheories,suchasroutineactivitiestheoryandrationalchoicetheory.
Thosetheoreticalargumentshavebecomethebasisforthedevelopmentofcrime
preventionapproachesforsituationalcrimeprevention.Onesimilarityofthose
theoriesisthatcrimeisanormal,commonplaceaspectofmodernsociety.Burglary
alsoisregardedasaroutinelyproducedformofbehaviorbythenormalpatternsof
socialandeconomiclife,ratherthanasadeviationfromnormalcivilizedconduct.
Thus,crimepreventionstrategiesbasedonthosetheoriesidentifyrecurring
criminalopportunitiesandseektogovernthembydevelopingsituationalcontrols.
Criminogenicsituations,hotproducts,andhotspotsarethenewobjectsofcontrol
(Garland,2001).
Thekeyvariablesinthepresentstudyexplainingtheimpactofburglar
alarmsandresidentialburglariesaresituationalindicators.Tobeeffective,crime
preventionstrategiestargetingresidentialburglariesaddressthesesituational
variables.Thespatialanalysesinthecurrentstudysupportedthataburglarismore
300
likelytorespondtoaresidentialburglaralarmattheneighborhood,block,or
individualresidencelevel.AsCromwell,Olson,andAvary(1991)andWrightand
Decker(1994)argued,crimepreventionstrategiesatthemacrolevel,suchas
increasedlevelsofprosecution,increasingstatutorypenalties,andlargescalesocial
change,oratthemiddlelevel,suchasneighborhoodwatchprograms,maynotbe
perceivedasbeingeffective,exceptundercertaincircumstances.Ofcourse,the
potentialbenefitsforcrimepreventionofthesemacroandmiddlelevelcrime
preventionstrategiesshouldnotbedismissed.
Forinstance,asdiscussedinChapter7,apowerfulpredictorofresidential
burglarieswasunemployment.Thus,jobcreationwouldseemtobeoneofthemore
promisingmeanstokeepingbothactiveburglarsandwouldbeburglarsawayfrom
engagingincriminalactivitiesbecausetheassumptionisthatburglarsalsoneeda
stablefinancialsourceandwouldquitoffendingiftheyhaveagoodjob.However,
creatingsuchjobsisadaunting,longtermtask.Evenifthiswereaccomplished,itis
notclearthattheoffendersactuallywouldbewillingorabletotakeadvantageof
thenewemploymentopportunities.Thepersuasiveargumentisthatnotonlyare
themajorityofthempoorlyeducatedandunskilled,butmanyareunreliable,having
drugoralcoholproblems.Thesecircumstancesmaysuggestthatexpanded
employmentopportunitiescanbeeffectiveinreducingresidentialburglaries,butit
isdubiousthatajobcreationprogramwillimpactthosealreadyheavilyinvolvedin
crime(WrightandDecker,1994).
Rather,microlevelapproaches,suchasinstallingalockonwindowsand
doorsorinstallingaburglaralarm,institutedbytheresidentsofapotential
301
burglarytarget,areperceivedtobemoreeffectivebecauseaburglarismore
concernedwiththepossibilityofimmediatedetectionandimmediaterewards
(FelsonandClarke,1998).Eventhoughburglarscannotbecompletelykeptout
throughtargethardeningmeans,suchaslocks,bolts,andalarms,stillsuchmeansof
preventioncandelay,frustrate,anddeterattemptedentries.Inotherwords,they
canslowdowntheburglarbymakingtheburglarydifficultforthosecriticalseconds,
whichmayeithermaketheburglargiveuporenablehimtobeobservedintheact
ofresidentialburglary.Thus,aresidentialburglaralarmisonesuchmeansofan
effectivemicrolevelstrategytorespondtoresidentialburglaries.
Analysesofthechangesinresidentialburglaryinthebufferandcontrol
zonesthroughouttheyearsindicatedthatgeographicdisplacementwasnotfound,
butinsteadgeographicdiffusionofbenefitsofburglaralarmswasobserved,with
houseswithinthesezonesexperiencingareductionintheriskofburglary.This
importantfindingsuggeststhatthepreventiveeffectsofsituationalcrimereduction
measuresmayextendtounprotectedhouseswithincloseproximityofascheme.
Thus,thepossibilityexiststhattheeffectivenessofmanysituationalcrime
reductioninterventionsmaybeincreasedbyadoptingtargetingstrategiesthatgive
theillusionofagreaterareaofcoverage(Bowers,Johnson,andHirschfield,2003).
Oneofthemostsubstantialresultsinthisstudyisthatburglaralarmsare
indeedeffectiveindeterringresidentialburglar(s)inAIhousesandindiffusingthe
positivebenefitsofburglaralarmstohousesincloseproximityandthesurrounding
geographicarea.SpatialdensityanalysesinChapter8andNNI,MoransIs,andHot
Spot(Gi*)analysesinChapter9showedthathotspotsofNAIburglaryinthecity
302
weresurroundedbymanyNAIhouses,whereascoolspotsofNAIburglarywere
surroundedbymanyAIhouses.Thesepatternsandrelationshipsbetweenburglar
alarmsandresidentialburglarieswerecontinualovertheyears.Understanding
thoserelationshipscanhelphomeownersconsideringalarmsystemsforbetter
protectionoftheirresidences.
Evenwhenmotivatedoffendersknowthatadwellingisunoccupied,
situationalmeasuresremainthatcandiscouragethemfromattemptingto
burglarizeit.Foremostamongtheseareoccupancyproxies,suchasburglaralarms.
Fewoftheoffenderswerepreparedtotackleburglaralarms,andmostmadea
concertedefforttoavoidthem(Gillham,1992;WrightandDecker,1994).Spatial
analysesinChapter8supportedthatneighborhoodsinwhichburglaralarmswere
heavilyinstalledhavefewerincidentsofresidentialburglariesthanthe
neighborhoodswithfewerburglaralarms.Thus,theinstallationofburglaralarms
makesdwellingslessattractivetothewouldbeandactiveburglars.
Technologyadvancesandmarketcompetitionovertheyearshavebrought
downthecostsofthefirsttimeinstallationandmonthlymaintenance.Inmost
caseshomeownerscanobtainalarmsystemsforlessthanthemonthlycostofacell
phone,thoughtheinitialcostofsysteminstallationisrelativelypriceytolow
incomeneighborhoodsinparticular.Thealarmindustryandinsurersshouldoffer
discountsinpremiumsforalarmownership.Residentialburglaralarmsindeed
havesomepositiveimpactonresidentialburglariesbyhavingalowernumberof
incidents,beingcomparedwithNAIhouses,andhavingdiffusionofbenefitsof
alarmsystemstosurroundinghouses.Inordertojustifyawardingdiscountsto
303
alarmowners,thediscountmustbeconsideredinthealarmpurchasedecision
processbecauseburglaralarmscanyieldfinancialbenefitstoinsurersevenafter
payingfordiscounts.Thoughtheinitialcostandmaintenancecostsofburglar
alarmsystemshaveloweredduetomarketcompetitionandbettertechnology,still
thissuggestionisrecommended.Someaffluentcommunitiescanaffordalarm
systems,butmanyhouseholdsinthecityofNewark,N.J.maybenot.Themedian
incomewas$26,926,withawiderangeofvariationamongneighborhoodsinthe
city,andtheblackpopulationvariableasthelargestpopulationcategoryoverother
populationcategorieswasthemostimportantpredictorinexplainingthepatternof
alarminstallations.Inotherwords,theneighborhoodswithalargerblack
populationtendedtohavemorealarmsystemsinstalledthananyotherpopulation
group.Butthosewholiveinlowerincomeneighborhoodsandhaveanalerted
concernforsafetyandsecuritymaynotbeabletoaffordtobuyandinstallaburglar
alarm.Thus,offeringdiscountsinpremiumsforalarmownershipfromboththe
alarmindustryandinsurancecompanyisstronglyrecommendedinorderto
encouragetheresidentsinblackpopulationneighborhoodstobuyandinstallalarm
systems.
Inaddition,asdiscussedinChapters7and8,houseownershipwasdirectly
relatedtotheinstallationpatternofresidentialburglaralarms.Asproposed,more
discountsinpremiumsforalarmownershipforhomeownersarerecommended.In
particular,thissuggestionlinkstwocriticalpredictors:householderagegroup25to
34andgeneralpopulationagegroupunder14yearsold.AsdiscussedinChapter7,
theseyoungerhouseholdershadmoreburglaralarmsinstalledthanother
304
householderagegroups.Ofcourse,itisdubioustothinkthatmostofthemowned
theirhouses.Itismorereasonabletoassumethatmostthoseyounger
householderswererentersratherthanhomeowners.Thedatashowthattherateof
renteroccupiedhousesinthecityissubstantiallyhigh(76percent).However,both
homeownersandrentersareconcernedwiththesafetyandsecurityforeither
owneroccupiedorrenteroccupiedhouses.Inthecaseofrenteroccupiedhouses,
theoriginalhomeownerhadinstalledaburglaralarm.Atthesametime,this
youngerhouseholderagegroupfrom25to34yearsoldgenerallyhadmorebabies,
toddlers,orchildrenattheirhousesthanolderhouseholderswithmoreattention
paidtotheirchildrenssafety.Thus,fromapolicyorientedview,itisrecommended
tooffersubstantialandpersistentdiscountsinpremiumsforalarmownershipfor
targetedhomeownersbasedondemographic,socioeconomic,andhousing
indictorsbyboththealarmindustryandinsurancecompanies.Suchapolicywill
encouragethemtobuyandinstallburglaralarmstobetterprotecttheirhomes.
Also,withtheinsuranceindustrylookingtoenhancealarmsales,
cooperationbetweenthetwoindustrieswillbebeneficialtoboth.Theinsurance
industrycouldcooperatebyworkingtowardstandardizingdiscountsandstressing
themeritsandeffectivenessofburglaralarmstoclients.Thesesuggestionswould
requiremoreaggressiveactivitybythealarmassociations.Theyalsopropose
increasedcooperationwithpoliceandtheinsuranceindustrytoincreasethe
credibilityandvisibilityoftheindustryandtoimproveservice.
Finally,asdiscussedinChapters8and9,distinctivespatialhotspotsand
coolspotsofresidentialburglariessupportedthatthecrimeisnotspreadevenly
305
acrossthecity.Thesedistributionswereformedbyembeddedkeyindicatorsinthe
neighborhoodsinthecity,suchasdemographic,socioeconomic,andhousing
characteristics.Theexistenceofsuchindicatorsinformsthepoliceofhotspotsthat
routinelyneedpatrolled.Butahotspotsorientedpolicepatrolshouldnotbea
standaloneconsiderationtodevelopapatrolprogramorcrimepreventionstrategy.
Itshouldbeincorporatedwiththetemporalanalysisofresidentialburglaries,which
isdiscussedinChapter6.Together,theycanguidelocalpolicedepartmentsto
developananalyticalandtargetedpatrolstrategy,utilizingscantpoliceresourcesin
fightingresidentialburglaries.
III.
LimitationsofthePresentStudy
AsdiscussedinChapter4,thisstudyresolvedseveralseriousmethodologicalissues
stemmingfromthepreviousstudiesontheresearchtopicforabetter
understandingandinsightintotherelationshipbetweenburglaralarmsand
residentialburglaries.Butthisonestudycannotdisentangleallpossible
methodologicalproblems.Inotherwords,severallimitsinevitablysubsistinthe
currentstudy.Itshouldbenotedthatthoughseveralstudylimitationsexist,they
supplyfurtherresearchtopicsonthebroaderspectrumfortheimpactofburglar
alarmsystemsoncrime.Thefollowingissuggestionsforfutureresearch.
1.
NonequivalentGroupsQuasiExperimentalDesign
AsdiscussedandproposedinChapter10,thecurrentstudyusedanonequivalent
groupsquasiexperimentalresearchdesign.Randomizationwasnotpossible
becausethisstudyutilizedthesecondarydatafromthelocalpolicedepartmentand
306
CityHall.Then,bydefinition,experimentalandcontrolgroupswerenotequivalent
becausetheexperimentalandcontrolgroupsweredefinedandidentifiedaccording
tospatialproximitytoAIhouseswithaburglaralarmasacrimeprevention
stimulus.TheWDQapproachwasmodifiedandappliedtoexaminethespatial
impactofburglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.
Thoughthenonequivalentgroupsquasiexperimentaldesigninthecurrent
studywasgroundedinatheoreticalunderstanding,asMaxfieldandBabbie(2008)
argued,thisstudymaysufferfromapossiblethreattovalidity.Eitheramore
rigorousandtheoreticallygroundedquasiexperimentalresearchdesignor
randomizedexperimentaldesignshouldbedevelopedandusedtostudythistopic.
2.
ThePotentialDrawbacksofRecordedCrimeData
Theprimarydatasourceforthisstudyisdatafromagencyrecords.The
methodologicallimitationsoftheofficialpolicerecorddataiswellknownamong
criminologists,especiallyinregardtothedatasfailuretocapturecrimes
unreportedtoauthorities.Relyingonsuchasecondarydatasourcepresentsthe
problemofthedarkfigureofcrime,orcrimesthatgounreportedtopolice.
Forthecurrentstudy,thedataforNAIandAIburglarieswerecollectedfrom
thepoliceincidentreportsdatabase.Duetotheproportionofunreportedcrimesto
thepolice,itisnotpossibletoknowtheactualnumberofcrimesinthecity.This
disadvantageunderestimatesthetotalnumberofNAIburglary,andskewstherate
ofresidentialburglary,whichiscalculatedbydividingthetotalnumberofcrimes
withthetotalnumberofhouseholdsinthecity.Thus,thesizeofcrimeratesbased
onsecondarydatawouldbesmallerthanthesizeofcrimeratesbasedonthetrue
307
numberofcrime.Consequently,theratioofresidentialalarmpermitstoNAI
burglarywouldbebiased.
3.
SomeProportionofInUse,butNonRegistered,BurglarAlarmsExists
TheresidentialalarmpermitrecordsfromCityHallincludethetotalnumberof
applicationsinagivenyear.Butthisrecorddoesnotpresentthetruetotalnumber
ofburglaralarmsinuseinthecity.AccordingtotheAlarmSectioninthepolice
department,therearethreecategoriesofresidentialburglaralarmusers:(1)the
legitimateburglaralarmuserwithacitypermit;(2)theexpiredalarmuser,who
onceappliedforthecitypermitbutdidnotrenewit;and(3)theunlicensedburglar
alarmuserwhohasinstalledalarmsystemsbuthasneverappliedforacitypermit.
Thesecondandthirdcategoriesarenonregisteredalarms.Table11.1showsthe
totalnumberofburglaralarmsaccordingtodifferenttypesofresidentialalarm
usersfrom2001to2005.
[Table11.1]NumbersofthreedifferentresidentialburglaralarmsannuallyinNewark,
NJ
Type
Legitimatealarmpermit
Expiredalarm
Unlicensedalarm
TOTAL
Year
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
1,261 1,081 1,649 1,887 2,205
(0.80) (0.74) (0.76) (0.69) (0.75)
88
120
124
44
90
(0.06) (0.08) (0.06) (0.01) (0.03)
211
266
391
770
642
(0.14) (0.18) (0.18) (0.30) (0.22)
1,560 1,467 2,164 2,701 2,937
Average
(%)
0.75
0.05
0.20
1.00
(Source:NewarkCityHallandPoliceDepartment)
Thetotalnumberofexpiredandunlicensedalarmsarebasedonthenumber
ofsummonsissuedbythepolicedepartment.Table11.1showsthatthenumberof
308
summonsissuedtothosewhohaveanunlicensedalarmsystemishigherthanthat
ofanexpiredalarmsystem.Eventhoughthesenumbersaresubstantial,thepolice
departmentandCityHallcannotestimateeventheapproximatetotalnumberof
unlicensedalarmusersinthecity.Itisnotknownwhymanyhomeownershave
installedandusedburglaralarmsystemswithoutcitypermits.Italsoisunclear
whysomehomeownerswouldnotrenewtheircurrentalarmsystemsandusethem.
Theseissuesneedtobefurtherstudied.
Theproblemofthenumberofnonregisteredburglaralarmusersmay
overestimatethetotalnumberofAIresidentialburglary.ThecurrentdatasetofAI
burglarydoesnotidentifywhichincidentsinvolvedalarmsystems.When
comparingtherateofAIburglarybytotalalarmsystems,theoutcomemaybe
biasedtowardalowerrate.Forexample,in2004therewere1,887totalregistered
alarmpermits,814nonregistered(44expiredalarmsand770unlicensedalarms),
and54AIburglary.TherateofAIburglarybytotalalarmsystemswithout
nonregisteredalarmsis2.86,whiletheratewiththenonregisteredalarmsis2.0.
Thecombinednumberofthethreetypesofresidentialalarmsystemsinuseis
treatedasthetotalnumberforthisproject.
4.
ASuddenIncreaseinResidentialAlarmPermitRecords
In2005,2,205residentialalarmpermitswereissued.Table12.2showsthe
percentagechangeofresidentialalarmpermitsovertheyears.Duringthefiveyears,
thealarmpermitsincreasedeachyear.Inparticular,whencomparedwith2001
and2002records,thenumberofpermitsin2005increasedby75percentand104
309
percent,respectively.Thechangeoccurredwithinthreeyears,arelativelyshort
periodoftime.
[Table11.2]NumberofresidentialburglaralarmpermitsannuallyinNewark,NJ,2001
2005
Year
2001
2002
Numberofpermits 1,261 1,081

Change(%)
2003
2004
1,649
2005
1,887 2,205
14.3 +52.5 +14.4 +16.9
Average(X)
1,617
+17.4
Suchsuddenincreasesare,tosomeextent,unusualamonggeneralsocial
phenomenon.Severalfactorsmayproducethisincrease,suchasasuddensocial
change,sharpincreaseofthecrimerate,newinternalpolicy,ornewlawsregulating
thealarmindustry.WhentheresearcheraskedaCityHallpublicofficer,whowasin
chargeofthelicensingbusiness,whethertherehadbeenanysignificantpolicy
changeornewregulationsrelatingtothealarminstallationbusinessesor
residentialalarmpermitsduringthelastfiveyears,theofficeransweredthatthere
werenosuchchanges.Atthistime,thedirectfactor(s)forthesuddenincreaseis
notclear.Thisissuecouldbeincludedinafutureresearchagenda.
Thisissuemayhaveabiastowardtheimpactofalarmsystemsonresidential
burglaries.Forexample,incalculatingtherateofalarmpermitsin2005,asudden
increaseinthetotalnumberofalarmpermitsproducesanunusualhighvalue
comparedwiththepreviousyear.Itcan,allotherthingsbeingconsistent(i.e.,the
decreaseofresidentialburglarywasconsistent),demonstrateasignificantly
positiveimpactofalarmsystemsonresidentialburglaries.
5.
310
SomeProportionofUnmatchedGeocodingAddresses
Inthecourseofdatatransformation,alladdressesofresidentialalarmpermits,NAI
burglary,andAIburglaryweregeocodedfordescriptiveandstatisticalspatial
analyses.ThisprocesswasdonebyusingaGISsoftwarefunction(e.g.,geocode
address).Buttherewassomeproportionofunmatchedaddressesfromthethree
differentdatasets,withtheaveragebeing9percent.Thethresholdofpercent
matchingincriminaljusticeresearchis85percent.Thecurrentstudyshowsa93
percentmatchingpoint,andthus,ishigherthantheacceptablethresholdincriminal
justiceresearch.Severalfactorsmaycausethisproblem,suchasproblemswith
handlingabbreviations,incorrectspellings,incompleteaddresses,addressesofan
areaofopenspace,andnonexistentaddresses.
Thisissuemaycauseproblemswiththespatialanalysisprocesses.For
example,inidentifyinghotspotsforbothalarmpermitsandNAIburglary,the
unmatchedaddressesareexcluded,and,thus,underestimatethetotalnumbersof
hotspotsofalarmpermitsandNAIburglary,producingbiasedoutcomesformacro
levelspatialanalyses.
6.
LackofaMultipleFactorApproachinExaminingtheImpactofAlarm
SystemsonCrime
Thisstudyprimarilyfocusesonexaminingtheimpactofresidentialburglaralarms
onlevelsofNAIburglary.Buttherealityisthatotherinitiatives(e.g.,securedlock
systemsondoorsandwindows,securityyardsignwithoutanactualalarmsystem,
dog,andstreetlights)byresidentsalsomayhaveaneffectatthislevel.These
initiativescanbeaconfoundingfactorininvestigatingtheimpactofalarmsystems
311
oncrime.BecausethedatasetsfromCityHallandthepolicedepartmentdidnot
havesuchinformationwithresidentialburglaralarmsystems,itisnotpossibleto
includetheinformationinthevariousdatasetsusedforthisstudy.Thissortof
informationcanbeobtainedthroughquestionnaire,telephone,ordoortodoor
surveys.Withoutsuchinformationincluded,theoutcomeofanalysesinthisstudy
canbequestionableandbiasedtowardthediscussionoftheimpactofthealarm
systemoncrime.Thus,forabetterunderstandingoftheeffectofthealarmsystem
oncrime,itisnecessaryforthestudytoincorporateotherresearchmethods(e.g.,
ethnographicapproachandfieldobservation),includingmorevariableswhichhave
apossibleeffectonthelevelsofresidentialburglary.
7.
TheGeneralizationoftheStudyIsinIssue
Thesiteforthisstudyisanurbanneighborhoodclosetoametropolitancity.
AccordingtotheU.S.Censusdatafor2000,thepopulationofthecitywascloseto
270,000,andthetotalnumberofhouseholdswasapproximately100,000.Even
thoughthepopulationandhouseholdnumbersremainstatic,Newarkalsohas
diverseethnicities.Suchconditionsmaynotbesimilartootherurbancitiesinthe
UnitedStates.Crimepatternsandalarmpermitdistributionsmaybedifferentfrom
otherurbanneighborhoods.
Inaddition,suburbanneighborhoodsandmetropolitancitieswillshow
differentpatternsofresidentialburglariesanddistributionofresidentialburglar
alarmsthanotherurbanareas.Thus,evenifthesameresearchdesignmaybeused
inotherurbanandsuburbanneighborhoodsormetropolitancities,theresearch
findingscouldbedifferent.Originally,twomorecitieswereincludedasresearch
312
sites,butduetoproblemswithdatabasesandalackofcooperationfromlocalpolice
departments,onlyonecitywasincludedinthisstudy.Itremainsnecessarytostudy
theimpactofalarmsystemsonresidentialburglariesindifferentcities.
IV.
FurtherResearchAgenda
Thisstudyfocusesontherelationshipandimpactbetweenburglaralarmsand
residentialburglaries.AsdiscussedinChapters6through10,someconsistentand
reliableresearchfindingswereobservedtoarguethatburglaralarmshavea
substantiallypositiveimpactonthecontinuousdecreaseofresidentialburglaries
overtheyearsandthatburglaralarmshaveastrongspatialdiffusionofbenefits
againstresidentialburglariesatasinglehouselevel.
However,thisoneapproachwiththreedifferentsecondarydatasources
cannotbethebestresearchmethodtounderstandandexplaintherelationshipand
impactbetweenburglaralarmsandburglaries.Foracomprehensiveandbetter
understandingofthisrelationship,itisimperativetoexpandthecurrentresearch
withavailableresearchmethods.
Thefirstresearchagendashouldberelatedtothegeneralizabilityissue
discussedabove.ThestudyareaforthecurrentstudyisNewark,N.J.Othercities
withdifferentdemographic,socioeconomic,andhousingcharacteristicsindifferent
geographicareas(e.g.,metropolitan,urban,suburban,andruralareas)shouldbe
considered.Suchareplicationcanverifytheresearchdesignandfindingspresented
inthepresentstudy.
313
Thesecondpossibleresearchtopicrelatedtothecurrentstudyisrelevantto
commercialburglary.Allanalysesanddiscussionsinthepresentstudysolely
focusedonresidentialburglary,withthetopicofcommercialburglarybeing
excluded.Inmostlocalities,businessownersmustinstallaburglaralarmsystem
andupdatetheirlicensesonaregularbasis.Butcommercialburglariesaffectlocal
businessesandeconomics.Arigorousandscientificdrivenresearchisnecessaryto
bridgethegapbetweenthewideuseofburglaralarmsandthedearthofthe
researchbasedupdatedbodyofknowledge.
Thethirdresearchagendarelatestotheresearchmethodologicalapproach.
Thecurrentstudyandtheabovetwoagendasinvolvesecondarydatasources
mainlyfromlocalpolicedepartmentsandcityhalls.Anotherpotentialapproachto
studytheimpactofalarmsystemsonburglariesistointervieweitheractive
burglarsorincarceratedinmates.Suchanapproachmayprovideindepth
personalizedknowledgeandinsightabouttheimpactofburglaralarmson
burglaries.
Thefourthresearchagendaisassociatedwithrepeatvictimization.The
literatureonburglaryconsistentlydemonstratesthat,ingeneral,theriskof
victimizationdoublesfollowinganinitialburglary(Bowers,Johnson,andHirschfield,
2003;Johnson,Bowers,andHirschfield,1997;Weisel,2002).Whilemostpeople
andplacesdonotgetvictimizedbycrime,thosewhoarevictimizedconsistently
faceahigherriskofbeingvictimizedagain.Previousvictimizationisthesinglebest
predictorofvictimization.Itisabetterpredictoroffuturevictimizationthanany
othercharacteristicofcrime(Weisel,2002).Anexperimentalresearchdesigncan
314
beusedtoexaminetheimpactofburglaralarmsonburglariesonthereductionof
repeatvictimization.
Finally,theissueoffalsealarmactivationshouldbeincludedinfuture
research.Asdiscussedinthepreviouschapters7through10,burglaralarmshavea
substantialimpactonresidentialburglariesinreducingcriminalincidentsand
spatialdiffusionofbenefits.So,itissuggestedthatfinancialsupportstoreduce
initialandmaintenancecostsandpremiumsfromthealarmindustryandinsurance
companyareimperativesothathomeownerscanbuyandinstallburglaralarm
systems.However,suchasuggestionmaygenerateoppositionfromlocalpolice
departmentsbecausemorealarmmeansmorefalsealarmreportsdirectlytothe
police.Forexample,inNewark,therateoffalsealarmactivationis,onaverage,97
percent.Thisproblemhasdrainedverylimitedpoliceresourcesamonglocalpolice
departments.Thus,itisimperativetostudythefalseactivationproblemofburglar
alarmstoexplorethescopeoftheproblemandtoexplainthecausalrelationshipfor
bettercrimepreventionstrategies.
V.
Conclusion
Theforemostquestionthroughoutthecurrentstudywasdohomeburglaralarms
havethedeterrenteffectonresidentialburglary?Thisinquirywasansweredby
analyzingthephenomenonbetweenthegradualdecreaseofresidentialburglaries
andtheincreaseofresidentialburglaralarmsandbylookingatkeyexplanatory
variables.Severalquantitativeanalysesinthepresentstudyshowedthatseveral
315
keyvariablesplayedaroleinexplainingtherelationshipbetweenburglaralarms
andresidentialburglaries.
Spatialapproachesalsofoundandsupportedasignificantrelationship
betweenburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries.Burglaralarmswerenot
installedevenlyacrossthecity.Bothhotspotsandcoolspotswereobservedinmany
neighborhoods.Residentialburglariesalsowerenotspreadequallythroughoutthe
entirecity.Somekeyvariables(e.g.,demographic,socioeconomic,andhousing
indicators)weredirectlylinkedtothesepatterns.Spatialanalysessuggestedthat
burglaralarmshadsomepositiveimpactonresidentialburglariesonthecitylevel
byshowingthathotspotsofburglaralarmsdidnotoverlapthoseofresidential
burglaries.Severalspatialbasedanalyticalapproaches(e.g.,NNI,MoransI,
geographicclusteringanalysis,andlocalhotspots[Gi*]analysis)supportedthis
conclusion.
Furthermore,asinglehouselevelanalysisusingtheappliedWDQwiththe
cityslandparcelmapsupportedthelackofgeographicdisplacementofresidential
burglariesbyburglaralarms,butdiddemonstratethespatialdiffusionofbenefitsof
burglaralarmsonresidentialburglaries.Itsupportedtheuseofburglaralarmsas
targethardeningcrimepreventiontactics.Amicrolevelapproachforacrime
preventionstrategyinasmallgeographicareacanbeeffectiveandsubstantivein
fightinglocalcrimeproblems,whichcanthencreatetheeffectofdiffusionof
benefitsandproduceanoverallcrimereductioninthecity.Thosefindingswere
summarizedtoproposetangiblecrimepreventionandmarketingstrategies.
316
Bydoingso,thepresentstudymaybridgethegapbetweenthewidespread
installationanduseofburglaralarmsandthedearthofrigorousexaminationofthe
impactofsuchsystemsonresidentialburglaries.Inaddition,thisstudymayupdate
thecurrentbodyofknowledgeonsimilarandrelevanttopicssothatresearch
findingscanbedisseminatedamongacademiaandpractitionerswhoareworkingin
crimepreventioncircles.
Inconclusion,thisstudyisjustonesmallendeavorandstepbyboththe
researchinstitution,AIREF,andtheresearcher,togetherwithdistinguishedfaculty
members,toobtainanindepthandcomprehensiveunderstandingofburglaralarm
systemsandtheiruseinfightinglocalresidentialburglaries.
APPENDICES
Appendix1. ChiSquarestatisticsbetweenburglaralarmsandresidentialburglaries
annuallyinNewark,NJ
YEAR
2002
2003
2004
2005
Burglarized
Burglarized
Burglarized
Burglarized
Total
Total
Total
Total
No Yes
No Yes
No Yes
No Yes
Burglar No 92,113 1,359 93,472 97,633 2,089 99,722 95,735 2,647 98,382 96,643 2,772 99,415
75
2,406 2,254
54 2,308 1,568
57
1,625
Alarm Yes 2,570 108 2,678 2,331
94,683 1,467 96,150 99,964 2,164 102,128 97,989 2,701 100,690 98,211 2,829 101,040
Total
317
APPENDICES
318
Appendix2. TheratesofalarminstallationandNAI/AIresidentialburglariesannuallyfor90
censustractsinNewark,NJ
YEAR
Tract
2002
2003
2004
2005
Overall(200105)
ID
AlarmNAI_Bur AI_Bur AlarmNAI_Bur AI_Bur Alarm NAI_Bur AI_Bur Alarm NAI_BurAI_BurAlarm NAI_Bur AI_Bur
1 0.022 0.020 0.082 0.031 0.015 0.043 0.039 0.013 0.012 0.035 0.006 0.039 0.029 0.013 0.041
2 0.087 0.042 0.023 0.022 0.018 0.000 0.022 0.022 0.000 0.026 0.011 0.000 0.049 0.023 0.023
3 0.005 0.012 0.000 0.006 0.011 0.000 0.008 0.010 0.000 0.009 0.008 0.000 0.007 0.011 0.000
4 0.010 0.009 0.135 0.022 0.024 0.000 0.011 0.016 0.000 0.016 0.007 0.000 0.012 0.015 0.043
5 0.024 0.033 0.150 0.026 0.005 0.000 0.033 0.031 0.167 0.045 0.015 0.000 0.030 0.020 0.060
6 0.028 0.027 0.028 0.031 0.022 0.000 0.033 0.012 0.024 0.032 0.019 0.024 0.028 0.018 0.017
7 0.006 0.023 0.135 0.017 0.019 0.026 0.023 0.023 0.038 0.022 0.021 0.000 0.015 0.022 0.039
8 0.009 0.013 0.084 0.020 0.015 0.120 0.024 0.022 0.000 0.025 0.021 0.000 0.018 0.016 0.035
9 0.005 0.018 0.000 0.011 0.014 0.000 0.010 0.013 0.000 0.011 0.018 0.063 0.008 0.016 0.033
10 0.018 0.027 0.126 0.015 0.026 0.050 0.024 0.022 0.000 0.015 0.021 0.000 0.019 0.025 0.047
11 0.011 0.033 0.000 0.015 0.029 0.125 0.029 0.029 0.000 0.023 0.016 0.083 0.021 0.028 0.055
12 0.021 0.034 0.168 0.022 0.038 0.083 0.031 0.055 0.000 0.048 0.046 0.000 0.026 0.043 0.055
13 0.008 0.038 0.000 0.020 0.032 0.000 0.024 0.037 0.115 0.033 0.022 0.057 0.019 0.031 0.049
14 0.005 0.022 0.000 0.009 0.022 0.000 0.015 0.026 0.000 0.015 0.019 0.000 0.013 0.020 0.000
15 0.007 0.031 0.000 0.016 0.034 0.000 0.038 0.053 0.000 0.030 0.038 0.000 0.019 0.037 0.000
16 0.013 0.025 0.000 0.014 0.033 0.000 0.024 0.036 0.000 0.019 0.014 0.000 0.014 0.027 0.000
17 0.033 0.045 0.000 0.041 0.050 0.030 0.039 0.039 0.000 0.045 0.026 0.056 0.036 0.043 0.028
18 0.016 0.059 0.299 0.024 0.050 0.000 0.037 0.059 0.067 0.046 0.025 0.027 0.029 0.049 0.067
19 0.017 0.022 0.034 0.017 0.021 0.065 0.025 0.020 0.022 0.026 0.012 0.022 0.019 0.019 0.041
20 0.059 0.036 0.063 0.088 0.045 0.022 0.102 0.029 0.019 0.105 0.013 0.009 0.082 0.032 0.037
21 0.017 0.008 0.042 0.025 0.006 0.028 0.029 0.008 0.000 0.031 0.002 0.011 0.023 0.007 0.027
22 0.040 0.024 0.048 0.067 0.020 0.044 0.056 0.020 0.017 0.073 0.011 0.014 0.055 0.018 0.039
23 0.046 0.033 0.081 0.061 0.036 0.041 0.074 0.034 0.017 0.075 0.025 0.008 0.059 0.033 0.049
24 0.025 0.032 0.061 0.043 0.036 0.055 0.041 0.020 0.000 0.036 0.015 0.043 0.034 0.026 0.032
25 0.020 0.033 0.106 0.030 0.035 0.024 0.027 0.023 0.000 0.034 0.014 0.000 0.025 0.025 0.039
26 0.014 0.049 0.000 0.020 0.044 0.000 0.037 0.026 0.050 0.035 0.043 0.053 0.023 0.042 0.032
27 0.064 0.025 0.000 0.085 0.038 0.037 0.078 0.041 0.040 0.096 0.029 0.033 0.082 0.036 0.031
28 0.054 0.050 0.075 0.087 0.048 0.024 0.090 0.050 0.023 0.090 0.050 0.047 0.070 0.051 0.035
29 0.020 0.048 0.000 0.058 0.058 0.000 0.081 0.053 0.000 0.069 0.019 0.040 0.048 0.046 0.034
30 0.002 0.016 0.673 0.006 0.034 0.400 0.009 0.039 0.143 0.004 0.005 0.000 0.006 0.026 0.182
31 0.094 0.063 0.000 0.115 0.060 0.040 0.130 0.102 0.000 0.279 0.032 0.019 0.135 0.078 0.021
32 0.022 0.047 0.224 0.046 0.038 0.056 0.051 0.025 0.050 0.062 0.015 0.000 0.037 0.033 0.081
33 0.031 0.043 0.052 0.032 0.030 0.000 0.050 0.010 0.065 0.057 0.031 0.029 0.041 0.029 0.055
34 0.012 0.038 0.112 0.023 0.070 0.059 0.051 0.042 0.000 0.048 0.038 0.000 0.030 0.047 0.028
35 0.032 0.046 0.112 0.047 0.028 0.079 0.058 0.040 0.021 0.070 0.019 0.036 0.052 0.034 0.057
36 0.003 0.023 0.000 0.007 0.025 0.000 0.007 0.018 0.143 0.005 0.020 0.000 0.007 0.022 0.056
37 0.009 0.043 0.673 0.014 0.023 0.000 0.020 0.035 0.000 0.026 0.015 0.000 0.015 0.031 0.075
38 0.026 0.020 0.096 0.037 0.028 0.000 0.039 0.015 0.022 0.049 0.020 0.000 0.038 0.023 0.027
39 0.014 0.026 0.061 0.019 0.030 0.043 0.021 0.024 0.000 0.023 0.013 0.000 0.017 0.023 0.030
40 0.030 0.051 0.000 0.035 0.034 0.083 0.052 0.042 0.114 0.060 0.036 0.000 0.043 0.039 0.041
41 0.032 0.026 0.096 0.034 0.021 0.045 0.026 0.032 0.000 0.031 0.021 0.000 0.031 0.025 0.039
42 0.015 0.020 0.096 0.028 0.022 0.079 0.039 0.014 0.020 0.029 0.013 0.026 0.027 0.018 0.049
43 0.025 0.035 0.000 0.033 0.023 0.049 0.047 0.019 0.017 0.042 0.015 0.019 0.035 0.024 0.023
44 0.037 0.020 0.031 0.046 0.012 0.025 0.052 0.008 0.011 0.056 0.007 0.010 0.046 0.012 0.022
45 0.020 0.026 0.052 0.024 0.023 0.000 0.021 0.011 0.000 0.033 0.017 0.031 0.022 0.022 0.036
46 0.003 0.028 0.000 0.009 0.018 0.000 0.008 0.026 0.000 0.008 0.018 0.000 0.007 0.023 0.014
APPENDICES
319
YEAR
Tract
2002
2003
2004
2005
Overall(200105)
ID
AlarmNAI_Bur AI_Bur AlarmNAI_Bur AI_Bur Alarm NAI_Bur AI_Bur Alarm NAI_BurAI_BurAlarm NAI_Bur AI_Bur
47 0.016 0.014 0.071 0.026 0.008 0.043 0.031 0.009 0.037 0.035 0.007 0.032 0.027 0.010 0.038
48 0.020 0.055 0.224 0.027 0.037 0.000 0.042 0.021 0.027 0.051 0.033 0.022 0.034 0.037 0.040
49 0.011 0.020 0.000 0.027 0.019 0.000 0.030 0.011 0.037 0.031 0.014 0.000 0.023 0.015 0.010
50 0.032 0.039 0.000 0.043 0.048 0.000 0.043 0.022 0.000 0.039 0.019 0.056 0.040 0.032 0.022
51 0.031 0.020 0.000 0.037 0.013 0.030 0.038 0.016 0.000 0.036 0.022 0.000 0.034 0.020 0.007
52 0.006 0.017 0.000 0.006 0.009 0.000 0.007 0.015 0.200 0.013 0.008 0.000 0.008 0.013 0.053
53 0.012 0.084 0.269 0.020 0.053 0.000 0.022 0.068 0.077 0.026 0.048 0.067 0.018 0.071 0.129
54 0.019 0.032 0.000 0.017 0.042 0.000 0.022 0.019 0.000 0.019 0.007 0.077 0.017 0.025 0.017
55 0.011 0.014 0.061 0.008 0.005 0.000 0.008 0.007 0.000 0.012 0.001 0.056 0.011 0.009 0.036
56 0.017 0.005 0.135 0.035 0.028 0.000 0.028 0.021 0.000 0.018 0.002 0.000 0.023 0.015 0.039
57 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.000 0.001 0.010 0.000
58 0.001 0.012 0.673 0.004 0.010 0.000 0.007 0.014 0.091 0.007 0.009 0.091 0.004 0.014 0.090
59 0.015 0.035 0.056 0.020 0.034 0.043 0.025 0.061 0.034 0.020 0.034 0.000 0.018 0.042 0.038
60 0.005 0.021 0.135 0.006 0.012 0.125 0.009 0.014 0.000 0.019 0.015 0.077 0.010 0.018 0.060
61 0.003 0.025 0.000 0.005 0.022 0.286 0.009 0.019 0.000 0.009 0.013 0.000 0.006 0.019 0.050
62 0.006 0.016 0.000 0.010 0.012 0.000 0.012 0.014 0.000 0.016 0.015 0.000 0.011 0.013 0.000
63 0.002 0.015 0.000 0.005 0.012 0.000 0.003 0.012 0.000 0.008 0.008 0.100 0.005 0.012 0.035
64 0.004 0.014 0.135 0.009 0.011 0.000 0.016 0.013 0.000 0.015 0.011 0.000 0.011 0.013 0.021
65 0.007 0.040 0.000 0.010 0.027 0.000 0.016 0.046 0.000 0.025 0.028 0.000 0.013 0.041 0.000
66 0.005 0.026 0.135 0.011 0.019 0.000 0.009 0.034 0.000 0.009 0.013 0.071 0.009 0.025 0.031
67 0.004 0.016 0.000 0.005 0.026 0.000 0.006 0.033 0.000 0.007 0.020 0.143 0.005 0.024 0.040
68 0.006 0.021 0.000 0.005 0.007 0.000 0.007 0.010 0.000 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.006 0.013 0.000
69 0.005 0.018 0.000 0.005 0.013 0.000 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.006 0.012 0.000 0.008 0.013 0.000
70 0.005 0.012 0.168 0.004 0.011 0.200 0.005 0.012 0.000 0.003 0.011 0.000 0.004 0.012 0.080
71 0.001 0.015 0.000 0.007 0.011 0.000 0.010 0.016 0.063 0.007 0.009 0.000 0.006 0.014 0.021
72 0.007 0.106 0.000 0.008 0.068 0.000 0.015 0.078 0.111 0.018 0.060 0.000 0.010 0.077 0.068
73 0.001 0.016 0.000 0.003 0.017 0.167 0.004 0.016 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.000 0.002 0.015 0.135
74 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.000 0.008 0.006 0.000 0.007 0.004 0.000 0.003 0.011 0.000
75 0.009 0.139 0.000 0.016 0.125 0.200 0.016 0.128 0.000 0.019 0.056 0.000 0.015 0.111 0.041
76 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.001 0.019 0.000 0.003 0.009 0.000 0.002 0.011 0.000
77 0.019 0.040 0.090 0.016 0.039 0.000 0.024 0.040 0.000 0.023 0.016 0.036 0.019 0.038 0.026
78 0.034 0.019 0.122 0.035 0.021 0.000 0.046 0.017 0.045 0.037 0.019 0.000 0.033 0.020 0.038
79 0.006 0.027 0.000 0.008 0.015 0.000 0.016 0.008 0.000 0.008 0.007 0.000 0.008 0.017 0.033
80 0.002 0.007 0.000 0.003 0.004 0.000 0.002 0.009 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.000 0.002 0.006 0.000
81 0.015 0.033 0.067 0.024 0.031 0.043 0.027 0.020 0.038 0.021 0.022 0.000 0.020 0.027 0.031
82 0.009 0.029 0.404 0.009 0.036 0.000 0.020 0.031 0.000 0.015 0.007 0.077 0.013 0.030 0.093
83 0.009 0.024 0.067 0.017 0.032 0.071 0.023 0.027 0.000 0.026 0.017 0.024 0.017 0.028 0.043
84 0.021 0.007 0.099 0.025 0.006 0.033 0.029 0.009 0.043 0.037 0.011 0.012 0.027 0.009 0.038
85 0.007 0.008 0.061 0.015 0.013 0.086 0.024 0.008 0.000 0.027 0.007 0.047 0.016 0.009 0.052
86 0.007 0.041 0.269 0.025 0.035 0.037 0.022 0.026 0.083 0.021 0.014 0.043 0.017 0.030 0.063
87 0.004 0.016 0.269 0.010 0.021 0.118 0.014 0.008 0.000 0.023 0.004 0.000 0.012 0.013 0.061
88 0.040 0.347 0.673 0.054 0.297 0.000 0.054 0.459 0.000 0.026 0.237 0.000 0.042 0.358 0.127
89 0.003 0.020 0.000 0.013 0.016 0.000 0.013 0.013 0.000 0.021 0.016 0.083 0.011 0.018 0.063
90 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.002 0.012 0.000 0.001 0.010 0.000 0.002 0.006 0.000 0.001 0.014 0.000
APPENDICES
320
Appendix3. Listsofthevariablesforcorrelationandregressionanalyses
Variables*
Category
Demographic
Age
White,black,andother
Age<=14,1517,1824,2534,3544,4554,5559,6064,6574,and>=75
Medianage
SocioEconomic Medianincome
Unemployment
Povertylevelinpopulation
Housing
Householdersracebywhite,black,andother
Characteristic
Householdersage1524,2534,3544,4554,5559,6064,6574,over75
Povertylevelinhousehold
Houseoccupiedandvacant
Ownersandrentersoccupied
*Allvariableslistedherearecalculatedwithrates,exceptmedianageandmediaincome.
321
APPENDICES
Appendix4. Multiplecorrelationcoefficients(Personsr)fortheratesofburglaralarm
installationsfor90censustractsannually,inNewark,NJ
Year
Variable
2001
.251*
.279**
.245*
.123
.215*
.041
.218*
.119
.149
.247*
.280**
.256*
.078
.019
.243*
.243*
WhitePopulation
BlackPopulation
OtherPopulation
PopulationAge<=14
PopulationAge1517
PopulationAge>=75
MedianAge(30.2)
MedianIncome($26,929)
Unemployment
WhiteHouseholder
BlackHouseholder
OtherHouseholder
HouseholderAge2534
HouseholderAge>=75
OwnerOccupied
RenterOccupied
2002
.258*
.258*
.184
.182
.192
.093
.254*
.118
.134
.236*
.245*
.186
.173
.051
.249*
.249*
2003
.366**
.375**
.281**
.220*
.223*
.216*
.318**
.238*
.251*
.339**
.352**
.268*
.217*
.249*
.381**
.381**
2004
.376**
.386**
.292**
.241*
.177
.208*
.331**
.203
.248*
.361**
.372**
.276**
.220*
.288**
.363**
.363**
2005 Overall
.305** .339**
.319** .354**
.250* .276**
.318** .249*
.132
.198
.204 .178
.364** .331**
.101
.168
*
.261 .232*
.298** .324**
.308** .340**
.231* .266*
.279** .221*
.235* .195
.180
.302**
.180 .302**
322
APPENDICES
Appendix5. Multiplecorrectioncoefficients(Pearsonsr)oftheratesofNAIburglaryfor
90censustractsannuallyinNewark,NJ
Variable
PopulationAge<=14
PopulationAge1517
PopulationAge2534
PopulationAge3544
PopulationAge4554
PopulationAge5559
PopulationAge6064
PopulationAge6574
PopulationAge>=75
Unemployment
HouseholderAge6064
HouseholderAge6574
HouseholderAge>=75
Year
2001
.290**
.218*
.582**
.407**
.234*
.253*
.251*
.299**
.226*
.478**
.640**
.294**
.251*
2002
.300**
.238*
.578**
.448**
.175
.222*
.246*
.328**
.271**
.430**
.600**
.320**
.278**
2003
.302**
.207
.549**
.396**
.189
.240*
.212*
.301**
.240*
.400**
.615**
.277**
.283**
2004
.334**
.250**
.617**
.427**
.172
.235*
.296**
.302**
.221*
.471**
.585**
.283**
.249*
2005
.273**
.178
.550**
.462**
.181
.177
.269*
.307**
.287**
.447**
.567**
.255*
.279**
Overall
.306**
.226*
.591**
.432**
.197
.234*
.262*
.313**
.250*
.457**
.616**
.294**
.272**
323
APPENDICES
Appendix6. AseriesofforwardselectionmultipleregressionsforburglaralarmannuallyinNewark,NJ(N=90censustracts)
ForYear2001
Independent
Variables
Model1
b SE
BlackHouseholder
.014.005
OwnerOccupied
Model3
Beta
t
b
SE Beta
t
b
SE Beta
t
**
**
.280 2.738 .014 .005 .284 2.855 .014 .005 .277 2.835**
.032 .013 .247 2.483* .031 .013 .243 2.489*
.075 .036 .204 2.093*
7.498**
.009
.079
F
Constant
R2
Model2
7.052**
.002
.139
6.345**
.001
.181
ForYear2002
Independent
Variables
Model1
b
SE Beta
Model2
t
SE Beta
Model3
t
SE Beta
Model4
t
BlackPopulation
.013 .005 .258 2.510* .013 .005 .259 2.591* .015 .005 .313 3.17**
OwnerOccupied
.031 .013 .250 2.501* .035 .012 .279 2.87**

HouseholderAge2534
.091 .034 .266 2.68**

PopulationAge<=14
F
6.3000*
6.465**
7.002***
Constant
.010
.002
.019
2
R
.067
.129
.196
b
.014
.033
.089
.092
SE
.005
.012
.033
.043
Beta
.296
.265
.258
.205
6.635***
.020
.238
Model5
t
3.05**
2.77**
2.65*
2.16*
b
.008
.040
.072
.129
.066
SE
.006
.012
.034
.045
.032
Beta
.166
.317
.208
.287
.250
6.367***
.032
.275
t
1.46
3.27**
2.11*
2.83**
2.07*
324
APPENDICES
ForYear2003
Independent
Variables
Model1
Model2
Model3
Model4
Model5
b SE Beta t
b SE Beta t
b SE Beta t
b SE Beta t
b SE Beta t
***
***
***
***
OwnerOccupied
.058.015.381 3.87 .058 .014 .382 4.22 .064 .013 .420 5.02 .060 .012 .394 4.82 .068 .012 .445 5.49***
BlackPopulation
.022 .005 .376 4.15*** .026 .005 .447 5.26*** .025 .005 .415 4.99*** .016 .006 .265 2.71**
HouseholderAge2534
.147 .036 .352 4.12*** .142 .035 .341 4.12*** .119 .035 .285 3.45**
.135 .052 .214 2.61* .197 .055 .313 3.58**

PopulationAge<=14
.088 .033 .275 2.68**
F
Constant
R2
14.963***
.010
.145
17.468***
.004
.287
19.425***
.037
.404
17.264***
.038
.448
16.252***
.053
.492
ForYear2004
Independent
Variables
Model1
Model2
Model3
Model4
Model5
b SE Beta t
b SE Beta t
b SE Beta t
b SE Beta t
b SE Beta t
***
***
***
***
BlackPopulation
.025.006.386 3.93 .025 .006 .387 4.26 .030 .005 .459 5.39 .029 .005 .446 5.40 .019 .006 .293 3.08**
OwnerOccupied
.060 .015 .364 4.01*** .066 .014 .402 4.79*** .065 .013 .393 4.83*** .075 .013 .457 5.64***
HouseholderAge2534
.162 .039 .356 4.15*** .159 .038 .350 4.22*** .132 .037 .291 3.55**
.098 .038 .212 2.62** .148 .040 .318 3.71***

PopulationAge<=14
.103 .035 .297 2.90**
F
Constant
R2
15.428***
.014
.149
17.061***
.001
.282
19.249***
.038
.402
17.142***
.039
.446
16.586***
.057
.497
325
APPENDICES
ForYear2005
Independent
Variables
BlackPopulation
HouseholderAge2534
OwnerOccupied
PopulationAge<=14
F
Constant
R2
Model1
b SE
.030.010
Model2
Model3
Beta
t
b
SE Beta
t
b
SE Beta
t
**
***
.319 3.15 .037 .009 .391 4.05
.038 .009 .397 4.22***
***
.240 .065 .357 3.71

.257 .063 .382 4.05***
.054 .023 .222 2.40**
9.946**
.013
.102
12.565***
.039
.224
10.764***
.055
.273
Model4
b
.028
.230
.067
.111
SE
.010
.064
.023
.055
Beta
.290
.342
.273
.217
9.365***
.074
.306
t
2.72**
3.60**
2.89**
2.01*
326
APPENDICES
Appendix7. AseriesofhierarchicalmultivariableregressionsforNAIresidentialburglaryannuallyinNewark,NJ(N=90census
tracts)
ForYear2001
Independent
Variables
BurglarAlarm
Unemployment
PopulationAge<=17
PopulationAge2544
PopulationAge>=45
HouseholderAge6064
HouseholderAge>=65
Model1
b SE Beta
Model2
t
Model3
SE Beta
SE Beta
**
.599 .285 .219 2.102 .812 .246 .296 3.303

.842 .177 .307
***
.256 .044 .522 5.819
.244 .032 .497
.163 .077 .254
.135 .087 .196
.329 .078 .422
19.962***
.074
.315
***
SE Beta
***
4.768 .606 .149 .221

7.522*** .183 .028 .374
2.135* .150 .063 .233
1.548 .072 .072 .105
4.202***.340 .064 .436
.578 .088 .383
33.62***
.024
.667
Model5
SE Beta
4.07***
6.37***
2.33*
.974
3.99***
6.46***
.365
4.079 .614 .151 .224

6.532*** .186 .029 .379
2.395* .147 .063 .229
1.008 .070 .072 .102
5.32*** .322 .081 .413
6.55*** .575 .089 .381
.021 .056 .031
4.419*
.024
.048
F
Constant
R2
Model4
t
49.145***
.026
.780
41.704***
.024
.781
ForYear2002
Independent
Variables
BurglarAlarm
Unemployment
PopulationAge<=17
PopulationAge2544
PopulationAge>=45
HouseholderAge6064
HouseholderAge>=65
F
Constant
R2
Model1
b SE Beta
Model2
t
SE Beta
Model3
t
SE Beta
**
Model4
t
b
***
SE Beta
.554 .231 .248 2.403 .695 .205 .311 3.39

.676 .153 .303 4.407 .505 .137 .226
.184 .036 .472 6.14*** .170 .027 .436 6.277*** .126 .026 .324
.146 .064 .284 2.264* .131 .056 .256
.108 .073 .198 1.484 .068 .064 .124
.247 .065 .398 3.771***.255 .057 .411
.419 .078 .349
5.773*
.023
.062
16.939***
.047
.280
28.824***
.034
.632
Model5
t
b
***
SE Beta
3.693 .516 .138 .231

5.099*** .132 .026 .338
2.349* .126 .056 .246
1.063 .063 .064 .116
4.490*** .218 .071 .352
5.368*** .414 .078 .345
.042 .050 .080
36.779***
.032
.727
t
3.753***
5.141***
2.241*
.989
3.069**
5.283***
.850
31.522***
.028
.729
327
APPENDICES
ForYear2003
Independent
Variables
BurglarAlarm
Unemployment
PopulationAge<=17
PopulationAge2544
PopulationAge>=45
HouseholderAge6064
HouseholderAge>=65
Model1
Model2
b SE Beta
Model3
SE Beta
SE Beta
.508 .160 .321 3.18** .681 .142 .430 4.803*** .673 .110 .425
.166 .030 .495 5.530*** .154 .023 .459
.168 .054 .381
.046 .062 .097
.211 .055 .395
10.096**
.018
.103
F
Constant
R2
22.037***
.047
.336
Model4
t
SE Beta
6.109*** .511 .101 .323

6.663*** .114 .022 .339
3.086** .152 .048 .345
.739 .013 .054 .027
3.807***.221 .048 .415
.354 .068 .343
30.547***
.049
.645
Model5
t
SE Beta
5.062*** .511 .102 .323

5.266*** .115 .022 .342
3.195** .151 .048 .343
.235
.012 .055 .025
4.58*** .214 .061 .402
5.222*** .353 .068 .342
.008 .042 .018
37.964***
.050
.733
t
5.032***
5.141***
3.131**
.217
3.536**
5.176***
.196
32.169***
.049
.733
ForYear2004
Independent
Variables
BurglarAlarm
Unemployment
PopulationAge<=17
PopulationAge2544
PopulationAge>=45
HouseholderAge6064
HouseholderAge>=65
F
Constant
R2
Model1
Model2
b SE Beta
SE Beta
Model3
t
SE Beta
***
.557 .222 .258 2.510 .862 .189 .400 4.558

.870 .132 .403
.284 .044 .570 6.497*** .259 .030 .520
.205 .070 .314
.155 .080 .221
.274 .072 .346
Model4
t
b
***
6.607
.709 .123 .329
8.602*** .212 .029 .425
2.918** .191 .063 .292
1.939 .111 .072 .160
3.805*** .288 .065 .364
.412 .090 .269
6.299
.015
.067
25.729
.097
.372
***
45.173
.004
.729
SE Beta
***
Model5
t
SE Beta
5.748
.710 .124 .329 5.720***
***
7.323
.209 .030 .421 7.020***
3.016** .193 .064 .296 3.018**
1.543
.113 .073 .162 1.556
***
4.450
.304 .081 .384 3.760***
***
4.593
.414 .090 .270 4.579***
.019 .056 .028 .334
50.165***
.000
.784
***
42.554***
.002
.784
328
APPENDICES
ForYear2005
Independent
Variables
BurglarAlarm
Unemployment
PopulationAge<=17
PopulationAge2544
PopulationAge>=45
HouseholderAge6064
HouseholderAge>=65
F
Constant
R2
Model1
b SE Beta
Model2
t
SE Beta
Model3
t
SE Beta
.105 .081 .137 1.300 .208 .073 .273 2.87** .219 .057 .287
.135 .025 .518 5.455*** .124 .019 .476
.056 .044 .164
.116 .051 .318
.127 .046 .305
1.690
.017
.019
16.000***
.036
.269
SE Beta
3.820*** .161 .054 .211

6.509*** .096 .018 .368
1.259 .048 .040 .140
2.305* .088 .046 .241
2.767** .135 .041 .326
.250 .057 .312
25.630***
.019
.604
Model4
Model5
t
SE Beta
3.000** .161 .054 .210

5.223*** .096 .019 .368
1.187 .048 .041 .140
1.908 .088 .047 .241
3.265** .136 .052 .328
4.408*** .250 .057 .312
.001 .036 .003
29.284***
.016
.679
t
2.975**
5.028***
1.175
1.893
2.615*
4.374***
.027
24.799***
.016
.679
APPENDICES
329
Appendix8. Pointsmapsofresidentialburglaralarmsannually
APPENDICES
330
Appendix9. PointsmapsoftheNAIresidentialburglaryannually
APPENDICES
331
Appendix10. DensitymapsofresidentialburglaralarmsAnnually
APPENDICES
332
Appendix11. DensitymapsoftheNAIresidentialburglaryannually
APPENDICES
333
Appendix12. SuperimposeddensitymapsbetweenburglaralarmsandtheNAI
residentialburglaryannuallyinNewark,NJ
APPENDICES
334
Appendix13. CensustractmapsofLocalMoransIforresidentialburglaralarms
annuallyinNewark,NJ
APPENDICES
335
Appendix14. CensustractmapsofLocalMoransIforNAIresidentialburglary
annuallyinNewark,NJ
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allison,PaulD.(1999).Multipleregression:Aprimer.ThousandOaks,CA:Pine
ForgePress.
Andresen,MartinA.andGregW.Jenion.(2004).Theunspecifiedtemporal
criminalevent:Whatisunknownisknownwithaoristicanalysisand
multinomiallogisticregression.WesternCriminologyReview,5(3):111.
Arscott,RobertD.,MarcP.Lambert,andSharonW.Revis.(June,1991).Choosing
andusingcontractsecurity.SecurityManagement,3133.
Bachman,RonetandRaymondPaternoster.(2004).Statisticsforcriminologyand
criminaljustice(2nded.).Boston,MA:McGrawHill.
Barnes,GeoffreyC.(1995).Definingandoptimizingdisplacement.In:Eck,JohnE.
andDavidWeisburd,(eds.),Crimeandplace,CrimePreventionStudies,Vol.4.
Monsey,NY:CriminalJusticePress.
Bennett,TrevorandRichardT.Wright.(1984).Burglarsonburglary:Prevention
andtheoffender.Hampshire,U.K.:Gower.
Benson,BruceL.(1998).Crimecontrolthroughprivateenterprise.Independent
Review,2(3):340369.
Bittner,Egon.(1980).Thefunctionsofthepoliceinmodernsociety:Areviewof
backgroundfactors,currentpractices,andpossiblerolemodels.Cambridge,
MA:Oelgeschlager,Gunn,andHain.
Blackstone,ErwinA.andSimonHakim.(1996).Policeservices:Theprivate
challenge.Oakland,CA:TheIndependentInstitute.
Blumstein,AlfredandJoelWallman(eds.).(2000).ThecrimedropinAmerica.New
York,NY:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Boba,Rachel.(2005).Crimeanalysisandcrimemapping.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Boba,Rachel.(2001).Introductoryguidetocrimeanalysisandmapping.
Washington,D.C.:U.S.DepartmentofJustice,CommunityOrientedPolicing
Services.
Bowers,KateJ.andShaneD.Johnson.(2003).Measuringthegeographical
displacementanddiffusionofbenefiteffectsofcrimepreventionactivity.
JournalofQuantitativeCriminology,19(3):275301.
336
BIBLIOGRAPHY
337
Bowers,KateJ.,ShaneD.Johnson,andAlexHirschfield.(2003).Pushingbackthe
boundaries:Newtechniquesforassessingtheimpactofburglaryschemes.
HomeOfficeOnlineReport,24/03.London,U.K.:HomeOffice.
Brantingham,PaulJ.andPatriciaL.Brantingham.(1984).Patternsincrime.New
York,NY:MacMillan.
Buck,AndrewJ.,SimonHakim,andGeorgeF.Rengert.(1993).Burglaralarmsand
thechoicebehaviorofburglars:Asuburbanphenomenon.Journalof
CriminalJustice,21(5):497507.
Budd,Tracey.(1999).Burglaryofdomesticdwellings:FindingsfromtheBritish
CrimeSurvey.HomeOfficeStatisticalBulletin,4/99.London,U.K.:Home
Office.
BureauofLaborStatistics(BLS).(2004).Occupationaloutlookhandbook,2003
Edition.Washington,D.C.:U.S.DepartmentofLabor,BureauofLabor
Statistics.
BureauofMunicipalResearch,Inc.(1943).PoliceproblemsinNewark.Newark,NJ:
BartonPress.
Button,Mark.(1998).Underresearched,underutilizedandunderestimated:Private
securityandiscontributiontopolicing.OccasionalPaper,No.8.Hampshire,
England:UniversityofPortsmouth,InstituteofCriminalJusticeStudies.
CentralStationAlarmAssociation.(1994).Aninsuranceguidetoselectingaburglar
alarmsystem.Bethesda,MD:CentralStationAlarmAssociation.
Chainey,SpencerandJerryH.Ratcliffe.(2005).GISandcrimemapping.England:
JohnWiley&Sons.
Clarke,RonaldV.(1997a).Deterringobscenephonecallers:TheNewJersey
experience.In:Clarke,RonaldV.,(eds.),Situationalcrimeprevention:
Successfulcasestudies(2nded.).Guilderland,NY:HarrowandHeston.
Clarke,RonaldV.(1997b).Introduction.In:Clarke,RonaldV.,(eds.),Situational
crimeprevention:Successfulcasestudies(2nded.).Guilderland,NY:Harrow
andHeston.
Clarke,RonaldV.(1995).Situationalcrimeprevention:Achievementsand
challenges.In:Tonry,MichaelandDavidFarrington,(eds.).Buildingasafer
society:Strategicapproachestocrimeprevention.CrimeandJustice:AReview
ofResearch,Vol.19.Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
338
Clarke,RonaldV.andJohnE.Eck.(2005).Crimeanalysisforproblemsolversin60
smallsteps.Washington,D.C.:U.S.DepartmentofJustice,Officeof
CommunityOrientedPolicingServices.
Clarke,RonaldV.andDavidWeisburd.(1994).Diffusionofcrimecontrolbenefits:
Observationsonthereverseofdisplacement.In:Clarke,RonaldV.,(eds.).
CrimePreventionStudies,Vol.2.Monsey,NY:CriminalJusticePress.
CMAP.(2007).CrimemappingandanalysisusingArcGIS9.x.Denver,CO:Officeof
JusticePrograms,NationalLawEnforcement&CorrectionsTechnology
Center.
Cohen,Jacob.(1988).Statisticalpoweranalysisforthebehavioralsciences(2nded.).
Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Cohen,LawrenceE.andMarcusFelson.(1979).Socialchangeandcrimerate
trends:Aroutineactivityapproach.AmericanSociologicalReview,44:588
608.
Collins,PamelaA.,TruettA.Ricks,andCliffordW.VanMeter.(2000).Principlesof
securityandcrimeprevention(4thed.).Cincinnati,OH:AndersonPublishing
Co.
Conklin,JohnE.andEgonBittner.(1973).BurglaryinasuburbCriminology,
11(2):206232.
Cornish,DerekB.andRonaldV.Clarke.(1986).Thereasoningcriminal.NewYork:
SpringerVerlag.
Cornish,DerekB.andRonaldV.Clarke.(1987).Understandingcrime
displacement:Anapplicationofrationalchoicetheory.Criminology,25(4):
933947.
Cornish,DerekB.andRonaldV.Clarke.(2003).Opportunities,precipitatorsand
criminaldecisions:AreplytoWortleyscritiqueofsituationalcrime
prevention.In:Smith,MarthaJ.andDerekB.Cornish(eds.),Theoryfor
practiceinsituationalcrimeprevention,Crimepreventionstudies,Vol.16.
Monsey,NY:CriminalJusticePress.
Crawford,Adam.(1998).Crimeprevention&communitysafety:Politics,policies&
practices.London,UK:Longman.
Cromwell,PaulF.(1999).Intheirownwords;Criminalsoncrime.Losageless,CA:
Roxbury.
Cromwell,PaulF.,JamesN.Olson.(2004).Breakingandentering:Burglarson
burglary.Belmont,CA:Wadsworth/Thomson.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
339
Cromwell,PaulF.,JamesN.Olson,andDAunnW.Avary.(1991).Breakingand
entering:Anethnographicanalysisofburglary.NewburyPark,CA:Sage.
Cromwell,PaulF.,JamesN.Olson,andDAunnAvary.(1990).Residentialburglary:
Anethnographicanalysis.Odessa,TX:UniversityofTexasPermianBasin.
Cunningham,WilliamC.,JohnJ.Strauchs,andCliffordW.VanMeter.(1990).Private
securitytrends19702000:TheHallcrestReportII.Stoneham,MA:
ButterworthHeinemann.
Cunningham,WilliamC.andToddH.Taylor.(1985).Privatesecurityandpolicein
America:TheHallcrestReportI.Portland,OR:ChancellorPress.
deWaard,Jaap.(1999).Theprivatesecurityindustryininternationalperspective.
EuropeanJournalofCriminalPolicy&Research,7:143174.
Eck,JohnE.(1998).Preventingcrimeatplaces.In:Sherman,LawrenceW.etal.,
Whatworks,whatdoesnt,whatspromising.Washington,D.C.:U.S.
DepartmentofJustice,NationalInstituteofJustice.
Eck,John.(1993).Thethreatofcrimedisplacement.In:McNamara,RobertP.,
(eds.),Crimeprevention:Theothersideofprevention.EastRockaway,NY:
Cummings&Hathaway.
Eck,JohnE.andEdwardR.Maguire.(2000).Havechangesinpolicingreduced
violentcrime?:Anassessmentoftheevidence.In:Blumstein,AlfredandJoel
Wallman,(eds.),ThecrimedropinAmerica.NewYork,NY:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Faul,FranzandEdgarErdfelder.(1992).GPOWER:Apriori,posthoc,and
compromisepoweranalysesforMSDOS[Computerprogram].Bonn,FRG:
BonnUniversity,DepartmentofPsychology.
Felson,Marcus.(2002).Crimeandeverydaylife(3rded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Felson,Marcus.(1995).Thosewhodiscouragecrime.In:Eck,JohnE.andDavid
Weisburd,(eds.),Crimeandplace,CrimePreventionStudies,Vol.4.Monsey,
NY:CriminalJusticePress.
Felson,MarcusandRonaldV.Clarke.(1998).Opportunitymakesthethief:
Practicaltheoryforcrimeprevention.PoliceResearchSeriesPaper,98.
London,UK:HomeOffice,PolicingandReducingCrimeUnit.
Fischer,RobertJ.andGionGreen.(2004).Introductiontosecurity(7thed.).Boston,
MA:Elsevier.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
340
Forst,Brian.(2000).Theprivatizationandcivilianizationofpolicing.Boundary
changesincriminaljusticeorganizations,CriminalJustice2000(Vol.2).
Washington,D.C.:U.S.DepartmentofJustice,NationalInstituteofJustice.
Gabor,Thomas.(1990).Crimedisplacementandsituationalprevention:Toward
thedevelopmentofsomeprinciples.CanadianJournalofCriminology,32(1):
4173.
Garland,David.(2001).Thecultureofcontrol:Crimeandsocialorderin
contemporarysociety.Chicago,IL:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.
Gest,Ted.(1995).Streetcrime:Peoplefightback.U.S.News&WorldReport,15
April.
Gill,MartinandAngelaSpriggs.(2005).AssessingtheimpactofCCTV.Home
OfficeResearchStudy,292.London,UK:HomeOffice,HerMajestys
StationeryOffice.
Gill,Martinetal.(2005).Technicalannex:Methodsusedinassessingtheimpactof
CCTV.HomeOfficeOnlineReport,17/05.London,UK:HomeOffice,
Research,DevelopmentandStatisticsDirectorate.
Gillham,JamesR.(1992).Preventingresidentialburglary:Towardmoreeffective
communityprograms.NewYork,NY:SpringerVerlag.
Greer,William.(1991).Ahistoryofalarmsecurity(2nded.).Bethesda,MD:National
Burglar&FireAlarmAssociation.
Hakim,SimonandAndrewJ.Buck.(1991).Deterrenceofsuburbanburglaries.
Cheltenham,PA:Metrica,Inc.
Hakim,SimonandErwinA.Blackstone.(1997).Securinghomeandbusiness:A
guidetotheelectronicsecurityindustry.Boston,MA:Butterworth
Hernemann.
Hakim,SimonandGeorgeF.Rengert.(1981).Introduction.In:Hakim,Simonand
GeorgeF.Rengert(eds.).Crimespillover.BeverlyHills,CA:Sage.
Hakim,Simon,GeorgeF.Rengert,andYochanaShachmurover.(2001).Target
searchofburglars:Arevisedeconomicmodel.PapersinRegionalScience,
80:121137.
Hakim,Simon,GeorgeF.Rengert,andYochanaShachmurover.(1996).Estimation
ofnetbenefitsofresidentialelectronicsecurity.JusticeQuarterly,13(1):
153176.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
341
Hakim,Simon,GeorgeF.Rengert,andYochanaShachmurover.(1995).Burglar
andfirealarms:Costsandbenefitstothelocality.AmericanJournalof
EconomicsandSociology,54(2):145161.
Hakim,SimonandYochanaShachmurover.(1996a).Socialcostbenefitanalysisof
commercialandresidentialburglarandalarms.JournalofPolicyModeling,
18(1):4967.
Hakim,SimonandYochananShachmurover.(1996b).Spatialandtemporal
patternsofcommercialburglaries:Theevidenceexamined.American
JournalofEconomicsandSociology,55(4):443456.
HamiltonSmith,Niall.(2002).Anticipatedconsequences:Developingastrategy
forthetargetedmeasurementofdisplacementanddiffusionofbenefits.In:
Tilley,Nick,(eds.).Evaluationforcrimeprevention.Crimepreventionstudies,
Vol.14:1152.Monsey,NY:CriminalJusticePress.
HamiltonSmith,NiallandAndrewKent.(2005).Thepreventionofdomestic
burglary.In:Tilley,Nick(eds.).Handbookofcrimepreventionand
communitysafety:417457.Portland,Oregon:WillanPublishing.
Harries,Keith.(1999).Mappingcrime:Principleandpractice.Washington,D.C.:
CrimeMappingResearchCenter,NationalInstituteofJustice.
Hesseling,ReneB.P.(1994).Displacement:Areviewoftheempiricalliterature.
In:Clarke,RonaldV.,(eds.).Crimepreventionstudies,Vol.3.Monsey,NY:
CriminalJusticePress.
Hess,KarenM.andHenryM.Wrobleski.(1996).Introductiontoprivatesecurity(4th
ed.).Minneapolis,MN:WestPublishingCompany.
Hope,TimandRichardSparks.(2000).Forasociologicaltheoryofsituations(or
howusefulispragmaticcriminology?)In:vonHirsch,Andrew,David
Garland,andAlisonWakefield(eds.).Ethicalandsocialperspectiveson
situationalcrimeprevention.Portland,OR:HartPublishing.
Joh,ElizabethE.(Sep.,2004).Withinthelaw,withoutthestate,andforaprofit:The
riseofprivatepolicing.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation.NewYork:New
YorkUniversity.
Johnson,ShaneD.,KateJ.Bowers,andAlexHirschfield.(1997).Newinsightsinto
thespatialandtemporaldistributionofrepeatvictimization.BritishJournal
ofCriminology,37(2):224241.
Johnson,ShameD.,KateJ.Bowers,PeterJordan,JacquelineMallender,Norman
Davidson,andAlexanderF.G.Hirschfield.(2004).Evaluatingcrime
BIBLIOGRAPHY
342
preventionschemesuccess:Estimatingoutcomesorhowmanycrimeswere
prevented.Evaluation,10(3):327348.
Jones,TrevorandTimNewburn.(1998).Privatesecurityandpublicpolicing.
Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Kakalik,JamesS.andSorrelWildhorn.(1972).PrivatepoliceintheUnitedStates:
Findingsandrecommendations,Vol.I.SantaMonica,CA:TheRand
Corporation.
Kakalik,JamesS.andSorrelWildhorn.(1972).Theprivatesecurityindustry:Its
natureandextent,Vol.II.SantaMonica,CA:TheRandCorporation.
Kakalik,JamesS.andSorrelWildhorn.(1972).Currentregulationofprivatepolice:
Regulatoryagencyexperienceandviews,Vol.III.SantaMonica,CA:TheRand
Corporation.
Kakalik,JamesS.andSorrelWildhorn.(1972).Thelawandprivatepolice,Vol.IV.
SantaMonica,CA:TheRandCorporation.
Kaye,MichaelS.(1987).ResidentialsecurityintheYear2000.In:Tyska,LouisA.
andLawrenceJ.Fennelly(eds.).SecurityintheYear2000andbeyond.Palm
Springs,CA:ETCPublications.
Kelling,GeorgeL.andCatherineM.Coles.(1996).Finxingbrokenwindows:
Restoringorderandreducingcrimeinourcommunities.NewYork,NY:The
FreePress.
Kelling,GeorgeL.andWilliamH.Sousa,Jr.(2001).Dopolicematter?:Ananalysis
oftheimpactofNewYorkCityspolicereforms.CivicReport,No.22.New
York,NY:TheManhattanInstitute,CenterforCivicInnovation.
Kirzner,Israel.(1997).Entrepreneurialdiscoveryandthecompetitivemarket
process:AnAustrianapproach.JournalofEconomicLiterature,35(1):60
85.
LeBeau,JamesL.andKarenL.Vincent.(1998).Mappingitout:Repeataddress
burglaralarmsandburglaries.In:Weisburd,DavidandTomMcEwen(eds.).
Crimemappingandcrimeprevention,Vol.8.Monsey,NY:CriminalJustice
Press.
LehmanBrothers.(2006).Securityannual2006.Chardon,OH:SandraJonesand
Company.
Lipson,Milton.(1988).Privatesecurity:Aretrospective.TheAnnalsofthe
AmericanAcademyofPoliticalandSocialScience,498:1122.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
343
Macintyre,StuartD.(2001).Burglardecisionmaking.Unpublisheddoctoral
dissertation:GriffithUniversity.
Maxfield,MichaelG.andEarlBabbie.(2008)Researchmethodsforcriminaljustice
andcriminology(5thed.).Belmont,CA:WadsworthThomsonLearning.
McCrie,RobertD.(1997).AbriefhistoryofthesecurityindustryintheUnited
States.In:Felson,MarcusandRonaldV.Clarke(eds.).Businessandcrime
prevention.Monsey,NewYork:CriminalJusticePress.
McCrie,RobertD.(1988).ThedevelopmentoftheU.S.securityindustry.The
AnnalsoftheAmericanAcademyofPoliticalandSocialScience,498:2333.
Mitchell,Andy.(2005).TheESRIguidetoGISanalysis.Volume2:Spatial
measurements&statistics.Redlands,CA:ESRIPress.
Mitchell,Andy.(1999).TheESRIguidetoGISanalysis.Volume1:Geographic
patterns&Relationships.Redlands,CA:ESRIPress.
Moolman,Val.(1970).Practicalwaystopreventburglaryandillegalentry.New
York,NY:CornerstoneLibraryPublications.
Morenoff,JeffreyD.andRobertJ.Sampson.(1997).Violentcrimeandthespatial
dynamicsofneighborhoodtransition:Chicago,19701990.SocialForces,
16(1):31064.
NationalAdvisoryCommitteeonCriminalJusticeStandardsandGoals.(1976).
Privatesecurity:Reportofthetaskforceonprivatesecurity.WashingtonD.C.:
U.S.DepartmentofJustice,LawEnforcementAssistanceAdministration.
NationalResearchCouncil.(2004).Fairnessandeffectivenessinpolicing:The
evidence.Washington,D.C.:TheNationalAcademiesPress.
OShea,TimothyC.(2000).Theefficacyofhomesecuritymeasures.American
JournalofCriminalJustice,24(2):155167.
Paulsen,DerekJ.andMatthewB.Robinson.(2004).Spatialaspectsofcrime:Theory
andpractice.Boston,MA:AllynandBacon.
Ratcliffe,JerryH.(2005).Detectingspatialmovementofintraregioncrime
patternsovertime.JournalofQuantitativeCriminology,21(1):103123.
Ratcliffe,JerryH.(2004).Thehotspotmatrix:Aframeworkforthespatio
temporaltargetingofcrimereduction.PolicePracticeandResearch,5(1):5
23.
Ratcliffe,JerryH.(2002a).Aoristicsignaturesandthetemporalanalysisofhigh
volumecrimepatterns.JournalofQuantitativeCriminology,18(1):2343.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
344
Ratcliffe,JerryH.(2002b).Burglaryreductionandthemythofdisplacement.
Trends&IssuesinCrimeandCriminalJustice,No.232.Canberra,Australia:
AustralianInstituteofCriminology.
Ratcliffe,JerryH.(2001a).OntheaccuracyofTIGERtypegeocodedaddressdata
inrelationtocadastralandcensusarealunits.InternationalJournalof
GeographicalInformationScience,15(5):473485.
Ratcliffe,JerryH.(2001b).Policingurbanburglary.Trends&IssuesinCrimeand
CriminalJustice,No.213.Canberra,Australia:AustralianInstituteof
Criminology.
Ratcliffe,JerryH.(2000).Aoristicanalysis:Thespatialinterpretationofunspecific
temporalevents.InternationalJournalofGeographicalInformationScience,
14(7):669679.
Ratcliffe,JerryH.andMichaelJ.McCullagh.(1999).Hotbedsofcrimeandthe
searchforspatialaccuracy.GeographicalSystems,1(4):385398.
Ratcliffe,JerryH.andMichaelJ.McCullagh.(1998).Aoristiccrimeanalysis.
InternationalJournalofGeographicalInformationScience,12(1):751764.
Rengert,GeorgeandSimonHakim.(1998).Burglaryinaffluentcommunities:A
planningperspective.In:Felson,MarcusandRichardB.Peiser(eds.).
Reducingcrimethroughrealestatedevelopmentandmanagement.
Washington,DC:UrbanLandInstitute.
Rengert,GeorgeF.andJohnWasilchick.(2000).Suburbanburglary:Ataleoftwo
suburbs(2nded.).Springfield,IL:CharlesCThomas.
Rengert,GeorgeF.andJohnWasilchick.(1985).Suburganburglary:Atimeanda
placeforeverything.Springfield,IL:CharlesCThomas.
Reppetto,ThomasA.(1974).Residentialcrime.Cambridge,MA:Ballinger
PublishingCompany.
Reppetto,ThomasA.(1976).Crimepreventionandthedisplacement
phenomenon.Crime&Delinquency,22:166177.
Rubenstein,Herb,CharlesMurray,TetsuroMotoyama,W.V.Rouse,andRichardM.
Titus.(1980).Thelinkbetweencrimeandthebuiltenvironment:Thecurrent
stateofknowledge,Vol.1.Washington,D.C.:U.S.DepartmentofJustice,
NationalInstituteofJustice.
SecuritySales&Integration.(2004).The2004securitysales&integrationannual
installationbusinessreport.Torrance,CA:ResearchDepartmentofBobit
BIBLIOGRAPHY
345
BusinessMedia.Availableonlineat:
http://www.securitysales.com/t_stats_factbook.cfm
Shadish,WilliamsR.,ThomasD.Cook,andDonaldT.Campbell.(2002).
Experimentalandquasiexperimentaldesignsforgeneralizedcausalinference.
Boston,MA:HoughtonMifflin.
Shearing,CliffordD.andPhilipC.Stenning.(1987).Reframingpolicing.In:
Shearing,CliffordD.andPhilipC.Stenning(eds.).Privatepolicing.Beverly
Hills,CA:Sage.
Shover,Neal.(1991).Burglary.In:Tonry,Michael,(eds.).CrimeandJustice:A
ReviewofResearch,Vol.14:73113.Chicago,IL:TheUniversityofChicago.
Sklansky,DavidA.(1999).Theprivatepolice.UCLALawReview,46(4):1165
1287.
Smith,MarthaJ.,RonaldV.Clarke,andkenPease.(2002).Anticipatorybenefitsin
crimeprevention.In:Tilley,Nick(eds.).Analysisforcrimeprevention,Vol.
13.Monsey,NY:CriminalJusticePress.
Sorensen,DavidW.M.(2005).Theabsenceofevidenceconcerningtheeffectsof
situationalcrimepreventiononburglaryandScandinavianprospectsfor
improvement.Stockholm,Sweden:ScandinavianResearchCouncilfor
Criminology.
Sorensen,DavidW.M.(2004).TemporalpatternsofDanishresidentialburglary:By
month,dayofweek,andhourofday.Copenhagen,Denmark:Denmarks
MinistryofJustice.
Sorensen,DavidW.M.(2004).RepeatburglaryintheprivateDanishhome:Extent,
timecourse,andimplicationsforprevention.Copenhagen,Denmark:
DenmarksMinistryofJustice.
Sorensen,DavidW.M.(2003).Thenatureandpreventionofresidentialburglary:A
reviewoftheinternationalliteraturewithaneyetowardpreventionin
Denmark.Copenhagen,Denmark:DenmarksMinistryofJustice.
Sousa,WilliamH.(2003).CrimereductioninNewYorkCity:TheimpactoftheNYPD.
Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation.Newark,NJ:RutgersUniversity.
Spradley,JamesP.(1979).Theethnographicinterview.Belmont,CA:Wadsworth
ThomsonLearning.
SPSSInc.(2004).SPSS13.0baseusersguide.Chicago,IL:SPSSInc.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
346
Velasco,MaryandRachelBoba.(2000).Manualofcrimeanalysismapproduction.
Washington,D.C.:U.S.DepartmentofJustice,CommunityofOrientedPolicing
Services.
Walsh,Dermot.(1980).Breakins:Burglaryfromprivatehouses.London,U.K.:
Constable.
Weisburd,David.(1997).Reorientingcrimepreventionresearchandpolicy:From
thecausesofcriminalitytothecontextofcrime.WashingtonD.C.:U.S.
DepartmentofJustice,NationalInstituteofJustice.
Weisburd,David.(1993).Designsensitivityincriminaljusticeexperiments.In:
Tonry,Michael,(eds.).CrimeandJustice:AReviewofResearch,Vol.17:337
379.Chicago,IL:TheUniversityofChicago.
Weisburd,DavidandChesterBritt.(2003).Statisticsincriminaljustice(2nded.).
Belmont,CA:Wadsworth/Thomson.
Weisburd,David,LauraA.Wyckoff,JusticeReady,JohnE.Eck,JoshuaC.Hinkle,and
FrankGajewski.(2006).Doescrimejustmovearoundthecorner?A
controlledstudyofspatialdisplacementanddiffusionofcrimecontrol
benefits.Criminology,44(3):549591.
Weisel,DeborahL.(2002).Burglaryofsinglefamilyhouses.ProblemOriented
guidesforPoliceSeries,No.18.Washington,D.C.:U.S.DepartmentofJustice,
OfficeofCommunityOrientedPolicingServices.
Widom,CathyS.(1989).Childabuse,neglect,andadultbehavior:Researchdesign
andfindingsoncriminality,violence,andchildabuse.AmericanJournalof
Orthopsychiatry,59(3):355367.
Wilson,JamesQ.andGeorgeL.Kelling.(1982).Brokenwindows:Thepoliceand
neighborhoodsafety.TheAtlanticMonthly(March):2938.
Wright,RichardT.andScottH.Decker.(1994).Burglarsonthejob:Streetlifeand
residentialbreakins.Boston,MA:NortheasternUniversityPress.
Wortley,Richard.(2001).Aclassificationoftechniquesforcontrollingsituational
precipitatorsofcrime.SecurityJournal,14(4):6382.
VITA
Seungmug(a.k.a.Zech)Lee
1968
Born24ofAugust(lunarcalendar)inHaenam,SouthKorea.
19751980
AttendedSandongElementarySchool,Haenam,SouthKorea.
19811983
AttendedDooRyunMiddleSchool,Haenam,SouthKorea.
19841986
AttendedSalnesianHighSchool,Kwangjoo,SouthKorea.
1987
AttendedChosunUniversity,Kwangjoo,SouthKorea;majoredin
publicadministration.
19881991
AttendedDonggukUniversity,Seoul,SouthKorea;majoredin
policeadministration.
1991
B.A.inPoliceAdministration.
1992
BeganGraudateStudiesinCriminalJustice,DonggukUniversity,
Seoul,SouthKorea.
19931995
Asergeant,KoreanArmy.
1997
M.A.inCriminology.
19992001
GraduateStdudiesinProtectionManagement,JohnJayCollegeof
CriminalJustice,NewYork,NewYork.
2001
M.S.inProtectionManagement.
2001
BeganDoctoralStudiesattheGraduateSchoolNewark,Rutgers
University,SchoolofCriminalJustice.
2002
M.A.inCriminalJustice
20032007
ParttimeLecturerinCriminalJustice,RutgersUniversity,Newark,
NewJersey.
2005
AIREFDissertationFellowshipAward,AlarmIndustryResearch&
EducationalFoundation(AIREF),Washington,D.C.
2007
AssistantProfessorintheDepartmentofCriminalJustice,Kean
University,Union,NewJersey.
2008
Ph.D.inCriminalJustice.

Research Airef91808 Fullreport

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Airef91808 Fullreport

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FinalReportto

Feb March April

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

2001 2002 2003

2004 2005 overall

.107 .047 .200 2.30*

.161 .049 .299 3.27**

.092 .034 .293 2.69**

.479 .192 .257

2.50 .715 .166 .384 4.32

.212 .034 .547 6.15*** .195 .024

.565 .106 .303 5.34

.566 .107 .304 5.32***

.228 .058 .371 3.91

.075 .056 .138 1.34

.241 .050 .391 4.80

.074 .057 .136 1.31

.387 .070 .325 5.56*** .386 .070 .324 5.49***

.014 .044 .026 .75

0.01 0.05 0.10

0.10 0.05 0.01

0.01 0.05 0.10

0.10 0.05 0.01

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Numberofpermits 1,261 1,081

14.3 +52.5 +14.4 +16.9

.032 .013 .247 2.483* .031 .013 .243 2.489*

.075 .036 .204 2.093*

.031 .013 .250 2.501* .035 .012 .279 2.87**

.091 .034 .266 2.68**

.135 .052 .214 2.61* .197 .055 .313 3.58**

.088 .033 .275 2.68**

.098 .038 .212 2.62** .148 .040 .318 3.71***

.103 .035 .297 2.90**

.240 .065 .357 3.71

.054 .023 .222 2.40**

.599 .285 .219 2.102 .812 .246 .296 3.303

.163 .077 .254

.135 .087 .196

.329 .078 .422

4.768 .606 .149 .221

4.079 .614 .151 .224

.554 .231 .248 2.403 .695 .205 .311 3.39

.146 .064 .284 2.264* .131 .056 .256

.108 .073 .198 1.484 .068 .064 .124

.247 .065 .398 3.771***.255 .057 .411

.419 .078 .349

3.693 .516 .138 .231

.166 .030 .495 5.530*** .154 .023 .459

.168 .054 .381

.046 .062 .097

.211 .055 .395

6.109*** .511 .101 .323

5.062*** .511 .102 .323

.557 .222 .258 2.510 .862 .189 .400 4.558

.284 .044 .570 6.497*** .259 .030 .520

.205 .070 .314

.155 .080 .221

.274 .072 .346

.135 .025 .518 5.455*** .124 .019 .476

.056 .044 .164

.116 .051 .318

.127 .046 .305

.387 .070 .325 5.56* .386 .070 .324 5.49*

.098 .038 .212 2.62 .148 .040 .318 3.71*