Most places have no crimes and most crime is highly concentrated in and around a relatively small number of places. If we can prevent crime at these high crime places, then we might be able to reduce total crime. Do we have evidence that this is feasible? Places have received relatively little attention in crime policy so it is important to define "place." A place is a very small area reserved for a narrow range of functions, often controlled by a single owner, and separated from the surrounding area. By small we mean that a location is smaller than a neighborhood or community. Examples of places include stores, homes, apartment buildings, street corners, subway stations, and airports. We will also include mobile places, such as buses, in our discussions. Concentration of crime at places is predicted by routine activity theory (Cohen and Felson 1979; Felson 1994) and offender search theory (Brantingham and Brantingham 1981). Some of the original evidence for clustering of crime at places was found in Boston (Pierce, Spaar and Briggs 1986) and Minneapolis (Sherman, Gartin and Buerger 1989). Additional evidence for crime concentration at places has been found for specific types of crime. Crow and Bull (1975) noted over 20 years ago that most convenience stores have no or few robberies, but a few have many robberies. In England and Canada a growing body of research has revealed that in high burglary neighborhoods most residences have no burglaries, but a few residences suffer repeated burglaries (Forrester et. al. 1988; Forrester et. al. 1990; Polvi et. al. 1990; Farrell 1995). Among drinking establishments, a few bars have most tavern-related violence (Sherman, Schmidt, and Velke 1992). Ten percent of the fast food restaurants in San Antonio, Texas account for one third of the property crimes at such restaurants (Spelman 1995b). In Kansas City and Indianapolis, gun crimes were found to be highly concentrated at a few places (Sherman and Rogan 1995b). Drug dealing is highly concentrated in a few locations, even in areas with a high volume of drug dealing (Weisburd, Green and Ross 1994; Eck 1994; Sherman and Rogan 1995a). This clustering is most apparent when compared to repeat offending and repeat victimizations. Combining the results from several studies, Spelman estimated that 10 percent of the victims in the United States are involved in about 40 percent of the victimizations, that 10 percent of the offenders are involved in over 50 percent of the crimes, and that 10 percent of the places are sites for about 60 percent of the crimes (Spelman and Eck 1989). Further, the concentration of crimes at a few places is relatively stable over time (Spelman 1995a, 1995b). These findings suggest that something about a few places facilitates crimes and something about most places prevents crimes. (Author/publisher)
Abstract