Reducing Bias in Estimates for the Law of Crime Concentration
The law of crime concentration states that half of the cumulative crime in a city will occur within approximately 4% of the city’s geography. The law is demonstrated by counting the number of incidents in each of N spatial areas (street segments or grid cells) and then computing a parameter based on the counts, such as a point estimate on the Lorenz curve or the Gini index. Here we show that estimators commonly used in the literature for these statistics are biased when the number of incidents is low (several thousand or less). Our objective is to significantly reduce bias in estimators for the law of crime concentration.
By modeling crime counts as a negative binomial, we show how to compute an improved estimate of the law of crime concentration at low event counts that significantly reduces bias. In particular, we use the Poisson–Gamma representation of the negative binomial and compute the concentration statistic via integrals for the Lorenz curve and Gini index of the inferred continuous Gamma distribution.
We illustrate the Poisson–Gamma method with synthetic data along with homicide data from Chicago. We show that our estimator significantly reduces bias and is able to recover the true law of crime concentration with only several hundred events.
The Poisson–Gamma method has applications to measuring the concentration of rare events, comparisons of concentration across cities of different sizes, and improving time series estimates of crime concentration.
KeywordsGini index Crime hotspot Crime concentration Negative binomial Poisson process
This work was supported in part by NSF Grants SCC-1737585, SES-1343123, ATD-1737996, and ATD-1737925.
- Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL (1984) Patterns in crime. Mackmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ (1999) A theoretical model of crime hot spot generation. Stud Crime Crime Prev 8(1):7–26Google Scholar
- Da Fonseca J, Zaatour R (2014) Hawkes process: Fast calibration, application to trade clustering, and diffusive limit. J Futures Mark 34(6):548–579Google Scholar
- Daley DJ, Vere-Jones D (2003) An introduction to the theory of point processes: volume I: Elementary theory and methods. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Eck JE, Clarke RV, Guerette RT (2007) Risky facilities: crime concentration in homogeneous sets of establishments and facilities. Crime Prev Stud 21:225Google Scholar
- Federal Bureau of Investigation (2016) Crime in the united states. Uniform crime reports onlineGoogle Scholar
- Karlin S (2014) A first course in stochastic processes. Academic Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Mohler GO, Short MB, Brantingham PJ (2017) The concentration dynamics tradeoff in crime hot spotting. Unraveling Crime-Place Connect 22:19–40Google Scholar
- Schlattmann P, Hoehne J, Verba M (2015) Caman: finite mixture models and meta-analysis tools based on ca man 2014: R package version 0.71Google Scholar
- Weisburd D, Bruinsma GJN, Bernasco W (2009) Units of analysis in geographic criminology: historical development, critical issues, and open questions. In: Putting crime in its place, Springer, Berlin, pp 3–31Google Scholar
- Xu K (2003) How has the literature on Gini’s index evolved in the past 80 years? https://ssrn.com/abstract=423200