American Journal of Criminal Justice

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 197–214 | Cite as

The effect of temporary residences on burglary: A test of criminal opportunity theory

  • Steven Stack


Previous work testing the criminal opportunity/routine activities theory of burglary has been marked by three recurrent problems: (1) a neglect of testing the theory in rural areas (2) the use of indicators which confound opportunity with disorganization effects (3) failure to control for alternative theories of burglary. The present paper contributes to the literature by correcting these shortcomings. The results of a multiple regression analysis of county level data from Michigan indicate that the greater the criminal opportunity, the greater the rate of burglary. These results are independent of indicators taken from economic strain and social disorganization theories. The model explains 69% of the variance in burglary rates overall and 84% of the variance in rural counties. While there may be higher levels of social cohesion and lower anonymity in rural areas, these factors are not sufficient to offset the influence of criminal opportunity.


Crime Rate Social Disorganization Rural County Family Disruption Social Disorganization Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Belsley, D.A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R.E. (1980).Regression diagnostics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, T., & Wright, R. (1984).Burglars on burglary. Aldershot: Grover.Google Scholar
  3. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., & Rosenfeld, R. (1991). Trend and deviation in crime rates: A comparison of UCR and NCS data for burglary and robbery.Criminology, 29, 237–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bursik, R.J. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency.Criminology, 26, 519–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carroll, L., & Jackson, P.I. (1983). Inequality, opportunity, and crime rates in central cities.Criminology, 21, 178–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach.American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, L., Felson, M., & Land, K. (1980). Property crime rates in the US: A macrodynamic analysis, 1947–1977.American Journal of Sociology, 86, 90–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, L., & Cantor, D. (1981). Residential burglary in the US: Lifestyle and demographic factors associated with the problem of victimization.Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency, 17, 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, L., Kluegel, J. R., & Land, K. (1981). Social inequality and predatory victimization.American Sociological Review, 46, 504–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cromwell, P.F., Olson, J.N., & Avary, D.W. (1991).Breaking and entering: An ethnographic analysis of burglary. Newburry Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Decker, S., Wright, R., & Logie, R. (1993). Perceptual deterrence among active residential burglars.Criminology, 31, 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Decker, S., Wright, R., Redfern, A., & Smith, D. (1993). A woman’s place is in the home: Females and residential burglary.Justice Quarterly, 10, 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ensminger, M.E., Kellam, S.G., & Rubin, B. (1983). School and family origins of delinquency. In K.T. Van Dusen & S.A. Mednick (Eds.),Antecedents of aggression and antisocial behavior (pp. 99–128). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  14. Fischer, C. (1982).To dwell among friends: Personal networks in town and city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hindelang, M., Gottfredson, M., & Garofalo, J. (1978).Victims of personal crime. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  16. Holzman, H.R. (1983). The serious habitual property offender as moonlighter.Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 73, 174–192.Google Scholar
  17. Hope, T. (1984). Building design and burglary. In R. Clarke & T. Hope (Eds.),Coping with burglary (pp. 45–59). Boston: Kluwer Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  18. Hough, M. (1987). Offenders’ choice of target: Findings from victim surveys.Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hough, M., & Mayhew, P. (1985).Taking account of crime: Key findings from the 1984 british crime survey. Home Office Research Study no. 85. London: H.M. Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  20. Jackson, P. (1984). Opportunity and crime: A function of city size.Sociology and Social Research, 68, 172–193.Google Scholar
  21. Kornhauser, R. (1978).Social sources of delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kowalski, G.S., Faupel, C., & Starr, P.D. (1987). Urbanism and suicide: A study of American counties.Social Forces, 66, 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewis-Beck, M. (1980).Applied regression analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Loeber, R., & Stouthammer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.),Crime and justice: Volume 7 (pp. 28–149). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Maguire, M. (1982).Burglary in a dwelling. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  26. Maxfield, M. (1987a). Household composition, routine activity, and victimization: A comparative analysis.Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maxfield, M. (1987b). Lifestyle and routine activity theories of crime.Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 275–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mayhew, P. (1984). Target hardening: How much of An answer? In R. Clarke & T. Hope (Eds.),Coping with burglary (pp. 29–44). Boston: Kluwer Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  29. Messner, S. (1983). Regional differences in the economic correlates of homicide.Criminology, 21, 477–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Messner, S., & Blau, J. (1987). Routine leisure activities and rates of crime.Social Forces, 65, 1035–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miethe, T., & Meier, R. (1990). Opportunity, choice, and criminal victimization: A test of a theoretical model.Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency, 27, 243–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miethe, T., Stafford, M., & Long, J.S. (1987). Social differentiation in criminal victimization: A test of routine activities/life styles theories.American Sociological Review, 52, 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miethe, T., Hughes, M., & McDowall, D. (1991). Social change and crime rates: an evaluation of alternative perspectives.Social Forces, 70, 165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Molumby, T. (1976). Patterns of crime in a university housing project.American Behavioral Scientist, 20, 247–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rengert, G., & Wasilchick, J. (1985).Suburban burglary. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  36. Reppetto, T.A. (1974).Residential crime. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  37. Sampson, R. (1987). Urban Black violence: The effect of male joblessness and family disruption.American Journal of Sociology, 93, 348–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sampson, R. J., & Wooldredge, J. D. (1987). Linking the micro and macro-level dimensions of life-style-routine activity and opportunity models of predatory victimization.Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social disorganization theory.American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shaw, C., & McKay, H. D. (1969).Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Shover, N. (1991). Burglary. In M. Tonry (Ed.),Crime and Justice: Volume 14 (pp. 73–113). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Spotts, D. (Ed.) (1986).Travel and tourism in Michigan: A statistical profile (Research Monograph #1). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Travel, Tourism, and Recreational Resource Center.Google Scholar
  43. Stack, S. (1982). Social structure and Swedish crime rates: A time series analysis, 1950–1979.Criminology, 20, 499–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stahura, J.M., & Sloan, J. J. (1988). Urban stratification of places, routine activities and suburban crime rates.Social Forces, 66, 1103–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tunnell, K.D. (1992).Choosing crime: The criminal calculus of property offenders. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. U.S. Bureau of Census. (1989).County Statistics File 3 (COSTAT 3) Technical Documentation. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  47. U.S. Bureau of Census. (1992).County Statistics File 4 (COSTAT 4) Technical Documentation. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  48. Waller, I., & Okihiro, N. (1978).Burglary: The victim and the public. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  49. Walsh, D. (1986).Heavy business: Commercial burglary and robbery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  50. Weisberg, S. (1980).Applied linear regression. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  51. Williams, K. (1984). Economic sources of homicide: Reestimating the effects of poverty and inequality.American Sociological Review, 49, 283–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life.American Journal of Sociology, 44, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven Stack
    • 1
  1. 1.Wayne State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations