Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reducing Bias in Estimates for the Law of Crime Concentration

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Quantitative Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andresen Martin A, Curman Andrea S, Linning Shannon J (2017) The trajectories of crime at places: understanding the patterns of disaggregated crime types. J Quant Criminol 33(3):427–449

    Google Scholar 

  • Andresen MA, Malleson N (2011) Testing the stability of crime patterns: implications for theory and policy. J Res Crime Delinq 48(1):58–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernasco W, Steenbeek W (2017) More places than crimes: implications for evaluating the law of crime concentration at place. J Quant Criminol 33(3):451–467

    Google Scholar 

  • Braga AA, Papachristos AV, Hureau DM (2010) The concentration and stability of gun violence at micro places in boston, 1980–2008. J Quant Criminol 26(1):33–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Braga AA, Papachristos AV, Hureau DM (2014) The effects of hot spots policing on crime: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Q 31(4):633–663

    Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham PJ (2016) Crime diversity. Criminology 54(4):553–586

    Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL (1984) Patterns in crime. Mackmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ (1999) A theoretical model of crime hot spot generation. Stud Crime Crime Prev 8(1):7–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Curiel RP, Bishop S (2016) A measure of the concentration of rare events. Sci Rep 6:32369

    Google Scholar 

  • Curiel RP, Delmar SC, Bishop SR (2018) Measuring the distribution of crime and its concentration. J Quant Criminol 34(3):775–803

    Google Scholar 

  • Da Fonseca J, Zaatour R (2014) Hawkes process: Fast calibration, application to trade clustering, and diffusive limit. J Futures Mark 34(6):548–579

    Google Scholar 

  • Daley DJ, Vere-Jones D (2003) An introduction to the theory of point processes: volume I: Elementary theory and methods. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Eck JE, Clarke RV, Guerette RT (2007) Risky facilities: crime concentration in homogeneous sets of establishments and facilities. Crime Prev Stud 21:225

    Google Scholar 

  • Eck JE, Lee YJ, SooHyun O, Martinez N (2017) Compared to what? estimating the relative concentration of crime at places using systematic and other reviews. Crime Sci 6(1):8

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Bureau of Investigation (2016) Crime in the united states. Uniform crime reports online

  • Giles DEA (2004) Calculating a standard error for the gini coefficient: some further results. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 66(3):425–433

    Google Scholar 

  • Haberman CP (2017) Overlapping hot spots? Criminol Public Policy 16(2):633–660

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibdon J, Groff ER (2014) What you find depends on where you look: using emergency medical services call data to target illicit drug use hot spots. J Contemp Crim Justice 30(2):169–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Hipp JR, Kim Y-A (2017) Measuring crime concentration across cities of varying sizes: complications based on the spatial and temporal scale employed. J Quant Criminol 33(3):595–632

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlin S (2014) A first course in stochastic processes. Academic Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy LW, Caplan JM, Piza E (2011) Risk clusters, hotspots, and spatial intelligence: risk terrain modeling as an algorithm for police resource allocation strategies. J Quantit Criminol 27(3):339–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Langel M, Tillé Y (2013) Variance estimation of the gini index: revisiting a result several times published. J R Stat Soc: Ser A (Stat Soc) 176(2):521–540

    Google Scholar 

  • Macbeth E, Ariel B (2017) Place-based statistical versus clinical predictions of crime hot spots and harm locations in Northern Ireland. Justice Q. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2017.1360379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohler GO, Short MB, Malinowski S, Johnson M, Tita GE, Bertozzi AL, Jeffrey Brantingham P (2015) Randomized controlled field trials of predictive policing. J Am Stat Assoc 110(512):1399–1411

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohler GO, Short MB, Brantingham PJ (2017) The concentration dynamics tradeoff in crime hot spotting. Unraveling Crime-Place Connect 22:19–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira M, Bastos-Filho C, Menezes R (2017) The scaling of crime concentration in cities. PLoS ONE 12(8):e0183110

    Google Scholar 

  • Salem ABZ, Mount TD (1974) A convenient descriptive model of income distribution: the gamma density. Econometrica 42(6):1115–1127

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson RJ, Byron Groves W (1989) Community structure and crime: testing social-disorganization theory. Am J Sociol 94(4):774–802

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277(5328):918–924

    Google Scholar 

  • Santitissadeekorn N, Short MB, Lloyd DJB (2018) Sequential data assimilation for 1D self-exciting processes with application to urban crime data. Comput Stat Data Anal 128:163–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlattmann P, Hoehne J, Verba M (2015) Caman: finite mixture models and meta-analysis tools based on ca man 2014: R package version 0.71

  • Schnell C, Braga AA, Piza EL (2017) The influence of community areas, neighborhood clusters, and street segments on the spatial variability of violent crime in Chicago. J Quant Criminol 33(3):469–496

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman LW, Gartin PR, Buerger ME (1989) Hot spots of predatory crime: routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology 27(1):27–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman LW, Weisburd D (1995) General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime “hot spots”: a randomized, controlled trial. Justice Q 12(4):625–648

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd D (2015) The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place. Criminology 53(2):133–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd D (2018) Hot spots of crime and place-based prevention. Criminol Public Policy 17(1):5–25

    Google 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 3–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd D, Bushway S, Lum C, Yang S-M (2004) Trajectories of crime at places: a longitudinal study of street segments in the city of seattle. Criminology 42(2):283–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd D, Cave B, Nelson M, White C, Haviland A, Ready J, Lawton B, Sikkema K (2018) Mean streets and mental health: depression and post-traumatic stress disorder at crime hot spots. Am J Commun Psychol 61(3–4):285–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd D, Green L (1995) Policing drug hot spots: the jersey city drug market analysis experiment. Justice Q 12(4):711–735

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd D, Groff ER, Yang S-M (2012) The criminology of place: street segments and our understanding of the crime problem. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • White C, Weisburd D (2017) A co-responder model for policing mental health problems at crime hot spots: findings from a pilot project. Polic: J Policy Pract 12(2):194–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu K (2003) How has the literature on Gini’s index evolved in the past 80 years? https://ssrn.com/abstract=423200

  • Zhuang J, Ogata Y, Vere-Jones D (2002) Stochastic declustering of space-time earthquake occurrences. J Am Stat Assoc 97(458):369–380

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by NSF Grants SCC-1737585, SES-1343123, ATD-1737996, and ATD-1737925.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer and Information Science, Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, USA

    George Mohler

  2. Anthropology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA

    P. Jeffrey Brantingham

  3. School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, USA

    Jeremy Carter

  4. School of Mathematics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA

    Martin B. Short

Authors
  1. George Mohler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Jeffrey Brantingham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeremy Carter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin B. Short
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George Mohler.

Appendix: R Code for Estimation of the Law of Crime Concentration

Appendix: R Code for Estimation of the Law of Crime Concentration

See Figs. 7 and 8.

Fig. 7
figure 7

R code for Poisson–Gamma estimator via simulation

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

R code for Poisson–Gamma estimator via numerical integration

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mohler, G., Brantingham, P.J., Carter, J. et al. Reducing Bias in Estimates for the Law of Crime Concentration. J Quant Criminol 35, 747–765 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-019-09404-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-019-09404-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation