Burglary Victimization in England and Wales, the United States and the Netherlands: A Cross-National Comparative Test of Routine Activities and Lifestyle Theories

This study examines factors relating to burglary incidence in England and Wales, the United States, and the Netherlands. Negative binomial regression models are developed based on routine activities theory. Data are drawn from national victimization surveys of about the same time: the 1994 British Crime Survey, the 1994 National Crime Victimisation Survey, and the 1993 Police Monitor, respectively. Relative to the two European countries, US households have more idiosyncratic patterns of burglary victimization. Despite differences across the three data sets, several similar effects emerge of variables tapping lifestyle characteristics on burglary victimization. Four variables had significant effects in the same direction in two or more countries where the third country showed a non-significant effect in the same direction. These were age, lone parent household status, urbanization, and the presence of security measures in the home. Some variables had significant effects in opposite directions according to country: rented accommodation was associated with higher burglary rates in the UK but lower rates in the Netherlands; household affluence was linked with higher rates of burglary in the UK and lower rates in the United States.

[1]  Michael R. Gottfredson,et al.  Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization , 1977 .

[2]  Lawrence E. Cohen,et al.  Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach , 1979 .

[3]  A. Schneider.  Methodological Problems in Victim Surveys and Their Implications for Research in Victimology , 1981 .

[4]  James R. Kluegel,et al.  Social Inequality and Predatory Criminal Victimization: An Exposition and Test of a Formal Theory , 1981 .

[5]  Mike Maguire,et al.  Recent Book: Burglary in a Dwelling — The Offence, the Offender and the Victim , 1983 .

[6]  Residential Burglary; A Profile from the British Crime Survey , 1984 .

[7]  Tim Hope,et al.  Building Design and Burglary , 1984 .

[8]  Trevor Bennett,et al.  Burglars on Burglary: Prevention and the Offender , 1984 .

[9]  A. Cameron,et al.  Econometric models based on count data. Comparisons and applications of some estimators and tests , 1986 .

[10]  M. Maxfield.  Household composition, routine activity, and victimization: A comparative analysis , 1987 .

[11]  Robert J. Sampson,et al.  Linking the micro- and macro-level dimensions of lifestyle-routine activity and opportunity models of predatory victimization , 1987 .

[12]  G. Jarjoura,et al.  Household Characteristics, Neighborhood Composition and Victimization Risk , 1989 .

[13]  Leslie W. Kennedy,et al.  ROUTINE ACTIVITIES AND CRIME: AN ANALYSIS OF VICTIMIZATION IN CANADA * , 1990 .

[14]  Paul F. Cromwell,et al.  Breaking and Entering: An Ethnographic Analysis of Burglary , 1990 .

[15]  Terance D. Miethe,et al.  Opportunity, Choice, and Criminal Victimization: A Test of a Theoretical Model , 1990 .

[16]  Terance D. Miethe,et al.  Lifestyle changes and risks of criminal victimization , 1990 .

[17]  C. Birkbeck,et al.  THE NEGLECTED SITUATION: A CROSSNATIONAL STUDY OF THE SITUATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIME* , 1991 .

[18]  Richard R. Bennett.  Routine Activities: A Cross-National Assessment of a Criminological Perspective , 1991 .

[19]  James Garofalo,et al.  Guardianship and residential burglary , 1992 .

[20]  Graham Farrell,et al.  Multiple Victimisation: Its Extent and Significance , 1992 .

[21]  Terance D. Miethe,et al.  Contextual Effects in Models of Criminal Victimization , 1993 .

[22]  Kenneth C. Land,et al.  MACRO‐MICRO INTEGRATION IN THE STUDY OF VICTIMIZATION: A HIERARCHICAL LOGISTIC MODEL ANALYSIS ACROSS SEATTLE NEIGHBORHOODS* , 1994 .

[23]  Ken Pease,et al.  A VICTIM IS A VICTIM IS A VICTIM?Chronic Victimization in Four Sweeps of the British Crime Survey , 1995 .

[24]  Alan Trickett,et al.  Property Crime Victimisation: The Roles of Individual and Area Influences , 1995 .

[25]  Janet L. Lauritsen,et al.  Repeat victimization among adolescents and young adults , 1995 .

[26]  A. Tseloni.  The modelling of threat incidence: evidence from the British Crime Survey , 1995 .

[27]  Herhaald slachtofferschap van het delict woninginbraak , 1996 .

[28]  Ken Pease,et al.  Crimes which repeat: undigested evidence from the British Crime Survey 1992 , 1996 .

[29]  Prior victimisation and crime risk , 1997 .

[30]  Ken Pease,et al.  'Nuisance' phone calls to women in England and Wales , 1998 .

[31]  Denise R. Osborn,et al.  The Distribution of Household Property Crimes , 1998 .

[32]  Laura Dugan.  THE EFFECT OF CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION ON A HOUSEHOLD'S MOVING DECISION* , 1999 .

[33]  K. Wittebrood,et al.  Criminal Victimization During One's Life Course: The Effects of Previous Victimization and Patterns of Routine Activities , 2000 .

[34]  P. Mayhew,et al.  Criminal Victimisation in Seventeen Industrialised Countries. Key findings from the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey , 2000 .

[35]  Shane D. Johnson,et al.  The Burglary as Clue to the Future , 2002 .

[36]  Burglary victimisation across Europe: the roles of prior victimisation, micro and macro-level routine activities , 2002 .

[37]  Graham Farrell,et al.  The time-window effect in the measurement of repeat victimization: a methodology for its examination, and an empirical study , 2002 .

[38]  Ken Pease,et al.  Modelling property crime using the British Crime Survey , 2002 .

[39]  M. Townsley,et al.  Infectious Burglaries. A Test of the Near Repeat Hypothesis , 2003 .

[40]  Shane D. Johnson,et al.  Domestic Burglary Repeats and Space-Time Clusters , 2005 .

[41]  S. Winchester,et al.  Residential Burglary: the limits of prevention , 2005 .