Schools as Criminal “Hot Spots”

• Published date: 01 December 2007
• Author: Dennis W. Roncek,Paula M. Kautt
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016807311559
• Date: 01 December 2007
• Subject Matter: Articles

Schools as Criminal “Hot Spots”

Primary, Secondary, and Beyond

Paula M. Kautt

University of Cambridge, England

Dennis W. Roncek

University of Nebraska, Omaha

Americans are deeply concerned about crime. Increasing crime problems in America’s schools

and expanding youth involvement in crime are two reasons. These trends should be linked to

criminological developments regarding crime incidents and the places where they occur.

Routine Activities Theory emphasizes the conditions and locations where crime occurs. Research

also indicates crime is concentrated in small areas called “hot spots,” often centered on loca-

tions integral to the offender’s routine activities. Schools are one focal point for the routine

activities of youth. Accordingly, using Tobit analysis of block-level burglary rates, this research

examines the importance of different types of schools as focal points of acquisitive crime.

Keywords: burglary; hot spots; police strategy; school crime; spatial analysis; Tobit analysis

In recent decades, media and politicians lamented changes undergone by schools, focus-

ing specifically on crime and violence (DeVoe, Peter, Noonan, Snyder, & Baum, 2005).

Yet schools have not received much scholarly attention as crime facilitators and the majority

of school-related incidences are not credited to the schools themselves (Felson, 1987).

Studies document that areas near public high schools have higher crime levels than other

residential areas (Gouvis Roman, 2002; Roncek & Faggiani, 1985; Roncek & Lobosco,

1983). However,lower level schools have been largely ignored as crime facilitators, despite the

fact that some of their crime problems are worse (Toby, 1983; Wilcox, Michelle, Bryan, &

Roberts, 2005). This research examines the effect of primary and middle schools (public

and private) on burglary in the surrounding residential areas.

This vein of research has several potential benefits. First, it can identify whether one

major foci of youth routine activities is associated with crime. This, in turn, would demon-

strate how schools affect crime vulnerability in the immediate surrounding areas. Thus, it

can inform the public and policy makers of certain long-term risks or consequences asso-

ciated with the location of schools in residential areas. Second, this work approximates a

quasi-experiment for public schools because their distribution is, at least ostensibly, not

based on race or class.1Therefore, isolating their effects on burglary should be relatively

simple because their locations should not be correlated with the aforementioned factors that

339

Criminal Justice Review

Volume 32 Number 4

December 2007 339-357

© 2007 Georgia State University

Research Foundation, Inc.

10.1177/0734016807311559

http://cjr.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Authors’ Note: This article is an updated product of my master’s thesis research, which was supervised by

Dennis (Denn) Roncek. Besides being a wonderful teacher and amazing researcher, Denn was an exceptional

man, with integrity in abundance. I credit him fully with my ability to use and learn advanced statistical and

geospatial techniques—essentially getting me to where I am today. His loss is still sorely felt by those who knew

him. I am grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to and thank him one last time by publishing this work.

also affect crime. Third, focusing on a potentially criminogenic facility can lead to more

effective crime prevention measures. For example, research shows that concentrating patrol

efforts on criminal hot spots can reduce incidence of criminal events without displacement

(DeVoe et al., 2005; Green, 1996; Weisburd et al., 2006). Thus, schools and their sur-

rounding areas represent a potential focus for such efforts.

Theoretically, an association between the presence of elementary, junior high, or senior

high schools on or adjacent to residential city blocks and the number of burglaries on said

blocks lends credence to Routine Activities Theory (L. E. Cohen & Felson, 1979; Felson,

1993) and identifies schools as hot spots for crime. This would have several implications for

police policy. First, expanding police presence at schools might significantly affect burglary

incidence (Coupe & Blake, 2005) in the surrounding areas. Second, residents of blocks

close to schools might be advised to take special target-hardening efforts (Clarke, 1983).

Third, such residents could make their property less attractive by trimming back shrubbery

that might conceal offenders as they attempt to gain entry to the home. Finally, the formation

of neighborhood watch groups would improve the guardianship in such areas (Weisel, 2002;

Wright, Logie, & Decker, 1995). Thus, this vein of research has practical and theoretical

applications. With that in mind, we first discuss our theoretical framework.

Theoretical Underpinnings

Ecological Criminology and Routine Activities

Most crime can be viewed as the result of conscious and usually rapid decisions about the

attractiveness of criminal opportunities. The extant literature demonstrates that crime is not

simply caused by a criminally minded person; other situational conditions must be present,

such as target availability and opportunity (L. E. Cohen & Felson, 1979). For example, the

physical environment of convenience stores, bars, and schools lend themselves to criminal

activity (Gouvis Roman, 2002; Roncek & Maier, 1991; Sherman, Schmidt, & Velke, 1992).

All have ready accessibility because of the functions they serve. Thus, environment is a

powerful inhibitor or facilitator of crime, and situational prevention strategies can affect its

likelihood of occurrence (L. E. Cohen & Felson, 1979; Weisburd et al., 2006). Therefore,

criminal event theory should incorporate the nature and distribution of criminal opportunities,

demonstrating how offender choices are associated with circumstances at hand.

Ecological criminology studies how the social and physical environment affects crime,

looking at space as a fixed quantity that shapes offenders’ activities (Brantingham &

Brantingham, 1991). From the mid-1800s, specific city areas have been consistently associated

with high crime and concentrations of criminals. Frequently these areas share common char-

acteristics such as low-income, mixed or minority ethnicity, and dilapidated housing. Such

commonalties inspired an ecological approach to criminology (Shaw & McKay, 1942).

Later research turned away from ecological criminology, focusing almost exclusively on

individuals, in part, because earlier studies ignored underlying differences in and between

areas (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1991).

Routine Activities Theory (L. E. Cohen & Felson, 1979) reinvigorated environmental

criminology. Central to the theory is the assumption that crime feeds on legitimate activi-

ties and opportunity. Specifically, it isolates three necessary components of any criminal

340 Criminal Justice Review