Measuring Marginal Crime Concentration: A New Solution to an Old Problem

Abstract

Objectives: In his 2014 Sutherland address to the American Society of Criminology, David Weisburd demonstrated that the share of crime that is accounted for by the most crime-ridden street segments is notably high and strikingly similar across cities, an empirical regularity referred to as the “law of crime concentration.” In the large literature that has since proliferated, there remains considerable debate as to how crime concentration should be measured empirically. We suggest a measure of crime concentration that is simple, accurate and easily interpreted. Methods: Using data from three of the largest cities in the United States, we compare observed crime concentration to a counterfactual distribution of crimes generated by randomizing crimes to street segments. We show that this method avoids a key pitfall that causes a popular method of measuring crime concentration to considerably overstate the degree of crime concentration in a city. Results: While crime is significantly concentrated in a statistical sense and while some crimes are substantively concentrated among hot spots, the precise relationship is considerably weaker than has been documented in the empirical literature. Conclusions: The method we propose is simple and easily interpretable and compliments recent advances which use the Gini coefficient to measure crime concentration.