The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s annual Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) defines property crime as including burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Although the number of property crimes in 2017 nearly reached 7.7 million, it is down from the previous year by 3%, and on a downward trend since 2008, decreasing 21.3% (FBI, 2017). Although the number of overall property crimes is decreasing, motor vehicle theft accounted for 10% of property crimes, rising 0.8% from 2016, nearing $6 billion in losses. Despite its decrease in prevalence as compared to previous years, and the improvement of preventative safety techniques that integrate technology, property crime remains the largest type of crime as classified by the FBI. Property crime victims, like victims of other crimes, endure social, emotional, financial, and psychological impacts that affect interpersonal relationships. The criminological theory most closely linked to property crimes is routine activities theory (RAT), which posits that deviant behavior occurs when a lack of a suitable guardian, a suitable target and a motivated offender coalesce (Argun & Dağlar, 2016), with researchers maintaining that it explains the factors for property crime, such as social structure, role expectation, demographics, daily routine and exposure to certain groups (Moriarty, 2015). The literature review will discuss the impacts of property crime in victims (and secondary victims, or vicarious victimization), how perceptions of and exposure to property crime affect certain populations and the approaches that criminological theory has taken to address property crime and victimization. The interviews conducted will serve the purpose of commentary added from those with firsthand experiences with the impacts of crime and the response from law enforcement.
Review of literature
Perceptions of Property Crime
Studies done mostly dealing with the topic of property crime examine the perceptions towards, fear of, and exposure to crime and/or property crime. Crime levels are generally thought to be high in areas or populations with high-income inequality or poverty levels, but the findings from studies on income inequality and crime relationships are mixed (Beaver, Ellis, Wright, 2009). The Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology & Crime Prevention conducted a study to determine if and why those who are of low socioeconomic status experience higher levels of property crime found that poor people are more exposed to vehicle-related and residence-related property crime than non-poor people. The study also found that a large portion of those who are poor are young and are also single with children, both being populations who are also more exposed to vehicle-related property crime (Larsson, 2006). The study consisted of 5732 people in Sweden from ages 18-84, with data collected from the Survey of Annual Living Conditions in 1998. Larsson used poverty, status of neighborhood risk and employment as the independent variables and exposure to property crime as the dependent variable, using logistic and linear regressions. Some of the implications discussed in the study were how poverty is central to other social problems, which increases the risk of social exclusion.
Cook and Fox (2011) conducted a study focused exclusively on fear of six types of property crime (burglary, vehicle theft, bicycle theft, property theft, vandalism, and vehicle burglary) while examining the effects of victimization, vicarious victimization and perceived risk on property crime. The study found that experiencing victimization of a specific property crime is not a predictor for fear of that crime, and vicarious victimization was not a predictor for any property crime, while perceived risk was significantly associated with fear of property crime. Data was collected via surveys administered to 282 students enrolled in criminology courses at a southeastern university during three semesters in 2008/2009. Fear of each of the six property crime categories was measured on a scale from 0-3. Property crime victimization was measured by asking whether students had been victimized within the last 12 months. Vicarious victimization was measured in the same way. Perceived risk (likelihood of victimization in the next 12 months) was measured on a scale from 0-3, like the fear of property crime scale. The study serves the purpose to reduce fear by addressing the risk status of various populations, which could contribute to legislative efforts.
The European Journal of Criminology conducted a study in which they examined exposure to property crime and the extent to which differences in the risk of exposure are related to individual and household characteristics and neighborhood conditions. The study found that resource deficiencies in neighborhoods are significantly associated with risk when comparing well-resourced areas to low-resourced areas. It also found that living in rented housing in low-resourced neighborhoods involves a substantially heightened risk of vandalism. Perception of neighborhood vandalism in poorly resourced neighborhoods was 1 in 3 people, a compared to 1 in 10 in well-resourced neighborhoods (Estrada, Nilsson, 2008). The study consisted of 6000 people, ages 16-84, from 200-2001, with data being taken from Sweden’s Survey of Annual Living Conditions. Demographics were used as variables and a questionnaire was used to measure exposure to property crime by asking questions relating to theft or vandalism, such as if they’ve experienced property crime in the past 12 months.
Impacts of Crime
A study was done by the International Review of Victimology where the effects of violent and property victimization were examined. The main findings showed that victims of property crime reported lower levels of perceived health and physical well being, noting that the respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics had an effect on their health, mainly, that older property crime victims had greater negative effects on perceived health than younger victims. Property victimization was measured by asking respondents if their homes had been broken into, from the years 1991-1995. Perceived health was measured by asking how respondents rated their health, on a scale of 1-5. Sociodemographic characteristics were measured by categorizing respondents by age, gender, race, education, and marital status. The data was taken from Community, Crime and Health survey in Illinois during 1995, with respondents age 18 or older, resulting in a sample size of 2452 (Britt, 2001). Perceived health and physical well being were treated as the independent variables, whereas sociodemographic characteristics were the control variables. The study suggests that their results could be helpful in determining how services offered to victims for the purposes of restitution or compensation are developed, as well as how to address victim’s health-related issues.
The British Journal of Criminology conducted a study whose focus is on the effects of multiple-victimization (where a person or households are repeatedly victimized) and the relationship between personal and property victimization. The study found a positive association between personal and property crime victimization, and that between 25%-30% of personal crime victims are likely to also be property crime victims. Victims who experienced a burglary, attempted burglary or theft were classified as property crime victims, while victims who experienced robbery, assault or threats were personal crime victims. The sample used included 11,713 respondents from the 1992 British Crime Survey (Bryan, Trickett, Osborn, 2001). A multivariate model was used in which prior victimization, selected characteristics, their households and the area in which they are located were the explanatory variables. The study suggests their findings are pertinent to addressing the problem of multiple victimization amongst people who are socially disadvantaged.
Theoretical Approaches
The International Journal of Human Sciences conducted a study where the applicability of routine activities theory in preventing property crime and the relationship between routine activities theory and property crime prevention were examined. The study found that routine activities theory could serve preventative purposes for property crime (Argun & Dağlar, 2016). Argun and Dağlar examined previous research and data on burglary rates from the UCR, from 2000-2012, and vehicle theft data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), from 2002-2014. The data taken from the BJS estimated 721,000 vehicle thefts in 2012, having declined 42.6% since 2002. The procedure the study took was to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of RAT, while examining the theory through property crime rates. The study suggests that RAT serves preventative purposes for property crime, namely vehicle theft prevention tactics such as “target hardening”, which creates difficulty for offenders through locked doors, windows and alarm systems (Argun & Dağlar, 2016).
The Journal of Quantitative Criminology conducted a study examining the reciprocal effects of victimization, using the perspective that previous victimization decreases risky routine activities, which decreases risk of victimization. The study found that the reciprocal effects for victimization and routine activities were limited, yet positive, with the lone significant result found being that household devices against intruders led to less household crime. Data for the study was taken from the National Crime Victimization Survey, from 1995-1998, with a sample size of 108,208, using the fixed effects method, which cancels out differences between people and focuses on differences within them (Averdijk, 2011). The study used routine activities as the dependent variable for all three hypotheses, while time-variant control variables were measured as employment status, education, marital status, household income, number of vehicles and number of household members. The authors suggest that routine activities theory must be analyzed from a broader perspective than just victimization due to how all-encompassing routine activities are.
Field Work: Interviews
Interview 1
The first person I chose to interview is a male relative of mine living in a neighboring county. He is the direct victim in the interview, having had his car stolen 3 years ago. At 5 am, he was awoken by a loud sound outside his home, went outside to investigate and saw his car speeding off. Prior to this, he had not experienced property crime victimization, and has not since.
Financial Impacts. The financial effects felt by my relative are the ones typically felt when experiencing vehicle theft. The cost of having to find alternate methods of transportation, investing in preventative security measures in the form of technology or expanding the garage space, replacing possessions of value that were stolen from inside the car, and repairs made to restore damage done to the vehicle. The interviewee also had money lent to him by family members due to his finances not being enough to recover his car from the impound lot, which placed a financial strain on his and his family’s expenses, as his income wasn’t enough to cover the total cost of repairs and recovery. His insurance premium increased as a result of the theft, which was already high due to the make and year of his vehicle being a commonly stolen vehicle.
Emotional Impacts. My relative’s initial response when seeing his car being stolen off his driveway was rage. He also experienced a sense of hopelessness because something he’d put a significant amount of effort and money into had been stolen. As a result, he held a strong resentment for thieves. The fact that he was victimized at his residence and because it happened so quickly resulted in questioning his sense of safety in his neighborhood, as well as the safety of his family. Both the crime and his area of residence have led him to perceive his risk of property crime victimization as higher than more affluent areas.
Support Received. The interviewee contacted police immediately after it happened and was visited within an hour by an officer to file a report. Within 3 days, his vehicle had been located, albeit damaged. Informal support was offered in the form of financial support from his family.
Interview 2
My second interviewee is a practitioner who has worked in the criminal justice system for 18 years. Has been at his current position for 3.5 years. He works for the property crimes unit at a police department in the Bay Area. He currently works as Sgt. for the property crimes unit, where his duties include fieldwork and overseeing and inspecting the daily operations of other officers. The property crimes unit deals with crimes such as burglary, grand theft, arson, fraud, and cybercrime.
Procedures. Cases are given to officers to investigate and are given discretion in determining if evidence is sufficient to arrest. A checklist of information pertinent to the investigation is made, where officers will collect witness statements, conduct extensive neighborhood checks, document the scene as found, obtain the date and time range of the crime, identify points of entry and exit, identify if force was used in vehicle theft, and collect evidence. Officers also work with other nearby law enforcement agencies in order to merge resources, information or leads. An officer then advises the victim of impound options in the case of recovery, asks if the victim consents to a search of the vehicle in case of recovery, leaves their contact info and case number. They are also informed of how to contact their insurance company in the event of auto theft, and are given resource pamphlets.
Impacts. The interviewee stated that the main impacts seen repeatedly in property crime victims are the financial effects, and engaging in improved preventative strategies and changes in perceived safety. Typically, the victim must pay for the retrieval of their vehicle from the impound lot if it is located, if not the cost of purchasing another vehicle weighs on victims. While communicating with victims, officers recommend preventative strategies to avoid further victimization, which they do by purchasing both home alarm systems and car alarm systems. He also noted that some victims were concerned with multiple-victimization, perceiving themselves to be at higher risk than before to be victimized, while also fearing further victimization. The victims often express frustration and embarrassment, especially if the car was left unlocked, unattended or with the engine running. Ultimately, they reassure victims that it’s not their fault.
Responses/Attention. The usual process in dealing with property crime reflects that of other crimes, excluding community-based resources offered to the victim, such as support groups. Several police departments and sheriff’s departments across the country have similar units intended to address property crime, possibly with subdivisions known as task forces. For example, the Sacramento County Auto-Theft Suppression Task Force (SAC-CATS) works in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies such as California Highway Patrol. The police department my interviewee works for also employs Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR’s), which allows for potentially locating the stolen vehicle or the potential route it may have taken. Newer vehicles are equipped with GPS technology, which allows for the location of those vehicles using latitude and longitude points.
Critical Review and Recommendations
Both of the articles reviewed under the Impacts of Crime section contain similar information about the effects of victimization as The Impact of Victimization article. The Health Consequences of Criminal Victimization study concludes that criminal victimization has an adverse effect on the perceived health of said victims. Although the study doesn’t go into specifics, the Impact of Victimization article does, mentioning that some of the physical impacts of victimization are headaches, high blood pressure, insomnia. The phenomena of multiple victimization study covered how the relationship that property crime and personal victimization share, stating that there is a positive association between the two, so the information that the Sgt. gave about victims fearing subsequent victimization after the initial crime is relevant when taking determining whether or not their fears are substantiated by data. The Exposure to Property Crime as a Consequence of Poverty study examined if those who are lower socioeconomic status experience higher rates of property crime, finding that poor people were more exposed to vehicle-related and residence related property crime than non-poor people. The findings in the study coincide with my relative’s perception of him being at higher risk of property crime victimization than those who are of higher socioeconomic status. The Health Consequences of Criminal Victimization study suggests that, according to their findings, sociodemographic factors influence perceived health, with older victims reporting greater negative effects than younger victims. This could result in restitution services being administered more frequently to people who are older victims suffering negative effects, or having resources prioritized for them. The Phenomena of Multiple Victimization study suggested their findings, that personal and property crime victimization are positively associated, could lead to shaping policy aimed at alleviating the cost of multiple victimization among the socially disadvantaged, or preventative measures such as alleygating, which is the practice of placing lockable gates in alleyways in order to prevent property crimes, (which is discussed on the website crimesolutions.gov, a subtopic covered on the National Institute of Justice site) in areas where the socially disadvantaged reside. A practice also discussed on the crimesolutions.gov website is the practice of outfitting vehicles with engine immobilizers, which prevent a vehicle from starting unless the proper transponder is used. Although not discussed in either the literature or the field work, a solution to determining who is responsible for restitution, the offender who committed the crime (in this case, property crime) should have the responsibility of paying damages done to the victim, including the monetary amount resulting from the damaged property and additional compensation, in the event that the victim’s insurance is not enough or does not cover a certain property crime.