Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
E.
INTRODUCTION
588
589
590
Hawley identified three important tem- lated social roles and relationships to the
poral components of community struc- occurrence or absence of illegal acts.
ture: (1) rhythm, the regular periodicity
The conjunction of these minimal elewith which events occur, as with the ments can be used to assess how social
rhythm of travel activity; (2) tempo, the structure may affect the tempo of each
number of events per unit of time, such as type of violation. That is, the probability
the number of criminal violations per day th:rt a violation will occur at any specific
on a given street; and (3) timing, the coor- time and place might be taken as a funcdination among different activities which tion of the convergence of likely offenders
are more or less interdependent, such as and suitable targets in: the absence of
the coordination of an offender's rhythms capable guardians. Through consideration
with those of a victim (Hawley, 1950:289; of how trends and fluctuations in social
the examples are ours). These compo- conditions affect the frequency of this
nents of temporal organization, often ne- convergence of criminogenic circumglected in criminological research, prove stances, an explanation oftemporal trends
useful in analyzing how illegal tasks are in crime rates can be constructed.
performed-a utility which becomes more
apparent after noting the spatio--temporal
The Ecological Nature of Illegal Acts
requirements of illegal activities.
This ecological analysis of directThe Minimal Elements of Direct-Contact
contact predatory violations is intended to
Predatory Violations
be more than metaphorical. In the context
of such violations, people, gaining and losAs we previously stated, despite their
ing sustenance, struggle among themgreat diversity, direct-contact predatory
selves for property, safety, territorial
violations share some important require- hegemony, sexual outlet, physical conments which facilitate analysis of their
trol, and sometimes for survival itself. The
structure. Each successfully completed
interdependence between offenders and
violation minimally requires an offender
victims can be viewed as a predatory relawith both criminal inclinations and the tionship between functionally dissimilar
ability to carry out those inclinations, a
individuals or groups. Since predatory
person or object providing a suitable violations fail to yield any net gain in
target for the offender, and absence of
sustenance for the larger community, they
guardians capable of preventing violacan only be sustained by feeding upon
tions. We emphasize that the lack of any
other activities. As offenders cooperate to
one of these elements normally is suffiincrease their efficiency at predatory viocient to prevent such violations from
lations and as potential victims organize
occurring. 2 Though guardianship is imtheir resistance to these violations, both
plicit in everyday life, it usually is marked
groups apply the symbiotic principle to
by the absence of violations; hence it is
improve their sustenance position. On the
easy to overlook. While police action 'is
other hand, potential victims of predatory
analyzed widely, guardianship by ordicrime may take evasive actions which ennary citizens of one another and of propcourage offenders to pursue targets other
erty as they go about routine activities
than their own. Since illegal activities
may be one of the most neglected elemust feed upon other activities, the spatial
ments in sociological research on crime,
and temporal structure of routine legal acespecially since it links seemingly unretivities should play an important role in
determining
the location, type and quan2 The analytical distinction between target and
tity of illegal acts occurring in a given
guardian is not important in those cases where a
community or society. Moreover, one can
personal target engages in self-protection from
direct-contact predatory violations. We leave open
analyze how the structure of community
for the present the question of whether a guardian is
organization as well as the level of
effective or ineffective in all situations. We also
technology in a society provide the cirallow that various guardians may primarily supervise
cumstances
under which crime can thrive.
offenders, targets or both. These are questions for
For example, technology and organization
future examination.
591
592
tion, many studies report that architectural and environmental design as well as
community crime programs serve to decrease target suitability and increase
capable guardianship (see, for example,
Newman, 1973; Jeffery, 1971; Washnis,
1976), while many biographical or autobiographical descriptions of illegal activities note that lawbreakers take into account the nature of property and/or the
structure of human activities as they go
about their illegal work (see, e.g.,
Chambliss, 1972; Klockars, 1974; Sutherland, 1937; Letkemann, 1973; Jackson,
1969; Martin, 1952; Maurer, 1964; Cameron, 1964; Williamson, 1968).
Evidence that the spatio-temporal organization of society affects patterns of
crime can be found in several sources.
Strong variations in specific predatory
crime rates from hour to hour, day to day,
and month to month are reported often
(e.g., Wolfgang, 1958; Amir, 1971; Reppetto, 1974; Scarr, 1972; FBI, 1975;
1976), and these variations appear to correspond to the various tempos of the related legitimate activities upon which they
feed. Also at a microsociological level,
Short and Strodtbeck (1965: chaps. 5 and
11) describe opportunities for violent confrontations of gang boys and other community residents which arise in the context of community leisure patterns, such
as "quarter parties" in black communities, and the importance, in the calculus of decision making employed by
participants in such episodes, of low
probabilities of legal intervention. In addition, a wealth of empirical evidence indicates strong spatial variations over community areas in crime and delinquency
rates 3 (for an excellent discussion and re3 One such ecological study by Sarah Boggs ( 1965)
presents some similar ideas in distinguishingfami/iarity of offenders with their targets and profitability
of targets as two elements of crime occurrence.
Boggs"s work stands apart from much research on
the ecology of crime in its consideration of crime
occurrence rates separately from offender rates. The
former consist of the number of offenses committed
in a given area per number of suitable targets within
that area (as estimated by various indicators). The
latter considers the residence of offenders in computing the number of offenders per unit of population.
Boggs examines the correlations between crime
occurrence rates and offender rates for several of-
593
594
= [(R+W) +(A
365)] lQ9,
595
Table I. Incident-Specific Risk Rates for Rape, Robbery, Assault and Personal Larceny with Contact,
United States, 1974
A.*
PLACE OF
RESIDENCE
In or near home
Elsewhere
*
B.
(Lone Offender)
VICTIMOFFENDER
Relative
RELATIONSHIP Well Known
Casual Acquaintance
Don't Know/Sight Only
(Multiple Offender)
Any known
All strangers
C.*
NUMBER
OF
VICTIMS
D.**
LOCATION AND
RELATIONSHIP
(sole
offender
only)
one
Two
Three
Four Plus
Home, Stranger
Home, Nonstranger
Street, Stranger
Street, Nonstranger
Elsewhere, Stranger
Elsewhere, Nonstranger
Personal
Larceny
Assault with Contact Total
Rape
Robbery
63
119
129
584
572
1,897
75
1,010
839
3,610
7
23
13
30
26
227
158
333
308
888
5
30
25
616
183
416
370
1,837
68
349
252
530
43
366
373
1,270
179
3
0
0
647
47
13
6
2,116
257
53
43
1,062
19
3
4,004
326
09
50
61
45
1,370
179
129
47
147
74
7,743
735
513
155
345
620
15,684
5,777
1,934
1,544
103
22
7,802
496
2,455
99
II
106
10***
25***
654
761
32,460
7,167
4,988
1,874
*Calculated from Handelang et al., 1977: Tables 3.16, 3.18, 3.27, 3.28. Rates are per 100,000 persons
ages 12 and over.
** See fn. 6 for source. Rates are per billion person-hours in stated locations.
*** Based on white data only due to lack of suitable sample size for nonwhites as victims of rape with
multiple offenders.
rates (with contact) are 350 times higher at to disaggregate all major components of
the hands of strangers in streets than at target suitability (i.e., value, visibility, acthe hands of nonstrangers at home. Sepa- . cessibility and inertia), together they
rate computations from 1973 victimization imply that expensive and movable duradata (USDJ, 1976: Table 48) indicate that hies, such as vehicles and electronic
there were two motor vehicle thefts per appliances, have the highest risk of illegal
million vehicle-hours parked at or near removal.
As a specific case in point, we comhome, 55 per million vehicle-hours in
streets, parks, playgrounds, school pared the 1975 composition of stolen
grounds or parking lots, and 12 per million property reported in the Uniform Crime
vehicle-hours elsewhere. While the direc- Report (FBI, 1976: Tables 26-7) with nation of these relationships is not surpris- tional data on personal consumer expendiing, their magnitudes should be noted. It tures for goods (CEA, 1976: Tables 13-16)
appears that risk of criminal victimization and to appliance industry estimates of the
varies dramatically among the circum- value of shipments the same year (Merstances and locations in which people chandising Week, 1976). We calculated
that $26.44 in motor vehicles and parts
place themselves and their property.
were stolen for each $ 100 of these goods
consumed in 1975, while $6.82 worth of
Target Suitability
electronic appliances were stolen per $100
Another assumption of the routine ac- consumed. Though these estimates are
tivity approach is that target suitability in- subject to error in citizen and police estifluences the occurrence of direct~contact mation, what is important here is their size
predatory violations. Though we lack data relative to other rates. For example, only
596
597
Table 2. Selected Status-Specific Personal Victimization Rates for the United States (per 100,000 Persons in
Each Category)
Variables
and
Sources
Victim
Category
Rape
A. AGE
12-15
(Source:
16-19
Hindelang, et al., 1977: 20-24
Table 310, 1974
25-34
rates
35-49
50-64
65+
147
248
209
135
21
33
20
(Male 16+)
B. MAJOR
ACTIVITY OF
Armed Forces
Employed
VICTIM
(Source:
Unemployed
Hindelang, et al., 1977: Keep house
Table 313, 1974
In school
rates)
unable to work
Retired
(Female 16+
Keep house
Employed
Unemployed
In School
Unable to work
Retired
C. MARITAL STATUS
(Source:USDJ:
1977, Table 5,
1973 rates)
116
156
798
417
287
120
(Male 12+)
Never Married
Married
Separated/Divorced
Widowed
(Female 12+)
Never Married
Married
Separated/Divorced
Widowed
360
70
540
Robbery
Assault
Personal
Larceny
with
Contact
Personal
Larceny
without
Contact
1,267
1,127
1,072
703
547
411
388
3,848
5,411
4,829
3,023
1,515
731
492
311
370
337
263
256
347
344
16,355
15,606
14,295
10,354
7,667
4,588
1,845
1,388
807
2,179
0
1,362
1,520
578
4,153
3,285
7,984
2,475
5,984
2,556
662
118
252
594
463
493
623
205
16,274
10,318
15,905
3,998
17,133
3,648
2,080
271
529
772
430
842
172
978
1,576
5,065
2,035
741
438
285
355
461
298
326
831
4,433
9,419
12,338
12,810
1,003
1,571
1,800
550
2,270
1,150
5,870
2,170
5,640
1,500
450
170
1,040
16,450
7,660
12,960
4,120
580
270
1,090
450
2,560
910
4,560
590
400
220
640
480
12,880
6,570
9,130
2,460
Line indicates too few offenses for accurate estimates of rate. However, rates in these cells are usually
small.
One
Two or More
Ratio
18-35
36-55
56 and over
0.200 (140)
0.161 (112)
0.107 (262)
0.095 (985)
0.079 (826)
0.061 (640)
2.11
2.04
1.76
All Ages
0.144
(514)
0.081 (2451)
1.78
598
Time of day
8:00- 8:59a.m.
9:00- 9:59a.m.
10:00-10:59 a.m.
II :00-11:59 a.m.
12:00-12:59 p.m.
I :00- I :59 p.m.
2:00- 2:59 p.m.
3:00- 3:59p.m.
4:00- 4:59 p.m.
5:00- 5:59p.m.
6:00- 6:59 p.m.
7:00- 7:50p.m.
8:00- 8:59 p.m.
November, 1971
1960 Current Pop. Percent
Change
Census
Survey
29%
29
31
32
32
31
33
30
28
22
22
20
24
43
44
42
41
41
43
43
33
30
26
25
29
22
+48.9%
+58
+36
+28
+28
+39
+30
+10
+ 7
+18
+14
+45
- 8
599
600
1960
52.6
8.0
39.4
1965
57.0
10.1
32.9
1970
59.8
13.1
27.1
1%5
24.5
25.2
50.2
1970
31.7
25.8
42.5
1975
33.2
30.5
36.3
Totals
C. LARCENIES
Shoplifting
Other
Totals
D. MURDERS
Relative Killings
Romance, Argumentsh
Felon Typesc
Totals
1963
31.0
51.0
17.0
1%5
31.0
48.0
21.0
1970
23.3
47.9
28.8
1975
22.4
45.2
32.4
601
the total number of households in the U.S. homicide mortality rate taken from the
(source: USBC, 1947-1976). This calcula- vital statistics data collected by the
tion provides an estimate of the propor- Bureau of the Census (various years). The
tion of American households in year t ex- latter rate has the advantage of being colpected to be most highly exposed to risk lected separately from the standard crime
of personal and property victimization due reporting system and is thought to contain
to the dispersion of their activities away less measurement error (see Bowers and
from family and household and/or their Pierce, 1975). Hence, this analysis of offilikelihood of owning extra sets of durables cial index crime rates includes three viosubject to high risk of attack. Hence, the lent offenses (homicide, forcible rape, and
household activity ratio should vary di- aggravated assault), one property offense
(burglary), and one offense which inrectly with official index crime rates.
Our empirical goal in this section is to volves both the removal of property and
test this relationship, with controls for the threat of violence (robbery). The
those variables which other researchers analysis thus includes one offense thought
have linked empirically to crime rate to have relatively low reporting reliability
trends in the United States. Since various (forcible rape), one thought to have relaresearchers have found such trends to in- tively high reliability (homicide), and
crease with the proportion of the popula- three others having relatively intermediate
tion in teen and young adult years (Fox, levels of reporting quality (Ennis, 1967).
1976; Land and Felson, 1976; Sagi and
Since official crime rates in year t are
Wellford, 1968; Wellford, 1973), we in- likely to reflect some accumulation of
clude the population ages 15-24 per criminal opportunity and inclinations over
100,000 resident population in year t as several years, one should not expect these
our first control variable (source: USBC, rates to respond solely to the level of the
various years). Others (e.g., Brenner, independent variables for_year t. A useful
1976a; 1976b) have found unemployment model of cumulative social change in cirrates to vary directly with official crime cumstances such as this is the difference
rates over time, although this relationship equation, which can be estimated in two
elsewhere has been shown to be empiri- forms (see Goldberg, 1958). One form
cally questionable (see Mansfield et at., takes the first difference (Yt - Yt- 1) as the
1974: 463; Cohen and Felson, 1979). Thus, dependent variable-in this case, the
as our second, control variable, we take change in the official crime rate per
the standard annual unemployment rate 100,000 population between year t-1 and
(per 100 persons ages 16 and over) as a year t. Alternatively, one can estimate the
measure of the business cycle (source: difference equation in autoregressive form
by taking the official crime rate in year t as
BLS, 1975).
Four of the five crime rates that we a function of the exogenous predictors
utilize here (forcible rape, aggravated as- plus the official crime rate in year t - 1 on
sault, robbery and burglary) are taken the right-hand side of the equation. (See
from FBI estimates of offenses per Land, 1978, for a review of these and
100,000 U.S. population (as revised and other methods and for references to rereported in OMB, 1973). We exclude lated literature.) Both forms are estimable
larceny-theft due to a major definitional with ordinary least squares methods,
change in 1960 and auto theft due to ex- which we employ for the years 1947
cessive multicollinearity in the analysis. 8 through 1974. TheN is 28 years for all but
For our homicide indicator we employ the the homicide rate, for which publication
lags reduce our N to 26.
Even if a positive relationship between
8 The auto theft rate lagged one year correlated
the household activity ratio and the offiquite strongly with the predictor variables. This multicollinearity impaired our difference equation
cial crime rates is observed, with controls
analysis, although we again found consistently posifor age and unemployment, we are open to
tive coefficients for the household activity ratio. We
the charge that this may be a spurious
were able to remove autocorrelation by logging all
consequence of autocorrelation of disturvariables and including the unemployment as a conbances, that is, the possibility that residutrol, but do not report these equations.
602
Table 6. Regression Equations for First Differences in Five,Index Crime Rates and Sensitivity Analyses, the United States, 1947-1974
(I) Nonnegligent
Homicide
Constant
t ratio
Proportion 15-24 (t)
Standardized
Unstandardized
t ratio
Household Activity Ratio (t)
Standardized
U nstandardized
t ratio
Multiple R2 Adjusted
Degrees of Freedom
Durbin-Watson Value
I% test
5% test
-2.3632
.3502
(2) Forcible
Rape
r.n
(3) Aggravated
(5) Burglary
-4.8591
5.3679
-32.0507
7.6567
-43.8838
3.4497
-221.2303
3.7229
.1667
3.2190
1.0695
.1425
6.4685
.7505
.4941
132.1072
3.3147
.2320
ll6.7742
.9642
.1952
486.0806
.8591
::r:
.7162
4.0676
4.5959
.6791
23
2.5455
Accept
Uncertain
.6713
8.9743
3.5356
.5850
25
2.3388
Accept
Accept
.4377
34.4658
2.9364
.7442
25
2.3446
Accept
Accept
.4242
62.8834
1.7629
.3335
25
1.4548
Accept
Uncertain
.5106
374.4746
2.2474
.4058
25
1.7641
Accept
Accept
tr:1
.9823
-1.3751
Accept
Accept
Accept
.9888
-.7487
Accept
Accept
Accept
.9961
.9709
Accept
Accept
Accept
.9768
1.5490
Accept
Accept
Accept
.9859
1.1445
Accept
Accept
Accept
Minimal
Minimal
Minimal
Minimal
Minimal
Minimal
Minimal
Minimal
Minimal
Minimal
(J
>
t""'
(J
z0>
z>
tj
(J
:;d
s:m
:;d
AUTOREGRESSIVE FORM
Multiple R2 Adjusted
Durbin's h
-I% test
-5% test
Griliches Criterion
Cochrane-Orcutt Correction,
Effect upon Household Activity
Unemployment Rate as Control,
Effect Upon Household Activity
(4) Robbery
Assa~lt
>
.....,
tr:1
.....,
:;d
ztj
r.n
0\
604
DISCUSSION
605
REFERENCES
Amir, Menachem
1971 Patterns of Forcible Rape. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Boggs, Sarah
1965 "Urban crime patterns." American
Sociological Review 30:899-905.
Bonger, W. A.
1916 Criminality and Economic Conditions. Boston: Little, Brown.
Bowers, W. J. and Glen L. Pierce
1975 "The illusion of deterrence of Isaac
Ehrlich's research on capital punishment."
Yale Law Journal 85:187-208.
Brenner, Harvey
1976a Estimating the Social Costs of National
Economic Policy: Implications for Mental
and Physical Health and Criminal Aggression. Paper no. 5, Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
1976b Effects of the National Economy on Criminal Aggression II. Final Report to National
Institute of Mental Health. Contract #28276-0355FS.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
1975 Handbook of Labor Statistics 1975Reference Edition. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Cameron, Mary Owen
1964 The Booster and the Snitch. New York:
Free Press.
Chambliss, William J.
1972 Boxman: A Professional Thiefs Journey.
New York: Harper and Row.
Choldin, Harvey M. and Dennis W. Roncek
1976 "Density, population potential and pathology: a block-level analysis." Public Data
Use 4:19-30.
Cloward, Richard and Lloyd Ohlin
1960 Delinquency and Opportunity. New York:
Free Press.
Cochrane, D., and G. H. Orcutt
1949 "Application of least squares regression to
relationships containing autocorrelated
error terms." Journal of the American
Statistical Association 44:32-61.
606
Gould, Leroy
Cohen, Lawrence E. and Marcus Felson
1969 'The changing structure of property crime
1979 "On estimating the social costs of national
in an affluent society." Social Forces
economic policy: a critical examination of
48:50-9.
the Brenner study." Social Indicators ReGriliches, z.
search. In press.
1967 "Distributed Jags: a survey." EconometColquhoun, Patrick
rica 35:16-49.
1800 Treatise on the Police of the Metropolis.
Guerry, A. M.
London: Baldwin.
1833 "Essai sur Ia statistique morale de Ia
Consumer Reports Buying Guide
France." Westminister Review 18:357.
1959 Consumer Reports (December). Mt. VerHawley, Amos
non: Consumers Union.
1950 Human Ecology: A Theory of Community
1969 Consumer Reports (December). Mt. VerStructure. New York: Ronald.
non: Consumers Union.
1975 Consumer Reports (December). Mt. Ver- Henry, A. F., and J. F. Short
1954 Suicide and Homicide. New York: Free
non: Consumers Union.
Press.
Council of Economic Advisors (CEA)
1976 The Economic Repprt of the President. Hindelang, Michael J.
1976 Criminal Victimization in Eight American
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government PrintCities: A Descriptive Analysis of Common
ing Office.
Theft and Assault. Cambridge: Ballinger.
Durbin, J.
1970 Testing for serial correlation when least Hindelang, Michael J., Christopher S. Dunn, Paul
Sutton and Alison L. Aumick
squares regressors are lagged dependent
1976 Sourcebook of Criminal Justice
variables." Econometrica 38:410-21.
Statistics-1975. U.S. Dept. of Justice,
Durbin, J., and G. S. Watson
Law Enforcement Assistance Administra1951 "Testing for serial correlation in least
tion. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
squares regression, II." Biometrika
Printing Office.
38:159-78.
1977 Sourcebook of Criminal Justice
Durkheim, Emile
Statistics-1976. U.S. Dept. of Justice,
1951 Suicide: A Study in Sociology. New York:
Law Enforcement Assistance AdministraFree Press.
tion. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
1966 The Division of Labor in Society. New
Printing Office.
York: Free Press.
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)
Electrical Merchandising Week
1974 Annual Report: Freight Commodity Statis1964 Statistical and Marketing Report (January).
tics of Class I Motor Carriers of Property
New York: Billboard Publications.
Operative in Intercity Service. Washington,
Ennis, Philip H.
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
1967 ~Criminal victimization in the U.S.: a re- Jackson, Bruce
port of a national survey, field surveys II."
1969 A Thiefs Primer. New York: Macmillan.
The President's Commission on Law En- Jeffery, C. R.
forcement and the Administration of Jus1971 Crime Prevention Through Environmental
tice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Design. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Printing Office.
Klockars, Carl B.
1974 The Professional Fence. New York: Free
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Press.
1975 Crime in the U.S.: Uniform Crime Report.
Kobrin, Frances E.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
1976 "The primary individual and the family:
Printing Office.
changes in living arrangements in the U.S.
1976 Crime in the U.S.: Uniform Crime Report.
since 1940." Journal of Marriage and the
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Family 38:233-9.
Land, Kenneth C.
Ferdinand, Theodore N.
1978 .. Modelling macro social change." Paper
1970 "Demographic shifts and criminality."
presented at annual meeting of the AmeriBritish Journal of (::riminology 10:169-75.
can Sociological Association, San FranFleisher, Belton M.
cisco.
1966 The Economics of Delinquency. Chicago:
Land, Kenneth C. and Marcus Felson
Quadrangle.
1976 .. A general framework for building dynamic
Fox, James A.
macro social indicator models: including an
1976 An Econometric Analysis of Crime Data.
analysis of changes in crime rates and
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociolpolice expenditures." American Journal of
ogy, University of Pennsylvania. Ann ArSociology. 82:565-604.
bor: University Microfilms.
Letkemann, Peter
Glaser, Daniel
1973 Crime As Work. Englewood Cliffs:
1971 Social Deviance. Chicago: Markham.
Prentice-Hall.
Goldberg, Samuel
Lystad, Mary
1974 An Annotated Bibliography: Violence at
1958 Introduction to Difference Equations. New
Home. DHEW Publication No. (ADM 75York: Wiley.
607
Theil, Henri
1971 Principles of Econometrics. New York:
Wiley.
Tobias, J. J.
1%7 Crime and Industrial Society in the
Nineteenth Century. New York: Schocken
Books.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (USBC)
1973a Census of Transportation, 1972. U.S.
Summary. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
1973b Who's Home When. Working Paper 37.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
1975- Statistical Abstract of the U.S. Washing1976 ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
1947- Current Population Studies. P-25 Ser.
1976 Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Justice (USDJ)
1974a Preliminary Report of the Impact Cities,
Crime Survey Results. Washington, D.C.:
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (NCJISS).
1974b Crime in the Nation's Five Largest Cities:
Advance Report. Washington, D.C.: Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration
(NCJISS).
1974c Crimes and Victims: A Report on the
Dayton-San Jose Pilot Survey of Victimization. Washington, D.C.: Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration.
1976 Criminal Victimizations in the U.S., 1973.
Washington, D.C.: Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration (NCJISS).
1977 Criminal Victimizations in the U.S.: A
608
quency." Pp. 138-56 in President's Cornmission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice Task Force Report:
Crime and Its Impact-An Assessment.
Appendix A. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Williamson, Henry
1968 Hustler! New York: Doubleday.
Wolfgang, Marvin E.
1958 Patterns of Criminal Homicide. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
D.
Westoff, 1953; Westoff et al., 1961; Westoffet al., 1963; Boyd, 1973). The cumulative research evidence, however, has been
inconclusive, if not totally negative.
Scarcely any substantial basis has been
found for the conclusion that social mobility accounts for additional variation in fertility above and beyond that which is
associated with measures of origin and
destination position themselves (e.g.,
Duncan, 1966; Boyd, 1973).
For the most part, explanations of these
negative results, as distinct from theoretical interpretations that are consonant with
the idea that knowledge of origin and destination positions suffices to explain the
fertility ofthe mobile (e.g., Blau, 1956:29),
have taken either of two tacks. On the one
hand, they have suggested that the
methodological basis for assessing relationships between mobility and fertility is
biased against the discovery of such relationships (e.g., Hope, 1971; 1975; Lopreato et al., 1976). On the other hand, they