The Park-and-Ride Burglary Spike
The city of Riverton (population 180,000) operates a 1,200-space park-and-ride lot beside a highway ramp. In eight weeks, 47 vehicle burglaries were reported there, compared with 6 in the same period last year. Eighty-two percent of the vehicles showed no visible property, but thieves removed airbags and catalytic converters. All but three incidents occurred between 6:30 and 9:00 a.m. or 4:30 and 6:30 p.m., when the lot is fullest. The lot has one unstaffed camera, no attendant, three pedestrian exits, and no lighting upgrade since 2009. Police arrested two 16-year-olds from a neighborhood three miles away; both said they sold converters to a scrap yard that pays cash. The city has exactly $40,000 for a one-year response. Costs: part-time attendant for peak commute hours, $24,000; 12 cameras, $18,000; lighting upgrade, $12,000; four hours of daily patrol overtime, $16,000; public awareness campaign, $4,000; youth program, $22,000.
1. Which criminological theory or theories best explain the timing and target selection, and why are strain theory and labeling theory weaker explanations here?
Read the worked answer
Routine activity theory is the strongest fit. Burglary requires a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian; the two arrested juveniles, the cash-paying scrap yard, the unstaffed lot, and the three exits supply all three. Rational choice explains target selection: converters and airbags are quick to remove, have resale value, and the lot is full at commute times, giving offenders cover and predictable windows. The timing reflects the convergence of targets and absent guardians, not a sudden change in the offenders' values.
Strain theory could point to the neighborhood's economic disadvantage, but it does not explain why burglaries cluster at 6:30-9:00 a.m. and 4:30-6:30 p.m. or why converters were targeted. Labeling theory might explain the juveniles' continued offending after arrest, but it does not account for the initial pattern. Differential association could explain how the youths learned the scrap-yard market, but it is a background factor, not the proximate explanation for the opportunity structure. A prevention plan should therefore manipulate the opportunity structure rather than rely only on youth counseling.
2. Allocate the $40,000. Identify at least two measures, stay within budget, and explain how your choice addresses the opportunity structure and the risk of displacement.
Read the worked answer
Spend $24,000 on a part-time attendant at the main pedestrian exits during 6:30-9:00 a.m. and 4:30-6:30 p.m., $12,000 on lighting, and $4,000 on a campaign urging drivers to remove valuables and report suspicious activity; total $40,000. The attendant restores a capable guardian at the point of access and increases the perceived risk of detection. Lighting improves natural surveillance and makes the lot less attractive after dark, though most incidents are daytime; the campaign addresses the 18% of vehicles with visible property and encourages reporting.
Cameras alone are weaker because no one monitors them and they do not prevent entry; if chosen, they should be paired with signage, but the budget forces a trade-off. Patrol overtime is expensive and unpredictable. The plan may displace burglaries to nearby streets or to different hours. To reduce displacement, extend lighting to the lot perimeter and have the attendant vary break times; monitor adjacent lots. The youth program is valuable but too costly for this one-year window and does not address the immediate opportunity structure.
3. Design an evaluation that would tell the city whether the response reduced burglary rather than merely moved it or changed reporting.
Read the worked answer
Use a comparison lot of similar size and commuter profile that receives no intervention, and collect 12 months of pre- and post-intervention data for both. Primary outcome: reported vehicle burglaries per 1,000 parked cars per month, not raw counts, because lot usage varies. Secondary outcomes: arrests, converter thefts reported to scrap yards, and calls for service. Measure displacement by tracking burglaries within a half-mile radius and at adjacent times; measure diffusion of benefits by checking nearby lots.
A simple pre/post count would confound the intervention with seasonal variation and the two arrests. Include process measures: attendant hours actually staffed, lighting installed, and campaign reach. Because reporting may change if the campaign encourages calls, use a short victim survey and scrap-yard records to triangulate. Randomization is not feasible with one lot, but an interrupted time series with 24 months of data and a comparison lot supports a reasonable inference. Cost-effectiveness can be computed as cost per burglary avoided, with displacement subtracted.