No abstract

Recent research has used both routine activity/lifestyle frameworks and self‐control theory to explain victimization. Thus far, combined tests of these theories have focused on offending populations and street crime victimization. Whether these frameworks also explain exposure to and likelihood of nonviolent victimization (e.g., fraud) in general‐population samples remains an open empirical question. Building on prior work, we assess the independent effects of routine consumer activities (i.e., remote purchasing) and low self‐control on the likelihood of fraud targeting and victimization. Using a representative sample of 922 adults from a statewide survey in Florida, the results confirm our expectation that remote‐purchasing activities increase consumers' risk of being targeted for fraud. Low self‐control has no effect on whether consumers are targeted, but it does significantly increase the likelihood of fraud victimization.

Routine activity theory predicts that changes in legitimate opportunity structures (e.g., technology) can increase the convergence of motivated offenders and suitable targets in the absence of capable guardianship. The Internet has fundamentally changed consumer practices and has simultaneously expanded opportunities for cyber-fraudsters to target online consumers. The authors draw on routine activity theory and consumer behavior research to understand how personal characteristics and online routines increase people’s exposure to motivated offenders. Using a representative sample of 922 adults from a statewide survey in Florida, the results of the regression models are consistent with prior research in that sociodemographic characteristics shape routine online activity (e.g., spending time online and making online purchases). Furthermore, indicators of routine online activity fully mediate the effect of sociodemographic characteristics on the likelihood of being targeted for fraud online. These findings support the routine activity perspective and provide a theoretically informed direction for situational crime prevention in a largely unexplored consumer context.

Research Summary: This research investigates the effects of poverty and state capital (i.e., state‐sponsored support) on recidivism among women offenders. We seek also to determine whether criticisms directed at actuarial risk tools, such as the failure to take into account gender‐related factors (e.g., poverty status), have merit. A community corrections sample of 134 female felony offenders from one county in the State of Oregon and in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota is used to examine self‐reports of rearrest and probation or parole violations over a six‐month time period. Results from the logistic regression analyses show poverty status increases the odds of rearrest by a factor of 4.6, and it increases the odds of supervision violation by a factor of 12.7. In contrast, risk scores failed to predict recidivism once poverty status was taken into account. Among poor women offenders specifically, we find providing state‐sponsored support to address short‐term needs (e.g., housing) reduces the odds of recidivism by 83%. Not only do community corrections officers who make available state capital promote women's empowerment, they are also less likely to have clients who reoffend. Policy Implications: Our findings suggest that a commonly used actuarial risk assessment tool (i.e., the LSI‐R) does not sufficiently take into account the economic marginality of women offenders. At a minimum, existing tools should be refined or supplemented with other sources of information. During the early stages of supervision, community corrections agencies should encourage their officers to refer and advocate for poor women to receive available sources of state capital (e.g., subsidized housing) to address critical short‐term needs, which can improve their economic circumstances, help move them out of poverty, and reduce the likelihood of recidivism. More broadly, recent changes in welfare policy, such as “Working Toward Independence,” will experience (at best) limited success because the impetus behind these reforms is narrow (i.e., assigning personal responsibility for poverty). Welfare policy reforms can be improved by providing state‐sponsored resources in the areas of childcare, education, health care, and job training, which address the causes of economic marginalization (e.g., deficient reserves of social and human capital) among women in general.

No abstract