Post on 27-Mar-2015
PLACE, CRIME AND DISORDER
Anthony Bottoms
Universities of Cambridge and Sheffield
Presentation at Social Mobility and Life Chances Forum,
HM Treasury, 14 November 2005
SCoPiC(Research Network on Social Contexts of
Pathways in Crime)
ESRC – Funded
Universities of Cambridge, Huddersfield, London
and Sheffield
Network Director: Per-Olof Wikström
TYPICAL RISK FACTORS FOR
PREDICTION OF DELINQUENCY
High Hyperactivity-Impulsivity-Attention Problems
Lack of Guilt
Poor Parental Supervision
Low School Motivation
Many Peer Delinquents
Positive Perception of Anti-Social Behaviour
KEY RESULTS FROM THE PITTSBURGH YOUTH STUDY (1)
Per cent of male youths having committed serious offence by risk/protective score and neighbourhood context
Neighbourhood Context
DisadvantagedMiddle-
Advantaged range Nonpublic Public Gamma N
High Protective Score 11.1 5.1 16.7 37.5 0.23 155
Balanced Risk and Protective Score 27.3 40.1 38.5 60.7 0.23 651
High Risk Score 77.8 71.3 78.3 70.0 n.s. 222
Gamma 0.70 0.74 0.69 n.s.
N 142 556 188 142
Source: Wikström and Loeber (2000)
KEY RESULTS FROM THE PITTSBURGH YOUTH STUDY (2)
Per cent of subjects with high risk scores by neighbourhood context
Neighbourhood Context
DisadvantagedMiddle-
Advantaged range Nonpublic Public Gamma N
High Hyperactivity-Impulsivity 13.8 20.9 28.7 20.1 0.15 1,436Attention Problems
Lack of Guilt 19.2 30.0 35.5 46.0 0.26 1,254
Poor Parental Supervision 15.8 22.8 29.1 39.7 0.28 1,414
Low School Motivation 21.9 31.2 44.9 47.6 0.30 1,432
Many Peer Delinquents 17.9 22.9 27.7 29.4 0.15 1,323
Positive Perception of 29.2 25.8 19.8 25.9 n.s. 1,431Anti-Social Behaviour
RISK INDEX 13.3 19.9 28.8 34.9 0.30 1,148
Source: Wikström and Loeber (2000)
(Observed values at 1 hectare level)
Source: Craglia and Costello, 2005
Geographical Distribution of Known Offenders
in South Yorkshire
Final Model in Craglia and Costello Area-Based Study of Offender Rates
Log (Offender) = β0 + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + β4X4 + β5X5 + β6X6
Where:
X1 = Percent economically active unemployed
X2 = Percent of households renting from other (hostels, secure accommodation, prisons, boarding houses, hotels and other communal establishments)
X3 = Percent of households with lone parents with dependent children
X4 = Percent of residential spaces vacant
X5 = Index of multiple deprivation 2004 – health domain score
X6 = Index of multiple deprivation 2004 – crime domain score
(R2 = 0.82)
ASPECTS OF VICTIMISATION DISTRIBUTION
FROM BRITISH CRIME SURVEY
%
burgled
%
theft of vehicle*
%
criminal damage
to home
(A) Household Income
Less than £5000 4.4 1.6 2.7
£5000<£10000 2.9 1.3 2.9
£10000<£20000 2.8 1.0 2.9
£20000<£30000 2.5 1.0 3.0
£30000+ 2.6 1.1 2.9
(B) Physical Disorder In Area
High (Score 2 or 3) 6.0 3.4 4.7
Low (Score 0 or 1) 2.4 1.0 2.6
*Based on vehicle-owing households only
Source: S. Nicholas et al, Crime in England and Wales 2004/2005, Home Office Research Bulletin 11/05
Residents’ Satisfaction with Safety and Perceived
Risk of Crime in Selected Areas of Chicago
Source: Taub et al, Paths of Neighborhood Change, 1984, p. 172
Perception of whether local issues are a serious problem in residential areas, 1997-98
Source: Report of Policy Action Team 8: Anti-social behaviour
Regression Model of Residents’ Perceptions of
Lack of Neighbourhood Safety, Sheffield 2005
Source: Bottoms and Wilson, 2005
Model Coeff t Sig
(Constant) . 8.40 .000
Communities Working Together Scale -.093 -3.14 .002
Area Declining .692 3.05 .003
Seen PC on Foot -.582 -2.07 .039
Non-white respondent -.572 -2.00 .046
Knows of CP Programme -.427 -1.95 .052
Quality of Local Services Scale -.037 -1.85 .066