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