Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime Victorian Report • 11 February 2020
Murray Lee Rebecca Wickes The University of Sydney Jonathan Jackson sydney.edu.au We acknowledge the tradition of custodianship and law of the Country on which the University of Sydney campuses stand. We pay our respects to those who have cared and continue to care for Country. Authors
Murray Lee – Professor of Criminology (Sydney Law School) Rebecca Wickes – Associate Professor of Criminology (Monash University) Jonathan Jackson – Professor of Methodology (London School of Economics) and Honorary Professor (Sydney Law School) Chloe Keel – PhD Candidate (Monash University) Justin Ellis – Lecturer in Criminology (University of Newcastle) Rodney Blake – Research Assistant (University of Sydney) Sophie Norman – Research Assistant (University of Sydney) Brenda Lin – Research Assistant (University of Sydney)
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Victorian Department of Justice and Community Safety and the support of a The University of Sydney CDIP grant.
The authors would like to acknowledge the support and enthusiasm of Anika Dell, and the research assistance of Ruth Liston. CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6
THE PROJECT 13 Background 14
Components of Fear of Crime 15
Risk, Vulnerability and Motivating Precautionary Behaviour 18
Crime, Neighbourhood Disorder and Collective Efficacy 20
Methodology and Sample: A Mixed-Methods Study 22
Results and Comparisons 23
Levels of worry about crime 23
Age and worry about crime 26
Gender and worry about crime 28
Victimisation experience and worry about crime 29
Speaking a language other than English 31
Perceiving risk 33
• Perceived likelihood of crime 33
• Gender and perceived likelihood 34
• Perceived consequences of crime 35
• Perceived controllability of crime 36
Place, worry and risk 38
• Regional and urban 38
Community crime classification 40
Spatial distribution of perceived likelihood and crime classifications 41
Worry about crime and neighbourhood perception 43 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Contents
4 Perceptions of police legitimacy 46
• Feeling worried/at risk and perceptions of police legitimacy 47
• Victimisation and perceptions of police legitimacy 47
• Worry/risk and police arrival time and police effectiveness 47
Sources of information about crime 50
Behavioural responses to victimisation risk 52
Pro-social actions in response to worry 55
Encouraging greater connections between the justice system 59 and the community
Conclusions 60
Targeted crime and safety messaging 61
Development of crime prevention initiatives aimed at community building 62
Encouraging greater connections between the justice system and the community 63
Establishing and maintaining partnerships with local government and local organisations 63
References 64
APPENDICES 65 Appendix A: State Suburb Sampling Framework 67 A-1: Urban suburbs with a population of less than 500 (n=107) 68
A-2: Urban suburbs omitted with residential land use of less than 50% (n=95) 69
A-3: Regional suburbs with a population of less than 500 (n=1,976) 70
A-4: Regional suburbs omitted with residential land use of less than 50% (n=143) 82
A-5: Regional suburbs with only one SA1 within the SSC at below 80 per cent correspondence (n=4) 83
Appendix B: Survey Instrument 84
Appendix C: Demographic Data for Focus Groups 97 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Contents Appendix D: Breakdown of Responses by Category 104
5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Understanding community perceptions of crime and safety is important to policy makers, legislators, and subsequently communities themselves. However, such community perceptions are complex and have generally been poorly researched and assessed in the Australian context. This project sought to develop better tools to research perceptions of crime and deploy these in a large-scale study of Victorian communities. The project was undertaken throughout 2019. It deployed a stratified and randomised sample survey of n=2,862 respondents across 70 communities in Victoria. It also comprised qualitative focus group interviews with a total samp le group of n=69 respondents across 15 focus groups. These focus groups targeted harder to reach groups less likely to be represented in the survey, but more likely to express concerns about crime. While the project was interested in levels, frequency and intensity of people’s worry about crime, we also sought to highlight how people respond to their fears, and what impact these responses had on their lives. We also mapped out a range of risk and protective factors likely to impact negatively and positively on people’s worries. This mixed methods approach gives us unique insights into both the concerns people have about crime, the actions they take based on these concerns, and the way in which they discuss and describe their worries. QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS
Overall worry
In accordance with current international literature this study found that intense and frequent worry about crime is relatively rare although this varied by crime type. Of the overall sample 57 per cent1 of respondents reported they had not worried about any of the crime types at all in the past 12 months. Worry about cybercrime was reported by 27 per cent of respondents at least once in the past year in comparison to 22 per cent of respondents reporting worry about burglary, 11 per cent reporting worry about robbery and 5 per cent reporting worry about harassment.
Worry by demographic characteristics Respondents’ worry about each crime type was examined with reference to a range of demographic variables including age, gender, prior victimisation, and language spoken at home. Age was found to be a significant predictor of worry about burglary and cybercrime but not for robbery or harassment. Respondents aged 45-59 years worried more about both cybercrime (33 per cent) and burglary (27 per cent) compared to other age groups. Women reported more worry than men about robbery (13 per cent compared to 10 per cent) and harassment (7 per cent compared to 4 per cent). Respondents that spoke a language other than English reported greater worry about all crime types except cybercrime.
Worry by previous victimisation Those with victimisation experience in the past 12 months expressed greater worry across all crime categories. In particular cybercrime (61 per cent versus 23 per cent), and burglary (50 per cent versus 18 per cent), but the relationship was also significant for robbery (26 per cent versus 9 per cent) and harassment (16 per cent versus 4 per cent). The qualitative and quantitative data obtained highlighted that previous victimisation was strongly connected with a sense of vulnerability, a greater assessment of perceived risk of crime, and heightened worry about further victimisation.
1 Note that all percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number for the purposes of this report. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Quantitative Findings
7 Perceived risk of victimisation In addition to being asked whether respondents were worried about crime, they were also asked whether they believed they would experience victimisation in the next twelve months. This was a measure of perceived risk of victimisation. The majority of respondents (60 per cent) believed it unlikely they would fall victim to crime in the next twelve months and for harassment and robbery over 70 per cent of respondents reported they thought it unlikely. In regard to burglary, 14 per cent of women reported they thought it likely or very likely they would be a victim compared to 12 per cent of men. For harassment, 9 per cent of women reported they were likely or very likely to be a victim of harassment compared to 7 per cent of men. We found a strong relationship between perceived risk and worry of crime.
Perceived consequence and controllability of crime There is a strong relationship between perceived risk and a general sense of vulnerability. People who feel at risk view the chances of victimisation to be relatively high and the impact to be serious. The majority of all respondents felt their lives would be significantly affected if they became a victim of crime with over 60 per cent of respondents across each crime type, except cybercrime (at 58 per cent), reporting their lives would be either very affected or affected to a very great extent. The majority of people believed they could control whether or not they would fall victim. However, 20 per cent of people believed harassment was outside of their control, followed by robbery (17 per cent), cybercrime (14 per cent) and burglary (13 per cent).
Worry and place People who lived in urban areas were more likely to worry about burglary, robbery and harassment than those who lived in rural or regional areas. However, there was no significant relationship with cybercrime and regional/urban residence. For most crime types, worry was highest in high crime areas (27 per cent for burglary, 13 per cent for robbery and 9 per cent for harassment). For all crime types, worry was lowest in low crime areas (11 per cent for burglary, 7 per cent for robbery and 3 per cent for harassment and 16 per cent for cybercrime). The majority of areas with high and low risk perception were in suburbs that fell into areas with average crime rates. Only one suburb in the study with high risk perceptions was also a high crime suburb. Similarly, only one low risk suburb aligned with low risk perceptions. Thus, there was not a strong relationship between high crime areas and high levels of perceived risk but there was evidence of a relationship between crime rates and worry.
Worry about crime and neighbourhood perception Neighbourhood perceptions correlated with individual worry about crime. People who were worried about crime, reported lower levels of collective efficacy than those who did not worry. Those who reported worry also perceived more disorder and community problems than those who did not report worry.
Responses to worry about crime We found that a range of target hardening and avoidance behaviours could reduce worry about crime. These ranged from installing alarms and security doors to avoiding public transport and not going out alone. However, many of these behaviours, while effective in reducing individual worry, are not linked to the factors known to reduce worry, for example, collective efficacy, community ties, and the like. This project was interested in how people responded in pro-social ways to worry and perceived risk and whether such responses reduced their worry. Of the people who were worried about burglary, 42 per Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Quantitative Findings
8 cent discussed the problem with their neighbours. Of those, over 80 per cent reported they felt safer as a result. The police were sought out for help or advice by 26 per cent of respondents and 72 per cent of those reported feeling safer as a result. Of the people who were worried about being robbed 36 per cent discussed the problem with their neighbours and 80 per cent reported they felt safer as a result. For the group reporting worry about robbery 10 per cent sought help or advice from police with 80 per cent reporting they felt safer as a result. Of the people who were worried about being harassed 30 per cent discussed the problem with their neighbours and over 90 per cent of those reported they felt safer as a result. Within this group of respondents 17 per cent sought advice from the police and 82 per cent reported they felt safer as a result.
QUALITATIVE FINDINGS
Worry about crime and community Throughout the qualitative data respondents’ connection to the community was expressed as a significant factor in reducing respondents’ sense of vulnerability. The thematised qualitative data strongly suggested that close ties to the community reduced respondents’ feelings of perceived risk of crime. If respondents expressed a strong sense of community or belonging to any area, had family ties, friendship networks or were engaged in community groups they expressed less worry about crime. We refer to these as protective factors against worry. Where such factors were present the capacity of respondents to engage in pro-social responses to worry about crime was clearly enhanced. On the other hand, respondents from more marginal social groups talked about contexts where their marginal status rendered them more vulnerable to crimes and harms such as harassment, assault, sexual assault and robbery. This was especially so among young women and was heightened through the intersections of gender, ethnicity and religion. In particular Muslim respondents, particularly women, were concerned about racism and harassment on the basis of race. Some LGBTIQ respondents also talked about heightened levels of worry in specific contexts where they also felt a heightened sense of vulnerability – and needing to always be aware of where they were and who was around.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE
The results of this study indicate that worry about crime and perceptions of risk clusters within particular groups of people. Findings also suggest that engaging in pro-social actions in response to worry about crime can be beneficial for individuals and, potentially, could build cohesion in communities where perceptions of safety are compromised. These findings strongly emphasise the need for careful crime prevention planning and crime messaging. Drawing on the findings from this study, we offer the following strategic considerations for the government and policy makers. We note that these considerations are structured to respond to the affective, behavioural and cognitive elements associated with worry about crime and one’s assessments of the personal risk of criminal harm. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Qualitative Findings
9 Targeted crime and safety messaging In line with criminological research, the results of this study found those expressing having experienced worry differed across demographic groups. In contrast to the media messaging in Victoria in 2017/2018, few people reported being worried about crime. However, a minority of respondents and several subgroups within the quantitative and qualitative samples reported worry about crime. The qualitative data suggests that these concerns were linked to specific contexts or experiences. For the women in the focus groups, the risk of physical and sexual assault was a key component in their narratives. This was also evident in the quantitative data where women were more worried about robbery and harassment when compared to men. In contrast, focus groups revealed that those who spoke a language other than English were concerned with harassment that derived from discrimination and prejudice - in some cases this was debilitating. Those who were middle aged were also more worried when compared to younger and older people. As individuals in this age group are likely to be in their prime parenting years, worry about crime might be related to harms that could befall children. Understanding the different drivers of worry about crime for subgroups of the population is necessary for developing messaging strategies to allay such concerns. Given the strong relationship between one’s own sense of vulnerability and worry, strategies are needed to encourage a greater sense of control over the specific experiences that create worry for different groups of people. A potential avenue for targeted messaging is the Victoria Police Eyewatch Facebook pages. These sites were developed with the express purpose of providing information and empowering local residents to engage in community safety initiatives. Developing online community safety campaigns that target community safety to align with different contexts, settings or experiences could reduce worry and enhance an individual’s sense of control. Importantly, messaging strategies must acknowledge that non-English language speakers may also hold concerns about their safety. Considering the ethnic composition of particular neighbourhoods and the cultural nuances and needs of the area when constructing messages will be critical in order to reach those who might not otherwise feel included in more generically focussed campaigns. However, we also note that the data from this project suggests that at present few respondents are accessing their information about crime through police sources. There is great opportunity to ensure such sites are relevant to end users, and interactive, such that they are more regularly accessed. To ensure full coverage of local issues, we recommend the use of other local media outlets. Casting the communication net wide will reach greater numbers of local residents, which in turn will assist in a more accurate portrayal of reported crime in the community and provide practical responses to problems of crime and incivilities that garner community resources. Further, there is capacity for training journalists in the nuances of reporting crime statistics (as NSW BOCSAR have undertaken). Pushing back against exaggerated crime discourses in major media and political rhetoric and promoting concrete suggestions for improving community safety may lead to crime prevention strategies that strengthen communities. Local media campaigns will require a nuanced understanding of the particular community issues that may be at the heart of residents’ worry and concern. As we discuss later in this section, stronger local partnerships between government and non-government actors will be necessary to provide the knowledge of local problems needed for successful messaging. Inconsistent, conflicting or more generic crime prevention messaging may not lead to the types of actions and connections that would a) improve safety and b) enhance cohesion. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Opportunities For Policy And Practice
10 Development of crime prevention initiatives aimed at community building The qualitative and quantitative studies that inform this project found a strong link between community building and perceptions of safety. This relationship is likely to be reciprocal. For example, individuals who trust their neighbours and perceive their neighbours as willing and able to help address local problems are significantly less likely to worry about crime or see themselves at significant risk of crime. Moreover, people who engage in some kind of crime prevention action, when feeling worried about crime, feel safer as a result when they feel positively about their community. These findings provide evidence that community safety strategies which aim to increase community cohesion can have significant and meaningful benefits not only for the individuals who experience worry and concern about crime, but could positively influence the broader community as well, building in what we call protective factors against worry. Similarly, strategies that promote a collective response to community safety issues may create opportunities for the development of new community connections. Bringing people together, who might otherwise be disconnected, may enhance feelings of well-being and reduce worry about crime for those individuals particularly, and further strengthen the community’s capacity to respond to future community problems. To reduce worry about crime, connect residents and increase community safety, community safety strategies must go beyond target hardening or surveillance initiatives. The installation of CCTV cameras may indeed make people feel safer, but these strategies do little to increase the collective capacity of the community to prevent crime.
Encouraging greater connections between the justice system and the community Creating partnerships and opportunities for police and legal services to engage with the community are important, given those who worry about crime were likely to be less positive towards the justice system. The qualitative data indicated that community engagement by the police and legal services were effective in reducing worry, particularly in marginalised communities. Such community engagement programs require funding streams which are clear, accessible, flexible and encompass multiple stakeholders. We also believe it is important that new projects build in sustainability for community safety initiatives that are geared towards community building. This will likely result in longer term results when compared to one off funding opportunities. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Opportunities For Policy And Practice
11 Establishing and maintaining partnerships with local government and local organisations A consistent problem in community safety/crime prevention approaches is that many programs may be underway simultaneously, without any coordination or understanding of how one program may impact another. In research by Mazerolle and colleagues (2010), there was no relationship between the number of community crime prevention programs and the reduction of crime at a later point in time. As discussed earlier in this section, this may be due to the lack of a coordinated effort to impart a consistent community crime prevention message. Developing strong partnerships in high crime areas or those neighbourhoods close to these crime hotspots may result in greater collaboration and indeed impact of community safety initiatives that are directed towards reducing worry and increasing collaboration among community residents. Such partnerships should not just rely on charismatic leaders, as these tend not to be sustainable, but should embed practices at an organisational level that are sustainable and able to respond to changing community landscapes.
CONCLUSIONS
The project findings indicate that fear of crime is not widespread. However, those that do experience fear are also likely, for a range of reasons, to feel they are vulnerable to the risk of being victimised. This sense of vulnerability can be reduced through increased attachment and belonging to community and place. The best way to reduce worry about crime is to increase the protective capacities of communities. However, where fear of crime is present, providing residents with a range of options to address this worry in pro-social ways is likely reduce worry. It is also likely to have secondary positive outcomes of increasing the very protective factors likely to reduce worry in the first place. Finally, we believe the survey tools and methods used here provide guidance as to how best to undertake perceptions of crime research at local and state level. Much existing local government research into worry about crime asks residents to report only broad expressions of worry, rather than how intensely and how frequently people actually experience feelings of worry. This project does the latter. As a result, it records what people report as actual experiences of worry. From a policy perspective this provides more accurate guidance as to how interventions might be targeted. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Conclusions
12 THE PROJECT
This document reports on the findings of the Victorian component of the Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime Project that was undertaken in 2019. Building on recent work by the research team (Farrall et al., 2009; Jackson and Gray, 2010; Wickes et al., 2013, Wickes et al., 2016; Lee and Ellis, 2018, Lee et al., 2019) the study aims to identify the key causes of worry and/or fear for residents that are within the remit of local communities to change; and to develop practical tools designed to promote targeted, pro-social responses in communities to reduce fear of crime. Specifically, this project: 1. Systematically identifies and assesses socio-spatial variations in perceptions of crime and worry about types of crime in targeted Victorian localities; 2. Clarifies and maps the breadth of behavioural responses to worry about crime (from the anti-social to the pro-social) for different crime types and identifies how these behaviour responses vary across different community contexts; 3. Identifies ways to harness and promote pro-social responses to worrying about crime that enhance social cohesion and community resilience; 4. Produces evaluative tools that better support local and state government in assessing both perceptions of crime in communities, and whether their interventions and policies are effective in reducing worry about crime. This report provides the top-line findings. BACKGROUND
Understanding community perceptions of crime is important to policy makers, legislators and, indeed, communities themselves. Worries and anxieties associated with perceived crime erode people’s quality of life and well-being (Jackson & Stafford, 2009; Stafford et al., 2007), motivate costly but not always beneficial precautions, restrict movement (Lee, 2007), encourage ‘flight’ from deprived areas, contribute to a range of “negative cognitive (pessimism, problem exaggeration) and affective consequences (emotional discomfort, depression)” (Gray et al., 2011, p. 77), and harm social trust, inter-group relations and the capacity of communities to exercise social control (Hale, 1996; Jackson & Stafford, 2009). Worry about crime also shapes the machinations of the justice system, the way we treat crime, and those we criminalise (Lee, 2007). Despite falling levels of reported crime in many western nations in recent decades (Farrell, Tilley & Tseloni, 2014), levels of fear of crime have tended to decrease at slower rates – if indeed they have reduced at all (Lee, 2007; Simon, 2018). Considerable resources are allocated to crime prevention strategies in an effort to reduce fear of crime (Sakip et al., 2012) but these are often not well targeted. Efforts to reduce worry about crime have increasingly fallen upon local governments in Australia, the United Kingdom and other Western nation states (e.g. UK Government 2015). Yet, while public institutions such as the police (and all levels of government) develop Key Performance Indicators based on reducing such fears (Lee, 2007), there is still much debate about how best to measure fear of crime, how much fear the public express or experience, and how it can be reduced. In particular, blunt survey tools may have resulted in an overestimation of levels of fear of crime (Farrall et al., 1997; Gray et al., 2008; Gray et al., 2011; Jackson & Gray, 2010). Lee et al.’s (forthcoming) research also suggests that concern about crime can trigger cognitive safety mechanisms and sometimes facilitate positive pro-social behavioural outcomes. That is, while overt negative perceptions of crime can be socially corrosive—or can result in simple securitising measures—some level of worry can be ‘functional’ (Jackson et al., 2010) by facilitating pro-social protective behaviours such as positive engagement in community groups, citizen-initiated streetscape beautification, positive and inclusive social media campaigns, and positive engagement with neighbours. What is less clear however—and what is the key missing knowledge that this project seeks to address—is the nature of the drivers of such pro-social social cohesive ‘functional’ responses and how policy makers might facilitate the activation of functional rather than dysfunctional responses. While Wickes and colleagues (2016) have unpacked the neighbourhood and individual level mechanisms that lead to pro-social action, there is no scholarship that we are aware of that systematically examines the context of fear, worry and pro-social action. This project’s innovation lies in re-framing the problem of fear of crime in the community by investigating the ‘how’ and under what conditions fear encourages or produces ‘functional’ behaviours that are also pro-social. We are looking at positive responses to what seems like an inherently negative problem. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Background
14 COMPONENTS OF FEAR OF CRIME
Fear of crime is a conceptual umbrella term that captures a range of emotional and behavioural responses to the perceived threat of victimisation. Criminologists have tended to define fear of crime as the feelings (affect), actions (behaviour) and thoughts (cognition) that focus on the subjectively conceived threat of criminal victimisation (Ferraro, 1995; Hale, 1996; Vanderveen, 2006; Farrall et al., 2009).
Figure 1
Importantly for the current study, the ABC distinction between affect, behaviour, and cognition captures multiple dimensions that are themselves multifaceted and overlapping (See Figure 1). In what follows we outline these dimensions and how this research and report responds to them. The affective aspect of “fear of crime” involves a number of emotions about the possibility of victimisation, including (but not limited to) rare physical responses to immediate threat (“fear”), repetitive thoughts about future uncertain harm (“worry”), and a more widespread but diffuse low-level emotion about uncertain future events that is separate from concrete feelings of imminent danger (“anxiety”). Criminologists have for a long time known that these are difficult emotions to measure (Hale, 1996). For example, Warr (2000) argues that survey questions like “How afraid are you about being burgled?”, which one might on the face of it assume is capturing people’s physical fear responses to the threat of burglary, capture instead a more future-oriented anxiety among respondents. After all, the research respondents answering this question are unlikely to be physically afraid of being burgled right at that point, at the time of the interview. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Components Of Fear
15 Another approach is to use general measures of the intensity of worry (e.g. ‘Overall, how worried are you about being burgled? Not at all worried, not very worried, fairly worried or very worried’). However, there is some evidence that such measures provide a rather undifferentiated picture of people’s emotions. By contrast, frequency indicators seem to give a more precise and targeted focus on the patterning of emotional experience in people’s everyday lives. For example, Farrall et al. (2009) found that a substantial proportion of British Crime Survey respondents who said they were ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ worried also reported that they had not worried once over the past 12 months. They showed that actual and recallable moments of worry were rare among those who said they were worried about crime, highlighting the problem of using scenario questions such as ‘how worried would you feel walking in your neighbourhood after dark’. Indeed, a good proportion of those individuals who reported some overall intensity of worry could not recall a single instance when their emotions surfaced. Without information about the frequency with which an individual worries, they argued, it was difficult to tell whether ‘very worried’ meant that the individual worried on a frequent basis or felt a more diffuse/anxious state of unease and possibility. In this study we focus on more experiential episodes of worry, captured by asking people the frequency with which they worry about becoming a victim of crime in their everyday lives, as well as asking them to recall the most recent episode and report the intensity of that worry (Farrall et al., 2009; Gray et al., 2011). By focusing on the frequency of worry, we hope to capture those individuals who worry about becoming a victim of crime in their everyday lives. Frequency is important because it is central to the very concept of worry, alongside the focus on uncertain future negative events. In an influential definition, for instance, Berenbaum (2010, p. 963) refers to worry as repetitive and anxiety-producing thoughts that have three characteristics: “…(1) the repetitive thoughts concern an uncertain future outcome; (2) the uncertain outcome about which the person is thinking is considered undesirable; and (3) the subjective experience of having such thoughts is unpleasant.” There appears to be four main categories of behavioural responses to the perceived threat of victimisation: avoidance behaviour, protective behaviour, behavioural and lifestyle adjustments, and participation in relevant collective activities (Miethe, 1995, p. 21−26): ◆◆ Avoidance strategies include the minimisation of one’s contact with “hot spots,” such as particular neighbourhoods, entertainment places, and parks, especially at certain times and with particular types of people, as well as avoidance of routine activities such as travelling on public transport or shopping at particular stores. ◆◆ Protective behaviour constitutes activities that aim to deter or resist crime, such as situational crime prevention measures (e.g. installing alarms, locking doors, increasing lighting, owning guns) and wider activities of self-protection (e.g. taking self-defence training, travelling in groups). ◆◆ Behavioural and lifestyle changes include withdrawal of common activities that are considered to be dangerous, such as subway usage at night, drinking in bars, and other night-time activities. Behavioural and lifestyle changes differ from general avoidance strategies as they refer to a change in behaviours that come with a greater degree of risk. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Components Of Fear
16 ◆◆ Collective responses to crime risk encompass participation in relevant community groups, such as neighbourhood watch programs and self-help or support groups, in promotion of victim and witness programs, and related legislative initiatives. This final group of responses we refer to as pro-social in this report. The final part of the ABC of fear of crime refers to people’s cognitive assessments of the personal risk of criminal harm. Criminological work has shown that the perception of the likelihood of victimisation is strongly correlated with expressed levels of fear, worry and anxiety about the event occurring (Ferraro, 1995; Farrall et al., 2009). Studies have also shown the importance of people’s sense of the seriousness of the consequences if they were to fall victim, as well as their sense of control over its occurrence (Jackson, 2009). This work suggests that fear, worry and anxiety are generated and sustained by a sense of risk, threat and vulnerability that is comprised of perceived likelihood, perceived consequence, and perceived control (Killias, 1990; Hale, 1996; Gabriel & Greve, 2003; Farrall et al., 2009; Jackson, 2009, 2011). Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Components Of Fear
17 RISK, VULNERABILITY AND MOTIVATING PRECAUTIONARY BEHAVIOUR
There is also a strong overlap between perceived risk and perceived vulnerability to criminal harm. According to Killias (1990) there are physical, social, and situational dimensions of vulnerability related to three aspects of threat: “exposure to non-negligible risk,” “loss of control,” and “seriousness of consequences.” Perceived risk (perceived likelihood, perceived consequence and perceived control) seems to explain the association between socio-demographic markers of vulnerability (such as gender and age) and worry about crime. For example, Jackson (2009) found that females tended to worry more frequently than males partly because they felt less able to physically defend themselves; they had higher perceived negative consequences; they had lower perceived control; and they saw the likelihood of victimisation as greater for themselves and for their social group. Researchers have also sought to establish whether respondents’ fear is ‘functional’ or ‘dysfunctional’ depending on behavioural and quality of life outcomes. Jackson and Gray (2010) found that a significant minority of individuals who worried about crime also reported that they took precautions that made them feel safer and that neither the precautions nor their worries about crime affected their quality of life. In such circumstances, worry might be best viewed as a functional defence against crime. It seemed to motivate beneficial behaviour, stimulating individuals into action, allowing them to exert control over perceived risks, rather than being an inherently negative feeling that erodes quality of life (Gray et al., 2011). This is consistent with psychological research that shows that worry can motivate behaviour, with positive consequences in the eyes of individuals (Gladstone and Parker, 2003). For instance, a study of the phenomenology of “normal” worry (Tallis et al., 1994) found that, when thinking about their general life concerns, many individuals considered worry to be a routine and mostly acceptable activity, which occurred more or less daily, was addressed at various issues, and transpired mostly in the form of thoughts with a narrative course. Worry was typically associated with real-life triggers, was both present and future-orientated, and was focused upon problems that were real or plausible rather than imaginary or remote. Worry was also seen by research respondents to have clear benefits as an incentive, by stimulating them into action. That the majority of respondents in that study perceived worrying as a problem-solving activity suggests that the worrying process helps some people cope with an uncertain future by making them avoid negative possible events. Of course, worry is not always functional, and frequent worry can damage well-being. Tallis et al.’s (1994) study showed a range of deleterious cognitive (e.g. pessimism, problem exaggeration) and affective (e.g. emotional discomfort, depression) consequences can develop in response to worry. Features displayed by “high” worriers included: more frequent (at least daily) episodes of worry; greater difficulty to stop worrying; rebounding worries; and mood disturbance and perceived impairment in everyday functioning. “High” worriers also reported greater indecision and doubt when worrying, and they were more likely to perceive worry as having a negative effect on their health. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Risk, Vulnerability And Motivating Precautionary Behaviour
18 In Jackson and Gray’s (2010) study, 20 per cent of the sample fell into the dysfunctional category (compared to 8 per cent in the functional category). Such individuals worried about crime and believe that their quality of life was damaged by either (or both) their worry and their precautions. Importantly, having been a victim of crime in the past 12 months was a strong predictor of dysfunctional worry, but not of functional worry. This suggests that victimisation can damage people’s ability to actively manage their emotions and sense of risk. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Risk, Vulnerability And Motivating Precautionary Behaviour
19 CRIME, NEIGHBOURHOOD DISORDER AND COLLECTIVE EFFICACY
Criminological research has also addressed the neighbourhood context of fear of crime. There is a good deal of evidence that people respond to general environmental cues that they associate with potential criminal harm by projecting subjectively-conceived victimisation risk onto low-level neighbourhood conditions and specific social groups (Jackson, 2004). Therefore, a more complete definition of fear of crime needs to account for the different ways in which people see and respond to risk and generate representations of dangerousness. For example, studies of people’s perceptions of neighbourhood disorder and social cohesion suggest that fear of crime is partly about how people perceive and respond to particular environments and situations. Neighbourhood disorder refers to a range of subtle and not so subtle cues in the social and physical environment that include graffiti, broken windows, and certain social groups “hanging around” in public space. These are events and symbols of “communicative action” (Innes, 2004): they have meaning above and beyond their mere presence, in that they represent a weakened social order, an erosion of shared commitments to dominant norms and values, a failure of authorities to regulate behaviour in public space, and personal risk and threat. What constitutes disorder is partly in the eye of the observer. According to Sampson (2009, p. 12), when people judge disorder as a problem, they combine “uncertain evidence with prior beliefs underwritten by cultural stereotypes.” Sampson and Raudenbush (2004) found that signifiers of disorder and uncivil behaviour were viewed as especially problematic by residents of Chicago who lived in particular neighbourhoods. Specifically, objective events observed in the streets, coupled with stereotypical perceptions of ethnic minorities and poverty, prompted disorderly cues to be perceived more severely when they took place in especially deprived and ethnically diverse areas. Similarly, Wickes and colleagues (2013) found that neighbourhood demographics strongly predicted residents’ estimates of neighbourhood disorder. In particular, those who overestimated the ethnic diversity of their area and those who lived in disadvantaged areas viewed neighbourhood disorder as a serious problem. In UK research, Jackson et al. (2018) found that, controlling for where people live, fear of crime, victimisation experience and concerns about community cohesion and societal decline were each associated with identifying disorder as a problem in their immediate locality. People who had been recently victimised, who were worried about falling victim of crime, and who were concerned about local social change and the loss of authority and discipline in society, were more likely to judge the same ambiguous neighbourhood cues as problematic (and were therefore more likely to see the same environment as ‘disorderly’) than people without these worries, experiences and concerns. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crim e | Crime, Neighbourhood Disorder And Collective Efficacy
20 This report comments on these neighbourhood level cues and how they relate to worry about crime. It also considers collective efficacy. Collective efficacy refers to the shared values and shared propensities for collective action that inform the strength of informal control mechanisms at the local neighbourhood level (Sampson, 2012). Brunton-Smith et al. (2014) found that: i) certain structural characteristics of the neighbourhood helped to inhibit the development and sustenance of low-level informal social control processes and the ability of local people and institutions to regulate public behaviour; (ii) shared values and propensities to act communicated to observers that violence is a problem and/or threat; and (iii) visible symbols of the failure of local people and authorities to regulate behaviour and secure social control (i.e. breaches of normative standards of public behaviour) also sent signals of potential violent conduct in one’s neighbourhood. In other words, worry about violence was provoked by the features of the urban environment (i.e. the cues) of individuals that are symbolic of the capacity of the local community to exercise informal social control (see Bursik, 1988; Bursik and Grasmick, 1993; Sampson and Raudenbush, 1999). In this report we examine how perceived disorder and perceived collective efficacy relate to worry about and people’s positive and negative responses to crime perceptions. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crim e | Crime, Neighbourhood Disorder And Collective Efficacy
21 METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE: A MIXED-METHODS STUDY
A detailed methodology is included in the appendices. Briefly, stage one of the project involved designing and implementing a perceptions of crime survey. The survey design took three months to produce, including ethics approval with both the University of Sydney Human Ethics Committee (Protocol Number: 2019/142) and the Monash University Ethics Committee. Iterations of the survey were developed with input from the research partner organisations. Metropolis Research were contracted to implement a face to face survey with respondents at their own homes in suburbs throughout Victoria. The survey was further refined in consultation with Metropolis Research, who also piloted the instrument and provided additional feedback and refinement. The final survey constituted 66 items and was timed at roughly 20-25 minutes (see Appendix B for a copy of the survey provided to respondents). The sample comprises a stratified and representative sample of Victorian communities. The sampling strategy for the survey has followed the tested design of the Australian Community Capacity Study (ACCS) (https://accs.project.uq.edu.au/). A stratified random sample of high, average and low total crime case state suburbs (SSC) was used to divide the population into stratified groups. SSCs were then randomly sampled from within each group. A proportionate sampling strategy has ensured that the groups are proportionate to the entire population. The majority of SSCs are low crime or average crime. A sample of n=2,862 households was included. The sample included 51 per cent males and 49 per cent females. The age make-up of the sample was between 15 to 19 years of age (3 per cent), 20 to 34 years old (18 per cent), 35 to 44 years old (21 per cent), 45 to 59 (27 per cent), 60 to 74 years old (9 per cent). The majority of the sample was not religious (66 per cent) and 28 per cent considered themselves religious. Less than one per cent of respondents identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Over three quarters of the sample spoke English at home (77 per cent), and 23 per cent spoke a language other than English. Less than 2 per cent of the sample reported they were LGBTQI+, with the majority reporting to be heterosexual (98 per cent). 66 per cent of the sample had lived in their neighbourhood or close by for the past 5 years or longer. Stage two used qualitative focus groups/interviews to explore in more detail responses to worry about crime. This stage collected finer detail about the way people respond to worry about crime, as well as accessing harder to reach groups who may express particular concerns and who may not have been represented in the survey. For example, we conducted focus groups of the elderly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, LGBTIQ respondents and migrant respondents (see Appendices C and D). It is worth emphasising that because of the nature of the focus group sample (vulnerable groups), we would expect respondents to express more worry and have an increased sense of perceived risk. As such, while we have used these data to emphasise and provide examples that occur in the quantitative results, and to highlight the specific issues of marginal groups, they should not be taken as representative. All interviews were recorded using digital recording devices. Focus groups ran for an average of one- hour. Interview questions were developed iteratively on the basis of previous studies and the findings of stage one of the project. In some instances where a focus group was comprised of one language group, an interpreter was employed. All interviews were transcribed verbatim by Sydney Transcription Services. All interviews were coded and analysed using NVivo software. This process entailed coding statements into the most appropriate themes. Some statements were coded to multiple themes. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Methodology And Sample: A Mixed-methods Study The themes and coding were undertaken by three team members and a process of comparison and analysis ensure inter-rater reliability – that is, that each of the team members were coding in a seminal fashion. 22 RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
Levels of worry about crime In line with other research, this survey found that worry about crime is a relatively rare event (Farrall and Gadd, 2004). Our results showed that most people did not worry about crime at all in the past 12 months (57 per cent). People reported the most worry when asked about being a victim of online fraud, a scam, online harassment or abuse—27 per cent had worried at least once in the past year. People reported the least worry when asked about being harassed in their suburb— 5 per cent had worried at least once in the past year (Figure 2). This is a surprisingly low rate of worry about harassment; a recent Inner Sydney-based study found that 28 per cent of research respondents had worried at least once in the past year about being harassed in the street (Lee et al., forthcoming).
Figure 2 Worry by crime type Levels of worry about burglary in Victoria were more consistent with Inner Sydney (Lee et al., forthcoming), with 22 per cent of the current sample worrying at least once about being burgled, compared to 28 per cent in Inner Sydney. An international comparison can also be made, albeit with relatively old data. Farrall et al.’s (2009) analysis of 2003/2004 British Crime Survey data showed that 31 per cent of respondents drawn from a nationally representative sample of England and Wales residents had worried at least once in the past year about being burgled. Finally, 11 per cent of the current Victorian sample had worried at least once about being robbed in the street, which compares to 15 per cent from the 2003/2004 British Crime Survey (Gray et al., 2008). The qualitative data tells us more about the reasons that some people in Victoria worry and do not worry about crime – and, as per the sample, the particular worries of some minority groups. Those that did not report worry often talked about their sense of community and belonging in their area, including family ties, friendship networks, or community groups they are engaged in. This older male respondent talked about his local area of Springvale:
I still like Springvale because my family and my relatives all very close to Springvale but I have – before Springvale “ very safe when I come to live in Springvale. At night we walk very safely (R7.1). Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
23 For minority groups, likewise, a sense of community acceptance often accompanied a lack of worry about crime. This young gay male respondent talked about the marriage equality vote and acceptance by the broader Victorian community:
And I think like I remember when marriage equality went through and I saw just how many people in Melbourne “ thought that marriage equality was like a good thing, I - that was kind of an amazing moment for me because I thought, wow the community really accepts us. They’re okay with us. And so that was really important. I definitely think Victoria’s stepping up…(R2.12).
For this Aboriginal respondent, community seemed to play a key protective role in minimising worry in an environment which they perceived as having a “fair bit” of crime:
I’ve lived in the area for 10 or 11 years and it’s not quiet. It definitely isn’t quiet. We’ve had quite a bit of crime in our “ area. A few years ago we had a couple of murders just up here just off Southern road. There is a fair bit of crime where - I live just on the outskirts of what used to be Olympic village. So there’s a lot of housing commission. So there’s a disadvantaged community. But having said that, I live there with my 23 year old daughter and I care for her and my 89 year old blind mother. And despite the fact that I probably can’t - I was brought up in a privileged area in Sydney, I feel safer here than I do anywhere else. Maybe because I’m just better connected with the community itself… (R2.15).
These expressions of community, belonging and acceptance are important as they are reflections on the very protective factors we refer to in the report that mitigate against respondents worrying about crime. As demonstrated below, these are also expressions of the very conditions that enable respondents to respond to their worries about crime in pro-social ways. Those that worry generally tell a different story—although it is worth noting that worriers and non- worriers are not always clearly separable individuals. What the qualitative data indicated is that people can be generally unworried but also worry at certain times and in certain contexts. What follows are some general examples of worried respondents. Our first respondent here expressed what we might call an affective fear about robbery. It is an example of the ‘A’ in the ABC of fear of crime. It is clear this comes (at least in part) from television coverage rather than lived experience:
All the robbery like last year all the African young boys, from the city go to the jewellery shop, yeah many times. “ Very scary. Interviewer: And you learned about that from Channel 7?
Yes. Interviewer: And anywhere else?
From the newspaper (R8.1).
The second respondent here also expresses the ‘A’ or affective fear. This time the concern comes from speaking to others in the area: “ Interviewer: Okay. Do you hear that from neighbours or friends? Like where do you hear about the problems? Yes, people in the park or when we gather at the park. Like people that live in this local area. Not necessarily friends but other people that are from Dandenong. They used to say that there are a lot of alcoholic in this area and a lot of - a group of them get together and yeah (R2.6).
This third respondent expressed worry about crime that is experienced as ongoing and likely to change their behaviour. It is an example of the ‘B’ as well as the ‘A’ of our ABC of fear of crime. It is quite a contrast to the sense of community painted by previous respondents:
Where I can’t even walk with my children to the shop without seeing people there drinking and then yelling and “ using foul language to make myself feel uncomfortable and unsafe, where I’m meant to be the main person to care for my kids and I feel like I can’t even protect them because I feel scared myself (R2.14). Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
24 The fourth example is another that touches on the ‘B’ or behavioural elements of worry. In this case the change comes in the form of installing shutters: “ Interviewer: Shutters? Yeah and when I go to work, nobody at home, we put them down. It is difficult for people to break in. We don’t have any break-in but that is just precaution to keep your house safe (R1.1).
In this fifth example a transgender woman expresses worry as a personal risk assessment, an example of the cognitive expression of fear in the ABC. Each time she goes out on the street she scans the environment for threats and is always on guard as she sees herself at risk of assault at any time:
But yeah, I mean I - my head’s programmed to always - when I walk out the door I’m constantly assessing “ things, evaluating things, people. It’s kind of shit because you don’t want to think the worst of anybody or any circumstance but it’s really hard, you feel like you have to (R1.12).
This final example illustrates a crossover of ‘C’, a cognitive assessment of an area, and the ‘B’ in terms of modifying behaviour to avoid the risk: “ Interviewer: Does that mean that you would avoid parks in your local area? Alone, yes (R1.4).
Alone, no way I would walk by myself (R2.4). Interviewer: At any time?
Even daytime. I would try to find someone to walk with. Like I remember we have like myself and another two friends. Sometimes we used to walk Sunday afternoon. I’m home always so we used to walk at like five o’clock. Then we change. We say because sometimes winter at five o’clock is dark. So we’re going to walk like four o’clock, between 3.30 to 4.00. So we walk round, round, round and we come back quickly (R2.4). Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
25 Age and worry about crime We found that the relationship between worry and age was significant for burglary and cybercrime, but not for robbery or harassment. In terms of burglary, people in the middle periods of their lives tended to worry, compared to the very young and very old (Figure 3). This mirrors the England and Wales-based finding of Farrall et al. (2009, 180), albeit that they combined worry about burglary, robbery and car theft. There is also some consistency here with Simon’s (2018) argument that for those who grew up in higher crime periods, many who will have had their house burgled in the past, the threat never completely recedes. Likewise, while generation X might be avid online consumers and users of social media, the internet became part of their life later – and they still hold some concerns about issues of security and privacy.
Figure 3 Worry about burglary by age This older female respondent from Hopetoun Park expresses affective concern about burglary and the effect of online discussions in communicating to residents about these crimes:
Yeah. I’m on the Hopetoun Park Facebook page and that’s where I sort of hear about trucks and tradies’ things “ and going missing, some quite brazen ‘cause they show pictures from their -- you know, the cameras that they’ve got on their houses, like someone coming right into a car port and you can see them starting to get into the car and stuff (R4.3).
A similar peak around the 45-59 age group was found for cybercrime (Figure 4).
Figure 4 Worry about cybercrime by age Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
26 The qualitative data suggests this group are wary of what they do online and how they go about it. There is also a sense among many that they are frequently the targets of various kinds of scams. This elderly female from Bacchus Marsh is demonstrative of these comments:
Going back to cyber thing, I do do online banking. I’m extremely careful of what I do and I only do it in my own “ home with my own internet. I would not do it on public internet or anything like that and I’m very wary sometimes of some of the phone calls we get who basically are spam (R2.3).
This demonstrates the need to address the concerns of older citizens in strategies providing information on how they can avoid cyber vulnerabilities, and thus reduce their worry. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
27 Gender and worry about crime Previous scholarship has consistently found that women report higher fears than men (Hale, 1996; Vanderveen, 2006; Farrall et al., 2009; Collins, 2016). Like age, we found that the relationship between gender and worry was dependent on crime type. There were no significant differences in worry about burglary or cybercrime between men and women, but there were significant differences between men and women for robbery and harassment (with women more likely to be worried than men). This is consistent with the notion that women feel more vulnerable to crime on the street that may also have a gendered element.
Figure 5 Worry about crime type by gender The qualitative data captured worry on the streets, especially for young women. This was heightened with the intersection of being from a different ethnic or religious background. As this young woman whose country of birth was Afghanistan expresses: “ Whenever I walk as a woman, I just keep my key like something you know. Just in case (R1.7). This was echoed similarly by this middle-aged woman of Somali background who avoided a number of areas unless accompanied. Her cognitive assessment of risk, ‘C’, and subsequent behaviour, ‘B’, changes appear to inhibit her movement considerably:
As long as they hear about these things happening in the night time, I don’t think I will trust at all to walk in the “ night by myself. Maybe with a friend I would – not even to the park. Maybe to Safeway with my son maybe we walk together if it’s a good time, like between 6.00 to 7.00. After nine o’clock I won’t walk with him. But to the park ... No (R2.4). Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
28 Victimisation experience and worry about crime Past victimisation was closely correlated with worry about crime for all crime types (see Figure 6 Worry by crime type and prior victimisation). We asked respondents if they had been a victim of crime in the past year using three items: ◆◆ Burglary; ◆◆ Robbed, harassed or physically assaulted; and ◆◆ Victim of online fraud, a scam, online abuse or harassment. These three items were then aggregated to test for correlations respondents who had any direct victimisation experience in the last year our four crime types. There was a significant relationship between prior victimisation experience and worry about crime. This difference was most noticeable for worry about cybercrime if respondents had been a victim of crime in the past year versus if they had not (61 per cent versus 23 per cent), followed by worry about burglary (50 per cent versus 18 per cent). The relationship between prior victimisation and worry were not as stark for robbery (26 per cent versus 9 per cent) or harassment (16 per cent versus 4 per cent), however these relationships were still significant. This highlights the need for support and information to be made available to victims in order to reduce a future sense of vulnerability.
Figure 6 Worry by crime type and prior victimisation Prior victimisation and its association with worry is also captured in the qualitative data. R1.12 is a transgender woman with considerable experience of being victimised. Prior victimisation was intimately connected to her sense of vulnerability, and subsequently her cognitive assessment of risk, ‘C’. She worried constantly about being further victimised, constantly ‘scans’ situations, but does not let this define or control her movements completely:
Well I’m - being transwoman your employment options are very scarce. So, I mean I’ve been - I’ve done sex “ work to where I’m actually inviting things to come towards me in terms of rape and that sort of stuff. So it’s all very well to structure your life in a certain way but - I’m not saying I’m any different to anybody else but I guess there’s sometimes you have to do things you don’t want to do and doing those things you open the floodgates to people who - yeah, you know. So, I was actually - through my front door, through the advertising of my work, it’s deciphering who is - am I going to be safe or am I not going to be safe.
So, I was actually inviting these people through my door. You were talking about out in the community but actually in my own home it was a whole different story. So, I’ve had three guys come through the door supposedly going to be one guy. And there was you know, gang rape and stuff. And then there was other cases… (R1.12). Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
29 And victimisation can be responsible for significant behaviour change, as is the case with this respondent – an older woman of Vietnamese background:
Honestly, I don’t dare to go out at night by myself because I’ve been victim. Yeah, once at night I went out at about “ 7.30 and when I had shopping bag to my car, I just turned on the corner and I saw someone. I noticed someone standing there at the car and I was a little bit scared and I rushed to my car and unlock. I get in my car and then I lock my car up and when I turned on, I saw the man stand by my car and lock my window open. He said, “Open,” and I just opened a little bit and he tried to open my door (R8.1). Interviewer: You were so lucky.
I was very scared. And then I just start the engine (R8.1).
It is clear that past victimisation experience can leave those who experience it feeling vulnerable and with a clear perception that they could be victimised again. In short, it increases their chances of worrying about crime though increasing their assessment of their own risk. Vulnerability is also likely to be intersectional. Older age makes recovering from injury or trauma more difficult. Women may feel less likely to be able to defend themselves compared to men. People of ethnic or religious minorities may feel vulnerable to racism or religious persecution. This intersectionality is further demonstrated in the following section. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
30 Speaking a language other than English Of the survey respondents, 77 per cent of the respondents spoke English at home and 23 per cent spoke a language other than English at home (LOTE). This is similar to the broader Victorian population, with 68 per cent of people speaking English at home and 28 per cent speaking a language other than English at home (ABS, 2016). The relationship between worry about crime and the language spoken at home was significant for most crime types (Figure 7). There was a significant difference in worry about burglary by language spoken at home. Those who spoke a language other than English at home were a little more likely to worry about burglary (26 per cent versus 21 per cent); were more likely to worry about being robbed (16 per cent versus 10 per cent) and were more likely to worry about being harassed (8 per cent versus 5 per cent). Finally, regarding worry about cybercrime, the results demonstrated that there is no difference in levels of worry between people who speak English at home and those who speak a language other than English (28 per cent versus 26 per cent).
Figure 7 Worry about crime type by language spoken at home Amongst the qualitative research respondents who spoke a language other than English at home, there were many stories of harassment or abuse that seem to justify these increased levels of worry and the assessments of their own risk and vulnerability that inform this. For young Muslim women, exemplified by the comment below, this ranged from verbal abuse to having scarfs and hijabs forcibly removed:
I end up like facing this guy who was in the car and I was […] walking and some guy tried to […] beep for a long “ time when he was in the car and got out and put his arm out of the window and showed his middle finger. Just because she was like wearing hijab probably. And then I have seen it around too and I just... It doesn’t feel right or doesn’t feel okay at all. Just because - I believe that was because […] he didn’t like me wearing the scarf (R2.6).
The quote above illustrates a mix of affective ‘A’ and worry, amplified by a frightening experience. The following quote from an older woman of Argentinian background illustrates an example of expressive and affective fear:
I read the newspaper when some man died, one woman died, pass away, somebody killing in the park. Another “ thing, I feel very bad because I have got a problem with this, with people who die, young people, and then other thing I’m reading, one man, somebody died in Brunswick, in Park Street or Boundary Street. Somebody killing. Then I read this and I was very, very fear because it’s very sad (R5.2). Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
31 The following example of harassment is reproduced in full as it indicated the sense of vulnerabilities for some ethnic and religious minorities. The respondent is of Somali background, middle aged and widowed:
I remember one day I was in the Springvale train station. I left at like 4.30 and this man was at the other side and I “ was in this side with my hijab. He kept telling you, “Fuck you Muslim.” He told me many times […]
I was so worried like this man may come and hit me or something. So I walked back inside and I stayed with the ladies and he kept saying, “Fuck you,” and I was like so scared. […]
I stayed near the staff member and this lady who was working there came outside and she said to him, she looked at him, and he kept saying a few words to her also ‘cause she was from India. And I thought maybe – she said maybe he’s drunk. […]. So I was like praying oh where’s the train? I was so scared. I thought he may come and catch the next train because I have to get off at Clayton. Quickly I catch and instead of taking the bus to my place, I get a taxi. I was lucky to get a taxi quickly. I was scared from him and I thought he may follow me or something like this. The next morning I kept telling everyone that’s what happened to me. Yeah, so many of my friends happened to them something like this (R2.4).
Clearly such experiences are likely in increase assessments of risk for such respondents. It again illustrates how a sense of vulnerability is intersectional, and based on experience. Our results indicated that, rather than the perhaps often taken for granted narrative about Australians of an Anglo-Celtic background being worried about crime by ‘others’, and this being rolled up in worry about levels of immigration and the like, people are more likely to worry if they speak a language other than English (LOTE) at home. This again accords with the sense of vulnerability some of our LOTE respondents expressed. The qualitative data is replete with stories of victimisation from LOTE respondents; some minor property crimes, others more serious. This Vietnamese woman recounts a story about an intruder that worried her:
Oh yeah actually, two years ago someone just jump over the fence, jumped into my – because my, next door “ the fence is very low and he get in easily because no front gate. He just get in next door and jump over to my backyard. In the early morning about 8 o’clock my son still in bed and I just step out and just yell out, “How did you get in?” and he answered me, “I tried to get the way out” (R8.1).
Figure 8 Language spoken at home and prior victimisation Of the survey responses we found that there was no significant difference between language spoken at home and prior victimisation (see Figure 8). Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
32 Perceiving risk Part of perceived risk is people’s perceptions of the likelihood of becoming a victim of crime (typically measured as ‘in the next 12 months’). Subjective probability judgements are central to perceived risk but researchers often think about risk perception as not just the perceived likelihood of something bad happening but also the perceived severity of the consequences of the event if it were to take place (Jackson, 2006). On this account, people who feel at risk view the chances of victimisation to be relatively high and the impact to be serious. One can also add peoples subjective sense of control over crime to the notion of perceived risk (Jackson, 2009; 2011) and we measured all three constituent components of perceived risk in the current study, e.g. we assume that someone who feels at risk of crime views personal victimisation as (i) likely, (ii) consequential and (iii) difficult to control.
Perceived likelihood of crime The majority of respondents did not think it likely they would fall victim to crime in the next twelve months (see Figure 9): 15 per cent of the sample thought it was likely or very likely that they would be a victim of cybercrime; 12 per cent thought it was likely or very likely that they would be burgled; 9 per cent thought it was likely or very likely they would be robbed; and 8 per cent thought it was likely or very likely they would be harassed.
Figure 9 Perceived risk of victimisation It is clear from the qualitative data that pro-social close family ties, community engagement, and friendship networks were protective against feelings of perceived risk. The following interviewees talk about how their neighbourhood or neighbours help them feel safe, and by extension reduce their sense of being at risk. First, this older woman of Vietnamese background: “ My street very safe. The neighbour very good. Yeah. I feel safe in my street (R7.1). Second, and reflecting the multifaceted nature of risk perceptions and worry, the same Argentinean woman quoted above indicated that while she worried about crime elsewhere, she does not see herself at risk in the local area:
My neighbour is very good. I no have any problem ... Only, well, I read the newspaper, I hear about the problem ... in “ Brunswick but with me, nothing, at the moment I’m very happy (R5.2). Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
33 Finally, this gay man discusses the layers of risk and vulnerability he perceives that accumulate due to broken family ties and variable acceptance:
[M]ost of my friends moved out of home heaps earlier than their straight counterparts. And most of them then put “ themselves in precarious jobs or like worked in hospitality just to get by. Had precarious housing or dodgy rental arrangements. Just because home wasn’t safe and it was better to be in a shared house with gay mates than it was - and so you do take - you do things a bit more riskily because society doesn’t accept you in the same way as straight people. (R2.12).
Gender and perceived likelihood Gender was significantly associated with risk perception for burglary, robbery and harassment. However, there was no significant relationship between gender and risk perception for cybercrime (see Figure 10).
Figure 10 Mean of perceived risk of crime by gender Women were significantly more likely than men to report that they would be a victim of a burglary in the next 12 months. Fourteen per cent of women reported they would be likely or very likely to be a victim of burglary compared to 12 per cent of men. Women were significantly more likely than men to report that they would be a victim of a harassment in the next 12 months. Nine per cent of women reported they would be likely or very likely to be a victim of harassment compared to 7 per cent of men. Women were also more likely than men to think they will be a victim of robbery in the next 12 months. Nearly 11 per cent of women thought there were likely or very likely to be a victim of robbery compared to 9 per cent of men. Turning to the qualitative data, this woman described how she feels less vulnerable, and subsequently less at risk, because of her knowledge of the area:
Yeah. I have been in Dandenong for the last two years and I’m happy. I haven’t had any issues but the thing is it is “ - because it is very easy for me to get around the area but also go by myself without needing anyone else to take me anywhere. I can easily access classes and other stuff that I need. I also heard a lot about stuff that happens in Dandenong. The incidents like robberies and other stuff but I had witnessed personally something happen to my own friend (R4.6).
Perceived risk with regard to gender was evident from the qualitative data – particularly where gender intersects with other elements of minority status. These Aboriginal women talk about their increased cognitive perception of the risk of being sexually assaulted, particularly by white ‘European’ men:
And you know what really pees me off with a lot of - not being rude, a lot of European men that have painted us as “ Indigenous women like we’re easy. A lot of European men think we’re easy (R5.14).
Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons Yeah. Take advantage of us and try and sexually assault us and all the rest of it (R1.14).
34 Figure 11 Mean of perceived risk by crime type and worry by crime type All people who feel they are likely to be a victim of any of the above crimes are also more likely to be worried about crime – there is a significant and strong relationship between perceived risk and worry as we would expect.
Perceived consequences of crime The majority of people thought their life would be affected if they became a victim of crime. Some 67 per cent of respondents thought their life would be very affected or affected to a great extent if they were to be a victim of burglary or robbery. Similarly, 61 per cent of people thought their life would be very affected or affected to a great extent if they were harassed and 58 per cent felt this way about being the victim of online fraud, a scam or online abuse or harassment. Again, the perceived consequences of victimisation are likely to increase vulnerability, and subsequently one’s assessment of risk.
Figure 12 The extent to which one’s life would be affected if they were to become a victim of crime Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
35 While having a low perception of risk, and low worry, this older gay male also believes he may be misjudging this. Clearly his community ties offer a protective element that filter his risk perception. However, he is also aware of the ‘horrible’ consequences should he be victimised:
I feel maybe a bit deluded that because I’m old and walk with a stick - older and walk with a stick - that people “ wouldn’t attack me but that’s not a reason they wouldn’t, you know what I mean. I just feel as if that would be a really horrible thing for anyone to do, to attack an old person…. I actually live in a bit of a bubble. I live in Balaclava and I have lived there for 12 years, I think. And I’ve never been burgled. I feel quite safe because not only is it a fairly - it is a gay affirming area to live in, it’s just on the edge of St Kilda. You know, my local baristas are gay, two of them. And there’s cafes around me that - you know, it would be no problem for me. And I’ve done it, I’ve taken boyfriends into the local restaurants and cafes and held their hand and stuff. It’s not a drama at all. Half the waiters are gay (R3.12).
This woman also expresses a vulnerability to victimisation, and questions what she would do if it happened:
I’ve got a fear about if someone coming in what I’m going to do? Hit or run or what? Something I worry about “ because on my own. I’ve got beautiful neighbours which they look after me but next door, night time, they sleep. That’s why always being on my mind (R2.12).
Perceived controllability of crime The majority of people believed they could control whether or not they would fall victim to all four crime types. As per Figure 13, 20 per cent of people believed harassment was outside of their control, followed by robbery (17 per cent), cybercrime (14 per cent) and burglary (13 per cent). This provides insights into respondents sense of vulnerability and demonstrates a capacity for worry to be functional.
Figure 13 The extent to which one is able to control if they were to become a victim of crime This Aboriginal male expresses a sense of controllability over crime which in turn reduces any sense of vulnerability:
I feel more safer, not as in Darebin or Banyule, but as my Aboriginal community. I feel safe knowing that I’ve got “ family, mob living next door to me or if I see them down the street, things like that I feel safe. Like I’ve always grown up in Preston particularly or Darebin or this northern corridor. Just knowing that there’s community there. If I lived in a suburb where I didn’t know anyone, I’d think I’d feel unsafe just knowing that there’s no connection, but knowing I can walk down the street and I’d probably see mob – and generally it happens every day. And knowing that things are going on in matters, we see crime rates, things like that in the local community newspapers. Yeah. I just feel like I’m more kind of protected in the sense that if something was to happen to me, they’d go okay well they know my mum and dad and my brothers. So I do feel safe in that sense (R3.15). Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
36 He was not alone in expressing this control or mastery of an area and how this reduced his sense of vulnerability:
Yeah, like number 3 was saying, I can walk around and there’s a handful of people I know. Yeah I feel safe in my “ area, yeah. And anywhere else, like if I was to go to another location it would be different (R5.15).
Likewise, this older female of Italian background felt safe through control of her life and environment:
I like Brunswick ... I live in Moreland Street. I’ve got a hospital near my place, the station near my place… so I’m “ really, really happy. …I’ve got a son with me so I’m not scared (R8.2). Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
37 Place, worry and risk
Regional and urban The context of where someone lives matters for their perceptions of safety and crime. While much scholarship examines the urban context, less has focused on regional areas. The perceptions of safety survey examined 10 regional and 70 urban suburbs.
Figure 14 Greater Melbourne sites by crime rank
These areas were drawn from a stratified, random sample where the stratifying variable was high, medium and low crime areas (see Figure 14 and Table 1). For more information on these classifications and sampling strategy see Appendix A.
Regional Suburb
Tawonga South
St Albans Park
California Gully
Heathcote (Vic.) Medium crime Yarrawonga (Vic.) Oxley (Vic.)
Longford (Vic.)
Anglesea
Glenrowan
High crime Orbost
Table 1 Regional study sites and crime classification2 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
2 There were no low sample crime sites for the regional study locations 38 People who lived in urban areas were more likely to worry about burglary, robbery and harassment. There was no significant relationship with cybercrime and regional/urban residence.
Figure 15 Place and worry Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
39 Community crime classification
Figure 16 Crime classification and worry Figure 16 shows that for most crime types, worry was highest in high crime areas (27 per cent for burglary, 13 per cent for robbery and 9 per cent for harassment). For all crime types, worry was lowest in low crime areas (11 per cent for burglary, 7 per cent for robbery and 3 per cent for harassment and 16 per cent for cybercrime). This demonstrates the link between recorded levels of offending and worry and importantly, that crime prevention targeted to high crime areas needs to be pro-social in nature if it is to reduce worry and crime. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
40 Spatial distribution of perceived likelihood and crime classifications Where a person lives influences their perceptions of risk of victimisation. Seven per cent of the variation in respondents perceptions of crime likelihood is attributable to where they live. The following examines the spatial distribution of perceptions of likelihood. To do this, a latent variable was created for perceptions of risk to capture the neighbourhood ‘risk’ score. The score is the coefficient for each suburb, determining the variation of risk attributable to the suburb. Suburbs were deemed high if they were one standard deviation above the mean of the neighbourhood risk variable and low if they were more than one standard deviation below the mean. Suburbs falling in between were considered average. Suburbs with the highest and lowest levels risk perception were then mapped (see Figure 17 and Table 2 Greater Melbourne: Risk perception and crime rank).
Low perception risk High risk perception
High crime No suburbs in this category Brunswick
Viewbank Balaclava (Vic.)
Lower Plenty Mordialloc
Glenrowan Delahey
Sorrento (Vic.) Williamstown (Vic.)
South Kingsville St Kilda West Medium crime Wandin North Hampton (Vic.) Croydon (Vic.) Mernda
Sunbury Hughesdale
Tawonga South Aspendale Gardens
Anglesea Surrey Hills
Ferny Creek Pascoe Vale
Low crime North Warrandyte No suburbs in this category
Table 2 Risk perception and crime rank Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
41 Figure 17 Greater Melbourne: Risk perception and crime rank Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
42 Worry about crime and neighbourhood perception Individual perceptions of neighbourhood have been found to correlate with individual worry about crime (Brunton-Smith and Sturgis, 2011). To examine collective efficacy the survey included 6 items that comprised one scale: ◆◆ This is a close-knit neighbourhood; ◆◆ People in this neighbourhood can be trusted; ◆◆ People around here are willing to help their neighbours; ◆◆ If I sensed trouble while in this area, I could raise attention from people who live here for help; ◆◆ The people who live here can be relied upon to call the police if someone is acting suspiciously; and ◆◆ If any of the children or young people around here are causing trouble, local people will tell them off. We created an index of perceived collective efficacy by fitting a confirmatory factor analysis model (using full informal maximum likelihood to deal with item non-response in the MPlus software package) and saving the factor scores for subsequent analysis. The index ranged from around -3 to around +1, with a mean of 0. When comparing the mean of individual perceptions of collective efficacy for those who reported worry, and those who did not report worry, we found that people who were worried about crime, reported lower levels of collective efficacy than those who did not worry (see Figure 18).
Figure 18 Mean of perceived collective efficacy and worry by crime type To examine disorder the survey asked respondents to comment on a range of community problems in their area. These problems included: ◆◆ Graffiti; ◆◆ Drug use or dealing; ◆◆ Noisy and/or nuisance neighbours; ◆◆ Vandalism, for instance of telephone booths or bus shelters; ◆◆ People being harassed because of their skin colour, ethnic origin or religion; ◆◆ Teenagers hanging around in the street and drinking; ◆◆ Noisy/rowdy/inconsiderate behaviour in the street; and ◆◆ People speeding in cars. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
43 We created an index of perceived disorder by fitting a confirmatory factor analysis model (using full informal maximum likelihood to deal with item non-response in the MPlus software package) and saving the factor scores for subsequent analysis. The index ranged from around -0.2 to around +1, with a mean of 0. The relationship between perceived disorder and worry about crime was tested by comparing the mean of the disorder scale by those who reported worry and those who did not report worry. We found that those who reported worry perceived more disorder and community problems than those who did not worry (see Figure 19).
Figure 19 Mean of perceived disorder and worry by crime type Signs of disorder and disorderly or anti-social people were also discussed in the qualitative responses. As these Aboriginal respondents note of their local area:
Well I’ve only been in this area for two and a half months and a little bit on and off over the years. But yeah, I “ would agree with [names removed] And I think the substance abuse as far as drugs, especially ice from - there’s - I see someone everyday walking past our building and they’re - they’re not drunk, they’re on ice (R3.14).
They’re high, yeah (R2.14).
And they’re dangerous. So to me yeah, it’s not a safe area at all, at all (R3.14).
The same group, but different respondents continue:
Just going to the shops. You know years ago as you were growing up you knew your neighbourhood you knew the “ bloke over there and the woman over there and the family here. But now it’s everyone’s inside their own doors and everyone’s barricaded in their own safety (R6.14).
That’s true (R3.14).
So bloody scared (R5.14).
Neighbourhood social disorder was also discussed by this Vietnamese woman:
Yeah. So, it makes - like it attracts even more people coming to like inject drugs and that cause the chaos in the “ area. And previously there wasn’t that many African migrants but now there are a lot and those people initially they was very nice, calm. But now they like be friend with those drug takers so they come more like fierce, arrogant and become like taking the drugs as well. A lot of restaurant in Richmond have already been closed because of this. [I’m] extremely worried about the situation in Richmond and even Collingwood town. Because like people are walking - like moving in-between these two areas and that posed significant risk to their safety (R3.8). Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
44 While disorder might not always lead to high levels of fear, it is a background worry for a proportion of the qualitative respondents:
So it’s a constant worry on me ‘cause I used to be... I’ve got a pub up this end of the street and there used to be “ the Railway Hotel up there, which was pretty rough. That’s closed down but you’d get this constant traffic between the two pubs and, you know, they’d be noisy and swearing and all that sort of stuff, and you’d come out and there’d be beer bottles the next morning or, you know, they would litter the place, or it was the rubbish bin night, the bins would be on top of everyone’s cars or they had jumped from car to car to car to car, so the cars were damaged. That’s Brunswick (R1.13).
These accounts of disorder clearly demonstrate its links to worry about crime. Importantly, these expressions of disorder and lower perceptions of collective efficacy are clearly risk factors for worry about crime just as positive perceptions of neighbourhood order and collective efficacy are likely to be protective against high levels of worry. Reducing the perception of disorder can reduce people’s worries however this is only likely to be sustainable if the prevention of disorder is coupled with programs that help increase protective factors such as community cohesion and a sense of collective efficacy. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
45 Perceptions of police legitimacy Police legitimacy is the right of police to enforce the law (as established in law), and this legitimacy is dependent on the public’s perceptions of police (Mazerolle et al., 2014, p. 2). That is to say, police legitimacy is dependent upon public trust and confidence in the police (Tyler, 2005; Jackson & Bradford, 2009), as well as the requirement for police to reflect community values (Jackson et al., 2012; 2013). Police legitimacy was measured using five items: ◆◆ I feel a moral obligation to obey the police in my neighbourhood; ◆◆ I feel a moral duty to support the decisions of police officers in my neighbourhood, even if I disagree with them; ◆◆ The police in my neighbourhood have the same sense of right and wrong as me; ◆◆ The police in my neighbourhood stand up for values that are important for people like me; and ◆◆ I support the way the police in my neighbourhood usually act.
Figure 20 Perceptions of police legitimacy
Quantitative findings The survey data revealed that the majority of respondents perceived the police as legitimate, reporting trust and confidence in the police. Our results found no difference in perceptions of police between men and women. The survey did find people over 60 years of age are more likely to view the police as trustworthy, fair and legitimate when compared to young people. This is not surprising in the context of other studies that find young people are less likely to perceive the police as legitimate (see Sargeant & Bond 2013; Madon et al. 2017; Murphy 2015). Interestingly there was no difference in perceptions of police between English speakers and those who speak a language other than English at home, nor between those born in Australia and those born overseas. Culturally and Linguistically diverse communities have been found to have unfavourable perceptions of police in past studies when the police are not perceived as representing members of the community (Bowling & Phillips 2007). However, this was not the case in our findings from the survey data. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
46 Feeling worried/at risk and perceptions of police legitimacy
Figure 21 Mean of perceived police legitimacy and worry by crime type The relationship between police legitimacy and worry about crime was tested by comparing the mean of the police legitimacy scale by those who reported worry and those who did not report worry. We found that those who reported worry perceived the police as less trustworthy, fair and legitimate than those who did not worry, across all crime types.
Victimisation and perceptions of police legitimacy People who were victims of burglary, robbery or cybercrime or who knew people who were victims of burglary, robbery and cybercrime were lower in their perceptions of police trustworthiness, fairness and legitimacy than people who were not victims/did not know people who were victims of these crimes.
Worry/risk and police arrival time and police effectiveness Overall, the majority of people reported police would arrive at the scene of a violent crime very quickly or quite quickly (see Figure 22). People who were worried about all crime types believed police would be slower to arrive at a crime than those who were not worried about crime.
Figure 22 Police arrival time Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
47 Overall, people assessed that the police were extremely/very effective (see Figure 23). People who were worried about all crime types perceived police as less effective in catching offenders than those who were not worried.
Figure 23 Police effectiveness
Qualitative findings By contrast, whereas the survey data was resoundingly positive, the focus group data revealed frequent negative perceptions of police legitimacy and related issues. This variation might be explained by the different demographic make-up of the focus groups, which deliberately sought to incorporate more marginalised and often harder to reach sections of the community. In particular, respondents from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, ethnic and religious minority communities and the Gay community perceived that the under-representation in the police service of their community and the lack of cultural understanding negatively impacted their feelings of trust, assessments of vulnerability and choices to involve police. Respondents frequently chose not to involve the police because of prior negative experiences. The following responses are drawn from a number of focus groups that included members of the Somali (focus group 4), Afghani (focus group 7) and Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander (focus group 14) and Gay communities (focus group 13). Focus Group 4 (An ethnically and religiously diverse group): “ As a community always we say now if something happens, well if you call the police, they won’t come. No, they won’t come. Do something else (R2.4).
Focus Group 7 (An ethnically and religiously diverse group):
I think it’s because there’s no point of saying - because many I’ve spoken to the police and they don’t care. Like “ they know what - like it’s not just me there are like 20, 25 neighbours in apartment has made a complaint. If the police they really want to catch then they can have come someone supervise around that area for a while. Because every - like every weekend something happens. Every weekend. So if they really want, they can find but they don’t care they are just - they are not taking it serious. Yeah. (R1.7).
Focus Group 14 (Exclusively comprised of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders):
And within our community and with the Aboriginal community it’s very hard for any of us to make that call and call “ the police and go, hey this is what you’ve got to do or this is the person you’ve got to check out. Because we here are afraid of the police ourselves (R1.14). Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
48 Focus Group 13 (Exclusively comprised from the Gay community):
And so we’ve worked with the police and the police have been very good in Footscray - depends on the area, “ I think – and we’ve gone out with the police to engage with people who may be frequenting beats or we put up notices warning people. So it’s a hit and miss thing I think. But my own experiences, and the police would enter pubs. You know, you don’t need 12 police to walk through a gay pub just checking out who’s there. That’s intimidation. Sorry, they wouldn’t do it in the Melbourne Club (R1.13).
Repeatedly, respondents identified cultural factors as being the source of their negative perceptions. These comments were often linked to the lack of representation, of their specific community, in the make-up of the police force. The following examples are drawn from members of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (focus group 14), Somali (focus group 5) and Gay (focus groups 12) communities. Focus Group 14 (Exclusively comprised of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders):
There needs to be more Aboriginal liaison officers within the police. Like there has to be. Every station. Not just “ within that attachment…We need somebody in every single station and we also need an elder (R1.14).
And they need to have real power to be able to do stuff too. You know not just as a tokenistically put in there… Because that police culture is really, really entrenched, that racism in the police culture. I don’t know it just seems to - generational thing. It’s like, my grandfather was a copper so I’m a copper so I’m allowed to be a bloody racist… we need more Koori cops down there (R6.14).
Focus Group 5 (An ethnically and religiously diverse group):
And the other thing is that police is not very easily accessible. You have to go to police station, wait there. They “ prioritise you that you know, what’s the situation. If you are good enough - you know, there’s a good situation, a drama - a big drama, they’re there. Otherwise like small things, being snatched your scarf or you know your purse has been snatched or something, they’re like, oh you are safe, we’ll look into that. So we need I think more multicultural safety guards where you know people within the Department should understand the requirements of what we need as a community. Not only one community, as like wider communities. Because we are not only people from Afghanistan, people from most of the countries (R1.5).
Focus Group 12 (Exclusively comprised of members from the Gay and Transgender communities):
And with the HIV thing, recent reports of police wanting to get tested after they’ve had direct interactions with “ positive people has also made me wary of any interactions with police. You know, in the past I would have been you know, I’m gay, I’m positive and thing - but incidents occur that you know, just wear all that down that you know - yeah, I don’t even want to speak to you sort of thing (R3.12). Interviewer: I mean that’s interesting that you’re describing that in terms of your relationship with the police it’s gone backwards over a period (Researcher).
Oh yeah, very much, very much. I mean when they visited me at like the original incident, I had to roll up my sleeves and they - to show that I wasn’t injecting ice, because you know ice is a big gay thing. So yeah...(R3.12). Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
49 Sources of information about crime Respondents were asked their three most significant sources of information about crime. The most frequent source of information about crime was from news programs on television, followed by information from other people (i.e. word of mouth), local newspapers, and social media. This also highlights the lack of direct impact police sources appear to have on the respondents’ knowledge about crime (Figure 24).
Figure 24 Sources of information about crime Over half of those who reported news programs on television as a source of information about crime watched commercial televisions stations (see Figure 25).
Figure 25 News from television Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
50 The qualitative data clearly linked the affective fear of many respondents with the consumption of commercial television news and current affairs – although this link was less clear in the quantitative data, partly through the challenges of assessing the complex media environment. R3.4 was a young man of Somali background, and he expressed his beliefs about the selective reporting of the Murdoch press and Channel 7. R1.4 was an older female of Ugandan background, and she agreed with R3.4 adding that Channel 9 is also selective in their coverage:
Oh yeah, so obviously the Murdochs’ […] Channel 7 always. […] Channel 7’s always the headline especially with “ African youth […] (R3.4).
I think Channel 9 too and 7. When you hear it on the ABC it is more – it is not as sensationalised as the other channels and also sometimes it’s selective reporting. Anyway, me I’m racist here [LAUGHS] because if it is an African or it appears to be an African or Asian, that one can be repeated about 20 or 30 times but if it is Caucasian, sometimes you are even lucky to see it once or to hear about it. So I think there’s an element of focussing more on certain groups (R1.4).
Moreover, this woman notes, if you are looking for trouble, go no further than The Herald Sun newspaper:
Reading local newspaper. The Sun sometimes. The local paper, the Leader. In there I read many troubles, many “ ... round there, Brunswick, Coburg, you know, this area, but with me, no problem, I have no problem with anyone (R5.2).
For some in the LGBTIQ community, the representations of gay people in popular culture was also a problem. Portrayals of victims they suggested engendered both a ‘community story’ that is violence, and thus perpetuated a sense of being ‘under siege’.
And the other thing is I just think that the media and stuff as well is like really tricky that you don’t get - like “ every gay program that’s on TV will have a story line about somebody getting bashed or a trans person getting murdered or a - you know and it’s like, our community story is violence as well as being victims of violence. So, we understand ourselves as being a community that is in siege sometimes (R1.13).
One hallmark of media constructions of crime was that it encouraged respondents to conceive the threat of crime as ‘elsewhere’. That is that there was a sense that crime happened in other suburbs or other cities because ‘that’s what I saw on television’. This respondent for example refers to a knife attack in Sydney:
In Sydney it’s always trouble because I saw the television, Channel 24, and today was one big [crime] too and “ somebody killing somewhere. They different probably, …it’s a big city... (R5.2).
Social media and racism were raised by a number of respondents from diverse backgrounds. Here an Aboriginal woman from discusses the ‘white supremacists’ who comment on the local community Facebook site:
The racism on our local Facebook page. And the obvious white supremacy that don’t recognise that they’re racist “ (R1.10). Interviewer: So what’s the local Facebook page?
The … Community page (R1.10). Interviewer: Right, okay. Yeah. And can you expand on that a little bit?
There’s a clique of whitish people who shit me up the wall. Make fun - think it’s fun to make fun of other people and then other people who try to be serious like, why would you do - but of course they make fun of people and don’t recognise that their racism is offensive. And sexism as well. They think it’s funny (R1.10). Interviewer: Does that spill over into real - I know Facebook is real but does that spill over into sort of the physical world as well?
I don’t know. Because I’ve seen one of these people in real life and they’re just a lonely looking human to me. And I’ve seen him in a - yeah in one of the - it’s like a family restaurant like trough kind of eating. What do you call it, buffet. And he’s just there on his phone and his children are on their phone too and I was just like, gee a bigshot on Facebook. Not quite so big here are you (R1.10).
There are clear implications here for how community-based social media needs to be mediated Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons and inclusive. The capacity for it to be used to vilify minority groups operates against its role as a community builder. 51 Behavioural responses to victimisation risk Earlier in this report we talked about the ABC of fear of crime: affective (feelings about risk), behavioural (actions in response to risk) and cognitive (representation of risk).
This survey sought to explore behavioural ‘B’ responses to worry. If respondents reported worry they were then asked about a number of positive and negative behavioural responses they may have taken in relation to this worry. In this way the data was able to identify when worry “was a factor” in the respondents’ responses. People did report precautionary target hardening actions in response to a worry about burglary (see Figure 26). People reported installing sensor lights (58 per cent), installing bars, security doors, gates or fences (57 per cent), installing alarms or CCTV (54 per cent) and trimming their hedges (24 per cent). If respondents engaged in target hardening they tended to report feeling safer as a result. People who took no action in response to their worry about burglary did so as they felt it would not improve the situation (11 per cent) or they were not confident enough to take action (3 per cent). Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
52 Figure 26 Precautionary action in relation to burglary Of those who took precautionary target hardening actions in response to their worry about burglary, 30 per cent said that they felt a lot safer as a result, 62 per cent said they felt a little safer, and the remaining 8 per cent said they felt no safer. Of these, 64 per cent said that their quality of life was not affected by the precautions, 32 per cent said their quality of life was reduced a little, and the remaining 4 per cent said it was reduced a lot. This demonstrates that target hardening can reduce worry, however, pro-social responses to worry achieve this by building community, something that target hardening does not do. In addition to worry about burglary, respondents were asked about their worry of different crime types in public spaces. Avoidance behaviours are a common response to fear of crime. The majority of people who worried about robbery did not report avoidance behaviour during the day. People reported higher levels of avoidance behaviour at night (see Figure 27). The majority of people who reported avoidance behaviours, also reported that they felt safer as a result of these behaviours.
Figure 27 Avoidance behaviours in response to worry about robbery Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
53 Of those who engaged in avoidance behaviours in response to their worry about being robbed in their local area, 26 per cent said that they felt a lot safer as a result, 66 per cent said they felt a little safer, and the remaining 8 per cent said they felt no safer. Fifty-four per cent said that their quality of life was not affected by the precautions, 38 per cent said their quality of life was reduced a little, and the remaining 8 per cent said it was reduced a lot. Similar avoidance behaviours were reported for those who reported worry about harassment. As per Figure 28, the most common avoidance behaviour reported was avoiding certain areas at night. Avoidance behaviour at night was more common than during the day.
Figure 28 Avoidance behaviours in response to worry about harassment This older male from a northern European background discussed the risks he avoids in his local area. Using ATMs in particular pose a risk as he tells it:
ATMs, that’s what I was thinking of. I will not use an ATM because I have often seen people taking money out of “ an ATM on a crowded footpath and calmly walking away. You can do that in Bacchus Marsh probably without too much worry but I have, since living in Wyndham Vale, I have the view that why take unnecessary risks for people who respect themselves at such a low level that they have no respect for anybody else, including policemen, ambulance men, security people, SES volunteers etc? So I won’t do that. (R3.3).
For many, risk is minimised through vigilance as well as engagement, as this older man from Bacchus Marsh puts it:
Going out at night, I don’t often go out at night but when I do, if I have to go out, I’ll go out. I live towards the “ freeway, along Gisborne Road. I’ll come into the town here if I’m going out for an evening. I think if you do go out, you’ve just got to be sensible and careful. You just keep an eye open. It’s like anywhere and the wife I think is on the Bacchus Marsh website, Facebook site I think that’s what it is, Bacchus Marsh residents (R1.3).
A sense of vulnerability perhaps underpins this woman’s reluctance to walk around her local area. Here there is a mix of some expressive worry, ‘feeling a bit edgy’ in ‘isolated places’ but also a risk assessment of the dangers of having a fall.
I don’t walk around Hopetoun Park on my own at night. It doesn’t have any footpaths so I’m more likely to fall “ than I think get bashed on. I don’t – even during the day, I don’t like walking in isolated places. I just feel a bit edgy without being over dramatic at all (R4.3).
Like target hardening, avoidance behaviours can reduce worry. However, while our respondents often suggested that this did not affect their quality of life, such assessments should be viewed with some circumspection because any avoidance activities necessarily have some impact. Nonetheless, there are examples where avoidance can also be pro-social, for example when groups are formed for Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons walking or jogging in a park.
54 Pro-social actions in response to worry Respondents were also asked about a number of positive responses they may have to worry about crime. Previous literature on worry about crime focuses on avoidance behaviours and target hardening responses. However, emerging literature suggests pro-social responses may assist in improving perceptions of safety. Pro-social responses to worry could be actions including: ◆◆ Discussed or problem solved with neighbours; ◆◆ Sought advice from the local council; ◆◆ Volunteered with a charity or a not-for-profit; ◆◆ Became involved with an online support group or campaign; ◆◆ Joined a local sporting or social group; ◆◆ Attended a local place of worship; ◆◆ Sought help or advice from police; and ◆◆ Joined or attended a neighbourhood watch meeting. The majority of those who reported worry did not take pro-social action in response to their worry. However, if a respondent reported a pro-social response, they also reported feeling safer (see Table 3, 4 and 5). In most cases the pro-social response was motivated by worry as is indicated by the label “was a factor” i.e. worry was a factor in taking a pro-social response.
Pro-social Response Yes Was a factor No
Discussed with neighbours (n=617) 22% 20% 58%
Sought advice from local council (n=613) 3% 2% 94%
Volunteer with charity (n=611) 4% 0% 95%
Become involved in online support group or 3% 1% 95% campaign (n=611)
Join local sporting or social group, or attended a 5% 2% 93% local place of worship (n=611)
Sought advice from police (n=612) 14% 11% 75%
Joined/attended neighbourhood watch (n=602) 4% 5% 91%
Table 3 Pro-social response in relation to burglary Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
55 Pro-social Response Yes Was a factor No
Discussed with neighbours (n=312) 17% 20% 63%
Sought advice from local council (n=309) 3% 2% 95%
Volunteer with charity (n=309) 2% 0% 97%
Become involved in online support group 2% 1% 97% or campaign (n=309)
Join local sporting or social group (n=309) 3% 1% 95%
Attended a local place of worship (n=308) 3% 1% 96%
Sought advice from police (n=308) 6% 5% 90%
Joined/attended neighbourhood watch 2% 5% 93% (n=303)
Table 4 Pro-social response in relation to robbery
Pro-social Response Yes Was a factor No
Discussed with neighbours (n=153) 16% 14% 70%
Sought advice from local council (n=147) 3% 4% 93%
Volunteer with charity (n=147) 2% 2% 96%
Become involved in online support group 1% 1% 98% or campaign (n=147)
Join local sporting or social group (n=146) 3% 1% 95%
Attended a local place of worship (n=145) 2% 1% 97%
Sought advice from police (n=146) 8% 9% 83%
Joined/attended neighbourhood watch 1% 3% 95% (n=144)
Table 5 Pro-social response in relation to harassment
Pro-social responses were aggregated into a summary variable for each crime type. Of the respondents who reported worry, if they reported no action, if they reported any pro-social action and took action which did not result in them feeling safer, and if they took any pro-social action and this resulted in them feeling safer (see Figure 29). Of the people who were worried about burglary, 56 per cent took no pro-social actions, 6 per cent took action and did not feel safer, 38 per cent took action and felt safer as a result. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
56 Figure 29 Pro-social actions and worry by crime type The following discussion will focus on the two most frequent pro-social responses; discussed or problem solved with neighbour, and, sought advice or help from the police.
Figure 30 Discussed or problem solved with neighbour as a response to worry People reported discussing the worry or problem solving with a neighbour in response to their worry was the most common pro-social response. ◆◆ Of the people who were worried about burglary, 42 per cent discussed the problem with their neighbours. Of those who discussed the problem with their neighbours, over 80 per cent reported they felt safer as a result. ◆◆ Of the people who were worried about being robbed, 36 per cent discussed the problem with their neighbours. Of those who discussed the problem with their neighbours, 80 per cent reported they felt safer as a result. ◆◆ Of the people who were worried about being harassed, 30 per cent discussed the problem with their neighbours. Of those who discussed the problem with their neighbours, over 90 per cent reported they felt safer as a result. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
57 Figure 31 Sought help or advice from police as a response to worry The second most common pro-social response to worry was seeking help or advice from the police. ◆◆ Of the people who were worried about burglary, 25 per cent sought help or advice from the police. Of those who sought help or advice from the police, 72 per cent reported they felt safer as a result. ◆◆ Of the people who were worried about being robbed, 11 per cent sought help or advice from police. Of those who sought help or advice from police, 80 per cent reported they felt safer as a result. ◆◆ Of the people who were worried about harassment, 17 per cent sought advice from the police. Of those who sought advice from the police, 82 per cent reported they felt safer as a result. This indicates that people responding pro-socially to worry about crime can be very effective – despite only small percentages of the sample responding in this way. This suggests great potential in terms of programs and interventions encouraging pro-social activities that might protect against worry. It also suggests that giving people more tools to respond pro-socially should be a priority for crime prevention. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
58 Encouraging greater connections between the justice system and the community Creating partnerships and opportunities for police and legal services to engage with the community are important, given those who worry about crime were likely to be less positive towards the justice system. The qualitative data indicated that community engagement by the police and legal services were effective in reducing worry, particularly in marginalised communities. Members of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community spoke very positively about “Yarning Up the Law”, a community engagement program in its third year of operation in West Heidelberg:
You come in for anything. But one of the things that’s been working very, very well for us is that this particular “ lawyer comes out to the community. He comes out and has lunch. (R1.14)
Yeah, he’s wonderful.(R5.14)
He’s available for us or any community member just to go up, have a yarn with and then he’ll book them in to go and that is actually working. It is actually coming down and trickling that information that we need. Because there’s some stuff that we don’t know about within legal - that legal stuff we don’t know. So to have somebody engaging with the community, you know he comes down, talks, yarns, cooks. It’s comfortable, it’s culturally safe for us to go and sit down and say, look this is what’s happening, can you help me. And it’s working, it’s working,... we need more programs like that. (R1.14)
A group of senior Vietnamese respondents talked also talked about having invited speakers from police and legal aid visit and speak to them. All were positive about the experience. As one respondent noted:
Yes, to help reduce worry a lot about crime, normally when people watch seminar the first thing you have to “ understand why crime happens and second thing, if you know that, you will have something to prevent. (R6.1)
Such community engagement programs require funding streams which are clear, accessible, flexible and encompass multiple stakeholders. We also believe it is important that new projects build in sustainability as this will likely result in longer term results when compared to one off funding opportunities. This was apparent in the comments of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community regarding “Yarning Up the Law”. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Results And Comparisons
59 CONCLUSIONS
This project sought to examine perceptions of crime and fear across a range of Victorian communities, drawing on the accounts of 2,862 survey respondents from 70 residential communities in Victoria, in addition to 15 focus groups with 69 individuals. There were four goals of the project. These were to: ◆◆ Systematically identify and assess socio-spatial variations in perceptions of crime and worry about types of crime in targeted Victorian localities; ◆◆ Clarify and map the breadth of behavioural responses to worry about crime (from the anti-social to the pro-social) for different crime types and identify how these behaviour responses vary across different community contexts; ◆◆ Identify ways to harness and promote pro-social responses to worrying about crime that enhance social cohesion and community resilience; and ◆◆ Produce evaluative tools that better support local and state government in assessing both perceptions of crime in communities, and whether their interventions and policies are reducing worry about crime. The findings of this study indicate that overall intense and frequent worry about crime is relatively rare. However, this varied across crime types with 27 per cent of respondents reported being worried about cybercrime at least once in the past year in comparison to 22 per cent of respondents reporting worry about burglary, 11 per cent reporting worry about robbery and 5 per cent reporting worry about harassment. Those who reported being most worried about crime were likely to be between 45-59 years of age. Women were slightly more worried about robbery and harassment when compared to men. This is in line with a large body of literature which finds that crimes that likely result in physical or sexual harm create greater concern for women. Another important finding in this research was that non-English speaking respondents that spoke a language other than English reported greater worry about all crime types except cybercrime. Not surprisingly, those with victimisation experience in the past 12 months expressed greater worry across all crime categories. The majority of respondents (60 per cent) did not believe they would be a victim of crime in the next twelve months. As would be expected, those who were worried about crime were more likely to believe they would be a victim of crime when compared to those who did not worry. Moreover, people who felt at risk viewed the chances of victimisation to be relatively high and the impact to be serious. Yet for the most part, respondents of this study believed they had some degree of control over their risk for victimisation. This suggests there are opportunities to enhance people’s feelings of safety and sense of control. The results from this research reveal that worry about crime is a function of the level of crime in a given neighbourhood, however, perceptions of risk do not align neatly with crime rates. Respondents of both the survey and focus groups reported less worry when they perceived others in their community would engage in crime prevention efforts. Friends and neighbours were mentioned repeatedly in the focus groups as important sources of information about crime and safety from crime. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Conclusions
60 Of particular interest to this study is the role of crime prevention behaviours that may simultaneously serve to prevent crime, enhance feelings of safety and build cohesion in Victorian communities. We found that a range of target hardening and avoidance behaviours could reduce worry about crime. These ranged from installing alarms and security doors to avoiding public transport and not going out alone. In contrast to target hardening activities, fewer respondents engaged in pro-social behaviours that would a) reduce individual worry and b) enhance collective efficacy and community ties. For example, of the people who were worried about burglary, 42 per cent discussed the problem with their neighbours. Of those worried about being robbed, 36 per cent discussed the problem with their neighbours. Though these numbers are lower than actions such as installing CCTV cameras, nearly 80 per cent of survey respondents reported they felt safer as a result of these behaviours. This suggests important avenues for crime prevention policy and practice. Drawing on the findings from this study, we offer the following strategic considerations. We note that these are structured to respond to the affective, behavioural and cognitive elements associated with worry about crime and one’s assessments of the personal risk of criminal harm.
Targeted crime and safety messaging In line with criminological research, the results of this study found that feelings of experiential worry differed across demographic groups. In contrast to the media messaging in Victoria in 2017/2018, few people reported being worried about crime. However, several subgroups within the quantitative and qualitative samples reported worry about crime. The qualitative data suggests that these concerns were linked to specific contexts or experiences. For the women in the focus groups, the risk of physical and sexual assault was a key component in their narratives. This was also evident in the quantitative data where women reported greater worry about robbery and harassment when compared to men. In contrast, focus groups revealed that those who spoke a language other than English were concerned with harassment that derived from discrimination and prejudice - in some cases this was debilitating. Those who are middle-aged were also more worried when compared to younger and older people. As individuals in this age group are likely to be in their prime parenting years, worry about crime might be related to harms that could befall children. Understanding the different drivers of worry about crime for subgroups of the population is necessary for developing messaging strategies to allay such concerns. Given the strong relationship between one’s own sense of vulnerability and worry, strategies are needed to encourage a greater sense of control over the specific experiences that create worry for different groups of people. A potential avenue for targeted messaging is the Victoria Police Eyewatch site. These sites were developed with the express purpose of providing information and empowering local residents to engage in community safety initiatives. Developing online community safety campaigns that target community safety to align with different contexts, settings or experiences could reduce worry and enhance an individual’s sense of control. Importantly, messaging strategies must acknowledge that non-English language speakers may also hold concerns about their safety. Considering the ethnic composition of particular neighbourhoods and the cultural nuances and needs of the area when constructing messages will be critical in order to reach those who might not otherwise feel included in more generically focussed campaigns. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Conclusions
61 To ensure full coverage of local issues, we recommend the use of other local media outlets. Casting the communication net wide will reach greater numbers of local residents, which in turn will assist in the accurate portrayal of reported crime in the community and provide practical responses to problems of crime and delinquency that garner community resources. Pushing back against exaggerated crime discourses in major media and political rhetoric and promoting concrete suggestions for improving community safety may lead to crime prevention strategies that strengthen communities. Local media campaigns will require a nuanced understanding of the particular community issues that may be at the heart of residents’ worry and concern. As we discuss later in this section, stronger local partnerships between government and non-government actors will be necessary to provide the knowledge of local problems needed for successful messaging. Inconsistent, conflicting or more generic crime prevention messaging may not lead to the types of actions and connections that would a) improve safety and b) enhance cohesion.
Development of crime prevention initiatives aimed at community building The qualitative and quantitative studies that inform this project find a strong link between community building and perceptions of safety. This relationship is likely to be reciprocal. For example, individuals who trust their neighbours and perceive their neighbours as willing and able to help address local problems are significantly less likely to worry about crime or see themselves at significant risk of crime. Moreover, people who engage in some kind of crime prevention action, when feeling worried about crime, feel safer as a result. These findings provide evidence that community safety strategies which aim to increase community cohesion can have significant and meaningful benefits for not only the individuals who experience worry and concern about crime, but could positively influence the broader community as well. Similarly, strategies that promote a collective response to community safety issues may create opportunities for the development of new community connections. Bringing people together, who might otherwise be disconnected, may enhance feelings of well-being and reduce worry about crime for those individuals particularly, and further strengthen the community’s capacity to respond to future community problems. To reduce worry about crime, connect residents and increase community safety, community safety strategies must go beyond target hardening or surveillance initiatives. The installation of CCTV cameras may indeed make people feel safer, but these strategies do little to increase the collective capacity of the community to prevent crime. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Conclusions
62 Encouraging greater connections between the justice system and the community Creating partnerships and opportunities for police and legal services to engage with the community are important, given those who worry about crime were likely to be less positive towards the justice system. The qualitative data indicated that community engagement by the police and legal services were effective in reducing worry, particularly in marginalised communities. Community engagement programs, like the Community Safety Network (CSN) project or “Yarning Up the Law”, require funding streams which are clear, accessible, flexible and encompass multiple stakeholders. We also believe it is important that new projects build in sustainability for community safety initiatives that are geared towards community building. This will likely result in longer term results when compared to one off funding opportunities.
Establishing and maintaining partnerships with local government and local organisations A consistent problem in community safety/crime prevention approaches is that many programs may be underway simultaneously, without any coordination or understanding of how one program may impact another. In research by Mazerolle and colleagues (2010), there was no relationship between the number of community crime prevention programs and the reduction of crime at a later time point. As discussed earlier in this section, this may be due to the lack of a coordinated effort to impart a consistent community crime prevention message. Developing strong partnerships in high crime areas or those neighbourhoods close to these crime hotspots may result in greater collaboration and indeed impact of community safety initiatives that are directed towards reducing worry and increasing collaboration among community residents. Such partnerships should not just rely on charismatic leaders but should embed practices at an organisational level that are sustainable and able to respond to changing community landscapes. Finally, the authors believe the survey tools and methods used here provide guidance as to how best to undertake perceptions of crime research at local and state level. Much existing local government research into worry about crime asks residents to report only broad expressions of worry, rather than how intensely and how frequently people actually experience feelings of worry. This project does the later. As a result, it records what people report as actual experiences of worry. From a policy perspective this provides more accurate guidance as to how interventions might be targeted. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Conclusions
63 REFERENCES
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2016, ‘Victoria (STE), ‘Language’, viewed 15 July 2019
Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | References Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Brunton-Smith, I., & Gray, E. (2018). ‘In the Eye of the (Motivated) Beholder: A Motivated Cognition Perspective on Disorder Perceptions’. In Lee, M. & Mythen, G. (eds.), International Handbook on Fear of Crime (pp. 253-271). Oxon: Routledge, Oxon. 64 Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Stanko, B., & Hohl, K. (2013). Just authority? Trust in the police in England and Wales. Milton Park, UK: Routledge. Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P., & Tyler, T. R. (2012). ‘Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions’. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 1051–1071. doi:10.1093/bjc/azs032. Killias, M. (1990). ‘Vulnerability: Towards a better understanding of a key variable in the genesis of fear of crime’. Violence and Victims, 5(2), 97−108. Lee, M. (2007) Inventing Fear of Crime: Criminology and the Politics of Anxiety. Columpton: Willan. Lee, M., Jackson, J., & Ellis, J. R. (Forthcoming). ‘Functional and Dysfunctional Fear of Crime in Inner Sydney: Findings from the Quantitative Component of a Mixed-Methods Study’. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology. Lee, M. et al. (2020). ‘Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime: Victorian Report’. Sydney: The University of Sydney. Madon, N. S. et al. (2017). ‘Promoting police legitimacy among disengaged minority groups: Does procedural justice matter more?’. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 17(5), 624–642. Mazerolle, L., Wickes, R. & McBroom, J. (2010). ‘Community Variations in Violence: The Role of Social Ties and Collective Efficacy in Comparative Context’. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(1), 3–30. doi: 10.1177/0022427809348898 Mazerolle, L. et al. (2014). Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Policing. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Miethe, T. (1995). ‘Fear and withdrawal from urban life’. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 539, 14–27. Murphy, K. (2015). ‘Does procedural justice matter to youth? Comparing adults’ and youths’ willingness to collaborate with police’. Policing and Society, 25(1), pp.53-76. DOI: 10.1080/10439463.2013.802786 Sakip, S. R. M., Joharia, N., & Sallehb, M. N. M. (2012). ‘The Relationship between Crime Prevention through Environmental Design and Fear of Crime’. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 68, 628-636. Sampson, R. J. (2009). ‘Disparity and diversity in the contemporary city: Social disorder revisited’. British Journal of Sociology, 601, 1−31. Sampson, R. J. (2011). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago, Ill: The University of Chicago Press. Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). ‘Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces: A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods’. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 603- 51. doi:10.1086/210356. Sampson, R. J. & Raudenbush, S. W. (2004) ‘Seeing disorder: Neighborhood stigma and the social construction of “broken windows”’. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67, 319−342. Sargeant, E., & Bond, C. E. W. (2015). ‘Keeping it in the family: Parental influences on young people’s attitudes to police’. Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 917–932. Simon, J. (2018) ‘After the culture of fear: Fear of crime in the United States half a century on’. In The Routledge International Handbook on Fear of Crime (pp. 82-92). Oxon: Routledge. Stafford, M., Chandola, T., & Marmot, M. (2007). ‘Association between fear of crime and mental health and physical functioning’. American Journal of Public Health, 97(11), 2076–2081. Tallis, F., Davey, G. C. L., & Bond, A. (1994). ‘The Worry Domains Questionnaire’. In G. C. L. Davey & F. Tallis (Eds.), Worrying: Perspectives on theory, assessment and treatment (pp. 285–297). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Tyler, T. R. (2005). ‘Policing in black and white: Ethnic group differences in trust and confidence in the police’. Police quarterly, 8(3), 322-342. Vanderveen, G. (2006) Interpreting fear, crime, risk and unsafety. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Warr, M. (2000) ‘Fear of crime in the United States: Avenues for research and policy’. Criminal Justice, 4, 451−489. Wickes, R., Hipp, J., Zahnow, R., & Mazerolle, L. (2013) ‘Seeing’ minorities and perceptions of disorder: Explicating the mediating and moderating mechanisms of social cohesion’. Criminology, 51(3), 519–560. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | References Wickes, R., Zahnow, R., Corcoran, J. & Hipp, J. R. (2019). ‘Neighbourhood social conduits and resident social cohesion’. Urban Studies, 56(1), 226-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018780617
65 APPENDICES
Appendix A: State suburb sampling framework A-1: Urban suburbs with a population of less than 500 (n=107) A-2: Urban suburbs omitted with residential land use of less than 50% (n=95) A-3: Regional suburbs with a population of less than 500 (n=1,976) A-4: Regional suburbs omitted with residential land use of less than 50% (n=143) A-5: Regional suburbs with only one SA1 within the SSC at below 80 per cent correspondence (n=4) Appendix B: Survey instrument Appendix C: Demographic data for focus groups Appendix D: Breakdown of responses by category APPENDIX A: STATE SUBURB SAMPLING FRAMEWORK
The following outlines the steps that were taken in the sampling process for this project. The unit of analysis for this project was the state suburb (SSC) as determined by Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS). All SSCs were divided into regional and urban sites. Regional sites were those determined inner regional by the ASGS. Urban sites were those SSCs within the Greater Melbourne boundary. SSCs were excluded if they had a population of less than 500 people3. Excluded suburbs are noted in Appendix A-1 and Appendix A-3. In both urban and regional areas, SSCs were excluded if they had greater than 50 per cent non- residential land use4. Please see Appendix A-2 for excluded urban SSCs and Appendix A-4 for all excluded regional SSCs. To calculate sampling quotas, data was collected at the smallest available level (SA1) from ABS Census to calculate the correlation coefficient. SA1s were excluded if they did not have 80 per cent or above correspondence with a SSC boundary. SSCs were excluded if they only had one SA1 within the boundary and that SA1 had less than 80 per cent correspondence (Appendix A-5). Crime incident rates were calculated for the year of 2016. Levels of crime were grouped, the crime rate groupings are as follows: 1 = Low crime (1 or more standard deviation below the mean for that year); 2 = Average crime (within 1 standard deviation of the mean for that year); 3 = High crime (1 or more standard deviations above the mean). A random stratified sample approach was used, employed levels of crime as the Strata. A random sample function was then used to randomly select proportionately from these groupings.
Quotas scheme To determine how many respondents per SSC were needed, we followed the sampling process used in the Australian Community Capacity Study and Raudenbush and Sampson’s theory of Ecometrics.5 Each SSC was assigned a quintile score by population size (score of 1-5 from low population size to large population size); each SSC was then assigned a quartile score by coefficient of variation6 (score of 1-4 for the added coefficient of variation from low variation to high variation). These scores were added together. For SSCs with a score of 2 or 3 (i.e. low population and low coefficient of variation), the survey quota was 20 respondents. For SSCs with a score of 4, 5 or 6, the survey quota was 35 respondents. For
SSCs with a score of 7, 8 or 9 the survey quota was 45 respondents.
3 In regional areas, given the very small sample sizes of inner regional areas, only the top two population quintiles were retained for the regional sampling frame. 4 The percentage non-residential land use included commercial; industrial; educational; hospital; and other land uses. Parklands; transport and water were not included in the calculation of the land use. 5 Raudenbush, S. W., & Sampson, R. J. (1999). Ecometrics: toward a science of assessing ecological settings, with application to the systematic social observation of neighborhoods. Sociological methodology, 29(1), 1-41. 6 The coefficient of variation for country of birth and SEIFA were added, assigned a quartile score. Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix A: State Suburb Sampling Framework
67 A-1: Urban suburbs with a population of less than 500 (n=107)
20070 Arthurs Creek 20071 Arthurs Seat 20120 Balnarring Beach 20170 Bayles 20186 Beenak 20206 Bend Of Islands 20211 Benloch 20236 Big Pats Creek 20271 Bolinda 20279 Boneo 20318 Braeside 20410 Bunyip North 20433 Bylands 20440 Calder Park 20441 Caldermeade 20472 Cape Schanck 20484 Cardinia 20509 Castella 20514 Catani 20538 Cherokee 20552 Chintin 20556 Christmas Hills 20564 Clarkefield 20569 Clematis (Vic.) 20573 Clonbinane 20584 Cobaw 20597 Cocoroc 20601 Coimadai 20629 Cora Lynn 20698 Dalmore 20704 Dandenong South 20711 Darraweit Guim 20744 Dewhurst 20756 Dixons Creek 20767 Donnybrook (Vic.) 20880 Essendon Fields 20892 Exford 20910 Fernshaw 20960 Garfield North 20988 Gilderoy 20998 Gladysdale 21052 Goldie 21113 Guys Hill 21150 Heath Hill 21167 Hesket 21206 Humevale 21229 Iona 21276 Kalkallo 21310 Keilor North 21325 Kerrie 21351 Kinglake Central 21373 Koo Wee Rup North 21451 Lang Lang East 21468 Laverton North 21524 Long Forest 21568 Main Ridge 21578 Mambourin 21630 Melbourne Airport 21651 Merricks 21652 Merricks Beach 21653 Merricks North 21657 Merrimu 21716 Monegeetta 21719 Monomeith 21735 Moorabbin Airport 21767 Mount Burnett 21802 Mount 21860 Nangana Toolebewong 21882 Narre Warren East 21979 Nutfield 21987 Oaklands Junction 21995 Officer South 22016 Pakenham South 22046 Pentland Hills 22052 Pheasant Creek 22075 Point Leo (Vic.) 22103 Powelltown 22120 Quandong 22173 Rochford 22210 Rythdale 22267 Sherbrooke 22284 Smiths Gully 22293 Somerton (Vic.) 22302 South Wharf 22314 Springfield 22344 Steels Creek 22364 Strathewen 22445 Tarrawarra (Macedon Ranges - Vic.) 22501 Three Bridges 22518 Tonimbuk 22523 Toolangi 22543 Tottenham (Vic.) 22563 Tremont 22571 Tuerong 22585 Tynong 22586 Tynong North 22604 Upper Plenty 22616 Vervale 22659 Wandin East 22704 Waterford Park 22710 Watsons Creek 22770 Wildwood 22828 Woodstock (Vic.) 22883 Yan Yean (Vic.) 22891 Yannathan 22915 Yering 22926 Yuroke Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix A: State Suburb Sampling Framework
68 A-2: Urban suburbs omitted with residential land use of less than 50% (n=95)
20034 Altona (Vic.) 20036 Altona North 20130 Bangholme 20168 Baxter 20174 Beaconsfield (Vic.) 20175 Beaconsfield 20232 Beveridge 20305 Botanic Ridge Upper 20344 Broadmeadows 20350 Brooklyn (Vic.) 20379 Bulla (Vic.) 20409 Bunyip (Vic.) 20416 Burnley 20453 Campbellfield 20505 Carrum Downs 20566 Clayton 20567 Clayton South 20578 Clyde (Vic.) 20620 Coolaroo 20650 Cottles Bridge 20665 Cremorne (Vic.) 20737 Derrimut 20746 Diamond Creek 20748 Diggers Rest 20752 Dingley Village 20760 Docklands 20837 Eden Park 20872 Epping (Vic.) 20914 Fingal (Vic.) 20923 Flemington 20924 Flinders (Vic.) 20959 Garfield (Vic.) 20972 Gembrook 21107 Gruyere 21117 Hallam 21131 Harkaway 21136 Hastings (Vic.) 21152 Heathcote 21154 Heatherton 21186 HMAS Cerberus Junction 21187 Hoddles Creek 21214 Hurstbridge 21268 Junction Village 21286 Kangaroo Ground 21306 Keilor 21311 Keilor Park 21331 Keysborough 21350 Kinglake 21352 Kinglake West 21372 Koo Wee Rup 21551 Macclesfield (Vic.) 21629 Melbourne 21631 Melton (Vic.) 21632 Melton South 21638 Menzies Creek 21664 Mickleham 21734 Moorabbin 21742 Moorooduc 21789 Mount Macedon 21867 Nar Nar Goon North 21954 North Melbourne 21962 Notting Hill 21994 Officer 22017 Pakenham Upper 22020 Panton Hill 22026 Parkville (Vic.) 22095 Port Melbourne 22129 Ravenhall 22136 Red Hill (Vic.) 22137 Red Hill South 22148 Research 22174 Rockbank 22231 Scoresby 22280 Skye (Vic.) 22294 Somerville (Vic.) 22299 South Melbourne 22304 Southbank 22308 Spotswood 22321 St Andrews (Vic.) 22384 Sunshine North 22492 Thomastown 22524 Toolern Vale 22533 Tooradin 22569 Truganina 22573 Tullamarine 22581 Tyabb 22689 Warrandyte 22690 Warrandyte South 22714 Wattle Glen 22743 West Melbourne 22761 Whittlesea 22779 Williamstown North 22810 Wonga Park 22901 Yarrambat 22910 Yellingbo Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix A: State Suburb Sampling Framework
69 A-3: Regional suburbs with a population of less than 500 (n=1,976)
20001 Abbeyard 20004 Aberfeldy 20005 Acheron 20006 Ada 20007 Adams Estate 20008 Addington 20009 Adelaide Lead 20010 Agnes 20011 Aire Valley 20013 Airly 20015 Albacutya 20018 Alberton (Vic.) 20019 Alberton West 20023 Allambee 20024 Allambee Reserve 20025 Allambee South 20026 Allans Flat 20028 Allendale 20029 Allestree 20030 Alma (Vic.) 20031 Almonds 20032 Almurta 20037 Alvie 20038 Amherst 20039 Amor 20040 Amphitheatre 20042 Ancona 20043 Anderson 20044 Anglers Rest 20046 Annuello 20047 Antwerp 20049 Appin (Vic.) 20050 Appin South 20051 Apsley (Vic.) 20053 Arawata 20054 Arbuckle 20055 Arcadia (Vic.) 20056 Arcadia South 20057 Archdale 20058 Archdale Junction 20059 Archerton 20060 Archies Creek 20062 Ardmona 20063 Areegra 20064 Argyle (Vic.) 20066 Armstrong 20068 Arnold (Vic.) 20069 Arnold West 20072 Ascot (Ballarat - 20075 Ashbourne (Vic.) 20080 Athlone 20082 Aubrey Vic.) 20083 Auchmore 20084 Avalon 20087 Avon Plains 20089 Avonmore 20091 Axe Creek 20093 Ayrford 20095 Baddaginnie 20097 Bael Bael 20098 Bagshot 20099 Bagshot North 20100 Bahgallah 20101 Bailieston 20103 Bakery Hill 20105 Bald Hills (Vic.) 20106 Balintore 20108 Ballangeich 20109 Ballapur 20113 Ballendella 20114 Balliang 20115 Balliang East 20116 Ballyrogan 20117 Balmattum 20118 Balmoral (Vic.) 20121 Balook 20125 Bamawm 20126 Bambra 20127 Bamganie 20129 Bangerang Extension 20131 Bannerton 20133 Banyan 20134 Banyena 20136 Barfold 20137 Baringhup 20138 Baringhup West 20139 Barjarg 20140 Barkers Creek 20141 Barkly (Vic.) 20142 Barkstead 20143 Barmah 20144 Barnadown 20146 Barnawartha North 20147 Baromi 20148 Barongarook 20149 Barongarook West 20150 Barrabool 20151 Barrakee 20152 Barramunga 20153 Barraport 20154 Barraport West 20155 Barrys Reef 20156 Barunah Park 20157 Barunah Plains 20158 Barwidgee 20159 Barwite 20160 Barwon Downs 20162 Basalt (Vic.) 20163 Bass 20165 Bathumi 20166 Baw Baw (Vic.) 20167 Baw Baw Village 20169 Bayindeen 20171 Baynton (Vic.) 20176 Bealiba 20177 Bearii 20178 Bears Lagoon 20179 Beauchamp 20182 Beazleys Bridge 20183 Beeac 20184 Beech Forest 20192 Bellarine 20193 Bellbird Creek 20195 Bellbridge 20196 Bellellen 20198 Bellfield (Northern 20199 Bells Beach 20201 Bemm River Grampians - Vic.) 20202 Bena 20204 Benambra 20205 Benayeo 20208 Bendoc 20209 Bengworden 20210 Benjeroop 20212 Bennison 20215 Benwerrin 20216 Beremboke 20217 Berrimal 20218 Berringa 20219 Berringama 20220 Berriwillock 20221 Berrybank 20222 Berrys Creek 20224 Bessiebelle 20225 Bet Bet 20226 Bete Bolong 20227 Bete Bolong North 20228 Bethanga 20229 Betley 20230 Beulah (Vic.) 20231 Beverford 20233 Big Desert 20234 Big Hill (Greater 20235 Big Hill (Surf 20237 Biggara 20238 Billabong Bendigo - Vic.) Coast - Vic.) 20239 Bimbourie 20240 Bindi 20241 Binginwarri 20242 Bingo Munjie Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix A: State Suburb Sampling Framework
70 20244 Birchip West 20249 Black Range (Vic.) 20254 Blackwarry 20255 Blackwood (Vic.) 20257 Blakeville 20258 Blampied 20260 Blowhard 20261 Bo Peep 20262 Bobinawarrah 20263 Bochara 20264 Bogong 20265 Boho 20266 Boho South 20267 Boigbeat 20268 Boinka 20269 Boisdale 20270 Bolangum 20272 Bolton 20274 Bolwarrah 20275 Bona Vista 20276 Bonang 20280 Bonn 20282 Bonshaw (Vic.) 20283 Bookaar 20284 Boola 20285 Boolarong 20287 Boolarra South 20288 Boole Poole 20289 Boolite 20290 20291 Boonah (Vic.) 20292 Boorcan Boomahnoomoonah 20293 Boorhaman 20294 Boorhaman East 20295 Boorhaman North 20296 Boorolite 20297 Boorool 20299 Boosey 20300 Boralma 20301 Bornes Hill 20303 Borung 20304 Bostocks Creek 20306 Boundary Bend 20307 Bowenvale 20308 Boweya 20309 Boweya North 20310 Bowmans Forest 20311 Bowser 20315 Boxwood 20316 Bradford 20317 Bradvale 20319 Brandy Creek (Vic.) 20320 Branxholme 20321 Bravington 20323 Breakaway Creek 20325 Breamlea 20326 Brenanah 20327 Brewster 20330 Bridge Creek 20331 Bridgewater (Vic.) 20332 Bridgewater North 20333 Bridgewater On 20337 Brim 20338 Brimboal Loddon 20339 Brimin 20340 Brimpaen 20341 Bringalbert 20342 Brit Brit 20345 Broadwater (Vic.) 20346 Brodribb River 20347 Broken Creek 20348 Bromley 20351 Brookville 20352 Broomfield 20353 Broughton (Vic.) 20355 Browns Plains (Vic.) 20356 Bruarong 20357 Brucknell 20358 Brumby 20363 Buangor 20364 Buchan 20365 Buchan South 20366 Buckland (Vic.) 20367 Buckley 20368 Buckley Swamp 20369 Buckrabanyule 20370 Budgee Budgee 20371 Budgeree (Vic.) 20372 Budgerum East 20373 Buffalo 20374 Buffalo River 20375 Bulart 20376 Buldah 20377 Bulga (Vic.) 20378 Bulgana 20380 Bullaharre 20381 Bullarook 20382 Bullarto 20383 Bullarto South 20386 Bullioh 20387 Bullumwaal 20389 Buln Buln East 20390 Bumberrah 20391 Bunbartha 20392 Bundalaguah 20393 Bundalong 20394 Bundalong South 20395 Bundara 20396 Bunding 20398 Bung Bong 20399 Bungador 20400 Bungal 20401 Bungalally 20402 Bungaree (Vic.) 20403 Bungeet 20404 Bungeet West 20405 Bungil (Vic.) 20406 Bunguluke 20408 Bunkers Hill 20411 Buragwonduc 20412 Burkes Bridge 20413 Burkes Flat 20414 Burnbank 20415 Burnewang 20419 Burramboot 20420 Burramine 20421 Burramine South 20422 Burrowye 20423 Burrumbeet 20427 Bushy Park (Vic.) 20428 Butchers Ridge 20429 Buxton (Vic.) 20430 Byaduk 20431 Byaduk North 20432 Byawatha 20434 Byrneside 20435 Cabarita (Vic.) 20436 Cabbage Tree 20437 Cabbage Tree 20438 Cadello Creek 20443 Calivil 20444 Callawadda 20445 Callignee 20446 Callignee North 20447 Callignee South 20448 Calrossie 20449 Calulu 20450 Cambarville 20452 Cambrian Hill 20454 Campbells Bridge 20456 Campbells Forest 20457 Campbelltown (Vic.) 20460 Canary Island 20461 Caniambo 20462 Cann River 20463 Cannie 20465 Cannum 20467 Cape Bridgewater 20468 Cape Clear 20469 Cape Conran Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix A: State Suburb Sampling Framework
71 20470 Cape Otway 20474 Capels Crossing 20475 Carag Carag 20476 Caralulup 20477 Caramut 20478 Carapooee 20479 Carapooee West 20480 Carapook 20481 Carboor 20486 Cargerie 20487 Carina (Vic.) 20488 Caringal 20490 Carlisle River 20491 Carlsruhe 20494 Carlyle 20496 Carngham 20498 Carpendeit 20499 Carrajung 20500 Carrajung Lower 20501 Carrajung South 20502 Carranballac 20503 Carron 20506 Carwarp 20507 Cashmore 20508 Cassilis (Vic.) 20511 Castle Creek (Vic.) 20512 Castle Donnington 20515 Cathcart (Vic.) 20516 Cathkin 20517 Catumnal 20522 Caveat 20523 Cavendish 20524 Ceres 20526 Chandlers Creek 20527 Chapel Flat 20528 Chapple Vale 20529 Charam 20530 Charlemont 20531 Charleroi 20533 Chatsworth (Vic.) 20537 Chepstowe 20539 Cherrypool 20540 Cheshunt 20541 Cheshunt South 20542 Chesney Vale 20543 Chetwynd 20545 Chewton 20546 Childers (Vic.) Bushlands 20547 Chillingollah 20549 Chiltern Valley 20550 Chinangin 20551 Chinkapook 20554 Chirrip 20555 Chocolyn 20559 Churchill Island 20560 Chute 20561 Clarendon (Vic.) 20562 Claretown 20565 Clarkes Hill 20568 Clear Lake 20570 Clifton Creek 20574 Clover Flat 20575 Cloverlea 20576 Club Terrace 20580 Clydebank 20581 Clydesdale (Vic.) 20582 Coalville 20583 Cobains 20585 Cobbannah 20586 Cobberas 20589 Cobram East 20590 Cobrico 20591 Cobungra 20594 Cocamba 20595 Cochranes Creek 20598 Codrington (Vic.) 20599 Coghills Creek 20602 Cokum 20604 Colac Colac 20605 Colac East 20606 Colac West 20607 Colbinabbin 20608 Colbrook 20611 Colignan 20613 Combienbar 20614 Concongella 20615 Condah 20618 Connewirricoo 20619 Coojar 20621 Cooma (Vic.) 20622 Coomboona 20623 Coomoora 20624 Coongulla 20625 Coonooer Bridge 20626 Coonooer West 20627 Cooriemungle 20628 Cope Cope 20630 Corack 20631 Corack East 20632 Coragulac 20633 Coral Bank 20634 Corindhap 20637 Corndale (Vic.) 20638 Cornella 20639 Cornishtown 20641 Corop 20642 Cororooke 20643 Corringle 20645 Corunnun 20646 Cosgrove (Vic.) 20647 Cosgrove South 20648 Costerfield 20649 Cotswold 20651 Cowa 20652 Cowangie 20654 Cowleys Creek 20655 Cowwarr 20656 Craigie (Vic.) 20663 Creek Junction 20664 Creightons Creek 20666 Cressy (Vic.) 20668 Creswick North 20670 Crookayan 20671 Crooked River 20672 Cross Roads (Vic.) 20673 Crossley 20674 Crossover 20675 Crowlands 20676 Croxton East 20681 Crymelon 20682 Cudgee 20683 Cudgewa 20684 Culgoa 20685 Culla 20686 Cullen 20687 Cullulleraine 20688 Cundare 20689 Cundare North 20690 Curdies River 20691 Curdievale 20693 Curyo 20694 Dadswells Bridge 20695 Daisy Hill (Vic.) 20696 Dales Creek 20699 Daltons Bridge 20700 Dalyenong 20705 Dandongadale 20706 Dargo 20708 Darlimurla 20709 Darlington (Vic.) 20712 Darriman 20713 Dartmoor (Vic.) 20714 Dartmouth 20715 Dawson (Vic.) 20717 Dean 20718 Deans Marsh 20719 Deddick Valley 20720 Dederang 20721 Deep Lead 20726 Delatite 20727 Delburn 20728 Delegate River 20729 Denicull Creek 20730 Denison 20732 Denver 20733 Deptford 20734 Derby (Vic.) 20736 Dergholm 20738 Derrinal 20739 Derrinallum 20740 Devenish 20741 Devils River 20743 Devon North 20745 Dhurringile 20747 Digby 20749 Diggora 20751 Dingee 20753 Dingwall 20754 Dinner Plain 20755 Dixie (Vic.) Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix A: State Suburb Sampling Framework
72 20757 Dobie 20758 Docker 20759 Dockers Plains 20761 Doctors Flat 20762 Dollar 20769 Dooboobetic 20770 Dooen 20771 Dookie 20772 Dookie College 20774 Dorodong 20775 Double Bridges 20776 Douglas (Vic.) 20778 Dreeite 20779 Dreeite South 20780 Driffield 20781 Drik Drik 20783 Dropmore 20785 Drouin East 20786 Drouin South 20787 Drouin West 20788 Drumanure 20789 Drumborg 20791 Drummartin 20792 Drummond 20793 Drummond North 20794 Drung 20795 Dry Diggings 20797 Duchembegarra 20798 Dumbalk 20799 Dumbalk North 20800 Dumosa 20801 Dunach 20802 Dundonnell 20804 Dunluce 20805 Dunneworthy 20806 Dunnstown 20808 Dunrobin (Vic.) 20809 Durdidwarrah 20810 Durham Lead 20811 Durham Ox 20812 Dutson 20813 Dutson Downs 20814 Dutton Way 20815 Duverney 20818 Eaglehawk North 20820 Earlston 20825 East Sale 20826 East Wangaratta 20828 Eastern View 20829 Eastville 20831 Ebden 20834 Echuca West 20835 Ecklin South 20836 Eddington 20839 Edgecombe 20840 Edi 20841 Edi Upper 20843 Eganstown 20845 Elaine 20846 Eldorado 20847 Elevated Plains 20848 Elingamite 20849 Elingamite North 20850 Elizabeth Island 20851 Ellaswood 20852 Ellerslie (Vic.) 20854 Ellinbank 20855 Elmhurst 20863 Emu 20864 Emu Creek (Vic.) 20867 Englefield 20868 Enochs Point 20869 Ensay 20870 Ensay North 20874 Ercildoune 20875 Erica 20876 Errinundra 20877 Eskdale (Vic.) 20878 Esmond 20884 Eurack 20887 Eurobin 20888 Evansford 20889 Eversley 20890 Everton 20891 Everton Upper 20894 Fairbank 20896 Fairhaven 20897 Fairley 20898 Fairy Dell 20899 Fairy Dell (East 20900 Falls Creek (Vic.) 20901 Faraday (Campaspe - Vic.) Gippsland - Vic.) 20902 Fawcett 20904 Fentons Creek 20905 Ferguson (Vic.) 20906 Fern Hill 20907 Fernbank 20908 Ferndale (Vic.) 20909 Fernihurst 20913 Fiery Flat 20916 Fish Point 20917 Fiskville 20920 Flaggy Creek 20921 Flagstaff 20922 Flamingo Beach 20927 Flynn (Vic.) 20928 Flynns Creek 20930 Forbes (Vic.) 20932 Forge Creek 20933 Forrest (Vic.) 20935 Foster North 20936 Fosterville 20937 Foxhow 20938 Framlingham 20939 Framlingham East 20940 Franklinford 20944 Freeburgh 20945 French Island 20946 Frenchmans 20947 Freshwater Creek 20948 Fryerstown 20950 Fumina 20951 Fumina South 20952 Fyans Creek 20953 Fyansford 20954 Gaffneys Creek 20955 Gainsborough 20956 Gannawarra 20957 Gapsted 20961 Garibaldi 20962 Garvoc 20963 Gateway Island 20964 Gatum 20965 Gazette 20968 Gelantipy 20969 Gellibrand 20970 Gellibrand Lower 20971 Gelliondale 20973 Genoa 20974 Gentle Annie 20975 Georges Creek 20976 Gerahmin 20977 Gerang Gerung 20978 Gerangamete (Vic.) 20979 Germania 20980 Germantown (Vic.) 20981 Gerrigerrup 20982 Gherang 20983 Gheringhap 20984 Ghin Ghin 20985 Giffard 20986 Giffard West 20987 Gil Gil 20989 Gillieston 20990 Gillum 20991 Gipsy Point 20993 Girgarre East 20996 Gladfield (Vic.) 20999 Glen Alvie 21000 Glen Creek 21001 Glen Forbes 21004 Glen Park 21005 Glen Valley 21007 Glen Wills 21008 Glenaire 21009 Glenaladale 21010 Glenalbyn 21011 Glenaroua 21012 Glenbrae 21013 Glenburn 21014 Glendaruel 21015 Glendonald 21016 Glenfalloch 21017 Glenfyne 21019 Glengarry North 21020 Glengarry West Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix A: State Suburb Sampling Framework
73 21021 Glengower 21022 Glenhope 21023 Glenhope East 21024 Glenisla 21025 Glenlee (Vic.) 21026 Glenlofty 21027 Glenlogie 21028 Glenloth 21029 Glenloth East 21030 Glenluce 21031 Glenlyon (Vic.) 21032 Glenmaggie 21033 Glenmore (Vic.) 21034 Glenorchy (Vic.) 21035 Glenormiston 21036 Glenormiston North South 21037 Glenpatrick 21039 Glenrowan West 21041 Glenthompson 21042 Glomar Beach 21043 Gnarwarre 21044 Gnotuk 21045 Gobarup 21046 Gobur 21047 Golden Beach (Vic.) 21048 Golden Gully 21050 Golden Point 21053 Goldsborough (Mount Alexander - Vic.) (Vic.) 21054 Gong Gong 21055 Gonn Crossing 21056 Goomalibee 21057 Goon Nure 21058 Goongerah 21059 Gooram 21060 Gooramadda 21061 Goorambat 21063 Gooroc 21064 Gorae 21065 Gorae West 21067 Gormandale 21068 Goroke 21069 Goschen 21070 Goughs Bay 21071 Goulburn Weir 21073 Gowanford 21074 Gowangardie 21075 Gowar East 21076 Gower 21078 Grampians 21079 Grand Ridge 21080 Granite Rock 21082 Granya 21083 Grassdale (Vic.) 21084 Grassmere 21085 Grays Bridge 21086 Graytown 21087 Gre Gre 21088 Gre Gre North 21089 Gre Gre South 21090 Great Western 21091 Gredgwin 21092 Green Gully (Vic.) 21094 Greenhill (Vic.) 21095 Greens Creek (Vic.) 21098 Greenwald 21099 Grenville 21100 Greta (Vic.) 21101 Greta South 21102 Greta West 21103 Grey River 21104 Gringegalgona 21105 Gritjurk 21108 Guildford (Vic.) 21110 Gundowring 21111 Gunyah 21112 Guys Forest 21114 Gymbowen 21118 Hallora 21119 Halls Gap 21120 Hallston 21126 Hansonville 21127 Happy Valley 21128 Happy Valley 21130 Harcourt North (Golden Plains - Vic.) (Swan Hill - Vic.) 21132 Harmers Haven 21133 Harrietville 21134 Harrow 21135 Harston 21137 Hattah 21138 Havelock 21140 Havilah (Vic.) 21141 Hawkesdale 21142 Hawkhurst 21145 Hazel Park 21146 Hazelwood 21148 Hazelwood South 21153 Heathcote South 21155 Heathmere 21157 Hedley 21161 Hensley Park 21162 Henty (Vic.) 21164 Hepburn Springs 21166 Hernes Oak 21168 Hesse 21169 Hexham (Vic.) 21171 Heytesbury Lower 21173 Hiamdale 21174 Hiawatha 21175 High Camp 21177 Highlands 21179 Hilgay 21180 Hill End (Vic.) 21181 Hillcrest (Vic.) 21182 Hilldene 21183 Hillside (East 21185 Hinnomunjie Gippsland - Vic.) 21188 Hollands Landing 21189 Homebush (Vic.) 21190 Homerton 21191 Homewood 21195 Hordern Vale 21196 Horfield 21198 Hotham Heights 21199 Hotspur 21200 Howes Creek 21201 Howitt Plains 21202 Howqua 21203 Howqua Hills 21204 Howqua Inlet 21207 Hunter 21208 Hunterston 21211 Huntly North 21212 Huon 21213 Huon Creek 21215 Icy Creek 21216 Iguana Creek 21217 Illabarook 21218 Illawarra 21219 Illowa 21221 Indigo Valley 21223 Ingliston 21230 Iraak 21231 Irishtown (Vic.) 21233 Irrewarra 21234 Irrewillipe 21235 Irrewillipe East 21240 Jack River 21242 Jacob Creek 21243 Jam Jerrup 21244 Jamieson (Vic.) 21246 Jancourt 21247 Jancourt East 21248 Jarklin 21249 Jarrahmond 21250 Jarvis Creek 21251 Jeeralang 21253 Jeetho 21254 Jeffcott 21255 Jeffcott North 21256 Jeparit 21257 Jericho (Vic.) 21258 Jeruk 21259 Jil Jil 21260 Jindivick 21261 Joel Joel 21262 Joel South 21263 Johanna 21264 Johnsonville Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix A: State Suburb Sampling Framework
74 21265 Joyces Creek 21266 Jumbuk 21267 Jumbunna 21269 Jung 21270 Jungaburra 21272 Kaarimba 21273 Kadnook 21275 Kalimna West 21277 Kalkee 21280 Kalpienung 21281 Kamarooka 21282 Kamarooka North 21283 Kanagulk 21284 Kancoona 21288 Kanumbra 21289 Kanya 21290 Kanyapella 21291 Karabeal 21292 Kardella 21293 Kardella South 21294 Kariah 21295 Karnak 21296 Karramomus 21297 Karyrie 21298 Katamatite 21299 Katamatite East 21300 Katandra 21301 Katandra West 21303 Kawarren 21305 Keely 21312 Kellalac 21313 Kelvin View 21314 Kenley 21315 Kenmare (Vic.) 21316 Kennedys Creek 21317 Kennett River 21321 Kerang East 21322 Kergunyah 21323 Kergunyah South 21324 Kernot 21326 Kerrisdale 21327 Kevington 21330 Kewell 21333 Kialla East 21334 Kialla West 21335 Kiata 21336 Kiewa 21337 Kilcunda 21338 Killara (Glenelg - 21340 Killarney (Vic.) 21341 Killawarra (Vic.) 21342 Killingworth (Vic.) Vic.) 21343 Kilmany 21345 Kilmore East 21348 Kimbolton (Vic.) 21349 King Valley 21353 Kingower 21356 Kingston (Vic.) 21358 Kinnabulla 21359 Kinypanial 21360 Kirkstall 21361 Kirwans Bridge 21362 Kithbrook 21363 Knebsworth 21364 Knockwood 21365 Knowsley 21367 Koallah 21368 Koetong 21369 Kolora 21370 Kongwak 21371 Konongwootong 21374 Kooloonong 21375 Koonda 21377 Koonoomoo 21378 Koonwarra 21379 Kooreh 21380 Koorlong 21381 Koornalla 21382 Kooroocheang 21383 Koorool 21384 Koorooman 21386 Koriella 21387 Korobeit 21389 Korong Vale 21390 Koroop 21392 Korumburra South 21393 Korweinguboora 21394 Kotta 21395 Kotupna 21396 Koyuga 21397 Krowera 21398 Kulwin (Vic.) 21399 Kunat 21400 Kurraca 21401 Kurraca West 21402 Kurting 21405 Kyabram South 21407 Kyneton South 21408 Kyvalley 21409 Laanecoorie 21410 Laang 21411 Labertouche 21412 Laceby 21413 Ladys Pass 21414 Laen East 21415 Laen North 21416 Lah 21417 Laharum 21419 Lake Bolac 21420 Lake Bunga 21421 Lake Charm 21422 Lake Condah 21423 Lake Eildon 21424 Lake Eppalock 21425 Lake Fyans 21427 Lake Goldsmith 21428 Lake Lonsdale 21429 Lake Marmal 21430 Lake Meran 21431 Lake Mundi 21432 Lake Powell 21433 Lake Rowan 21434 Lake Tyers 21436 Lake Tyrrell 21437 Lake Wellington 21439 Lake Wongan 21441 Lal Lal 21442 Lalbert 21444 Lamplough 21445 Lancaster 21446 Lance Creek 21448 Landsborough (Vic.) 21449 Landsborough 21452 Langdons Hill 21453 Langi Kal Kal 21454 Langi Logan West 21455 Langkoop 21456 Langley 21457 Langsborough 21461 Lardner 21462 Larpent 21463 Lascelles 21465 Lauriston 21466 Lavers Hill 21469 Lawler 21470 Lawloit 21471 Lawrence (Vic.) 21472 Leaghur 21473 Learmonth (Vic.) 21474 Ledcourt 21475 Leichardt 21476 Leigh Creek (Vic.) 21478 Lemnos 21480 Leonards Hill 21482 Leongatha North 21485 Lerderderg 21486 Leslie Manor 21488 Lexton 21489 Licola 21490 Licola North 21491 Lillico (Vic.) 21492 Lillicur 21493 Lillimur 21494 Lilliput 21496 Lima 21497 Lima East 21498 Lima South 21499 Limestone (Vic.) 21500 Lindenow 21501 Lindenow South 21502 Lindsay 21503 Lindsay Point Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix A: State Suburb Sampling Framework
75 21504 Linga 21506 Liparoo 21507 Lismore (Vic.) 21508 Litchfield 21509 Little Desert 21510 Little Hampton 21512 Llanelly 21513 Llowalong 21516 Loch Valley 21518 Locksley (Vic.) 21521 Loddon Vale 21522 Logan 21523 Londrigan 21529 Longwarry North 21530 Longwood (Vic.) 21531 Longwood East 21533 Lorquon 21535 Lower Moira 21536 Lower Norton 21538 Loy Yang 21539 Lubeck 21542 Lucyvale 21543 Lurg 21546 Lyons (Vic.) 21547 Lyonville 21553 Macks Creek 21555 Macorna 21556 Macorna North 21557 Macs Cove 21558 Madalya 21560 Mafeking 21562 Maffra West Upper 21563 Magpie 21566 Mailors Flat 21567 Main Lead 21569 Maindample 21570 Maintongoon 21571 Major Plains 21572 Majorca 21579 Manangatang 21581 Mandurang South 21582 Mangalore (Vic.) 21584 Mannerim 21585 Mannibadar 21586 Manns Beach 21587 Manorina 21589 Maramingo Creek 21590 Marcus Hill 21591 Mardan 21592 Marengo (Vic.) 21594 Marionvale 21595 Markwood 21596 Marlbed 21598 Marnoo 21599 Marnoo East 21600 Marnoo West 21602 Maroona 21603 Marraweeney 21605 Marthavale 21606 Marungi 21609 Marysville 21610 Maryvale (Vic.) 21611 Massey 21612 Matlock 21613 Maude (Vic.) 21615 McIntyre 21616 McKenzie Creek 21617 McKenzie Hill 21619 McLoughlins 21620 McMahons Creek 21621 McMillans 21622 Mead Beach 21623 Meadow Creek 21625 Meatian 21627 Meering West 21628 Meerlieu 21634 Melville Forest 21635 Melwood 21636 Mena Park 21639 Mepunga 21640 Mepunga East 21641 Mepunga West 21643 Merbein South 21644 Merbein West 21646 Meringur 21647 Merino 21649 Merriang 21650 Merriang South 21655 Merrijig (East 21658 Merrinee 21659 Merton 21660 Metcalfe Gippsland - Vic.) 21661 Metcalfe East 21663 Mia Mia (Vic.) 21665 Middle Creek 21667 Middle Tarwin 21668 Miepoll 21669 Miga Lake 21673 Millbrook (Vic.) 21675 Milloo 21676 Milltown 21677 Milnes Bridge 21678 Mincha 21679 Mincha West 21681 Mingay 21682 Minhamite 21683 Minimay 21684 Mininera 21685 Minjah 21686 Minmindie 21688 Miowera 21689 Miralie 21690 Miram 21691 Mirboo 21693 Mirranatwa 21696 Mitchellstown 21697 Mitiamo 21698 Mitre 21699 Mitta Mitta 21700 Mittyack 21701 Mockinya 21702 Modella 21703 Modewarre 21706 Moggs Creek 21707 Moglonemby 21708 Mokepilly 21709 Molesworth (Vic.) 21710 Moliagul 21711 Molka 21712 Mollongghip 21713 Mologa 21714 Molyullah 21717 Mongans Bridge 21718 Monomak 21722 Montgomery 21726 Moolerr 21727 Moolort 21728 Moonambel 21729 Moondarra 21731 Moonlight Flat (Central Goldfields - Vic.) 21732 Moonlight Flat 21733 Moora (Vic.) 21736 Moorabool 21737 Mooralla (Mount Alexander - Vic.) 21738 Moorilim 21739 Moormbool West 21740 Moornapa 21741 Moorngag 21745 Mooroopna North 21746 Mooroopna North 21747 Moranding 21749 Morgiana West 21752 Moroka 21753 Morrisons 21754 Morrl Morrl 21756 Morton Plains 21758 Mossiface 21759 Mount Alfred 21761 Mount Beckworth 21762 Mount Best 21763 Mount Bolton 21764 Mount Bruno 21765 Mount Buffalo 21766 Mount Buller Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix A: State Suburb Sampling Framework
76 21768 Mount Bute 21769 Mount Camel 21770 Mount Cameron 21772 Mount Cole 21773 Mount Cole Creek 21776 Mount Doran 21777 Mount Dryden 21779 Mount Eccles 21782 Mount Emu 21784 Mount Franklin 21785 Mount Glasgow 21787 Mount Hooghly 21788 Mount Lonarch 21790 Mount Major 21792 Mount Mercer 21793 Mount Moriac 21794 Mount Napier 21796 Mount Prospect 21797 Mount Richmond 21798 Mount Rowan 21799 Mount Sabine 21800 Mount Tassie 21801 Mount Taylor 21803 Mount Wallace 21805 Mountain Bay 21806 Mountain View 21807 Moutajup 21808 Moyhu (Vic.) 21809 Moyreisk 21810 Moyston 21811 Muckatah 21812 Muckleford 21813 Muckleford South 21814 Mudgegonga 21816 Mumbannar 21817 Mundoona 21818 Munro 21819 Muntham 21821 Murchison East 21822 Murchison North 21823 Murgheboluc 21824 Murmungee 21825 Murnungin 21826 Murphys Creek (Vic.) 21827 Murra Warra 21828 Murrabit 21829 Murrabit West 21830 Murrawee 21832 Murraydale 21831 Murray-Sunset 21833 Murrayville 21834 Murrindal 21835 Murrindindi 21836 Murroon 21839 Musk 21840 Musk Vale 21841 Muskerry 21842 Myall (Buloke - 21843 Myall 21844 Myamyn Vic.) (Gannawarra - Vic.) 21845 Myers Flat 21846 Myola (Vic.) 21847 Myrniong 21848 Myrrhee 21849 Myrtle Creek (Vic.) 21850 Myrtlebank 21852 Mysia 21853 Mystic Park 21854 Mywee 21856 Nalangil 21857 Nalinga 21858 Nambrok 21859 Nandaly 21861 Nangeela 21862 Nangiloc 21863 Nanneella 21864 Nap Nap Marra 21868 Narbethong (Vic.) 21869 Nareeb 21870 Nareen 21871 Nareewillock 21872 Nariel Valley 21873 Naring 21874 Naringal 21875 Naringal East 21876 Naroghid 21877 Narracan 21878 Narraport 21879 Narrapumelap 21880 Narrawong 21885 Narrung (Vic.) 21888 Natte Yallock South 21889 Natya 21890 Navarre 21891 Navigators 21892 Nayook 21893 Neds Corner 21894 Neereman 21895 Neerim 21896 Neerim East 21897 Neerim Junction 21898 Neerim North 21900 Neilborough 21901 Nelse 21902 Nelson (Vic.) 21903 Nerrena 21904 Nerrin Nerrin 21906 Nerring 21907 Netherby (Vic.) 21908 Neuarpurr 21911 Newbridge (Vic.) 21912 Newbury 21914 Newfield 21916 Newhaven 21919 Newlyn 21920 Newlyn North 21921 Newmerella 21923 Newry 21925 Newtown (Golden 21931 Nilma Plains - Vic.) 21932 Nilma North 21933 Ninda 21934 Nine Mile (Vic.) 21935 Nintingbool 21936 Ninyeunook 21937 Nirranda 21938 Nirranda East 21939 Nirranda South 21942 Noojee 21943 Noorat 21944 Noorat East 21945 Noorinbee 21946 Noorinbee North 21947 Noradjuha 21949 Normanville (Vic.) 21950 Norong 21952 North Blackwood 21955 North Shore (Vic.) 21956 North Wangaratta 21960 Northwood (Vic.) 21961 Norval 21963 Nowa Nowa 21964 Nowhere Creek 21965 Nowie 21966 Nug Nug 21967 Nuggetty 21968 Nulla Vale 21969 Nullawarre 21970 Nullawarre North 21971 Nullawil 21974 Nungurner 21975 Nunniong 21976 Nurcoung 21977 Nurrabiel 21978 Nurran 21982 Nyarrin 21983 Nyerimilang 21985 Nyrraby 21991 Oakvale 21992 Ocean Grange 21996 Old Tallangatta 21998 Ombersley 21999 Omeo 22000 Omeo Valley Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix A: State Suburb Sampling Framework
77 22001 Ondit 22003 Orford (Vic.) 22005 Orrvale 22006 Osbornes Flat 22007 Outtrim 22009 Ovens 22011 Oxley Flats 22012 Ozenkadnook 22013 Paaratte 22014 Painswick 22018 Panitya (Vic.) 22019 Panmure 22021 Paradise (Vic.) 22022 Paradise Beach 22023 Paraparap 22027 Parwan 22028 Paschendale 22031 Pastoria 22032 Pastoria East 22033 Patchewollock 22034 Patho 22036 Patyah 22039 Pearsondale 22040 Peechelba 22041 Peechelba East 22042 Pelluebla 22043 Pennyroyal 22045 Pental Island 22047 Percydale 22048 Peronne 22049 Perry Bridge 22050 Peterborough (Vic.) 22051 Petticoat Creek 22053 Piangil 22054 Picola 22055 Picola West 22056 Piedmont 22057 Pier Milan 22058 Pigeon Ponds 22059 Piggoreet 22060 Pimpinio 22061 Pine Grove (Vic.) 22062 Pine Lodge (Vic.) 22063 Pine Mountain (Vic.) 22064 Pine View 22065 Pioneer Bay 22066 Pipers Creek 22067 Pira 22068 Piries 22069 Pirron Yallock 22070 Pitfield 22071 Pittong 22077 Point Wilson 22078 Polisbet 22079 Pomborneit 22080 Pomborneit East 22081 Pomborneit North 22082 Pomonal 22083 Pompapiel 22084 Poolaijelo 22085 Pootilla 22087 Poowong East 22088 Poowong North 22089 Porcupine Ridge 22091 Port Albert 22092 Port Campbell 22094 Port Franklin 22096 Port Welshpool 22102 Pound Creek 22104 Powers Creek 22105 Powlett Plains 22107 Prairie (Vic.) 22108 Pranjip 22111 Princetown 22113 Pura Pura 22114 Purdeet 22115 Purnim 22116 Purnim West 22119 Quambatook 22121 Quantong 22124 Raglan (Vic.) 22126 Ranceby 22127 Rathscar 22128 Rathscar West 22130 Ravenswood (Vic.) 22131 Ravenswood 22132 Rawson 22134 Raywood South 22138 Red Lion 22140 Redbank (Vic.) 22141 Redcastle 22142 Redesdale 22143 Reedy Creek (Vic.) 22144 Reedy Dam 22145 Reedy Flat 22146 Reedy Lake 22147 Reefton (Vic.) 22150 Reynard 22151 Rheola 22153 Rhymney 22154 Riachella 22155 Rich Avon 22156 Rich Avon East 22157 Rich Avon West 22159 Richmond Plains 22161 Riggs Creek 22165 Ripplebrook 22168 Riverside (Vic.) 22169 Riverslea 22170 Robertsons Beach 22175 Rocklands 22176 Rocklyn 22177 Rocky Point (Vic.) 22178 Rokeby (Vic.) 22179 Rokewood 22180 Rokewood Junction 22183 Rose River 22184 Rosebery (Vic.) 22185 Rosebrook (Vic.) 22189 Roses Gap 22190 Rosewhite 22191 Roslynmead 22193 Rossbridge 22194 Rostron 22195 Rowsley 22198 Rubicon 22199 Ruby 22200 Ruffy 22201 Running Creek 22202 Runnymede (Vic.) 22205 Russells Bridge 22207 Ryans (Vic.) 22208 Ryanston 22212 Sailors Falls 22214 Sailors Hill 22216 Salisbury West 22217 Samaria 22219 Sandford (Vic.) 22220 Sandhill Lake 22222 Sandon (Vic.) 22224 Sandy Creek (Vic.) 22225 Sandy Point (Vic.) 22226 Sargood 22229 Sawmill Settlement 22232 Scotchmans Lead 22233 Scotsburn 22234 Scotts Creek (Vic.) 22237 Seacombe 22240 Seaspray 22241 Seaton (Vic.) 22242 Seaview 22243 Sebastian 22248 Selwyn (Vic.) 22249 Separation Creek 22250 Serpentine (Vic.) 22251 Serviceton 22255 Shady Creek 22256 Shays Flat 22257 She Oaks 22258 Sheans Creek 22259 Sheep Hills 22260 Shelbourne 22261 Shelford 22262 Shelley (Vic.) Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix A: State Suburb Sampling Framework
78 22263 Shepherds Flat 22269 Sidonia 22271 Silverleaves 22273 Simpsons Creek 22274 Simson 22275 Skenes Creek 22276 Skenes Creek 22277 Skibo North 22278 Skinners Flat 22281 Slaty Creek 22282 Smeaton 22283 Smiths Beach 22285 Smokeytown 22286 Smoko 22289 Snake Island 22296 South Dudley 22301 South Purrumbete 22305 Southern Cross 22306 Spargo Creek 22307 Speed (Vic.) 22310 Spring Hill (Vic.) 22311 Springbank 22312 Springdallah 22313 Springfield (Buloke - Vic.) 22315 Springhurst 22316 Springmount 22324 St Arnaud East 22325 St Arnaud North 22326 St Clair (Vic.) 22327 St Germains 22329 St Helens (Vic.) 22330 St Helens Plains 22331 St James (Vic.) 22336 Staceys Bridge 22337 Staffordshire Reef 22338 Staghorn Flat 22340 Stanley (Vic.) 22341 Staughton Vale 22342 Stavely 22345 Steiglitz (Vic.) 22346 Stewarton (Vic.) 22347 Stirling (Vic.) 22348 Stockdale 22349 Stockyard Hill 22350 Stonehaven 22351 Stoneleigh (Vic.) 22352 Stony Creek 22353 Stony Creek (Central Goldfields - Vic.) (South Gippsland - Vic.) 22354 Stonyford 22355 Stradbroke 22356 Strangways 22357 Straten 22359 Strath Creek 22360 Strathallan 22361 Strathbogie 22363 Strathdownie 22366 Strathkellar 22367 Strathlea 22371 Streatham 22372 Strzelecki (Vic.) 22373 Stuart Mill 22374 Sugarloaf (Vic.) 22375 Sugarloaf Creek 22376 Suggan Buggan 22377 Sulky 22378 Summerlands 22380 Sunday Creek 22381 Sunderland Bay 22382 Sunset Strip (Vic.) 22388 Sutherland (Vic.) 22389 Sutherlands Creek 22390 Sutton (Vic.) 22391 Sutton Grange 22392 Swan Bay (Vic.) 22394 Swan Hill West 22396 Swan Marsh 22398 Swanpool 22399 Swanwater 22400 Swanwater West 22401 Swifts Creek 22403 Sylvaterre 22404 Tabberabbera 22405 Tabilk 22406 Tabor 22407 Taggerty 22408 Tahara 22409 Tahara Bridge 22410 Tahara West 22411 Talbot (Vic.) 22412 Talgarno 22413 Tallandoon 22415 Tallangatta East 22416 Tallangatta South 22417 Tallangatta Valley 22420 Tambo Crossing 22421 Tambo Upper 22422 Tamboon 22423 Tamboritha 22424 Taminick 22425 Tamleugh 22426 Tamleugh North 22427 Tandarook 22428 Tandarra 22430 Tanjil 22431 Tanjil Bren 22433 Tanwood 22434 Tanybryn 22435 Taradale (Vic.) 22436 Tarcombe 22437 Tarilta 22438 Tarnagulla 22440 Tarnook 22441 Taroon 22442 Tarra Valley 22443 Tarranyurk 22444 Tarraville 22446 Tarrawingee 22447 Tarrayoukyan 22448 Tarrengower 22449 Tarrenlea 22450 Tarrington 22451 Tarrone 22452 Tarwin 22453 Tarwin Lower 22454 Tatong 22456 Tatura East 22457 Tatyoon 22460 Taylor Bay 22463 Teal Point 22465 Teddywaddy 22466 Teddywaddy West 22468 Telangatuk East 22469 Telford 22470 Telopea Downs 22473 Tempy 22474 Tenby Point 22475 Tennyson (Vic.) 22477 Terip Terip 22478 Terrappee 22479 Terrick Terrick 22480 Terrick Terrick East 22481 Tesbury 22482 Tetoora Road 22483 Thalia 22485 The Cove 22486 The Gurdies 22487 The Heart 22488 The Honeysuckles 22490 The Sisters 22491 Thologolong 22493 Thomson (Baw 22495 Thoona Baw - Vic.) 22497 Thornton (Vic.) 22498 Thorpdale 22499 Thorpdale South 22500 Thowgla Valley 22502 Timbarra (Vic.) 22504 Timboon West 22505 Timmering 22506 Timor (Vic.) 22507 Timor West 22508 Tinamba 22509 Tinamba West 22510 Tintaldra Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix A: State Suburb Sampling Framework
79 22511 Tittybong 22512 Tol Tol 22513 Tolmie 22514 Tom Groggin 22516 Tonghi Creek 22517 Tongio 22519 Tooan 22520 Tooborac 22522 Toolamba West 22525 Toolleen 22526 Toolome 22527 Toolondo 22528 Toolong 22529 Toombon 22532 Toora North 22535 Toorloo Arm 22536 Toorongo 22539 Torrita 22540 Torrumbarry 22541 Torwood 22542 Tostaree 22544 Tottington 22545 Tourello 22546 Towan 22547 Towaninny 22548 Towaninny South 22549 Tower Hill 22550 Towong 22551 Towong Upper 22553 Trafalgar East 22554 Trafalgar South 22555 Tragowel 22560 Trawalla 22561 Trawool 22562 Traynors Lagoon 22565 Trentham East 22566 Tresco 22567 Tresco West 22568 Trida 22570 Tubbut 22572 Tulkara 22574 Tungamah 22575 Turoar 22576 Turriff 22577 Turriff East 22578 Turtons Creek 22579 Tutye 22580 Tyaak 22582 Tyenna (Vic.) 22587 Tyntynder 22588 Tyntynder South 22589 Tyrendarra 22590 Tyrendarra East 22591 Tyrrell 22592 Tyrrell Downs 22593 Ullina 22594 Ullswater 22595 Ultima 22596 Ultima East 22597 Ulupna 22598 Undera 22599 Underbool 22600 Upotipotpon 22602 Upper Gundowring 22603 Upper Lurg 22605 Upper Ryans 22606 Upton Hill 22608 Valencia Creek Creek 22609 Vasey 22610 Vaughan 22611 Vectis 22617 Vesper 22618 Victoria Point (Vic.) 22619 Victoria Valley 22621 Vinifera 22623 Vite Vite (Vic.) 22624 Vite Vite North 22625 W Tree 22626 Waaia 22627 Waanyarra 22628 Waarre 22629 Wabonga 22630 Waggarandall 22632 Wahring 22633 Wail 22634 Wairewa 22635 Waitchie 22636 Wal Wal 22638 Walhalla 22639 Walhalla East 22640 Walkerville (Vic.) 22641 Walkerville North 22642 Walkerville South 22643 Wallace 22644 Wallacedale 22645 Wallagaraugh 22646 Wallaloo 22647 Wallaloo East 22649 Wallinduc 22651 Wallup 22652 Walmer (Vic.) 22653 Walpa 22654 Walpeup 22655 Walwa 22657 Wandella (Vic.) 22658 Wandiligong 22661 Wando Bridge 22662 Wando Vale 22664 Wandown 22665 Wangandary 22666 Wangarabell 22669 Wangie 22670 Wangoom 22671 Wannon 22674 Waranga Shores 22675 Waratah Bay 22677 Wareek 22678 Wargan 22679 Warmur 22680 Warncoort 22681 Warne 22683 Warrabkook 22686 Warragul South 22687 Warragul West 22688 Warrak 22692 Warrayure 22693 Warrenbayne 22695 Warrenmang 22696 Warrion 22698 Warrock 22699 Warrong 22700 Wartook 22701 Watchem 22702 Watchem West 22703 Watchupga 22705 Waterholes 22706 Waterloo (Vic.) 22711 Wattle Bank 22712 Wattle Creek 22713 Wattle Flat (Vic.) 22715 Wattle Hill (Vic.) 22716 Waubra 22718 Waygara 22719 Weatherboard 22721 Wedderburn 22722 Wee Wee Rup 22723 Weeaproinah 22724 Weering Junction 22725 Weerite 22726 Wehla 22727 Wellsford 22728 Welshmans Reef 22729 Welshpool (Vic.) 22730 Wemen 22732 Wensleydale 22733 Wentworth (Vic.) 22734 Werneth 22735 Werona 22738 Werrimull 22740 West Bendigo 22741 West Creek 22745 Westbury (Vic.) 22746 Westby 22748 Westmere 22749 Whanregarwen 22750 Wharparilla 22751 Wheatsheaf 22753 Whipstick 22754 Whirily 22756 Whiteheads Creek 22757 Whitelaw 22758 Whitfield (Vic.) Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix A: State Suburb Sampling Framework
80 22759 Whitlands 22762 Whoorel 22763 Whorouly 22764 Whorouly East 22765 Whorouly South 22766 Whroo 22767 Wickliffe 22768 Wilby 22769 Wild Dog Valley 22771 Wilkur 22772 Willangie 22773 Willatook (Vic.) 22775 Willaura North 22776 Willenabrina 22781 Willowmavin 22782 Willowvale (Vic.) 22783 Willung 22784 Willung South 22785 Wilsons Hill 22786 Wilsons Promontory 22787 Wimbledon Heights 22789 Winchelsea South 22790 Windermere (Vic.) 22792 Wingan River 22793 Wingeel 22794 Winjallok 22795 Winlaton 22796 Winnambool 22797 Winnap 22798 Winnindoo 22799 Winslow 22800 Winton (Vic.) 22801 Winton North 22802 Wirrate 22803 Wiseleigh 22806 Wombat Creek (Vic.) 22807 Wombelano 22808 Won Wron 22809 Wonga 22811 Wongarra 22812 Wongungarra 22813 Wonnangatta 22815 Wonwondah 22816 Wonyip 22817 Wood Wood 22819 Woodend North 22820 Woodfield 22821 Woodford (Vic.) 22822 Woodglen 22823 Woodhouse 22824 Woodleigh (Vic.) 22825 Woods Point (Vic.) 22826 Woodside (Vic.) 22827 Woodside Beach 22829 Woodstock On 22830 Woodstock West Loddon 22831 Woodvale (Vic.) 22832 Wool Wool 22833 Woolamai 22834 Woolenook 22835 Woolshed Flat 22836 Woolsthorpe 22837 Woomelang 22838 Wooragee (Vic.) 22839 Woorarra East 22840 Woorarra West 22841 Wooreen 22843 Woorinen 22844 Woorinen North 22845 Woorinen South 22846 Woorndoo 22847 Wooroonook 22848 Woosang 22849 Wootong Vale 22850 Worrowing 22851 Wrathung 22852 Wrixon 22853 Wroxham 22854 Wuk Wuk 22855 Wulgulmerang 22856 Wulgulmerang East 22857 Wulgulmerang 22858 Wunghnu 22859 Wurdiboluc West 22863 Wycheproof South 22864 Wychitella 22865 Wychitella North 22866 Wye River 22867 Wyelangta 22869 Wyuna (Vic.) 22870 Wyuna East 22871 Yaapeet 22872 Yabba North 22873 Yabba South 22875 Yalca 22876 Yalla-Y-Poora 22878 Yallourn 22880 Yalmy 22881 Yambuk 22882 Yambuna 22884 Yanac 22885 Yanakie 22886 Yando 22887 Yandoit 22888 Yandoit Hills 22889 Yangery 22890 Yangoura 22892 Yapeen 22893 Yarck 22894 Yarpturk 22897 Yarraberb 22899 Yarragon South 22903 Yarrawalla 22905 Yarrawonga South 22907 Yatchaw 22908 Yawong Hills 22911 Yelta (Vic.) 22912 Yendon 22913 Yeo 22914 Yeodene 22916 Yeungroon 22917 Yeungroon East 22918 Yielima 22921 York Plains (Vic.) 22922 Youanmite 22923 Youarang 22924 Yulecart 22925 Yundool 22927 Yuulong 22928 Zeerust 22929 Zumsteins Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix A: State Suburb Sampling Framework
81 A-4: Regional suburbs omitted with residential land use of less than 50% (n=143)
20086 Avoca (Vic.) 20086 Avoca (Vic.) 20124 Bamawm 20128 Bandiana 20145 Barnawartha 20185 Beechworth 20194 Bellbrae 20273 Bolwarra (Vic.) 20281 Bonnie Doon (Vic.) 20286 Boolarra 20286 Boolarra 20324 Breakwater 20328 Briagolong 20362 Bruthen 20407 Buninyong 20455 Campbells Creek 20485 Cardross 20489 Carisbrook 20548 Chiltern 20558 Churchill (Vic.) 20558 Churchill (Vic.) 20588 Cobram 20588 Cobram 20616 Congupna 20636 Corio 20667 Creswick 20667 Creswick 20724 Delacombe 20724 Delacombe 20731 Dennington 20735 Dereel 20807 Dunolly (Vic.) 20817 Eaglehawk 20817 Eaglehawk 20821 East Bairnsdale 20822 East Bendigo 20832 Echuca 20832 Echuca 20833 Echuca Village 20844 Eildon 20844 Eildon 20857 Elphinstone (Vic.) 20871 Eppalock 20873 Epsom (Vic 20873 Epsom (Vic.) 20926 Flowerdale (Vic.) 20926 Flowerdale (Vic.) 20949 Fulham (Vic.) 21066 Gordon (Vic.) 21077 Grahamvale 21077 Grahamvale 21093 Greendale (Vic.) 21129 Harcourt 21147 Hazelwood North 21147 Hazelwood North 21163 Hepburn 21192 Hopetoun (Vic.) 21192 Hopetoun (Vic.) 21210 Huntly 21210 Huntly 21224 Invergordon (Vic.) 21227 Invermay (Vic.) 21241 Jackass Flat 21241 Jackass Flat 21252 Jeeralang 21391 Korumburra 21406 Kyneton 21440 Lakes Entrance Junction 21440 Lakes Entrance 21483 Leongatha South 21519 Lockwood 21527 Longlea 21528 Longwarry 21528 Longwarry 21532 Lorne (Vic.) 21532 Lorne (Vic.) 21541 Lucknow (Vic.) 21564 Maiden Gully 21573 Maldon (Vic.) 21588 Mansfield (Vic.) 21588 Mansfield (Vic.) 21601 Marong 21607 Maryborough 21642 Merbein (Vic.) 21642 Merbein 21656 Merrijig (Mansfield 21680 Miners Rest 21695 Mitchell Park (Vic.) - Vic.) 21705 Moe South 21725 Moolap 21755 Mortlake (Vic.) 21755 Mortlake (Vic.) 21757 Morwell 21760 Mount Beauty 21771 Mount Clear 21780 Mount Egerton 21786 Mount Helen 21851 Myrtleford 21899 Neerim South 21905 Nerrina 21905 Nerrina 21924 Newstead (Vic.) 21928 Nichols Point 21929 Nicholson (Vic.) 21953 North Geelong 21984 Nyora (Vic.) 22076 Point Lonsdale 22076 Point Lonsdale 22098 Portland (Vic.) 22098 Portland (Vic.) 22099 Portland North 22100 Portland West 22133 Raymond Island 22135 Red Cliffs 22188 Rosedale (Vic.) 22188 Rosedale (Vic.) 22204 Rushworth 22230 Scarsdale 22230 Scarsdale 22246 Sedgwick 22266 Shepparton North 22279 Skipton 22279 Skipton 22288 Smythesdale 22297 South Geelong 22323 St Arnaud 22365 Strathfieldsaye 22365 Strathfieldsaye 22418 Tallarook 22432 Tanjil South 22515 Tongala 22515 Tongala 22583 Tyers 22613 Venus Bay (Vic.) 22650 Wallington 22694 Warrenheip 22717 Waurn Ponds 22804 Wodonga 22874 Yackandandah 22879 Yallourn North 22909 Yea Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix A: State Suburb Sampling Framework
82 A-5: Regional suburbs with only one SA1 within the SSC at below 80 per cent correspondence (n=4)
20128 Bandiana 21339 Killara (Wodonga 2 1540 Lucas 22386 Surf Beach (Vic.) - Vic.) Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix A: State Suburb Sampling Framework
83 APPENDIX B: SURVEY INSTRUMENT Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix B: Survey Instrument
84 85 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix B: Survey Instrument 86 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix B: Survey Instrument 87 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix B: Survey Instrument 88 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix B: Survey Instrument 89 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix B: Survey Instrument 90 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix B: Survey Instrument 91 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix B: Survey Instrument 92 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix B: Survey Instrument 93 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix B: Survey Instrument 94 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix B: Survey Instrument 95 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix B: Survey Instrument 96 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix B: Survey Instrument APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHIC DATA FOR FOCUS GROUPS DATA FOCUS FOR DEMOGRAPHIC C: APPENDIX R1.15 R1.14 R1.13 R1.12 R1.11 R1.10 R1.1 Respondent Aboriginal A. Yes, D. No Islander Strait and Torres Aboriginal C. Both, Islander Strait and Torres Aboriginal C. Both, D. No D. No D. No Aboriginal or Torres Strait A. 15-19 C. 35-44 E. 60-74 - F. 75+ C. 35-44 E. 60-74
Age Group A. Australia A. Australia A. Australia A. Australia A. Australia A. Australia Vietnam B. Other-
Country of Birth 1 0 0 3 0 0 8 Dependent - Full Time - A. Working Time Part - B. Working Full Time - A. Working Disability - Sickor D. Pension Retiree funded G. Self- Full Time - A. Working Full Time - A. Working
Employment Status not to say F. Prefer $79,000 C. $40,000- not to say F. Prefer $40,000 than B. Less or more E. $120,000 or more E. $120,000 $119,999 D. $80,000-
Income Only A. English Only A. English Only A. English Only A. English Only A. English Only A. English Vietnamese B. Other-
LOTE Diploma or Certificate A Trade,C. Diploma or Certificate A Trade,C. College Degree B. University or Qualification Graduate A. Post Qualification Graduate A. Post Qualification Graduate A. Post College Degree B. University or
Level of Education Married A. Never not to say G. Prefer B. Married Married A. Never F. Widowed B. Married B. Married
Marital Status B. No B. No B. No B. No Unspecified A. Yes - B. No B. No
Religion A. Male B. Female A. Male B. Female A. Male B. Female B. Female
Sex Heterosexual A. - B. Gay - Heterosexual A. Heterosexual A. Applicable Not
Sexuality Mill Park Macleod Brunswick Flemington Elsternwick Point Cook Hills Endeavour
Suburb years than 10 C. 5to less years than 10 C. 5to less or more D. 10years or more D. 10years or more D. 10years or more D. 10years or more D. 10years
Years in Neighbourhood 97 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix C: Demographic Data For Focus Groups 98 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix C: Demographic Data For Focus Groups R2.12 R2.11 R2.1 R1.9 R1.8 R1.7 R1.6 R1.5 R1.4 R1.3 R1.2
Respondent D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander C. 35-44 D. 45-59 E. 60-74 F. 75+ F. 75+ B. 20-34 C. 35-44 B. 20-34 F. 75+ F. 75+ F. 75+
Age Group A. Australia A. Australia Vietnam B. Other- A. Australia Vietnam B. Other- Afghanistan B. Other- Afghanistan B. Other- Afghanistan B. Other- Uganda B. Other- Scotland B. Other- Greece B. Other-
Country of Birth 0 0 2 - 6 1 3 2 - 0 0 Dependent Children I. Home Full Time A. Working - Full Time A. Working - work and seeking Unemployed H. Pension E. Aged Pension E. Aged Full Time A. Working - Duties I. Home C. Student Time Part B. Working - Pension E. Aged Duties
Employment Status - or more E. $120,000 $119,999 D. $80,000- $40,000 than B. Less - A. Nil $79,000 C. $40,000- $40,000 than B. Less not to say F. Prefer $40,000 than B. Less $79,000 C. $40,000-
Income B. Other- Only A. English Only A. English Vietnamese B. Other- Only A. English Vietnamese B. Other- Dari &Urdu B. Other- Hazaragi B. Other- Hazaragi B. Other- Luganda B. Other- Only A. English Greek
LOTE D. Senior Degree or College University B. Degree or College University B. School High D. Senior - School High E. Junior Degree or College University B. - or Diploma Certificate A Trade,C. Degree or College University B. School High D. Senior School High
Level of Education B. Married E. Divorced E. Divorced B. Married - F. Widowed B. Married B. Married B. Married B. Married B. Married
Marital Status Quaker A. Yes - B. No Catholic A. Yes - - Budhist A. Yes - Muslim A. Yes - B. No Muslim A. Yes - Unspecified A. Yes - Christian A. Yes - Orthodox - Greek A. Yes
Religion C. Other B. Female A. Male A. Male B. Female B. Female B. Female B. Female B. Female A. Male B. Female
Sex B. Gay Heterosexual A. Not Applicable - Not Applicable Heterosexual A. - - Heterosexual A. Heterosexual A. -
Sexuality Clifton Hill Officer Springvale Anglesea Richmond Dandenong Dandenong Casey Hills Endeavour Marsh Bacchus Hadfield
Suburb years than 10 C. 5to less or more D. 10years or more D. 10years - or more D. 10years years less than5 B. 1to not to say E. Prefer years than 10 C. 5to less or more D. 10years or more D. 10years or more D. 10years
Years in Neighbourhood R2.8 R2.7 R2.6 R2.5 R2.4 R2.3 R2.2 R2.15 R2.14
Respondent D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No Aboriginal A. Yes, Aboriginal A. Yes, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander E. 60-74 B. 20-34 B. 20-34 D. 45-59 D. 45-59 F. 75+ F. 75+ E. 60-74 B. 20-34
Age Group Afghanistan B. Other- Somalia B. Other- A. Australia Greece B. Other- A. Australia A. Australia Vietnam B. Other- Afghanistan B. Other- Afghanistan B. Other-
Country of Birth 1 2 2 1 - 1 0 0 2 Dependent Children Pension E. Aged Full Time A. Working - Duties I. Home C. Student Time Part B. Working - Pension E. Aged Pension E. Aged Volunteer Community Journalist, Independent J. Other- Time Part B. Working -
Employment Status not to say F. Prefer $79,000 C. $40,000- A. Nil $40,000 than B. Less - $40,000 than B. Less $40,000 than B. Less $40,000 than B. Less $40,000 than B. Less
Income Vietnamese B. Other- Urdu Hazaragi & B. Other- Dari B. Other- Dari B. Other- Somali B. Other- Only A. English Greek B. Other- Only A. English Only A. English
LOTE School High D. Senior or Diploma Certificate A Trade,C. - Degree or College University B. or Diploma Certificate A Trade,C. School High E. Junior School High D. Senior School High E. Junior or Diploma Certificate A Trade,C.
Level of Education F. Widowed B. Married B. Married B. Married F. Widowed F. Widowed F. Widowed E. Divorced Married A. Never
Marital Status Budhist A. Yes - B. No B. No Unspecified A. Yes - Unspecified A. Yes - Spiritualist A. Yes - Orthodox - Greek A. Yes B. No B. No
Religion B. Female A. Male B. Female B. Female B. Female B. Female B. Female A. Male B. Female
Sex Not Applicable Heterosexual A. - - - Heterosexual A. - Heterosexual A. Heterosexual A.
Sexuality Richmond Park Hampton Dandenong East Cranbourne South Oakleigh Marsh Bacchus Brunswick West Heidelberg West Heidelberg
Suburb or more D. 10years years less than5 B. 1to years less than5 B. 1to years less than5 B. 1to - years than 10 C. 5to less or more D. 10years or more D. 10years or more D. 10years
Years in Neighbourhood 99 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix C: Demographic Data For Focus Groups 100 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix C: Demographic Data For Focus Groups R3.5 R3.4 R3.3 R3.2 R3.15 R3.14 R3.12 R3.11 R3.1 R2.9
Respondent D. No Aboriginal A. Yes, - D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander C. 35-44 B. 20-34 F. 75+ F. 75+ C. 35-44 - E. 60-74 E. 60-74 D. 45-59 F. 75+
Age Group Afghanistan B. Other- Somalia B. Other- England B. Other- Greece B. Other- A. Australia - A. Australia Canada B. Other- Vietnam B. Other- A. Australia
Country of Birth 1 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 1 0 Dependent Children Other F. Pension - Full Time - A. Working Pension E. Aged Pension E. Aged not to say K. Prefer - Other F. Pension - Pension E. Aged not to say K. Prefer Pension E. Aged
Employment Status not to say F. Prefer or more E. $120,000 $79,000 C. $40,000- $40,000 than B. Less not to say F. Prefer - $119,999 D. $80,000- $40,000 than B. Less not to say F. Prefer $79,000 C. $40,000-
Income Hazaragi B. Other- Somali B. Other- Finnish B. Other- Greek B. Other- Only A. English - Only A. English Only A. English Cantonese & Vietnamese B. Other- Only A. English
LOTE School E. JuniorHigh College Degree B. University or Qualification Graduate A. Post Schooling G. No Diploma or Certificate A Trade,C. - Qualification Graduate A. Post Qualification Graduate A. Post College Degree B. University or College Degree B. University or
Level of Education B. Married Married A. Never B. Married B. Married Married A. Never - Married A. Never E. Divorced B. Married B. Married
Marital Status Muslim A. Yes - Muslim A. Yes - B. No Orthodox - Greek A. Yes B. No - B. No not to say C. Prefer not to say C. Prefer B. No
Religion B. Female A. Male A. Male B. Female A. Male - A. Male B. Female B. Female B. Female
Sex - Heterosexual A. Heterosexual A. - B. Gay - B. Gay Heterosexual A. Not Applicable Heterosexual A.
Sexuality Casey Noble Park answer Z Didnot Brunswick Preston - Balaclava Elsternwick Noble Park Anglesea
Suburb years less than5 B. 1to or more D. 10years years less than5 B. 1to or more D. 10years years 5 than B. 1to less - or more D. 10years years than 10 C. 5to less or more D. 10years or more D. 10years
Years in Neighbourhood R4.15 R4.14 R4.12 R4.11 R4.1 R3.9 R3.8 R3.7 R3.6
Respondent Aboriginal A. Yes, Aboriginal A. Yes, D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander C. 35-44 B. 20-34 D. 45-59 E. 60-74 F. 75+ F. 75+ E. 60-74 C. 35-44 C. 35-44
Age Group A. Australia A. Australia A. Australia A. Australia Cambodia B. Other- A. Australia Vietnam B. Other- Unspecified B. Other- Pakistan B. Other-
Country of Birth 5 1 0 0 0 - 3 say not to B. Prefer 4 Dependent Children I. HomeDuties Time Part B. Working - Disability - Sickor D. Pension Retired J. Other- Pension E. Aged Pension E. Aged work and seeking Unemployed H. Full Time A. Working - C. Student
Employment Status $40,000 than B. Less $40,000 than B. Less $40,000 than B. Less not to say F. Prefer not to say F. Prefer $40,000 than B. Less A. Nil $79,000 C. $40,000- $40,000 than B. Less
Income Only A. English Only A. English Only A. English Only A. English Cambodian B. Other- Only A. English Vietnamese B. Other- Hazaragi B. Other- Dari B. Other-
LOTE Diploma or Certificate A Trade,C. Diploma or Certificate A Trade,C. Diploma or Certificate A Trade,C. Qualification Graduate A. Post School F. Primary Degree or College B. University High School E. Junior Unspecified H. Other- Diploma or Certificate A Trade,C.
Level of Education Married A. Never Married A. Never Married A. Never Married A. Never B. Married Divorced - Not Separated D. F. Widowed B. Married E. Divorced
Marital Status B. No B. No B. No Unspecified A. Yes - Budhist A. Yes - B. No B. No not to say C. Prefer B. No
Religion B. Female A. Male A. Male A. Male A. Male B. Female B. Female A. Male B. Female
Sex D. Bisexual Heterosexual A. B. Gay Heterosexual A. Not Applicable Heterosexual A. Not Applicable Heterosexual A. -
Sexuality West Heidelberg Reservoir Prahran South Caulfield Springvale Anglesea Richmond answer Z Didnot Dandenong
Suburb or more D. 10years more or D. 10years or more D. 10years or more D. 10years more or D. 10years more or D. 10years or more D. 10years years than 10 C. 5to less than 5years B. 1to less
Years in Neighbourhood 101 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix C: Demographic Data For Focus Groups 102 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix C: Demographic Data For Focus Groups R5.15 R5.14 R5.11 R5.1 R4.8 R4.7 R4.6 R4.5 R4.3 R4.2
Respondent Aboriginal A. Yes, Aboriginal A. Yes, D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander D. 45-59 C. 35-44 E. 60-74 E. 60-74 E. 60-74 - B. 20-34 B. 20-34 E. 60-74 F. 75+
Age Group A. Australia A. Australia A. Australia Vietnam B. Other- Turkey B. Other- Afghanistan B. Other- Pakistan B. Other- Afghanistan B. Other- A. Australia Greece B. Other-
Country of Birth 4 - 0 0 0 - 2 - 0 0 Dependent Children to say K. Prefer not work and seeking Unemployed H. Full Time A. Working - to say K. Prefer not Disability - Sickor D. Pension Time Part B. Working - Duties I. Home work and seeking Unemployed H. to say K. Prefer not Pension E. Aged
Employment Status not to say F. Prefer - $79,000 C. $40,000- $40,000 than B. Less A. Nil $40,000 than B. Less $40,000 than B. Less A. Nil not to say F. Prefer $40,000 than B. Less
Income Only A. English Only A. English Only A. English Vietnamese B. Other- Turkish B. Other- Unspecified B. Other- Hazaragi B. Other- Hazaragi B. Other- Only A. English Greek B. Other-
LOTE School F. Primary School E. JuniorHigh Qualification Graduate A. Post Diploma or Certificate A Trade,C. College Degree B. University or Schooling G. No Diploma or Certificate A Trade,C. Schooling G. No Qualification Graduate A. Post Schooling G. No
Level of Education Relationship “Live-in” C. Defacto Married A. Never B. Married B. Married F. Widowed B. Married B. Married Married A. Never B. Married F. Widowed
Marital Status B. No not to say C. Prefer Protestant A. Yes - Budhist A. Yes - Muslim A. Yes - Unspecified A. Yes - B. No Muslim A. Yes - Unspecified A. Yes - Orthodox - Greek A. Yes
Religion B. Female B. Female A. Male A. Male B. Female B. Female B. Female A. Male B. Female B. Female
Sex to say I. Prefer not Heterosexual A. Heterosexual A. Applicable Not Applicable Not Heterosexual A. - - to say I. Prefer not -
Sexuality Preston Preston South Caulfield Aspendale Richmond Dandenong Dandenong Dandenong Park Hopetoun Brunswick
Suburb or more D. 10years or more D. 10years years than 10 C. 5to less years less than5 B. 1to or more D. 10years not to say E. Prefer years less than5 B. 1to years less than5 B. 1to years less than5 B. 1to or more D. 10years
Years in Neighbourhood R9.2 R8.2 R8.1 R7.2 R7.1 R6.5 R6.2 R6.14 R6.1 R5.7 R5.6 R5.5 R5.2
Respondent D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No Aboriginal A. Yes, D. No D. No D. No D. No D. No
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander C. 35-44 E. 60-74 E. 60-74 E. 60-74 B. 20-34 B. 20-34 C. 35-44 E. 60-74 F. 75+ F. 75+ E. 60-74 F. 75+ E. 60-74
Age Group B. Other-Italy B. Other-Italy Vietnam B. Other- B. Other-Italy Vietnam B. Other- Afghanistan B. Other- B. Other-Italy A. Australia Vietnam B. Other- - Afghanistan B. Other- Afghanistan B. Other- Argentina B. Other-
Country of Birth 0 4 0 3 - 4 0 0 1 - 2 3 - Dependent Children Pension E. Aged Pension E. Aged Time Part - B. Working Pension E. Aged Pension E. Aged Duties I. Home Pension E. Aged Full Time - A. Working Retired J. Other- C. Student Duties I. Home Time Part - B. Working Pension E. Aged
Employment Status - $40,000 than B. Less $119,999 D. $80,000- $40,000 than B. Less not to say F. Prefer A. Nil $40,000 than B. Less $119,999 D. $80,000- $40,000 than B. Less $40,000 than B. Less - not to say F. Prefer $40,000 than B. Less
Income Italian B. Other- Italian B. Other- Cantonese & Vietnamese B. Other- Italian B. Other- Cantonese B. Other- Hazaragi B. Other- Italian B. Other- Only A. English Vietnamese B. Other- Unspecified B. Other- Hazaragi B. Other- Dari B. Other- Italian Spanish & B. Other-
LOTE School E. JuniorHigh School E. JuniorHigh School E. JuniorHigh School E. JuniorHigh School E. JuniorHigh Diploma or Certificate A Trade,C. Schooling G. No Qualification Graduate A. Post Degree or College B. University School D. SeniorHigh - Diploma or Certificate A Trade,C. School E. JuniorHigh
Level of Education F. Widowed F. Widowed B. Married F. Widowed B. Married B. Married F. Widowed Relationship “Live-in” C. Defacto B. Married Married A. Never B. Married B. Married F. Widowed
Marital Status Catholic A. Yes - Catholic A. Yes - B. No Catholic A. Yes - B. No Muslim A. Yes - Catholic A. Yes - B. No Catholic A. Yes - B. No - Muslim A. Yes - Unassigned
Religion A. Male B. Female B. Female B. Female B. Female B. Female B. Female A. Male A. Male A. Male B. Female B. Female B. Female
Sex ------Heterosexual A. Applicable Not Heterosexual A. - - -
Sexuality Brunswick Brunswick South Springvale Brunswick Springvale Cranbourne Brunswick Morang South Springvale answer Z Didnot Dandenong answer Z Didnot Brunswick
Suburb or more D. 10years or more D. 10years or more D. 10years or more D. 10years or more D. 10years years less than5 B. 1to or more D. 10years years than 10 C. 5to less or more D. 10years years less than5 B. 1to years less than5 B. 1to years less than5 B. 1to or more D. 10years
Years in Neighbourhood 103 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix C: Demographic Data For Focus Groups 104 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix D: Breakdown Of Responses By Category APPENDIX D: BREAKDOWN OF RESPONSES BY CATEGORY OF RESPONSES D: BREAKDOWN APPENDIX total Per centof Number of total Per centof Number of total Per centof Number of total Per centof Number of
Respondent Aboriginal A. Yes, 82.61% 57 D. No 2.90% 2 Islander Strait and Torres Aboriginal C. Both, 0.00% 0 Islander Strait Torres B. Yes, 13.04% 9 Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander 15.94% 11 B. 20-34 1.45% 1 A. 15-19 8.70% 6 D. 45-59 17.39% 12 C. 35-44
Age Group A. Australia 2.90% 2 - 60.87% 42 B. Other 36.23% 25
Country of Birth 0 7.25% 5 3 10.14% 7 2 13.04% 9 1 42.03% 29 Dependent Children - Full Time - A. Working 4.35% 3 Disability - Sickor D. Pension 5.80% 4 C. Student 11.59% 8 Time Part - B. Working 17.39% 12
Employment Status 7.25% 5 $119,999 D. $80,000- 11.59% 8 $79,000 C. $40,000- 37.68% 26 $40,000 than B. Less 8.70% 6 A. Nil
Income Experience A. Personal 8.70% 18 Newspaper D. Local 5.31% 11 Newspaper National C. Metro/ 14.01% 29 Mouth B. Word of 11.11% 23
Info Sources Combined Only A. English 1.45% 1 59.42% 41 B. Other 39.13% 27
LOTE 8.70% 6 High School D. Senior 21.74% 15 or Diploma Certificate A Trade,-C. 18.84% 13 Degree or College B. University 14.49% 10 Qualification Graduate A. Post
Level of Education 1.45% 1 Divorced - Not D. Separated 2.90% 2 Relationship “Live-in” C. Defacto 44.93% 31 B. Married 18.84% 13 Married A. Never
Marital Status 4.35% 3 - 5.80% 4 not to say C. Prefer 40.58% 28 B. No 47.83% 33 A. Yes
Religion 0.00% 0 not to say D. Prefer 1.45% 1 C. Other 62.32% 43 B. Female 34.78% 24 A. Male
Sex 1.45% 1 D. Bisexual 0.00% 0 C. Lesbian 7.25% 5 B. Gay 34.78% 24 Heterosexual A.
Sexuality 56.52% 39 or more D. 10years 13.04% 9 years than 10 C. 5to less 23.19% 16 years less than5 B. 1to 0.00% 0 than 1year A. Less
Years in Neighbourhood total Per centof Number of total Per centof Number of total Per centof Number of total Per centof Number of
Respondents 1.45% 1 - 0.00% 0 not to say E. Prefer
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander 4.35% 3 answer Z. Didnot 0.00% 0 not to say G. Prefer 24.64% 17 F. 75+ 27.54% 19 E. 60-74
Age Group
Country of Birth 0.00% 0 7 1.45% 1 6 1.45% 1 5 5.80% 4 4
Dependent Children 5.80% 4 work and seeking Unemployed H. 1.45% 1 Retiree funded G. Self- 2.90% 2 Other F. Pension - 27.54% 19 Pension E. Aged
Employment Status 10.14% 7 answer Z. Didnot 18.84% 13 not to say F. Prefer 5.80% 4 or more $120,000 E.
Income 10.63% 22 Unspecified Media - H. Social 1.45% 3 Unspecified Radio - G. Talkback 4.83% 10 Unspecified Programs - News F. Radio 17.87% 37 Programs News E. TV
Info Sources Combined
LOTE 1.45% 1 Unspecified H. Other- 7.25% 5 Schooling G. No 2.90% 2 School F. Primary 17.39% 12 School High Junior E.
Level of Education 2.90% 2 answer Z. Didnot 1.45% 1 not to say G. Prefer 20.29% 14 F. Widowed 7.25% 5 E. Divorced
Marital Status
Religion 1.45% 1 -
Sex 0.00% 0 H. Other 0.00% 0 G. Intersex 0.00% 0 F. Queer 0.00% 0 Transgender E.
Sexuality 4.35% 3 - 2.90% 2 not to say E. Prefer
Years in Neighbourhood 105 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix D: Breakdown Of Responses By Category 106 Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime | Appendix D: Breakdown Of Responses By Category Total total Per centof Number of total Per centof Number of total Per centof Number of total Per centof Number of
Respondents 100.00% 69 Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander 100.00% 69
Age Group 100.00% 69
Country of Birth 100.00% 69 15.94% 11 answer- Z. Didnot 1.45% 1 not to say B. Prefer 1.45% 1 8
Dependent Children 100.00% 69 1.45% 1 answer Z. Didnot 7.25% 5 not to say K. Prefer 4.35% 3 J. Other 10.14% 7 Duties I. Home
Employment Status 100.00% 69
Income 100.00% 207 19.81% 41 answer Z. Didnot 0.97% 2 Unspecified K. Other- 1.93% 4 website operated or police J.Police 3.38% 7 Unspecified sources - internet news I. Other
Info Sources Combined 100.00% 69
LOTE 100.00% 69 7.25% 5 answer Z. Didnot
Level of Education 100.00% 69
Marital Status 98.55% 68
Religion 100.00% 69
Sex 100.00% 69 14.49% 10 Applicable Not 39.13% 27 answer Z. Didnot 2.90% 2 not to say I. Prefer
Sexuality 100.00% 69
Years in Neighbourhood