Social Cohesion and Pro-Social Responses to Perceptions of Crime Victorian Report • 11 February 2020
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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.