Demographic Contributors to Property Crime in the Lower Mainland District
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AN ANALYSIS OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND SOCIO- DEMOGRAPHIC CONTRIBUTORS TO PROPERTY CRIME IN THE LOWER MAINLAND DISTRICT Dr. Irwin M. Cohen, Dr. Garth Davies, Kevin Burk, and Christine Neudecker August 2016 Introduction According to the data presented by police leaders at the September 29th, 2015 Metro Vancouver Crime Meeting, property crime increased for the second consecutive year in the Lower Mainland District (LMD) of British Columbia. Of the 22 RCMP and municipal police jurisdictions that comprise the LMD, it was reported that, between January and August 2015, 13 had experienced an increase in their property crime rates over the previous year, and that this trend was a continuation of the trend that saw a general increase in property crime rates in 2014 from 2013. Not surprisingly, the sudden increase in property crime over the past two years has resulted in a search for explanations. Several lines of inQuiry must be considered to better understand property crime. In particular, attention must be paid to the contextual differences that differentiate not just one municipality from other, but also the different neighbourhoods within the same municipality, which vary significantly in terms of their levels of crime. To talk about property crime in a city as a whole may mask important variations across communities and neighbourhoods. Given what research has found in other cities, it is possible that the effects of socio-demographic and socio-economic factors vary more within cities than between cities. Given this, the focus of this report includes a) how each municipality in the Lower Mainland District compares to each other, and b) identifying the “neighbourhood effects” that also contribute to fluctuations in property crime within single municipalities. The overall purpose of this report is to examine property crime in the LMD and provide a theoretical and empirical-based assessment of the socio-economic and socio- demographic variables that might be contributing to the increase in property crime rates over the past two years. Context of Property Crime in the Lower Mainland District While there is a justifiable concern over the increase in the number of property crimes in the LMD since 2014, it is important to note that, for the most part, the property crime rate consistently dropped year over year between 2001 and 2013 in the LMD. As demonstrated in Figure 1, based on Statistics Canada’s aggregated property crime rates for the Vancouver census area1, property crime rates peaked in 2003, but, overall, decreased from 8,630 property crimes per 100,000 people in 2001 to 4,647 property crimes in 2013; a decrease of 46.2%. Although the Vancouver census area saw an increase of 11.4% in its property crime rate in 2014 from 2013, overall, between 2001 and 2014, the Vancouver census area’s property crime rate decreased by 39.3%. Similar to the pattern for the Vancouver census area, as demonstrated in Figure 1, the Abbotsford- Mission census area’s property crime rate peaked in 2004, with a rate of 9,572 property crimes per 1 The Vancouver Census Area includes Vancouver, Surrey, Burnaby, Richmond, CoQuitlam, Langley, Delta, North Vancouver, Maple Ridge, New Westminster, Port CoQuitlam, West Vancouver, Port Moody, White Rock, and Pitt Meadows. 1 100,000 people, but, overall, decreased from 8,829 property crimes per 100,000 people in 2001 to 4,072 property crimes in 2013; a decrease of 53.9%. Like the Vancouver census area, the Abbotsford-Mission census area also saw an increase in its property crime rate in 2014 from 2013 of 6.6%; however, overall, between 2001 and 2014, the Abbotsford-Mission census area’s property crime rate decreased by an impressive 50.6%. One contributing factor that may help explain this substantial decline in property crime may be the police’s adoption of a crime reduction strategy in the LMD. FIGURE 1: PROPERTY CRIME RATES BY CENSUS AREA (2001 – 2014)2 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Abbotsford-Mission Census Area Vancouver Census Area While there have been some years with only small decreases, or even slight increases in the property crime rate, it is important to recognize that property crime rates are much lower today than they were in 2000 in every single Lower Mainland District jurisdiction. However, even with this substantial overall decrease in property crime rates in the Lower Mainland District over the past 14 years, several cities, as well as the larger Vancouver and Abbotsford-Mission census areas, have seen a slight increase in the property crime rate starting around 2013. Some jurisdictions, including Abbotsford, Mission, Chilliwack, and Hope (see Figure 2), saw increases in property crime rates beginning in 2000; however, the peak year for property crime in Hope, Abbotsford, and Chilliwack was 2003, while the peak year for Mission was 2002. Moreover, the slope of the decline was somewhat similar for Chilliwack and Abbotsford. In contrast, there were somewhat smooth and consistent declines year over year, whereas the declines in Mission and Hope were somewhat less consistent year after year. For example, for Hope, the property crime rate increased sharply from a rate of 9,136 per 100,000 people in 2000 to 17,012 in 2003; an 2 Data collected from Statistics Canada CANSIM Table 252-0081, June 22, 2016. 2 increase of 86.2%, but then declined sharply to 12,177 by 2005; a decrease of 28.4%. The property crime rate remained virtually unchanged in 2006, but then rose again to 15,040 in 2007, before dropping to 7,764 by 2010; a decrease of 48.4% in just three years. While not nearly as substantial as Hope, Mission also had some fluctuations year over year, unlike Abbotsford and Chilliwack, which had small, but consistent declines year over year from their peaks to 2012. This is just one example of why it is important to not just compare city to city, but to consider within city differences, which will be the focus of another section of this report. In terms of the overall decreases in the property crime rates between 2000 and 2014 for the Eastern Fraser Valley, the largest decrease was seen in Abbotsford (-42.0 per cent) followed by Mission (-31.7 per cent), Hope (-30.4 per cent), and Chilliwack (-19.8 per cent). Of note, in the last few years, Chilliwack experienced an increase in its property crime rate each year since 2011, resulting in an 11.2% increase in their property crime rate from 2011 to 2014, Abbotsford also had an increase of 10.6% between 2012 and 2014, while Hope and Mission have seen their property crime increase by 9.8% and 5.0% respectively since 2013. So, while each of these jurisdictions have seen large decreases since 2000 and even larger decreases since their peak years, in the past couple years, property crime rates have begun to increase slightly. FIGURE 2: PROPERTY CRIME RATES FOR EASTERN FRASER VALLEY (2000 – 2014)3 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Abbotsford Chilliwack Hope Mission The same pattern emerged for the municipalities in the Western Fraser Valley, which included Langley City, Langley Township, Surrey, White Rock, Delta, Maple Ridge, and Pitt Meadows. With 3 Data collected from Statistics Canada CANSIM Table 252-0081, June 22, 2016. 3 the exception of Pitt Meadows and White Rock, all of the other jurisdictions saw an increase in their property crime rate between 2000 and 2001 (see Figure 3). Conversely, Pitt Meadows experienced a reduction in their property crime rate until 2002, while White Rock’s property crime rate began to increase in 2001. Regardless, by 2003, all of the Western Fraser Valley jurisdictions had peaked and then experienced decreases in their property crime rates that lasted until between 2010 and 2014. However, several distinct patterns emerged. One pattern, demonstrated by Langley City, Langley Township, and Surrey, involved a generally smooth and consistent decrease in the property crime rate year over year. For example, in Surrey, the property crime rate declined from its peak in 2001 of 10,049 property crimes per 100,000 people to a low of 5,539 in 2010 (-44.9 per cent) before increasing slightly through 2013 and then sharply in 2014. The increase from 2010 to 2014 represented a 26.6% increase in Surrey’s property crime rate. Still, from 2000 to 2014, property crime decreased in Surrey by 22.5%. Langley City and Langley Township both saw a steady decline in their property crime rates through 2008 and 2009 respectively, before diverging. For Langley Township, the decline continued until 2014, when there was an increase of 18.7% from the previous year. Still, between 2000 and 2014, the property crime rate in Langley Township dropped by 12.4%. Langley City had a somewhat uniQue pattern, as its property crime rate increased very slightly from 2008 to 2010 (+3.5 per cent), declined again between 2010 and 2011 (-5.3 per cent), increased again between 2011 and 2012 (+11.4 per cent), before decreasing through 2014 (17.7 per cent). In effect, Langley City was the only jurisdiction from Eastern and Western Fraser Valley that did not experience an increase in the property crime rate in 2014 from 2013. Moreover, overall, between 2000 and 2014, the property crime rate dropped by 30.1% in Langley City. The other jurisdictions in the Western Fraser Valley had a less consistent pattern with year over year increases and decreases (see Figure 3).