PLACE, CRIME AND DISORDER Anthony Bottoms Universities of Cambridge and Sheffield Presentation at Social Mobility and Life Chances Forum, HM Treasury, 14 November 2005
SCo. Pi. C (Research Network on Social Contexts of Pathways in Crime) ESRC – Funded Universities of Cambridge, Huddersfield, London and Sheffield Network Director: Per-Olof Wikström
TYPICAL RISK FACTORS FOR PREDICTION OF DELINQUENCY High Hyperactivity-Impulsivity-Attention Problems Lack of Guilt Poor Parental Supervision Low School Motivation Many Peer Delinquents Positive Perception of Anti-Social Behaviour
KEY RESULTS FROM THE PITTSBURGH YOUTH STUDY (1) Per cent of male youths having committed serious offence by risk/protective score and neighbourhood context Neighbourhood Context Disadvantaged Middle. Advantaged range Nonpublic Public Gamma High Protective Score 11. 1 5. 1 16. 7 37. 5 0. 23 155 Balanced Risk and Protective Score 27. 3 40. 1 38. 5 60. 7 0. 23 651 High Risk Score 77. 8 71. 3 78. 3 70. 0 n. s. 222 Gamma 0. 70 0. 74 0. 69 n. s. N 142 556 188 142 Source: Wikström and Loeber (2000) N
KEY RESULTS FROM THE PITTSBURGH YOUTH STUDY (2) Per cent of subjects with high risk scores by neighbourhood context Neighbourhood Context Disadvantaged Middle. Advantaged range Nonpublic Public Gamma High Hyperactivity-Impulsivity Attention Problems 13. 8 20. 9 28. 7 20. 15 1, 436 Lack of Guilt 19. 2 30. 0 35. 5 46. 0 0. 26 1, 254 Poor Parental Supervision 15. 8 22. 8 29. 1 39. 7 0. 28 1, 414 Low School Motivation 21. 9 31. 2 44. 9 47. 6 0. 30 1, 432 Many Peer Delinquents 17. 9 22. 9 27. 7 29. 4 0. 15 1, 323 Positive Perception of Anti-Social Behaviour 29. 2 25. 8 19. 8 25. 9 n. s. 1, 431 RISK INDEX 13. 3 19. 9 28. 8 34. 9 0. 30 1, 148 Source: Wikström and Loeber (2000) N
Geographical Distribution of Known Offenders in South Yorkshire (Observed values at 1 hectare level) Source: Craglia and Costello, 2005
Final Model in Craglia and Costello Area-Based Study of Offender Rates Log (Offender) = β 0 + β 1 X 1 + β 2 X 2 + β 3 X 3 + β 4 X 4 + β 5 X 5 + β 6 X 6 Where: X 1 = Percent economically active unemployed X 2 = Percent of households renting from other (hostels, secure accommodation, prisons, boarding houses, hotels and other communal establishments) X 3 = Percent of households with lone parents with dependent children X 4 = Percent of residential spaces vacant X 5 = Index of multiple deprivation 2004 – health domain score X 6 = Index of multiple deprivation 2004 – crime domain score (R 2 = 0. 82)
ASPECTS OF VICTIMISATION DISTRIBUTION FROM BRITISH CRIME SURVEY % burgled % theft of vehicle* % criminal damage to home Less than £ 5000 4. 4 1. 6 2. 7 £ 5000<£ 10000 2. 9 1. 3 2. 9 £ 10000<£ 20000 2. 8 1. 0 2. 9 £ 20000<£ 30000 2. 5 1. 0 3. 0 £ 30000+ 2. 6 1. 1 2. 9 High (Score 2 or 3) 6. 0 3. 4 4. 7 Low (Score 0 or 1) 2. 4 1. 0 2. 6 (A) Household Income (B) Physical Disorder In Area *Based on vehicle-owing households only Source: S. Nicholas et al, Crime in England Wales 2004/2005, Home Office Research Bulletin 11/05
Residents’ Satisfaction with Safety and Perceived Risk of Crime in Selected Areas of Chicago Source: Taub et al, Paths of Neighborhood Change, 1984, p. 172
Perception of whether local issues are a serious problem in residential areas, 1997 -98 Source: Report of Policy Action Team 8: Anti-social behaviour
Regression Model of Residents’ Perceptions of Lack of Neighbourhood Safety, Sheffield 2005 Model Coeff t Sig . 8. 40 . 000 Communities Working Together Scale -. 093 -3. 14 . 002 Area Declining . 692 3. 05 . 003 Seen PC on Foot -. 582 -2. 07 . 039 Non-white respondent -. 572 -2. 00 . 046 Knows of CP Programme -. 427 -1. 95 . 052 Quality of Local Services Scale -. 037 -1. 85 . 066 (Constant) Source: Bottoms and Wilson, 2005
Скачать презентацию PLACE CRIME AND DISORDER Anthony Bottoms Universities of
098fded2adc622c4aabf6aaf18430df2.ppt