islington crime survey 2016 · 2017-02-06 · 3 about this survey this survey was funded by the...
TRANSCRIPT
1
THEISLINGTONCRIMESURVEY(2016)
PARTONE
2
AUTHORS
RogerMatthews
KerryLee
JackieTurner
HelenJohnson
TaraYoung
3
ABOUTTHISSURVEY
ThissurveywasfundedbytheESRCandIslingtonCouncilandcarriedoutbytheOpinionResearchServices on behalf of the University of Kent. The survey was conducted between April and June2016.Thetotalnumberofresidentsinterviewedwas2025.Thisincludedapurposivesampleof1501residentswhowerevictimsofatleastonetypeofcrime.
Thissurveyisbasedonapurposivesampleof2000residentsandprovidesdetailsofvictimisationintheLondonBoroughof Islington. It includesresident’sviewsof theirsenseofsafety, thechangingnatureofcrimeandanti-socialbehaviouraswellas theirattitudes towards thepolice. In thiswaytheaim is supplementpolicegenerateddataby identifying thepublic’s reportingpracticesand toexplorethoseaspectsofvictimisationthatarenotreadilyapparentinthecrimestatistics.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
WewouldliketothankAlvaBailey,TrevorJones,DerekSawyerandPaulConveryfortheirongoingsupport.Our thanks also go to SineadHayden andKeith Stangerwhohaveprovided someusefulbackgrounddata,aswellastoKesterHolmesandAlysThomasofOpinionResearchServicesfortheirefforts incarryingout this survey. Inaddition,wewould like to thank JamesBrook fordevelopingandmaintaining the website. Thanks also go to Janet Ransom for proofreading the draft report.Finally,ourappreciationgoesouttoalltheresidentsofIslingtonwhotookthetimetoparticipateinthissurvey.
December2016
4
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.................................................................................17
SurveyFindings...........................................................................................17
Neighbourhoodconcerns..........................................................................................................17
Anti-socialbehaviour................................................................................................................17
Changesinlevelsofcrime.........................................................................................................17
Likelihoodofvictimisation........................................................................................................17
Safetyintheneighbourhood.....................................................................................................17
Avoidancebehaviours...............................................................................................................17
Securitymeasures.....................................................................................................................17
Contactandsatisfactionwithpolice..........................................................................................18
Policefairness...........................................................................................................................18
Reportingseriouscrime............................................................................................................18
Burglary....................................................................................................................................18
PersonalTheft...........................................................................................................................18
CriminalDamage.......................................................................................................................18
VehicleCrime............................................................................................................................18
ViolenceAgainstthePerson......................................................................................................19
SexualAssaultandHarassment.................................................................................................19
HateCrime................................................................................................................................19
Fraud19
OtherOnlineCrime...................................................................................................................20
GeneralObservations..................................................................................20
CrimeVictimisationbyEthnicity................................................................................................20
WomenandVictimisation.........................................................................................................20
5
Neighbours...............................................................................................................................20
VulnerableandDisabledRespondents......................................................................................20
PARTA:BACKGROUNDANDCONTEXT........................................................21
1 CrimeandVictimisationinIslington.......................................................21
1.1Examiningcrimeandvictimisationinthelocality..........................................................21
1.2 CrimeandvictimisationinIslington..................................................................................21
1.3 Thedistributionofvictimisation......................................................................................22
1.4 TheMainFeaturesoftheFirstIslingtonCrimeSurvey(1986)...........................................23
1.5 TheSecondIslingtonCrimeSurvey...................................................................................25
1.6 Relatedcrimesurveys......................................................................................................26
1.7 TheLondonBoroughofIslington:Asocio-demographicProfile........................................28
1.8 RecentchangesinthelevelanddistributionofcrimeinIslington.....................................30
1.9 Riseinfraudandonlinecrime.........................................................................................39
1.10 VictimisationinIslington.................................................................................................40
2 Demographics........................................................................................41
2.1 Gender.............................................................................................................................41
2.2 Age...................................................................................................................................41
2.2.1 Ageandgender...............................................................................................................41
2.3 Ethnicity...........................................................................................................................41
2.4 Employmentstatus..........................................................................................................42
2.5 Maritalstatus...................................................................................................................42
2.6 Religion............................................................................................................................42
2.7 Residentialstatus/tenure.................................................................................................42
2.8 Lengthoftimeinpresenthome........................................................................................43
2.9 LengthoftimeinIslington................................................................................................44
2.9.1 YearsinIslingtonbytenurebyethnicity.........................................................................44
6
2.10 Distributionofrespondentsbyward...............................................................................45
PARTB:PERCEPTIONSOFNEIGHBOURHOODANDCRIME...........................46
3 Perceptionsofneighbourhood,crimeandpolicinginIslington...............46
3.1 Primaryneighbourhoodconcerns.....................................................................................46
3.1.1 Whowasmostconcerned?.............................................................................................47
3.1.2 Whowasleastconcerned?.............................................................................................48
3.2 Satisfactionwithneighbourhood......................................................................................49
3.3 Crime...............................................................................................................................49
3.3.1 CrimeandlengthoftimeinIslington..............................................................................50
3.3.2 Crimeandtenure............................................................................................................50
3.3.3 Crimeandemploymentstatus........................................................................................51
3.3.4 Crimeandgender............................................................................................................51
3.3.5Crimeandvictimstatus....................................................................................................51
3.4 Perceptionsofthechanginglevelofcrime.......................................................................51
3.4.1 ChangesinlevelsofcrimebylengthoftimeinIslington................................................52
3.4.2 Changesinlevelsofcrimebytenure..............................................................................53
3.4.3 Changesinlevelsofcrimebyemploymentstatus..........................................................53
3.4.4 Changesincrimelevelsbyethnicity...............................................................................53
3.4.5 Changesinlevelsofcrimebyage....................................................................................53
3.4.6 Changesincrimelevelsbygender..................................................................................53
3.4.7 Changesinlevelsofcrimebyvictimstatus.....................................................................53
3.4.8 Changesinlevelsofspecifictypesofcrime....................................................................53
3.5 Perceptionofprobabilityofcrimeandfearofcrime.........................................................55
3.5.1 Perceptionoflikelihoodofvictimisation.........................................................................55
3.5.2 Feelingsofsafetyandriskavoidancebehaviour.............................................................56
3.5.3 Feelingsofsafetyandavoidancebehaviours..................................................................58
3.5.4 Securitymeasures...........................................................................................................60
7
3.5.5 Numberofsecuritymeasures.........................................................................................61
3.6 Membershipofneighbourhoodwatch.............................................................................62
3.7 Anti-socialbehaviour.......................................................................................................62
3.7.1 Natureofconcerns..........................................................................................................63
3.7.2 ExperiencesofAnti-socialBehaviour.............................................................................65
3.8 Contactwithandperceptionsofthepolice......................................................................66
3.8.1 Contactwithlocalpolice?...............................................................................................66
3.8.2 Satisfactionwithpoliceconduct.....................................................................................68
3.8.3 Perceptionsofpolice.......................................................................................................68
3.8.4 Stopandsearch...............................................................................................................69
3.8.5 Witnessingacrime..........................................................................................................69
3.8.5 Reportingofcrime...........................................................................................................71
SECTIONC:CRIMEIN-DEPTH........................................................................72
4 Burglary.................................................................................................72
4.1 Victimcharacteristics.......................................................................................................72
4.2 Timeandlocationofburglaries........................................................................................72
4.3 Methodofentry,itemsstolenanddamagedone.............................................................74
4.3.1 Methodofentry.............................................................................................................74
4.3.2 Itemsstolen.....................................................................................................................75
4.3.3 Damagecaused...............................................................................................................75
4.4 Insurance,reportingandsatisfactionwithoutcome.........................................................76
4.4.1 Insurance.........................................................................................................................76
4.4.2 Reportingandsatisfactionwithoutcome.......................................................................76
4.4.3 Reasonsforsatisfaction..................................................................................................77
4.5 Knowledgeofoffender.....................................................................................................78
4.4.4 Non-reporting..................................................................................................................79
4.5 Wastheburglarypreventable?........................................................................................79
8
5PersonalTheft..........................................................................................81
5.1 Victimcharacteristics......................................................................................................81
5.2Locationandtimeofincidents.............................................................................................82
5.2.1 Timingoftheftsandattempts........................................................................................83
5.3 Itemsstolen....................................................................................................................83
5.4Knowledgeofoffender........................................................................................................84
5.5 Policeinvolvement..........................................................................................................85
5.5.1 Reportingtopolice.........................................................................................................85
5.5.2 Wererespondentssatisfiedwiththeoutcomeofreporting?........................................85
5.5.3 Reasonsfornotreporting..............................................................................................86
6 CriminalDamage....................................................................................87
6.1 Victimcharacteristics.......................................................................................................87
6.2 Wheredidtheoffenceanddamageoccur?.......................................................................87
6.2.1 Location...........................................................................................................................87
6.2.2 Propertydamagedandtypeofdamage..........................................................................88
6.3 Reporting,satisfactionandnon-reporting........................................................................89
6.3.1 Reporting.........................................................................................................................89
6.3.2 Satisfactionwithoutcome...............................................................................................89
6.3.3 Nonreporting..................................................................................................................90
6.4 Knowledgeofoffender.....................................................................................................91
6.4.1 Apprehensionofoffenders.............................................................................................91
6.4.2 Victims’knowledgeofoffender......................................................................................91
7 Vehiclecrime..........................................................................................92
7.1 Victimcharacteristics.......................................................................................................92
7.2 Typeofvehicle.................................................................................................................92
7.3 Natureandlocationofincident........................................................................................93
9
7.3.1 Stolenvehicles.................................................................................................................95
7.3.2 Theftfromthevehicle.....................................................................................................97
7.3.3 Damagetovehicle.........................................................................................................101
8 ViolenceAgainstThePerson.................................................................105
8.1 DefinitionandDemographics.........................................................................................105
8.2 Locationofincidents......................................................................................................106
8.3 Timeandnatureofincident...........................................................................................107
8.3.1 Timeofincident............................................................................................................107
8.4 Natureofviolenceanditseffects...................................................................................108
8.4.1 Natureofviolence.........................................................................................................108
8.4.2 Useofaweapon............................................................................................................108
8.4.3 Physicalandpsychologicalinjuriessustained...............................................................108
8.4.4 Effectofincidentonrespondents.................................................................................109
8.4.5 Whowaswithrespondentsatthetimeoftheincident?..............................................110
8.5 Respondents’knowledgeofoffenderandwhytheincidenthadoccurred......................110
8.5.1 Knowledgeofoffender..................................................................................................110
8.5.2 Respondentsperceptionsofwhytheincidenthadhappened......................................111
8.6 Policeinvolvement.........................................................................................................112
8.6.1 Reportingtopolice........................................................................................................112
8.6.2 Satisfactionwithoutcome.............................................................................................113
8.6.3 Reasonsfornotreporting.............................................................................................114
8.6.4 ContactwithVictimSupport.........................................................................................114
9 SexualAssaultandHarassment............................................................115
9.1 DefinitionandDemographics.........................................................................................115
9.2 Location,natureofincident............................................................................................115
9.2.1 Locationofincidents.....................................................................................................115
9.2.2 Natureofincident.........................................................................................................116
10
9.2.3 Theoffenders................................................................................................................117
9.2.4 Reportingofincidents...................................................................................................118
9.2.5 SatisfactionwithOutcome............................................................................................118
10HateCrime...........................................................................................120
10.1 Definitionandvictimcharacteristics..............................................................................120
10.2 Locationofincident.......................................................................................................120
10.3 Natureoftheincidentandknowledgeofoffender........................................................122
10.3.1 Natureofincident.......................................................................................................122
10.3.2 Werevictimsaloneorwithsomeone?........................................................................123
10.3.3 KnowledgeofOffender...............................................................................................123
10.4 Victims’responses.........................................................................................................124
10.4.1 Response.....................................................................................................................124
10.4.2 Reportingtopolice......................................................................................................125
10.4.3 Satisfactionwiththeoutcome....................................................................................125
10.4.4 Nonreporting..............................................................................................................125
11Fraud....................................................................................................127
11.1 Definitionandvictimcharacteristics..............................................................................127
11.2 Detailsoftheincidents..................................................................................................127
11.2.1 Bankandcreditaccountfraud....................................................................................128
11.2.2 Advancefeefraud.......................................................................................................129
11.2.3 Non-investmentfraud.................................................................................................129
11.2.4 Otherfraud..................................................................................................................129
11.3 Reporting,satisfactionwithoutcomeandnon-reporting...............................................129
11.3.1 Reporting.....................................................................................................................129
11.3.2 Satisfactionwithoutcome...........................................................................................130
11.3.3 Non-reporting..............................................................................................................132
11.4 Knowledgeofoffender..................................................................................................133
11
12OtherOnlineCrime...............................................................................134
12.1 Definitionandvictimcharacteristics..............................................................................134
12.2 Natureoftheincidents..................................................................................................134
12.3 Reporting,satisfactionwithoutcomeandnon-reporting...............................................135
12.3.1 Reporting.....................................................................................................................135
12.3.2 Satisfactionwithoutcome...........................................................................................136
12.3.3 Non-reporting..............................................................................................................136
12.4 Knowledgeofoffender..................................................................................................136
13.ConcludingObservations.....................................................................137
13.1.Crimevictimisationbyethnicity......................................................................................137
13.5.Cybercrime.....................................................................................................................139
13.6.Womenandvictimisation...............................................................................................140
13.7.Neighbours.....................................................................................................................141
13.8.Vulnerableanddisabledrespondents.............................................................................142
References................................................................................................143
AppendixA................................................................................................145
AppendixB................................................................................................146
AppendixC................................................................................................147
APPENDIXD...............................................................................................151
TechnicalSummary...................................................................................152
12
LISTOFFIGURES
PartA:BackgroundandContext
Figure1:Areasofmostandleastdeprivation...............................................................................29
Figure2:2008-2010Crimeratesbyward......................................................................................30
Figure3:2015-2016Crimeratesbyward......................................................................................31
Figure4:2015Domesticabuseestimated,recorded,andidentifiedindividuals............................32
Figure5:2014/2015Arrestsbyagegroup.....................................................................................33
Figure6:Crimeproblemsintheboroughbyarea..........................................................................34
Figure7:ChanginglevelsofcrimeinIslington(1)..........................................................................35
Figure8:Changinglevelsofcrimeinislington(2)..........................................................................35
Figure9:ResidentialBurglarybyLSOAOctober2014toSeptember2015......................................36
Figure10:RobberybyLSOAOctober2014toSeptember2015......................................................37
Figure11:TheftandHandlingbyLSOAOctober2014toSeptember2015.....................................38
Figure12:ViolenceAgainstthePersonbyLSOAOctober2014toSeptember2015.......................39
Figure13:Ageofrespondents.......................................................................................................41
Figure14:Employmentstatus.......................................................................................................42
Figure15:Tenure..........................................................................................................................43
Figure16:Lengthoftimeinpresenthome....................................................................................43
Figure17:LengthoftimeinIslington............................................................................................44
Figure18:YearsresidentinIslingtonandtenurebyethnicity........................................................44
PartB:PerceptionsofNeighbourhoodandCrime
Figure19:Perceptionofneighbourhoodproblems........................................................................46
Figure20:Proportionresponding‘notaproblem’toneighbourhoodconcerns.............................49
Figure21:Neighbourhoodconcerns:Crime...................................................................................50
Figure22:Howhascrimechanged?..............................................................................................52
Figure23:PerceptionofCrime......................................................................................................54
Figure24:Likelihoodofvictimisationinthenext12months.........................................................55
Figure25:Likelihoodofvictimisation:demographicanalysis.........................................................56
Figure26:Feelingsofsafety..........................................................................................................57
Figure27:Feelingsofsafetybyward.............................................................................................57
13
Figure28:Areastoavoid...............................................................................................................59
Figure29:Typeofhomesecuritymeasures...................................................................................60
Figure30:Feelingsofsafetyandsecuritymeasures......................................................................61
Figure31:Anti-SocialBehaviour:demographicanalysis................................................................63
Figure32:ASBConcerns................................................................................................................64
Figure33:Contactwiththelocalpolice.........................................................................................67
Figure34:Satisfactionwithpoliceconduct...................................................................................68
Figure35:Witnessedacrimeinthelast12months.......................................................................70
PartC:CrimeIn-Depth
Burglary
Figure36:BurglariesNorthIslington.............................................................................................73
Figure37:BurglariesSouthIslington.............................................................................................73
Figure38:Timeoftheincidents....................................................................................................74
Figure39:MethodofEntry...........................................................................................................74
Figure40:Itemsstolen..................................................................................................................75
Figure41:Damagecaused.............................................................................................................76
Figure42:Hasoffenderbeencaught?...........................................................................................77
Figure43:Whatisknownabouttheoffender?..............................................................................78
Figure44:Whynotreport?...........................................................................................................79
Figure45:Wastheincidentpreventable?.....................................................................................80
PersonalTheft
Figure46:Locationofincidents.....................................................................................................82
Figure47:TimingofIncidents.......................................................................................................83
Figure48:Itemsstolen..................................................................................................................84
Figure49:Whatwasknownabouttheoffender?..........................................................................84
Figure50:Reportingtopolice.......................................................................................................85
Figure51:Whynotreport?...........................................................................................................86
14
CriminalDamage
Figure52:Wheredidthedamageoccur?......................................................................................88
Figure53:Typeofdamage............................................................................................................88
Figure54:Whynotreport?...........................................................................................................90
Figure55:Whatknownaboutoffender?.......................................................................................91
VehicleCrime
Figure56:Typeofvehicle..............................................................................................................93
Figure57:Natureofincident.........................................................................................................93
Figure58:VehicleCrimeNorthIslington.......................................................................................94
Figure59:VehicleCrimeSouthIslington.......................................................................................95
Figure60:Wherevehiclewasparked............................................................................................97
Figure61:Whatwasstolen?.........................................................................................................97
Figure62:Securitymeasures.........................................................................................................98
Figure63:Modeofaccesstovehicle.............................................................................................99
Figure64:Wereoffenderscaught?..............................................................................................100
Figure65:Whynotreport?.........................................................................................................101
Figure66:Locationofvehicle......................................................................................................102
Figure67:Damagetovehicle......................................................................................................102
Figure68:Reportingandapprehensionofoffenders...................................................................103
Figure69:Knowledgeoftheoffender.........................................................................................104
Figure70:Whynotreport?.........................................................................................................104
ViolenceAgainstthePerson
Figure71:Locationofincidents...................................................................................................106
Figure72:Timeofincidents........................................................................................................107
Figure73:Typeofforceused......................................................................................................108
Figure74:Otherspresentatthetimeoftheincident..................................................................110
Figure75:KnowledgeoftheOffender.........................................................................................111
Figure76:Reasonstheincidentoccurred....................................................................................111
Figure77:Reportingandapprehension.......................................................................................112
15
Figure78:Respondentsatisfactionwithoutcome.......................................................................113
Figure79:Reasonsfornotreporting...........................................................................................114
SexualAssaultandHarrassment
Figure80:Locationofincidents...................................................................................................116
Figure81:Natureofincident.......................................................................................................117
Figure82:Numberofoffenders..................................................................................................117
Figure83:Reportingofincidents.................................................................................................118
Figure84:Whynotreporttothepolice?.....................................................................................119
HateCrime
Figure85:LocationofIncident....................................................................................................121
Figure86:Victimaloneorwithsomeone....................................................................................123
Figure87:Knowledgeofoffender...............................................................................................124
Figure88:Victim’simmediateresponsetotheincident..............................................................124
Figure89:Reportingtothepolice...............................................................................................125
Figure90:Whynotreport?.........................................................................................................126
Fraud
Figure91:Proportionofincidentsbycategory............................................................................128
Figure92:Reportingofincidents.................................................................................................130
Figure93:Satisfactionwithoutcome..........................................................................................131
Figure94:Whynotreport?.........................................................................................................132
OtherOnlineCrime
Figure95:Typeofonlinecrime...................................................................................................135
Figure96:Reportingofincidents.................................................................................................135
Figure97:Whynotreport?.........................................................................................................136
16
Conclusion
Figure98:Crimevictimisationbyethnicity..................................................................................137
Figure99:Percentageofsurveypopulationasvictimsoffraudandonlinecrime........................139
Appendices
Figure100:Comparisonofoffences............................................................................................145
Figure101:Comparisonofsatisfaction........................................................................................146
Figure102:Reportingandapprehension.....................................................................................151
17
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
SurveyFindings
Neighbourhoodconcerns
Housing costs topped the list of neighbourhood concerns, with crime in second place.Unemployment,lackofplacesforchildrentoplayandtrafficnoisewereseenassignificantproblemsamongstresidentsinIslington.
Anti-socialbehaviour
Just over onequarter of respondents thought anti-social behaviourwas a problemwith themostcommonconcernsbeingyouthshangingaroundfollowedbylitterandrubbishanddruguse/selling.Also,therewereconcernsrelatingtopeopleridingbicyclesonpavementsandstreetdrinking.
Changesinlevelsofcrime
Overall,mostrespondents(66%)thoughtcrimelevelshadremainedunchangedduringtheirperiodofresidenceinIslington.Womenweremorelikelythanmentobelievetherehadbeenanincreaseinspecific typesofoffences, includingdrugandalcoholuse/selling, theft-relatedcrimes,muggingsandfraud.
Likelihoodofvictimisation
Thevastmajority(81%)ofrespondentsthoughtitveryorfairlyunlikelythattheywouldpersonallyfallvictimtocrime in the followingtwelvemonths.Overall,womenweremore likely thanmentobelieve theywouldbepersonally victimised.WhiteOther respondentswere least likely tobelievetheywouldbevictimised.
Safetyintheneighbourhood
Almostallrespondents(98%)feltsomedegreeofsafetyduringthedayandthemajority(81%)alsofeltsomedegreeofsafetyatnight.Overall,althoughmostwomen(73%)saidtheyfeltsafedayandnight,thiswaslessthanmen(89%).
Avoidancebehaviours
Twiceasmanywomenasmensaidtheywouldavoidcertainstreetsorareas.Thiswasmainlyduetofearof theftandothercrimeand/or feelingsof intimidationbygroupsandgangs.Generally theserespondentsavoidedlocationsthatwerebadlylitorsecluded.
Securitymeasures
Most respondents had some securitymeasures in their home. All respondentswho said they feltunsafeintheirneighbourhoodhadthreeorfoursecuritymeasures.Themostcommonwerewindowlocks,followedbyexteriordoorswithdeadlocksandsecuritychainsorboltsonexteriordoors.Therewerenodifferencesbytenure.
18
Contactandsatisfactionwithpolice
Lessthanonefifthofrespondentshadcontactwithpoliceduringtheprecedingtwelvemonths.Overhalfoftherespondents(56%)saidthattheywereverysatisfiedwiththepoliceanddescribedthemasefficient and concerned.A further30% said that theywere fairly satisfied,while14% said thattheywere dissatisfied. A significantminoritywere critical of theway inwhich the police handledcases and/or the inability of the police to apprehend offenders, as well as claims of heavyhandedness.
Policefairness
Nearly all respondents (92%) felt that thepolice treatedeveryone fairly andequally.WhiteOtherrespondentshadthehighestdegreeofconfidenceinfairandequaltreatmentofall.However,therewere a few negative perceptions of the police, which relatedmainly to the perception of unfairprofilingonthebaseofyouthorrace.
Reportingseriouscrime
Nearlyall respondents (96%)said theywouldreport topoliceaseriouscrimetheyhadwitnessed.Youngpeoplewerelesslikelythanotheragebandstodoso,andmenwerealittlemorelikelythanwomentosaytheywouldreportaseriouscrimetopolice.Wherepeoplestatedthattheywouldnotreportthiswasmainlyduetotheperceptionthatthecasewastootrivialornothingcouldbedone.
Burglary
Some 8% of respondents experienced a burglary or attempted burglary. In most cases the mainmode of entry was by forcing the outside door. Almost a third of burglary victimswere insured.Offenderswerecaught in15%ofcases.ThemostcommonareaswerenearArchwayandJunctionRoad,aroundArsenalandaroundLeverStreet.
PersonalTheft
Themajorityoftheftstookplaceonthestreet–oftenneartheoffender’shome.Themostcommonitems stolenwerebicycles,mobilephones, cashandwallets, andgarden items. Justunderhalfofincidentswerereportedtothepoliceandoffenderswerecaughtin10%ofcases.
CriminalDamage
Mostcasesof criminaldamage involveddamage to theoutsideof residentsdwellingsornear thehomeofvictims.Themostcommon incidents included thebreakingofgarden furnitureorplants,graffiti,gougingorscratchingbrickwork,anddamagetowindowsanddoors.Some38%ofincidentswerereportedtothepoliceandoffenderswerecaughtin8%ofcases.
VehicleCrime
Vehiclecrimeincludestheftofandtheftfromvehiclesaswellasdamagetovehicles.Eightvehicleswerereportedstolen.Theftfromvehiclesinvolvedmainlycashormobilephones.Mostownershadsomeformofsecurityontheirvehiclesandoffendersmainlygainedaccessbybreakingwindowsorforcingdoors. Innearly a thirdof incidents involving theft fromvehicles thedoororwindowwas
19
unlocked.Damagetovehiclesmainlyinvolveddentsandscratches,brokenwindowsortheremovalofexternalparts.Offenderswerecaught inonly4%ofdamage tovehiclecases.Fewrespondentsreportedincidentsoftheftfromtheirvehicletothepolice.TheareasurroundingArsenalstationisahotspotforallthreetypesofvehiclecrime.TufnellParkandUpperHollowayarehotspotsfortheftfromavehicleandboththeseareasaswellasKingsCrossandUpperStreetfordamagetovehicle.
ViolenceAgainstthePerson
Violent incidents occurredmostly at home or on the street,with a few incidents reported in theworkplace. There were significant differences between the experience of violence by men andwomenbothintermsoflocationandimpact.Agreatdealofviolenceinvolvedthreatstoharmwhilein somecases victimsweregrabbed,pushed,punchedor slapped.Weaponswereused in13%ofincidents – mainly knives. The main response to these incidents was for victims to takeprecautionarymeasures to avoid certain people and places. In 27% of cases the victim knew theoffenderbysightandin15%ofcasestheoffenderwasaneighbourorahousemate.Overhalfofthevictimsreportedtheincidenttothepoliceandinhalfofthesecasestheperpetratorwascaught.
SexualAssaultandHarassment
Twenty-fourincidentsofsexualassaultwerereported.Inallcasesthevictimswerewomen,mostofwhomwereinthe25to34agegroup.Overhalfoftheincidentsinvolvedverbalabuseorformsofsexual harassment. One in five incidents involved a woman being followed while 13% involvedunwantedgropingortouching.Alloftheincidentswerereportedtothepoliceandtherewasahighlevelofsatisfactionamongstvictimswiththepoliceresponse.Sixoffenderswerecaught.
HateCrime
Some 85 respondents reported incidents of hate crime. Just under half of the victims werecategorisedasBME.Themajorityofvictims lived inpublicsector rentedaccommodation.Mostofthe incidentswere racialbut somewere sexual (homophobic)whilea significantnumber involvedthedisabledandinfirm.Althoughveryfewvictimsofhatecrimereportedtheincidentimmediatelytothepolice,overhalfdidatalaterdate.Thepoliceapprehendedtheoffendersinhalfofthecasesreportedtothem.
Fraud
In linewith theCrimeSurveyofEnglandandWales (ONS2015)questions relating toonline fraudwere included in the survey. Some 41% of those interviewed reported some form of fraud orattemptedfraud.This includedbankorcreditcard incidents intwothirdsofcases.Otherformsoffraud involved unauthorised access to residents’ savings accounts. Less than a quarter of victimsreportedtheincidentstothepolicebutthemajorityofvictimsdidreporttheincidentstothebanksor other financial institutions to dealwith. Not surprisingly littlewas known about offenders andveryfewwerecaught.
20
OtherOnlineCrime
Thisiscommonlyreferredtoas‘cybercrime’andinvolvesoffencesagainstcomputertechnologyanddataandwasreportedby8%ofrespondents.This formofvictimisation involvedmainlycomputerhackingandvirusesaswellasonlineharassment.Againonlyasmallpercentageofvictimsreportedtheincidentstothepoliceandmostpeopleeitherdealtwithitthemselvesorreferredthemattertotheirinternetproviderorcomputersupportagency.
GeneralObservations
CrimeVictimisationbyEthnicity
AdoptingathreefoldclassificationofWhiteBritish,BMEandWhiteOther itwasfoundthatWhiteOtherrespondentswereoverrepresentedinthecategoryofsexualassaultandharassment,aswellas violence against the person, whereas BME respondents are overrepresented in terms of hatecrime.WhiteBritishpeopleareslightlymorelikelytobevictimsoffraudorotheronlinecrime.
WhiteOtherisanewcategoryandonethathasdistinctpatternsincomparisontootherethnicities.Their most striking characteristic is their higher likelihood of being satisfied with theirneighbourhoodandthepoliceandtheirlowerfearofcrime.Theyaremorelikelytobeshorter-termresidents(lessthantwoyears)andprivaterenters.BMErespondentsarelesslikelytoperceivethepoliceasfair(thoughstillhighat90%),aremorelikelytobepublicrenters,andhavemoreconcernsaboutunfriendlinessintheirarea.
WomenandVictimisation
Womenweremorelikelytobelievetheywouldbevictimsofcrimeinthefutureandmorelikelytobelieve there has been an increase in crime. They were also more likely to avoid certain areas,particularlyatnight,andhadgreaterfearofcrime.Womenweremore likelytobevictimsofhatecrime (two thirds), justunderhalfofwhichwereBMEwomen.Womenaged25 to34weremostlikely tobevictimsof sexualharassment,whichmainlyoccurredon thestreet.Experiencesof thepolice,particularlyrelatingtocasesofdomesticviolence,weregenerallypositive.
Neighbours
Neighbourswere a source of concern for a number of respondents andparticularly in relation toanti-socialbehaviourandviolence, includingintimidation.Issueswithneighbourshadthepotentialto significantly affect the wellbeing of residents. Problems relating to nuisance were frequentlymentioned,includingnoise,interpersonalconflict,criminaldamage,andhatecrime.
VulnerableandDisabledRespondents
There were a number of respondents who raised issues specifically in relation to disability,vulnerabilityoroldage.Peoplementionedissueswiththeirneighbourhoodsuchaspoorpavementsor placement of bus stops as well as a fear of crime. Some felt that they were targeted simplybecausetheywereseenasvulnerable.
21
PARTA:BACKGROUNDANDCONTEXT
1 CrimeandVictimisationinIslington
1.1Examiningcrimeandvictimisationinthelocality
SincethepublicationofthepioneeringstudyoftheFirstIslingtonCrimeSurvey(Jones,MacLeanandYoung 1986) there has been a growing recognition of the importance of examining crime andvictimisationinthelocalcontext.Thisismainlybecausetheincidenceofcrimeandvictimisationcanvaryconsiderably fromoneareatoanotherandevenfromstreettostreet.Consequentlynationalsurveyshavealimitedvalueindevelopinglocalpolicies.TheprincipleaimofthisstudyistoprovideamoredetailedaccountofthenatureanddistributionofcrimeintheLondonboroughofIslingtonandtogiveexpressiontotheexperiencesofthoselivingintheborough.
1.2 CrimeandvictimisationinIslington
Victimisation surveys have arisen in part as an alternative to the perceived limitations of policegenerated data, on one hand, and a growing interest in the experience of victims, on the other.Surveyingvictims,itisargued,providesvaluableinformationaboutthepublic’sexperienceofcrimeaswell as their attitudes towards the operation of criminal justice agencies. The interest in localvictimisation surveys was stimulated by the publication in 1977 of Sparks, Genn and Dodd’sexplorative study Surveying Victims which examined victimisation in three London boroughs –Brixton,Hackney and Kensington - aswell as a small comparative study conducted in Cambridge.Theiraimwas to identify the so-called ‘dark figure’ofunrecordedcrimebyaskingpeopledirectlyabout their experiences of victimisation. Themotivation for undertaking this studywas the beliefthat surveying victims would reveal the existence of a much greater amount of crime than isdisclosedintheofficialstatistics.AsSparksetal.(1977)notethesesurveysnotonlyprovideusefulinformation on the distribution of crime but also have political implications, as they can have apowerfulimpactonthepublic’sperceptionofthe‘crimeproblem’.
However, victim surveys are beset with methodological and conceptual difficulties. Thesemainlyinvolve the ability of respondents to accurately remember incidents. Normally, respondents areaskedtoreportincidentsthattheyhaveexperiencedoveratwelve-monthperiod.Thereisalwaysadangerof‘telescoping’,bywhichtherespondentrecallstheeventashavingoccurredeitherearlierorlaterthanthedesignatedperiod.Therearealsorecurringissuesofsamplingandselectionbias.
Intheprocessofunderstandingwhatismeantby‘crime’itbecomesapparentthatthevictimplaysakeyrole,astheymustdefineaspecificincidentaspotentiallyconstitutinga‘crime’ratherthan,say,anaccident.Assumingthatthepersondefinesan incidentasan illegalactofsomesorts/hemustdecide whether or not to report it to the police. The police, in turn, have to decide whether torecord it as a crime incident or not. Thus, from the initial process of defining an incident as apotentialcrimetotherecordingandprocessingofthecase,someincidentsforvariousreasonswillfail tomove throughall theavailable stages. Thus, it is the case that victimisation surveysdonotattempttomeasurethetotalvolumeofillegalincidentsthattakeplaceinaspecifiedperiodoftime,butonlythosedefinedaspossiblecrimesbythevictimssurveyed.
22
Inaddition,victimsurveyscanprovidedetailsaboutwhypeoplereportordonotreport incidents.This process is not just a function of victim motivation, but also what might be called the‘reportability’ofdifferent typesof incidents.Some incidents thatpeople findoffensiveorharmfulmay not be considered by the general public or the authorities as worthy of investigation andthereforetheyareunlikelytobereportedorrecorded.Thusvictimisationsurveyshavethepotentialofhelpingtounderstandtheprocessesbywhichcrimeisconstructedandthecriticalrolethatthevictimplaysindefiningdifferenttypesofincidents.Victimisationsurveysalsoallowmembersofthepublictoexpresstheiranxietiesandfearsrelatedtocrimeandsafetyintheareaswheretheyworkandlive.Theyalsoallowrespondentstoexpressthelevelofsatisfactionwithcrimecontrolagenciesandrelatedservices. Inthiswayvictimisationsurveyscanbeidentifiedasasocialdemocratictool,allowingafullerunderstandingnotonlyoftheexperiencesofthosewhoarevictimisedbutalsooftheoperationofdifferentcriminaljusticeagencies.
1.3 Thedistributionofvictimisation
Justasit isclaimedthatarelativelysmallnumberofoffendersaredisproportionately‘responsible’for a considerable amount of crime, it is also claimed that a small number of victims aredisproportionately‘responsible’fora largeproportionoftotalvictimisation.Theimplicationofthisobservation is that victimisation is not equally spread across thepopulation, but rather is sociallyand geographically concentrated. This, in turn, leads to the concentration and compounding ofvictimisation.
The question then arises whether this is a function of individual attributes – what criminologistsrefer toas ‘victimproneness’ –oralternativelya consequenceof socialandstructuralprocesses.Richard Sparks (1981) in a paper on multiple victimisation addressed the question of why somepeoplearemore‘victimprone’thanothers.Hesuggeststhattherearesixwaysinwhichtheactions,attributesandthesocialsituationofthevictimscontributestothevariationofvictimisationrates:
• Precipitation–thevictimmayactinsuchawayastoprecipitateorencouragetheoffender’sbehaviour
• Facilitation–thevictim,althoughnotnecessarilyprecipitatingthecrimemayputthemselvesatspecialrisk
• Vulnerability– somepeoplemaybephysicallyunable to resistanattackornotexperiencedenoughtoavoidformsofdeception
• Opportunity – those who do not protect themselves or their possessions mayprovideopportunitiesforpotentialoffenders
• Attractiveness – displays of wealth may draw attention from prospectiveoffenders
• Impunity–Thepersonmaybeperceivedasa relatively ‘easy target’whowon’tcomplainorseekretribution
The recognition that victimisation is socially and geographically concentrated and that there arecertain individualswhomaybetermed‘chronicvictims’raisesthequestionofmultipleandrepeatvictimisation(Genn1998).Thesignificanceofthisrealisationisthatthestudyofvictimisationmovesaway from the focuson crimeasa seriesofdiscreteevents to seeing it as aprocess. Crimes, like
23
domestic violence in particular, often involve repeated attacks over time. However, there is atendencyinnationalvictimisationsurveystolimitthenumberofincidentsthatcanbereportedinagivenperiodoftimeandthistendstolimittheappreciationofthecontinuousandrepeatednatureofcertaintypesofoffences.
Theworkonmultipleandrepeatvictimisationillustratestheimportanceofsocialcontextinrelationto the experience of victimisation. Victimisation studies have found that amajor feature of highcrimeareasisevidenceofahighlevelofrepeatvictimisation(Trickettatal1991).Patternsofrepeatvictimisation have been found formost types of crime and have provided a basis for developingeffectivecrimepreventionstrategies(FarrallandPease1993).
Thequestionalsoarisesof the impactofvictimisationonthevictim,notonly in termsofphysicalinjuryortheabilitytobearthelossofpossessionsbutalsotheeffectonvictims’socialattitudesandtheir fear of crime. That is, the extent to which the different forms of victimisation influenceattitudes andpeople’s beliefs about crimeand senseof security in the areaswhere they live andwork.This, in turn, raises the issueofwhich crimesmostpeople fearandwhat impactdoes theirperceptionofcrimevictimisationhaveontheirlevelsofsocialinteraction.WilsonandKelling(1983),intheclassicarticleon‘BrokenWindows‘,arguedthatthegrowthofcrimeanddisorderinparticularneighbourhoodscanpromotefearanderodeinformalcontrolsleadingtoaspiralofincreasedcrimeand disorder and ultimately to neighbourhood decline.While thismodelmay be too simplistic itdoescapturesomeimportantelementsoftherelationbetweenincreasinglevelsofcrime,disorderandsocialinstability(Matthews1992).
Most importantly, local victimisation surveys have the ability to capture the specificity of crimevictimisation.Itiswidelyrecognisedthatinmosturbanareasthatlevelsofcrimevaryconsiderablyfrom one street or neighbourhood to another. Locality matters. The ability of local victimisationsurveys to ‘drill down’ into different areas with different population characteristics, allows for amoredetailedexaminationofthedistributionandeffectsofvictimisation.
Thus,thepromiseoflocalvictimisationsurveysistoprovideamorerealisticpictureoftheincidenceanddistributionofcrime.Bydrawingattentiontotheso-called‘darkfigure‘ofunreportedincidentstheyprovideanaccountofwhy certain incidentsare reportedwhileothersarenotand theyalsoallowustofocusonpolicerecordingpractices(Young1988).
1.4 TheMainFeaturesoftheFirstIslingtonCrimeSurvey(1986)
The First Islington Crime Survey (1986) was conducted by Trevor Jones, BrianMaclean, and JockYoung who were at the time based at the Centre for Criminology at Middlesex University. Theresearchwasbasedonasurveyof80enumerationdistrictsintheboroughinvolvingatotalof3360addresses.The surveyoversampledyoungpeopleand includedabooster sampleof400 residentsfrom different ethnic minority groups. However, it was the aim of the survey to include arepresentative sample of respondents from across the borough including residents fromdifferentage groups, different forms of housing tenure and different income bands. The actual surveysampled justover2000households in Islington.Thestudyshowedthesubstantial impactofcrimeand victimisation on the lives of people in the borough. A full third of householdswere found tohavebeen touchedby serious crime (i.e.burglary robberyor sexual assault)overa twelve-month
24
period.Crimewasratedbyresidentsasamajorproblem,onlysecondtounemployment.Accordingtooneoftheauthorsofthesurvey:
“Crime shaped people’s lives to a remarkable degree. A quarter of respondentsalwaysavoidedgoingoutafterdark,specificallybecauseoffearofcrimeand28percentfeltunsafeintheirownhomes.Therewasavirtualcurfewofasubstantialsectionof the femalepopulation–withoverhalfofwomenoftenoralwaysnotgoingoutafterdarkbecauseoffearofcrime.Suchasurveyputsfearofcrimeinperspective.Itisscarcelyoddforexamplethat46percentofpeopleshouldadmitworrying ‘a lot’ about mugging given that over 40 per cent of the populationactuallyknowsomeonewhohadbeenmuggedinthelasttwelvemonths.Norisitunrealistic to worry about burglary when its incidence runs at five times thenationalaverageandonsomeestatesfouroutoffivehouseshadbeenburgledinthelastyear.”(Young1988:169-170).
The survey also found significant differences in the experience of crime amongst differentsubgroups. Forexample, itwas found that thoseover45yearsoldhaveadifferentexperienceofcrimefromyoungerpeople.Youngwhitefemales,forexample,werefoundtobetwentytimesmorelikelytobeassaultedthanthoseover45.TherewerealsofoundtobeprofounddifferencesbetweenwomenfromdifferentethnicminoritygroupswithAsianyoungwomenexperiencinglowerlevelsofsexualassaultthanWhiteorAfricanCaribbeanwomen.
AmajorfocusofthefirstIslingtonCrimeSurvey(ICS1)wasonpolicingintheborough.Itwasfoundthatthestatisticsgeneratedbythepoliceproducedapictureofthedistributionofcrimethatwassignificantly different from that produced by the victimisation survey. To some extent thedistributionofpolice recordedcrime in theboroughwas seen tobea functionofpoliceactivitiesandpriorities,ratherthanpeople’sexperiences(Maclean1993).Moreover,itwasfoundthatnearlyonehalfofvictimswhodidnotreportthecrimetothepolicecitedthereasonasalackofconfidenceandabilityofthepolicetodoanything.Respondentswereaskedwhichoffencesshouldbegiventhelowestpriority.OnethirdoftheIslingtonpopulationrespondedthattoomuchpolicetimewasspentonprostitutionandaquarterof respondents felt that therewas toomuch timespentonpolicingcannabisuse.Ontheotherhand,therewasaremarkableconsensusregardingthepublic’sviewofseriouscrime,withviolence,sexualviolence,streetrobberyandburglarybeingprioritised.Amongstethnicminoritygroupsissuessuchasdealingwithracialattacksandsexualattacksonwomenwereseen as a priority. However the police were widely seen by respondents as being relativelyunsuccessfulindealingwithwhatwerewidelyconsideredtobethemostseriouscrimes.
Theexperienceofwomenwasamajor focusof ICS1.The low levelof reportingand recordingofdomestic violence and sexual assault was seen in part as a function of the lack of policeresponsiveness to reports. Women were found to routinely engage in avoidance behaviour,consciouslyavoidingcertain streetsandareas.Unlikeothernational surveys ICS1 revealedahighlevelofdomesticassaults.Manyofthesecasesinvolvedseriousandrepeatedformsofviolencewitha large percentage of respondents reporting injuries. In addition to domestic violence and sexualassault over 60% of white and 7% of African Caribbean women between the ages of 16 to 24reportedsomeformofharassment.Insum,ICS1foundincontrasttotheclaimsoftheBritishCrime
25
Survey thatwomen’s fear of crimewas far from irrational and thatwomenhave a higher rate ofvictimisationthanmenandsufferfrombothseriouscrimesaswellaslow-levelharassment.
1.5 TheSecondIslingtonCrimeSurvey
The Second Islington Crime Survey was carried out by different set of authors also based at theCentreofCriminologyatMiddlesexUniversity(Crawford,Jones,WoodhouseandYoung1990).ThissurveywasfundedbytheESRCandinvolvedasamplesizeof1621respondentswitharesponserateof76.5%.To someextent it covered the samegroundas ICS1examining issues suchasburglary,vandalism and policing, but focused in more detail on the fear crime, sexual offences, crimeprevention,anti-socialbehaviour,aswellas thedevelopmentofpolicyoptions.As in theprevioussurveytheaimwastopinpointparticularcrimeproblemsinordertofacilitatetherationalallocationofresourcesandtoidentifytargetsforpolicyintervention.
AnimportantaspectoftheSecondIslingtonCrimeSurvey(ICS2)wasanexaminationoftherelativerankingofcrimeandothersocialconcerns.Theresultwasthatduringtheinterveningperiodcrimewasidentifiedasamajorproblemintheboroughfollowedbyvandalism,dirtystreetsandlitter,andunemployment.Thusastrikingfeatureofthechangesinpeople’sviewoftheareasinceICS1wasagrowingperceptionof crimeasaproblem togetherwith thegrowingconcernwithenvironmentalissues.Therewerefoundtobenoticeabledifferencesintheperceptionofdifferentethnicminoritygroups and between men and women. People from ethnic minority groups were less likely toidentifycrimeisamajorproblemwhilewomenweremorelikelytoviewcrimemoreseriously.
AsinICS1theSecondIslingtonCrimeSurveyfoundthatresidentsexpressedalackofconfidenceinthepolice,particularlyinrelationtooffencessuchasstreetrobbery,burglary,vandalismandsexualassaults on women. The older residents, in particular, were found to be critical of policeperformance. The Second Islington Crime Survey also focused in more detail on fear of crimebreakingitdownintodifferentareas–thestreet,publictransport,andthehome.AsinICS1,itwasfound that a considerableproportionof thepopulation surveyeddidnot goout alone after dark.Whatwasparticularly interestingwasthatwhereassomemenreportedexperiencingfearofcrimeinpublicareas,asignificantnumberofwomenexperiencedbothfearandactualvictimisationinallthreeofthesearenas.Formanywomen,ofcourse,thehomeisamajorsiteofsexualandphysicalassaults.Womenwerealsofoundtoengageinavoidancebehaviouravoidingcertaintypesofpeopleandspecificplaces.
Writing inaperiodofsteadily increasing levelsofrecordedcrime,togetherwithgrowingconcernsaboutviolenceagainstwomen, theauthorsof ICS2engaged insomediscussionaboutpreventingandreducingcrime.Theyexploredthepossibilitiesof increasingpenaltiesforspecificoffencesandofemployingmorefemalejudgesaswellasconsideringtheeffectsoftargethardeningasawaytopreventdifferenttypesofcrime.Theauthorsrecognised,however,thatyoucannotreadoffpolicydirectivesdirectlyfromcrimesurveys,butarguedthattheycanmakeanimportantcontributiontoourunderstanding theproblem. Theauthorsof the Second IslingtonCrimeSurvey suggested thatmovingfromtheinformationgatheredfromthepublictothedevelopmentofcrimecontrolpoliciesinvolvesfourstages:theidentificationoftheproblem;theassessmentofpriorities;theapplicationof principles; and ascertaining possible policy options. In response to the various critiques ofvictimisationsurveystheauthorsofICS2arguedthat:
26
“Thesocialsurveyisademocraticinstrument.Itprovidesanaccurateappraisalofpeople’sfearsoftheexperiencesofvictimisation; itenablesthepublictoexpresstheirassessmentofpoliceandpublicauthorityeffectivenessandtheirdoubtsastotheextenttowhichthepolicestaywithintheboundariesoftheruleoflaw.Ifweare able to view the public as the consumer… Then the social survey provides adetailed picture of consumer demand and satisfaction.” (Crawford et al.1990:153).
Local victimisation surveys, it is suggested, provide an important alternative to police generatedstatistics, ononehand, andnational victimisation surveys on theother. Local surveys allowus tomovebeyondtheabstractionoftheaggregatestatisticsofEnglandandWalesasawhole.Crime,itissuggested, isgeographically focusedandvaries considerably fromonearea toanother.Ultimatelythe authors of ICS 2 argued for evidence-based intervention and policy formation, aswell as theneed to determine ‘what works‘ and why and how it works, to reduce crime. This involvesdevelopingarelationshipbetweentheoryandpractice. Inthisveintheresearchconductedbytheresearchers based at Middlesex University provided a detailed analysis of victimisation in theboroughaswellassomesuggestionsabouthowitmightbereduced.
1.6 Relatedcrimesurveys
Apart from ICS 1 and ICS 2 the researchers atMiddlesexUniversity in the 1980s and early 1990sconducted a number of local crime surveys in different Londonboroughs includingHammersmithandFulhamaswellasLadywoodinBirmingham.TheyalsocarriedoutanumberofspecificprojectsthatweremoreorlessdirectlylinkedtoICS1andICS2including:
• TheHilltopenvironmentalimprovementproject(Lea,Jones,WoodhouseandYoung1987)• TheIslingtonStreetCrimeSurvey(Harper,Mooney,WhelanandYoung1995)• TheMirandaCrimeandCommunitySurvey(Mooney1992)• TheFinsburyParkDomesticViolenceSurvey(Mooney1993)• PolicingProstitution:TheFinsburyParkSurvey(Matthews1986)
Theobjectiveofdevelopingevidence-basedcrimepreventionstrategieswasplayedoutinanumberofarenas includinganenvironmental improvementstrategyon theHilldropestate in thenorthofIslington.Again,usinga localsurveydesignedto identifyresidents’prioritiesaswellasmonitoringand evaluating crime prevention initiatives, the project aimed to identify the experience ofvictimisation amongst different social groups on the estate. The authors favoured a multiagencyresponse designed to address the issue of crime and the fear of crime. That is, they advocated acombinationofpolicing,betterlighting,anduseofneighbourhoodwatch.
FollowingasimilarresearchdesignasICS1,theHilldropprojectexaminedresidents’attitudesandexperiencesofcrime,aswellastheirsatisfactionwiththepolice.Followingthesurveyacombinationofcrimepreventionmeasureswasintroducedtoreduceburglary,sexualattacks,drugdealingandtomakecertainpartsof theestate safer -particularly forwomen.Followingconsultationswith localresidentsgroupstheaimwastoidentifythemainconcernsoftheresidentsinthearea.Thesecondstage was to develop a multiagency form of intervention, which would later be monitored andevaluatedinordertoidentifytheoverallimpactofthepackageofmeasuresthatwereimplemented.
27
Takingpublicprioritiesandexperiencesofcrimeasastartingpointaswellasapointofevaluation,the authors sought to provide amore realistic approach. As a result of the initiativemore policewere introduced into thearea,police-public cooperationwas increased, anti-socialbehaviourwasaddressed mainly by members of the public, and some target hardening measures were alsointroducedalongwithanimprovementinstreetlighting.Inadditionatenantmediationschemewasrecommendedtogetherwithaneighbourhoodwatchscheme.Supportwasprovidedtovictimsandworkwasinitiatedinlocalschoolstodiscusscrimerelatedissues.Inthisway,theresearcherssoughttoprovideawiderangingbutresponsivesetofinitiativesthatweredesignedtoaddressthevariousaspectsofcrimeontheestate.
Asimilar‘actionresearch‘projectwascarriedoutontheMirandaestateinthenorthofIslingtonin1992.Thisresearchwascommissionedby IslingtonCounciland involved571femaleand429malerespondents.Theaimofthesurveywasnotonlytomeasurethelevelofdomesticviolenceandthesupportservicesavailabletovictims,butalsotoexaminetheattitudesofmen.Consequentlyaself-reportstudywascarriedoutwithmalerespondents.Thisinvolvedpresentingaseriesofvignettestorespondents and then asking themhow theywould respond to different ‘conflict situations’. Thiswas followed up by a number of in-depth interviews with women who reported experiencingdomestic violence. The survey found that therewerehigh levelsofnon-reporting,whiledomesticviolence was found to be highest in the 16 to 24 age group. Some 30% of female respondentsreported experiencing some formof domestic violenceover theprevious twelvemonths.Overall,thesurveyfoundhighlevelsofspousalassaultandphysicalinjury,aswellasmentalcruelty.
A slightly different type of survey was carried out in Finsbury Park in themid-1980s, which wasdesignedtoaddresstheissueofstreetprostitution.Streetprostitutionwasseenbymanyresidentsin the area as a priority issue. It was estimated that there were at that time over 200 womenengagedinstreetprostitutionintheFinsburyParkarea,andthiswasseenbylocalresidentsnotonlyasapublicorder issue,butalsoanissuewhichaffectedthesafetyofordinarywomenlivinginthearea-manyofwhomwerereticentaboutmovingaroundthestreetsalone.Amultiagencyinitiativewas setupwhich included local residentsgroups, thepoliceand theLocalCouncil,which focusedprimarilyon theproblemofkerbcrawling.Asa resulta roadclosureschemewas implemented inorder to restrict the flow of traffic and the number of prospective sex buyers driving around thearea. Following the implementation of an extensive road closure scheme the number of womenengagedinstreetprostitutionintheareadeclineddramatically,togetherwiththeassociatedpublicorderproblems,withintwoorthreeyears.
These surveys and related research initiatives sought to contribute to policy development in theborough and they were a more or less direct offshoot of the First Islington Crime Survey (seeislingtocrimesurvey.com). Between them, the aim was to demonstrate that well thought outevidence-basedinterventionscouldbeeffectiveincontrollingcrimeandincreasingpublicsafety.Ingeneral, the Middlesex University researchers advocated multiagency interventions designed toaddresstheproblemonanumberofdifferentlevelsandfromanumberofdifferentvantagepoints.Providingcoordinatedinterventions,itwasfelt,couldhaveasubstantialimpactonthedistributionandimpactofcrimeintheborough.
28
1.7 TheLondonBoroughofIslington:Asocio-demographicProfile
TheLondonBoroughofIslingtonwasselectedasthesitefortheFirstIslingtonCrimeSurveybecauseitrepresentedadiverseinner-cityarea,containingareasofGeorgiangrandeurtogetherwithareasofpovertyanddeprivation.Duringthe1980ssome18%oftheworkingpopulationwasunemployedand67%ofhouseholdshadanincomeoflessthan£8000perannum.AccordingtotheDepartmentof theEnvironment, Islingtonwas theseventhmostdeprivedarea inEngland in the1980s. Itwasestimated that between 3000 and 4000 households lived in overcrowded conditions. Therewere7000 people on the council house waiting list and 9000 waiting for transfer to betteraccommodation. Itwasfeltthatthispicture, involvingacombinationofaffluenceanddeprivation,providedasuitableexampleofadiverseinner-cityboroughatthattime.
Over the past 30 years, however, the socio-demographic profile of Islington has changedconsiderably.Theboroughhasseenasignificantdevelopmentofcommercialandleisureactivities,although pockets of poverty and deprivation remain. Islington still has one of the highestproportionsofsocialtenantsinthecountryaswellasalargeprivaterentedsectoraccordingtotheindexofmultipledeprivation (IMD2007). Two thirdsof the118 superoutput areas (SOAs) in theboroughareamongthe20percentmostdeprivedSOAsinthecountry.
ArecentequalityreportforIslingtonstatedthefollowing(IC2016,p16):
• Overall, Islington is the 26thmost deprived local authority in England: this represents arelativeimprovementfromthe2014positionof14th.
• However,Islingtonranksthirdnationallyontheincomedeprivationindicatorforchildren,andfifthforincomedeprivationaffectingolderpeople.Onbothmeasures,thisrepresentsanimprovementinrelativedeprivationbyoneplaceon2014.
• EverywardinIslingtonhasatleastoneareathatisamongthe20%mostdeprivedareasofEngland.
• ThegeneralpatternofdeprivationinIslingtonissimilartopreviousyears:Hillrise,FinsburyPark,Caledonian,andareasofMildmay, Junction,StGeorge’sandCanonburywereall inthemostdeprivedareasofIslingtoninthelastassessment,andcontinuedtobein2015.
• ThemostcommontypesofhousingtenureinIslingtonaresocialhousingrentedfromthecouncilandprivaterentedhousing(27%and26%ofallhouseholdsrespectively).28%ofallhouseholdersowntheirownhome,lessthanhalfthenationalaverage(63%).
29
Figure1:Areasofmostandleastdeprivation
AttheotherendofthesocialspectrumIslingtonscoresasoneofthemostprosperouspartsofthecountryinrelationtohouseprices.While15%ofhouseholdsin2007hadanincomeof£15,000,justunder half had an income of under £30,000, while one in six households in the borough had anincomeofover£60,000. In2007,40,000peoplewereofworkingage,twothirdsofwhomwereinemployment.
30
Islington’spopulationisverydiverse.Ofthe200,000residentsintheboroughjustoveraquarterarefrom BME communities and a further fifth are described as ‘White Other’, which means not ofBritishheritage.ComparedtoLondonasawhole,some74percentofIslington’spopulationin2007was described as ‘White Other’, while in London in general the figure was 65%. Some 13% ofIslington’spopulationwasdescribedas ‘Black’and5percent ‘Asian’comparedwith14%and12%forLondonasawhole.
Inrelationtocrime,Islingtonhadoneofthehighestratesofrecordedcrimeinthecountryin2008-2010.Crime,however,wasnotequallydistributedthroughouttheboroughwithsomeareashavinghighercrimeratesthanothersasfigure2belowindicates.
Figure2:2008-2010Crimeratesbyward
Source:MetropolitanPolice
1.8 RecentchangesinthelevelanddistributionofcrimeinIslington
However,overthepastdecadeorsotherehasbeenasubstantialreductioninreportedcrimelevelsaccording to police recordeddata. Therewere, for example, 10,000 fewer crimes reported in theborough in 2010 compared with 2005. In recent years the frequency distribution of crime haschangedsignificantly.Followingthesteadydecreaseinmostcrimetypesupto2012therehasbeen,however,an increaseover the last twoor threeyears.During2015-2016 forexampletherewasa9.2% increase in recorded crime in theborough comparedwith an average increase in Londonof4.4%.Indeed,in2015thecrimerateinIslingtonreacheditshighestlevelforfiveyears.Significantly,in 2015 recorded levels of violent crime have increased nationally, as well as across London in
Rankingofoffencesper1,000populationbyward(June2008-May2010)
ViolenceAgainst ThePerson
Robbery Burglary Theft &Handling
CriminalDamage
OtherNotifiableOffences
Total NotifiableOffences
Barnsbury 4 14 14 4 4 4 5
Bunhill 3 4 2 3 9 5 2
Caledonian 5 9 12 7 5 2 7Canonbury 10 12 6 9 10 12 9
Clerkenwell 7 15 1 2 8 15 3
FinsburyPark 1 1 3 6 1 1 4
HighburyEast 15 10 10 11 16 11 15
HighburyWest 13 13 16 13 14 8 14
Hillrise 16 16 15 16 15 16 16Holloway 12 5 13 12 12 14 12
Junction 6 2 4 8 6 9 8
Mildmay 14 3 5 14 13 13 13
StGeorge's 11 7 11 10 3 10 10
StMary's 2 11 8 1 2 3 1StPeter's 8 8 9 5 7 6 6
Tollington 9 6 7 15 11 7 11
31
generaland in Islington inparticular.As figure3below indicatestherehavebeensomesignificantvariations in relation to different crime types in the borough over the past few years. Overall,according to Metropolitan Police data for 2015, Islington has the second highest crime rate inLondon after Westminster and is one of only three London Boroughs with above average crimerates.Significantly,Camden,whichneighboursIslington,isthethirdhighest.
AccordingtotheMetropolitanPolicedata,StMary’swardexperiencesmorecrimethananyotherinthe Borough. However, on closer examination, it has, by somemargin, the highest rate of theft(whichincludesshopliftingandpickpocketing)reflectingthenumberofshopsandbusinessesinthearea aroundUpper Street. Violence against the person ismost prevalent in Finsbury Park and StMary’s both of which are over 60% higher than the Islington average. Robbery is a much lesscommonoffence but again ismost common in Finsbury Park, followedby Junction andMildmay.Clerkenwell,Bunhill andFinsburyParkare thewardswith thehighest rateofburglary. ThewardswiththelowestlevelofcrimeoverallareHighburyEastandHillrise.
Figure3:2015-2016Crimeratesbyward
Rankingofoffencesper1,000populationbyward(May2015toMay2016)
ViolenceAgainstthePerson Robbery Burglary
Theft &Handling
CriminalDamage Drugs
Fraud orForgery
SexualOffences
Barnsury 44.1 2.9 6.9 70.9 12.6 12.5 0.2 2.2
Bunhill 42.8 6.7 15.7 98.7 11.3 9.4 0.1 2.3
Caledonian 45.5 4.6 7.7 61.4 11.7 14.8 0.3 2.2
Canonbury 28.8 3.2 11.6 37.4 7.7 8.1 0.1 1.2
Clerkenwell 32.6 4.4 16.6 81.2 9.4 14.9 0 1.8
FinsburyPark 58.3 6.7 11.4 68.6 11.7 9.6 0.2 3.5
HighburyEast 22.9 4.1 11.4 43.0 8.8 5.1 0.1 0.8
HighburyWest 31.4 4.1 9.8 39.2 8.1 5.4 0.1 2.0
Hillrise 25.8 2.9 8.7 26.9 7.6 3.1 0 2.1
Holloway 30.7 3.0 11.4 36.0 8.9 6.3 0.1 2.4
Junction 45.9 3.8 14.0 49.9 10.1 4.2 0.2 2.7
Mildmay 31.1 3.7 12.2 33.4 7.6 7.8 0.1 2.2
StGeorge’s 29.1 2.9 13.1 33.5 8.5 2.0 0 2.0
StMary’s 58.9 5.5 10.2 114.3 13.2 11.6 0.5 2.6
StPeter’s 39.2 5.3 10.3 64.2 9.8 9.1 0.3 2.0
32
AccordingtotheFairnessCommissionReport(2012)womeninIslingtonfeellesssafethanmenafterdarkandtheover60sfeellesssafethanotheragegroups.TherewasnodetecteddifferenceintheperceptionsofWhiteandBMEresidents.Finally, socialhousing tenantsweremuchmore likely tofeel unsafe atnight thanpeople inother formsof tenure. Thereare variationsbyward too.Welloverhalfof residents inClerkenwell,BunhillandStGeorge’swards feel safeafterdark,but fewerthan 40% of residents in Caledonian, Finsbury Park, Holloway and Junction wards feel safe oncenightfalls.
Accordingtopolicegenerateddataallformsofviolencehaveincreasedintheboroughoverthelasttwo or three years, particularly involving serious youth violence, while the number of domesticabusecasesintheboroughdecreasedslightlyfrom4382to4260between2014and2015.However,detectionratesalsowentdowninthisperiod(seeHayden2016).Asfigure4belowindicatesthereisconsiderablevariationbetweenthenumberofdomesticabusecasesreportedandthoseprocessedintheborough.
Figure4:2015Domesticabuseestimated,recorded,andidentifiedindividuals
Source:Hayden(2016)ViolenceAgainstWomenandGirlsAnalysis.LBI.
Theavailablefiguresalsoindicatethattherehasbeenanincreaseinrecentyearsinallformsofhatecrime.Approximatelythreequartersofhatecrimesreportedareracialorreligious.However,againthe detection rates for hate crime decreased significantly in 2014-2015. Reports of anti-socialbehaviourhavealsoincreasedintheboroughwithasignificantriseinthenumberofrepeatcallers.Theextenttowhichtheincreaseincallsisafunctionofmoreincidentsoccurringintheboroughoragreaterpropensityofsomeresidentstoreportincidents,however,isnotclear.
Tollington 34.9 3.0 11.9 25.4 8.4 3.8 0.2 2.0
33
Youth offending and gang-related violence have also become a growing cause of concern in theborough and this has resulted in the introduction of a new initiative designed to reduce youthinvolvement incrime ingeneralandgangs inparticular.Toputthis intocontext, theMetropolitanPolicedatasuggest thatknifecrimeand teenageassaultshave risen inLondonand Islington isnoexception.Althoughthesenumbershadbeendeclining,2015sawariseinknifeincidents.
It is evident from figure 5 below that 15 to 17-year-olds feature significantly in the arrest dataproduced by theMetropolitan Police andmany of these offences are linked to theft and snatch.Islingtonhas thehighest levelof theft and snatch in Londonduring2015.Therehasalsobeenanincrease in arrests of 18 to20 year-olds in theboroughand this increase appears tobe linked togangactivitiesandseriousyouthviolence.
Figure5:2014/2015Arrestsbyagegroup
Source:SaferIslingtonPartnership2016
As noted above the distribution of crime varies from one location to another. As figure 6 belowindicates,therecordedlevelofresidentialburglaryisparticularlyhighinthenorthoftheborough,whileFinsburyParkisidentifiedasoneofthemainareasforthesaleandpurchaseofillegaldrugs.Youth issues are seen to bemost pronounced in the Caledonian Road andMildmay areas, whilerobberyandthefttendtotakeplaceincentrallocations.Therearealsosomeareasthatexperiencehighlevelsofdifferentcrimetypes.
34
Figure6:Crimeproblemsintheboroughbyarea
Source:SaferIslingtonPartnership2016
In sum, although there has been a welcome reduction of different forms of crime in Islingtonbetween2003and2013 therehasbeenaworrying increase in the levelof recorded crime in theboroughoverthelast2-3years.Whetherthisisashort-termupswingorthebeginningofthesteadyrise in crime is of critical importance. Consequently, trying to understand the causes of thesechangesandtheirimpactontheresidentsofIslingtonhasnowbecomemoreurgent.
Figures7and8belowshowthechangingratesofcrimefrom2004-2016inIslingtonandarebasedonpolicegeneratedstatistics.Ascanbeseen, thefigure indicatesageneraldecline incrimeratesover thisperiodbutwitha slight risebetween2014/15and2015/16.Violenceagainst thepersonhas apparently increased to previous levels between 2013 and 2016, after a decrease in theinterveningperiod.Motorvehicleoffenceshavedecreasedthemostanddrugoffencesdeviatefromthegeneralpatternbyspikingintheyears2006-2009.
35
Figure7:ChanginglevelsofcrimeinIslington(1)
Figure8:Changinglevelsofcrimeinislington(2)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
TotalNoti/iableOffences
TotalTheft&HandlingOffences
ViolenceAgainstthePersonOffences
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
TotalBurglaryOffences
TotalCriminalDamageOffences
TotalDrugOffences
TotalMotorVehicleOffences
36
UsingthelowersuperoutputareasforIslingtonthefollowingcrimemapshavebeensuppliedbytheCommunity Safety Team in Islington to show the concentration of burglaries, robbery, theft andhandling,andviolenceagainstthepersonfortheyearOctober2014-September2015.
Figure9:ResidentialBurglarybyLSOAOctober2014toSeptember2015
As can be seen, areas of higher concentration are mainly in the north of the Borough, aroundHighbury and Junction Road, the Emirates stadium and Holloway Road, and around the HilldropEstate, and the south side of the Camden Road. These areas are generally more deprived. AnexceptiontothisisthemoreaffluentareabehindAngelstation.
Thisis incontrasttorobberyandtheftandHandling,whicharemoreconcentratedinthesouthoftheborough.
37
Figure10:RobberybyLSOAOctober2014toSeptember2015
TheareasofhighestconcentrationarethenorthendofEssexRoad,thesouthernendofthesameroadandtheareabehindAngelStation,CityRoad,Clerkenwell,andOldStreet.Manyoftheseareasareassociatedwithbusinessandcommerce.
38
Figure11:TheftandHandlingbyLSOAOctober2014toSeptember2015
Similar to robbery, theft and handling has also been found to be concentrated in theOld Street,Clerkenwell,AngelStationandlowerEssexRoadareas.Inaddition,thelowerendofHollowayRoadbehindHighburyandIslingtonstationisanotherareaofhighconcentration.
Whereas these theft offences seem to be related to the presence of commerce in the area,unsurprisinglyviolenceagainstthepersonpresentsaverydifferentpicture.
39
Figure12:ViolenceAgainstthePersonbyLSOAOctober2014toSeptember2015
The areas of highest concentration span the length of the Holloway Road and spread into theArsenal area and the area surrounding Archway Station. They are also concentrated in the areabehindAngelStationandnearOldStreet,whichissimilartotheftandhandlingandrobbery.Thesetwoareascontainbothcommercialpremisesandpocketsofdeprivation.
1.9 Riseinfraudandonlinecrime
Strikingly, fraudandonlinecrimeareovertakingotherareasofcriminality in theborough,yet thelackofavisibleperpetratorandtheprivatenatureofthesecrimesmeansthattheydonothaveahigh profile in relation to community or neighbourhood concerns. In other words, these are not‘social’issuesinthesamewaythatgangviolence,muggings,andotherformsofcrimeareperceivedtobe.Nevertheless,theyaffectalargepercentageofthepopulation.TheCrimeSurveyofEnglandandWalessuggeststhatapproximately10%ofthepopulationarevictimsofonlinecrimeandthisisaproblemthatspansdemographiccategoriessolongastheyhaveanonlinepresence.
Offences suchasphishing (trickingpeople intohandingover theirpersonaldetails), identity theft,hacking, and online harassment are becomingmore prevalent. The Crime Survey for England andWalessuggeststhatalmosthalf(2.5million)ofthe5.8millionincidentsrecordedin2015relatedtobankandcreditcardfraud.Thenexthighestwas1.4millioncomputervirusattacks.Moregenerally,
40
the survey also reported 3.8 million incidents of fraud and suggests that fraud is now the mostcommontypeofcrime.
Thechallengeforpolicingthesecrimesisthattheperpetratorsdonotneedtobeinthevicinityofthevictim.Infactmanyofthemarebasedabroad.Thus,althoughprotectionandpreventionmaybelocalconcerns,punishmentandpolicingnecessitateanationalandglobalperspective.
1.10 VictimisationinIslington
ChangesincrimeintheUKandinIslingtonareoccurring–mostnotablyariseinonlinecrimeandfraudandarise ingang/grouprelated issues.Notably, theseareverydifferenttypesofcrime.Forone–gangsandgroups–issuesofcommunitycohesionandperceivedthreatwillaffectaperson’sexperienceof theirneighbourhood.Ontheotherhand, recentcrimedatasuggests that ingeneralpeoplearefarmorelikelytofallvictimtocyberrelatedcrimes.Overall,theexistingcrimedataandhistory of crime in Islington demonstrate a shifting landscape with new issues emerging. Thus asurvey of residents experiences of different forms of crime and their changing experience ofvictimisationcanhelptogainabetterunderstandingofthischanginglandscape.
41
2 Demographics
This section considers the demographic composition of the sample, providing an analysis of thegender,ageandethnicityofrespondents,andtheiremploymentandmaritalstatus.Italsolooksattheirreligiousaffiliations,theirresidencestatusortenuretogetherwiththelengthoftimetheyhavelivedintheborough.
2.1 Gender
Afterweightswereapplied,thesamplewasequallydividedbetweenwomenandmen.
2.2 Age
Figure13:Ageofrespondents
Respondentswereaskedtheirageonhisorherlastbirthday.Thelargestgroupatnearly49%ofthesamplewerethoseaged25-44,followedbyyoungpeopleaged16to24years(16%)andthoseaged45to54years(16%).Justbelow10%wereaged55to64yearsandthe65yearsormorecategoryconstitutedlessthan10%.Themajorityofthesamplepopulationwasthereforeofworkingage.
2.2.1 Ageandgender
Forthe16to24yearscategory,thegenderbalancewas55%malecomparedto45%female.Thisisreversedforthe25-44yearscategorywith54%femaleand43%male.Withrespecttorespondentsaged45yearsandolder,menagainoutnumberwomenat57%to42%.
2.3 Ethnicity
Whenusinga5+1classification(White,Black,Asian,Mixed,Chinese,Other),thelargestcategoryat71%is‘White’.However,whena3bandclassificationisused(WhiteBritish,WhiteOtherandBME),theproportionschangetoWhiteBritishat48%,WhiteOtherat23%andBMEat29%.Hence,usingthe 5+1 classification masks the diversity of the ‘White’ group where just under half are WhiteBritish.ThecategoryofWhiteOtherisalsodiverse,includinggroupsfromSouth,CentralandNorth
42
America,AustraliaandNewZealand,aswellgroupsfromotherEuropeancountries.ItisinterestingtonotethatagreaterproportionofpeoplefromthosecountriesthatbelatedlyjoinedtheEuropeanUnionin2004–mostlyformerEasternbloccountries–werealready in Islingtonbeforehand,13%comparedwith4.2%after2004.
2.4 Employmentstatus
Figure14:Employmentstatus
Overall, more than half the sample population was employed full or part-time – 40% and 11%respectively–whileasmallerproportionwereself-employedat8%.Thecategoriesofretireesandpeople looking after the home each made up 10% of the sample. 3% were permanently sick ordisabled and 7% were unemployed but available for work. Of the remaining sample, most werestudents in full-time education (10%). Hence, some 70% of the sample population was eitherworkingorinfull-timeeducation.
2.5 Maritalstatus
Thereweresimilarproportionsofthosewhoweresingle(andhadneverbeenmarried)tothosewhowere married or in a civil partnership – 40% and 38% respectively. The next largest categorycomprisedrespondentswhowereinarelationship(ofmorethanoneyear)butwerenotmarriedorcivilpartneredat14%.Smallerproportionswerewidowed(3%),divorced(3%),inarelationshipoflessthanoneyear(2%)orseparated(0.5%).
2.6 Religion
Overall, two fifths of the respondents said they were practisingmembers of a religion (39%). Ofthese, the vast majority were Christian (72%), followed by 22% Muslim and much smallerproportions of respondentswho said theywere practisingmembers of Hinduism (3%), Buddhism(2%),Sikhism(0.6%),Judaism(0.6%)orotherreligion(0.5%).
2.7 Residentialstatus/tenure
The greatest proportion of respondents rented in the private sector (34%), followed by home-owners(30%).Ofthese13%ownedtheirpropertyoutright.Counciltenantsaccountedfor28%and
43
housingassociationorothersociallandlordtenantsaccountedfor7%.Averysmallproportionhadsharedownership(0.3%)orsomeotherlivingarrangement(0.2%).Hence,mostrespondentsoverallwereprivatesectortenants.
Figure15:Tenure
2.8 Lengthoftimeinpresenthome
Figure16:Lengthoftimeinpresenthome
Themajorityofrespondentshadlivedintheircurrentpropertyformorethanfiveyears(55.9%)butthenextlargestproportionhadoccupiedtheirpresenthomesforlessthanoneyear(17.6%).Similarproportionshadlivedintheirpropertiesforbetweenoneandtwoyears(13.1%)orforbetweentwoandfiveyears(13.4%).
44
2.9 LengthoftimeinIslington
Figure17:LengthoftimeinIslington
The majority of respondents had lived in the borough for more than five years (65%) with 14%havinglivedthereforlessthanoneyear,10%forbetweenoneandtwoyears,and11%forbetweentwoandfiveyears.
2.9.1 YearsinIslingtonbytenurebyethnicity
Figure18:YearsresidentinIslingtonandtenurebyethnicity
BME respondents comprised thegreatestproportionof thosewhohad lived in Islington formorethan five years, 76% compared with 70% White British and 41% White Other. Similarly, higherproportionsofWhiteOtherrespondentshadlivedinIslingtonforlessthanoneyear,betweenoneandtwoyears,andbetweentwoandfiveyearsthaneithertheirWhiteBritishorBMEcounterparts.
45
ThemostsignificantpatterntoemergeregardingtenurewasthatWhiteOtherrespondentswerefarmorelikelytoliveinprivatelyrentedproperties,BMEtoliveinpubliclyrentedaccommodation,andthatjustunderhalfofWhiteBritishrespondentswerehomeowners.
2.10 Distributionofrespondentsbyward
Respondentswerebroadlyevenlydistributedacrossthewards.
46
PARTB:PERCEPTIONSOFNEIGHBOURHOODANDCRIME
3 Perceptionsofneighbourhood,crimeandpolicinginIslington
Survey participants were asked about their perception of their neighbourhood, their primaryconcerns and their perceptions of anti-social behaviour and crime, in particular, whether theybelievethatratesofspecificcrimeshadincreasedordecreasedduringtheirperiodofresidenceintheborough.Theywerealsoaskedabouttheirperceptionsandexperiencesofpolicing.
Victimisation in relation to crime and anti-social behaviour were amongst the top concerns forresidentsandinanumberofcaseswerelinkedtootherissuesofconcernsuchasalackofsuitableplaces for children to play, noise, and litter/rubbish. However, respondentswere largely satisfiedwiththeirneighbourhoodandwiththepolice.
3.1 Primaryneighbourhoodconcerns
Respondentswereaskedtoindicatewhich,fromalistof items,theyperceivedtobeaproblemornot in their area. For all questions ‘area’ is defined as beingwithin a fifteen-minutewalk of theirresidence.Figure19belowillustratesresponsepatterns.
Figure19:Perceptionofneighbourhoodproblems
Housing costs emergedas the sourceof greatest concern,withnearly threequarters (70%) citingthisitemasaproblemandinsomecaseslinkingthistoconcernsabouttheeconomymoregenerally(which can also be evidenced by responses relating to unemployment, a concern for half ofrespondents).Crimewasthesecondhighestconcernwithjustoverhalfofrespondents(54%)listingthis as a problem. The need for a police presence was mentioned throughout the interviews inrelationtobothASBandcrime.Respondentsindicatedthattheywantedtoseemorepolicepatrolsandfeltthatthiswouldbereassuring.
47
Just under a third of respondents cited crime-related items such as vandalism, graffiti and streetgangs,asaproblem(seebelowforadiscussionofanti-socialbehaviour).However,thelackofplacesforchildrentoplayandheavylorrynoisewerealsoregardedassignificantproblems.Respondentsraisedissuesofsafetyinrelationtochildren’splayareasandthesewerefrequentlyperceivedtobeassociatedwithASBandcrime:
“My local playarea for the children is unacceptabledue todangerousdogsandalcoholandgangs”
(AsianMale,Aged35-44.CouncilrentedpropertyinTollington)
Otherissuesmentionedbyrespondents(infarsmallernumbers)includedlackofparking,upkeepofboth public spaces and housing, litter and rubbish, traffic control, and the need for more CCTV.Interestingly,elderlyanddisabledpeoplereportedanumberofhazardssuchasunevenpavementsandpotholes,aswellas inconveniencessuchasrecyclingbinsbeing locatedtoofarawayandonecase of a bus stop that obstructs wheelchairs being able to pass (St John’s Way). Issues ofcommunity cohesion were also mentioned in relation to both race and disability/age, which isconsistentwiththefactthat‘unfriendliness’wasmentionedbyalmostathirdofrespondents.
3.1.1 Whowasmostconcerned?
Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they were concerned about the followingissues:HousingCosts,Crime,Unemployment,NotEnoughPlaces forChildren toPlay,HeavyLorryNoise, Vandalism and Graffiti, Street Gangs, Unfriendliness, School Availability, Quality of StreetLighting,RaceRelations,PublicTransport.
Gender
Womenweremore concerned thanmen about their neighbourhood in relation to all categories.Thisisinlinewithotherfindingsintheresearch,whichfoundthatwomenweremorelikelytofearcrimeoverall.Assuch,womengenerallydisplaymoreconcernrelatingtotheirneighbourhoodthanmen.
Employmentstatus
When looking at thepatternof responsesby employment status, unsurprisingly, theunemployedweremorelikelytoregardunemploymentandhousingcostsasproblemsintheirarea.Conversely,employed respondents considered crime and vandalism to be more of a problem. Surprisingly,employed respondentswere alsomore likely to regard unfriendliness as a problem.Of those notworking or in full time education, a large number could be classed as vulnerable in someway –whether due to being elderly, sick or disabled. Although they spend a greater amount of time intheirhomestheyfeltthattheyweremorelikelytobetargetsofcrimeandanti-socialbehaviour.
48
Ethnicity
When analysing responses by ethnicity, those categorised as BME were more likely to see racerelations and unfriendliness as problems in their area. However, the most significant pattern toemerge here is that respondents categorised as White Other identified very few items asproblematicwiththeexceptionofhousingcostsandstreetlighting–seebelow.
Age
Respondents aged 16 to 24 years were more likely to regard unemployment, transport,unfriendlinessandalackofplacesforchildrentoplayasproblems.Bycontrast,olderresidentsweremore likelytosee lorrynoise,crimeandthequalityofstreet lightingasproblems.Olderresidentsraisedanumberofconcernsinrelationtotheirage,includingunevenpavementsandotherhazards,anti-social behaviour (particularly noise), and feeling targeted as a vulnerable group. Age anddisabilityarelinkedinthisrespect–disabledpeoplealsofeltthattheyaremorefrequentlytargetedandfaceparticularhazards.Incontrast,youngpeoplewereseenasacauseofanti-socialbehaviour(congregatingingroups).
Tenure
Homeowners(includingthosewithamortgage)weresignificantlymorelikelytoregardseveralitemsasaproblemthantheircounterpartsinthepublicandprivaterentsectors.Theitemsincludedlorrynoise, crime, school availability, transport, quality of street lighting, vandalism and graffiti,unfriendliness and street gangs. Arguably, these are all factors that could have a bearing on thevalue of their property or denote that financial investment in a property increases emotionalinvestmentintheareaitself.
3.1.2 Whowasleastconcerned?
As indicated above, respondents in theWhite Other category were significantlymore likely thantheirWhiteBritishandBMEcounterpartstocitealmostallneighbourhooditemsas‘notaproblem’.Theonly exceptionswerequality of street lighting,where therewerenodifferencesby ethnicity,andhousingcostswhereWhiteOtherrespondentsweremorelikelytoconsiderthisaproblemthanbothWhiteBritishandBMErespondents.Asstatedinthedemographicssection,ahigherproportionofWhiteOtherrespondents lived inprivatelyrentedaccommodationandahigherproportionhadalsolivedinIslingtonfortwoyearsorless.
49
Figure20:Proportionresponding‘notaproblem’toneighbourhoodconcerns
3.2 Satisfactionwithneighbourhood
Most respondents had a reasonable level of satisfactionwith their neighbourhood.Womenweremorelikelytobedissatisfiedthanmenacrossmostcategories,whichcanbelinkedtothefactthattheyarealsomorelikelytobevictimsofawiderrangeofcrimes.Withrespecttoethnicity,aslightlyhigher proportion of White British and BME respondents had a low level of satisfaction.Interestingly,agreaterproportionofWhiteOtherrespondentsreportedahighlevelofsatisfactioncomparedwithBMEandWhiteBritish.Thisisconsistentwiththefindingsabove.
3.3 Crime
Looking specifically at crime, Figure 21 below presents the differences by demographiccharacteristics.
50
Figure21:Neighbourhoodconcerns:Crime
3.3.1 CrimeandlengthoftimeinIslington
Ascanbeseenfromtheabove,thelongerrespondentshadlivedinIslington,themorelikelytheyweretoseecrimeasaproblem,andlongerstandingresidentswerebetweentwoandthreetimesaslikelytoseeitasamajorproblemcomparedtorespondentswhohadlivedinIslingtonforlessthanfiveyears.Conversely,welloverhalfofresidentswhohadlivedinIslingtonfortwoorfeweryearsconsideredcrimenottobeaproblem.
3.3.2 Crimeandtenure
The smallest proportion of respondentswho considered crime to be amajor problemwas in theprivately rented sector (6%). This is consistentwith other findings given thatmost private sectortenantsarecategorisedasWhiteOther.
51
3.3.3 Crimeandemploymentstatus
Interestingly,theunemployedweremostlikelytoseecrimeasamajorproblemwhereasemployedrespondentswere the least likely toseecrimeasnotaproblematall. Students, theeconomicallyinactive and employed respondents had similar percentages of people stating that crime was amajorproblem.
3.3.4 Crimeandgender
Similar proportions of women and men considered crime to be a major problem (13% and 12%respectively)despite the fact thatwomenweremore likely tobevictimsofcrimeandweremoreconcernedabouttheirneighbourhoodmoregenerally.
3.3.5Crimeandvictimstatus
Unsurprisingly,morerespondentswhohadbeenvictimsofcrimewithintheprevioustwelvemonthsconsideredcrimetobeamajorproblem,18%comparedwith12%ofnon-victims.
3.4 Perceptionsofthechanginglevelofcrime
Overall, themajority of respondents (66%) stated that they felt crime had stayed the same sincethey first lived in the borough. A fifth reported it had decreased and 14% that it had increased.Figure 22 (see next page) provides further demographic analysis. Specifically, people mentionedbeingconcernedaboutburglary,carcrime,muggingsandvehicleandbiketheft.
52
Figure22:Howhascrimechanged?
3.4.1 ChangesinlevelsofcrimebylengthoftimeinIslington
Thereisaclearrelationshipbetweenlengthoftimethatrespondentshavelivedintheboroughandtheirviewonchanginglevelsofcrime.Themajoritywhohavelivedintheboroughforlessthantwoyears felt that crime had stayed the same in recent years whereas those who have lived in theboroughforlongerwerelesslikelytoseecrimelevelsasstable.
53
3.4.2 Changesinlevelsofcrimebytenure
Asignificantmajorityofallrespondentslivingindifferenthousingtypesfeltthatcrimelevelswererelativelystable.However,thoseinpublicrentedaccommodationweremostlikelytofeelthatcrimehadincreased.
3.4.3 Changesinlevelsofcrimebyemploymentstatus
Again there was a broad consensus amongst those with different employment status that crimelevelswerestablecomparedwith thosewhowereunemployed,economically inactiveor studentsfeelingthattherehadbeenaslightlygreaterincreaseincrimethanthoseinemployment.
3.4.4 Changesincrimelevelsbyethnicity
A higher proportion of BME respondents believed there had been an increase in crime – 21%comparedwith14%ofWhiteBritishandonly7%ofWhiteOther.WhiteOther respondentsweremorelikelytothinkcrimelevelswereunchangedorthatcrimehaddecreased.
3.4.5 Changesinlevelsofcrimebyage
Interestingly, a higher proportion of the youngest and the oldest respondents thought there hadbeenan increase in crime levels–25% ineachcase–while thoseagedbetween25and45wereleast likely to believe there had been an increase. At the same time, a considerably greaterproportionofrespondentsaged55to64yearsbelievedcrimelevelshadfallencomparedtoallotheragegroups.
3.4.6 Changesincrimelevelsbygender
Ahigherproportionofwomenthoughtcrimehadincreased–17%comparedwith11%ofmen.
3.4.7 Changesinlevelsofcrimebyvictimstatus
Unsurprisingly, respondentswhohadbeen victimsof crime in thepreceding twelvemonthsweremorelikelytobelievecrimelevelshadrisen–20%comparedwithonly13%ofrespondentswhohadnotbeenvictimisedoverthesameperiod.Similarly,victimsofcrimewerelesslikelytothinkcrimehaddecreasedcomparedwiththeirnon-victimcounterparts–17%and21%respectively.
3.4.8 Changesinlevelsofspecifictypesofcrime
Respondentswerealsoaskedabouttheirperceptionsofspecifictypesofcrime.Figure23(seenextpage)depictstheirresponses.
54
Figure23:PerceptionofCrime
Unsurprisinglyperhaps,fraudincludingInternetandotheronlinecrimewasbelievedmorelikelytohave increasedmorethananyothercrimecategory.Agreaterproportionofrespondentsbelievedvehiclecrimehadincreasedasopposedtodecreased.Whenaskedtoexpandonincreasesincrime,other categories that werementioned included drug and alcohol use/selling, deception burglary,muggings, knife crimes, and gang/group related crime. Deception burglary was described as acombinationoffraud,theft,andassault:
“Roughtradesmenscammingpeople,particularly thevulnerablewithouta lotofmoney.Theyalsocanbecomeaggressiveandthreatening”
(AsianWoman,25-34.PropertyownerinStGeorge’s)
Relatedly, respondents were also concerned about vulnerable adults either causing or being thevictims of crime.By contrast, a relatively small proportion of respondents believed sexual assaultandharassmenthadincreased.Verysimilarproportionsalsothoughtthecrimesofcriminaldamageand violence or threats of violence had likewise fallen.When asked to expand on perceptions ofdecreasesincrime,respondentsmentionedgroupsandgangs,drugs,litteringandtheft.
In respect to crime generally, further analysis showed that overall women were more likely tobelievetherehadbeenanincreaseinalloftheaboveoffences,excepthatecrime,fraudandotheronlinecrime,wheremenweremorelikelytobelievetheyhadincreased.
Peopleaged45yearsorolderweremore likely tothinkburglaryhad increasedwhile those in theyoungest age band thought there had been an increase in vehicle crime, criminal damage, hatecrime,fraudandotheronlinecrime.
55
White Other respondents were more likely to believe that crime rates had remained the sameexcept for fraudandotheronlinecrime.BMErespondents thought therehadbeenan increase inviolence, theft, vehicle crime, and hate crime.White British respondents also believed there hadbeenanincreaseinhatecrime.
3.5 Perceptionofprobabilityofcrimeandfearofcrime
This section considers how likely respondents thought it would be that they would personallybecomevictimsofcrimeinthefollowingtwelvemonths,howsafeorunsafetheyfeltintheirlocalareas,anyuseofavoidancebehaviours,andanysecuritymeasuresthattheyhadintheirhomes.
Ascanbeseen,forthemostpartrespondentswerenotinfearofcrimeandthosewhowereoftenhadpreviousexperiencesofvictimisation.Nevertheless,peopledotakesecuritymeasuresbothontheirpropertiesandwhenwalkingaround,particularlyinthedark.Respondentsdescribedavoidinggangsandgroupsofpeopleandanywherethatisisolatedorbadlylit.
3.5.1 Perceptionoflikelihoodofvictimisation
Respondentswereaskedhowlikelytheythoughtitwasthattheywouldpersonallybecomeavictimofcrimeinthefollowingtwelvemonths.
Figure24:Likelihoodofvictimisationinthenext12months
Ascanbeseen,themajoritythoughtiteitherveryorfairlyunlikelythattheywouldbecomeavictimof crime in the following twelve months (81%). Only 2% thought it very likely that they wouldpersonallybevictimised.
56
Figure25:Likelihoodofvictimisation:demographicanalysis
There were fewer significant differences with respect to perceived risk of victimisation incomparison with other variables. As indicated above, no differences emerged by age but, again,women generally believed theyweremore likely to be victimised than theirmale counterparts –21%compared to13% respectively.With respect toethnicity,WhiteOther respondentswere theleastlikelytobelievetheywouldpersonallybecomeavictimofcrime–89%comparedwith81%ofWhite British and 80% of BME respondents. When taking account of tenure, homeowners weremore likely to think theywouldbepersonally victimised – 23% in comparisonwith 15%of publicsectortenantsand4%ofprivatesectortenants.ThismayberelatedtothenumberofWhiteOtherrespondentsintheprivatesectorwhowerealsothegroupmostlikelytofeelsafebothduringthedayandatnightandwhowereleastlikelytoengageinavoidancebehaviour.
Respondents who had been victims of crime since the beginning of 2015were twice as likely tobelievetheywouldbevictimisedagainasthosewhohadnotbeenvictims–29%comparedwith15%respectively.
3.5.2 Feelingsofsafetyandriskavoidancebehaviour
Respondentswereaskedtwoquestionstoascertainhowsafethey feltwalkingalone in theirareaduringtheday,andatnight.Figures26and27belowillustrateresponsesasawholeandbyward.
57
Figure26:Feelingsofsafety
Figure27:Feelingsofsafetybyward
Aswouldbeexpectedmorerespondentsfeltsafewalkingaloneintheirareaduringthedaythanatnight.Overall feelingsofsafetywereveryhigh,with98%feelingsomedegreeofsafetyduringthedayand81%atnight.Respondents intheyoungestagegroup(16to24years)weremost likelyto
58
saytheyfeltsafeonlyduringtheday(26%incomparisonwith16%and18%forotheragegroups)–butlesssafeatnight.
Withrespecttoethnicity,thosefromBMEcommunitieswereless likelythantheirWhiteBritishorWhiteOthercounterpartstofeelsafeonlyduringtheday(26%,comparedwith16%WhiteBritishand15%WhiteOther).
Whenaskedtoelaborate20respondentssimplystatedthattheyhaveablanketpolicyofnotgoingoutafterdark.Afewhadspecificreasonsforfeelingunsafe,mostlyatnight.Theseincludebeingapreviousoron-goingvictimofcrimeandconflictswithneighbours.Examplesgivenbyrespondentsincludedcontinued feelingsof concern/lackof safetyafterhavingbeenburgled, feelingvulnerablebecauseof a disability (wheelchair bound), andnot leaving thehomewhen gangs of youthswerehanging around. One disabled person had a friend who was killed and described feeling underseriousthreat:
“I am scared to go out even day or night time, people target me since I am adisabledperson.Recentlymyfriendwaskilledsincehewasdisabledtoo”
(AsianMale,16-24.HousingAssociationrentedpropertyinHighburyWest)
3.5.3 Feelingsofsafetyandavoidancebehaviours
Respondentswhoreportedtheyfeltsafedayandnightwerelesslikelytoavoidcertainareas(10%)incomparisonwiththosewhofeltsafeduringthedayonly(35%)and45%saidthattheyfeltunsafetosomedegreebothdayandnight(seeAppendixB).
Afifthofwomenreportedthattheyavoidedcertainareasincomparisonto9%ofmen.Therewerenodifferencesbyethnicity.Victimsofcrimewerealsomorelikelytoavoidcertainareas(21%incomparisonwith14%ofnon-victims).
Thefourmainareaspeoplementionedavoidingare:
• ArchwayandJunctionRoad:8 • CaledonianRd:16 • FinsburyParkandQuillSt:19• HollowayRd:20
Other areas cited include: Hornsey Rd and surrounding area (6), Tufnell Park and Carlton Rd (3),North Rd (6), Copenhagen St area (4), Camden Rd (2), YorkWay and Railway St area (4), AngelStation and St John St (4), Liverpool St (2), Seven Sisters Road (2), Upper St and Highbury andIslingtonStation(4),EssexRd(11),NewNorthRdandarea(3),StLuke’sandarea(8),HighburyNewParkArea(5).
Themap below (see next page) indicates the areas that people tend to avoid. The larger circlessignifythemostavoidedandthesmallercirclessignifytheotherareasthatwerementioned.
59
Figure28:Areastoavoid
Thereasonsgivenbyresidentsforavoidingcertainareasinclude:
Theftandcrime
Areasknownformuggings(BrecknockRoadandHighburyFieldswerementioned)andforhighcrimerates more generally (Finsbury Park, Upper Holloway and Holloway Road werementioned) wereavoided.OnepersonmentionedthatanalleywayonHollowayRoadisoftenusedbycriminals.
60
Avoidinggroups(includingstreetharassmentanddrug/alcoholuse)
Areas associatedwith gang activity such as parks, the canal and estateswere avoided, aswell asgroupsofyouthsandanybodyusingdrugsoralcohol.(Seebelowdiscussiononanti-socialbehaviourformoreonavoidinggangsandgroups).
Avoidingisolatedanddarkareas
Anywherethatisnotwellpatrolled,issecludedandquiet,and/ornotwelllit.Theseareasalsotendtobesitesforanti-socialbehaviour.
Avoidingparticulartypesofarea
Particulartypesofareaavoidedafterdarkare:
• TheCanal(12)• Parks(38)• Estates(60)• Side/backstreets,alleyways(66)
3.5.4 Securitymeasures
Allrespondentswereaskediftheyhadanysecuritymeasuresintheirhomesand,ifso,whattypesofmeasurestheyhad.Figure29belowillustratestheresponses.
Figure29:Typeofhomesecuritymeasures
As can be seen, themajority of respondents had some kind of securitymeasure to protect theirhomes, the most common being window locks, followed by exterior doors with deadlocks andsecuritychainsorboltsonexteriordoors.Therewerenodifferencesbytenure.
61
3.5.5 Numberofsecuritymeasures
Therewasno correlationbetween thenumberof securitymeasures andburglary victimisationortenure.However,themostsignificantcorrelationwasfoundtobebetweenperceptionofsafetyandthenumberofsecuritymeasureswhere ‘basic’equates toupto twosecuritymeasures, ‘medium’threetofour,and‘high’fiveormoremeasures.
Figure30:Feelingsofsafetyandsecuritymeasures
Othersecuritymeasuresthatpeoplereportedusingincluded:
Buzzer(39)
DoorGate(12)
CCTV(8)
Dog(7)
SpyHole(5)
Concierge(7)
DoubleDoor(6)
Double doors and gates could be on the front or back of the property. Anti-burglary measuresincludedsmartpaintforbelongings(providedbythepolice),film,sealantforwindows,unbreakableglass,andwireonthebackfence.
62
3.6 Membershipofneighbourhoodwatch
Respondents were asked whether they were members of any type of neighbourhood watch orsimilar scheme. Only 52 reported being members of any such scheme, which includes Area andTenantAssociations,LocalResidentsGroups,SaferNeighbourhoodGroupsandEstateCommittees.
An example of goodpractice is the over 60smonthlymeetingwith police officers,which includessharinginformationandensuringthatover60sknowhowtocontactthepolice(thelocationofthenearestphonetocallthepolice).
“Over60sclubseesapoliceofficermonthly.Hewarnsaboutproblemsandwetellhimaboutcrimesorproblems”
(SpanishWoman,65-74,PropertyownerinCaledonian)
3.7 Anti-socialbehaviour
Respondentswerealsoaskediftheyconsideredanti-socialbehaviour(ASB)tobeaproblemintheirarea.Asubstantialmajorityofrespondentsdidnotconsider ittobeaproblem.Overall, justoveronequarter(27%)thoughtitwasaproblem.Figure31(seenextpage)providesthedetailsoftheresponsestoASBagainstdifferentgroups.
In keeping with the response patterns found with respect to neighbourhood problems outlinedabove, womenweremore likely thanmen to see ASB as a problem. This was also the case forrespondentswhohadbeenvictimsofcrimeintheprevioustwelvemonths,whilethosecategorisedasWhiteOtherwereleastlikelytoseeASBasaproblem.WhiteBritishandBMErespondents,theemployedand theeconomically inactive, aswell ashomeowners andpublic sector tenantswerealso allmore likely to considerASB tobe aproblem in their area.All differences are statisticallysignificant.Withrespecttoage,theonlystatisticallysignificantdifferencewasthatthoseintheagebandof54–65yearsweremorelikelytoseeASBasaproblemthanyoungerrespondents.
63
Figure31:Anti-SocialBehaviour:demographicanalysis
3.7.1 Natureofconcerns
ResidentswhoexpressedtheviewthatASBwasaproblemintheirareawerethenalsopresentedwithalistofissuesandaskedtoindicatehowfartheyfelteachofthemwasaconcern.Figure32illustrates.
64
Figure32:ASBConcerns
Bearing inmindthat justoveraquarterof respondents felt thatASBwasamajorproblemtheseissueswerethegreatestconcernindescendingorder:
Youthshangingaround(51%)
Respondents cited young people gathering in groups as their greatest concern, particularly withregardtosmoking,drinkingandmakingnoise.
Litterandrubbish(41%)
Lackofrubbishbins,general increases intheamountof litter,andflytippinginalleywaysandontheestateswerementioned.
Dealingorusingillicitdrugs(40%)
Respondents were concerned about both the consumption and sale of drugs, with frequentmentionofmarijuanause.Nootherdrugwasmentionedbyname.Respondentsassociateddrugrelatedactivitywithintimidatingbehaviourandgangs:
“Drug dealing and gang activities, sometimes they are blocking the entrance. Theywillfightyouifyoutrytotellthemanything.It’sveryriskyinthisarea.”
(AsianMan25-34.CouncilrentedpropertyinBunhill)
Areas thatwereassociatedwithdruguse includedWilmingtonSquare (formarijuana), thecanal,parks,estates,andquietorsecludedareas.
Ridingbicyclesonthepavement(38%)
Aswellascommentsaboutbicyclesonthepavements,therewereassociatedconcernsaboutkidsonmopedsandevencarsracingdowntheroads,allofwhichsomeresidentsfoundintimidating.
65
Streetdrinking(31%)
Homelessness and people sleeping rough was perceived to be strongly associated with streetdrinking. Some respondents suggested that drunk people are a cause for concern and that theytakeactivemeasurestoavoidthesegroups:
“A lotofhomelessandalcoholicpeopledrinking, swearingandcursingoutsideofthis building, they are with their dogs. They sit and sleep out there making itfrighteningforustopassthrough”
(African Caribbean Woman, over 75. Housing Association rented property inJunction)
3.7.2 ExperiencesofAnti-socialBehaviour
Drugandalcoholuse
Itwasevident that theuseofalcoholanddrugswere seen tobeassociatedwithother formsofnuisance and disorder – crime, urinating, vomiting, littering, and noise. Some respondentsdescribedthosewhousedrugsandalcoholinpublicas“intimidating”.
Further,respondentsdescribedfeelingthreatenedbyhomelesspeopleandpeoplesleepingrough.Archwaywasmentionedinrelationtothisconcern.
Parksandcommunityspaces
Parksandcommunityspaceswereidentifiedasareasofparticularconcern:
“(There are) lots of dealing andalcoholics aroundhere,who thengo to the localpark,andthesmallgreenspacearoundheremakingitunsafeforpeople.Lastyeartheyusedtosleepthere,thecouncilcutthebushesoff,buttheyarestillthere,theynowusethebencheswhichIthinktheyshouldremove”
(WhiteIrishMan,55-64.CouncilrentedpropertyinJunction)
Theseareasdesignatedforleisurewerementionedbyrespondentsaslocationsforincidentssuchas muggings, drinking and alcohol consumption, groups and gangs, littering, and noise. Whendiscussingplacestoavoid,parkswerementioned,particularlyatnight. Inaddition, issuessuchastraffic anddangerousdrivingwerementionedwith some respondents stating that traffic controlneartowherechildrenplayisanissue(carsdrivingtoofastforexample).
Noiseandothernuisance
Noisewasidentifiedasaparticularsourceofconcerncomingfrompubsandclubs,24-hourshops,andothercommercialestablishments.Thesepremiseswereseen toattracta rangeofanti-socialbehaviour (drinking, drugs, noise, littering, violence), indecency such as public urination andvomiting,andhomelessnessandbegging.
66
Alsomentionedwas the noise frompolice sirens, delivery bikes, loud traffic, noisymopeds, anddangerous driving from stolen cars and mopeds. Further, a significant number of respondentsraisedconcernsaboutnoisefromneighbours.
Gangsandgroups
Itisdifficulttoclearlydistinguishbetweengangsandgroupswithintheresponses.Thetermsgangsandgroupswereused interchangeably, sometimes referring togroupsofyouthsorotherpeoplegatheringinnumbers.Whilesomeresidentsdescribegroupsofyoungpeopleas intimidatingoranuisance,otherspointedoutthatyouthshangingaroundcouldbeduetoboredom:
“Lotofyouthsintheestatewhoarebored.Moreyouthclubsneeded”
(WhiteBritishWoman25-44.PropertyownerinHillrise)
Locationsassociatedwithgangswerementionedbysomerespondents,includingPloughRoadEnd,Holloway Road nearWaitrose (whichwas also described as an areawherewomen are hassled),PultneyStreet,andNorthRoad(mentionedby6respondents).
Dogs
Dogswere identifiedasan issueeitherbecause theywereperceived tobeoutof controland/orbecausetheywerevicious.Respondentsalsomentioneddogfouling:
“Dog poo on the pavement and parks… the perpetrators are often known in thecommunity.Oftenthedogsarethelargeviciouskindandpeoplearefrightenedtoapproachtheowners.Thiscontributestoasensethattheoutdoorsisdangerousoratleastunfriendly”
(WhiteBritishWoman,55-64.PropertyownerinStGeorge’s)
Dog foulingwas also viewed as a health hazard and something that has so far been difficult tocontrol.
3.8 Contactwithandperceptionsofthepolice
This section looks at whether respondents had contact with the police over the previous 12months. Respondents were asked about their levels of satisfaction, details of stop and searchincidents by police, perceptions of police, the witnessing of crime and the reporting of seriouscrimetopolice.
3.8.1 Contactwithlocalpolice?
Allrespondentswereasked:Haveyouhadanycontactwithyourlocalpoliceoverthepasttwelvemonths,whetherinitiatedbyyouorbyapoliceofficer?Overall,justunderafifth(18%)saidyes.
67
Figure33:Contactwiththelocalpolice
Thevastmajorityofrespondentsreportedthattheyhadnocontactwithpoliceinthepreceding12months. Unsurprisingly, those who had reported at least one incident of victimisation had hadmore contactwith police than non-victims – 32% and 16% respectively. Those aged 45 years orolder hadmore contact comparedwith their counterparts in other age bands,with those in themediumagebandhavinghad the least contact.Womenhadhadmore contact–21%comparedwithmenat15%.Thisispossiblybecausemorewomenhadbeenvictimsofcrimeandisconsistentwith their beliefs of the likelihood of being victimised. Similarly,White British respondentsweremorelikelytohavehadcontactwhileWhiteOtherwereleast likely.Withrespecttoemploymentandresidencestatus, theunemployedwere least likelyandhomeownersmost likely tohavehadcontactwithpoliceduringthepast12months.Conversely,privatetenantswereleastlikelytohavehadcontact.AsthemajorityofprivatesectortenantswereWhiteOther,thisisconsistentwiththeabove.
Thosewhowereunemployedweresignificantlylesslikelytohavehadcontactwiththepolice(4%)incomparisonwiththoseinfullorparttimeemployment(20%),economicallyinactiverespondents(19%)andstudents(18%).
68
3.8.2 Satisfactionwithpoliceconduct
This section looks atwhether the respondentswho had contactwith the police over the last 12monthsweresatisfiedwiththepoliceresponse.
Figure34:Satisfactionwithpoliceconduct
Ascanbeseen,56%ofrespondentswereverysatisfied.Nostatisticallysignificantdifferenceswerefoundbyage,gender,employmentandtenure.
3.8.3 Perceptionsofpolice
Thevastmajorityofrespondentsthoughtthepolicetreatedeveryonefairlyandequally(92%).Nosignificant differences were found by age, religion, gender or victimhood, but some differenceswerefoundbyethnicity.Here,WhiteOtherrespondentshadthehighestdegreeofconfidencethatthepolicetreateveryoneequallyandfairlyat96%,comparedwith92%ofWhiteBritishand90%ofBME respondents. The in-depth reports give further details of satisfaction with police conductrelatingtoeachcrime.
A relatively smallminority of respondents did not believe that the police act fairly and equally.Somesuggestedthatthepoliceareineffective(12)ortargetedthewrongpeople(10).Anumberofthesesuggestedthatbecauseoflimitedresourcesthepolicedonotmaketheefforttounderstandcertainissuesandinsteadtargetgroupsthataremorereadilyavailable:
“I thinkthepolicearepoorlytrainedanddon’tdotheir jobsanymore.Theywantcrime in frontof themandeventhentheydon’tact, they justgo foreasy targetslikemotoristsandcyclists”
(WhiteBritishMan,45-54.PrivaterentedpropertyinCaledonian)
“They target the wrong kids. They go after 1 or 2 boys and don’t target wholegroups.Theypickwhotheywanttopick”
(WhiteBritishWoman,35-44.HousingAssociationrentedpropertyinCaledonian)
69
Others (24) described personal experience of harassment or victimisation by police. Thirteen oftheseincidentswerebelievedtobemotivatedbygenderorrace.
“Becauseapoliceofficerputhishandsonmefornoreasonandbruisedme,hesatonmyheadwithhisfullweightleavingmebruisedanddizzy”
(WhiteBritishWoman,25-34.CouncilrentedpropertyinBunhill)
“Policewereracistandmadeafewracistcomments,hewasawhitepoliceman.Hewasracisttopeopleinthisarea”
(WhiteBritishWoman,25-34.PrivaterentedpropertyinHighburyEast)
In addition, a number of respondents said that police unfairly profile people (17), treat youngpeopleinaheavyhandedway(15),andareracist(54):
“Therewasanincidentwhereamanwasdamaginghisownproperty.TheguydiedfrompolicerestraintthatistheunderstandingIhave.Hewasblackwhichhasmademequestionastowhy”
(SouthAfricanMan,35-44.CouncilrentedpropertyinHolloway)
3.8.4 Stopandsearch
Onlyaverysmallproportionofrespondentshadbeenstoppedandsearchedbythepolice(10).JustunderhalfwereWhiteBritish (4),onewasWhiteOther,onewasmixedrace,onewasAsianandthreewereBlack(twoAfricanandoneAfricanCaribbean).Hence,inbroadtermsequalnumbersofWhite and BME respondents had been stopped and searched by police in the preceding twelvemonths.Themajoritywereemployed(4),whilethreewerestudents,twowerepermanentlysickordisabledandonerespondentwasretired.Nearlyallwerepublicsectortenants(eightwereCounciltenantsandoneHousingAssociationresident);onerespondentwasahomeowner.Themajorityofthosestoppedweremale(8)comparedwithtwowomen.
Intermsofperception,ahandfulofrespondentsbelievethatstopandsearchisunfairandbasedonracialprofiling:
“From here to the bridge towards Muswell Hill they stopped my son 3 timesbecause he drives a Mercedes and has dreadlocks. They also kicked his door inbecausetheythoughthehaddrugsandtheylaterapologisedbecausetheyhadthewrongaddress”
(AfricanCaribbeanMan,over75.HousingAssociationrentedpropertyinJunction)
“MostpeopleIseepulledoverbythepoliceareblackmaledriversinflashcars”
(WhiteIrishWoman,35-44.PropertyownerinHighburyWest)
3.8.5 Witnessingacrime
Respondentswereasked if theyhadpersonallywitnessedacrime in the last12months.Overall,13%(263)saidtheyhadwitnessedacrime.
70
Figure35:Witnessedacrimeinthelast12months
Inconsideringwhohadwitnessedacrime,somekeydifferencesemerged.Thesewereasfollows:
• Thoseaged16 to24years (19%)and55 to64years (22%)weresignificantlymorelikelytohavewitnessedacrime.
• Interestingly,WhiteOther(17%)respondentswereslightlymorelikelytohavewitnessedacrimeincomparisonwithotherethnicgroups.
• Those who were studying/in full time education (19%) were more likely tohavewitnessedacrime.
Respondentsreportedwitnessingthefollowing:
Theftrelatedoffences
Themost mentioned crime to be witnessed was muggings (74), including 50 phone snatchings,mainlyusingmotorbikes.Other formsof theft (27respondentsmentionedthis) relatedmainly to
71
petty theft, particularly shoplifting, as well as bike and motorbike thefts. Burglary was alsomentionedthirteentimeswhilesixrespondentswitnessedvehiclesbeingbrokeninto.
Aggressiveanddisturbingbehaviour
Themajorityofresponsesinthiscategoryconcernedfighting(28),followedbyphysicalattacks(20),ofwhichsevenwerestabbings,onefatal,andtherewasoneothermentionofmurder(unspecifiedmethod). Also mentioned was domestic abuse, such as hitting children or aggression towardspartners during public fights, sexual harassment (4), as well as more general intimidation andaggression (14), which included one mention of young people bullying people on streets. Hatecrime was also mentioned by five respondents, including one respondent mentioning they hadwitnessedattacksonMuslims.
Vandalism
This included criminal damage (7), particularly smashedwindows and graffiti, and car vandalism(15),includingmultiplestoriesofcarsbeingsmashed.
Fraud
Threepeoplementionedfraud,includingoneexampleofrepeatedbankfraud.
Drugsuseanddealing
The second most frequently cited witnessed crime was drug use (11), particularly smokingmarijuanaanddrugdealing(28).
3.8.5 Reportingofcrime
Respondentswere also askedwhether theywould report a serious crime they hadwitnessed topolice.Overall,thevastmajorityofpeople(96%)saidtheywouldreportaseriouscrimetheyhadwitnessed.
Therewereonlyminorvariationsbyage,ethnicity,tenureetc.withover90%ofallgroupsstatingtheywouldreportaseriouscrime.Thoseaged16to24wereleastlikelytostatetheywouldreportincomparisonwithotheragegroups.Menwerealittlemorelikelythanwomentoreport.Nearlyallunemployedrespondentssaidtheywouldreportaseriouscrimetheyhadwitnessed.However,the economically inactive respondents said that they would be less likely to report, perhapsbecause thisgroupcontainsmore long termsickordisabledpeopleandelderlypeoplewhomayfeelmorevulnerable.
Of the small number who said they would not report a serious crime they had witnessed, thereasongivenbythemajority(59%)wasthattheydidnotwanttoget involved.30%saidtheydidnot like talking to thepolice,26% felt itwouldbe toomuch trouble,and11%feared reprisals.Averysmallnumbercitedotherreasons,forexample,thattheymightnotbebelieved.
Thereasonsgivenby respondents fornot reportinggenerallywere that itwasnot theirconcern,therewasalackofevidence,ordistrustofthepolice.
72
SECTIONC:CRIMEIN-DEPTH
Thissectioncoversarangeofoffencesindepth,exploringthedemographics,natureoftheincidentandoutcomeoftheircase.Datainthissectionisun-weighted.
4 Burglary
This section provides an in-depth analysis of burglary or attempted burglary incidents. Thecharacteristicsofvictimsareexploredbeforeadiscussionofthedetailsoftheincidents.
Itneedstobenotedthatanumberofincidentsinitiallyreportedasburglaryinthesurveywerere-codedastheftbecauseuponcloserinspectionofthedetailsprovidedtherewasnoattempttoenterthedwelling.Ratheritemshadbeenstolenfromgardensorfromareasoutsidetheproperty(suchas outdoor storage units, sheds etc.). The incidents included in this section therefore focus onincidentswhereapersonhasentered(orattemptedtoenter)anydwellingorpartofadwelling.
4.1 Victimcharacteristics
Fromallthosereportingatleastonevictimisationexperiencesincethebeginningof2015,8%(120respondents)experiencedat leastoneburglaryorattemptedburglary.Themajorityreportedone(106),eightreportedtwoburglariesorattempts,andsixreportedthreeormore.
Detailed information was collected about up to two incidents of burglary. In total, informationabout134burglariesor attemptswas captured, reportedby120 individuals. Their characteristicsareasfollows:
Very fewburglary victimswere aged 16 to 24 years (3%). Burglary victimsweremost commonlyaged35to44years(21%),followedby75plusand45to54years(18%each).Thoseaged65yearsandabove(pensionage)comprisedathird(32%)ofthosereportingburglary.
Usingthe5+1ethnicityclassification:themajorityofvictimswereWhite(71%),with16%Blackand6%Asianvictims.
Themajoritywereeconomicallyinactive(53%),7%wereunemployed,38%ofrespondentswereineitherfullorparttimeemploymentand3%werestudents.
Themajorityrentedtheiraccommodationfromapubliclandlord(66%),aquarterofvictims(23%)werehomeownersand11%rentedfromaprivatelandlord.
4.2 Timeandlocationofburglaries
Figures36and37belowdepict theareas in Islingtonwhereburglariesoccurred.As canbe seen,there is a high concentration near Archway and Junction road, around Arsenal and then furthersoutharoundLeverStreet.
73
Figure36:BurglariesNorthIslington
Figure37:BurglariesSouthIslington
Respondentswereaskedtheearliestandlatesttime(inwholehours)thattheburglarycouldhaveoccurred.Foreaseofreportingthetimeframeshavebeencombinedintogroups.Figure38belowdetailstheirresponses.
74
Figure38:Timeoftheincidents
As can be seen, the most common time for burglaries (or attempted burglaries) to occur wasbetweennoonand6pm,followedbybetween6pmandmidnight.Thesetimeframesaccount forjustoverhalf(58%)ofincidents.
4.3 Methodofentry,itemsstolenanddamagedone
Respondents were asked details of how offenders had gained entry to the building, what, ifanythingwasstolenandwhat,ifany,damagehadbeencaused.
4.3.1 Methodofentry
Figure39:MethodofEntry
Themost commonmethod of entry (or attempted entry)was forcing the door (44%). This alsoincludedtwoincidentswheresomeonehadtriedthedoorhandleandtwowheretherespondentbelievedtheburglarhadamasterkeyforsecuritygates.
Forcingorbreakingthewindowwasthemeansofentryforaboutonefifthofincidents(19%)andthenextmostcommonmeansofentryorattemptedentrywasthattheresidenthadleftadoororwindowopen(10%).
75
Theoffendertalkedorattemptedtotalktheirwayintothedwellingin7%ofincidents.Thevictimwasaged65oroverinsevenofthesenineincidents.
Theoffenderwasseenorcaughtlookingintothedwellingfromanoutdoorareain7%ofincidentsandattemptstogetkeysthroughtheletterboxaccountedfor4%ofincidents.
Respondents were also asked if a member of the household was at home at the time of theburglaryorattemptedburglary.Theystatedthatsomeonewasathomeat the timeofhalfofallincidents(67).Theoffenderwasconfrontedintwofifths(42%)ofallincidentswheresomeonewasathome.
4.3.2 Itemsstolen
Respondentswereaskedwhat, ifany, itemswerestolen in theburglary.Twothirds (65%,n=86)respondedthatnothinghadbeenstolen.Thiswasbecausetheoffenderhadeitherbeendisturbedorhadfailedtogainentry.
Ofthe48incidentsinwhichatleastoneitemhadbeenstolen,electronics,suchassmartphones,laptops,gamesconsolesandsimilar itemsweretakeninoverhalfof incidents(52%).Cash,creditcards or chequebookswere stolen in 42%of incidents and jewellery andwatcheswere taken in39%.Entertainmentsystems(televisions,stereo-andsimilarequipment)werestolenin21%.
Figure40:Itemsstolen
Not included in the figure above is a range of other items stolen in less 2% of incidents. Theseinclude:foodanddrinkitems(4),clothingandhouseholditemssuchaschairs,apressureiron(3),bicycles(2)anditemssuchasaschoolbag,andCDs,DVDs.
4.3.3 Damagecaused
Respondents were asked if any damage had occurred as a result of the burglary or attempt.Responsesarelargelywhatwouldbeexpectedgiventhemostcommonmethodsofentryoutlinedabove.
76
Figure41:Damagecaused
Somedegreeofdamagewascaused in themajorityof incidents (60%).Mostcommonly thiswasdamagetoanoutsidedooranddamagetoadoor lock.This isunsurprisinggiventhatforcingthedoorwasthemostcommonmethodofentry.
4.4 Insurance,reportingandsatisfactionwithoutcome
Allvictimswereaskediftheywereinsuredatthetimeoftheincident,aswellasiftheyclaimedontheir insuranceandreportedthe incidenttothepolice, inwhichcasetheywerealsoasked if theoffenderhadbeencaught.Wherevictimshadnotreportedtheincidenttopolicetheywereaskedfortheirreasons.
4.4.1 Insurance
Respondentswereinsuredinonlyathirdofincidents(40).However,ofthosethatwereinsuredatthetimeoftheburglaryorattempt,justunderhalfmadeaclaim(19incidents).Afifth(8incidents)of thevictimsthatwere insuredstatedthatnoclaimhadbeenmadebecausenodamageor losshadoccurredasaresultoftheincident.
4.4.2 Reportingandsatisfactionwithoutcome
Whilst insurance claims were notmade for themajority of incidents, just over two thirds werereportedtothepolice(93incidents).Victimswerethenaskedif,totheirknowledge,theoffenderhad been apprehended and, then, how satisfied they were with the outcome of the policeinvestigation.Figure40belowshowshowmanyoffendershadbeenapprehended.
77
Figure42:Hasoffenderbeencaught?
As can be seen, victims indicated that the offenders had been caught in only 15% of reportedincidents.
Overall,victimsreportedbeingsatisfiedwiththepoliceresponseandoutcomeintwothirds(60)ofincidentsthatwerereported.Thosestatingtheyweredissatisfiedwiththeoutcomewereaskedformoredetail.
4.4.3 Reasonsforsatisfaction
Interestingly, the strongest reason for both satisfaction and non-satisfaction was whether thepolice handled the case well as opposed to whether loss was recovered (two losses, fourrecovered).Similarly,whetherornottheperpetratorwascaughtwasofmoreinterest(fivecaught,thirteennotcaught)thanrecoveryofitems.
Sixweresatisfiedastheyrecoveredtheirlosscomparedtofourwhodidnotandwerenotsatisfiedas a result. Amongst those satisfied, one expected nothing could be done, nine found thecouncil/othershelpfulandtwohadmovedpasttheexperience. Incontrast, fourwereunsatisfiedastheydidnotrecovertheirlosses,fourbecausethecouncil/otherswereunhelpful,onebecausetherewasnoevidence,andthreebecausetheyfeltunsafe.Fourweresatisfiedastheburglarwascaught,whereasninewereunsatisfiedastheywerenotcaught.
Manymorepeoplewerepositive(40)aboutthepolice(eitherbecausetheyhandledthecasewellorweresympathetic)thannegative(13).Criticismsofthepoliceincludedthattheyweretooslowordidnotdoenoughorthattheydidnottakethecrimeseriously/seemeddisinterested.
It ispossible that theseweresimplycases thatwereroutinelydifficult tosolveandsuggests thatvictims could be better reassured even where there is not much that can be done in practice.Further,someofthesecomplaintsrelatedtopossiblemissedopportunitiestocollectevidence, inwhichcaseeithercaseshadbeenbadlyhandledorthevictimisnotfullyinformedastowhy:
“Theydidnot follow throughwith forensics, thebloodwas thereand itdriedup”
78
(WhiteBritishMan,65-74.PropertyownerinStGeorge’s)
In some cases itwas felt that the policewere allowing people to get awaywith crimes in caseswheretheperpetratorisknowntothevictim.Therefore,furtherinformationwouldbeneededtoidentifythespecificbarriersincaseswheretheperpetratorisknown:
“Police know that it ismy next door neighbourwho is stealing food and a lot ofvaluable items from my home almost every month but the police haven’t doneanythingtopunishthem”
(WhiteBritishWoman,65-74.CouncilrentedpropertyinHolloway)
Nevertheless, in general the responseswerepositiveabouthow the casewashandled, includingpeople specifically stating that they were happy even though they were unable to resolve thesituationbecausetheyfeltthatthepolicehaddoneeverythingtheycould.
Inanumberofcasesthepoliceweredescribedascourteous,sympathetic,helpfulanddoingtheirbest. The council was also mentioned as being helpful in coming to repair broken fixtures andfittings (8 respondents), although two respondents mentioned not having had their sidedoor/windows fixed despite contacting the council. Additionally, installing CCTV in the area hadincreasedthefeelingofsafetyandreducedcrime.
4.5 Knowledgeofoffender
Victimswerealsoaskedwhat, ifanything,theyknewabouttheoffendersineachincident.Figure43belowshowstheirresponses.
Figure43:Whatisknownabouttheoffender?
Ascanbeseen,nothingwasknownabouttheoffendersinthemajorityofincidents(78%).Wheresomedetailswereknowntheresponsessuggestthattheyeitherlivedlocally(5%)orwereperhapsregularlypresentinthelocalarea(12%knewtheoffendersbysight).
79
4.4.4 Non-reporting
Victims declined to report a total of 41 incidents to the police. Further questionswere asked toexplorewhythiswasthecase.
Figure44:Whynotreport?
Justunderafifth(17%)respondedthattheyfeltthepolicewouldn’tbeinterestedortheyhaddealtwith thematter themselves. In a further 14%of incidents respondents felt the incidentwas tootrivial to report. Respondents stated ‘other’ in a third of incidents. In the ‘other’ category,respondentsstatedthatnoharmwascaused(7),theyjustwantedtomoveon(2),theytookothersecuritymeasures (2), theyhadasimilarexperience thatwasn’tdealtwith (1),and that thiswasjustafirstattempt(1).
4.5 Wastheburglarypreventable?
Finally, victims were asked whether, in their view, the burglary they had experienced waspreventable.Figure45(seenextpage)illustratestheirresponses.
80
Figure45:Wastheincidentpreventable?
Respondents claimed the burglary was not preventable in only 8% of incidents. Better securitymeasureswerecitedaspotentiallypreventingtheburglaryorattemptedinathirdofincidentsandbeingmoresecurityconsciouswascitedin13%ofincidents.
Thepresenceofsomeoneathomewascitedinafifthofincidents.Itisworthnotingthatsomeonewasathomeinhalfofall incidents(see6.3.1above).Thismayhavecontributedtonothingbeingstolen in 65%of incidents, insofar as the offenderwas disturbed or failed to gain entry. 16%ofvictimscitedthepresenceofothers,suchasmorepoliceonthestreets,aspotentiallypreventativeandasmallerportionreferredtomorevigilantneighbours.Again,however, it isworthnotingthevery small proportion of respondents overall who weremembers of a neighbourhood watch orsimilar scheme (see section 3.7). Even so, when respondents who had experienced attemptedburglarieswere askedwhat they believed had prevented the offender from gaining entry,mostcitedastheirreasonsthatitwaseitherbecausesomeonewasathomeatthetimeoftheincidentorthatitwasbecauseofvigilantneighbours.
81
5PersonalTheft
Thissectionprovidesanoverviewofthevictimcharacteristicsofrespondentswhohadbeenvictimsofpersonaltheft.Itdetailswheretheoffenceoccurred,thetimeofdayandwhatwasstolen.Thefollowing sub-sections then look at whether respondents had reported the incident to police.Where respondents had reported their victimization to police, an analysis is provided of howsatisfiedtheywerewiththeoutcomeoftheprocess.
5.1 Victimcharacteristics
Personaltheftiswherepersonalbelongingsaredeliberatelytaken,borrowedbutneverreturnedorhidden so that the owner permanently cannot find them. Items can be taken from the persondirectly(e.g.pickpocketing),butifforceorthreatsofforceareusedthenthisisclassedasrobbery.Respondentsreportednineincidentsofrobberyandtheseareincludedinthesectiononviolence.Personal itemsmayalsobetakenfromanindividual’sproperty.Akeydistinctionhereiswhethertheoffendergainsentrytoadwelling(orattemptsto),whichisburglaryratherthanpersonaltheft.
Allbicycletheftswerecodedaspersonaltheftwiththeexceptionofwhereabikewastakenaspartofaburglary.
Fromallthosereportingatleastonevictimisationexperiencesincethebeginningof2015,12%(177respondents)experiencedat leastone theftorattempt.Themajority reportedone (161),elevenreportedtwo;threereportedthreeincidents,onereportedfourandonefiveormore.
Detailedinformationwascollectedaboutuptotwoincidentsoftheft.Intotal,informationabout194theftsorattemptswascaptured,reportedby177individuals.
Thecharacteristicsofthe177individualsareasfollows:
A quarter of theft victims were aged 35 to 44 (24%). In comparison with burglary and criminaldamage,theftvictimswereyounger,withtwofifthsagedunder34yearsold(22%of16to24and20%of25to34).Againincontrasttoburglaryinparticular,theftvictimisationdecreasedwithage.Thoseaged55andabovecomprised15%ofalltheftvictims.
Twothirdswerefemale(63%).
UsingthethreefoldcategorisationofethnicityseparatingWhiteBritishfromWhiteOther,wefindthattwofifthswereWhiteBritish(42%),24%wereWhiteOtherand35%wereBME.
Themajority were employed (49%), 9% unemployed and 11% students. 32%were economicallyinactive.
Themajoritywere inpublic rentedaccommodation(55%),21% inprivaterentedaccommodationand24%werehomeowners.
82
5.2Locationandtimeofincidents
Respondentswereaskedtodetermineamorespecificlocationforeachincident.
Figure46:Locationofincidents
Themajority of theft incidents (and attempts) occurred in the street (41%). Overall, less than atenthoccurredinplacessuchaspubsandclubs,atwork,atotherleisurevenuesorontransport.Inthe‘other’category,45peoplestatedthattheincidentoccurredinthevicinityorinsidetheirhomeorproperty,onestatedthat ithappened inapark,oneatacashmachine,one inahospital,andthree in shops. The remaining responses in this categorynamed specific roadsorestablishmentsspanningacrosstheBoroughtoexpandontheiranswer.
83
5.2.1 Timingoftheftsandattempts
Figure47:TimingofIncidents
The time that the theftoccurredwasnotknown ina thirdof incidents. Where timewasknown(127incidents),themostcommontimewasintheafternoon(definedhereasbetweennoonand6pm), followedby6pmtomidnight. These time framesaccounted for justoverhalf (56%)ofallincidentswheretimewasknown.
5.3 Itemsstolen
Respondentswereaskedwhatitemswerestolenduringthetheftincident.
Bicycleswerethemostcommonitemstoleninalmostaquarterofallincidents(23%),followedbymobilephones(20%).Handbagsorwalletsandcashwerestolenin10%ofincidents.Asurprisinglylowproportionofincidentsinvolvedtheftofalaptop,tabletornotebook(2%).
Thedisparate listof itemsstolen largelyreflectsthenumberofthefts fromrespondents’gardensandcommunalareasinflatssuchasbalconiesandstairways.Itisfromthesespacesthatitemssuchasplantsandgateswerestolen(8%ofincidents),children’sitemssuchastoysandpushchairs(2%),pets (2%), tools (2%), other household items such as rugs (2%) and even food that was kept inoutdoorfridges.
84
Figure48:Itemsstolen
5.4Knowledgeofoffender
Figure49:Whatwasknownabouttheoffender?
Nothing was known about the offenders in almost three quarters of incidents (74%). Offenderswereknowneitherbysightorbyageinjustunderatenthofincidents.
85
5.5 Policeinvolvement
This section considerswhether or not respondents had reported the incident inwhich they hadbeenvictimisedtopoliceand,ifso,howsatisfiedtheywerewiththeoutcomeofthepoliceprocess.Italsoprovidesananalysisofrespondents’reasonsfornotreportingtheincidenttopolice.
5.5.1 Reportingtopolice
All respondentswereasked if theyreportedthetheftorattempttothepoliceoranyotherbody(suchasaninsurer).
Figure50:Reportingtopolice
Justoverhalf(52%)oftheftincidentswerereportedtothepoliceandaquarterwerereportedtoanotherbody (26%). Where incidentswere reported to thepolice (100) theoffendershadbeencaughtin10%ofthecases.
5.5.2 Wererespondentssatisfiedwiththeoutcomeofreporting?
Whereincidentshadbeenreportedtothepoliceoranotherbodysuchasaninsurer,respondentsweresatisfiedwiththeoutcomeinjustunderhalf(45%)oftheincidents(112).
Further information was obtained to explore this. Again, the most important factors forrespondentswerewhether or not they recovered their loss andwhether the police handled thecasewell,eitherbycommunicatingwellorbyinvestigatingthoroughly.
Sixteenrespondentsweredissatisfiedastheydidnotrecovertheirloss,comparedto17whoweresatisfiedbecausetheydid.Therewasnotenoughevidenceinfourcasesandonepersonstatedthattheywerestilldistressedatwhathadhappened.12statedthatthepolicehandledthecasebadly(and fourstatedthatothershandled itbadly, suchas theApplestore inwhicha theftoccurred).Notably,onerespondentjudgedthepolicenotontheoutcomebutmoreonthefacthedidnotfeelwellinformed:
86
“I gave the moped registration and description of the two offenders and awitness statement and I felt eithermore progress could have beenmade toinvestigateorIcouldhavebeeninformedbetterbythepolice”
(WhiteBritishMan,35-44.PropertyownerinHighburyWest)
In contrast, the police were described as handling the case well by 19 people and as beingpolite/sympatheticbyfour.Onepersonmentionedthatthepolicehadhelpedthemtosecuretheirletterboxandpreventfurtherthefts,soagainthefocuswasontheengagementofthepolicewiththeir problem as opposed to the outcome of the case. Two people were satisfied because theperpetratorwascaught.
5.5.3 Reasonsfornotreporting
Lastly,respondentswereaskedtheirreasonsfornotreportingtheftincidents(94).
Figure51:Whynotreport?
Themajorityoftheft incidentswerenotreportedasrespondentsdeemedtheincidenttobetootrivial(36%).Respondentsdealtwiththematterthemselvesin28%ofincidentsandfeltthepolicewouldn’tbeinterestedin26%.
Oneexampleofhowabicycle theftwasdealtwithby the respondent involved theuseof socialmedia:
“ThestealingofthebikewasrecordedonCCTV,sohavesharedthevideoandinafewhours6,000peopleshareditoversocialmedia.Thechildren’smumgotthebikebackandapologisedtome”
(WhiteBritishWoman,35-44.CouncilrentedpropertyinStPeter’s)
Respondents provided ‘other’ reasons for not reporting just under a third of incidents. Mostcommonwithinthiscategorywasapresumptionthatthepolicewouldnotbeabletoapprehendtheoffenders.Othersstateditwasonlyanattemptedtheftorthattheydealtwithitthroughtheirbankandrecoveredtheirlosses.
87
6 CriminalDamage
This section provides an analysis of criminal damage incidents. The offence of criminal damageoccurs where someone without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging toanother.
This section contains an overview of victim characteristics and a discussion of the details of theincidents.
6.1 Victimcharacteristics
Fromall thosereportingat leastonevictimisationexperiencesincethebeginningof20155%(70respondents) experienced at least one criminal damage incident. Themajority (n = 67) reportedone,tworespondentsreportedtwoincidentsandonereportedthreeormoreincidents.
Detailed information was collected about up to two incidents of criminal damage. In total,information about 73 criminal damage incidents was captured, reported by 70 individuals. Theircharacteristicsareasfollows.
Fewvictimswereaged16 to24years (7%)or75yearsandabove (6%).Criminaldamagevictimsweremost commonly aged 45 to 54 years (28%) followed by 25 to 34 and 35 to 44 years (17%each).
Justundertwothirds(59%)werefemale.
Using the threefold categorisation of ethnicity separating White British from White Other, justunderhalfofthevictimswereWhiteBritish(45%),23%wereWhiteOtherand32%wereBME.
Themajoritywere economically inactive (47%), 7%were unemployed, 40%were in either full orparttimeemploymentand6%werestudents.
The majority rented their accommodation from a public landlord (61%), a third (30%) werehomeownersand9%rentedfromaprivatelandlord.
6.2 Wheredidtheoffenceanddamageoccur?
Thissub-sectionconsiderswheretheoffenceoccurred, intermsoftheboroughandbyward,andthenprovidesananalysisofwhereandwhattypeofdamagewasdone.
6.2.1 Location
AllbutoneoftheincidentsoccurredinIslington.
88
6.2.2 Propertydamagedandtypeofdamage
Figure52:Wheredidthedamageoccur?
Damagetotheoutsideof thedwellingwasmostcommonlyreported.Damagetoproperty insidethehomewasreportedinonly4%ofallincidents.Damagetopropertyoutsidethehomeincluded,damagetogardenfurniture,gates,satelliteequipmentandplants.Figure53belowshowsthetypeofdamagethatwasdone.
Figure53:Typeofdamage
Damagetoplants,gardenfurnitureandgatesweremostcommonlyreported,followedbygraffiti.Gougesorscratchestobrickworkwerereported in12%of incidents,aswasdamagetowindows.Damagetodoorsordoorlockswasreportedinasimilarproportionofincidents.Thissuggeststhatsomeoftheseincidentsmayhavebeenattemptedburglariesbuthavenotbeenrecognisedassuchby the respondent. Soilingwas reported in7%of incidents, thismainly consistedofurinatingongatesordoors.
89
Damage to other items outside of the property was reported in 12% of incidents. This mainlyinvolveddamagetopipes,garagedoors,electricitymetersandlights.
6.3 Reporting,satisfactionandnon-reporting
This sub-sectionanalyseswhether victims reported the incidentsof criminaldamage topoliceorsomeorotherbodyand, iftheyhadreportedtothepolice,whethertheyweresatisfiedwiththeoutcome. It further provides an analysis of victims’ reasons for not reporting the incident inquestiontothepolice.
6.3.1 Reporting
All victimswereasked if theyhad reported the incident to thepoliceor anyotherbody suchasinsurers.
Themajorityofvictimshadnotreportedtheincidenttothepoliceoranyotherbody.Only38%(27)of incidentswerereportedtothepoliceand12%(8)of incidentswerereportedtoanotherbody.From the victims comments this was mainly the council or other organisation responsible forrepairs.
6.3.2 Satisfactionwithoutcome
Atotalof31incidentswerereportedtothepoliceand/oranotherbody.Victimsindicatedthattheyweresatisfiedwiththeoutcomein58%ofincidents.
Of thosewhoweresatisfied,sixstatedthecasewashandledwelland fiveothersmentionedthecouncilwerehelpful.Sixweresatisfiedbecausethesituationwasresolved–usuallythroughrepairs–whereas two stated they did not expect anything could be done and onewas happy that theperpetratorwascaught.
Incontrast,11wereunsatisfiedwiththehandlingofthecasebythepolice.Thereasonsgivenwerethattheydidnotattendorweretooslowandtwopeoplesaidthattheyfoundthemimpolite.Fourothers found thecouncilunhelpful (property remainedunrepaired).Ninewereunsatisfiedas theperpetratorwasnotcaughtandonebecauseoflackofevidence.Threestatedthattheywerestilldistressed/feltunsafe.
Generally, dealingwith this issue is straightforwardas thedamage is either repairedor it is not.However,catchingtheperpetratormaydependonwillingnessofthecommunitytospeakout:
“IfImadeastatementIwouldhavehadtoliveinthesameareaashim”
(WhiteBritishWoman,25-34.CouncilrentedpropertyinJunction)
The outstanding characteristic in this category is that this is a problem where people may berepeatedvictimsand/orparticularlyvulnerable:
“Theydidnotconsiderthisacrimebecausetheysaidyoudon’thavewitnesses.IamdisabledsoIamvulnerable”
(WhiteBritishWoman,55-64.CouncilrentedpropertyinMildmay)
90
“Iwanttomovefromherebutthecouncilisnotdoinganything.Iamasinglemotherandscared”
(WhiteBritishWoman,65-74.PrivaterentedpropertyinFinsburyPark)
“The Council put a gate but no fence. There is no privacy where I live withpeopledefecatingandurinatingoutsidemydoor.”
(AsianWoman,35-44.CouncilrentedpropertyinFinsburyPark)
“Istillseethepersoninthearea.Hestilltriestocausemeproblems.”
(White British Man, 45-54. Council rented property in Caledonian -PermanentlySickandDisabled)
Experiencesofcriminaldamagecanbedisturbingforwitnesses:
“It took 45 minutes to get here. The police were too slow. We were highlytraumatised.Thecounciltoldmetocallthepolicebutthenthepoliceadvisedme to call the council. There should be more police presence in this area,especiallyatnight”
(WhiteBritishMan,35-44.CouncilrentedpropertyinJunction)
Thisresponsesuggeststhatinthisincidencetherewasnoclearpathofactionforavictimtofollowandbothpointsof contactdidnot feel itwaswithin their jurisdiction. Further, it suggests that agreaterpolicepresenceiswantedinhighcrimeareas.
6.3.3 Nonreporting
Victimswho had not reported an incident of criminal damagewere asked to give their reasons.Figure54belowillustrates.
Figure54:Whynotreport?
91
Themainreasonfornotreportingwasthatvictimssaidtheyhaddealtwiththematterthemselves(35%),followedbyapresumptionthatthepolicewouldnotbeinterestedandthattheincidentwastootrivial.Afifth(19%)regardedtheincidentasapersonalorprivatefamilymatter.
Otherreasonsincluded:apresumptionthatthepolicewouldnotbeabletocatchtheoffender,therespondentdidnotthinktoreportit,andtheincidentwasconsideredamatterforthecouncil.
6.4 Knowledgeofoffender
This final sub-section considers whether, following a report to police, the offender had beenapprehendedandthenwhat,ifanything,victimsknewoftheoffender.
6.4.1 Apprehensionofoffenders
Where incidents had been reported to the police (27), the offenders were caught in only 8% ofcases(5).
6.4.2 Victims’knowledgeofoffender
Victimswere askedwhat, if anything, they knew about the offenders in each incident. Figure 55belowshowstheirresponses.
Figure55:Whatknownaboutoffender?
Nothingwasknownabouttheoffendersintwothirdsofincidents.Wheresomedetailswereknown(34%of incidents)theresponsessuggestthattheyeither livedlocallyorwereregularlypresent inthelocalarea(16%knownbysight).
92
7 Vehiclecrime
This section considers vehicle crime. It analyses the characteristics of respondents victimized byvarioustypesofvehiclecrime,lookingatwherevehicleswereparkedatthetimeoftheincidentinquestion,whetherthevehicleshadanysecuritymeasures,reportingpatternsandsatisfactionwithoutcome.Itprovidesfurtheranalysesofhowoffendersaccessedthevehicleandwhat,ifanything,respondentsknewabouttheoffender.
7.1 Victimcharacteristics
There is no all-encompassing definition of vehicle crime. However, the most typical offencesassociatedwithvehiclecrimearetheftandcriminaldamage.Theftmayincludetheftofthevehicleitselfortheftofsomeitemfromthevehicle.Inbothinstancestheoffenceoccurswhenonepersondishonestlyappropriates thepropertyofanotherwith the intentionofpermanentlydepriving theotherof it.Similarly, theoffenceofcriminaldamageoccurswhenapersonwithout lawfulexcuseintentionallydamagesordestroysthepropertyofanotherorisrecklessastowhetherthepropertywillbedamagedordestroyed.
Fromallthosereportingatleastonevictimisationexperiencesincethebeginningof201513%(187respondents) experienced at least one incident. Themajority experienced one incident (161), 18experiencedtwo,7experiencedthreeandonerespondentexperiencedfiveormore.
Detailedinformationwascollectedaboutuptotwoincidentsofvehiclecrime.Intotal,informationabout213vehiclecrimeincidentswascaptured,reportedby187individuals.
UsingthethreefoldcategorisationofethnicityseparatingWhiteBritishfromWhiteOther,twofifthswereWhiteBritish(42%),24%wereWhiteOtherand34%wereBME.
Themajoritywereemployed (68%), followedby thosewhowereeconomically inactive (25%).5%wereunemployedand2%students.
The majority were in public rented accommodation (52%), with 9% in private rentedaccommodationand38%homeowners.
7.2 Typeofvehicle
Respondentswereaskedwherethevehicleinquestionwaslocatedatthetimeoftheincidentandtypeofvehicleinvolved.
Respondentswerethenaskedtoidentifywhichtypeofvehiclewasinvolvedintheincident.
93
Figure56:Typeofvehicle
Carsweremostcommonlyaffected(94%).Othervehiclesincludedvans(4),motorcyclesormopeds(8)andataxi(1).
7.3 Natureandlocationofincident
Bearinginmindthemostcommonformsofvehiclecrimeidentifiedabove,respondentswerefirstaskedtoidentifythegeneralnatureoftheincident.
Figure57:Natureofincident
Damagetothevehiclewasmostcommonaccountingfortwothirdsofallvehiclecrime incidents.Something was stolen (or attempts to steal items) in a third of cases. Theft of the vehicle itselfaccountedforonly4%(8)ofcases.
Figures 58 and 59 below show the locations in the Borough that the different types of crimeoccurred.Ascanbeseen,aclusterofvehicletheftswerenearArsenalstation.Theftfromavehicleoccurredmainly inNorthIslingtonwithahighconcentrationaroundTufnellPark,UpperHolloway
94
and Arsenal. Damage to a vehicle was scatteredmore evenly with clusters around King’s Cross,UpperHolloway,Arsenal,andUpperStreet.
Figure58:VehicleCrimeNorthIslington
95
Figure59:VehicleCrimeSouthIslington
Respondentswerethenaskedaseriesofquestionsabouteachoftheabovetypesofoffence.Thetheftofvehicleswasexaminedseparatelyfromtheftfromvehiclesanddamagetovehicles.
7.3.1 Stolenvehicles
Of the eight vehicles stolen, seven were cars and one was a van. The make andmodels of thevehicleswereasfollows:
2xFordFiesta
1xFordMondeo
1xFordTransit
1xHondaAccord
1xMercedescclass
1xVauxhallsportscar
Onerespondentdidnotknowthemakeandmodeloftheirvehicle.
96
Ageofvehicle
Halfthevehiclesstolenwerethreeyearsoldorless.Theoldestvehiclewas10yearsold.
Valueofvehicle
Theestimatedvalueof thevehicles rangedfrom£700 (for theoldestvehicle) throughto£20,000(twovehicles)butmostwerevaluedat£13,000orabove(5).
Locationofvehicle
Allwereparkedonthestreetoutsidetherespondent’shomeatthetimeofthetheft.
Securitymeasures
Onlyonevehicle (thevan)didnothaveany securitymeasures. Sevenvehicleshadanalarm,andthreealsohadamechanical immobiliserandthreeanelectronic immobiliser.Nonehadatrackingdevice.
Accesstovehicle
Respondentswereaskediftheyknewhowtheoffendersgainedaccesstothevehicle.
Tworespondentsdidnotknow,afurthertwostatedthevehiclehadbeenhotwired,onethatthedoor lockhadbeenforcedandonestatedthat theyhad inadvertently left thekeys in thevehicle(thiswastheoldestvehiclevaluedat£700).Onestatedthattheyusedadevicetoopenthedoorandanotherthattheyswappedthekeys.
Reporting
All reported the theft to the police and seven also reported to their insurer. No offenderswerecaught,buttwodidrecovertheirvehicle(the£700vehicleandoneofthe£20,000vehicles).
(Note: It isdifficult to reconcile respondents’ statementswith respect tohowoffendersobtainedaccesstotheirvehicleswiththefactthatonlytwoofthevehicleswererecovered.)
Satisfactionwithoutcome
Fouroutofninerespondentsweresatisfiedwiththeoutcomebecausetheyeitherdidnotexpectanythingcouldbedone (1)orbecausethecasewashandledwell (3).Theremainingrespondentswereunsatisfiedbecauseofthelosstheyincurred(3)orbecausetherewasnotenoughevidencetodoanythingaboutit(2).
Onepersondescribednowbeingmoreawareandputtingsecuritymeasures(CCTV) inplace,theyweresatisfiedwiththepoliceresponsebutcontinuedtobeworried.
Knowledgeofoffenders
Noneoftherespondentshadanyknowledgeoftheoffenderinquestion.
97
7.3.2 Theftfromthevehicle
Where the incident involved items stolen from their vehicles, respondents were again asked anumberofquestions.
Location
Figure60:Wherevehiclewasparked
Ascanbeseen,themajorityofvehicleswereparkedonthestreetoutsidetherespondent’shome(77%).Vehicleswereparkedinadifferentstreetin9%,andontherespondent’sdrivewayin8%ofincidents.
Itemsstolen
Figure61:Whatwasstolen?
98
Cashwasstolen in justunderonequarterof incidents, followedbyclothing,handbagsorwallets,andmobilephones.However,mostrespondentscited‘other’items.
The‘other’categorywasgenerallymadeupofsmall, lowvalueitems–theseincludedworkitems(2), cash, a disabled badge, CDs (2), pens, perfume, clothing (6), and food and drink (3). Bulkieritemswerealso taken includingtools (2),acase,golfclubs,a ladder,andamotorcyclehelmetaswell as car parts (a number plate, a car tyre, andwingmirrors).Nine small electrical itemsweretakenincludingsixchargers.Sevensatellitenavigationsystemswerestolen.14respondentsstatedthat nothingwas taken, indicating that people are breaking in just to rifle through and seewhattheycanfind.
Securitymeasures
Respondentswereaskedwhat,ifany,securitymeasurestheirvehicleshad.
Figure62:Securitymeasures
Ofthosethathadsecuritymeasuresthemajorityhadalarms(65%),followedbythosewhohadanelectronicimmobiliser(31%),while12%hadtrackingdevicesand8%hadamechanicalimmobiliser.
Accesstovehicle
Respondentswereaskedhowtheoffenderhadgainedaccesstotheirvehicle.Figure63showstheirresponses.
99
Figure63:Modeofaccesstovehicle
Just under 10% indicated they did not know, or refused to indicate, how offenders had gainedaccess.Equalproportionsstated thatawindowhadbeenbrokenor thatdoorsandwindowshadbeenleftunlocked,whileafurther12%statedthatadoorlockhadbeenforced.Overall,11%citedother means of access, including forcing the boot open (2) and other means of entry (5).Respondentsdescribedthefollowingmethodsforaccessingthevehicle:
• Managingtogetthroughtheelectroniclockingsystemandcausingnodamagetothecar(5)
• Takingadvantageofthealarmnotbeingon(1)• Useofforce(1)• Useofascrewdriverinthelock(2)
Reportingandapprehensionofoffenders
Respondents were asked if they had reported the incident and, where it had been reported topolice, whether the offender had been apprehended. Figure 64 (see next page) shows theirresponses.
100
Figure64:Wereoffenderscaught?
Twofifthsofincidentswhereitemswerestolenfromvehicleswerereportedtothepoliceandthreequarterswerereportedtoanotherbodysuchasinsurers.Ofthosereportedtothepolice(28),theoffenderswerecaughtinonlyoneincident.
Satisfactionwithoutcome
Ofthoserespondentswhohadreportedtothepolice,justoverhalf(57%)saidtheyweresatisfiedwith the outcome. In general, satisfaction depended upon whether the loss could be recovered(sevenweresatisfiedandsevenwerenotsatisfied).Itisstrikingthatsomerespondentsmentionedrepeatincidents,whichmeantthattheydidnotwanttoreportitandgainanincreaseininsurancepremiums(twopeoplementionedthis):
“Ihadthiscrimelastyearandtheyearbefore.Myinsurancegoesupeachyearandthepolicecan’ttrackeverycriminal”
(WhiteBritishMan,45-54.PropertyownerinHillrise)
Otherswereunsatisfiedbecauseofalackofevidence(8)orthefeelingthatthepolicedonottakeaninterestinfollowingthecasesuporthattheydon’thavetheresourcesto(17).Onementionedthe police being unsympathetic. Nine people were unsatisfied because the perpetrator was notpunished and two people they still feel distressed that their car had been broken into andwereworriedaboutsafety.
Asidefrombeingsatisfiedbecausetheyrecoveredtheloss(eitherthroughinsuranceorrecoveringthevehicleitself),peoplewerealsosatisfiedbecausethecasewashandledwell(6),theperpetratorwas caught/punished (2)orbecause theyhad simplymovedpast it (1).Whether satisfiedornot,people mentioned that very little could be done. In contrast, two people report feeling verydistressed,whichsuggeststhatalthougha‘minor’crimeitcanaffectpeoplesignificantly.
101
Knowledgeofoffenders
Very few respondents had any knowledge of the offenders. The three respondents who cited‘other’,statedthatitlookedlikeacrowdofboyslateatnightcheckingcardoors.
Non-reporting
Respondentswhohadnot reportedthe incident topolicewereasked for their reasons.Figure65showstheirresponses.
Figure65:Whynotreport?
Equalproportionsof respondents (41%) cited ‘too trivial’ or ‘other’ reasons fornot reporting theincident.Aquarterofrespondentssaidtheyhaddealtwiththe incidentthemselves,14%thoughtthe policewould not be interested (1%had reported to the police and confirmed theywere notinterested),while8%saiditwouldbetoomuchtroubletoreportand1%wereafraidofreprisals.
In the category of ‘other’, six respondents felt it had been their fault for not securing the carproperly,Twodidnotthinkthepolicecoulddoanything,foursaidnothinghadbeentaken,andtwostatedthatitisarepeatedproblem:
7.3.3 Damagetovehicle
As in the previous sub-sections, where incidents involved damage to vehicles, respondentswereaskedaseriesofquestions.Theywerefirstaskedto identifythe locationofthevehiclewhentheincidentoccurred.
102
Figure66:Locationofvehicle
Ascanbeseen,inincidentswherevehiclessustainedsometypeofdamage(139),themajoritywereparkedinthestreetoutsidetherespondent’shome(77%).
Typeofdamage
Respondentswereaskedtoidentifythetypeofdamagethathadbeendonetotheirvehicles.
Figure67:Damagetovehicle
Themost common typesofdamage consistedof scratchesordents (27%)orbrokenwindowsorwindshields(24%).
Whererespondentsstated‘other’(17),thetypeofdamagewasasfollows.Fourincidentsinvolvedsettingfiretovehicles,carswerepushedoverinthreeincidentsandexteriororinteriorpartswere
103
damagedorbroken ina furthereight incidents.Respondentswerealsoasked if they thought thedamagewaspartofanattempttostealthevehicle.Themajoritysaidno(82%).
Reportingandapprehensionofoffenders
Figure 68 below shows reporting patterns and,where reportsweremade to police,whether theoffenderhadbeenapprehended.
Figure68:Reportingandapprehensionofoffenders
As can be seen, over half of respondents reported the incident to police but only a very smallproportion of offenders had been apprehended. Fewer respondents reported the incident toanotherbody,suchasaninsurer(37%).
Satisfactionwithoutcome
Overall,onethirdofrespondentsstatedtheyweresatisfiedwiththeoutcomeofthepoliceprocess.Ingeneral,peoplehad lowexpectationsthattheoffenderwouldbefoundwhethertheyreportedthattheyweresatisfiedornot(fivepeoplestatedthis,fourofwhomweresatisfiedastheydidnotexpectanythingcouldbedone).Forthisreason,satisfactioncentredmoreonwhetherthecasehadbeenhandledwell(9)orbadly(6).Onerespondentdescribedfeelingfrustratedthatevidencewasnotfollowedup.Sevenrespondentswereunsatisfiedastheperpetratorwasnotpunished,whereasno-one mentioned the perpetrator being caught. One respondent was frustrated at the lack ofevidenceasCCTVwasnotworking.
Knowledgeofoffender
AscanbeseenfromFigure69below,fewrespondentshadknowledgeoftheoffender.
104
Figure69:Knowledgeoftheoffender
Where respondents had some knowledge, thiswas typically that the offenderwas known to therespondentbysight(9%),orthattheoffenderlivedlocally(8%).
Non-reporting
Whererespondentshadnotreportedtheincidenttopolice,theywereaskedtogivetheirreasons.Anequalproportionofrespondentsthoughtthematterwastootrivialorthatthepolicewouldnotbeinterested.Overonequarterofrespondentssaidthattheyhaddealtwiththematterthemselvesbutnearlyonethirdcited‘other’reasons
Figure70:Whynotreport?
105
8 ViolenceAgainstThePerson
Thissectionprovidesanoverviewof thedemographiccompositionof respondentswhohadbeenvictimsofviolencesince thebeginningof2015. Itdetailswhere,whenandwhatkindofviolencewasused,includinganyuseofaweapon.Itcontinueswithananalysisofphysicalorpsychologicalharmsustainedand,inmoredetail,howrespondentswereaffectedbytheincidentinquestion.Itprovidesananalysisofwho, ifanyone,therespondentswerewithatthetimeoftheincidentandwhat,ifanything,theyknewabouttheoffender,togetherwiththeirviewofwhytheythoughttheincidenthadoccurred.Thefollowingsub-sectionsthenlookatwhetherrespondentshadreportedthe incident to police, with an analysis of why some respondents had not done so. Whererespondentshadreportedtheirvictimizationtothepolice,ananalysisisprovidedofhowsatisfiedthey were with the outcome of the police process. The final sub-section considers whetherrespondentshadalsohadcontactwithVictimSupport.
8.1 DefinitionandDemographics
Violence is deemed to comprise physical or verbal behaviour intended to threaten, injure or killanother person. Respondents were asked if they had experienced any violence or threats ofviolence, including robbery. Sexual assaults or threats, or incidents that respondents classified as‘hate crime’ (i.e.motivatedby race, disability or sexual orientation etc.)were excluded from thiscategory.
Fromallthosereportingat leastonevictimisationexperience6%(82respondents)experiencedatleastoneincidentofviolence.Themajorityreportedoneincident(81)andonerespondentreportedtwoincidents.
Giventhatthepolicegenerateddataindicatesanincreaseinviolenceintheboroughoverthepasttwo years the number of incidents recorded in this survey appear relatively low. This may be afunctionof the respondentsunderstandingor interpretationofwhat constitutes ‘violence’or theexclusionofsexualharassmentandhatecrime(seesectionsbelow).
Detailedinformationwasthencollectedaboutuptotwoincidentsofviolence.Intotal,informationabout83incidentswascaptured,reportedby82individuals.
Thedemographicsofthese82individualswereasfollows:
Victimsweremostcommonlyaged45to54years(23%),followedby35to44yearolds(21%).Veryfewaged16to24(10%)or75plusyearswerevictims(4%).
Thereweresignificantdifferencesbetweenwomen’sandmen’sexperienceofviolence.
UsingthethreefoldcategorisationofethnicityseparatingWhiteBritishfromWhiteOther,twofifthswereWhiteBritish(44%),32%wereWhiteOtherand24%wereBMErespondents.
Therewaslittledifferencebetweenthosewhowereeconomicallyinactive(43%),andeconomicallyactive(40%).13%wereunemployedand5%werestudents.
106
Themajoritylivedinpublicrentedaccommodation(65%),14%wereinprivaterentaland21%werehomeowners.
8.2 Locationofincidents
Figure71:Locationofincidents
Thecategory‘athome’referstoincidentsthatoccurredeitherinsidethehomeorintheimmediatevicinityofthehome.Thiscategoryincludeddomesticincidents,incidentsinvolvingneighbours,andincidentswherestrangersthreatenedviolence.
Themajorityoftheincidentsoccurredinoneoftwospecificlocationseitheronthestreet(45%)orathome(42%).Ofthestreetbasedincidents,33specificlocationsweregiveninIslington,ofwhichjustunderhalfwereintheArchwayandFinsburyParkareas:
ArchwayArea(7)
ArchwayStation(3)
JunctionRoad(2)
HazelvilleRoadoutsidemyflat
SalisburyWalk
FinsburyParkArea(9)
SevenSistersRoad
WilliamsonSt(2)
StThomasRd
HighburyArea(3)
EssexRd
HighburyFields
UpperSt
CaledonianRoadandKing’sCross(4)
BemertonSt
CaledonianRd
PentonvilleRd
107
BackburnSt
ArsenalStation
GreenLanes
PlimsollRd
CornerofParkhurstRdandChambersRd
HollowayArea(3)
HollowayRd
HornseyRd
LandseerRd
WharfdaleRd
OldStreetArea(3)
ClerkenwellRoad
LeverSt
LizardSt/CopeHouse
8.3 Timeandnatureofincident
8.3.1 Timeofincident
Respondentswerealsoaskedaboutthetimewhentheincidentoccurredanditsnature,thatis,thetypeofoffencethatwasinvolved.Figure72belowshowsthetimeoftheincidents.
Figure72:Timeofincidents
Themajorityoftheincidentsoccurredintheafternoonbetweennoonand6pm(43%),followedbytheevening(36%).
108
8.4 Natureofviolenceanditseffects
Respondentswereaskedwhattypeofviolencewasusedduringtheoffence,includingtheuseofaweapon,whatinjuriestheyhadsustainedandthepsychologicaleffectsoftheviolence.Theywerealsoaskedifanyonewaswiththematthetimeoftheincident.
8.4.1 Natureofviolence
Figure73belowindicatesthetypeofforceusedagainstrespondents.
Figure73:Typeofforceused
Threatstoharmfeaturedintwothirdsofincidents(63%):
“Neighbourthreatenedmethatshewillripmeupwithablade”
(MalteseWoman,55-64,CouncilRentedpropertyinFinsburyPark)
Justundera fifth (18%)of incidents involvedgrabbingorpushing thevictimand8%each involvedpushingorslappingorkickingthevictim.Inanother2%victimswerechokedorstrangledandin1%ofincidents they were scratched or bitten. Other forms of force were included things being thrown(plasticbottles,stones),beinghitbysomething,beingbottled,beingbeatenupandbeingmuggedatknifepoint.
8.4.2 Useofaweapon
Aweaponwasusedin13%ofincidents(11).Themostcommontypeofweaponwasaknife,whichwasused in seven incidents. The remaining typeofweapons included: a drinking glass, a bottle, ascrewdriverorothersharpinstrument,astickorclub,anairrifle,andanothertypeofgun(unknownwhattype).
8.4.3 Physicalandpsychologicalinjuriessustained
No injuries were sustained in two thirds of incidents (57). Where injuries were sustained theseincluded:Reportsofminor (4)or severebruising (1)or scratches (5). Cutswere sustained in three
109
incidents,aswasanosebleed.Onerespondentsustainedbrokenbones,anotherabrokennoseandonesustainedaconcussion.Intwoincidents,respondentssufferedbrokenorlostteeth.Respondentsreportedpsychologicaltraumainfourincidents.
Where injuries were sustained, respondents were asked if they had sought medical assistance.Medicalassistancehadbeensoughtin14%ofincidents.Thosewhohadnotsoughtmedicalhelp(65)wereaskedwhy.Themajorityhadnot soughtmedicalassistancebecause theywerenot injured inanyway(53).NineconsideredthattheinjurywasnotseriousenoughandonedidnotwanttowasteNHStimebecausetheyhadonlyexperiencedshock.
8.4.4 Effectofincidentonrespondents
All respondentswhohadexperiencedaviolent incidentwereaskedtodescribe in theirownwordshowtheyhadbeenaffectedbyit.Thefollowingisillustrativeoftheirresponses:
Sixteensaidthattheywerenowmorevigilantandaware;
“Iamalotmorecarefulandvigilant.Idon’tmakeeyecontact”
(WhiteBritishWoman,65-74.PropertyownerinJunction)
Foursaidthattheykeepoutofthewayofpeoplethatmaybethreateningorofspecificgroups;
“IkeepoutoftheirwayifIseetheminthestreet”
(WhiteIrishWoman,55-64.PropertyownerinJunction)
Similarly,3statedthattheyavoidcertainlocationsorrestricttheirmovementsinsomeway;
“Iregularlygotothesamepubbutdifferentroute”
(WhiteBritishMan,65-74.CouncilrentedpropertyinCaledonian)
Fourpeoplestatedthattheyarenowplanningonmovingandonesaidthattheywouldbechangingtheirjob;
Medical issueswere raised.Onepersondescribedphysical symptomsof losinga tooth,highbloodpressure and knee twitches. Threeothers describedmental health issues (two cases of depressionandonepersonwhoselfharms);
Eight people stated that they now live in fear or feel unsettled/traumatised. Relatedly, five othersdescribedfeelingscaredtogooutsideortoopentheirdoortopeople;
Threepeoplestatedthattheyhadlostfaithintheauthorities,however,threeothersstatedthattheyactuallyfeltbetterhavingthepoliceinvolved;
Sevenpeoplestatedthattheirfeelingisunchanged,eitherbecausetheytriedtonotletitaffectthemorbecauseitdidnothaveastrongimpactinthefirstplace.
110
8.4.5 Whowaswithrespondentsatthetimeoftheincident?
Finally,respondentswerealsoaskediftheywerealoneorwithsomeoneatthetimeoftheincidentand,ifso,thenatureoftherelationshiptheyhadwiththepersonwhowasthere.
Figure74:Otherspresentatthetimeoftheincident
Respondentswerealoneinthemajorityofincidents(64%).Whereotherswerepresentitwasmostcommonly other family members including children (12%), friends only (8%) or family membersexcludingchildren(5%).Otherpeopleincludedworkcolleagues,strangersandacaretaker.
8.5 Respondents’knowledgeofoffenderandwhytheincidenthadoccurred
Respondentswereaskedwhat, ifanything,theyknewabouttheoffenderinquestionandwhytheythoughttheincidenthadoccurred.
8.5.1 Knowledgeofoffender
Figure75(seenextpage)illustrateswhatknowledge,ifany,respondentshadabouttheoffender.
111
Figure75:KnowledgeoftheOffender
Ascanbeseen,respondentsknewsomethingabouttheoffendersinthemajorityofincidents(69%).In a fifth (21%) of incidents the offender(s) were personally known to the victim (15% wereneighbours,housematesor landlordsand6%werecurrent/ex-partnersandotherfamilymembers).Wheremoregeneraldetailswereknown,theoffender(s)wereknownbysightinjustoveraquarterofincidents(27%)andlivedlocallyinatleast13%ofincidents.
8.5.2 Respondentsperceptionsofwhytheincidenthadhappened
Aspreviouslyindicated,respondentswereaskedwhytheythoughttheincidenthadhappened.Figure76belowshowstheirresponses.
Ofthe83incidents,ninewereincidentsofviolencerelatingtorobberiesorattemptedrobbery(11%).Itemsstoleninclude:mobilephones(3),cash(2),creditcardsinoneincident,handbagand/orwalletinthreeincidentsandabicycleinoneincident.Theremainingincidentsinvolvedtheuseofforceformotivationsotherthantheft(seebelowforthereasonincidentsoccurred).
Figure76:Reasonstheincidentoccurred
112
Drugsandalcoholwerethoughttobeacontributingfactorinathirdofincidents(33%).Injustunderone fifth of incidents (18%), respondents thought that the offender was opportunistic and tookadvantageofthem.Anongoingdisputewascitedasthereasoninafurtherfifth(18%)ofincidents.Other reasons given were mistaken identity and people intervening in situations (dogs fighting,someonegoingthroughbins)andthenviolenceescalatinginresponse.
Manyoftheincidentsdescribedhadsomelinktoanti-socialbehaviour(forexample,groupsofyoungpeoplehangingaround,peopleassociatedwithdrugdealinganddruguse,andpeopleperceivedtobehomeless)ortointeractionswithstrangersinpublicspaces.Forexample,thefollowingincidentsweredescribed:
“I toldhimoff forgoing through thebins looking for junk to sell…Hewasadruggie”
(AfricanWoman,35-44.CouncilrentedpropertyinHighburyWest)
“Theytriedtostealmyson’slaptop,Itoldthemoffandtheyattackedme”
(AfricanCaribbeanWoman.CouncilrentedpropertyinMildmay)
8.6 Policeinvolvement
Thissectionconsiderswhetherornotrespondentshadreportedtheincidentinwhichtheyhadbeenvictimisedtopoliceand,ifso,howsatisfiedtheywerewiththeoutcomeofthepoliceprocess.Italsoprovidesananalysisofrespondents’reasonsfornotreportingtheincidenttopolice.
8.6.1 Reportingtopolice
Respondentswere askedwhether they had reported their victimisation to police. Figure 77 belowillustratestogetherwithdetailsofwhethertheoffenderinquestionhadbeencaught.
Figure77:Reportingandapprehension
Justoverhalfoftheincidentswerereportedtothepolice(45).Oftheseincidentsalmosttwothirdsoftheoffendershadbeencaught(57%).
113
8.6.2 Satisfactionwithoutcome
Respondentswerethenaskediftheyweresatisfiedwiththeoutcomeofthepoliceprocess.Figure78belowshowstheirresponses.
Figure78:Respondentsatisfactionwithoutcome
Ascanbeseen,ofthoserespondentswhohadreportedtheincidenttopoliceandexpressedaviewon the outcome of police process, just over half were satisfied (56%), while two fifths weredissatisfiedand2%ofrespondentssaidtheydidnotknow.
In termsof satisfaction,13peoplewere satisfiedwith thehandlingof thecaseby thepolice -onerespondentstatedthatthepolicewerewillingtogoasfaraspossibletohelpandincreasedpatrols.Onewashappy that thecouncilhad intervened in thecaseof someonewithmentalhealth issues.Twoothersfoundthepolicepoliteandsympatheticincontrasttothreewhofoundthemnottobe,includingonedescribingthemasjudgemental,andsixwhoclaimedthatthepolicehandledthecasebadly.
Fourweresatisfiedbecausetheyrecoveredtheiritems,whereasthreewereunsatisfiedbecausetheydid not. Sixwere satisfied as the perpetratorwas caughtwhereas sevenwere unsatisfied becausetheywerenot.One respondent stated that theywere still upset bywhat happenedand thereforedissatisfied.
Interestingly, female respondents made very positive comments about the handling of domesticviolence.Ofthefewrespondentswhogavedetailsregardingthis,thesesituationsweresatisfactorilyandsensitivelyresolved:
“The police were fantastic and they banned him from London and fromcontactingmeatall”
(TurkishWoman,16-24.CouncilrentedpropertyinHillrise)
114
“Thepolicearebeingverysupportiveandnowmyexonlyhassupervisedaccess”
(CypriotWoman,35-44.HousingAssociationrentedpropertyinHillrise)
“Thepolicewere reallyunderstanding. Thiswasadomestic violence case frommyexwhoisanalcoholic”
(WhiteBritishWoman,45-54.CouncilrentedpropertyinJunction)
8.6.3 Reasonsfornotreporting
Where respondents had not reported a violent incident to police, they were asked to state theirreasons.Figure79belowillustrates.
Figure79:Reasonsfornotreporting
As canbe seen, themain reasoncitedby respondents fornot reportingwasaperception that theincidentwas too trivial (32%). Inaddition, justunderone third (29%)of respondents said theyhaddealtwiththeincidentthemselves.
Inthe ‘other’category,sixreportedtosomeoneotherthanthepolice (socialservices,someoneonthepremises,thecouncil,housingmanagement).Twostatedthattherewasnoharmcaused.Onefeltthattheperpetratorwas justdrunkandwouldhaveregretted it.Oneotherrespondentstatedthattheyreporteditafterithappenedmorethanonce.
8.6.4 ContactwithVictimSupport
RespondentswerealsoaskediftheyhadanycontactwithVictimSupportasaresultoftheincident.Only 7% had contact with Victim Support (6), but of these the majority (5) reported that VictimSupporthadbeeneither‘very’or‘fairlyuseful’inmeetingtheirneeds.
115
9 SexualAssaultandHarassment
Thissectionprovidesdetailsoftheratesofsexualassaultandharassmentaswellasthedemographiccomposition of respondentswho had experienced these offences, includingwhen andwhere theyhad occurred and details of the nature of the incident. It further addresses what, if anything,respondentsknewabouttheoffender,whethertheyhadreportedtheincidenttoanyoneand,ifso,whether they were satisfied with the outcome. Finally, where respondents did not report theincident, it considers the reasons they cited for non-reporting. Given the very small number ofincidentspercentagesareprovidedonlyasaguide.
9.1 DefinitionandDemographics
SexualassaultisastatutoryoffenceinEnglandandWalesandoccurswhenonepersonintentionallytouches another in a sexual manner and the other person does not consent to this. Similarly,harassmentisdefinedasacourseofactionintendedtocausealarmordistresstoanotherperson.
Fromallthoserespondentswhoreportedatleastonevictimisationexperiencesincethebeginningof2015. 1% (18) had experienced at least one incident of sexual assault and harassment. Of these,majorityreportedone(11),tworeportedtwoincidents,onereportedthree,andthreereportedfiveormore.
Detailedinformationwascollectedaboutuptotwoincidents.Intotal,informationabout24incidentswascaptured,reportedby18individuals.Thedemographiccompositionofthoseindividualswasasfollows:
One third (33%) of victimswere aged between 25 and 34 years old and nearly one quarter (22%)between35and44yearsold.Veryfewvictimswereyoungpeople(aged16to24)orinthe55to64yearbracket(11%).Onerespondentwasaged65to74years.
Allwerefemale.
Usingthe5+1ethnicityclassificationthemajoritywereWhite(72%),with6%Black,and6%Asian.
UsingthethreefoldcategorisationofethnicityseparatingWhiteBritishfromWhiteOther,onethirdwereWhiteBritish(33%),39%wereWhiteOtherand28%wereBME.
Sexualvictimisation levelswerehigherfor femaleswhowere ‘economically inactive’ (39%)thanforwomeninemployment(28%),students22%andtheunemployed(11%).
Females living in public rented accommodation (61%) showed a higher rate of victimisation thanthosewomeninprivaterentedaccommodation(22%)orhomeowners(17%).
9.2 Location,natureofincident
9.2.1 Locationofincidents
AllincidentsoccurredintheboroughofIslingtonandmosthappenedinthestreet(46%)orathome(42%).Wheretheincidentoccurredinthestreet,respondentswereaskedtonamethestreet.
116
Figure80:Locationofincidents
For those incidents that took place in the street, a small number of respondents named specificlocations.Thesewere:
BlackstockRoad(2),
EssexRoad,
GeorgeStreet,
GriddlestoneWalk,
OrmondRoad,
UpperStreet,
YorkWay,
NearMountCarmelSchool.
9.2.2 Natureofincident
Respondentswereaskedtoprovidedetailsoftheincident(seeFigure26).Overhalfoftheincidents(54%)were unsolicited verbal commentswith sexual overtones generally known as ‘catcalling’. Aquarter (25%) of the incidents recorded involved ‘wolf-whistling’, reported as ‘whistling or noisesmadewithsexualovertones’.Amongthoseincidentsreportedassexualassaultorharassmentoneinfive (21%)were situationswherea victimhadbeen followed, and13%hadexperiencedunwantedgropingortouching.
117
Figure81:Natureofincident
Other forms of sexual victimisation and harassment were recorded in 13% of incidents, whichincluded a case of indecent exposurewhere aman ‘showed his privates tome’ and onewhere alandladyvoyeuristicallyfilmedanintimatemomentbetweenhertenantandthetenant’sboyfriend.
9.2.3 Theoffenders
Over half (58%) of respondents reported that incidents involved a sole individual. Some 29% ofincidents (29%) were perpetrated by a duo. Comparatively, incidents committed by threeperpetratorswerelowat13%.
Figure82:Numberofoffenders
118
In a third of incidents (8) the victim knew by sight one or more of the offenders.Where furtherinformationonoffenderswasrecorded,twowerethevictim’spartner/spouse,twowereneighbours,onewasafriend,oneafamilymemberandonewastherespondent’slandlord.
9.2.4 Reportingofincidents
Respondentswereaskedwhethertheyhaddiscussedtheincident(s)withanyoneelseorreportedtothepolice.Figure83belowshowstheirresponses.
Figure83:Reportingofincidents
Half of the incidents were reported to the police, and just under half (46%) were reported tosomeone else (11). Where incidents were reported to someone else, this was most commonlyboyfriends(4),familymembers(3)orfriends(3).Twoincidentswerereportedtosocialservices.
Wheretheincidentshadbeenreportedtothepolice(12),respondentswereaskediftheoffender(s)hadbeencaught.Theoffendershadbeencaughtinhalfofallincidentsreportedtothepolice(6).
9.2.5 SatisfactionwithOutcome
Where respondents had reported the incident to the police or someone else, they were askedwhethertheyweresatisfiedwiththeoutcome.Twothirdsofrespondentssaidtheyweresatisfied.
Two were satisfied with the handling of the case by the police and two stated that they weresympathetic asopposed to threewhowereunsatisfiedwithhow the casewashandled. Twoweresatisfied because the situation was resolved – in one case this included simply changing route toavoidtheperpetrators-whereasthreewereunsatisfiedastherewasnosatisfactoryresolution.Fourpeople simply said that they had moved on from it, whereas one continued to feel unsafe andthereforeunsatisfied.Thispersonnolongerwentoutatnight.
Those respondentswhohadnot reported the incident to thepolicewere askedwhy theyhadnotdoneso.Figure84belowitemisestheirreasons.Giventhesmallnumbersinvolvedpercentageshavenotbeenprovided.Respondentscouldselectmorethanoneoption.
119
Figure84:Whynotreporttothepolice?
Some respondents felt the police would not be able to intervene anyway and so they adoptedpracticalsolutionssuchaschangingtheirroute.Thiscallsintoquestionwhetherpeopleareawareofthesupportonofferorwhethertheyreallyconceptualisetheseincidentsascrimes:
“Ididn’tcontactthepolice, I thoughtheymightnothelp. IwassoangrywithwhathappenedbutIdidnotthinkitwasseriousenough”
(ItalianWoman,25-34.PrivaterentedpropertyinCaledonian)
Reason No.ofincidents
Private/personal/familymatter 2 2
Dealtourselves 3 3
Fearreprisals 1 1
Policewouldn’tbeinterested 5 5
Tootrivial 1 1
120
10 HateCrime
This sectionprovidesananalysisof incidentsofhatecrime, thecharacteristicsof respondentswhowerevictimised,thegeneralandmorespecificlocationwheretheincidenttookplaceandthenatureoftheincidentsinquestion.Itconsiderswhethervictimswerealonewhentheincidentoccurredorwithsomeoneelseandwhat, ifanything,theyknewabouttheoffender. Itfurtheranalysesvictims’responsestotheincidents,includingwhethertheyreporteddetailstothepoliceand,ifso,whethertheyweresatisfiedwiththeoutcomeofthepoliceprocess;alternatively,itexaminesvictims’reasonsfornotreportingtothepolice.
10.1 Definitionandvictimcharacteristics
TheCrownProsecutionServiceofEnglandandWalesdefinesaHate Incident isany incidentwhichthe victim, or anyone else, thinks is basedon someone’s prejudice towards thembecauseof theirrace,religion,sexualorientation,disabilityorbecausetheyaretransgender.
Fromall those reporting at least one victimisation experience since thebeginning of 2015, 6% (85respondents)hadexperiencedatleastonehatecrimeincident.Themajorityreportedone(71),fourreported two incidents, three reported three, three reported four, and four reported five ormoreincidentsofhatecrime.
Detailed information was collected about up to two incidents of hate crime. In total, informationabout99incidentswascaptured,reportedby85individuals.Theircharacteristicsareasfollows:
Hatecrimevictimsweremostcommonlyaged55to64years(27%),followedby45to54yearolds(19%).Veryfewrespondentsaged16to24or75plusyearswerevictims(6%each).
Twothirds(64%)ofvictimswerewomen.
Using the threefold categorisation of ethnicity separatingWhite British fromWhite Other, a thirdwereWhiteBritish,24%wereWhiteOtherandalmosthalf(47%)wereBME.
Themajority of victims were economically inactive (51%), followed by those who were employed(36%).Only7%wereunemployedand6%werestudents.
The majority were in public sector rented accommodation (75%), 8% in private rent and 17%homeowners.
10.2 Locationofincident
Respondentswerethenaskedforthelocationoftheincident.
121
Figure85:LocationofIncident
Themajorityof incidentsoccurredatorveryclosetothevictim’shome(42%).Athirdoccurredonthe street (32%). The remaining incidents largely occurred in public spaces such as on publictransport,inparksoratstations(26%).
Wheninpublicspaces,thefollowinglocationswereidentified:
HollowayRoadArea:
HollowayRoad(4)
UpperHollowayandArchwayArea:
BavariaRoad(2)
StJohn’sWay(2)
CaledonianRoadArea
CaledonianRoad(2)
Essex/LiverpoolRoadArea:
EssexRoad
ElmoreSt
LiverpoolRoad
MadrasPlace
UpperSt
Other:
AshbrookRoad
BathSt
BrecknockRoad
GoodsWay/King’sBoulevard
Hall St
10.3 Natureoftheincidentandknowledgeofoffender
Respondents were asked about the nature of the incident, whether they were alone or withsomeoneelsewhenitoccurredandwhat,ifanything,theyknewabouttheoffender.
10.3.1 Natureofincident
Themajorityof responses (34outof50) involved incidentsofverbalabuse–oftenneighboursorstrangersfromcarsoronpublictransport.Thefollowingincidentsweredescribed:
GeneralRacistAbuse(20)
“Asitstruckmidnightformybirthdaywewentouttosinghappybirthdayformy18th,thenfromnextdoorweheardaracistremarkshoutingatme,itwasabout my colour. I started crying, my mum took me out of the area toremembermybirthdayinabetterway.”
(AfricanCaribbeanWoman,16-24.CouncilrentedpropertyinCaledonian)
AgainstMuslimPeople(7)
“I was bringing my children from school some stranger called me Muslimterrorists,ISISetc.”
(Turkish Muslim Woman, 35-44. Housing Association rented property inHolloway)
“Somebody shouted and swearing atme to leave the country and takemyheadscarfoffonthebus”
(MuslimWoman,25-34.CouncilrentedpropertyinTollington)
AgainstBlackPeople(2)
AgainstWhitePeople(2)
Homophobia(3)
DisabilityBullying(3)
In relation to disability, three of the responses described feeling targeted for harassment andbullyingduetotheirdisability:
“Ihavebeenvictimisedbyagroupofyouthoutsidethecollege.Iamavictimofdisabilityhatecrime. Ithasbeencontinuous foroverayearand I’vehadbadnamecalling,ridiculingmeandtalkingasifIamnotahumanbeing”
(AsianWoman,55-64,.PropertyownerinHolloway)
Assault (7) and threats and intimidation (4)were alsodiscussed. In relation to assault, a rangeofincidentsweredescribed,allminorbutdistressing:
“AwomanthrewwateronmebecausesheheardmespeakingonthephoneinTurkish”
123
(CypriotWoman,35-44.HousingAssociationrentedpropertyinHillrise)
“Eggsthrownatmydoor”
(AfricanMan,16-24.CouncilrentedpropertyinHillrise)
“Throwingrubbishatmydoor.Nastytomychildren”
(PolishWoman,35-44.HousingAssociationrentedpropertyinBunhill)
“Twoguysonmotorbikes threwbottlesatmebecause Ihaveabeardand IamaMuslim”
(CypriotMan,35-44.CouncilrentedpropertyinStMary’s)
Interestingly,eachoftheseexamplesofintimidationinvolvedneighboursandfurtherillustratesthevulnerability people can feel in relation to the peoplewho surround them. Relatedly, twopeopledescribedattempts fromotherstoexcludethembyrefusingaseatonabusastheywerenotthesame race or telling a woman she should not use a communal lift because she was wearing aheadscarf.
10.3.2 Werevictimsaloneorwithsomeone?
Figure86:Victimaloneorwithsomeone
Respondents were alone in the majority of incidents (59%). Where others were present (41%),familywerepresentin26%ofincidents,friendsin12%andworkcolleaguesin1%.
10.3.3 KnowledgeofOffender
Victims were asked to indicate whether they had any knowledge of the offender. Figure 87illustrates.
124
Figure87:Knowledgeofoffender
Theoffenderswerestrangers inoverhalfofall incidents(57%). In incidentswheretheoffender(s)wereknowntotherespondentinsomeway(39),themajoritywereneighbours(33).Theremaining15%ofknownoffenderswere:partner/ex-partnerinthreeincidents,anotherrelative,afriendandaworkclient,eachinonefurtherincident.
10.4 Victims’responses
Victims were asked how the had responded to the incident in question and whether they hadreported ittothepoliceand, ifso,whethertheyweresatisfiedwiththeoutcome.Thosewhohadnotreportedtothepolicewereaskedwhytheyhadnotdoneso.
10.4.1 Response
Figure88:Victim’simmediateresponsetotheincident
125
Victimsdidnothingorignoreditinthemajorityofincidents(64%).Injustoveraquarterofincidentsthevictimeithertoldtheoffenderoffordefendedthemselvesverbally(27%).Victimsimmediatelycalledthepolicein5%ofincidents(althoughmanymorecalledthepoliceatothertimes–inotherwords,this5%representsthemain/firstresponseofthevictim),whileotherssteppedintohelpin2%ofincidents.
10.4.2 Reportingtopolice
AscanbeseenfromFigure89below,overall,40%ofincidentswerereportedlatertothepolice.
Figure89:Reportingtothepolice
Intheincidentsreportedtothepolice,justoverhalfoftheoffenderswerecaught.
10.4.3 Satisfactionwiththeoutcome
Victimswereaskediftheyweresatisfiedwiththeoutcomeoftheirreport.Twofifthsweresatisfied(43%),justoverhalfwerenot(53%)and4%didn’tknow.
Fiverespondentsstatedthatthepolicehandledthecasewellandtwosaidthesameofthecouncil.Of these,one respondentmentionednowhaving stronger securitymeasures suchasCCTV.Threestated the situation was resolved satisfactorily and six were satisfied as the perpetrators werecaughtorpunished.
Incontrast,tenfeltthatthecasehadbeenhandledbadlybythepoliceandonebythecouncil.Threeoftheserespondentsstatedthattheycouldidentifytheperpetratorsorhadotherevidencebutthatstillnothingcouldbe/wasdone.Threewereunsatisfiedastheissuewasnotresolved,includingonewomanwhofeltthepersonshouldhavebeenwarnedinsteadofjustmoved.Sixwereunsatisfiedastheperpetratorwasnotcaughtandonebecausetherewasnotenoughevidence.Oneotherstatedthesituationwasongoing.
10.4.4 Nonreporting
Finally,victimswereaskedwhytheydidnotchoosetoreporttheincidenttothepolice.
126
Figure90:Whynotreport?
Themainreasonfornotreportingwasthepresumptionthatthepolicewouldnotbeinterested(in42%ofunreportedincidents).
Victimsfeltthattheincidentwastootrivialinjustoverafifthofincidents(22%)andtheydealtwithitthemselvesinthesameproportion.
Where‘other’wastheresponse(16incidents),themajority(7)felttherewasnopointinreporting.Thiswasbecauseoffeelingthatthepolicewouldbeunabletocatchtheoffender.Onerespondentdidnotwanttowastepolicetimeandanotherjustwantedtoforgetaboutit.Thisrespondentstatedthatheisusedtoit:
“IamusedtohatecrimesagainstmyracefromwhenIlivedinSpain.It’ssosadthatIamusedtobeingavictimofhatredbutthat’swhatitis”
(FrenchMan,16-24.PrivaterentedpropertyinHillrise)
127
11 Fraud
This section deals with fraud, including online fraud. It provides analysis of the characteristics ofvictims and the nature of the incidents or attempted incidents to which they fell victim. Here,referenceismadetothefour-foldcategorisationofoffencesdevelopedintheCrimeSurveyEnglandandWales(CSEWMarch2016),followingworkconductedin2015toextendthemainvictimizationmoduletocoverelementsoffraudandcyber-crime(CSEWJune2015).Thesectioncontinueswithanalysis of reporting by victims andwhether theywere satisfiedwith the outcome. Alternatively,why they chose not to report the incident. It concludes by consideringwhat, if anything, victimsknewoftheoffenders.
11.1 Definitionandvictimcharacteristics
The offence of fraud comprises a number of actual or attempted actions, notably,misrepresentation, failure to disclose information or fraud by abuse of position.Most typically itinvolvesfraudbymisrepresentationwherebyonepersondishonestlymakesa falserepresentationwiththeintentionofmakingagainorcausinglosstoanother.
From all those reporting at least one victimisation experience since the beginning of 2015 themajority reportedone (655), 45 reported two incidents, seven reported three, four reported fourincidentsand112reportedfiveormore.
Detailedinformationwascollectedaboutuptotwoincidentsoffraud. Intotal, informationabout1,011fraudincidentswascaptured,reportedby833individuals.
Justunderthreefifths(58%)werefemale.
Usingthe5+1ethnicityclassification:themajoritywereWhite(67%),with19%Black,and6%Asian.
Themajoritywereemployed(50%),followedbyeconomicallyinactive(34%).9%werestudentsand7%unemployed.
Themajorityrentedtheiraccommodationfromapubliclandlord(60%),26%werehomeownersand15%rentedfromaprivatelandlord.
11.2 Detailsoftheincidents
This sub-section analyses the nature of the incidents or attempted incidents by reference to thefour-foldcategorisationofoffencesdevelopedinCSEW(2016).Theseareasfollows.
Bankandcreditaccountfraudincludesfraudulentaccessto,orattemptstoaccessbankdetails,bankaccounts,aswellasfraudulentuseofcreditordebitcards.Twopre-definedcategorieswereofferedtorespondentstochoosefrominthiscategory:
• You discover that money has been taken from your bank or building society accountwithoutyourpermission
• Someonemakesonlineorphonecontactandtriestoextractbankdetailsorpasswords
128
• Advancefeefraudincludesincidentswheresomeformofcommunicationisreceivedthatisattemptingtosolicitmoneyinsomeway,suchasromancefraudorinheritancefraud.
• Anemailoffersyouafuturefortuneinexchangeforasmallimmediateloan• Non-investmentfraudincludesincidentswhereindividualshaveengagedwithfraudsters.
Thiscouldbewhenitemsarepurchasedonlinethatneverarrive,telephonescams,boguscallersandticketingfrauds.
• Someonecomestoyourdoorandofferstodoworkonyourhomethatyoubelievetobeunnecessary.
• Someoneworksonyourhomeandovercharges.• Someonetakescashinadvanceforworkthatisneverdone.• Goodsyouhaveordereddonotarrive.• Goodsyouhaveorderedarrivebutaredefective.• Other fraud includesother typesnot included in theabovesuchascharity fraud.From
the responses provided to this survey, more general identity theft or fraud is alsoincludedinthiscategory.
• Unauthorised access to/use of personal data (e.g. banking information or socialmedia/emailaccount)
• Loss ofmoney through responding to communication (e.g. fraudulent emails or onlinemessages).
Figure91:Proportionofincidentsbycategory
As can be seen, the majority of incidents involved some form of bank and credit account fraud(67%), followedby typesof advance fee fraud (19%).Non-investment fraudandother fraudeachcomprised7%ofincidents.
11.2.1 Bankandcreditaccountfraud
Of thebankandcreditaccount fraud, themajorityof incidents involved someonemakingcontactand attempting to extract bank details (86%). In some cases respondents had provided further
129
detailsaboutthenatureof theseattempts.Fakeemails fromHerMajesty’sRevenueandCustoms(HMRC)askingforbankdetailstopayataxrefundfeaturedprominently.
Some14%ofincidentsinvolvedtherespondentdiscoveringthatmoneyhadbeentaken,orattemptshadbeenmadetotakemoney,fromtheirbank/buildingsocietyaccountwithoutpermission.Wherefurtherdetailswereavailableaboutsomeoftheseincidents,severalrespondentsreportedthattheircardhadbeenclonedandthiswashowmoneyhadbeentakenfromtheiraccount.
11.2.2 Advancefeefraud
Forthe190incidentsthatcouldbecategorisedasadvancefeefraudthemajorityinvolvedanemailthatoffersyouafuturefortuneinexchangeforasmallimmediateloan.Theotherincidentsinvolvedsituations such as dating website scams, fake emails from alleged friends stranded abroad andaskingformoneytogethome,aswellasbogusloancompanieschargingupfrontfees.
11.2.3 Non-investmentfraud
The7%ofincidentscategorisedasnon-investmentfraud(68)included:offersofunnecessarywork,overchargingforworkdoneonthehomeandcashpaid inadvanceforworkthatwasneverdone.These types of incidents comprised just under half (47%) of all non-investment fraud.Goods thathadbeenorderedbutdidnotarriveanddefectivegoodsaccountedforafurther37%ofincidents.OtherincidentsinthiscategoryincludedEbayscams,telephonecallsthatchargedtherecipientatapremiumrate,purchasedtravelticketsthatturnedouttobefakeorcertificatesforonlinelearningcoursesthatneverarrived.
11.2.4 Otherfraud
Afurther7%ofincidentscouldbecategorisedasotherfraud.Here,unauthoriseduseoforaccesstopersonal data comprised the majority of incidents (72%). In some cases this involved forms ofidentity theft.Most commonwas the use of respondent’s details to either set up bank accounts,purchasegoodsortoavoidfines.
Fortheremainingincidentsinthiscategory,somewereboguscallersclaimingtocollectmoneyforcharity.Othersinvolvedrespondentsreceivingcommunicationsclaimingtheyhadboughtgoodsthattheyhadnotinfactpurchased.
11.3 Reporting,satisfactionwithoutcomeandnon-reporting
Respondents were asked whether they had reported the fraud or attempted fraud to anyorganization, including the police and, if so, whether they were satisfied with the outcome.Alternatively,theywereaskedwhytheyhadchosennottoreporttheincident.
11.3.1 Reporting
Figure92belowdetailswhetherrespondentshadreportedtheincidentand,ifso,towhichbodyororganisationtheyhadreporteditto.
130
Figure92:Reportingofincidents
Overall,onefifthofincidentswerereportedtothepoliceoranotherbody/organisation(219).
Ofthosereported,halfwerereportedtothebankorbuildingsocietyandaquarterwerereportedtothepolice.FewerincidentswerereportedtoActionFraud.
Injustunderafifth(34)ofreportedincidents,respondentsindicatedthatanotherorganisationhadbeencontacted.HMRC(8)andPaypal(6)weremostcommonlycontacted,followedbyworkplaceITdepartments(4)andmobilephoneproviders(3).
11.3.2 Satisfactionwithoutcome
Offenderswerecaught in just1%of incidents reportedtoeither thepoliceoraction fraud. Itwasunknowniftheoffenderhadbeencaught in16%ofreportedincidents.Figure93belowillustratesrespondents’satisfactionwiththeoutcome.
131
Figure93:Satisfactionwithoutcome
Ascanbeseen,despitethelowapprehensionrate,respondentsweresatisfiedwiththeoutcomeinthemajorityofreportedincidents(83%).
Thevastmajorityofrespondentsweresatisfiedbecausethebankorotherserviceproviderwasabletoresolvetheissueandrefundanylostmoney(114).Thismeansthattheseissueswereaddressedwithout the victim having to report to the police as it became a matter for the companiesthemselves.Atother times, therespondentssaid that theyhadreportedsuspiciousactivity to thepoliceandhadsimplybeenadvisedhowtoavoidanyharm.Assuch,directpolicingoftheseissuesina way that required engagement with the victims was not as necessary as with other crimes.Avoidancebehavioursandawarenessofwhattodotoresolvetheissueandrecoveranylosseswereofmoreimportance.
Other reasons for satisfactionwere the sympatheticpolice response (3) and thegoodhandlingofthecasebythepolice(21)andotherssuchasretailers/providers(2),includinggivingadviceonwhattodoifthesituationaroseagain.Insixofthecasestherespondentwassatisfiedastheperpetratorwascaughtorpunished.
Intherarecaseswherepeoplewereunsatisfied,thiswasmainlyduetothefactthattheyhadbeenunabletorecovertheirloss(17),forexamplebecausetheypaidcash,orbecauseitisdifficultfortheperpetratortobecaughtandpunished(7).Somefrustrationwasdirectedbothatserviceprovidersandthepolice,with3explicitlystatingthatthecasewashandledbadlybythepoliceand1statingthere was not enough evidence. Notably, in one case where the respondent expresseddissatisfaction,thecasewasnotaconventionalbankfraudcaseandhadanon-goingeffectonherlife.Assuch,combinedwiththeknowledgethatthevastmajorityarehappywhenthebanksimplyclearsuptheissue,thiscouldindicatethatfraudismoredistressingwhenthereisastrongersenseofviolation/itfeelsmorepersonal:
132
“A lady in her 30s is using my name and address and phone number bytravellingwithout tickets. Shegavemynameandaddress forTFLPenalties.Theyarestillnotabletopunishherbutsinceshehasbeencaughtthreetimesthey should have a system to catch and punish these kinds of people. I amreallyworriedaboutitasIlivealone.”
(WhiteBritishWoman,55-64.CouncilrentedpropertyinBarnsbury)
Anotherreasonfordissatisfactionwasthattheproviders/retailerswereunhelpful(7).
11.3.3 Non-reporting
Whererespondentsdidnotreportanincidentoffraudorattemptedfraud,theywereaskedfortheirreasons.Figure94belowillustrates.
Figure94:Whynotreport?
Themost common reason for not reporting the incidentwas that the respondent deemed it tootrivial (57%), followed by ‘dealt with it ourselves’ (48%). Just over a quarter thought the policewouldn’tbeinterested(27%)and10%feltreportingwouldbetoomuchtrouble.
Inthecaseoffraud,thevastmajorityofrespondentsinthe‘other’categorydidnotreportbecausethesituationwasbeingdealtwithbybanksandserviceproviders(51).Othersfeltthatthesituationcouldn’t be resolved by the police (15). Some of these responses included people who feltoverwhelmedbythenumberofattemptsatfraudthatwerebeingdirectedatthem–forexample,repeated phone calls or emails. In addition, 16 respondents stated that they simply did not thinkreportingwasnecessaryoreventhinkaboutit.Thiswasoftenbecausenoharmwasdone,reflectingthefactthatmanycaseswereresolvedthroughthebanksorotherserviceproviders.
Finally, 13 respondents stated that they did not know that they could report it or that helpwasavailable–forexample,theexistenceofActionFraud.
133
11.4 Knowledgeofoffender
Respondentswereaskedwhat,ifanything,theyknewoftheoffender.
Nothingwasknownabouttheoffendersin94%(951)ofincidents.Inthecategory‘other’,14peopleknewthelocationoftheperpetratorbycountryortown(10ofthemwereinforeigncountries),fiveknewthesexoftheoffender,onecouldidentifythepersonasthelocalpostman,twohadcontactdetails of the perpetrator, and nine could identify a particular company, although some of thesewerefakecompaniessetupasscams.
134
12 OtherOnlineCrime
Thissectionanalysesotheronlinecrime,detailingthecharacteristicsofthosewhowerevictimizedbyitandthenatureofsuchcrime.Itprovidesfurtheranalysisofreportingofotheronlinecrimeand,if reported, respondents’ satisfaction with the outcome; alternatively, it illustrates respondents’reasons for not reporting incidents of other online crime. The final section then analyseswhat, ifanything,respondentsknewoftheoffenders.
12.1 Definitionandvictimcharacteristics
There isnosingledefinitionofonlinecrimeother thanfraud.UndertheMisuseofComputersAct1990, cyber-crime involves offences against computer systems and data, as well as ‘traditional’offencescommittedusingnewtechnologywherenetworkedcomputersandotherdevicesareusedtofacilitatethecommissionofacrime.Offencesagainstcomputersystemsanddataincludehackingandbreaking intocomputer systems to stealoralterdata.Theoffencesunderconsiderationhereincludecomputervirusesandgeneralwebsitehackingand,therefore,fallwithinthefirstpartofthisdefinition. Theotheroffencesunder considerationhere, onlineharassment and so-called revengepornography,alsofallwithinthelatterpartofthisdefinition.
From those reporting at least one victimisation experience since the beginning of 2015 8% (154)reported at least one incident. Themajority reported one (119), two reported two incidents, fivereportedthreeincidents,tworeportedfourincidentsand24reportedfiveormore.
Detailedinformationwascollectedabouttwoincidentsofonlinecrime.Intotal,informationabout185incidentswascaptured,reportedby154individuals.Theircharacteristicsareasfollows.
Otheronlinecrimevictimsweremostcommonlyaged25 to34years (25%), followedby16 to24years(24%).Veryfewofthoseaged55to64years(8%),65to74years(4%)and75yearsabove(7%)werevictims.
Using the 5+1 ethnicity classification: the majority were White (65%), with 15% Black, and 11%Asian.
Justunderahalfwereemployed(49%),11%unemployedand14%students.economically inactiveconstituted25%.
Themajoritywere in public rented accommodation (56%), 21% in private rented accommodationand23%werehomeowners.
12.2 Natureoftheincidents
Bearing inmind the specific offences identified above, namely computer viruses, generalwebsitehacking,onlineharassmentandrevengepornography,Figure95belowillustratestheirdistribution.
135
Figure95:Typeofonlinecrime
As can be seen, three quarters (73%) of the incidentswere computer viruses (onewas a hackingincident).Onlineharassment comprisedaquarterof the incidents andone incidentwas so called‘revengeporn’.
12.3 Reporting,satisfactionwithoutcomeandnon-reporting
Respondents were asked whether they had reported the incident in question to police or someother organisation and, if so, whether they were satisfied with the outcome. Alternatively,respondentswereaskedtheirreasonsforchoosingnottoreporttheincidentinquestion.
12.3.1 Reporting
Figure96:Reportingofincidents
Overall, only 7% (13) of incidentswere reportedby respondents.Asmightbeexpected given theproportion of virus attacks, when incidents were reported this was most commonly to InternetService Providers (ISPs) and anti-virus software companies (four each). Three of the harassmentincidentswerereportedtothepolice.Noneoftheoffenderswereapprehended.
136
12.3.2 Satisfactionwithoutcome
Respondentsweregiventheopportunitytocommentontheirsatisfactionwiththeoutcomeofthecase.Responsesweremixed.Eightweresatisfiedandfourunsatisfied.Forthemostpart,thebiggestconcern for respondents was to ensure that their electronic items were repaired and protected,whichmadeuphalftheresponses(threesatisfiedandoneunsatisfiedduetothelossofthelaptop).Three feltunaffectedandoneof theserespondentsstated that theyaresimplymorecarefulwithjunk email now.Onewas still distressed bywhat happened. Twowere satisfiedwith the supporttheyhadreceivedfromInternetserviceproviders.Onefeltthecasewashandledbadlybythepoliceastheonlinethreatstheyreceivehavenotbeenstopped.Onesituationremainedunresolved.
12.3.3 Non-reporting
Figure97:Whynotreport?
Themostcommonreasonsfornotreporting incidentstothepolicewerethat ‘thepolicewouldn’tbe interested’ (41%), followedby regarding the incidentas ‘too trivial’ and respondents reportingthattheydealtwithitthemselves(in38%of incidentseach).Attemptshadbeenmadetoreportaminorityofincidents(2%)butthepolicehadnotbeeninterested.
12.4 Knowledgeofoffender
Giventhenatureofmostincidents,namelycomputerviruses/hacking,thefindingsareunsurprising.Nothingwasknownabouttheoffenders in96%of incidents.Wheresomedetailswereknownthistendedtobeonlyeithertheonlinenameoftheperpetrator.
137
13.ConcludingObservations
13.1.Crimevictimisationbyethnicity
Figure98:Crimevictimisationbyethnicity
WhiteBritish
WhiteOther BME
All 44% 22% 33%
Burglary 45% +1 27% +5 28% -5
Violence 44% 0 32% +10 24% -9
Theft 42% -2 24% +2 35% +2
Vehiclecrime 42% -2 24% +2 34% +1
CriminalDamage 45% +1 23% +1 32% -1
Sexualassault/harassment
33% -11 39% +17 28% -4
HateCrime 29% -13 24% +2 47% +14
Fraud 47% +3 20% -2 33% 0
Otheronline 49% +5 15% -7 36% +3
In the table above the variations in victimisation by different ethnic groups is summarised. Athreefold category of ethnicity is used which includes White British, BME andWhite Other. Thecategory of ‘White Other’ is diverse, encompassing people from a wide range of countries andspanninganumberofcontinentsincludingEurope,theAmericasandAustralasia.Manyofthisgrouparenot visually identifiable asnon-WhiteBritish,whichmay influence their experiencesbasedonraceandethnicity inawaythat isdifferentfromBMErespondents.However,therewerecertainlyincidencesofhatecrimewithinthiscategory,whetherbasedonbeing/appearingtobeMuslim,orbecauseoftheirdifference:
WhereasthevastmajorityofBMEandWhiteBritishrespondentshadbeenintheboroughforovertwoyears(themajorityoftheseoverfiveyears)at85%and81%respectively,only58%oftheWhiteOtherpopulationhadbeenresidentforthislong.WhiteOthermakesupoverhalfofthepopulationresidentinIslingtonforlessthantwoyearswithBMEandWhiteBritisheachmakinguplessthanaquarter of this group of respondents. A strong link between a short length of residency in theboroughandWhiteOtherrespondentscanthereforebemade.ThisisreflectedinthefindingsthatWhiteOtherrespondentshaveadifferentsetofexpectationsandadifferentperspectiveoncrime.Thismaybeduetoanumberof factors–weaker ties to theircommunity, lessattachment to thearea,oralackofhistoricalassociation.
138
WhiteOtherrespondentsmakeupthemajorityoftheprivatelyrentedpopulationat63%comparedto28%WhiteBritishand19%BME.Theyare far less likely topublicly rentorownhomes.This isunsurprising as shorter residency in the borough makes it less likely to have access to publicaccommodation or to havemade a permanent commitment through purchasing a property. Theabilitytorentprivatelyintheareaalsoindicatesthattherespondentsarelikelytobeabletoaffordhigherrentandmaythereforebeworkingprofessionals.
WhiteOtherrespondentswerelessconcernedwithcrimeandotherpotentialproblemswithintheirneighbourhood.Theyweremorelikelytostatethatneighbourhoodconcernswere‘notaproblem’thanWhite British and BME respondentswith the exception of street lighting and housing costs.Privaterenterswerealsolesslikelytoidentifyproblemsintheirneighbourhoodthanhomeowners.Issues relating to housing conditions, housing costs, and landlords were identified, as well asneighbourdisputes:
WhiteOtherrespondentsweremorelikelytobemoresatisfiedwiththeirneighbourhoodthanotherethnic groups. This also extends to crime where these respondents were less likely at 48% toperceive crime as a major or minor problem, compared to BME respondents at 68% andWhiteBritishat57%.Thisalsomatchestheresultsbytenure,withthelowestlevelofconcernbeingprivaterentedat47%comparedto54%ofpublicrentersandhomeownersat64%.
Intermsofvictimisation,WhiteOtherandprivaterentersweretheleastlikelytoexpressafearofcrime.Asimilarpatternappliesinrelationtoanti-socialbehaviour.Residentswhohavelivedintheborough for less than two years are far less likely to consider this a problem.Despite having lesscontact with the police,White Other respondents were most likely to have confidence in policefairness(96%).
WhiteOtherrespondentswerelesslikelytobevictimsofpersonaltheft(24%comparedto34%BMEand42%WhiteBritish).Similarpatternsapplytocriminaldamage,vehiclecrime,hatecrime,fraudandotheronline crime.On theotherhand,WhiteOther respondentsweremore likely thanBMErespondents to be victims of personal violence and sexual assault and harassment. The overallpicture, however, is of the majority of White Other respondents living in private rentedaccommodationfortwoyearsor less intheborough,andreportthattheyaremoresatisfiedwiththeirneighbourhoodandhavefewerconcernsaboutcrime,victimisationorpolicing.
BMEresidentsmakeup29%ofthesurveypopulation.Intermsoftenure,theywerefarmorelikelytoliveinpubliclyrentedratherthanprivatelyrentedaccommodationandtheywerejustaslikelyasWhiteBritishrespondentstohavelivedintheboroughforaperiodof longerthanfiveyears.BMErespondentsweremore likely to perceive race relations and unfriendliness as a problem in theirarea. Theywerealsonearly twiceas likely tobevictimsofhate crime than theother twoethnicgroups(47%comparedto24%WhiteOtherand29%WhiteBritish).However,inrelationtoviolenceagainst the person and sexual assault and harassment, ‘BME’ respondentswere least likely to bevictims.
BME respondents were less likely than White British respondents to have had contact with thepolice.However,theywere less likelytoperceivethepoliceasfairwithaminorityofrespondents
139
expressingconcernsrelatingtoracialprofiling.Althoughthelownumbersofstopandsearchvictimsidentifieddonotsuggestanydisparitybyrace.
13.5.Cybercrime
Some41%ofthesurveypopulationreportedthattheyhadexperiencedonlinefraudorattemptedfraud. Thismainly involvedbankand credit account fraudandnon-investment fraud. It shouldbenoted that the survey included a purposive strategy and oversampled victims therefore directcomparisons to the CSEW findings are not appropriate. The breakdown of the different forms ofonlinefraudintheIslingtonsurveyisasfollows:
Figure99:Percentageofsurveypopulationasvictimsoffraudandonlinecrime
Fraudandonline crimeareovertakingother areasof criminality in theborough, yet the lackof avisibleperpetratorandtheprivatenatureofthecrimemeansthatitdoesnothaveahighprofileinrelation to community or neighbourhood concerns. In otherwords, it is not a ‘social’ issue in thesamewaythatgangviolence,muggings,andotherformsofcrimeareperceivedtobe.Nevertheless,it affects a large percentage of the population. Offences such as phishing (tricking people intohanding over their personal details), identity theft, hacking, and online harassment are becomingmoreprevalent.Itisthecasethattheremaybeanelementofunder-reportingofthisoffencesinceithasformanypeoplebecomearegularevent.
Fromallthosereportingatleastonevictimisationexperiencesincethebeginningof2015(justoverhalf (833 respondents) experienced at least one fraud or attempted fraud incident. Themajorityreportedone (655),45 reported two incidents, sevenreported three, four reported four incidentsand112reportedfiveormore.
Detailedinformationwascollectedaboutuptotwoincidentsoffraud. Intotal, informationabout1,011fraudincidentswascaptured,reportedby833individuals.
41%
28% 29%
8%3%
8% 6%2%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%
140
From those reporting at least one victimisation experience since the beginning of 2015 9% (154)reported at least one incident. Themajority reported one (119), two reported two incidents, fivereported three incidents, two reported four incidents and 24 reported five or more. Detailedinformation was collected about two incidents of online crime. In total, information about 185incidentswascaptured,reportedby154individuals.
13.6.Womenandvictimisation
OneoftheprominentfeaturesofboththeFirstandSecondIslingtonCrimeSurveyswasafocusonwomenandvictimisation.Consequentlywesummarisebelowsomeof themain findings fromthecurrentsurveyrelatingtowomen.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatbothpolicegenerateddataandvictimisationsurveystendtounderestimatethenumberofsexualoffences(seeONS2016)
Thecurrentsurveyrevealedthatwomenweremorelikelythanmentobelievethattherehadbeenanincreaseincrimeandalsomorelikelythanmentothinkthattheywerelikelytobevictimisedinthe future.One in fivewomen said that theyavoided certain areas and that they felt less safe atnight.
NearlytwothirdsofthevictimsofhatecrimewerewomenandjustunderhalfofthesewereBME.Women living inpublic rentedaccommodation reportedahigher levelof victimisation thanothergroups.Womenweremorelikelytoexperienceandperceivethreatofviolence,particularlysexualassault.Correspondingly,womenreportedahigherfearofcrimethanmen.
Experiencesofpersonalviolenceoccurredboth inthehomeandonthestreet, includingdomesticviolence inthehome.However,all thecasesofsexualassaulttookplaceonthestreet.Womeninthe 25 to 34 age group experienced sexual harassmentmost frequently. In the case of personalviolence, in a third of incidents the victim knew the offender and in 15% the offender was aneighbourorahousemate.Mostcasesofviolenceinvolvedthreatstoharmbutinsevenofthe11casesinwhichaweaponwasusedthevictimwasawoman.Themostcommontypeofweaponwasaknife.
Whereas formales the highest level of violent victimisationwas forWhiteOther, forwomen thenumberofWhiteBritishvictims issimilartoWhiteOther. Inrelationtothecausesofviolencethemost common reason given bywomenwas that the offenderwas either drunk or on drugs. In asignificant number of violent incidents involvingmale victims this was also the case. The secondmostcommonreasongivenwasthattheincidencewasopportunistic.
The survey looked at violence againstwomen in particular and although noting thatmuch of theviolenceexperiencedbywomenwasinthehomewedidnotdistinguishbetweendomesticviolenceincidentsandotherincidentsinvolvingflatmates.However,itisevidentfromtherepliesthatatleastsomeof thesecases involveddomesticabuse. Inmostof thesecasesthevictimcalledthepolice.Thepoliceresponsewasgenerallyseenaspositive.
141
13.7.Neighbours
Neighbourswere a source of concern for a number of respondents andparticularly in relation toanti-socialbehaviourandviolence, includingintimidation.Issueswithneighbourshadthepotentialtosignificantlytoaffectthewellbeingandqualityoflifeofresidents:
Nineteenrespondentscitedspecificissuesrelatingtoneighbours,includingnoise,peoplerunningupand down stairs, and intimidation such as blocking entrances. This includes two incidents ofaggression,includingan“attack”andonecaseoferraticbehaviourlinkedtomentalillness.Oneoftheserespondentsreportedthattheirneighbourhadalsodamagedtheirvehicle.
Two respondents reported having been burgled by neighbours but for unknown reasons theneighbours were never caught or punished. In eight cases there were reports of hate crime,particularly in the form of racial slurs. Five respondents mentioned having fights with theirneighboursandtenmentionedthreatsoraggression.Threerespondentsstatedthattheyhadbeenattackedandtwowomendescribedsituationsinwhichmaleneighbourstriedtogainforcibleentryintotheirproperty
Incidents were reported of criminal damage and burglary in which the victim claimed that theoffender was a neighbour. In some cases the victims were less than satisfied with the policeresponse.Therewerealsoanumberofreportedincidentsofhatecrimeinvolvingneighbours.
Nuisance and anti-social behavior issues were frequently raised, including incidents reportedinvolving neighbours banging on doors, engaging in heated arguments, fights and other forms ofintimidation.Inonecase:
“Myneighbourhasbeendoingacampaignofhatredtowardsmeforthelast30 years. It startedwhen I sawhim sexuallymolestinghis child.Hehadhishands inthegirls rectumand Isawthegirlcryingwithpoocomingoutandthe dad kept on saying they were playing. He was working in a primaryschool.Thesocialservices intervenedandthey let itslipthat itwas Icallingthem.Nothingwasdonebackthenbuthewasinvestigatedaftermany,manyyears.Hebeganwithhammeringanddamagingmyentire ceiling.Dayandnight none stop banging on my ceiling and I have been unable to live anormallife.MywifediedofcancerandIwasblamedforthis.Thedeviousnessofthemknowsnolimit,andnowthematterisbeinginvestigatedbythelocalMP.”
(BritishArabMan,55-64.HousingAssociationrentedpropertyinJunction)
Inanothercase:
“They are neighbours and it appears they are running the estate andwhatthey saygoes in theestate.Theyarewitnessesagainstus in court claimingthatafterthedeathofmysisterinlawwehavenorighttolivehereandthereisnoevidencewedidnotliveherethefullyear.Oneofthebrothersmetmebytheliftandwantedtostabme,hisbrotherstoppedhimfromattackingme.Iamdeeplyunhappywiththepolice.”
142
(GreekCypriotMan,55-64.CouncilrentedpropertyinHolloway)
In most cases the victims reported the incident to either the police or the Council. In general,however,inthemajorityofcasestheyweredissatisfiedwiththeresponseandfeltthatmorecouldhavebeendonetosolvethesedisputesanddeteroffenders.
13.8.Vulnerableanddisabledrespondents
Thereappearstohavebeenasignificant increase inhatecrimetowardsdisabledpeople inrecentyears across the country. The level of Illegal activity directed towards disabled people in centralLondon boroughs like Islington is seriously underestimated according to the St. John StreetNews(Esposito 2016). It is suggested that hate crimes directed toward disabled people are routinelyrecordedassimpleassaults.Disabledpeoplearealsoseentoexperiencehighlevelsoffearaswellasareluctancetoreportincidentstothepolice.
In the course of the survey therewere a number of respondentswho raised issues specifically inrelationtodisability,vulnerabilityoroldage.Somerespondentsmentionedthattheydonotgooutbythemselvesbecausetheyfeeltheyaretargetedduetotheirdisability.Anumberofrespondentsraisedissuesrelatingtotheirgeneralconcernsabouttheneighbourhood,includinghazardssuchasunevenpavementsandinconveniencessuchasabusstopthatblockswheelchairsandrubbishbinsbeing located far fromtheirproperty.A relatedconcernwaswithdeceptionburglariesandscamsthat involve knocking on people’s doors. It was felt that vulnerable people are targeted for thisoffence:
Somedisabledpeople stated that they felt vulnerabledue to theirdisability.Others felt that theywereatargetofcrimebecauseoftheirage.Anumberofdisabledrespondentssaidthattheywerescaredtogooutdayornight.
143
References
Crawford, A., Jones, T., Woodhouse, T., and Young, J. (1990) The Second Islington Crime Survey.MiddlesexUniversity.
Esposito, V. (2016) ‘Disability andHate: The “Invisible Crime” Plaguing Islington andHackney’. St.JohnStreetNews.December31st.
Fairness Commission (2007) Two Islingtons: Understanding the Problem.www.islington.gov.uk/fairness.
Farrell,G.,andPease,K.(1993)OnceBitten,TwiceBitten:RepeatVictimisationanditsImplicationsforCrimePrevention.Paper46.PoliceResearchGroup:HomeOffice.
Genn,H.(1988)‘MultipleVictimization’inM.MaguireandJ.Pointing(eds.)VictimsofCrime:ANewDeal?MiltonKeynes:OpenUniversityPress.
Harper, P.,Mooney, J.,Whelan, E., and Young, J. (1995) Islington Street Crime Survey.MiddlesexUniversity/IslingtonCouncil.
Hayden,S.(2016)ViolenceAgainstWomenandGirlsAnalysis.LBIslington.
IMD(2007)IndexofMultipleDeprivationRank2007.DepartmentofCommunitiesandGovernment.
Jones,T.,MacLean,B.,andYoung,J.(1986)TheIslingtonCrimeSurvey.Aldershot:Gower.
Lea, J., Jones,T.,Woodhouse,T.,andYoung, J. (1987)PreventingCrime:TheHilldropProject:FirstReport.MiddlesexUniversity.
ONS(2015)CrimeinEnglandandWales;YearEndingJune2015.OfficeforNationalStatistics.
ONS (2016) Focus on Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, England andWales, Year EndingMarch2016.OfficeforNationalStatistics.
Maclean,B. (1993) ‘LeftRealism,LocalCrimeSurveysandPolicingofRacialMinorities’Crime,LawandSocialChangeVol.19:51-86.
Matthews,R.(1986)PolicingProstitution:TheFinsburyParkSurvey.MiddlesexUniversity.
Matthews,R.(1992)‘ReplacingBrokenWindows’inR.MatthewsandJ.Young(eds)IssuesinRealistCriminology.London:Sage.
Metropolitan Police (2016) Crime Figures by Ward.www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/datable.php?ward+e05000380&borough=ni&period=year.
Mooney, J. (1993) The Hidden Figure; Domestic Violence in North London. Middlesex University/IslingtonCouncil.
SIP(2016)SaferIslingtonPartnership2016-17.LBIslington.
144
Sparks,R.,Genn,H.,andDodd,D.(1977)SurveyingVictims:AStudyintheMeasurementofCriminalVictimization.Chichester:JohnWileyandSons.
Sparks, R. (1981) ‘Multiple Victimization: Evidence, Theory, and Future Research." Journal ofCriminalLawandCriminology:762-778.
Trickett, A., Osborn, D., Seymour, J., and Pease, K. (1992) ‘What is Different About High CrimeAreas?’BritishJournalofCriminologyVol.32:81-90.
Wilson, J. andKelling,G. (1982) ‘ThePoliceandNeighbourhoodSafety:BrokenWindows’AtlanticMonthlyVol.127:29-38.
Young,J.(1988)‘RiskofCrimeandFearofCrime:ARealistCritiqueofSurveyBasedAssumptions’inM. Maguire and J. Pointing (eds.) Victims of Crime: A New Deal? Milton Keynes: OpenUniversityPress.
145
AppendixA
Figure100:Comparisonofoffences
OffenceType Numberofincidents
% of allincidents
Numberofvictims
% allvictims
Numberincidentsreportedtopolice
%reported
Numbercaught
% caught(out of632reported)
All offencetypes
2,010 100% 1,501 100% 632 31% 81 13%
Propertyoffences
Burglary 134 7% 120 8% 93 69% 14 15%
PersonalTheft
194 10% 177 12% 100 52% 10 10%
CriminalDamage
73 4% 70 5% 27 38% 5 8%
Vehiclecrime 213 11% 187 13% 93 44% 3 3%
Crimesagainsttheperson
Violence 83 4% 82 6% 45 54% 23 57%
Sexual assault&Harassment
18 1% 24 1% 12 50% 6 50%
HateCrime 99 5% 85 6% 40 40% 19 49%
Other
Fraud 1,011 50% 833 55% 219 21% 1 1%
Other onlinecrime
185 9% 154 9% 3 2% 0 0%
146
AppendixB
Figure101:Comparisonofsatisfaction
SatisfactionAcrossCategories
PropertyOffences
CrimesAgainstthePerson
FraudandOnline
Satisfied
Burglary
PersonalTheft
CriminalDamage
VehicleCrime
Violence SexualAssault
HateCrime
Fraud OtherOnline
TotalResponses 661 96 94 54 90 74 17 37 187 12
Policehandledcasewell 118 34 19 6 18 13 2 5 21 0
Police weresympathetic/polite
17 6 4 0 0 2 2 0 3 0
Council/others werehelpful
21 9 0 5 0 1 0 2 2 2
Situation resolved/lossrecovered
155 6 17 6 0 4 2 3 114 3
Expected Nothing CouldBeDone
14 1 0 2 5 0 0 0 6 0
Perpetratorcaught/punished
27 4 2 1 2 6 0 6 6 0
Movedon/Unaffected 10 2 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 3
Unsatisfied
Police handled casebadly
80 11 12 11 23 6 3 10 3 1
Policeunsympathetic/impolite
10 2 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 1
Council/othersunhelpful 21 4 4 4 1 0 0 1 7 0
Situationunresolved/loss notrecovered
61 4 16 4 10 3 3 3 17 1
Notenough/noevidence 23 1 4 1 11 3 0 1 1 0
Perpetrator notcaught/punished
68 9 14 9 16 7 0 6 7 0
Distressed/feelunsafe 12 3 1 3 2 1 1 0 0 1
147
AppendixC
Cross-tabulations
Howsafedoyoufeelwalkingaloneinthisareaduringtheday?
Have you personally witnessed a crime inIslingtonduringthepast12months?
TotalYes No VerysafeVerysafe
Count 199 833 1032% within Have you personally witnessed acrimeinIslingtonduringthepast12months? 76.0% 47.3% 51.0%
Fairlysafe Count 59 902 961% within Have you personally witnessed acrimeinIslingtonduringthepast12months? 22.5% 51.2% 47.5%
Abitunsafe Count 1 19 20% within Have you personally witnessed acrimeinIslingtonduringthepast12months? 0.4% 1.1% 1.0%
Veryunsafe Count 3 2 5% within Have you personally witnessed acrimeinIslingtonduringthepast12months?
1.1% 0.1% 0.2%
Italldepends Count 0 6 6% within Have you personally witnessed acrimeinIslingtonduringthepast12months? 0.0% 0.3% 0.3%
Total Count 262 1762 2024% within Have you personally witnessed acrimeinIslingtonduringthepast12months? 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Howsafedoyoufeelwalkingaloneinthisareaafterdark?
Have you personally witnessed a crime inIslingtonduringthepast12months?
TotalYes No
VerysafeVerySafe
Count 58 400 458
% within Have you personallywitnessed a crime in Islington duringthepast12months?
22.1% 22.7% 22.6%
Fairlysafe Count 118 1061 1179
% within Have you personallywitnessed a crime in Islington duringthepast12months?
44.9% 60.2% 58.3%
Abitunsafe Count 73 243 316
% within Have you personallywitnessed a crime in Islington duringthepast12months?
27.8% 13.8% 15.6%
Veryunsafe Count 14 47 61
% within Have you personallywitnessed a crime in Islington duringthepast12months?
5.3% 2.7% 3.0%
Italldepends Count 0 10 10
% within Have you personallywitnessed a crime in Islington duringthepast12months?
0.0% 0.6% 0.5%
Total Count 263 1761 2024
% within Have you personallywitnessed a crime in Islington duringthepast12months?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
148
Have you personally witnessed a crime in Islington during the past 12months?
TotalYes No
SafedaySafedayandnight Count 175 1449 1624
% within Have you personallywitnessedacrime in Islingtonduringthepast12months?
66.5% 82.8% 80.7%
Safedayonly Count 83 285 368
% within Have you personallywitnessedacrime in Islingtonduringthepast12months?
31.6% 16.3% 18.3%
Unsafedayandnight Count 5 15 20
% within Have you personallywitnessedacrime in Islingtonduringthepast12months?
1.9% 0.9% 1.0%
Total Count 263 1749 2012
% within Have you personallywitnessedacrime in Islingtonduringthepast12months?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Howsafedoyoufeelwalkingalone inthisareaduringtheday?
Howoldwereyouatyourlastbirthday?(BANDS)
Total16to24 25to34 35to44 45to54 55to64 65to7475 orabove
VerysafeVerysafe
Count 188 312 184 149 99 56 45 1033
% within How old were you atyourlastbirthday?(BANDS)
58.4% 51.7% 48.5% 47.8% 51.0% 47.1% 52.3% 51.2%
Fairlysafe Count 131 292 188 158 87 57 40 953
% within How old were you atyourlastbirthday?(BANDS)
40.7% 48.3% 49.6% 50.6% 44.8% 47.9% 46.5% 47.3%
Abitunsafe Count 0 0 6 5 3 5 1 20
% within How old were you atyourlastbirthday?(BANDS)
0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 4.2% 1.2% 1.0%
Veryunsafe Count 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 4
% within How old were you atyourlastbirthday?(BANDS)
0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.2%
Italldepends Count 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 6
% within How old were you atyourlastbirthday?(BANDS)
0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%
Total Count 322 604 379 312 194 119 86 2016
% within How old were you atyourlastbirthday?(BANDS)
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
149
Howsafedoyoufeelwalkingaloneinthisareaafterdark? Verysafe
Total16to2425to3435to4445 to54 55to6465to74
75 orabove
Count 70 139 92 83 27 36 10 457
%withinHowoldwereyouatyourlastbirthday?(BANDS)
21.8% 23.0% 24.3% 26.6%14.0% 30.3% 11.9% 22.7%
Fairlysafe Count 164 358 229 187 125 58 49 1170
%withinHowoldwereyouatyourlastbirthday?(BANDS)
51.1% 59.3% 60.4% 59.9%64.8% 48.7% 58.3% 58.2%
Abitunsafe Count 83 93 52 24 31 14 17 314
%withinHowoldwereyouatyourlastbirthday?(BANDS)
25.9% 15.4% 13.7% 7.7% 16.1% 11.8% 20.2% 15.6%
Veryunsafe Count 4 9 6 18 8 11 5 61
%withinHowoldwereyouatyourlastbirthday?(BANDS)
1.2% 1.5% 1.6% 5.8% 4.1% 9.2% 6.0% 3.0%
Italldepends Count 0 5 0 0 2 0 3 10
%withinHowoldwereyouatyourlastbirthday?(BANDS)
0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 3.6% 0.5%
Total Count 321 604 379 312 193 119 84 2012
%withinHowoldwereyouatyourlastbirthday?(BANDS)
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Howoldwereyouatyourlastbirthday?(BANDS)
Total16 to24 25to3435to4445to5455to6465to74
75 orabove
SafedayandSafedayandnight
Count 234 497 319 266 148 93 59 1616
%withinHowoldwereyouat your lastbirthday?(BANDS)
72.7% 82.4% 84.6% 86.1% 78.3% 78.8% 68.6% 80.6%
Safedayonly Count 85 106 53 41 37 20 26 368
%withinHowoldwereyouat your lastbirthday?(BANDS)
26.4% 17.6% 14.1% 13.3% 19.6% 16.9% 30.2% 18.4%
UnsafedayandnightCount 3 0 5 2 4 5 1 20
%withinHowoldwereyouat your lastbirthday?(BANDS)
0.9% 0.0% 1.3% 0.6% 2.1% 4.2% 1.2% 1.0%
Total Count 322 603 377 309 189 118 86 2004
%withinHowoldwereyouat your lastbirthday?(BANDS)
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Howsafedoyoufeelwalkingaloneinthisareaduringtheday?
Gender?
TotalMale Female
Verysafe Count 541 492 1033
%withinGender? 53.9% 48.1% 51.0%
Fairlysafe Count 449 512 961
150
%withinGender? 44.7% 50.1% 47.4%
Abitunsafe Count 8 12 20
%withinGender? 0.8% 1.2% 1.0%
Veryunsafe Count 0 5 5
%withinGender? 0.0% 0.5% 0.2%
Italldepends Count 6 1 7
%withinGender? 0.6% 0.1% 0.3%Total Count 1004 1022 2026
%withinGender? 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Gender?
TotalMale Female
How safe do you feel walking aloneinthisareaafterdark?
Verysafe Count 299 158 457
%withinGender? 29.8% 15.5% 22.6%
Fairlysafe Count 592 588 1180
%withinGender? 59.0% 57.6% 58.3%
Abitunsafe Count 93 223 316
%withinGender? 9.3% 21.9% 15.6%
Veryunsafe Count 19 42 61
%withinGender? 1.9% 4.1% 3.0%
Italldepends Count 1 9 10
%withinGender? 0.1% 0.9% 0.5%Total Count 1004 1020 2024
%withinGender? 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Gender?
TotalMale Female
VAR00039 Safedayandnight Count 883 742 1625
%withinGender? 88.7% 73.0% 80.8%
Safedayonly Count 107 261 368
%withinGender? 10.7% 25.7% 18.3%
Unsafedayandnight Count 6 13 19
%withinGender? 0.6% 1.3% 0.9%Total Count 996 1016 2012
%withinGender? 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
151
APPENDIXD
For each of the crimes, reporting and apprehension rates can be determined. Figure 103 belowdemonstratesthis.Fraudandotheronlinecrimehaveremarkablylowerreportingratesthanothercrimes,with criminal damage, vehicle and hate crime 10%ormore below the reporting rates forcrimesthathaveanelementofmoredirectviolation/assault–violenceagainst theperson,sexualharassment/assault and personal theft (often associated with use of force). The knownapprehension rates for fraud,online crime,personal theft, vehicle crimeandcriminaldamagearelow,possiblyduetothefactthattheperpetratorsarelesseasilyidentifiable.Themoredirect–whatcould be seen as ‘face-to-face’ - crimes of violence against the person, sexual assault andharassment,andhatecrimehadratesof50%orabove.
Figure102:Reportingandapprehension
PersonalTheft
CriminalDamage
Vehicle
-Theftof
-Theftfrom
-Damage
ViolenceAgainstthePerson
SexualAssault/Harassment
HateCrime Fraud OtherOnline
Reported:Police
52% 38% -100%
-40%
-44%
54% 50% 40% 5% 2%
Reported:Other
26% 12% -87%
-75%
-37%
n/a 46% n/a 15% 5%
Apprehended
10% 8% -0%
-3%
-4%
57% 50% 50% 1% 0%
152
TechnicalSummary
Overviewofsurveydesignandmethodology
1. Introducingthesurvey
The First Islington Crime Survey (ICS) that was carried out in 1985/6 was a landmark piece ofresearchthatprovidedadetailedaccountofcrimeandvictimisationinaninnercityborough.
In2015theUniversityofKentcommissionedOpinionResearchServices (ORS)toundertakeanewsurveywith recent victims of crime living in Islington, aswell as a smaller number of non-victimslivingintheborough.
The aim of the current research is to carry out a study similar to the original survey in order todetermine how the distribution of crime has changed in the borough over time, and to identifyresidents'currentconcernsandpriorities.
Toqualifyasa‘victim’forthepurposesofthestudy,arespondentneededtohaveexperiencedoneof theparticular crime types thatwere in scope for the study, and tohavedone so in theperiodbetweenthestartof2015andthetimeoftheinterview.
The survey was undertaken using a face-to-face CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing)methodology,withinterviewsbeingconductedinrespondents’homes.
2. QuestionnaireDesign
The questionnairewas designed by researchersworking on behalf of theUniversity of Kent. ORSreviewed the questionnaire and provided some suggestions, particularly in relation to thepracticalities of administering the survey and concerns about the number of questions and thelengthofthescript.
Thefollowingsectionswereaskedofallrespondents:
Perceptionsofcrime;
A ‘screener’ section to record theoverall numberof incidentsexperienced foreach typeof crimethatwaswithinthescopeofthestudy(which,inturn,confirmedwhethertherespondentwastobeclassifiedasavictimoranon-victim);
Ademographicssectionattheendofthesurvey;
Inaddition,allvictimsofcrimewereaskedoneormorefollow-upsectionsrelevanttothespecifictypeofcrime(s)theyhadexperienced.Thefollowingtypesof incidentsweredeemedtobewithinthescopeofthestudy,andthereforehadtheirownsurveysections:
Burglary;
Violence;
Theft;
153
Vehiclecrime;
Criminaldamage;
Sexualassaultandharassment;
Hatecrime(includingracistincidents);
Fraud;
Onlinecrime.
If more than one incident of the same type had been experienced, then the relevant follow-upsectionwasaskedtwicetocoverthetwomostrecentincidents(forpracticalreasonse.g.concernsaboutthelengthofthescript,evenifmorethantwoincidentshadbeenexperienced,respondentswereonlyaskedtogivedetailsofthetwomostrecentoccurrences).
The followup sections varied slightly fordifferent crime types, but typically covered similar arease.g. questions about the general nature of the incident, when and where the incident occurred,whethertheincidentwasreported,andwhat(ifanything)wasknownabouttheoffender.
3. Surveydesign
3.1 Overview
One of the research objectives was to better understand patterns of victimisation, analysing theincidenceofcertaintypesofcrimewithintheoverallpopulation;butasecondaryobjectivewastogather large volumes of qualitative data about specific incidents in order to explore individuals’specificexperiences.Assuchitwasnecessarytocaptureinformationfromalargenumberofrecentvictimsofcrime–thetargetforthenumberofvictimswasplacedat1,500.
Initially the time limit for victimisation was set to be the most recent 12 months, but afterconsultationwiththeresearchersworkingontheproject,thetimeperiodwasextendedbacktothestartof2015.
Therewas also a further objective to consider the views of non-victims of crime, although fewerinterviewswererequiredwiththisgroup,andatargetof500wasagreed.
When conducting population surveys there are different sampling options to consider. A pre-selected approach, which is often considered the most robust and representative, was initiallyconsidered. However, it quickly became apparent that this would not be feasible, due to acombinationofthelargenumberofvictiminterviewsrequired,andthelowincidenceofvictimsinthe population relative to non-victims. As such, to achieve enough interviews with victims, thisapproachwould require an overall number of interviews,whichwas far outside the scope of theproject.
Itwasthereforedecidedthat thesurveywouldseektooversamplevictimsofcrimeusingaquotacontrolledsamplingapproach,targeting2,000interviewsintotal(1,500interviewswithvictimsand500interviewerswithnon-victims).
154
As thedemographic characteristicsof theoverall populationof victimswereunknown, itwasnotpossible to set additional sample controls on any other characteristics such as age, gender orethnicity,sothesewerelefttofallout‘naturally’.
3.2 Differentquestiontypes
Thevastmajorityofquestionswerepre-coded,meaningthatalistofanswercategoriesappearedonthecomputertabletscreenandtheinterviewersselectedtheappropriatecode.
Questionswereeithersingleresponse(i.e.onlyonecodecouldbeentered)ormulti-response(i.e.more thanonecodecouldbeentered). Manypre-codedquestionshadanOther–pleasespecifyoption, and where respondents selected this option, the interviewer would simply type in theanswergiven. Inall thesequestions, theanswerswere later reviewed to see if theOther answercouldbebackcodedintooneoftheoriginalpre-codedoptions.
AlmosteveryquestionhadaDon’tKnowandRefusedoptionthattheinterviewercoulduse,butformostquestionstheydidnotappearonshowcardstotrytoensurethatrespondentsdidnotover-use these options. In the computer interview script, Don’t Know and Refused options wereseparatedfromotherresponseoptionsandshownatthebottomofscreen.
4. Fieldworkmanagement
4.1 CAPIInterviews
Survey interviews were administered through CAPI by ORS’ IQCS (Interviewer Quality ControlScheme)trainedinterviewers,andallinterviewersattendedacomprehensivebriefinginadvanceofthesurvey.
TherearesignificantbenefitsofusingCAPIsystemsfromthepointofviewofimplementingcomplexroutingonthesurvey,andensuringdataaccuracyanddatasecurity.
4.2 SampleControls
Toensureasuitablespreadofvictimsandnon-victimsacrossIslington,theboroughwasdividedintosample points or ‘clusters’ based on Lower SuperOutput Areas,with around 16 interviews to beconductedat eachpoint (basedon2,000 interviews in total dividedbetween123 samplepoints).Eachinterviewerwasallocatedaselectionofsamplepoints,andinstructedtointerviewamixtureofvictimsandnon-victimswithineachoftheseareas.
Asoutlinedabove,apre-selectedapproachhadinitiallybeenconsidered,whichwouldhaveinvolvedsendinganadvanceor‘pre-alert’lettertoeveryaddressintheinitialsample.Inordertoencourageparticipation(particularlygiventhesensitivityofthesurveytopicsanduncertaintiesoverthelikelylevelofresponse1)itwasdecidedthatORSshouldstillsendpre-alertletterstoarandomsampleof10,000addresses.ThesamplewasdisproportionatelystratifiedbyLSOAtodeliberatelyover-sample
1Theletterswereintendedtoincreaseparticipationbyprovidinga‘footinthedoor’andhelpingtoreassurerespondentsthatthesurveywasagenuinepieceofwork.Thelettersalsooutlinedthereasonsforthesurveyandprovidedcontactdetailsforrespondentstoarrangeaninterviewappointmentorrequestfurtherinformation.
155
areaswithhigherratesofcertaintypesofrecordedcrime2,withtheintentionthatthiswouldhelpgenerate more interviews with victims. Interviewers were given information about the sampledaddresseswithineachsamplepointandencouragedtovisitthemwhentheywere inthatarea,tohelpthemachievetherequirednumberofinterviews.
Becausetheclustertargetsfornon-victimswere‘easier’toachievethanthoseforvictims(duetoacombinationofthetargetsbeingsmaller,non-victimsbeingmoreprevalentinthepopulation,andashorter interview lengthfornon-victims), interviewersweresetamaximumtargetof2non-victiminterviewspersamplepointperday.Thiswasdoneasafurtherefforttoensureareasonablespreadofnon-victimsindifferentareasacrossthewholeoftheborough.
Victimswereidentifiedbyscreeningonthedoorstep,withinterviewersofferingrespondentsashowcardlistingthecrimetypesthatwereinscopeinordertodeterminetheireligibility.
5. Surveyresponseanddataprocessing
Theinterviewsbeganon1stMarch2016andendedon16thMay2016.
Intotal,2,025interviewswereachieved:1,501werewithindividualswhohadbeenvictimsofcrimesincethestartof2015,and524werewithnon-victims.
The initial number of victimswas slightly higher than described above (and, correspondingly, thenumberofnon-victimsslightly lower).This isbecauseasmallnumberofcases (<1%of theoverallachieved sample) were reclassified as non-victims following ORS’ quality control checks (mostlybecause their incidents appeared to relate to generalisedASB in the local area, rather thanbeingspecificincidentsofcrimetypesfallingwithinthescopeofthestudy).
Itwasagreed that the researchersworkingonbehalfof theUniversityofKentwouldanalyse theverbatimtextcommentsfromthesurvey.
6. Weightingthedata
6.1 Reasonsforweighting
The extent to which results can be generalised from a sample depends on howwell the samplerepresentsthepopulationfromwhichitisdrawn.
However,inthiscasethesurveydesignintentionallyover-representedindividualswhohadrecentlyfallenvictim toa crimeand intentionallyunder-representednon-victimsof crime (bydoing three-quartersof interviewswithvictimsofcrime,eventhoughtheyareaminority in thepopulationatlarge).
Furthermore,asforallsurveysofthistype,theachievedsamplewasaffectedbyresponsebiasi.e.varyinglevelsofresponsebetweendifferentsocio-demographicgroups.
2BasedonLSOA-levelRecordedCrimeSummaryDataprovidedbytheGreaterLondonAuthority(GLA):http://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/recorded-crime-summary-data-london-lsoa-level
156
Statisticalweightswere thereforederived foreachcase inorder to compensate forbothof thesefactorsi.e.thesampledesignandtheresponsebias.
Abriefoverviewoftheprocessbywhichtheseweightswerecalculatedisoutlinedbelow.
6.2 Derivingtheweights
Firstly, although sample controls were included at LSOA level to ensure a broad distribution ofinterviews across Islington, somewardswere slightly over- or under-represented in the returnedsample(relativetothesizeoftheirpopulations).Usingcomparativedata,eachcasewasweightedtomaketheoverallsamplefullyrepresentativebyareaatwardlevel.
Itwasalsonecessarytoadjust-asfarasestimatesallow-fortheover-representationofvictimsinthe survey design. ORS accepts that there are various difficulties in reliably estimating the trueincidence of victimisation e.g. because the varying extent to which victims are either willing orreluctanttodiscloseinformationabouttheirexperiencesofcrime,aswellasnuancesaroundwhatdifferent respondents may class as a crime, and how consistently respondents understand thedistinctionsbetweendifferenttypesofcrimeetc.
Nonetheless, by using other available and representative survey data3 ORS was able to obtain areasonable estimate for the incidence of victims in the wider Islington population for certaincomparable crimes (i.e. property crime, violent crime, hate crime, harassment, credit/debit cardfraudandothers)andoverasimilartimeperiod4.
Furtherweightswerethenderivedtocorrectfortheintentionaloversamplingofvictimsandensurethat theproportionofvictims in theachievedsamplebroadlymatched thatestimated tooccur intheoverallIslingtonpopulation.
Finally, the characteristics of the achieved sample were compared against information about theentire Islington population (from Census 2011, the English Housing Survey, and Greater LondonAuthorityestimates2015)toestablishwherethesamplehadunder-orover-representedparticularsocio-demographic groups. Following this, the sample was weighted by age, gender, ethnicity,working status and tenure, in order to make it broadly representative of the entire Islingtonpopulation.
The table overleaf shows the weighted and un-weighted profiles of respondents to the survey,alongsidethecomparativedataforthepopulation.3ThedatausedwasfromthePublicAttitudeSurvey,alongstandingandcontinuousface-to-faceLondon-widesurveycommissionedbytheMayor’sOfficeforPolicingandCrime,andadministeredbyORSsince2014.ORSusedthemostrecentavailabledata(forthefirstQuarterof2016-17),notleastbecausethefieldworkperiod(ApriltoJune2016)correspondedreasonablycloselytothatoftheIslingtonsurvey(MarchtoMay2016).4InthePAS,theintervieweraskstherespondentwhetherheorshehasexperiencedanycrimeorASBinthelast12months.Iftheansweris‘yes’,afollow-upquestionisaskedtodeterminethenatureofthemostrecentincident.IntheIslingtonsurvey,however,ASBwasnotusedtoestablishvictimisation;therefore,toderiveanestimatefromthePASthatmorecloselyalignedwiththedefinitionusedintheIslingtonstudy,ORSexcludedcaseswheretherespondent’smostrecentincidentwasASB.Itisthereforelikelythatthisresultslightlyunder-estimatedlevelsofvictimisation,becauseitisprobablethataproportionofthosewhohadmostrecentlyexperiencedASBwouldalsohaveexperiencedanother(valid)typeofincidentwithintheprevious12months.However,ORSappliedmodellingtechniquestosuggestthattheoverallproportionofvictimsinthepopulationwasunlikelytohavebeensignificantlyunder-estimated.
157
Surveyresponses(unweightedandweighted)andResidentPopulationbyVictimisation,Ward,Age,Gender,EthnicGroup,WorkingStatusandTenure(Note:Percentagesmaynotsumduetorounding)
CharacteristicUnweightedCount
UnweightedValid%
WeightedValid%
ResidentPopulation%
BYVICTIMOFCRIMESINCE2015
Yes 1,509 74.1% 15.5% 10.9%
No 516 25.9% 84.5% 89.1%
Totalvalidresponses 2,025 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
BYWARD
Barnsbury 100 4.9% 6.7% 5.8%
Bunhill 149 7.4% 5.8% 7.6%
Caledonian 130 6.4% 6.7% 6.7%
Canonbury 114 5.6% 5.2% 5.6%
Clerkenwell 104 5.1% 7.0% 5.6%
FinsburyPark 131 6.5% 6.9% 6.9%
HighburyEast 114 5.6% 6.9% 5.6%
HighburyWest 176 8.7% 7.7% 7.9%
Hillrise 131 6.5% 4.7% 5.4%
Holloway 161 8.0% 5.5% 7.4%
Junction 118 5.8% 6.1% 5.8%
Mildmay 153 7.6% 6.0% 6.0%
StGeorge's 119 5.9% 5.5% 5.8%
StMary's 106 5.2% 5.7% 5.7%
StPeter's 103 5.1% 7.1% 5.8%
Tollington 115 5.7% 6.4% 6.2%
Totalvalidresponses 2,024 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
158
CharacteristicUnweightedCount
UnweightedValid%
WeightedValid%
ResidentPopulation%
Notknown 1 - - -
BYAGE
16to24 232 11.5% 16.0% 16.6%
25to34 395 19.6% 30.0% 31.9%
35to44 365 18.1% 18.8% 18.2%
45to54 376 18.7% 15.5% 14.0%
55to64 245 12.2% 9.6% 8.7%
65to74 239 11.9% 5.9% 5.9%
75orabove 163 8.1% 4.3% 4.7%
Totalvalidresponses 2,015 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Notknown 10 - - -
BYGENDER
Male 857 42.3% 49.6% 49.6%
Female 1,168 57.7% 50.4% 50.4%
Totalvalidresponses 2,025 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
BYETHNICGROUP
White 1,346 67.5% 71.0% 71.3%
Black 374 18.7% 13.0% 12.6%
Asian 184 9.2% 11.1% 11.2%
Other 91 4.6% 4.9% 4.9%
Totalvalidresponses 1,995 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Notknown 30 - - -
BYWORKINGSTATUS
159
CharacteristicUnweightedCount
UnweightedValid%
WeightedValid%
ResidentPopulation%
Working 895 45.3% 59.6% 59.3%
Retired 417 21.1% 9.9% 9.9%
Otherwisenotworking 665 33.6% 30.5% 30.7%
Totalvalidresponses 1,977 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Notknown 48 - - -
BYTENURE
OwnedOutright 312 15.7% 12.8% 13.3%
Owned with a mortgage or loan orsharedownership 175 8.8% 17.6% 16.9%
Privaterent 316 15.9% 34.0% 33.1%
Socialrent 1,182 59.5% 35.6% 36.6%
Totalvalidresponses 1,985 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Notknown 40 - - -