Living in Fear, Living in Safety: A Cross-National Study Presentation to BJS/JRSA Conference October 3-4, 2002 Nathalie Quann Research and Statistics Division Happy to be here this research is a continuation of previous research published this year

ICVS Objectives To provide an alternative to police information on levels of crime To harness crime survey methodology for comparative purposes To extend information on who is most affected by crime ICVS is coordinated by the Dutch Department of Justice and the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) First Cycle 1989 - most recent 2000 Every 4 years Since 1989, more than 60 countries participated (industrialized, in transition, developing)

Methodology Random sample of households that have been a victim of an offence - 2000 respondents aged 16 and over 11 victimization categories Household offences: theft of car, theft from car, car vandalism, motorcycle theft, bicycle theft, burglary, attempted burglary Personal offences: robbery, theft of personal property, sexual incidents, assaults and threats Telephone interviews – CATI Response rate in 2000: 64%

Research Questions Does victimization experience result in a greater fear or greater perception of risk? Besides victimization, what are the other socio-demographic factors that influence the degree of fear? How much do victimization experience and other factors affect one’s fear?

Questions Relating to Fear How safe do you feel walking alone in your area after dark? How safe do you feel when you are at home alone after dark? What would you say are the chances that over the next twelve months someone will try to break into your home?

Sample Characteristics Poland Canada USA Japan Victimization Incidence for Household (7) and Personal (5) Offences Socio-demographics included: gender, age, marital status, income, town size and occupation Australia Scandinavian countries: Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden Western Europe: Belgium, England & Wales, France, Northern Ireland, Portugal, Scotland, Spain, Switzerland

Victimization by industrialized country, 1999 Source: International Crime Victimization Survey, 2000

Percentage of homes with a preventive measure Source: International Crime Victimization Survey, 2000

Percentage of homes with special door locks Source: International Crime Victimization Survey, 2000

Percentage of homes with burglar alarms Source: International Crime Victimization Survey, 2000

Fear of Walking at Night One-in-four respondents expressed moderate or high fear of crime females more than males; lower income more than higher income; divorced and widowed more than single; not working (retired, housewives, students) more than working victims more than non-victims US 15%, Canada 16% In US, fear decreased with age, while it increased with age in Canada otherwise, similar trends compared to the international sample Chi-square analysis showed that victimization experience (household and personal) and all socio-demographic characteristics selected were significantly associated with fear at night (<0.0001) Most preventive measures were also significantly associated with fear (between 0.0005 and <0.0001) Source: International Crime Victimization Survey, 2000.

Fear at Night & Victimization Almost twice as many victims of an offence against the person than non-victims expressed fear at night (ratio 1.4); similar situation for victims of a household offence (ratio 1.3) Source: International Crime Victimization Survey, 2000.

Fear at Home Alone at Night One-in-fourteen respondents expressed moderate or high fear Females more than twice more fearful at home than men Fear increases with age and income workers are slightly more fearful than non-workers no difference between rural and urban areas victims slightly higher than non-victims Chi-square analysis showed that victimization experience (household and personal) and all socio-demographic characteristics selected were significantly associated with fear at night (<0.0001) except for town size (p=0.2262) The use of preventive measures was significant at the <0.0001 level only for alarms, locks, caretaker and watch schemes Source: International Crime Victimization Survey, 2000.

Fear at Home & Victimization Source: International Crime Victimization Survey, 2000.

Break-In Chances One-in-three respondents believe it is very likely or likely that they will be a victim Females more than twice more fearful at home than men Fear increases with age and income workers are slightly more fearful than non-workers no difference between rural and urban areas victims slightly higher than non-victims Between 30% and 39% of individuals reporting the use of one preventive measure had expressed high to moderate risk of break-in into his/her house most common : special grills and burglar alarms Chi-square analysis showed that victimization experience (household and personal) and all socio-demographic characteristics selected were significantly associated with fear at night (between 0.05 and 0.0001) The use of preventive measures was significant at the <0.0001 level for all measures (except caretaker, security) Source: International Crime Victimization Survey, 2000.

Break-In Chances, USA Source: International Crime Victimization Survey, 2000.

Break-In Chances, Canada Source: International Crime Victimization Survey, 2000.

Break-In Chances & Victimization Source: International Crime Victimization Survey, 2000.

Correlation – Fear at Night Gender 0.28 Income 0.13 Age 0.08 Occupation -0.14 +1 Highly correlated -1 Not Highly correlated Town Size 0.15 Widowed 0.09 In US, victimization experience (household) and town size had significant relationship to one’s level of fear at night In Canada, occupation and marital status played a bigger role on one’s level of fear at night Pearson coefficients Relationship between all variables and fear was weak but mostly statistically significant Some variables (gender, town size, income, widowed status, age and occupation) had the strongest relationship to fear

Correlation – Fear at Home Gender 0.21 Income 0.12 Occupation -0.10 +1 Highly correlated -1 Not Highly correlated In US, victimization experience (household), age and town size had significant relationship to one’s level of fear at home In Canada, only gender played a significant role in one’s level of fear at home – household victimization also played a role, but to a much lesser extent that in the US

Correlation – Break-In Chances Household 0.08 +1 Highly correlated -1 Not Highly correlated In both Canada and US, victimization experience played a significant role in one’s perception of risk of break-in in their house – however, coefficients were more significant in US compared to their northern neighbour

Regression – Fear at Night Stepwise regression was used to identify the variables that had the strongest influence on fear and it ranked those in order The variables with the strongest influence were: gender, town size, household victimization, age, personal victimization, widowed respondents, preventive measure and single respondents The variables with the strongest influence were: gender (0.85), town size (0.35), household victimization (0.46), age (0.03), personal victimization (0.35) and married respondents (0.06) All regression coefficients were statistically significant at the 0.01 level. Coefficients or variables appearing in the model were similar in both Canada and US

Regression – Fear at Home The variables with the strongest influence were: gender, household victimization, preventive measures, age, personal victimization, divorced and single respondents Household victimization experience had much greater impact in US while marital status played a more significant role in Canada The variables with the strongest influence were: gender (0.85), town size (0.35), household victimization (0.46), age (0.03), personal victimization (0.35) and married respondents (0.06) Coefficients or variables appearing in the model were similar in both Canada and US

Regression – Break-In Chances The variables with the strongest influence were: household victimization, preventive measures, married respondents, personal victimization, town size, divorced respondents and gender The use of preventive measures in Canada and US is not significant in levels of fear or perception of risk Victimization experience played a stronger role in perception of risk among US respondents The variables with the strongest influence were: gender (0.85), town size (0.35), household victimization (0.46), age (0.03), personal victimization (0.35) and married respondents (0.06) Coefficients or variables appearing in the model were similar in both Canada and US

Regression – Fear and Age Although coefficients appeared small, its effect on the value of fear are significant Overall coefficient of 0.06 (fear at night) Real effect calculated with the coefficient multiplied by the age of the respondents For example: 0.06 * (65 - 25) = 2.4 Age played a reverse role in both countries: while fear increases with age in Canada, it decreases with age in US The variables with the strongest influence were: gender (0.85), town size (0.35), household victimization (0.46), age (0.03), personal victimization (0.35) and married respondents (0.06) Coefficients or variables appearing in the model were similar in both Canada and US

Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood. Conclusion Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood. Marie Curie (1867-1934) Concluding remarks: