Multilevel models for predicting personal victimisation in England and Wales Andromachi Tseloni Analysis of crime data ESRC Research Methods Festival 2010 St. Catherine’s College, Oxford, 5-8 July 2010

7 July Outline Victimisation theory and levels of analysis Data Dependent variable and covariates Statistical specification Modelling strategy Results Conclusions

7 July Victimisation theory Lifestyle & Routine Activity (Hindelang et al. 1978; Cohen and Felson 1979; Felson 1998) Individual Characteristics including Lifestyle Level 1 unit of analysis: individual Social Disorganisation (Shaw and McKay 1942; Sampson and Wooldregde 1987; Sampson and Groves 1989) Area Characteristics Level 2 unit of analysis: quarter postcode sector

7 July Data Crimes, individual & household characteristics taken from the 2000 British Crime Survey –Incidents occurred within a 15´ walk from home to respondents who have not moved house in the previous year. –905 areas (sampling points=quarter postcode sectors) – 4-29 households per sampling point (mean=10, standard deviation=5.9) –15,774 individuals in total Area characteristics taken from the 1991 Census Small Area Statistics –5% random error, standardised values

7 July Personal crimes Common assault Wounding Robbery Theft from person Other theft from person Sexual offences excluded Series incidents are truncated at 5 events.

7 July Figure 1: Personal Crimes across Areas (mean=0.8, skewness=2.9, concentration=2.0)

7 July Figure 2: Personal Crimes across Individuals (mean=0.05, skewness=11.9, concentration=1.6)

7 July Covariates: Household Level (1) Demographic (male, age, non-white ethnicity) Social (marital status, living with children, education, social class) Tenure and accommodation type Household Income Length of residence in the area Routine activities (away from home, going to pubs, clubs and drinking alcohol) Area type (inner city, urban)

7 July Covariates: Area Level (2) 9 Regions of England and Wales (with South East=basis) Percent (%) households renting privately % Single adult non-pensioner households % Afro-Caribbean % Indian-subcontinent % Population years % Households in housing association accommodation % Households moved in the area last year Population density Poverty [0.859 percent lone parent households percent households without car nonmanual percent owner occupied households mean number of persons per room percent households renting from LA].

7 July Statistical Model Multilevel negative binomial regression with extra negative binomial variation Cameron and Trivedi 1986 J. of Appl. Econometrics Goldstein 1995 Multilevel Statistical Models Snijders and Bosker 1999 Multilevel Analysis Tseloni 2000 J. of Quant. Crim. ln  ij =n ij =X ij + q=p q=0 u qj z qij + q=Q-1 q=p+1 u qj z qj i=1,...,15,774, j=1,...,905 (1) [u qj ]~N(0, u ) ln  ij = n ij + e ij (2) where exp(e 0ij ) follows a gamma probability distribution E(Y ij )=  ij = exp( n ij ) & var(Y ij )=   ij +  2 ij / (3) / 2 overdispersion due to unexplained heterogeneity between individuals &  2 / precision parameter

7 July Modelling strategy Software MLwiN 2.11 Gradually added covariates The ones with p-value of χ 1 2 < 0.10 were retained Five models fitted: Baseline model with just a random intercept Fixed individual and household effects Fixed individual, household and routine activities or lifestyle effects Fixed individual, household, lifestyle and area effects Fixed individual, household, lifestyle and area effects with fixed (cross-cluster) interactions

7 July Baseline model Interpretation Pecr ij denotes number of personal crimes  ij =0.046=exp(-3.074) is the estimated mean of personal crimes α=2.206 & ν are the parameters of overdispersion var (u 0j )=0.187, is the between areas variance of personal crimes which is non- significant

7 July Final model

7 July Interpretation of results: constant  ij =0.016=exp( x x51 2 ) is the estimated number of personal crimes that a 51 years old married white woman without children is expected to experience per year. This woman has household income less than £30,000, goes to pubs less than 3 times per week and to clubs less often than once a week. Finally, she lives in her owned detached house for over 2 years in a rural area of England and Wales with national average population density and poverty.

7 July Interpretation of results: Figure 3: Predicted personal crimes and individual’s age

7 July Interpretation of results: significant socio-demographic effects Positive Single Divorced, especially with children Windowed in high population density areas Having children Social renters Private renters In terraced houses In flats or maisonettes Movers (less than 2 years in the same area) Negative Asian or black Non – definable social class Living in inner city

7 July Interpretation of results: significant lifestyle and area positive effects Lifestyle Men who go to clubs at least once per week Parents of children who go to pubs at least 3 times per week Area Poverty Population density

7 July Interpretation of results: Figure 4: Predicted personal crimes and area poverty

7 July Interpretation of results: Figure 5: Predicted personal crimes and area population density

7 July Interpretation of results: Figure 6: Predicted personal crimes for widowed individuals and others across area population density

7 July Conclusions Personal criminal victimisation is predicted by individual and area characteristics. While significant unexplained heterogeneity between individuals remains, area information fully accounts for the area clustering of personal victimisation. The results partly confirm the assertions of lifestyle /routine activities theory. Being male, non-white, inner city resident or having an outgoing lifestyle in general are exceptions. The results also confirm the social disorganisation theory with respect to economic deprivation and population density. But they also showed that ethnic heterogeneity, residential mobility and high proportions of young population do not predict personal crimes. The two theories should integrate into a single one as the effects of some risk factors on personal victimisation are communicable and/or depend on context.