1. 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

2. 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 most recent 2000
Every 4 years
Since 1989, more than 60 countries participated (industrialized, in transition, developing)

3. Methodology
Random sample of households that have been a victim of an offence 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%

4. 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?

5. 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?

6. 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

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

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

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

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

11. 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 and <0.0001)
Source: International Crime Victimization Survey, 2000.

12. 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.

13. 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 < level only for alarms, locks, caretaker and watch schemes
Source: International Crime Victimization Survey, 2000.

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

15. 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 )
The use of preventive measures was significant at the < level for all measures (except caretaker, security)
Source: International Crime Victimization Survey, 2000.

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

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

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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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: * ( ) = 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

26. 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 ( )
Concluding remarks: