![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
High rates of reported crime and levels of fear of crime have emerged as characteristics of late modern societies. Changes in society as a result of globalization and new technologies are said to have contributed to a “risk society” in which crime is one of a number of risks that the public expect will be managed effectively. The perception that the risk of victimization is growing undermines confidence in the effectiveness of the state. The reassurance/perception gap has thus long concerned central government. However, geographical variations in this trend are poorly understood. The analysis of the risk of victimization in different types of neighbourhood shows that the experience of crime varies significantly depending on where people live. Some communities are more crime prone than others and this has important consequences for how the risks of victimization are communicated and for the selection of policing styles that will be most effective. Furthermore, aspects of anti-social behaviour that most concern local residents vary significantly between different types of neighbourhood, as do their differing abilities to respond effectively. This paper demonstrates ways in which geodemographic classification systems are likely to be predictive of the level of social (dis)organization, social capital and collective efficacy. Profiling neighbourhoods, their risk of victimization, local perceptions of crime and the degree of collective efficacy could prove essential to strategies for providing public reassurance and for customizing crime reduction services to better meet local needs.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the following parties for their most valuable input and for providing access to a variety of data sets throughout our research and analyses: Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, Experian Business Strategies, Nottinghamshire Police, the Youth Justice Board, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and the National Reassurance Policing Programme. The second author would also like to thank the ESRC and the Police Foundation for their financial support and encouragement (ESRC CASE award PTA-033-2002-00026).
Notes
1. Distinguished from economic/financial capital and human capital (education, experience, etc.), “social capital” refers to the potentially positive effects of social interactions (Bottoms & Wiles, Citation2002).
2. “Defined as cohesion among residents combined with shared expectations for the social control of public space, collective efficacy explains lower rates of crime and observed disorder after controlling for neighbourhood structural characteristics” (Sampson & Raudenbush, Citation1999: 603).
3. The data and subsequent classifications concerned with individuals’ attitudes, beliefs and perceptions.
4. See http://booth.lse.ac.uk for an online archive of these maps.
5. A slum area near Blackfriars adjacent to fashionable residential and commercial districts
6. One of the 61 neighbourhood types defined by the classification used in this research. See below for further classification details.
7. Mosaic UK is developed by Experian Business Strategies. Other geodemographic classifications exist including ACORN (Caci Ltd.) CAMEO (EuroDirect) and a new National Statistics 2001 Area Classification. See Sleight (Citation2004) for comprehensive listings and details of the various geodemographic solutions available and forthcoming.
8. Abridged examples of summary supporting “pen portraits” associated with key neighbourhood types are given in the Appendix.