Crime victimisation in Australia : key results of the 2004 International Crime Victimisation Survey

Holly Johnson
ISBN 0 642 53881 6 ; ISSN 1326-6004
Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology: 2005
(Research and public policy series, no. 64)

3. Perceptions of crime and safety

Why does fear of crime matter?

Concerns about crime are generally more widespread than recent direct experiences of victimisation. While awareness and concern about crime can be positive and lead to behaviours that reduce the risk of victimisation, for some more vulnerable members of society, such as women and the elderly, fear of crime can result in serious curtailment of everyday activities, lost opportunity, and a reduction in the quality of life (Johnson 1996). If fear becomes extreme and residents retreat from public spaces, the result may be a gradual decline in the character of communities, which in turn can lead to increased disorder and crime (Skogan 1990).

How worried are people about their safety?

Three dimensions of perceptions of personal safety and risk of victimisation were assessed in the ICVS:

1. feelings of safety walking alone in the local area after dark;
2. feelings of safety waiting for or using public transportation after dark; and
3. the perceived likelihood of experiencing a burglary in the next twelve months.

Overall, the majority of Australians feel relatively safe in their local environment. A majority, 72 per cent, reported feeling fairly safe or very safe while walking alone in their local area after dark (Figure 7). This is an improvement over the 2000 ICVS when 64 per cent of Australians reported feeling safe while walking alone in their local area after dark (40 per cent felt fairly safe and 24 per cent felt very safe).

Although more than four in ten Australians (43%) do not use public transportation or do not have it available in their communities, the remainder were more likely to feel safe while using public transport (35%) than unsafe (22%) (Figure 8). Fifty eight per cent of respondents felt it was unlikely their homes would be broken into in the coming year while 29 per cent said it was likely and just seven per cent felt it was very likely (Figure 9).

Are some people more fearful than others?

There are some important differences in perceptions of safety amongst various groups in the population. For example, women were more than twice as likely as men to say they feel a bit unsafe and four times as likely to say they feel very unsafe walking alone in the local area after dark (Figure 10) and about four times as likely as men to say they feel very unsafe while waiting for or using public transportation (Figure 11). However, improvements to feelings of safety over the 2000 ICVS were reported by both women and men. In 2004, 21 per cent of women felt very safe walking alone in their local area after dark, up from 13 per cent in 2000. The figures for men were 44 per cent in 2004 and 35 per cent four years previously.

The youngest age group and people 60 years of age and over were more likely than those 25 to 59 years of age to say they feel a bit or very unsafe (Figure 12). Other significant correlates of fear were:

• income: 35 per cent of those with weekly household incomes under $400 said they felt a bit or very unsafe walking alone in their neighbourhoods after dark compared with 20 per cent of those earning $900 or more;
• language other than English at home: those who speak a language other than English at home are more likely than other Australians to say they feel a bit or very unsafe walking alone after dark (31% compared with 26%);
• marital status: people who are separated/divorced or widowed were more likely to say they feel very unsafe walking alone (18% compared with 7%); and
• victimisation: feeling unsafe (very or a bit) was more often expressed by those who said they had at least one experience of crime over the previous five years (30% compared with 22% of non victims).

Feelings of safety are also associated with public perceptions of the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. Those who described the police as doing a 'very poor job' controlling crime in the local area were twice as likely as those who perceive the police to be doing a 'very good job' to say they feel unsafe while walking alone in the neighbourhood after dark (43% compared with 21%). Perceptions that the police are doing a 'very poor job' are also associated with a perceived vulnerability to burglary: 20 per cent in this group said it was very likely they would be the victim of a break-in in the next 12 months compared with eight per cent of those who rated the police as doing a 'very good job'.

These results are consistent with previous research which shows that concerns about personal safety are associated with perceived vulnerability (Mihorean et al 2001; Ferraro 1995; Salisbury & Upson 2004). Women experience a gender-specific concern about sexual violence and they, like the elderly, are concerned about their ability to fight off an attacker and to recover from physical injuries resulting from an attack. Researchers have found that women's concerns about their personal safety in almost any situation are tied to concerns about sexual violence (Warr 1985; Stanko 1990). Fear expressed by younger people reflects their higher risk of personal victimisation. People living in low income households or neighbourhoods may be reacting to the higher levels of crime around them when they report feeling unsafe walking in the local area. Table 12 shows mean SIEFA indexes for those who expressed the highest levels of fear, who said they feel 'very unsafe' walking alone in the local area after dark compared to others who felt safer. Results suggest that areas where people feel very unsafe are relatively disadvantaged on socio-economic measures, economic resources of families, and the educational and occupational structure of the community compared with areas where people feel safer. The contribution of neighbourhood to fear of crime, over and above personal and household characteristics, is an important area for further study.

Table 12: Mean values of SEIFA indexes for persons who feel very unsafe walking alone compared with others

	Very unsafe	Others
Relative disadvantage	979.9*	1011.4
Relative advantage/disadvantage	986.9*	1012.5
Economic resources	996.6*	1015.2
Education and occupation	981.6*	1009.3
* difference is statistically significant, p < .05 Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, International Crime Victimisation Survey, 2004 [computer file]

What are the predictors of fear?

A multiple regression model was used to determine which factors predict fear for personal safety, net of the effect of others. First, a scale was constructed by combining responses to all three dimensions: perceptions of personal safety walking alone at night, perceptions of personal safety while using public transportation, and perceived likelihood of burglary. The scale sums responses to the three questions. There were four possible responses to the questions about feelings of safety walking alone, four possible responses to the questions regarding feelings of safety using public transportation, and three possible responses to the question measuring perceived likelihood of burglary. Those who stated they never walk alone at night, never use public transportation or do not have it available to them, or refused a response were assigned a response of 0 (10 respondents, 0.2% of the sample, met all these conditions and were coded as 0 on the scale). Response categories were ordered from 0 (low fear) to 11 (high fear). The mean was 4.7. Age was a continuous (not grouped) variable in this model, while gender, time at postcode, income, speaks a language other than English at home, Indigenous status, and having been a victim in the past five years, were all dichotomous as explained in the logistic regression models. The ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis shows that fear is predicted by (Table 13):

• gender: women score higher than men on the fear scale while controlling for all other variables in the model;
• age: there is a significant inverse relationship between fear and age meaning that older people scored lower on the fear scale and younger people score higher;
• language at home: a positive relationship is shown between fear and language indicating that those who speak a language other than English at home report higher levels of fear;
• Indigenous status: Indigenous people report higher levels of fear; and
• victimisation: those who were victims of any crime in the previous five years scored higher levels of fear.

Table 13: OLS regression analysis predicting fear for safety

	Standardised coefficient	SE	95% CI
Gender	-0.197**	0.047	-0.912 - -0.726
Age	-0.134**	0.001	-0.019 - -0.013
Time at postcode	0.006	0.08	-0.115 - 0.2
Income	0.011	0.08	-0.077 - 0.22
Language other than English	0.034**	0.07	0.067 - 0.33
Indigenous	0.02*	0.15	-0.032 - 0.566
Victim of crime	0.168**	0.049	0.6 - 0.791
Regression F-test 105.68** (7 df) Adjusted R2 .095
* p < .1; ** p < .05 Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, International Crime Victimisation Survey, 2004 [computer file]

Conclusion

Although overall a majority of Australians feel safe or very safe walking alone in their local area after dark, lower levels of safety are reported by some more vulnerable groups. Recent experience of victimisation is an important predictor of fear. However, other indicators of vulnerability are important over and above the effects of direct experience with crime. Second hand information about crime from others, information acquired through media reports, or social or physical disorder in the local environment may also raise concerns about personal safety. Analysis of community-level data suggests that the structure of communities in terms of relative disadvantage may play a role in increasing levels of fear for personal safety.