Personal Safety and Levels of Victimisation in Kingston Town Centre in February - Essay Example

A Report on Personal Safety and Levels of Victimisation in Kingston Town Centre in February XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX Course: XXXXX Date: XXXXX Introduction This report has been compiled with the aim of establishing personal safety and levels of victimization by people who visited Kingston town centre in February 2012. It considers these findings, at an aggregate level, in relation to the annual monitoring surveys undertaken since February 2007. This monitoring method is consistent with the rules for crime audit first advised by the Crime Reduction Team at the government office for London. Context In recent years, crime in British cities is far greater that its incidence (Killias and Clerici 2000). Certainly for some people, fear is as great a problem as crime itself (Jackson 2006). Concerns about safety go beyond the simple definition of crime and includes various dimensions of anti-social behavior, for instance, vandalism, graffiti, disorder and noise. Though statistics register a low level of crime, there is fear among the people because of what they would go through if they were to be victimized (Gray, et al. 2008). The fear of sustaining personal and other forms of crime and incivility may influence people’s behavior, travel patterns and the activity levels in shopping centers and residential The Police and Justice Act 2006 amends the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and places new requirements on Partnerships, through a Strategy Group with specified and minimum membership, to: undertake Strategic Assessments on at least an annual three-year Partnership Plan which is reviewed annually to reflect new and emerging priorities. Included in the Partnership Plan are: a strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder, and for combating substance misuse; priorities the Partnership intends to deliver over the next three years; steps the Partnership will take to implement the strategy and meet priorities; the constitution of all partners in delivering against the agreed priorities; details of how performance will be measured; and guidance as to how the Partnership will engage with local communities. The six top priorities for the first strategy are; alcohol misuse; violence against the person; drug misuse; anti-social behavior; crime by and against young people; and domestic violence and hate crime (Royal Borough of Kingston up Thames Safer Kingston Partnership Plan 2008/11, p.6). The first review of the Partnership Plan was initiated in January 2009. Installation of CCTV monitoring systems has been widely adopted in the U.K. In Kingston town, this was done in May 1998. There are newly-installed cameras that provide coverage to shopping areas and to the railway stations (Lazell, 2009). A further mobile CCTV installation was commissioned in 2002. The grounds of the railway stations and the large retail premises are guarded by separately-managed CCTV system. Introduction of CCTV systems creates a more secure environment for people in shopping malls and town centres during the day and night. However, given the costs of installation and operation, and the stakeholder roles of central government, local authorities and the business community, it is important to evaluate the operation and effectiveness of CCTV as a crime reduction measure and instrument for allaying the fear of crime. The objective of Kingston upon Thames Crime Audit 1998 has been achieved by periodic monitoring surveys in the Town Centre and District Centres in Kingston. This survey complements the monitoring programme and places its focus on the valuation of changes in safety levels in the town of Kingston in February 2010. It provides a yardstick date-set to inform the continuing development of the community safety policy and processes of strategic valuation. Target population and survey design Students from the School of Social Sciences at Kingston University conducted the survey of personal safety in Kingston town centre on Thursday, February 2012. In the previous years, quota samples of respondents were selected for a face-to-face interview from: elderly people, disabled people, cyclists, teenagers, parent(s) accompanied by pre-school age children; ethnic minority groups; and the wider public. A total of 1038 people were successfully interviewed using the pre-tested questionnaire attached as appendix A. These on-street surveys in Kingston were matched by an innovative study of 1563 Kingston University students at the Penrhyn Road, Kingston Hill, Knight’s Park and Roehampton Vale Campuses of Kingston University. The findings from these studies are reported elsewhere (Gant and Towers, 2011). The common questionnaire presents scales to measure personal levels of concern as related to a graded set of events and recorded experiences of victimization. It collects evidence on the use of the own town centre in daylight and darkness at different times of the week, and identifies perceptions of safety related to public and private transport services. In addition, victims reporting crimes and incivilities were required to indicate the perceived level of interest taken by the police to each reported event. Completed interview proforma were analysed at Kingston University using the OMR system. Findings were summarized in a set of key tables that capture trends in the data for a five year period. Firstly, the characteristics of the survey populations were examined. Secondly, levels of personal victimization are reviewed across a range of crimes and incivilities, including offences against cars and cycles. Thirdly, feelings of personal safety and perceived threats to property are assessed; fourthly, the behavior of people in visiting or avoiding the area in daylight and darkness are considered. This approach to presentation is consistent with that adopted for serial surveys undertaken since the first Crime Audit in the Royal Borough in 1998. Characteristics of the respondents Table 1 shows the age distribution of respondents in February 2012. In contrast to previous years, the sample includes proportionately more young people aged under 25 years (52%). The proportion from ethnic minorities (42%) is larger compared to the previous years. Notably too, the number of Kingston residents interviewed (46%) has reduced than in previous years. Proportion of young people in full-time education has also reduced to 35%, up from about 42% in 2011. Reasons for visiting Kingston town have also seen a considerable change. Generally, there has been a reduction in all the reasons. While shopping was the main reason for visiting Kingston town (44%), this has reduced to (24%). The number of those coming to work has reduced too (-5%). The proportion of people visiting Kingston for banking, leisure and other reasons has also decreased by 6%, 2% and 2% respectively. This decrease has gone to education, which displayed a high increase to 46% up from 11% from 2011. Figure 1 below indicates this. Figure 1 The mode of travel in Kingston town, which has remained consistent in the previous surveys, showed a big change in 2012. While walking has remained the same as the previous year (22%), the proportion of people using cycle has reduced considerably to 2% up from 12% in 2011. This may have been compensated by the increased proportion using motors (20% up from 1%) and cars (40% up from 33% in 2011). Use of trains and buses also reduced to 15% and 0.6% respectively. This is illustrated in the Figure 2 below: Figure 2 In 2012, 58% of the respondents claimed to know the town centre was covered by CCTV cameras. This is reduction from 69% in 2011. Figure 3 Victimisation and reporting Table 2 indicates the rates of victimization claimed for selected crimes and incivilities in 2012. According to the survey, no respondent claimed any incident of mugging or assault. The proportion of mugging and assault mark a decrease from 1.7% and 1.4% respectively in the year 2011. Threats and harassment to strangers have had a slow increased in the past three years to 2%. According to the survey, no respondent recorded any incident of pickpocketing or mobile phone theft in 2012. Both represent a sharp decrease of 3.2% and 2.8% respectively in the 2011. In 2012, the proportion of respondents who claimed to have been victims of harassment for reasons of race, disability or sexual orientation decrease significantly. In some cases like harassment and sexual assault no incidences were reported. Similarly, no case of rowdy behavior was reported in 2012. This proportion was uncharacteristically 7.6% in 2008 before falling sharply to 1.9% in 2011. Victims of group assault increased to 4% up from 1.7% in 2011. No respondent recorded intimidation by drunken behavior in 2012. 2.3% of this reported in 2011. Table three indicates proportions in auto crime victimization. Auto crime victimization is relatively low, and displays erratic patterns across the monitoring period. No respondent claimed vehicle theft in 2012. This trend has remained low and fairly constant since 2007, with a marginal increase to 1.3% in 2011. Similarly, no respondent’s was broken into. This complements the declining trend from 3.9% 2008 to 2.2% in 2011 and to 0% in 2012. No car vandalism was reported in 2012 (See Table 3). It can also be confirmed in Table 3 that theft of components from pedal cycles and the vandalism of parked cycles have decline consistently since 2007 to the point of 0% in 2012. There was decrease from 2.3% in 2011 to 0% in 2012. Fear of Crime Table 5 summarises responses given to the suite of questions probing different domains in the fear of crime. In 2012, no respondents reported fear of being victims of rowdiness, drunken behavior or pickpocketing. Over 40% of the respondents were ‘not very worried’ about being mugged (52%) or assaulted in the streets (62%), being threatened by strangers (42%) or because of race, disability or sexual orientation (40%) or being sexually assaulted (52%). Despite the proportions claiming to be ‘very worried’ or ‘quite worried’ decreasing marginally since 2011, they remain a significant cause of concern across the monitoring period. The proportion of those who are ‘very’ and ‘quite’ worried about mobile phone theft it still high (28%). 20% of the respondents are very worried about being troubled by congregating groups. The general perspective shown by table 6 is that auto-crime remains an ever-present and increasing concern for those people using the town centre. In 2012, 9% felt either ‘very’ or ‘quite’ worried about vehicle theft; 28% were worried about break-in; and 46% registered genuine concern about car vandalism. It is consoling though, that this number has been decreasing consistently over the monitoring period. Just like was the case in the previous year, cyclists have expressed higher levels of concern than motorists regarding the safety of there property. This is indicated in table 7. The proportion feeling either ‘very’ or ‘quite’ worried about the theft of a cycle has increased dramatically from 26% in 2010, 33% in 2011 and a huge 75% in 2012. In 2012, 38% of the respondents were quite worried about having their cycle parts stolen; 38% were quite worried about vandalism of parked cycles. According to Table 8, relatively few respondents consciously avoided the town centre during daylight hours during weekdays or at the weekend. Figure 3 In February 2012, for reasons of personal safety, 38% still claimed to have avoided the town centre at least ‘sometimes’ during the hours of darkness on weekdays. The proportion likely to avoid the town centre during the hours of darkness at weekends has remained at 40% in 2011 and 2012. In addition to continued investment in CCTV for town centres, Government has promoted a range of initiatives to improve passenger safety on public transport. In 2012, 86% (in comparison with 86% in 2010) of people felt at least ‘fairly safe’ walking on the streets in Kingston town centre (Table 9). This proportion is in consistency with evidence drawn from previous surveys which have demonstrated the favourable effects of CCTV and other policing measures on personal mobility and town centre visiting. Consistently, during the period 2007-2012, over 60% of travellers have felt either ‘very safe’ or ‘fairly safe’ at the main railway station and central bus stations. These proportions reached 77% and 86% in 2011 and 2012 respectively. Group differences in perception and behavior Seminar discussions, and further exploratory analysis of the data set, have identified significant variations in feelings towards personal safety that correlate with the age, gender, ethnicity, disability status and residence of respondents. These findings have direct bearing on the social sustainability issues in the town centre environment ( Takata and Leiting 1987) These outcomes are broadly consistent with the findings from previous surveys: Analysis of gender variations in personal safety shows that females are more worried than males about most dimensions of physical violence and (sexual) harassment that featured in the survey. They expressed serious concerns about theft from the person, rowdy behavior and intimidation by drunken persons. Thus, females are more likely than males to avoid the town centre ‘at least sometimes’, especially during the hours of darkness at weekends. Older people are more worried than younger age groups about becoming victims of crime and incivility. They are more worried about groups loitering on the streets, rowdy and drunken behavior, and theft from the person. They also felt unsafe when using car parks and sought to avoid Kingston town centre in the hours of darkness, especially at weekends. There are minimal differences across the age groups with regard to feelings of safety when walking on the streets and using the train and bus station. However, the proportions of people consciously avoiding Kingston Town Centre at least sometimes during the hours of darkness at the weekend rise steeply with an increase in age. Younger people are consistently more worried about cycle theft and wanton damage to personal property than older groups. Comparatively, however, those under 25 years of age were less concerned about becoming victims of mugging, assault, harassment and threats from strangers. Overall, disabled people and those from ethnic minority backgrounds (a significant proportion of whom were in full-time education) were more concerned over personal safety in respect of groups loitering in public places, drunken and rowdy behavior, and theft from the person, including a mobile phone. They expressed similar levels of concern regarding visits to Kingston at different times of the day and week, and when using public and private transport facilities. References Gant, R and Towers, B. 2011 Student Perceptions of Personal safety: Kingston University February 2011, Kingston upon Thames, Kingston University. Jackson, J.2006, ‘Introducing fear of crime to risk research (online)’, LSE Research Online, viewed 11 November 2011, . Kilias, M. and Clerici, C. 2000, Different measures of vulnerability in their relation to different dimensions of fear and crime, British Journal of Criminology, Lazell, M. 2009, ‘Fixed CCTV Camera Locations’, British Criminology Journal, Vol.1, No.1, pp.44-45. Gray, E., Jackson, J and Farral. 2008, Reassessing fear of crime in England and Wales: preliminary findings from the experience and expression project on ‘fear, confidence and policing’. London, ESRC. Takata, S.R. and Leiting, W. 1987, ‘Learning by Doing: the Teaching of Sociological Research Methods’. Teaching Sociology, Vol.15, pp. 144-150. Read More