Fear of Crime and the Post-Olympic Legacy

LASALA FOUNDATION

‘Fear of Crime’ and the post-Olympic

legacy – A Proposal

Dimitar Pancheva

aCriminologist

To cite this article: Panchev, D. (2013). ‘Fear of Crime’ and the post-

Olympic legacy – A Proposal. London: LASALA Foundation.

To link to this article: http://www.lasalafoundation.org/our-articles.html

Terms and Conditions for the use of this article: This article may be

used for research and private study purposes. Any considerable or

methodical reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is definitively

prohibited.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any

representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up-to-

date. The accuracy of any information should be independently verified

with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,

actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever

or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or

arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.lasalafoundation.org/our-articles.html

2

©2013 LASALA FOUNDATION

‘Fear of Crime’ and the post-Olympic legacy – A Proposal

By Dimitar Panchev1

Abstract

The following research proposal will attempt to provide a new dimension of the ‘fear

of crime’ debate by placing it in the context of the post-Olympic period and whether

the massive regeneration programme which took place in the Stratford and New Town

ward of Newham, London has reduced the level of fear among its residents.

Fear of Crime – Review of literature

The origins of ‘fear of crime’ as a concept of criminological inquiry can be traced to

several factors, among which the sophistication of statistics, criminological concern

with new forms of crime statistics; the emergence of victim surveys; the rising rates of

recorder crime in the USA and the attempts to govern this; racialized concern of black

rioting and the passing on the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 1968 in

the USA (Lee, 2001; Harris, 1969). Since then, it has been regarded as a significant

social issue (Skogan and Maxfield, 1980; Stanko, 1995; Stinchcombe et al., 1980). In

the United Kingdom, however, the ‘fear of crime’ remained hidden from the political

agenda until 1982 (Ditton et al. 1998), but once discovered, it was taken up by

politicians and policy makers because it seemed more amenable to manipulation and

reduction than the crime rates which were steadily increasing (ibid.) The

consequences of fear of crime appeared to be numerous and multiple factors were

used in order to explain it (Box, Hall & Andrews, 1988).

Among them, gender had been consistently associated with higher levels of fear

(Lagrange and Ferraro, 1989; Goodey, 1997; Smith and Torstensson, 1997; Keown,

2008), though this has been questioned by Gilchrist et al.’s (1998) findings. In

addition, many had found age predicts crime-related fear (Baumer, 1985; Garofalo

1 E-mail : [email protected]

3


&Laub, 1978; McGarrell et al., 1997; Parker& Ray, 1990; Skogan, 1995; Tulloch,

2000), although perceived and actual risk may be disproportionate; some recent

studies had not fully supported the age-fear relationship (Chiricos, Hogan,&Gerta,

1997; Ferraro, 1995). Minority residents (Garofalo & Laub, 1978; Parker & Ray,

1990; Skogan, 1995; Taylor & Hale, 1986) and those with lower incomes report

greater levels of fear (Baumer, 1985; Bennett & Flavin, 1994; Garofalo, 1981;

Garofalo & Laub, 1978; McGarrell et al., 1997; Taylor & Hale, 1986; Will &

McGrath, 1995; Pantazis, 2000). Education tends to be associated with income and

may influence crime-related fear through residential patterns and routine activities

(Baumer, 1978; Riger et al., 1978). Married residents express less fear than their non-

married counterparts (Baumer, 1978; Haynie, 1998; Mesch, 2000), perhaps due to

lifestyle and activity modifications, as well as a decreased sense of physical

vulnerability (although Warr & Ellison, 2000 noted important complexities). Finally,

early crime-related fear research suggested victims of crime were more fearful

(Garofalo, 1977). Recent studies had yielded mixed results (Baumer, 1985; Bursik &

Grasmick, 1993; Ferraro, 1996; May & Dunaway, 2000; McGarrell et al.,

1997;Mesch, 2000; Parker&Ray,1990; Will&McGrath, 1995), leading to speculation

that victimization is stronger when it is vicarious (i.e., through the media, family,

friends, neighbours) (Covington&Taylor,1991; Skogan & Maxfield, 1981). Certain

citizen behaviours and perceptions have the capacity to “facilitate” higher levels of

fear (McGarrell et al., 1997). It had long been suggested that there was a link between

disorder and both neighbourhood attachment and crime-related fear. Disorder directly

affects fear when residents become concerned with the impact of such conditions (e.g.,

rowdy youth, public drinking, panhandling, etc.). Disorder indirectly affects fear

through residents' perceptions and concerns (Taylor, 1995); social and physical decay

may indicate a neighbourhood has lost the ability to exert informal social control

(Kelling & Coles, 1996; Wilson, 1975), generating fear and perceived vulnerability

(Bennett & Flavin, 1994). The perceived inability to control neighbourhood

conditions can erode residents' social ties and sense of community (Conklin, 1975;

Lewis & Salem, 1986; Podolefsky & DuBow, 1981; Wilson, 1975). Viewed in this

way, disorder can be seen as starting a “spiral of decay” (Skogan, 1990), generating

anxiety, helplessness, withdrawal, and the propagation of disorderly conditions.

Studies had offered theoretical arguments and empirical evidence that disorder, or the

perception thereof, directly and/or indirectly contributed to the fear of crime

4


(Covington & Taylor, 1991; Garofalo & Laub, 1978; Hale, Pack, & Salked, 1994;

LaGrange, Ferraro, & Supancic, 1992; Lewis & Salem, 1986; McGarrell et al., 1997;

O'Mahony & Quinn, 1999; Pate, Wycoff, Skogan, & Sherman, 1986; Podolefsky &

DuBow, 1981; Skogan, 1990; Skogan & Maxfield, 1981; Taylor, 2001; Taylor,

Gottfredson, & Brower, 1985; Taylor & Hale, 1986; Wilson & Kelling, 1982),

although the veracity of the “broken windows” thesis remains empirically

questionable (Crank, Giacomazzi, & Heck, 2003). Extant studies assessing crime and

disorder had used both objective (economic and social data) and subjective (residents'

perceptions) indicators (Covington & Taylor, 1991; Garofalo & Laub, 1978; Taylor,

Shumaker, & Gottfredson, 1985). When a citizen subjectively believes disorder is

significant, this perception becomes real in its consequences (i.e., increased fear),

despite reality (Taylor, 2001; Taylor & Hale, 1986). Objective measures such as local

crime rates could be expected to shape fear; those residing in high crime areas would

be expected to express more fear. In another study, Taylor and Covington (1993) note

that fear of crime might appear high in neighbourhoods that experience unexpected

increases in minority ethnic populations, though unexpected ecological change does

not by itself set in motion a broad array of consequences undermining neighbourhood

viability.

Such findings can also be reviewed in the light of social disorganisation theory (Shaw

and McKay, 1940). For example, Hunter (1978) proposed that social disorganisation

stemming from community decline produces physical signs of incivility such as litter,

graffiti, and abandoned houses and lots; and social signs of incivility such as groups

of unsupervised and rowdy teens. Residents then conclude that formal and informal

forces maintaining public order are increasingly powerless and, therefore, that their

risk of victimization are increasing. Wilson and Kelling (1982) have described a more

complex scenario, arguing that unrepaired signs of physical incivility provide ‘cues’

to local youth that antisocial behaviour will be tolerated. If these cues increase, local

youths assume that residents can no longer supervise the public arena. Consequently,

problems related to unsupervised teen groups increase. In response, residents become

more concerned about their personal safety, progressively withdrawing from the

public arena. As local control erodes further, offenders from outside the

neighbourhood, attracted by the lack of natural guardians such as vigilant residents

and shopkeepers, move to the locale.

5


Empirical cross-sectional research has provided support for portions of models linking

rapid community change with fear (Covington and Taylor, 1991; Perkins, Meeks and

Taylor, 1992; Taylor and Hale; 1986; Taylor, Shumaker and Gottfedson, 1985). No

studies, however, have incorporated measures of actual neighbourhood changes

(Taylor, 1987; Taylor and Gottfredson, 1986). Also, prior studies have not specified

the extra-neighbourhood forces or changes that instigate these processes (Gottdiener

and Feagin, 1988), and have not delineated the most relevant dimensions of internal

community structure. Of course, there is also the question of what ‘community’

actually stands for and how it should be understood. ‘Community’, as Pain (2000)

argues, should bring with itself an assumption for the presence of common interests,

though her own work demonstrates that different groups with divergent concerns

about crime frequently inhabit the same geographical area. As evaluations of

Neighbourhood Watch in the UK and similar community orientated schemes have

shown, such notions of community may benefit stable white middle-class localities

(Donnison et al., 1986; Walklate, 1989; Bennett, 1990), but this represents successful

fear reduction for the least fearful and least at risk from crime. Similarly, in more

heterogeneous high-crime areas those who populate community panels and whose

views are represented in other local organizations and initiatives are frequently white,

older and/or middle-class, so that ‘young people in local – communities? – become

successfully defined as the “criminal other” ‘(Brown, 1995: 47), to the detriment of

young people’s safety and ultimately the cohesion of the community itself.

More recent research into the fear of crime debate has shifted the focus onto the

emotional and psychological impact which it might have on the general public

(Maguire, 1980; Farrall et al. 2000; Gabriel and Greve, 2003; Jackson, 2004; Jackson,

2009; Gray, Jackson & Farrall, 2008, Dobbs et al. 2009). Moreover, there is a

growing number of academic publications that have placed tried to replace the

concept of ‘fear of crime’ with one of ‘risk’ (Jackson, 2006; Gray et al. 2008;

Hollway and Jefferson, 1997), the former appears to be inseparable of other forms of

insecurity and resulting from the condensation of a more diffuse perceptions of

uncertainty and insecurity which characterise the transformations of the late-modern

society (Beck, 1992; Bauman, 2000; Young, 2007).

6


Improvements into the methodology for inquiring about fear of crime (Farrall et

al .1997) have also increased the awareness of social problem’s magnitude and ,

possibly, its dual nature – a response of fear in high crime areas and one of anxiety in

more secure areas (Farrall, Jackson and Gray, 2009). Also, it has been noted that the

frequency of fear of crime itself might be quite low and certainly one of low level – in

one sample only 8 per cent of all the participants frequently experienced high levels of

fear of crime (Farrall & Gadd, 2004).

Stratford and London Borough of Newham

Stratford is situated in London Borough of Newham, an area of the metropolis that is

characterised by an average crime rate, though the region’s crime rates appear to be

higher that the Borough’s average. Over the past twelve months, prior and after the

Olympic Games took place in the Borough, some reduction in the crime rates of

Stratford has been noted for the following categories – burglary was reduced by

20.3%, criminal damage – 7.8%, drug offences – 5.8%, robbery – 5,5%. On the other

hand, violence against the person increased by 12.1%, theft and HST by 67.3%,

sexual offences by 57.6%, fraud and forgery by 18.7%, other notifiable offences by

21.6% (MPCF, 2012).

The region itself is characterised by a multicultural population (ONS, 2009), a

significant proportion of which is young people (ONS, 2010, adapted in The

Guardian, 2010). A recent report on the demographics of the Borough notes that

Newham’s population is one of the most ethnically diverse in London, with 64.6% of

the residents being non-white. Of these, 20.5% were Pakistani or Bangladeshi, 18.1%

were Black, 11.5% were Indian and 14.4% were either of mixed ethnic origin of from

another non-white ethnic group (London Borough of Newham, 2010). In addition,

Newham’s BAME residents were on average younger than white residents – in 2008

just 26% of white residents were under 25 years of age, compared to the Borough’s

average of 38%. According to data from 2008, Stratford and New Town itself was the

most populated ward from the Borough (GLA, 2008). In addition, data from the Index

of Multiple Deprivation from 2007 shows that Newham was one of the most deprived

areas in the country, ranking sixth out of 354 local authorities in England (IMD, 2007).

This represented a relative decline since 2004, when the Borough ranked 11th

, and

third in the Metropolitan area, after Hackney and Tower Hamlets (IMD, 2004).

7


Poverty in the Borough also has an ethnic dimension. In 2008, the lowest poverty

rates were recorded amongst households of Black Caribbean origin, of whom 22%

were experiencing poverty, followed by White British households, of whom 33%

were in poverty. The highest poverty rates were found amongst Asian Bangladeshi

and Asian Pakistani households who had poverty rates of 61% and 59%, respectively

(Newham Household Panel Survey, 2008).

On the other hand, over the last decade, the local area has experienced significant

redevelopment, the climax being the Olympic stadium, as the Borough was the host of

the majority of the events during the Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012 (The

Guardian, 2012). As the literature review has demonstrated, this particular ward of the

Borough seems to display several of the factors that might be associated with a

heightened level of fear of crime. The key question, however, remains, and that is

whether the ‘legacy’ of the Olympics and the massive regeneration it brought have

had any impact on the population itself and whether they have made any positive

contribution into the community. The following section of this proposal will focus on

the proposed methodology for assessing the fear of crime in the post-Olympic period

of the Stratford and New Town ward of the Borough.

Proposed Methodology

Methods that have been employed by previous researchers in order to assess public

perceptions of personal risk, fear of crime and risk of victimisation have included

surveys, secondary data analysis, literature reviews, focus groups, in-depth interviews

and structured/semi-structured interviews (Tulloch, 2000; Killias and Clerici, 2000),

replication of previous studies (Farrall et al., 2000) and triangulation of quantitative

and qualitative methods.

Different types of surveys have been used in order to provide the researchers with

quantitative data for the fear of crime topic and risk of victimisation topic (Franklin et

al., 2008; Jackson, 2009; Dobbs et al., 2009; Farrall and Gadd, 2004; Evans and

Fletcher, 2000; Goodey 1997; Tulloch, 2000). Although having poor internal validity,

such a method is commonly used when the goal of the research is to show trends and

not causation. Secondary data analysis (Keown, 2008; Borroah and Carcach, 1997;

Box et al., 1988; Schafer et al., 2006; Pantazis 2000) can be considered as a cheaper

8


alternative to surveys and similarly to them such a method is used to reveal trends and

patterns. The analyses were based on data obtained from the British Crime Survey

(Box et al., 1988; Pantazis, 2000), wider projects (Schafer, 2006), the Queensland

Crime Victim Survey (Borooah and Carcach, 1997) and the Canadian general Social

Survey (Keown, 2008).

Literature reviews (Franklin et al. 2008; Jackson, 2009; Dobbs et al. 2009; Borooah

and Carcach, 1997; Box et al. 1988; Madriz, 1997; Schafer et al., 2006; Goodey, 1997;

Pantazis 2000; Gilchrist et al. 1998; Hale, 1996) have been used in order to provide

information on the topic and matters related to it. In addition, focus groups (Madriz,

1997, Tulloch, 2000; Goodey, 1997), in-depth interviews (Madriz, 1997; Maguire,

1980, Gilchrist et al., 1998) have provided the researchers with valuable insight into

the issues explored.

A more recent fear of crime survey with a distinctive methodology was conducted by

Easton et al. (2007) in the London Borough of Lambeth. All the interviews were

carried out in public spaces and the questionnaire itself included several sections

among which were demographics, feelings of safety, victimisation of crime in the

borough, feelings of insecurity, improvements to community safety, anti-social

behaviour in their local area and transport systems. The manner in which the survey

was conducted allowed the researchers a significant amount of flexibility in terms of

asking the questions and the open-ended interviews allowed the local residents to

elaborate on certain points of interest of experiences they have had in certain areas –

aspects which also involved visual aids (maps) and a mapping exercise, allowing the

researchers to identify potential ‘hot-spots’.

Although Easton et al. (2007) were quite successful in terms of the representativeness

of their sample, several potential problems can be identified. Firstly, as the interviews

were conducted in public spaces, a certain amount of questionnaires were incomplete,

making the subsequent analysis quite difficult. Secondly, in certain situations, a

significant level of confusion can be caused when it comes to the respondents to

define more abstract categories such as ‘crime’ and ‘disorder’. Responses might be

influenced by subjective knowledge and experience and if that is the case, then it

comes to the researcher to canalize the response towards a certain direction, at the

same time exercising considerable caution so as not the influence the opinion of the

9


respondent and ,ultimately, skew the data. Thirdly, significant effort was made to

avoid interviewing members of the transient population, as they were not

representative of the borough’s demographic profile. In the current example, however,

this didn’t not appear to be an issue at stake and it was easily resolved by visiting only

areas that would be of local interest (local cafes, social clubs, shops) and if a similar

approach is applied in the Stratford and New Town ward of Newham, arguably, it

could be expected that satisfactory results could be obtained.

Sampling

As it was noted in the previous section, the London Borough of Newham has a

distinctive demographic profile and any methodology employed during the research

should revolve around the resolution of potential problems that might be associated

with the demographics of the area. Thus, the sampling strategy of this proposal should

be seen in light with similar research that has been conducted previously in similar

context – the Moss-Side study (Tuck and Southgate, 1981), the first and second

Islington crime surveys (Jones et al .1986; Crawford et al. 1990) and the one

conducted by the London Borough of Newham (London Borough of Newham, 1987).

The random sampling of the target population, as Eisner and Parmar (2008) note,

usually results in small numbers of any specific group, making any comparative

empirical inquiry quite limited. One possible solution to making research in multi-

ethnic environment would be to use a stratified sampling procedure, whereby minority

groups of particular interest are over-sampled (ibid.). Building up trust in such diverse

communities is also a problem that requires careful consideration and potentially a

prior acquaintance with the local area, community stakeholders and potential gate-

keepers before any fieldwork has been conducted. In a study by Harachi et al. (1997),

such a strategy proved quite successful in recruiting minority groups, but over-

reliance on the support of community leaders that lead to unintended bias in the

recruitment efforts of the sample (Fisher and Masty, 2006).

Depending on the time and financial constraints, and in case more time can be spent

on the field, an alternative approach to Easton et al. (2007) could be used, based on

door-to-door interviews, a strategy similar to the British Crime Survey (Maguire,

2007). As Mayhew (2008) notes, the aim of such surveys is to document the

experience of ‘ordinary’ people and different sampling strategies have been used.

10


One of them is the ER (Electoral Registers), which is readily accessible and allows a

sample of named individuals to be chosen beforehand (including only those aged 18

and over). The problem with such a sampling approach is that it excludes the

homeless, the unemployed and a portion of the ethnic minority population – groups of

significant importance to the present study. A better alternative would be the Small

Users Address File (PAF) which contains all postal delivery points and represents the

fullest register of household addresses. The main disadvantage is the lack of list of

named occupants, meaning that any introductory letter to a postal questionnaire would

be sent to the ‘Occupant’, who might not be the person one is after (ibid.).

In the case of door-to-door interviews, the negative effects of such a sampling strategy

would be reduced to the minimum and in order to enhance the quality of the data

collected during the project, CAPI (Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing) could

be used as the main method of data collection. The use of this instrument has a wide

range of benefits, among which are the in-built range and consistency checks; it

minimizes the loss of data; the possibility to randomise the order in which the

questions appear and the categories of possible responses so as to avoid the ‘order

effect’ (Mayhew, 2008; Martin and Manners, 1995; De Leeuw and Nicholls, 1996;

Bryman, 2007).

A third alternative would be the sending of postal questionnaires within the ward

(May, 2011; Bryman, 2007). In contrast to the door-to-door interviews, the former is

less expensive. Secondly, as the survey and the topic itself can be considered quite

sensitive, covering topics such as previous victimization, the distribution of postal

questionnaires is a better alternative in terms of anonymity preservation. Thirdly, the

filling of the questionnaire is not constrained within a time-frame and arguably, it

would be more suitable for the target sample, as participants can take their own time

to fill in the questionnaire and consider their responses. Fourthly, as the data-

gathering process would not be based on interviews, this would introduce less bias

than in the case when different interviewers might ask the same questions (subjective

bias).

On the other hand, postal questionnaires also have several drawbacks which should be

taken into consideration ( ibid.). To begin with, when designing the questionnaire, the

questions should be kept straightforward and relatively simple, so as to avoid the bias

11


which might arise from the subjective (mis)interpretation of certain sections of the

questionnaire. Another problem is the inability to probe beyond the answers which

have been provided by the participants (unless follow-up focus groups/qualitative

interviews are conducted in order to expand on other issues that might have arisen

after the quantitative analysis of the data). Furthermore, in the case of postal

questionnaires, one does not have control over who answers the questionnaire. Finally,

postal questionnaires are characterized by low response rate:

‘A rule of thumb is that 300 to 400 envelopes and stamps and 160 questionnaires may

be needed for every 100 people in the sample (200 envelopes – outward and return –

being used in the first mail-out).’ (Hoinville and Jowell, 1987: 138).

To summarize this section, with minor modifications a methodology that is similar to

Easton et al. (2007) might be the most efficient and cost-effective way of conducting

the present research project and if such a design is adopted and implemented, it might

also be applicable to hard-to-reach populations such as the homeless. Significant

efforts should also be put into matching the profile of the sample with the one of the

local population in general and where applicable interviews should either be

terminated or not included into the final data analysis if significant variation is found

between the working demographic profile obtained from the census and the one

produced over the period of time during which the fieldwork is taking place. A

modified version of Evans and Fletcher’s (2000) questionnaire has been included as

Appendix 1 at the end of the proposal, though at this stage this should be considered

only as set of questions that will be asked during the pilot stage of the research project,

which are amenable to change if the data collected during this time is considered as

incomprehensive.

Ethical problems

This section of the proposal will only provide a glance at possible ethical problems

that might arise during the project and their potential resolution. As with any research

project, several dimensions which should be considered – any potential harm that

might be inflicted upon participants (physical harm, their development, loss of self-

esteem, stress); lack of informed consent; invasion of privacy and unnecessary

intrusion in participant’s life; deception; preservation of anonymity (Diener and

12


Crandall, 1978; BCS Code of Ethics; BSA’ Statement of Ethical Practice). In order to

resolve these problems, at the initial stage the research all participants will be

provided with a comprehensive summary regarding the aim of the research project. A

consent form will be attached to the questionnaires (alternatively, semi-structured

interviews). In order to avoid any unnecessary intrusion and causation of any physical

or mental harm, the participants will be informed they should not provide answers to

questions that they consider as being intrusive in their personal life. Finally, the

participants will be informed that their personal details will not be disclosed to any

third party unless they have given their personal consent prior to that. In case minors

are involved in the research project, special parental consent should be sought.

Conclusion

The current research proposal aims to assess the impact of the neighbourhood

regeneration after the Olympics in the London Borough of Newham. To date, no such

research has been conducted and it would of policy relevance to investigate the

impact of the ‘Olympic legacy’ upon the local population and whether this has made a

long-lasting contribution towards improving the well-being of the borough’s residents.

The topic of ‘fear of crime’ is one worthy of consideration and especially in the

current climate of declining crime rates, as the level of the former seems to be

independent of the latter (Ditton et al. 1998).

Appendix (1) Proposed Questionnaire/structure of interview process

(adapted from Evans and Fletcher, 2000)

1. How much of a problem in your area are people using drugs?

2. How much of a problem in your area are drunks or tramps on the street?

3. How much of a problem in your area are vandalism, graffiti and deliberate

damage to property?

13


4. How much of a problem in your area are homes and gardens in bad condition?

5. How much of a problem in your area are noisy neighbours?

6. How much of a problem in your area are racially motivated attacks?

7. How much of a problem in your area is rubbish and litter lying about?

8. How much of a problem in your area are teenagers hanging around the streets?

9. What would you say is your main source of information about crime?

10. First reply

11. Second reply

12. Do you take a daily newspaper?

13. National newspaper

14. How accurately do you think the media portray crime in terms of the number

of times that different crimes occur?

15. How accurately do you think the media portray crime in terms of the people

who are the main victims of crime?

16. In the last 14 months have you or members of your household been the victim

of a crime/offence

17. In the 14 months do you know anyone who is not a member of your household

who has been the victim of a crime or more than one crime?

18. How well do you think that you can cope with the consequences of being a

victim of crime?


victim of personal crime?


victim of property crime?

14


21. How well do you think that you can protect yourself against personal crime?

22. How well do you think that you can protect yourself against property crime?

23. How likely do you think it is that within the next (12 months) year you could

have your home broken into and something stolen?


have your car damaged by vandals?


have your car stolen?


have things stolen from your car?


be raped?


have your home damaged by vandals?


be mugged and robbed?

30. Overall how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with living in this area?

31. Would you say that this community is changing for the worse?

32. Compared with the rest of the country how much crime would you say there is

in this area?

33. Thinking in particular of your immediate neighbours, how helpful would you

say that they are?

34. In general what kind of neighbourhood would you say that you lived in?

35. How effective do you feel that the police are in clearing up crime and catching

criminals?

15


36. Taking everything into account would you say that the police in this area do a

good job or a poor job?

37. How quickly do you feel that the police respond to calls for assistance?

38. How often do you see police men and women patrolling in this area?

39. Age of respondent

40. Total number of children under 16

41. The number of children under 5

42. Age of respondent on leaving full-time education at school/college

43. If respondent is head of household and doesn’t work, did s/he work in the

past?

44. If respondent doesn’t work, what does s/he do?

45. Does the respondent live alone?

46. Marital status

47. How likely is it that you will move from this area within the next two years?

48. Does respondent work?

49. How many years have you lived in this area?

50. Gender of respondent

51. Ethnicity of respondent

52. Nationality of respondent

53. How safe do you feel walking alone in this area after dark?

How safe do you feel alone in your home at night?

54. How worried are you about having your home broken into and something

stolen?

16


55. How worried are you about being mugged and robbed?

56. Impact of Olympics on the well-being of respondent

57. Impact of regeneration programme on the well-being of respondent

Bibliography

Bauman, Z. (2000) Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity

17


Baumer, T. L. (1978). Research on fear of crime in the United States. Victimology: An

International Journal, 3: 254–64.

Baumer, T. L. (1985). Testing a general model of fear of crime: Data from a national

sample. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22: 239–255.

BCS Code of Ethics: http://www.britsoccrim.org/codeofethics.htm (Accessed on 9th

December 2012)

Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society. London: Sage.

Bennett, R. R., & Flavin, J. M. (1994) Determinants of fear of crime: The effect of

cultural settings. Justice Quarterly, 11, 357–381.

Bennett, T. (1990) Evaluating Neighbourhood Watch. Aldershot: Gower.

Borooah, V. and Carcach, C. (1997) Crime and Fear: Evidence from Australia. British

Journal of Criminology, 37(4): 635-57

Box, S., Hale, C. and Andrews, G. (1988) Explaining Fear of Crime. British Journal

of Criminology, 28(3): 340-56.

Brown, S. 1995: Crime and safety in whose ‘community’? Age, everyday life, and

problems for youth policy. Youth and Policy, 48: 27–48.

Bryman, A. (2007) Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

BSA’s Statement of Ethical Practice:

http://www.britsoc.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/801B9A62-5CD3-4BC2-93E1-

FF470FF10256/0/StatementofEthicalPractice.pdf (Accessed on 9th

December 2012)

Bursik, R. J., Jr., & Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The

dimensions of effective community control. New York: Lexington.

Chiricos, T., Hogan, M. and Gertz, M. (1997) Racial Composition and

Neighbourhood and Fear of Crime. Criminology, 35: 107-32

Conklin, J. E. (1975). The impact of crime. New York: Macmillan.

http://www.britsoccrim.org/codeofethics.htm

http://www.britsoc.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/801B9A62-5CD3-4BC2-93E1-FF470FF10256/0/StatementofEthicalPractice.pdf

http://www.britsoc.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/801B9A62-5CD3-4BC2-93E1-FF470FF10256/0/StatementofEthicalPractice.pdf

18


Covington, J., & Taylor, R. B. (1991) Fear of crime in urban residential

neighbourhoods. Sociological Quarterly, 32: 231–49.

Crank, J. P., Giacomazzi, A., & Heck, C. (2003) Fear of crime in a nonurban setting.

Journal of Criminal Justice, 31: 249–263.

Crawford, A., Jones, T. and Young, J. (1990) The Second Islington Crime Survey.

London: Centre for Criminology, Middlesex Polytechnic.

De Leeuw, E. and Nicholls, W. (1996) ‘Technological Innovations in Data Collection’

Sociological Reseach online. Available at:

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/1/4/leeuw.html (Accessed on 9th

December 2012)

Diener, E. and Crandall, R. (1978) Ethnic in Social and Behavioural Research.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ditton, J., Farrall, S., Bannister, J., Gilchist, E., Garwood, J., Rogerson, M. and Pease,

K. (1998) Measuring fear of crime. Criminal Justice Matters, 31: 10-12.

Dobbs, R., Waid, C. and Shelley, T. (2009) Explaining Fear of Crime as Fear of Rape

among College Females: An Examination of Multiple Campuses in the United States.

International Journal of Social Inquiry, 2(2): 105-22.

Donnison, H., Scola, J. and Thomas, P. (1986) Neighbourhood Watch: policing the

people. London: Libertarian Research and Education Trust.

Easton, H., Matthews, R., and Briggs, D. (2007) Fear of crime and recent

victimisation in the London Borough of Lambeth. London: Lambeth Community

Safety Team.

Eisner, M. and Parmar, A. (2008) Criminological research in diverse contexts, in King,

R. and Wincup, E. (eds.) Doing research on crime and justice. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Evans, D. and Fletcher, M. (2000) Fear of crime: testing alternative hypothesis.

Applied Geography, 20: 395-411.

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/1/4/leeuw.html

19


Farrall, S., Bannister, J., Ditton, J., & Gilchrist, E. (1997). Questioning the

measurement of the ‘fear of crime’: findings from a major methodological study.

British Journal of Criminology, 37: 658–679.

Farrall, S., Bannister, J., Ditton, J. and Gilchrist, E. (2000) Social Psychology and the

Fear of Crime. British Journal of Criminology, 40: 399-413.

Farrall, S. and Gadd, D. (2004) The Frequency of the Fear of Crime. British Journal

of Criminology, 44: 127-32.

Farrall, S, Jackson, J. and Gray, E. (2009) Crime, Politics and Insecurity: Social

Order and Fear of Crime in Contemporary Times. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ferraro, K. F. (1995) Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. Albany: State

University of New York Press.

Ferraro, K. F. (1996). Women's fear of victimization: Shadow of sexual assault?

Social Forces, 75: 667–90.

Fisher, C. and Masty, J. (2006) ‘Through the Community Looking Glass: Participant

Consultation for Adolescent Risk Research’, in Leadbeater, B., Banister, L., Benoit,

C., Jansson, M., Marshall, A., and Riecken, T. (eds), Ethical Issues in Community-

Based Research with Children and Youth. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Franklin, T., Franklin, C. and Fearn, N. (2008) A Multilevel Analysis of the

Vulnerability, Disorder, and Social Integration Models of Fear of Crime. Social

Justice Research, 21: 204-27.

Gabriel, U. and Greve, W. (2003) The psychology of fear of crime. British Journal of

Criminology, 43: 600-14.

Garofalo, J. (1977) Public opinion about crime: The attitudes of victims and non-

victims in selected cities. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

Garofalo, J. (1981) The fear of crime: Causes and consequences. Journal of Criminal

Law and Criminology, 72: 839–57.

20


Garofalo, J., & Laub, J. (1978) The fear of crime: Broadening our perspective.

Victimology, 3: 242–53.

Gilchrist, E., Bannister, J., Ditton, J. and Farral, S. (1998) Women and the ‘fear of

crime’: challenging the accepted stereotype. British Journal of Criminology, 38(2):

283-98.

Goodey, J. (1997) Boys don’t cry: masculinities, fear of crime and fearlessness.

British Journal of Criminology, 37(3): 401-18.

Gottdiener, M. and Feagin, J. (1988) The paradigm shift in urban sociology. Urban

Affairs Review, 24(2): 163-87.

Gray, E., Jackson, J. and Farrall, S. (2008) Reassessing the fear of crime. European

Journal of Criminology, 5(3): 363-80.

Greater London Authority (2008), in Regeneration Planning and Property Directorate

(2010) Newham, London: Local Economic Assessment 2010 to 2027. London:

London Borough of Newham.

Greene, J. and Taylor, R. (1988) Community-based policing and foot patrol: Issues in

theory and evaluation, pp. 195-224, in Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality?,

Greene, J. and Mastofski, S. (eds.). New York: Praeger.

The Guardian (2012) Available at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/23/london-2012-olympics-cost-total

Hale, C. (1996). Fear of crime: A review of the literature. International Review of

Victimology, 4: 79–150.

Hale, C., Pack, P., & Salked, J. (1994). The structural determinants of fear of crime:

An analysis using census and crime survey data from England and Wales.

International Review of Victimology, 3: 211–233.

Harachi, T., Catalano, R. and Hawkins, J. (1997) Effective Recruitment for Parenting

Programs within Ethnic Minority Communities. Child and Adolescent Social Work

Journal, 14: 23-39.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/23/london-2012-olympics-cost-total

21


Harris, R. (1969) The Fear of Crime. New York: Praeger.

Haynie, D. L. (1998) The gender gap in fear of crime, 1973–1994: A methodological

approach. Criminal Justice Review, 23: 29–50.

Hoinville, G. and Jowell, R. (1987) Survey Research Practice. London: Heinemann.

Hunter, A. (1978) Symbols of incivility, in Taylor, R. and Covington, J. (1993)

Community Structural Change and Fear of Crime. Social Problems, 40(3): 374-97.

Index of Multiple Deprivation (2004), in Regeneration Planning and Property

Directorate (2010) Newham, London: Local Economic Assessment 2010 to 2027.

London: London Borough of Newham.

Index of Multiple Deprivation (2007), in Regeneration Planning and Property



Jackson, J. (2004) Experience and expression: social and cultural significance in the

fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology, 44(6): 946-66.

Jackson, J. (2006) Introducing fear of crime to risk research. Risk Analysis, 26(1):

253-64.

Jackson, J. (2009) A psychological perspective on vulnerability in the fear of crime.

Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(4): 365-90

Jackson, J., Gray, E. and Farrall, S. (2009) Untangling the fear of crime. Criminal

Justice Matters, 75: 12-13.

Jones, T., Maclean, B. and Young, J. (1986) The Islington Crime Survey. London:

Gower.

Kelling, G. L., & Coles, C. M. (1996) Fixing broken windows: Restoring order and

reducing crime in our communities. New York: Touchstone.

Keown, L. (2008) Precautions taken to avoid victimization: A gender perspective.

Canadian Social Trends, 33-39.

22


Killias, M. and Clerici, C. (2000) Different Measures of Vulnerability in their

Relation to Different Dimensions of Fear of Crime. British Journal of Criminology,

40: 437-50.

LaGrange, R. and Ferraro, K. (1989) Assessing age and gender differences in

perceived risk and fear of crime. Criminology, 27: 697-720.

LaGrange, R. L., Ferraro, K. F., & Supancic, M. (1992). Perceived risk and fear of

crime: The role of social and physical incivilities. Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency, 29: 311–334.

Lee, M. (2001) The Genesis of ‘Fear of Crime’. Theoretical Criminology, 5: 467-85.

Lewis, D. A., & Salem, G. (1986) Fear of crime: Incivility and the production of a

social problem. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

London Borough of Newham (1987). A report of a Survey of Crime and Racial

Harassment in Newham. London: London Borough of Newham.

Madriz, E. (1997) Images of Criminals and Victims: A Study on Women’s Fear and

Social Control. Gender & Society, 11: 342-56

Maguire, M. (1980) The Impact of Burglary upon Victims. British Journal of

Criminology, 20(3): 261-75.

Maguire, M. (2007) Criminal statistics and the construction of crime, in Maguire, M.,

Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (4th

ed.).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Martin, J. and Manners T. (1995) Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing in Social

Research, in Lee, R. (ed.) Information Technology for the Social Scientist. London:

UCL Press.

May, D. C., & Dunaway, R. G. (2000) Predictors of fear of criminal victimization at

school among adolescents. Sociological Spectrum, 20: 149–68.

May, T. (2011) Social Research (4th

ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

23


McGarrell, E. , Giacomazzi, A., Thurman, Q. (1997) Neighbourhood Disorder,

Integration, and the Fear of Crime. Justice Quarterly, 14: 479-500.

Mesch, G. (2000) Perceptions of risk, lifestyle activities, and fear of crime. Deviant

Behaviour, 21: 47-62.

Metropolitan Police Crime Figures (2012) Statistics for London Borough of Newham.

Available at:

http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/index.php?borough=kf&period=year

(Accessed on 9th

December 2012)

Newham Household Panel Survey, 2008, in in Regeneration Planning and Property



O'Mahony, D., & Quinn, K. (1999). Fear of crime and locale: The impact of

community related factors upon fear of crime. International Review of Victimology, 6:

231–251.

ONS (2009) Neighbourhood Statistics:

http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b

=276767&c=E6+1LA&d=13&e=13&g=343065&i=1001x1003x1004&o=1&m=0&r=

0&s=1237988258800&enc=1&dsFamilyId=1812 (Accessed on 9th

December 2012)

ONS (2010) Birth Rate Statistics, in The Guardian, 25th

May 2010. Available at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/25/birth-rate-statistics-england-

wales (Accessed on 9th December 2012)

Pain, R. (2000) Place, social relations and the fear of crime: a review. Progress in

Human Geography, 24(3): 365-87.

Pantazis, C. (2000) ‘Fear of Crime’, Vulnerability and Poverty. British Journal of

Criminology, 40: 414-436.

Parker, K. D., & Ray, M. C. (1990). Fear of crime: An assessment of related factors.

Sociological Spectrum, 10: 29–40.

http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/index.php?borough=kf&period=year

http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=276767&c=E6+1LA&d=13&e=13&g=343065&i=1001x1003x1004&o=1&m=0&r=0&s=1237988258800&enc=1&dsFamilyId=1812



http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/25/birth-rate-statistics-england-wales

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/25/birth-rate-statistics-england-wales

24


Pate, A. M.,Wycoff, M. A., Skogan,W. G., & Sherman, L.W. (1986). Reducing fear

of crime in Houston and Newark. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

Perkins, D., Meeks, J. and Taylor, R. (1992) the physical environment of street blocks

and resident perceptions of crime and disorder: implications for theory and

measurement. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(1): 21-34.

Podolefsky, A., & DuBow, F. (1981). Strategies for community crime prevention:

Collective responses to crime in urban America. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Regeneration Planning and Property Directorate (2010) Newham, London: Local

Economic Assessment 2010 to 2027. London: London Borough of Newham.

Riger, S., Gordon, M., & Le Bailley, R. (1978). Women's fear of crime: From

blaming to restricting the victim. Victimology, 3: 274–284.

Schafer, J., Huebner, B., Bynum, T. (2006) Fear of crime and criminal victimization:

Gender-based contrasts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34: 285-301

Shaw, C. and McKay, H. (1942) Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Skogan,W. G. (1987) The impact of victimization on fear. Crime and Delinquency, 33,

135–154.

Skogan, W. G. (1990) Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in

American neighborhoods. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Skogan, W. G. (1995) Reactions to crime and violence. Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 539: 9–13.

Skogan,W. G., & Maxfield, M. (1981) Coping with crime: Individual and

neighbourhood reactions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Smith, W. and Torstensson, M. (1997) Gender differences in risk perception and

neutralizing fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology, 37(4): 608-34.

Stanko, E. A. (1995) Women, crime and fear. Annals of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science, 539: 46–58.

25


Stinchcombe, A., Adams, R., Heimer, C., Scheppele, K., Smith, T., Taylor, D. (1980)

Crime and Punishment in Public Opinion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Taylor, R. (1987) Towards an environmental psychology of disorder (pp. 951-86), in

Handbook of environmental psychology, Stokols, D. and Altman, I. (eds.). New York:

Wiley.

Taylor, R. (1995) Impact of crime on communities. Annals of the American Academy

of Political and Social Science, 539: 28–45.

Taylor, R. (2001) Breaking away from broken windows. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Taylor, R. and Covington, J. (1993) Community Structural Change and Fear of Crime.

Social Problems, 40(3): 374-97.

Taylor, R. and Gottfedson (1986) Environmental design, crime and prevention: An

examination of community dynamics (pp. 387-416), in Communities and Crime,

Reiss, A. and Tonry, M. (eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Taylor, R., Gottfredson, S. D., & Brower, S. (1985) Attachment to place:

Discriminant validity, and impacts of disorder and diversity. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 13: 525–542.

Taylor, R. and Hale, M. (1986) Testing alternative models of fear of crime.

Criminology, 77(1): 151-89.

Taylor, R., Shumaker, S. A., & Gottfredson, S. D. (1985) Neighborhood-level links

between physical features and local sentiments: deterioration, fear of crime, and

confidence. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 2: 261–275.

Tuck, M. and Southgate, P. (1981) Ethnic Minorities, Crime and Policing. Home

Office Research Study 70. London: HMSO.

Tulloch, M. (2000) The meaning of age differences in the fear of crime. British

Journal of Criminology, 40: 451-67.

Walklate, S. (1989) Victimology: the victim and the criminal justice process. London:

Unwin Hyman.

26


Will, J. and McGrath, J. (1995) Crime, neighbourhood perceptions and the underclass:

the relationship between fear of crime and class position. Journal of Criminal Justice,

23(2): 163-76.

Wilson, J. (1975) Thinking about Crime. New York: Random House.

Wilson, J. and Kelling, G. (1982) The police and neighbourhood safety: broken

windows. Atlantic Monthly, 127: 29-38.

Young, J. (2007) The Vertigo of Late Modernity. London: Sage.

Documents

Fear of Crime and the Post-Olympic Legacy