TERRITORIAL FUNCTIONING AND VICTIMISATION IN COUNCIL ESTATES IN SHEFFIELD

By: Aldrin Abdullah

Definition & concept

“Territorial functioning” refers to how people manage the space they own or occupy

Elements of Territorial Functioning:

attitudes behaviour

markers

Importance of territorial functioning

Location – spaces that surround the home (streets, front & back yards)

Reason – these spaces influence the quality of life in the home

Link between territorial functioning and crime

Notion – offenders perceive maintenance of outdoor residential spaces by the occupants as likely to be defended

Support:Craik & Appleyard (1980)Taylor et al., (1984)

Victimisation perspective

The “victimisation perspective” focuses on the characteristics and lifestyle of the victims and to see how that affect their risk of becoming a victim.

Objectives of the study

1) Establish the demographic variables that are related to victimisation of household crimes

2) Examine the relationship between territorial functioning and victimisation of household crimes

Methodology

Main site selection criteria: Council Estates in Sheffield - Similar

demographic characteristics (Census SAS)

Varying crime rates (Police Offence and Offender Data)

Views of Estate High (SE)

Graffiti & vandalism are a common sight in the area

Methodology

Procedure:

Conducted in 2 stages

Stage 1 (Survey of 217 respondents)

Stage 2 (Structured interviews – 12 respondents)

Methodology Stage 1 (Survey of 217 respondents) Part 1 (demographic information, territorial

attitudes, fear and crime problems, victimisation experience)

Part 2 (observation of residents’ front garden – evaluate territorial markers)

Methodology

Measures Victimisation:

Household & personal crimes (Based on 1996 BCS)

Territorial functioning:11 Attitude statementsObservation of marking behaviour

Examples of markers

Flower pot Number plate

Examples of physical barrier

Hedge Fence

Examples of gardening effort

High effort No effort

Methodology Stage 2 (Structured interviews – 12

respondents)

Purpose – Understand issues from the first stage

Emphasis on description and discovery and not on generalisation

Results – Crime in the estates

Victimisation Survey Data

Estate High (SE)

Estate High (NW)

Estate Low

Offence rate –h/hold

(per 100 h/hold)

165ratio (2.8)

138ratio (2.4)

58ratio (1.0)

Offence rate –motor vehicle

(per 100 h/hold)

94ratio (2.0)

52ratio (1.1)

48ratio (1.0)

Results – Overall victimisation 49%

16% 14%9%

12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

none once twice 3 times 4 ormore

Victimisation

Results – Victimisation by estate

39%42%

59%

28%

19%

4%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

none 4 or more

Estate High (SE)

Estate High(NW)

Estate Low

Results - Demographic characteristics by household victimisation

Significant relationships (p<.05)

(Spearman’s rho & Mann-Whitney)

Age

Length of residence

Results - Demographic characteristics by household victimisation

Non Significant relationships (p>.05) (Spearman’s rho & Mann-Whitney)

Gender Ethnic originMarital status Household income Social class Type of residenceOccupation Type of ownership

Results – Victimisation and territorial functioning

An increase in household victimisation is associated with a decrease in levels of territorial functioning at the individual and neighbourhood level.

The analysis cannot infer the causal relationship between the two variables

Two possible explanations

First explanationIncrease in level of threat results in the reduction of territorial claims in accordance with the RETREAT approach (Taylor & Brower, 1985).

High victimisation Low territorial functioning

Alternative explanationRespondents were highly victimised because they expressed low levels of territorial functioning in the first place.

High victimisation Low territorial functioning

Burglars are hypothesised to prefer houses with less markers as targets.

Results - Interviews

Purpose – examine which of the two explanations apply.

Subjects – 3 highly victimised respondents (7 or more incidents within the 1 year period).

Respondents A, B & C

Results - Interview

Summary of findings Both respondents A & B displayed more

territorial features before the incident. Displays were in the form of more

personalised items, barriers, flower pots. Gradual decline in territorial functioning as

a result of repeated victimisation.

In contrast, Respondent C had never attempted to

display any territorial feature. Why was Respondent C not bothered? Did not believe that territorial display had

any function in protecting the property. Felt that these efforts require a lot of time

and money – wasteful effort

Discussion

Age and length of residence are related to household victimisation.

This reflects the individual guardianship by older and long term occupier.

Discussion

Low territorial functioning is related to higher victimisation experience.

However, the relationship can work in both ways.

High victimisation Low territorial functioning

Conclusion

The victimisation perspective is important in studying crime.

Crime is not merely an activity of the offender.

The characteristics of the victims also influence crime.

Conclusion

Focus on “multiple victimisation” because a high proportion of crimes are against the same people.

Territorial functioning - an environmental approach to crime prevention