1. PLACE, CRIME AND DISORDER Anthony Bottoms Universities of Cambridge and Sheffield Presentation at Social Mobility and Life Chances Forum, HM Treasury, 14 November 2005

2. SCoPiC (Research Network on Social Contexts of Pathways in Crime) ESRC – Funded Universities of Cambridge, Huddersfield, London and Sheffield Network Director: Per-Olof Wikström

3. TYPICAL RISK FACTORS FOR PREDICTION OF DELINQUENCY High Hyperactivity-Impulsivity-Attention Problems Lack of Guilt Poor Parental Supervision Low School Motivation Many Peer Delinquents Positive Perception of Anti-Social Behaviour

4. KEY RESULTS FROM THE PITTSBURGH YOUTH STUDY (1) Per cent of male youths having committed serious offence by risk/protective score and neighbourhood context Neighbourhood Context Disadvantaged Middle- AdvantagedrangeNonpublicPublicGamma N High Protective Score 11.15.116.737.50.23155 Balanced Risk and Protective Score 27.340.138.560.70.23651 High Risk Score 77.871.378.370.0n.s.222 Gamma 0.700.740.69n.s. N 142556188142 Source: Wikström and Loeber (2000)

5. KEY RESULTS FROM THE PITTSBURGH YOUTH STUDY (2) Per cent of subjects with high risk scores by neighbourhood context Neighbourhood Context Disadvantaged Middle- AdvantagedrangeNonpublicPublicGamma N High Hyperactivity-Impulsivity 13.820.928.720.10.151,436 Attention Problems Lack of Guilt 19.230.035.546.00.261,254 Poor Parental Supervision 15.822.829.139.70.281,414 Low School Motivation 21.931.244.947.60.301,432 Many Peer Delinquents 17.922.927.729.40.151,323 Positive Perception of 29.225.819.825.9n.s.1,431 Anti-Social Behaviour RISK INDEX 13.319.928.834.90.301,148 Source: Wikström and Loeber (2000)

6. (Observed values at 1 hectare level) Source: Craglia and Costello, 2005 Geographical Distribution of Known Offenders in South Yorkshire

7. Final Model in Craglia and Costello Area-Based Study of Offender Rates Log (Offender) = β 0 + β 1 X 1 + β 2 X 2 + β 3 X 3 + β 4 X 4 + β 5 X 5 + β 6 X 6 Where: X 1 = Percent economically active unemployed X 2 = Percent of households renting from other (hostels, secure accommodation, prisons, boarding houses, hotels and other communal establishments) X 3 = Percent of households with lone parents with dependent children X 4 = Percent of residential spaces vacant X 5 = Index of multiple deprivation 2004 – health domain score X 6 = Index of multiple deprivation 2004 – crime domain score (R 2 = 0.82)

8. ASPECTS OF VICTIMISATION DISTRIBUTION FROM BRITISH CRIME SURVEY % burgled % theft of vehicle* % criminal damage to home (A) Household Income Less than £5000 4.41.62.7 £5000<£10000 2.91.32.9 £10000<£20000 2.81.02.9 £20000<£30000 2.51.03.0 £30000+ 2.61.12.9 (B) Physical Disorder In Area High (Score 2 or 3) 6.03.44.7 Low (Score 0 or 1) 2.41.02.6 *Based on vehicle-owing households only Source: S. Nicholas et al, Crime in England and Wales 2004/2005, Home Office Research Bulletin 11/05

9. Residents Satisfaction with Safety and Perceived Risk of Crime in Selected Areas of Chicago Source: Taub et al, Paths of Neighborhood Change, 1984, p. 172

10. Perception of whether local issues are a serious problem in residential areas, 1997-98 Source: Report of Policy Action Team 8: Anti-social behaviour

11. Regression Model of Residents Perceptions of Lack of Neighbourhood Safety, Sheffield 2005 Source: Bottoms and Wilson, 2005 Model CoefftSig (Constant).8.40.000 Communities Working Together Scale -.093-3.14.002 Area Declining.6923.05.003 Seen PC on Foot -.582-2.07.039 Non-white respondent -.572-2.00.046 Knows of CP Programme -.427-1.95.052 Quality of Local Services Scale -.037-1.85.066