1. TERRITORIAL FUNCTIONING AND VICTIMISATION IN COUNCIL ESTATES IN SHEFFIELD By: Aldrin Abdullah

2. Definition & concept “Territorial functioning” refers to how people manage the space they own or occupy Elements of Territorial Functioning: attitudesbehaviour markers

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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.

6. 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

7. Methodology Main site selection criteria: Council Estates in Sheffield - Similar demographic characteristics (Census SAS) Varying crime rates (Police Offence and Offender Data)

8. Views of Estate High (SE) Graffiti & vandalism are a common sight in the area

9. Methodology Procedure: Conducted in 2 stages Stage 1 (Survey of 217 respondents) Stage 2 (Structured interviews – 12 respondents)

10. 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)

11. Methodology Measures Victimisation: Household & personal crimes (Based on 1996 BCS) Territorial functioning: 11 Attitude statements Observation of marking behaviour

12. Examples of markers Flower pot Number plate

13. Examples of physical barrier Hedge Fence

14. Examples of gardening effort High effortNo effort

15. Methodology Stage 2 (Structured interviews – 12 respondents) Purpose – Understand issues from the first stage Emphasis on description and discovery and not on generalisation

16. Results – Crime in the estates Victimisation Survey Data Estate High (SE) Estate High (NW) Estate Low Offence rate – h/hold (per 100 h/hold) 165 ratio (2.8) 138 ratio (2.4) 58 ratio (1.0) Offence rate – motor vehicle (per 100 h/hold) 94 ratio (2.0) 52 ratio (1.1) 48 ratio (1.0)

17. Results – Overall victimisation

18. Results – Victimisation by estate

19. Results - Demographic characteristics by household victimisation Significant relationships (p<.05) (Spearman’s rho & Mann-Whitney) Age Length of residence

20. Results - Demographic characteristics by household victimisation Non Significant relationships (p>.05) (Spearman’s rho & Mann-Whitney) GenderEthnic origin Marital statusHousehold income Social class Type of residence OccupationType of ownership

21. 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

22. Two possible explanations First explanation Increase in level of threat results in the reduction of territorial claims in accordance with the RETREAT approach (Taylor & Brower, 1985). High victimisationLow territorial functioning

23. Alternative explanation Respondents were highly victimised because they expressed low levels of territorial functioning in the first place. High victimisationLow territorial functioning Burglars are hypothesised to prefer houses with less markers as targets.

24. 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

25. 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.

26. 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

27. Discussion Age and length of residence are related to household victimisation. This reflects the individual guardianship by older and long term occupier.

28. Discussion Low territorial functioning is related to higher victimisation experience. However, the relationship can work in both ways. High victimisationLow territorial functioning

29. 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.

30. Conclusion Focus on “multiple victimisation” because a high proportion of crimes are against the same people. Territorial functioning - an environmental approach to crime prevention