crime, policing and justice: the experience of older...

Crime, Policing and Justice: theexperience of older peopleFindings from the British Crime Survey, England and Wales 08/02

Natalia Chivite-Matthews and Penelope Maggs August 2002

MAIN POINTSThis report looks at the victimisation of older people, their worry about crime,use of security precautions and confidence in the Police and the CriminalJustice System based on data from the British Crime Survey.

� From 1991 to 1999 the share of incidents of crime of the over 60-year-oldshas remained more or less constant (12% to 14%) (Section 2).

� Older peopleís risk of suffering from a household or a personal crime ismuch lower than for the other age groups. Older people are more likely toreport violent incidents of crime and much less likely to be repeatedlyvictimised than the other age groups (Section 2).

� Older people have similar levels of worry for most crime types to those ofother age groups despite their lower levels of victimisation (Section 3).

� Older women, are more likely than older men to worry about fear ofhousehold or personal crime. Those that perceive their health to be bad orvery bad also worry more about crime than those that perceive their healthto be fair to very good. This may help to explain why older people havedisproportionate levels of fear, given their relatively low levels ofvictimisation, as they also tend to suffer from worse health than the otherage groups (Section 3).

� Older people (aged over 60) and those aged over 30 are more likely toemploy security devices at home than those aged under 30. In terms ofvehicle security, the young and the old seem to have fewer securitydevices than the 30- to 59-year-olds. Personal security is more prevalentamongst the youngest age group as they are more likely to carry weaponsor to have done a self-defence course (Section 4).

� Older people tend to have a better opinion about most criminal justicesystem agencies than those aged 30- to 59-years-old. On the other hand,the over 60s are: less likely to think that witnesses are very/fairly welltreated by the police but more likely to think that witnesses are very/fairlywell treated by the courts than the other age groups; and, more likely tothink that court sentences are much too lenient (Section 5).

l

l

l

l

l

l

AcknowledgementsThanks are due to all those who assisted in the preparation of this bulletin. Special thanks go to Jon

Simmons, Chris Kershaw, Joanna Mattinson, Carys Thomas, Rebbecca Aust, Jonathan Allen and

Lorraine Sims for their support and helpful comments. We would also like to thank all of the

organisations which have run the survey year on year, the dedicated interviewers and the members

of the public who agreed to take part in the British Crime Survey.

Natalia Chivite-Matthews

Penelope Maggs

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the Home Office

(nor do they reflect Government Policy)

Copies of this and other BCS publications are available from the Information and Publications Group,Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Communication Development Unit, Room 201, HomeOffice, 50 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9AT (tel. 020 7273 2084).

Or by Internet email: [email protected]

RDS Internet site: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm

British Crime Survey Internet webpage: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs1.html

For further information about the survey please email the Crime Surveys Section, Crime and CriminalJustice Unit, at [email protected], or write to the Crime Surveys Section at Room 839 atthe above address.

ContentsPage

Section 1 Introduction..............................................................................................1

Section 2 Victimisation ............................................................................................5

Section 3 Concern about crime.............................................................................15

Section 4 Crime prevention ...................................................................................23

Section 5 Attitudes towards the police and the criminal justice system..........29

Appendix A Additional tables on victimisation……………………………………………35

Appendix B Additional tables on concern about crime………………………………….47

Appendix C Additional tables on crime prevention………………………………………57

Appendix D Additional tables on attitudes towards the police and CJS……………….61

Glossary of terms………………………………………………………………………………...71

References………………………………………………………………………………………..75

Crime, Policing and Justice: the experience of older people – Findings from the British Crime Survey

1

1 Introduction

This report discusses in detail experiences and views of older people, their victimisation, worry aboutcrime, use of security precautions and confidence in the Police and the Criminal Justice System,comparing these with those for other age groups in England and Wales.

What is meant by ‘older people’?The term ‘older people’ has been broadly used by the Cabinet Office, other government departmentsand related organisations1 as those aged 50 and over. This study, however, has followed a moreconventional classification based on what has been traditionally considered as ‘older people’ inacademia and in previous BCS studies, namely those aged 60 and over.

Why study older people?In 1998 the Government launched the Better Government for Older People Programme, which formsan intrinsic part of the Modernising Government Agenda. The programme concluded with thefollowing recommendations: combat age discrimination; engage better with older people; improvedecision-making; better meet older people’s needs; and, promote a strategic and joined-up approachto an ageing population.

We now live in a country with an ageing population. On the launch of the main publication of theprogramme ‘All Our Futures’ the Prime Minister Tony Blair said:

“One of the greatest opportunities that face us this century is to respond to the needs of ourageing population and to harness effectively the contributions older people can and do maketo society.”

Older people want to know that they are safe in their own homes or out in their neighbourhood. Thisreport represents one of many Home Office contributions to that overarching agenda of a BetterGovernment for All.

Previous researchMuch research has been carried out looking at older people and crime. A considerable number ofthese papers focus on the seemingly disproportionate fear of crime that older people suffer, takinginto account that their overall victimisation for most crimes is lower than for the other age groups.2

The British Crime Survey data has consistently shown that the older people are less likely to sufferfrom both household and personal crimes than the other age groups. The pattern is evident for bothgenders. Previous BCS studies have estimated that on average the young aged 16 to 30 are around

1 Partners of the ‘Government for Older People Programme’: Cabinet Office; Age Concern; Anchor Trust; The Carnegie ThirdAge Programme; Help the Aged; and Warwick University Local Authorities Research Consortium.2 It is important to point out, however, that most studies, and in particular the BCS, do not cover some of the crimes that maybe very prevalent in older people such as certain kinds of fraud (Gubrium, 1974).


2

six times more at risk of suffering from a household crime than people over 60 and are much morelikely of suffering from a personal crime. For example, the last BCS results (Kershaw et al., 2001)showed that whilst the risk of a 16- to 24-year-old headed household suffering from burglary in 2000was 7.6 per cent, the risk for a household headed by someone over 65 years old was just over 2 percent. Equally, the risk for a 16- to 24-year-old headed household suffering from a vehicle-relatedtheft was 19.3 per cent, the risk for a household headed by someone over 65 years old was just over4 per cent. In addition, when examining personal crimes there are striking differences between menand women as well as for the age groups. For example, it is estimated that the risk of an incident ofviolence happening to a man 16 to 24 in 1999 and 2000 was 18.8 per cent, but to a woman in thesame age-group the figure is 8.7 per cent. On the other hand, the risk for both men and women over65 years old was less than 1per cent.

Researchers have not only had an interest in levels of victimisation but also in the general questionof public fear of crime. It is argued that initially interest was solely confined to assessing publicconcern regarding crime in a descriptive manner, however, gradually, fear of crime has become akey public policy issue in its own right. The first British Crime Survey report pointed out this fact fromthe outset: ‘In some areas fear of crime appears to be a serious problem which needs to be tackledseparately from the incidence of crime’ (Hough and Mayhew, 1983:26). The reasons for thedisproportionate fear of crime in the elderly vary depending on the type of crime. However, manyargue that one reason may lie in the fact that, ‘Although many of our older population are healthyand active, the physical consequences of a push, a shove or a fall are likely to be far more traumaticat an older than at a younger age. Even the problems of replacing pension books, library tickets,cheque books and other documentation…may become more demanding and tiresome when we areolder’ (Midwinter 1990:37).

Little previous research has been conducted on trends in the use of security measures to preventcrime by age group or on the views of older people on the police and the Criminal Justice System.Both these issues and those reviewed above are examined in more detail in this publication.

The British Crime SurveyThe British Crime Survey (BCS) is a large, nationally representative household survey of adults aged16 and over living in private households in England and Wales. The main purpose of the survey is tomeasure the extent of criminal victimisation in England and Wales, though it also covers a widerange of other crime-related issues (Kershaw et al., 2001). To date the BCS has been carried outnine times.3

The main part of the survey is conducted as a face-to-face interview, but since 1992 the survey hasalso included self-completion modules on particularly sensitive topics for respondents to completefollowing the interview.

3 There were sweeps in 1982, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2001. The most recent sweep was conductedin 2001. The 2002 sweep is in the field and full results from the 2001 sweep are due to appear later in 2002. The BCScovered Scotland as well as England and Wales in the first and third sweeps (1982 and 1988) hence the name British CrimeSurvey. Since then crime surveys have been separately conducted in Scotland (in 1993, 1996 and 2000). There have alsobeen surveys in Northern Ireland (in 1994, 1998 and 2001).

Introduction

3

Structure of the reportChapter 2 reports on the extent and trends of crime, trends on reporting to the police, repeatvictimisation and differential risk of crime between older people and the other age groups since 1991.

Chapter 3 explores concern about crime and concentrates on looking for those groups that are mostat risk of suffering from fear of crime. This section also looks briefly at the effect of health on feelingsof fear of crime.

Chapter 4 looks at the differential use of household, car and personal security devices by the threeage groups.

Chapter 5 examines in some detail older people’s views towards the police and constituting parts ofthe Criminal Justice System.


4

5

2 Victimisation

By comparing older people, 60 years old and over, with the other age groups1 this chapter examinesthe characteristics and differences between their victimisation since 1991. Firstly, it providesestimates of the extent of crime in 1999, in other words, the actual number of crimes estimated tohave happened for a set of key offences. Secondly, it looks at trends for these offences since 1991.Thirdly, it explores victims’ patterns and trends of reporting to the police. Fourthly, it examines thedifferential risk of being a victim of a crime by the different age groups and by gender. Finally, thechapter looks at repeat victimisation.

The analysis in this section looks at three key years for which population and household data wasmade available: 1991, 1995 and 1999. The three years are also best to illustrate the overall crimetrends undergone in this decade where there was a crime increase from 1991 which peaked in 1995and then reverted to 1991 levels in 1999. 2

Extent and trends of crimeThe BCS measures crime against people living in private households in England and Wales in theyear preceding the survey. In a given year the crime rates are calculated by including all crimes thatare reported in the survey to have happened between January and December.3 The crime rates arederived by applying the rate of crime per 10,000 households or adults in the sample (the rate per10,000 is also called ‘incident rate’ – incident rates are outlined in Tables A4 to A10) to thehousehold and adult populations of England and Wales. The resulting figures are best estimates ofthe true number of incidents in the population. 4

Incident rates are the number of crimes experienced per household or adult in the survey. Anindividual may, therefore, suffer two or three crimes which fall under the same offence crimecategory and they would all count in the overall figure.

A detailed example may help to further understand the estimates in this section: in order to work outthe estimated number of incidents of vandalism against households headed by a person who is 60 orover, the vandalism rate per 10,000 households where the head of household is over 60 is multipliedby the number of households in England and Wales headed by a person over 60 years old.Therefore, in the calculation of estimates of the actual number of incidents, the statistics dependupon both estimated incident rates and the population and household estimates (see Table A27 forpopulation and household estimates). Analysis on the number of incidents differs substantially fromthe analysis of risk which is covered in the section entitled ‘Differential risk of victimisation’.

It is estimated that in 1999 there were 2,040,000 BCS crimes against older people or householdsheaded by older people (see Table 2.1). Overall, the victimisation of the three age-groups tends to

1 Three main age groups have been used in this study: 16 to 29; 30 to 59; and, 60 and over.2 See Kershaw C, Chivite-Matthews N, Thomas C, and Aust R (2001).3 From 2001 the methodology of the survey has changed slightly and it covers crimes that have happened in the 12 monthspreceding the interview, which may not necessarily be January to December. However, embedded in the 2001 sample therewas a replica sample for which the same methodology used since 1981 was applied, this represents the 2001 Type A sample(see ‘2001 type A and Type B interviews’ in ‘Glossary of terms’).4 As these estimates are derived from a sample, they are subject to a margin of error (see ‘Confidence Interval’ in ‘Glossary ofterms’).


6

follow the same pattern as victimisation as a whole: crime peaked in 1995 and then decreased in thefollowing years.

Table 2.1 Number of BCS incidents of crime by age group, 1991, 1995 and1999 (in thousands)

All BCS crime 16 - 29 30 - 59 60 and over % of crime againstthose over 60

1991 5,233 8,179 1,809 121995 6,123 10,839 2,585 131999 4,504 8,468 2,040 14Notes:1. Source 1992, 1996 and 2000 BCS.2. For household crimes (vandalism, burglary, vehicle-related theft and all household offences) the age group

refers to the head of household, for personal crimes (BCS violence and all personal crimes) the age grouprefers to the respondent.

3. For household crimes the numbers are derived by multiplying offence rates (incident rates) by the number ofhouseholds in England and Wales estimated to be headed by the specific age group. For personal crimes thenumbers are derived by multiplying incident rates in each age group by the estimated number of adults inEngland and Wales in each age group. Note that estimates may vary from those previously published due torevisions to population estimates, also note that household estimates are based on 15- to 29-years-old andthe BCS only covers crimes committed against those over 16 (see Tables A1 to A10 and A27 for furtherdetails).

Since 1991 the over 60’s experience of crime has remained more or less constant, although therehas been a slight increase in the share of crime since 1991 (12% to 14%).5

Figure 2.1. Proportion of all BCS crime: by age group 1999

As explained above, the number of incidents of crime is calculated by multiplying the incident ratesper 10,000 households by the number of households in the population. In 1999 it is estimated that2,485,000 households were headed by a 15- to 29-year-old6; 12,238,000 by a 30- to 59-year-old;

5 Statistical significance of this trend cannot be calculated because household offences are based on rates per household,and those for personal offences on rates per adult (see also note 3 to Table 2.1).6 Household estimates are based on 15- to 29-year-olds, however, it is unlikely that this has an effect on the calculation ofincidents of crime as it is unlikely that any households are headed by a 15-year-old.

56%

14%30%

16-2930-5960+

Victimisation

7

and 7,211,000 by a 60-year-old or older (see Table A27). 7 The incident rates of vandalism for 1999are as follow: 1,963 incidents per 10,000 households headed by 16- to 29-year-olds; 1,533 per10,000 households headed by 30- to 59-year-olds; and, 694 per 10,000 households headed by olderpeople, 60 and over.

Figure 2.2 shows the actual number of incidents of vandalism in England and Wales from 1991 to1999 by age group at different points in time. The Figure shows that although households headed by16- to 29-year-olds have the highest incident rate (1,963 per 10,000 households) the fact that theyare a small group in terms of household numbers (2,485,000 households in England and Wales)means that the actual number of incidents against households in this age group are not very highrelatively speaking. The majority of incidents of vandalism are committed against households headedby 30- to 59-years-old (1,876,000 incidents in 1999) who also form the biggest group in terms of thenumber of households headed by them (12,238,000 households in England and Wales).

Figure 2.2. Number of incidents of vandalism: by head of household agegroup 1991to 1999

The pattern for burglary and vehicle-related theft is similar to that of vandalism. However, in the caseof burglary, we can see a slight decrease in the number of incidents of burglary against householdsheaded by the older groups. This decrease is consistent with the decrease in risk of burglaryexperienced by this group in 1999 (see Table A14 prevalence burglary).

The incident rates of burglary for 1999 are: 1,351 per 10,000 households for households headed by16- to 29-year-olds; 620 per 10,000 for households headed by 30- to 59-year-olds; and, 297 per10,000 for households headed by older people, 60 and over. The incident rates of vehicle-relatedthefts for 1999 are: 1,943 per 10,000 households for households headed by 16- to 29-year-olds;1,666 per 10,000 for households headed by 30- to 59-year-olds; and, 616 per 10,000 for householdsheaded by older people, 60 and over.

Therefore, here we see the same effect as with vandalism, although households headed by 16- to29-year-olds are the ones with the highest incident rate per 10,000, for burglary and vehicle-related 7 Please note that the population and household numbers in Table A27 are rounded to the nearest thousand.

500,000619,000

467,000-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

1991

1995

1999

Num

ber o

f inc

iden

ts

60+ 30-59 16-29


8

thefts, the fact that they are a smaller group in terms of population numbers means that the majorityof incidents are committed against households headed by 30- to 59-years-old (see Figure 2.3 and2.4).

Figure 2.3. Number of incidents of burglary: by head of household age group of 1991to 1999

Figure 2.4. Number of incidents of vehicle-related theft: by head of household age-group 1991 to 1999

In 1999 it is estimated that there were 9,454,000 16- to 29-year-olds; 21,723,000 30- to 59-year-olds;and 10,817,000 older people, 60 and over (see Table A27). The incident rates of BCS violence in

444,000547,000395,000-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

1991

1995

1999

Num

ber o

f inc

iden

ts

60+ 30-59 16-29

214,000384,000-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

1991

1995

1999

Num

ber o

f inc

iden

ts

60+ 30-59 16-29

Victimisation

9

1999 are: 2,087 cases of violence per 10,000 adults aged 16 to 29; 611 per 10,000 adults aged 30 to59; and, 122 per 10,000 adults aged 60 and over.

In this instance, as with the incident rates for vandalism, burglary and vehicle-related thefts, theincident rate of violence per 10,000 is also higher for the youngest age group and the populationnumbers are highest for the 30 to 59 age group. However, in this case the incident rates for theyoung are so much higher than for those aged 30 to 59, that the effect of having a bigger populationin the latter age group is not as visible as it is for the household offences: vandalism; burglary; and,vehicle-related thefts.

Therefore, the actual number of violent incidents is clearly much higher for the youngest age groupand is lowest for the oldest age group. Violent incidents against the over 60s seem to have increasedonly marginally since 1991. This is due to both a slight increase in the number of older people inEngland and Wales and a very small increase in the risk of older people suffering from a violentcrime as measured by the BCS (see Table A18), but this increase is not statistically significant.

Figure 2.5. Number of incidents of BCS violence: by respondents’ age group 1991 to1999

Trends on reporting to the police

Reported crimes are those which the victim said the police came to know about. Of all comparableBCS crimes8 in 2000, 45 per cent were said by victims to be reported9. Reporting to the police variesconsiderably by type of offence (see Figures 2.6, 2.7 and Tables A11-12).

8 See glossary of terms for a definition of comparable crime.9 See Kershaw C, Chivite-Matthews N, Thomas C, and Aust R (2001).

132,000122,00074,000-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

1991

1995

1999

Num

ber o

f inc

iden

ts

60+ 30-59 16-29


10

In both years under study we find very similar patterns by age group and offence type. For all agegroups the most reported offence was burglary and the least, vandalism. If the head of household isover 60 it is more likely that incidents of burglary will be reported to the police than if the head ofhousehold belongs to any of the other age groups. Households headed by younger people, however,are more likely than the other groups to report incidents of vandalism.

Figure 2.6. Proportion of household offences reported to the police, 1999: by age ofhead of household

Older people are significantly more likely to report incidents of violence to the police than the otherage groups.

Figure 2.7. Proportion of violent offences reported to the police: by age ofrespondent, 1999

29

40

54

3036

47

0

1020

30

40

5060

70

80

All BCS violence All BCS personalcrimes

Perc

enta

ge

16-29 30-59 60+

41

61

47 46

27

52

4235

69

46 43

61

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Vandalism Burglary Vehicle ow nersonly: All vehicle

thefts

All BCS householdoffences

Perc

enta

ge

16-29 30-59 60+

Victimisation

11

Repeat victimisation

This section looks at the pattern of repeat victimisation in 1995 and 1999. For all of the householdoffences, households headed by older people have lower rates of repeat victimisation than the otherage groups. Therefore, members of the older age group are not only less victimised but also, oncethey have been victimised, are less likely to be victimised again. The rate of repeat victimisation ofburglary for the older age group is particularly low in comparison to the other age groups.

Table 2.2 Repeat victimisation in 1999, comparison between the averageand the older people

% victimised two or more times All households/respondents 60 and overVandalism 32 29Burglary 20 8All vehicle thefts3 25 20All household offences 36 29All BCS violence 35 14All personal crimes 27 9Notes:1. Source 2000 BCS.2. For household crimes (vandalism, burglary, vehicle-related theft and all household offences) the age group

refers to the head of household, for personal crimes (BCS violence and all personal crimes) the age group refersto the respondent.

3. All vehicle thefts refers to vehicle owners only.

The same pattern is true for incidents of violence, the older age groups are less likely to suffer fromrepeat victimisation than the other age groups and, in fact, for violent offences repeat victimisationseems to decrease with age (see Tables A20 to A26).

Differential risk of victimisation

Prevalence rates look at the chance of one person or household being victimised one or more timesin a calendar year. The prevalence rates show the percentage of the BCS sample who were victimsof an offence once or more during the year. Unlike incidence rates they take no account of thenumber of victimisations experienced under the same offence crime category.

In 1999 the risk in England and Wales of suffering from vandalism was 7.8 per cent, from burglary4.3 per cent and from all vehicle thefts 12.6 per cent (vehicle owners only).10 Figures 2.8, 2.9 andTables A13 to A17 clearly illustrate that the risk of suffering any of the above mentioned crimes byhouseholds headed by older people is much lower than the average for England and Wales and,therefore, than the other age groups. This pattern of low risk for households headed by older peoplehas been the same since 1991.

10 Kershaw C, Budd T, Kinshott G, Mattinson J, Mayhew P and Myhill A (2000).


12

Figure 2.8. Women heads of household: risk of suffering from a household crime in1999, by age

In 1991, 1995 and 1999, households headed by a woman, however, were at a slightly higher risk ofbeing burgled than men. Whilst this higher risk for women than men is statistically significant for theyoung and those headed by the 30 to 59 age group, it is not significant when comparing the risk ofburglary for men and women over 60.

Figure 2.9. Men heads of household: risk of suffering from a household crime in1999, by age

117

17

34

9

14

28

53

8

16

4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


thefts


Perc

enta

ge

16-29 30-59 60+

1112

21

34

1013

30

3 3

812

7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


thefts


Perc

enta

ge16-29 30-59 60+

Victimisation

13

The risk of suffering from any BCS violence in England and Wales in 1999 was 4.2 per cent.However, the risk for men and women over 60 is 1 per cent, highlighting a sharp difference with theyounger age group of 15 per cent for men and 8 per cent for women (see Figure 2.10). This patternof victimisation of violence by age group is apparent since 1991 (see Tables A18 and A19).

Figure 2.10. Risk of suffering from a violent crime in 1999: by age and gender ofrespondent

Conclusion

The findings of this chapter clearly demonstrate that those aged 60 and above have a much lowerrisk of suffering from a household or a personal crime than the other groups. Given the largenumbers in the population of 30- to 59-year-olds, they have the biggest share of actual incidents ofcrime. Older people are more likely to report violent incidents of crime and much less likely to berepeatedly victimised.

15

8

20

15

47 7

1 13 43

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Men: All BCSviolence

Women: All BCSviolence

Men: All BCSpersonal crimes

Women: All BCSpersonal crimes

Perc

enta

ge

16-29 30-59 60+


14

15

3 Concern about crime

The term ‘concern about crime’ encompasses a variety of different attitudes, feelings and reactionstowards crime. The British Crime Survey covers concern about crime in a number of ways. Thissection looks at the different age groups and their worry about specific offences being committedagainst them and their feelings of safety at night. Previous research shows that although the olderage group is less likely to suffer from crime, they are disproportionately concerned about crime giventheir risk of victimisation. The analysis highlights those groups that are most at risk of suffering fromfear of crime, the differences between the three age groups and looks at respondents’ feelings ofhow good their own health is, its relationship with fear of crime and age.

Older people and worry about victimisationTrend in worry about victimisationPeople’s worry about crime follows more or less the same pattern irrespective of which crime theBCS asks about. Worry increased from 1992 to 1996 for all of the offence types. This trend is nowreversing to 1992 levels for all crime types, and in some cases worry about crime is lower in 2000and 2001 than it was in 1992. This is particularly true for worry about theft of car and theft from car.

Worry about household crimeWomen, irrespective of their age group, are more worried than men about being burgled. In 2001 19per cent of women were very worried about being burgled and only 14 per cent of men. Men over 60are marginally less likely to be worried about being burgled than any of the other groups.

Figure 3.1. Percentage very worried about being burgled: by age group ofrespondent and gender 1992 to 2001

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1992 1996 2000 2001

Perc

enta

ge

Women 16-29

Women 30-59

Women 60+

Men 16-29

Men 30-59

Men 60+

Crime, Policing and Justice: the experience of older people ñ Findings from the British Crime Survey

16

Of those people that own a car, young men and women are more likely to fear their car being stolenor having things stolen from it than any of the other age groups. In 2001, 25 per cent of women 16-

29 and 24 per cent of men 16-29 years old were very worried about their car being stolen compared

with the other age groups, where only 14 to 17 per cent were very worried. 21 per cent of womenand men aged 16-29 were very worried about theft from their car, whereas the other age groups

ranged from 11 per cent to 16 per cent. Older men and women are less likely to suffer from fear of

car theft than the other groups.

Figure 3.2. Percentage very worried about theft of car: by age group of respondentand gender 1992 to 2001

Figure 3.3. Percentage very worried about theft from car: by age group of respondentand gender 1992 to 2001

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1992 1996 2000 2001

Per

cen

tag

e

Women 16-29

Women 30-59

Women 60+

Men 16-29

Men 30-59

Men 60+

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1992 1996 2000 2001

Per

cen

tag

e

Women 16-29

Women 30-59

Women 60+

Men 16-29

Men 30-59

Men 60+

Concern about crime

17

Worry about personal crimeWomen, irrespective of their age group, are more worried than men about being mugged. Worry hasgone down or has remained the same for all of the age groups since 1996. Within the men and

women subgroups, the very young and the old are more likely to be worried about being mugged

than the 30 to 59 age group. In 2001 17 per cent of those aged 16-29 were very worried about beingmugged, 14 per cent of the 30-59 and 18 per cent of the older age group (see Table B2).

Figure 3.4. Percentage very worried about being mugged: by age group ofrespondent and gender 1992 to 2001

Women, irrespective of their age group, are more worried than men about being physically attacked.

In 2001, 25 per cent of women were very worried compared to only 8 per cent of men about being

physically attacked. Women over 60 are less likely to be worried about being physically attackedthan women in the other age groups. In 2001, 20 per cent of women over 60 were worried about

being physically attacked compared with 32 per cent of women in the youngest age group. Men over

30 are marginally less likely to be worried about being physically attacked than younger men (seeTable B2).

Women, irrespective of their age group, are more worried than men about being racially attacked. In

2001, 5 per cent of men and 9 per cent of women were very worried about being racially attacked.Women over 60 are less likely to be worried about being racially attacked than women in the other

age groups (7% very worried in 2001). This pattern is also true for men over 60 as they too are less

likely to be worried about being racially attacked than younger men (3% very worried in 2001).

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1992 1996 2000 2001

Per

cen

tag

e

Women 16-29

Women 30-59

Women 60+

Men 16-29

Men 30-59

Men 60+


18

Figure 3.5. Percentage very worried about being racially attacked: by age group ofrespondent and gender 1996 to 2001

The question on worry about being raped has only begun to be asked to men since the year 2000(see Table B2). Older women are less likely to be worried about being raped (20% very worried in2001) than younger women (35%).

Figure 3.6. Women only: percentage very worried about being raped, by age group ofrespondent 1992 to 2001

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1996 2000 2001

Perc

enta

ge

Women 16-29

Women 30-59

Women 60+

Men 16-29

Men 30-59

Men 60+

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1992 1996 2000 2001

Perc

enta

ge Women 16-29

Women 30-59

Women 60+

Concern about crime

19

Women are more worried than men about being insulted or pestered. In 2001, 5 per cent of men and12 per cent of women were very worried. The differences in the genders between the age groups arevery small and not significant (see Table B2).

Concerns about safetyIn addition to asking people how worried they are about different crimes, the BCS asks people howsafe they feel when (a) walking alone in their area after dark and (b) alone in their home at night.There could be many reasons why people feel unsafe in such circumstances, for example fear of thedark or fear of a fall etc. Furthermore, for some people the question may be hypothetical as they arenever or infrequently in these situations.

Older people are much more likely than any of the other age groups to say that they feel very or a bitunsafe walking alone in their area after dark (43%). However, 43 per cent of older people also saythat they never walk alone in their area after dark, compared with 19 per cent of the 30- to 59-year-olds and 14 per cent of the 16- to 29-year-olds. People are less likely to feel unsafe in their ownhomes than walking alone in their area after dark. The levels of safety at home after dark are similarfor the three age groups at around 7 to 10 per cent (see Tables B3 to B5).

Figure 3.7. Safety after dark: by age-group of respondent (BCS 2000)

Worry about crime and healthAs we have seen in the previous sections, older people suffer from less crime than the other agegroups, and they are also less likely to be victims of crime. However, they still maintain similar levels

30

1410

28

7

43 43

10

19

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Bit/very unsafe walking aloneafter dark

Never walk alone in this areaafter dark

Bit/very unsafe being alone athome at night

Perc

enta

ge

16-29 30-59 60+


20

of worry for most crime types. Many argue that gender (see the above sections) and thecharacteristics of the area where people live are important correlates with fear of crime (see Houghet al 1995). In the context of older people and fear of crime it is often argued that one of the keyreasons for their ‘disproportionate’ fear of crime may lie in the fact that, although many of our olderpopulation are healthy and active, the physical consequences of suffering from a crime are likely tobe far more traumatic at an older than younger age. Therefore, in this section we explore therespondents’ feelings of how good their own health is, and its relationship with fear of crime and age.

Only 2 per cent of those aged 16- to 29-years-old felt that their health was bad or very bad comparedwith 11 per cent of those aged 60 or older (see Table B8). For all of the age groups the analysisclearly shows that those that perceive their health to be quite low are also suffering from higherfeelings of fear. This may help to explain why older people have such disproportionate levels of fearas they also tend to suffer more from poor health (see Table 2.1 and 2.2).

Table 2.1 Worry about household crime: by age and health 2000% very worried about: Burglary Theft of car Theft from carFair/good/very good health 19 19 1616 - 29 20 18 1930 - 59 18 19 1560 or older 18 18 14

Bad/very bad health 32 30 2216 - 29 25 18 1930 - 59 37 33 2560 or older 30 28 19

Note:1. Source 2000 BCS.2. Respondents were asked ‘how good is your health in general’ very good, good, fair, bad or very bad.3. Worry about theft of car or theft from car refers to car owners only.4. Please note that the base numbers for those aged 16 to 29 who perceive themselves as having bad/very bad health is

very low, therefore, the percentages may not be very reliable (see Tables B11 and B12).

Table 2.2 Worry about personal crime: by age and health 2000% very worried about: Mugging Physical attack Racial attack Rape Being insulted

or pesteredFair/good/very good health 16 17 7 19 916 - 29 18 22 9 26 930 - 59 15 17 7 19 860 or older 17 15 5 15 8

Bad/very bad health 31 27 11 24 1616 - 29 16 23 14 27 1630 - 59 32 33 13 30 1860 or older 32 24 10 18 15

Note:1. Source 2000 BCS.2. See note 2 and 4 to table 2.1.

Concern about crime

21

Impact of fear of crime on older people’s livesSince 1998 the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has been monitoring the impact of fear ofcrime on the quality of life of older people as part of their programme for tackling poverty and socialexclusion. The results are published every year in their publication ‘Opportunity for all’. Their aimsare to: eradicate child poverty in 20 years and halving it in ten; helping all adults into work when theycan and providing greater help when they cannot; making sure pensioners can live secure, activeand fulfilling lives; and, building thriving communities where all can enjoy a decent quality of life.

To monitor progress on their indicator 29 ‘A reduction in the proportion of older people whose livesare affected by fear of crime’ they use the proportion of those aged 60 or over who report that theirlives are greatly affected by fear of crime from the BCS. In 1998, ten per cent of those aged 60 andover said that their life was significantly affected by fear of crime. This figure has stayed the same for2000. There are no available figures for 2001 (type A sample1) as the sample size was too small toallow for reliable analysis.

ConclusionIn Chapter 2 we saw how older people have a lower crime risk than the other age groups. However,they maintain similar levels of worry for most crime types than any of the other age groups.

Older women, are more likely than older men to suffer from all studied types of fear of crime. Thosethat perceive their health to be bad or very bad are also suffering from higher feelings of fear thanthose that perceive their health to be fair to very good. This may help to explain why older peoplehave disproportionate levels of fear as they also tend to suffer from worse health than the other agegroups.

Older people are much more likely than any of the other age groups to say that they feel very or a bitunsafe walking alone in their area after dark. The feelings of safety at home after dark are similar forthe three age groups under study.

1 See glossary of terms for a definition of 2001 type A interviews.


22

23

4 Crime prevention

Evidence from the BCS has clearly pointed to the fact that security precautions particularly vehicleand burglary security are very effective in reducing crime risk (Kershaw et al., 2001, Budd 1999).The main report on the 2000 BCS (Kershaw et al., 2000) discusses possible reasons that account forthe downward trends in crime. Increased levels of home and vehicle security are very likely to haveplayed a part in these reductions.

Budd 1999 looks at the risk of burglary using logistic regression analysis. The analysis clearly showsthat security measures are strongly associated with a reduced risk of victimisation, after other factorshave been taken into account.

‘Households without any of the security devices measured are most at risk. Those with onlywindow locks or deadlocks [and] burglar alarms have far lower risks, and those with aburglar alarm, security lights or window grilles are even at lower risk’. (Budd 1999:39)

This section looks at burglary, vehicle and personal security trends since 1996 by age group toexplore whether older people are more likely or less likely to use security devices.

Household securityVictimisation and ownership of home security devicesAs reviewed in Budd (1999) those households that have fewer security devices are more likely to getburgled. The following analysis (also see Appendix C) covers a series of security devices, clearlyindicating that, apart from the use of chains, use of other security devices has increased and thatolder people and those over 30 are more likely to employ such devices. Table C1 shows that windowlocks (80% of households in 2001) and deadlocks or double locks in one or more doors (78% ofhouseholds in 2001) are quite common. However, alarms (28% of households in 2001), internalsecurity lights (26% of households in 2001) and external security lights (43% of households in 2001)are much less common. Also, the use of chains seems to be in decline (40% of households in 2001)although more longitudinal data would give us a better indication of the reliability of this particulartrend (see Table C1).1

1 Please note that the analysis is based on the age of the head of household. The over 30s are more likely to be homeowners than the under 30s. This may account for their increased willingness to invest in home security. They might also havemore property they value.


24

Figure 4.1. Percentage that have a burglar alarm at home: by age group of head ofhousehold

Figure 4.2. Percentage that have a double lock or deadlock in the home: by agegroup of head of household

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1996 2000 2001

Perc

enta

ge 16-29

30-59

60+

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1996 2000 2001

Perc

enta

ge 16-29

30-59

60+

Crime prevention

25

Figure 4.3. Percentage that have window locks at home: by age group of head ofhousehold

Vehicle securityVictimisation and ownership of vehicle security devicesKershaw et al., (2000:26) suggest that among the factors that could contribute to the steep 32 percent fall in vehicle-related thefts between 1995 and 1999, (39% between 1995 and 2000, seeKershaw et al., 2001) are increased levels of security on new cars, the introduction of CCTV andSecured Car Park schemes to cover many high-risk car parks are included, also see Brown andSallybanks (1999).

The following graphs illustrate this increase on vehicle security by age group. Since 1996 there hasbeen a sharp increase in the use of central locking (Figure 4.4) and car alarms (Figure 4.5). Therehas also been an increase in the use of immobilisers: electronic (45% in 2000, 50% in 2001); and,mechanical (40% in 2000, 45% in 2001) see Table C2. The differences between the age groups arenot very large. However, the young and the old seem to have fewer security devices than the otherage group (30 to 59 years old). This is likely to be due to the fact that the older and the youngergroups tend to own slightly older models of cars than the 30 to 59 age group.

The BCS does not collect information on the make and model of stolen vehicles. Kershaw et al.,(2000 Car Theft Index2, which shows that the risks are highest for the high performance models, andfor older vehicles with poorer security measures:27), however, point out that analysis of risks fordifferent types of car is available through the

2 The Car Theft Index 1999 uses Police National Computer and DVLA data to work out the number of each type of car stolenper 1,000 on the road.

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1996 2000 2001

Perc

enta

ge 16-29

30-59

60+


26

Figure 4.4. Vehicle owners only: Percentage that have central locking in the car, byage group of head of household

Figure 4.5. Vehicle owners only: Percentage that have car alarm, by age group ofhead of household

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1996 2000 2001

Perc

enta

ge 16-29

30-59

60+

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1996 2000 2001

Perc

enta

ge 16-29

30-59

60+

Crime prevention

27

Personal securityVictimisation and use of personal securityThe BCS asked respondents in 1998 and 2001 whether they carried personal security devices. Ingeneral terms there has been a decrease on the percentage of the population that carries personalsecurity devices. In 1998 11 per cent of all adults carried a weapon compared to 6 per cent in 2001.However, given the small numbers in the 2001 sample, more longitudinal data would give us a betterindication of the reliability of this particular trend (see Table C3). Younger people are more likelythan the other age groups to carry weapons.

The BCS also asks respondents whether they have done a self-defence course (see Table C5). Notsurprisingly the younger the respondent is the more likely it is that they have done a self-defencecourse. This is encouraging as they are also the group which is most at risk of violent crime. Thepercentage of adults in England and Wales that have ever done a self-defence course has increasedfrom 11 per cent in 1998 to 13 per cent in 2001. Of the older age group only 5 per cent in 2001 saidthey had done a self defence course.

Conclusion

It has been proven that there is a link between having security precautions and a reduced risk ofcrime. This chapter reviewed the use of household, vehicle and personal security devices and foundthat older people and those over 30 are more likely to employ security devices at home. In generalterms however, alarms, internal and external lights are fewer commonly used than window locks anddeadlocks or double locks. In terms of vehicle security, the differences between the age groups arenot very big, the young and the old seem to have fewer security devices than the 30 to 59 age group.Those over 30 years old are less likely to carry weapons or to have attended a self-defence coursethan those aged 16 to 29. This suggests, therefore, that much can be done to improve all,household, vehicle and personal security for all age groups.


28

29

5 Attitudes towards the police and criminaljustice system

The criminal justice system (CJS) in England and Wales is comprised of several separate agenciesand departments, which together are responsible for various aspects of the work of maintaining lawand order and the administration of justice. These include the police, Crown Prosecution Service(CPS), courts, prison and probation services.

Public confidence in the criminal justice system is an important prerequisite for an effective system.Although satisfaction with individual organisations has been measured in the past, there is nowincreasing emphasis on the need for criminal justice system organisations to work together inachieving the various objectives they have been set by the current government. One of these jointobjectives is promoting public confidence.

The 2000 BCS assessed people’s opinion of the separate agencies that comprise the criminal justicesystem and public confidence in four different aspects of the system. The main findings for Englandand Wales were first published in Mirrlees-Black (2001).

Views on the separate criminal justice system agencies

The BCS asks respondents how good a job they think various criminal justice system agencies do.(also see Appendix D). The police got the highest percentage saying they are doing an excellent orgood job (53%). Followed by the prisons (31%), magistrates (26%), Crown Prosecution Service andprobation services (23%), judges (21%) and finally, the juvenile courts (12%). Older people tend tohave a better opinion than those aged 30- to 59-year-olds.


30

Figure 5.1. Percentage saying that the … do an excellent/good job: by age group ofrespondent (BCS 2000)

Judges and magistrates are they out of touch?For the courts, a further measure of confidence in the system is whether people think that sentencersare out of touch or not. The survey asked the same question about judges and magistrates: ‘Do youthink that judges/magistrates are generally in touch or out of touch with what ordinary people think?’.In general terms, people thought that judges are more out of touch than magistrates. 41 per cent ofall adults thought that judges are very out of touch and 20 per cent thought that magistrates werevery out of touch. The older the person is, the more likely it is that they will think that judges andmagistrates are very out of touch, although older people tend to be more positive than the 30- to 50-year-olds as to how good a job judges and magistrates are doing.

Figure 5.2. Percentage saying that judges/magistrates are very out of touch: by agegroup of respondent (BCS 2000)

29

15

44 44

2221

05

10

1520253035

404550

Judges Magistrates

Perc

enta

ge

16-29 30-59 60+

48

27 26 2429

25

14

53

22

30

22

10

57

2923 24

3226

13

1825

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Polic

e

Mag

istra

tes

Cro

wn

Pros

ecut

ion

Serv

ice

Judg

es

Pris

ons

Prob

atio

nse

rvic

es

Juve

nile

cour

ts

Perc

enta

ge

16-29 30-59 60+

Attitudes towards the police and criminal justice system

31

Treatment of witnessesAppropriate treatment of witnesses by the criminal justice system is paramount to success rates inthe conviction of criminals. The BCS asked: ‘How well do you think witnesses are treated by thepolice/courts?’. Younger people had more positive views about the treatment of witnesses by thepolice than older people. The views about the treatment of witnesses by court were slightly morenegative. Older people were marginally more likely to have positive views about the treatment ofwitnesses by the courts.

Figure 5.3. Percentage saying that police/courts treat witnesses very/fairly well: byage group of respondent (BCS 2000)

Opinion on sentencesThe BCS also asked respondents whether they thought that the sentences handed down by thecourts are too tough, about right or too lenient. They were also asked whether the way the police andcourts dealing with young offenders, that is people aged ten to 17, is too tough, too lenient or aboutright.1 Older people tend to be more likely than the other age groups to think that court sentences aremuch too lenient. Those over 30 and older people are also more likely than those aged 16 to 24 tothink that the way in which the police and courts deal with young offenders is much too lenient.

1 It is argued that the fact that people think that sentences are too lenient is related to the fact that the public stillunderestimates current sentencing practice Mirrlees-Black (2001), Mattinson and Mirrlees-Black (2000). Also, Hough andRoberts (1998) showed using logistic regression that those aged 50+ were more likely to underestimate the use of custody.

8577

8378 81

77

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Treatment by police Treatment by court

Perc

enta

ge

16-29 30-59 60+


32

Figure 5.4. Percentage saying that sentences for all and police and courts dealingwith young offenders, are much too lenient: by age group of respondent(BCS 2000)

Overall confidence in the criminal justice systemThe 2000 BCS measured overall public confidence in four different aspects of the system. Thequestionnaire asked respondents: ‘Thinking about the criminal justice system as whole, that is, thepolice, courts, prison and probation services, how confident are you that it’:

- is effective in bringing people who commit crimes to justice

- meets the needs of victims

- respects the rights of, and treats fairly, people accused of committing a crime

- deals with cases promptly and efficiently

Although a majority are confident that the criminal justice system respects the rights of peopleaccused of committing crimes and treats them fairly (69% very/fairly confident), less than half believeit is effective in bringing people who commit crimes to justice (46% very/fairly confident), and only athird that it deals with cases promptly and efficiently (34% very/fairly confident). Just a quarter areconfident that the criminal justice system meets the needs of victims of crime (26% very/fairlyconfident) (see Table D7 in Appendix D for further details).

The young are more likely to be very/fairly confident in that the criminal justice system meets theneeds of victims and deals with cases promptly and efficiently.2

2 For the study of more detailed age breakdowns of overall confidence in the criminal justice system please see Mirrlees-Black (2001).

3735

50

56

4243

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

View s on courts sentences Way police and courts deal w ith youngoffenders

Perc

enta

ge16-29 30-59 60+

Attitudes towards the police and criminal justice system

33

Figure 5.5. Percentage saying they are very/fairly confident that the criminal justicesystem… by: age group of respondent (BCS 2000)

ConclusionThere is much work to do on improving people’s perception of the quality of the work produced bythe various criminal justice system agencies as it is key to increasing confidence in the system. Olderpeople tend to have a better opinion about most criminal justice system agencies than those aged 30to 59 years old. On the other hand, the over 60s are: less likely to think that witnesses are very/fairlywell treated by the police but more likely to think that witnesses are very/fairly well treated by thecourts than the other age groups; and, more likely to think that court sentences are much too lenient.

49

38

68

4043

69

32

49

24

70

33

22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

…is effective inbringing people w ho

commit crimes to justice

...meets the needs ofvictims

…respects the rightsof and treats fairlypeople accused ofcommitting a crime

…deals w ith casespromptly and efficiently

Perc

enta

ge

16-29 30-59 60+


34

35

Appendix A: Additional tables on victimisation

1. Number of BCS incidents of crime

Table A1 Number of BCS incidents of crime by: age group, 1999 (inthousands)

16 - 29 30 - 59 60 and overVandalism 488 1,876 500Burglary 336 758 214All vehicle thefts 483 2,039 444All household offences 1,631 6,178 1,640All BCS violence 1,973 1,327 132All personal crimes 2,872 2,289 400All BCS crime 4,504 8,468 2,040Notes:1. Source 2000 BCS.2. For household crimes (vandalism, burglary, vehicle-related theft and all household offences) the age group

refers to the head of household, for personal crimes (BCS violence and all personal crimes) the age group refersto the respondent.

3. For household crimes the numbers are derived by multiplying offence rates (incidence rates) by the number ofhouseholds in England and Wales estimated to be headed by the specific age group. For personal crimes thenumbers are derived by multiplying incidence rates in each age group by the estimated number of adults inEngland and Wales in each age group. Note that estimates may vary from those previously published due torevisions to population estimates, also note that household estimates are based on 15- to 29-years-old and theBCS only covers crimes committed against those over 16 (see Table A27 for further details).


16 - 29 30 - 59 60 and overVandalism 543 2,278 619Burglary 386 1,009 384All vehicle thefts 814 2,994 547All household offences 2,292 8,148 2,090All BCS violence 2,665 1,495 122All personal crimes 3,830 2,690 495All BCS crime 6,123 10,839 2,585Notes:1. Source 1996 BCS.2. See notes 2 and 3 to Table A1.


16 - 29 30 - 59 60 and overVandalism 582 1,683 467Burglary 361 736 275All vehicle thefts 810 2,584 395All household offences 2,301 6,461 1,534All BCS violence 1,931 774 74All personal crimes 2,932 1,718 276All BCS crime 5,233 8,179 1,809Notes:1. Source 1992 BCS.2. See notes 2 and 3 to Table A1.


36

2. Number of incidents per 10,000 households/adults1 and rate ofincidents reported to the police

Table A4 Vandalism: Number of BCS incidents 1991, 1995 and 1999 (per10,000 households): by head of household gender and age group

1991 1995 1999

Women 1,137 1,201 1,17216-29 2,063 2,057 1,83530-59 1,602 1,504 1,71060 or older 520 700 423

Men 1,430 1,760 1,34416-29 2,076 1,964 2,02230-59 1,614 2,112 1,49060 or older 740 972 831

All households 1,356 1,614 1,300Note:1. Source 1992, 1996 and 2000 BCS.

Table A5 Burglary: Number of BCS incidents 1991, 1995 and 1999 (per10,000 households): by head of household gender and age group

1991 1995 1999

Women 858 1,173 88516-29 1,979 2,451 2,12430-59 1,018 1,429 1,10060 or older 403 586 322

Men 620 708 48316-29 1,036 929 99830-59 640 765 50360 or older 380 516 284

All households 678 829 585Note:1. Source 1992, 1996 and 2000 BCS.

1 The number of incidents per 10,000 people or households is also referred to as ‘incident rates’ see glossary of terms forfurther details.

Appendix A

37

Table A6 Vehicle-related thefts: Number of BCS incidents 1991, 1995 and1999 (per 10,000 households): by head of household gender andage group

1991 1995 1999

Women 820 1,194 89616-29 1,481 2,301 1,60230-59 1,362 1,820 1,24960 or older 226 364 331

Men 2,235 2,332 1,50016-29 3,391 3,321 2,09830-59 2,685 2,811 1,76760 or older 747 1,004 759


Table A7 Vehicle-related thefts suffered by vehicle owners only: Number ofBCS incidents 1991, 1995 and 1999 (per 10,000 households): by headof household gender and age group

1991 1995 1999

Women 1,910 2,708 1,79816-29 3,218 4,769 3,31330-59 2,106 2,845 1,85560 or older 882 1,359 1,008

Men 2,638 2,750 1,72916-29 4,135 4,057 2,56130-59 2,947 3,089 1,93160 or older 1,027 1,378 977


Table A8 All BCS household offences: Number of BCS incidents 1991, 1995and 1999 (per 10,000 households): by head of household genderand age group

1991 1995 1999

Women 4,202 5,070 4,15416-29 8,898 9,321 7,09530-59 5,766 6,863 5,74260 or older 1,644 2,367 1,698

Men 5,417 6,140 4,33216-29 7,941 7,995 6,32330-59 6,256 7,224 4,88060 or older 2,465 3,278 2,565



38

Table A9 All BCS violence: Number of BCS incidents 1991, 1995 and 1999(per 10,000 adults): by respondents’ gender and age group

1991 1995 1999

Women 477 744 65416-29 1,300 1,837 1,52730-59 320 627 61060 or older 65 106 107

Men 842 1,266 90216-29 2,234 3,589 2,68030-59 496 842 61260 or older 75 123 138

All adults 651 989 773

Notes:1. Source 1992, 1996 and 2000 BCS.2. All BCS violence includes: wounding, assault, robbery and snatch theft.

Table A10 All BCS personal crimes: Number of BCS incidents 1991, 1995and 1999 (per 10,000 adults): by respondents’ gender and agegroup

1991 1995 1999

Women 945 1,406 1,20616-29 2,177 3,081 2,61330-59 736 1,179 1,08060 or older 279 523 437

Men 1,416 1,899 1,32716-29 3,194 4,678 3,48930-59 1,072 1,460 1,02560 or older 233 391 295

All adults 1,169 1,637 1,264

Notes:1. Source 1992, 1996 and 2000 BCS.2. All BCS personal crimes include: wounding, assault, robbery, snatch theft, stealth and other thefts of personal property.

This latter category can be distinguished from stealth in that the person does not necessarily hold the item, for example,it could have been left in a cloakroom or on a table.

Appendix A

39

Table A11 Percentage of BCS incidents reported to the police (1999): by agegroup

Percentage 16 to 29 30 to59

60 orolder

All adults/households

Un-weighted

NVandalism 41.0 27.4 34.6 30.7 1,506Burglary 60.9 61.0 68.8 62.2 793All vehicle thefts 48.4 51.5 46.1 50.3 1,868All vehicle thefts (vehicle owners only) 46.8 51.5 45.8 50.0 1,857All household offences 46.0 41.5 43.1 42.5 4,698All BCS violence 29.6 40.4 53.5 35.2 760All personal crimes 29.1 36.0 46.9 33.6 1,446Notes:1. Source 2000 BCS.2. For household crimes, the age group refers to the head of household, for personal crimes the age group refers to the

respondent.

Table A12 Percentage of BCS incidents reported to the police (1995): by agegroup

Percentage 16 to29

30 to 59 60 orolder

All adults/households

Un-weighted

NVandalism 32.8 28.5 27.9 29.0 1,677Burglary 64.4 66.9 67.0 66.4 1,090All vehicle thefts 48.7 52.7 45.7 51.2 2,387All vehicle thefts (vehicle owners only) 48.5 52.8 45.7 51.3 2,375All household offences 43.0 45.0 41.2 44.0 5,387All BCS violence 30.2 47.1 67.1 37.8 832All personal crimes 27.4 41.3 53.7 35.1 1,610Notes:1. Source 1996 BCS.2. For household crimes, the age group refers to the head of household, for personal crimes the age group refers to the

respondent.

3. Risk of being a victim once or more in a year2

Table A13 Vandalism: Percentage of households victims once or more, 1991,1995 and 1999: by head of household gender and age group

1991 1995 1999

Women 6.8 7.6 6.916-29 11.7 12.4 10.530-59 9.7 9.9 9.960 or older 3.3 4.4 2.8

Men 9.2 11.1 8.216-29 12.5 13.1 11.430-59 10.2 12.9 9.260 or older 5.4 6.8 5.0

All households 8.6 10.2 7.8Note: Source 1992, 1996 and 2000 BCS.

2 The risk of being a victim once or more in a year is also referred to as ‘prevalence rates’. See glossary of terms for furtherdetails.


40

Table A14 Burglary: Percentage of households victims once or more, 1991,1995 and 1999: by head of household gender and age group

1991 1995 1999

Women 6.3 8.0 5.816-29 14.5 13.3 12.430-59 6.9 10 6.760 or older 3.3 4.9 3.0

Men 5.0 5.6 3.816-29 7.7 6.5 7.130-59 5.0 6.1 3.960 or older 3.5 4.4 2.5

All households 5.3 6.3 4.3Note:1. Source 1992, 1996 and 2000 BCS.

Table A15 Vehicle-related thefts: Percentage of households victims once ormore, 1991, 1995 and 1999: by head of household gender and agegroup

1991 1995 1999

Women 6.2 8.7 6.316-29 10.0 14.8 10.230-59 10.6 13.4 8.960 or older 1.8 3.1 2.6

Men 15.9 16.5 11.016-29 23.4 22.8 14.330-59 19.0 19.7 12.860 or older 5.9 7.7 6.1


Appendix A

41

Table A16 Vehicle-related thefts suffered by vehicle owners only: Percentageof households victims once or more, 1991, 1995 and 1999 by headof household gender and age group

1991 1995 1999

Women 14.3 19.7 12.616-29 21.0 30.5 21.030-59 16.4 20.9 13.160 or older 7.0 11.7 7.9

Men 18.8 19.4 12.616-29 28.5 27.8 17.130-59 20.9 21.7 14.060 or older 8.0 10.5 7.8


Table A17 All BCS household offences: Percentage of households victimsonce or more, 1991, 1995 and 1999: by head of household genderand age group

1991 1995 1999

Women 22.5 27.7 22.616-29 42.3 42.4 34.430-59 30.6 37.4 29.860 or older 10.6 15.6 12.0

Men 31.2 34.1 25.316-29 43.6 42.2 34.330-59 35.2 39.0 28.260 or older 16.9 21.1 16.3


Table A18 All BCS violence: Percentage of adults, victims once or more, 1991,1995 and 1999: by respondents’ gender and age group

1991 1995 1999

Women 2.7 3.8 3.316-29 6.3 9.3 7.530-59 2.1 3.1 2.960 or older .5 .8 .9

Men 4.7 6.7 5.316-29 11.4 17.5 14.930-59 3.2 4.8 3.760 or older .7 1.1 1.1

All adults 3.6 5.2 4.2Notes:1. Source 1992, 1996 and 2000 BCS.2. See note to Table A9 on the composition of All BCS violence.


42

Table A19 All BCS personal crimes: Percentage of adults, victims once ormore, 1991, 1995 and 1999: by respondents’ gender and age group

1991 1995 1999

Women 6.4 9.2 7.616-29 12.6 18.1 15.130-59 5.8 7.8 6.760 or older 2.2 4.8 3.9

Men 8.3 11.0 8.416-29 17.3 24.5 20.030-59 6.7 9.1 6.960 or older 2.1 3.0 2.6

All adults 7.3 10.0 8.0Notes:1. Source 1992, 1996 and 2000 BCS.2. See note A10 on the composition of All BCS personal crimes.

Appendix A

43

4. Repeat victimisation

Table A20 Number of times victims of vandalism were victimised, 1995 and 1999:by head of household age group

% 1995 % 1999Once Twice Three or

moreOnce Twice Three or

more16-29 71 17 12 67 15 1930-59 68 18 15 68 17 1560 or older 74 14 12 72 12 17All households 69 17 14 68 16 16Unweighted N 1,163 287 227 1,040 237 229Note:1. Source 1996 and 2000 BCS.

Table A21 Number of times victims of burglary were victimised, 1995 and 1999:by head of household age group



more16-29 75 13 12 73 18 1030-59 80 14 6 78 14 860 or older 89 7 4 92 6 2All households 81 12 7 80 13 7Unweighted N 880 128 82 637 96 60Note:1. Source 1996 and 2000 BCS.

Table A22 Number of times victims of all vehicle thefts were victimised, 1995and 1999: by head of household age group




Table A23 Number of times victims of all vehicle thefts (vehicle owners only)were victimised, 1995 and 1999: by head of household age group





44

Table A24 Number of times victims of all household offences werevictimised, 1995 and 1999: by head of household age group



more16-29 54 23 23 60 18 2230-59 57 23 21 63 19 1860 or older 69 19 12 71 17 12All households 59 22 19 64 19 17Unweighted N 3,158 1,184 1,045 3,032 885 781Note:1. Source 1996 and 2000 BCS.

Table A25 Number of times victims of all BCS violence were victimised, 1995and 1999: by respondents’ age group



more16-29 57 19 23 63 19 1830-59 68 13 20 65 16 1960 or older 91 4 6 87 8 6All adults 63 16 21 65 17 18Unweighted N 521 132 179 490 129 141Note:1. Source 1996 and 2000 BCS

Table A26 Number of times victims of all BCS personal crimes werevictimised, 1995 and 1999: by respondents’ age group



more16-29 63 18 18 68 16 1630-59 76 12 12 74 14 1260 or older 90 6 5 91 6 3All adults 72 14 14 73 14 13Unweighted N 1,161 221 228 1,059 201 186

Note:1. Source 1996 and 2000 BCS.

Appendix A

45

5. Population and household estimates and number ofrespondents (unweighted N)

Table A27 Number of households/people living in England and Wales1991, 1995 and 1999 (in thousands)

Households headed by 16 - 292 30 - 59 60 and over1991 2,809 10,452 7,0801995 2,722 11,384 7,0911999 2,485 12,238 7,211

People1991 10,891 19,225 10,6791995 9,963 20,509 10,6941999 9,454 21,723 10,817Notes:1. Source: Household estimates for England: DTLR. Household estimates for Wales: National Assembly for Wales.

Population estimates: ONS.2. Household estimates are based on 15 - 29.

Table A28 Unweighted N for incidence and prevalence tables, 1991, 1995and 1999: by head of household gender and age group

1991 1995 1999

Women 2,489 4,409 4,86116-29 360 636 54430-59 895 1,721 2,13660 or older 1,234 2,044 2,171

Men 7,548 11,937 14,55016-29 949 1,277 1,23830-59 4,430 7,148 8,97360 or older 2,169 3,495 4,323

All households 10,059 16,348 19,411Notes:1. Source 1992, 1996 and 2000 BCS.2. The sum of the unweighted N for the subgroups may not add up to the total number of households/adults because some

respondents/heads of household may have had missing values for sex or age.


46

Table A29 Unweighted N for incidence and prevalence tables, 1991, 1995and 1999: by respondents’ gender and age group

1991 1995 1999

Women 5,561 9,100 10,58416-29 1,108 1,731 1,67830-59 2,603 4,367 5,43260 or older 1,850 2,993 3,462

Men 4,498 7,248 8,82716-29 967 1,361 1,40230-59 2,233 3,785 4,79760 or older 1,298 2,100 2,628

All adults 10,059 16,348 19,411Notes:1. Source 1992, 1996 and 2000 BCS.2. see note 2 to Table A28.

Table A30 Vehicle owners only: Unweighted N for incidence andprevalence tables, 1991, 1995 and 1999: by head ofhousehold gender and age group

1991 1995 1999

Women 1,023 1,849 2,40716-29 165 288 25730-59 553 1,039 1,44060 or older 305 520 703

Men 6,346 9,900 12,67916-29 796 1,030 1,01130-59 4,004 6,389 8,26360 or older 1,546 2,465 3,390

All households 7,386 11,751 15,086Notes:1. Source 1992, 1996 and 2000 BCS.2. See note 2 to Table A28.

47

Appendix B: Additional tables on concernabout crime

1. Worry about household and personal crime

Table B1 Worry about household crime, by age and sex (1991, 1996, 2000 and2001 BCS)

% very worried about: 1992 1996 2000 2001 type ABurglary16 - 29 20 22 20 1630 - 59 18 22 19 1760 or older 18 22 19 16

Women 22 26 22 1916 - 29 23 27 23 1930 - 59 21 26 21 1960 or older 22 25 22 18Men 15 18 16 1416 - 29 18 18 17 1430 - 59 15 19 16 1460 or older 13 18 15 13All adults 19 22 19 17

Theft of car1

16 - 29 27 29 25 2530 - 59 25 25 20 1760 or older 19 21 20 15



48

% very worried about: 1992 1996 2000 2001 type ATheft from car1

16 - 29 24 24 19 2130 - 59 23 20 16 1560 or older 16 16 15 12


Notes:1. Car owners only.2. Source 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2001 (type A- replica sample. See glossary of terms for full explanation of ‘type A’) BCS.

Excludes don’t knows.

Appendix B

49

Table B2 Worry about personal crime, by age and sex (1991, 1996 and 2000 and2001 BCS)

% very worried about: 1992 1996 2000 2001 type AMugging16 - 29 21 21 18 1730 - 59 16 18 16 1460 or older 18 20 19 18


Physical attack16 - 29 na. na. 22 2230 - 59 na. na. 17 1660 or older na. na. 16 14

Women na. na. 27 2516 - 29 na. na. 33 3230 - 59 na. na. 26 2460 or older na. na. 23 20Men na. na. 9 816 - 29 na. na. 11 1130 - 59 na. na. 8 760 or older na. na. 8 7All adults na. na. 18 17


50

% very worried about: 1992 1996 2000 2001 Type ARacial attack16 - 29 na. 11 9 830 - 59 na. 8 8 760 or older na. 6 6 5

Women na. 11 10 916 - 29 na. 14 12 1030 - 59 na. 11 10 960 or older na. 7 8 7Men na. 6 5 516 - 29 na. 8 7 630 - 59 na. 5 5 560 or older na. 4 3 3All adults na. 8 7 7

Rape3

16 - 29 na. na. 26 2630 - 59 na. na. 19 1760 or older na. na. 15 14

Women 30 32 29 2616 - 29 43 44 37 3530 - 59 29 31 29 2660 or older 21 22 24 20Men na. na. 7 616 - 29 na. na. 12 1230 - 59 na. na. 7 460 or older na. na. 4 5All adults 30 32 19 18

Insulted or pestered16 - 29 na. na. 9 1030 - 59 na. na. 9 860 or older na. na. 9 8

Women na. na. 13 1216 - 29 na. na. 13 1430 - 59 na. na. 13 1260 or older na. na. 12 11Men na. na. 5 516 - 29 na. na. 5 630 - 59 na. na. 4 460 or older na. na. 5 5All adults na. na. 9 9

Notes:1. Source 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2001 (type A- replica sample. See glossary of terms for full explanation of ‘type A’) BCS.

Excludes don’t knows.2. ‘na.’ Indicates that the question was not asked in that particular sweep.3. Prior to the 1998 BCS only asked of female respondents.

Appendix B

51

2. Feelings of safety going out or staying in

Table B3 How safe do you feel walking alone in this area after dark?Percentage 16-29 30-59 60+ Unweighted

N

Very/fairly safe 71 73 57 12,904Bit/very unsafe 30 28 43 6,403

Note:1. Source 2000 BCS.

Table B4 How often do you walk alone in this area after dark?Percentage 16-29 30-59 60+ Unweighted

N

At least once a week 62 46 26 4,076At least once a fortnight 7 7 6 667At least once a month 7 11 8 861Less often than once a month 10 17 18 1,565Never 14 19 43 2,561


Table B5 How safe do you feel when you are alone in your own home atnight?

Percentage 16-29 30-59 60+ UnweightedN

Very/fairly safe 90 93 90 17,736Bit/very unsafe 10 7 10 1,644



52

3. Worry and health

Table B6 Worry about household crime, by age and health 2000% very worried about: Burglary Theft of car3 Theft from car3

Fair/good/very good health 19 19 1616 - 29 20 18 1930 - 59 18 19 1560 or older 18 18 14

Bad/very bad health 32 30 2216 - 29 25 18 1930 - 59 37 33 2560 or older 30 28 19

Note:1. Source 2000 BCS.2. Respondents were asked ‘how good is your health in general’ very good, good, fair, bad or very bad.3. Car owners only.

Table B7 Worry about personal crime, by age and health 2000% very worried about: Mugging Physical attack Racial attack Rape Being insulted

or pesteredFair/good/very good health 16 17 7 19 916 - 29 18 22 9 26 930 - 59 15 17 7 19 860 or older 17 15 5 15 8

Bad/very bad health 31 27 11 24 1616 - 29 16 23 14 27 1630 - 59 32 33 13 30 1860 or older 32 24 10 18 15

Note:1. Source 2000 BCS.2. See note 2 to table B6.

Table B8 Perception of respondents’ health by age 2000Percentage Fair/good/very good health Bad/very bad health Unweighted N

16 - 29 99 2 3,07530 - 59 96 4 10,21460 or older 89 11 6,075

Note:1. Source 2000 BCS.2. See note 2 to table B6.3. Due to rounding figures may not sum to 100%.

Appendix B

53

4. Unweighted N

Table B9 Unweighted N for worry about household crime, by age and sex (1991,1996, 2000 and 2001 BCS)

Worried or not worried about: 1992 1996 2000 2001 type ABurglary16 - 29 2,072 1,562 3,080 1,31630 - 59 4,832 3,932 10,225 4,70260 or older 3,140 2,479 6,084 2,946

Women 5,552 4,353 10,579 4,97016 - 29 1,106 868 1,678 75330 - 59 2,602 2,064 5,431 2,51460 or older 1,844 1,417 3,458 1,693Men 4,492 3,625 8,822 4,00416 - 29 966 694 1,402 56330 - 59 2,230 1,868 4,794 2,18860 or older 1,296 1,062 2,626 1,253All adults 10,044 7,978 19,401 8,974

Theft of car1

16 - 29 773 942 1,925 85330 - 59 2,096 3,136 8,670 3,94160 or older 1,220 1,167 3,530 1,738

Women 2,141 2,626 7,148 3,35016 - 29 421 491 1,040 48630 - 59 1,133 1,602 4,501 2,04060 or older 587 530 1,598 816Men 1,948 2,623 6,986 3,19016 - 29 352 451 885 36730 - 59 963 1,534 4,169 1,90160 or older 633 637 1,932 922All adults 4,089 5,249 14,134 6,540


54

Worried or not worried about: 1992 1996 2000 2001 type ATheft from car1

16 - 29 771 941 1,917 85230 - 59 2,096 3,130 8,658 3,93560 or older 1,219 1,164 3,519 1,730

Women 2,139 2,621 7,131 3,34116 - 29 420 490 1,036 48530 - 59 1,132 1,601 4,495 2,03760 or older 587 527 1,591 811Men 1,947 2,618 6,972 3,18416 - 29 351 451 881 36730 - 59 964 1,529 4,163 1,89860 or older 632 637 1,928 919All adults 4,086 5,239 14,103 6,525

Notes:1. Car owners only.2. Source 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2001 (type A- replica sample. See glossary of terms for full explanation of ‘type A’) BCS.

Excludes don’t knows.

Table B10 Unweighted N for worry about personal crime, by age and sex (1991,1996, 2000 and 2001 BCS)

Worried or not worried about: 1992 1996 2000 2001 type AMugging16 - 29 2,068 1,561 3,078 1,31430 - 59 4,816 3,927 10,212 4,69660 or older 3,109 2,445 6,020 2,929

Women 5,519 4,327 10,520 4,95416 - 29 1,104 868 1,677 75130 - 59 2,591 2,062 5,423 2,51160 or older 1,824 1,393 3,408 1,682Men 4,474 3,611 8,802 3,99516 - 29 964 693 1,401 56330 - 59 2,225 1,865 4,789 2,18560 or older 1,285 1,052 2,612 1,247All adults 9,993 7,938 19,322 8,949

Appendix B

55

Worried or not worried about: 1992 1996 2000 2001 type APhysical attack16 - 29 na. na. 3,075 1,31630 - 59 na. na. 10,206 4,69560 or older na. na. 6,052 2,926

Women na. na. 10,542 4,95416 - 29 na. na. 1,675 75330 - 59 na. na. 5,421 2,51160 or older na. na. 3,434 1,680Men na. na. 8,803 3,99316 - 29 na. na. 1,400 56330 - 59 na. na. 4,785 2,18460 or older na. na. 2,618 1,246All adults na. na. 19,345 8,947

Racial attack16 - 29 na. 1,383 2,815 1,07130 - 59 na. 3,496 9,272 3,81860 or older na. 2,076 5,367 2,304

Women na. 3,795 9,459 3,97516 - 29 na. 619 1,533 61130 - 59 na. 1,657 4,897 2,04660 or older na. 888 3,018 1,310Men na. 3,164 8,006 3,22616 - 29 na. 764 1,282 46030 - 59 na. 1,839 4,375 1,77260 or older na. 1,188 2,349 994All adults na. 6,959 17,465 7,201

Rape1

16 - 29 na. na. 2,914 1,22630 - 59 na. na. 9,515 4,28060 or older na. na. 5,505 2,529

Women 5,451 4,308 10,432 4,86716 - 29 1,091 866 1,673 74930 - 59 2,570 2,054 5,396 2,49160 or older 1,790 1,385 3,351 1,617Men na. na. 7,514 3,17816 - 29 na. na. 1,241 47730 - 59 na. na. 4,119 1,78960 or older na. na. 2,154 912All adults 5,451 4,308 17,946 8,045


56

Worried or not worried about: 1992 1996 2000 2001 type AInsulted or pestered16 - 29 na. na. 3,075 1,31430 - 59 na. na. 10,212 4,69160 or older na. na. 6,010 2,920

Women na. na. 10,512 4,94016 - 29 na. na. 1,676 75230 - 59 na. na. 5,422 2,50660 or older na. na. 3,402 1,672Men na. na. 8,797 3,99516 - 29 na. na. 1,399 56230 - 59 na. na. 4,790 2,18560 or older na. na. 2,608 1,248All adults na. na. 19,309 8,935

Notes:1. Prior to 1998 only asked of female respondents.2. Source 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2001 (type A- replica sample. See glossary of terms for full explanation of ‘type A’) BCS.

Excludes don’t knows.3. ‘na.’ Indicates that the question was not asked in that particular sweep.

Table B11 Unweighted N for worry about household crime, by age and health2000

Worried or not worried about: Burglary Theft of car Theft from carFair/good/very good health 18,219 14,353 13,56316 - 29 3,026 2,372 190130 - 59 9,786 8,570 8,38960 or older 5,402 3,403 3,265

Bad/very bad health 1,148 600 55316 - 29 55 29 2230 - 59 424 282 27060 or older 668 288 260

Note:1. Source 2000 BCS.2. Respondents were asked ‘how good is your health in general’ very good, good, fair, bad or very bad.

Table B12 Unweighted N for worry about personal crime, by age and health 2000Worried or not worried about: Mugging Physical attack Racial attack Rape Being insulted

or pesteredFair/good/very good health 18,155 18,169 16,427 16,893 18,15116 - 29 3,018 3,015 2,760 2,857 3,01530 - 59 9,774 9,768 8,879 9,112 9,77460 or older 5,352 5,375 4,778 4,913 5,351

Bad/very bad health 1,132 1,142 1,011 1,024 1,12516 - 29 55 55 51 53 5530 - 59 423 423 380 391 42460 or older 653 663 579 579 645

Note:1. Source 2000 BCS.2. See note 2 to table B11.

57

Appendix C: Additional tables on crimeprevention

1. Security DevicesTable C1 Percentage of households with household security devices by age of

head of householdPercentage 1996 2000 2001 type ABurglar alarm16 - 29 18 19 2430 - 59 24 29 2960 or older 16 22 27All households 21 26 28Unweighted N 7,967 4,800 1,030

Double locks/deadlocks in one or more doors16 - 29 65 65 7730 - 59 71 75 7960 or older 70 78 77All households 70 75 78Unweighted N 7,956 4,791 1,021

Window locks in one or more windows16 - 29 63 59 7630 - 59 71 77 8260 or older 67 77 77All households 69 75 80Unweighted N 7,968 4,801 1,030

Chains16 - 29 na. 41 4230 - 59 na. 46 3560 or older na. 54 48All households na. 48 40Unweighted N na. 4,801 1,031

Security lights (external)16 - 29 na. 28 3930 - 59 na. 43 4460 or older na. 40 44All households na. 40 43Unweighted N na. 4,802 1,031

Security lights (internal)16 - 29 na. 15 1430 - 59 na. 25 2560 or older na. 29 30All households na. 25 26Unweighted N na. 4,801 1,031


58

Percentage 1996 2000 2001 type ABars or grilles in all or some of the windows3

16 - 29 9 7 930 - 59 8 6 860 or older 10 7 5All households 9 7 7Unweighted N 7,969 4,801 1,030

Notes:1. Source 1996, 2000 and 2001 (type A- replica sample. See glossary of terms for full explanation of ‘type A’) BCS.2. “na” indicates question was not present in that year’s sweep.3. Please note that for the question on ‘bars or grilles in all or some of the windows’ the age subgroups percentages may

not be very reliable as the base numbers are very small given that only 9 to 7% of all adults have them.

Table C2 Percentage of households with vehicle security devices by age ofhead of household

Percentage 1996 2000 2001 type ACentral locking16 - 29 40 67 5930 - 59 53 68 7360 or older 45 63 69All households 50 67 70Unweighted N 5,504 3,641 879

Car alarm16 - 29 39 48 4630 - 59 41 52 5260 or older 32 42 45All households 38 49 50Unweighted N 5,503 3,636 872

Mechanical immobiliser16 - 29 na. 38 4630 - 59 na. 40 4360 or older na. 42 47All households 3 na. 40 45Unweighted N na. 3,579 869

Electronic immobiliser16 - 29 na. 44 4930 - 59 na. 46 5160 or older na. 42 50All households na. 45 50Unweighted N na. 3,503 849

Notes:1. Source 1996, 2000 and 2001 (type A- replica sample. See glossary of terms for full explanation of ‘type A’) BCS.2. Vehicle owners only.3. In 1996 BCS question was not broken down into mechanical or electronic.

Appendix C

59

Table C3 Percentage of people with personal security devices by respondents’ agePercentage 1998 2001 type ACarrying a weapon16 - 29 13 1030 - 59 9 560 or older 12 7All adults 11 6Unweighted N 6,462 1,028Note:1. Source 1998 and 2001 (type A- replica sample. See glossary of terms for full explanation of ‘type A’) BCS.

Table C4 People that carry personal security devises only: type of personalsecurity devices by age group 1998

Whistle/alarm 2

16 - 29 1830 - 59 1760 or older 11All adults 16Unweighted N 105

Spray/mace/CS gas16 - 29 830 - 59 560 or older 4All adults 6Unweighted N 42

Keys16 - 29 3430 - 59 2260 or older 7All adults 21Unweighted N 160

Knife or sharp object16 - 29 1230 - 59 1060 or older 3All adults 9Unweighted N 70


60

Other16 - 29 2830 - 59 4560 or older 74All adults 48Unweighted N 335Notes:1. Source 1998 BCS.2. Based on those that do carry personal security devices only.3. Note that some of the percentages for the age groups may not be very reliable, as the base numbers are very small.

Table C5 Percentage of people who have done a self-defence coursePercentage 1998 2001 type ASelf-defence course16 - 29 20 2730 - 59 11 1460 or older 6 5All adults 11 13Unweighted N 7,395 1,219Note:1. Source 1998 and 2001 (type A- replica sample. See glossary of terms for full explanation of ‘type A’) BCS.

61

Appendix D: Additional tables on attitudestowards the Police and CriminalJustice System

1. Attitudes

Table D1 Attitudes to the Criminal Justice System: How good a job do you thinkeach of these groups of people are doing?

Percentage Excellent/good job Victim3 Non-victim Total

Police16 - 29 45 51 4830 - 59 51 55 5360 or older 53 58 57All adults 49 55 53

Crown Prosecution Service16 - 29 26 25 2630 - 59 19 23 2260 or older 22 23 23All adults 22 23 23

Judges16 - 29 24 25 2430 - 59 16 20 1860 or older 25 24 24All adults 20 22 21

Magistrates16 - 29 27 26 2730 - 59 22 27 2560 or older 29 29 29All adults 24 27 26


62

Percentage Excellent/good job Victim Non-victim Total

Prisons16 - 29 27 31 2930 - 59 29 31 3060 or older 29 33 32All adults 29 32 31

Probation services16 - 29 24 26 2530 - 59 20 23 2260 or older 24 26 26All adults 22 24 23

Juvenile courts16 - 29 13 15 1430 - 59 9 11 1060 or older 14 13 13All adults 11 12 12

Notes:1. Source 2000 BCS. Excludes don’t knows.2. Questions measured in a 5-point scale: Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Very poor.3. Please note that the validity of the results by victims and non-victims are undermined because the BCS asks whether a

respondent has been a victim in the last year. This effectively means that respondents that have been a victim of a crimetwo or three years ago will not be classified as a victim.

Table D2 Do you think that judges are generally in touch or out of touch with whatordinary people think?

Percentage Victim Non–victim Total

In touch16 - 29 25 28 2630 - 59 18 20 1960 or older 19 18 18All adults 20 20 20

A bit out of touch16 - 29 43 47 4530 - 59 35 38 3660 or older 32 39 38All adults 37 40 39

Very out of touch16 - 29 31 26 2930 - 59 47 42 4460 or older 49 43 44All adults 43 40 41

Notes:1. Source 2000 BCS. Excludes don’t knows.2. See note to Table D1.

Appendix D

63

Table D3 Do you think that magistrates are generally in touch or out of touch withwhat ordinary people think?

Percentage Victim Non-victim Total

In touch16 - 29 38 40 3930 - 59 35 40 3860 or older 34 38 37All adults 36 39 38

A bit out of touch16 - 29 44 48 4630 - 59 43 41 4260 or older 39 41 41All adults 43 42 42

Very out of touch16 - 29 17 13 1530 - 59 22 19 2160 or older 27 21 22All adults 22 19 20


Table D4 How well do you think witnesses are treated by the police?How well do you think witnesses are treated by the courts?

Percentage very/fairly well Victim Non-victim Total

By police16 - 29 85 85 8530 - 59 82 84 8360 or older 76 79 78All adults 82 83 82

By courts16 - 29 77 78 7730 - 59 75 78 7760 or older 77 81 81All adults 76 79 78

Notes:1. Source 2000 BCS. Excludes don’t knows.2. Questions measured in a 4-point scale: Very well, Fairly well, Not very well, Not at all well.3. By witnesses it is meant people who see a crime occurring or have any information about a crime, including the victims.4. See note to Table D1.


64

Table D5 Would you say that sentences handed down by the courts are too tough,about right, or too lenient?


Much too tough16 - 29 1 1 130 - 59 1 1 160 or older 2 1 1All adults 1 1 1

A little too tough16 - 29 2 2 230 - 59 2 2 260 or older 1 1 1All adults 2 2 2

About right16 - 29 25 26 2630 - 59 18 20 1960 or older 13 14 14All adults 19 19 19

A little too lenient16 - 29 34 35 3430 - 59 26 30 2960 or older 24 29 28All adults 28 31 30

Much too lenient16 - 29 38 37 3730 - 59 54 48 5060 or older 61 55 56All adults 51 48 49


Appendix D

65

Table D6 Would you say that the way the police and courts deal with youngoffenders, that is people aged 10 to 17, is too tough, too lenient or aboutright?


Much too tough16 - 29 1 >1 130 - 59 1 1 160 or older >1 >1 >1All adults 1 1 1

A little too tough16 - 29 2 3 330 - 59 2 2 260 or older 2 1 1All adults 2 2 2

About right16 - 29 24 29 2730 - 59 19 23 2160 or older 20 25 24All adults 20 25 23

A little too lenient16 - 29 34 36 3530 - 59 31 36 3460 or older 29 35 33All adults 31 35 34

Much too lenient16 - 29 39 31 3530 - 59 49 39 4360 or older 49 40 42All adults 46 38 41



66

Table D7 Thinking about the Criminal Justice System as a whole, that is, thepolice, courts, prison and probation services, please choose a phrasefrom this card to show how confident you are that it…

Percentage Very/fairlyconfident

Victim Non-victim Total

…is effective in bringing people who commit crimes to justice16 - 29 45 53 4930 – 59 38 48 4360 or older 46 50 49All adults 41 49 46

…meets the needs of victims of crime16 - 29 38 37 3830 - 59 23 22 2260 or older 24 24 24All adults 27 25 26

…respects the right of people accused of committing a crime and treats them fairly16 - 29 68 68 6830 - 59 68 70 6960 or older 72 70 70All adults 68 70 69

…deals with cases promptly and efficiently16 - 29 39 42 4030 - 59 32 32 3260 or older 33 33 33All adults 34 34 34

Notes:1. Source 2000 BCS. Excludes don’t knows.2. Questions measured in a 4-point scale: Very confident, Fairly confident, Not very confident, Not at all confident.3. See note to Table D1.

Appendix D

67

2. Unweighted N tables

Table D8 Attitudes to the Criminal Justice System: How good a job you think eachof these groups of people are doing?

Unweighted N Victim Non-victim Total

Police16 - 29 772 743 151530 - 59 2,032 3,025 505760 or older 594 2,414 3008All adults 3,403 6,184 9,587

Crown Prosecution Service16 - 29 724 713 1,43730 - 59 1,925 2,818 4,74360 or older 527 2,130 2,657All adults 3,179 5,662 8,841

Judges16 - 29 745 728 1,47330 - 59 1,999 2,965 4,96460 or older 572 2,334 2,906All adults 3,321 6,029 9,350

Magistrates16 - 29 742 716 1,45830 - 59 1,994 2,957 4,95160 or older 576 2,331 2,907All adults 3,317 6,006 9,323

Prisons16 - 29 732 721 1,45330 - 59 1,945 2,906 4,85160 or older 543 2,171 2,714All adults 3,224 5,800 9,024

Probation services16 - 29 685 691 1,37630 - 59 1,812 2,732 4,54460 or older 508 2,022 2,530All adults 3,008 5,446 8,454

Juvenile courts16 - 29 712 700 1,41230 - 59 1,864 2,777 4,64160 or older 533 2,139 2,672All adults 3,113 5,617 8,730

Note:1. See notes to Table D1.


68

Table 9 Do you think that judges are generally in touch or out of touch with whatordinary people think?


16 - 29 740 709 1,44930 - 59 1,984 2,935 4,91960 or older 582 2,333 2,915All adults 3,311 5,979 9,290


Table D10 Do you think that magistrates are generally in touch or out of touch withwhat ordinary people think?


16 – 29 729 699 1,42830 – 59 1,988 2,926 4,91460 or older 582 2,308 2,890All adults 3,304 5,934 9,238


Table D11 How well do you think witnesses are treated by the police?How well do you think witnesses are treated by the courts?


By police16 - 29 710 701 1,41130 - 59 1,842 2,719 4,56160 or older 493 1,991 2,484All adults 3,050 5,412 8,462

By courts16 - 29 694 697 1,39130 - 59 1,787 2,698 4,48560 or older 486 1,975 2,461All adults 2,971 5,371 8,342


Table D12 Would you say that sentences handed down by the courts are too tough,about right, or too lenient?




Appendix D

69

Table D13 Would you say that the way the police and courts deal with youngoffenders, that is people aged 10 to 17, is too tough, too lenient or aboutright?




Table D14 Thinking about the Criminal Justice System as whole, that is, the police,courts, prison and probation services, please choose a phrase from thiscard to show how confident you are that it…


…is effective in bringing people who commit crimes to justice16 - 29 767 736 1,50330 - 59 2,026 3,013 5,03960 or older 594 2,383 2,977All adults 3,392 6,134 9,526

…meets the needs of victims of crime16 - 29 764 728 1,49230 - 59 2,005 2,990 4,99560 or older 577 2,333 2,910All adults 3,350 6,053 9,403

…respects the right of people accused of committing a crime and treats them fairly16 - 29 753 729 1,48230 - 59 1,978 2,944 4,92260 or older 558 2,272 2,830All adults 3,294 5,947 9,241

…deals with cases promptly and efficiently16 - 29 747 722 1,46930 - 59 1,978 2,951 4,92960 or older 560 2,284 2,844All adults 3,290 5,959 9,249



70

71

Glossary of termsACORN – (‘A Classification of Residential Neighbourhoods’) classifies households according tothe demographic, employment and housing characteristics of the surrounding neighbourhood.ACORN was developed by CACI Ltd., through the use of cluster analysis of variables from the1991 Census. ACORN is most useful in determining the social environment in which householdsare located. Although there are a total of 54 ACORN types, the 17-group breakdown has beenused in this report (the 17 groups are constructed from the 54 types). Data from the 1998 and2000 British Crime Surveys (BCS) has been combined, to ensure a large enough sample size toprovide reliable results. (Further information about ACORN is available from CACI Ltd., CACIHouse, Kensington Village, Avonmore Road, London W14 8TS.)

Assaults – These offences include the offences of common assault and wounding (see alsocommon assault and wounding).

Attempted burglary – Burglary where there is clear evidence that the offender made a physicalattempt to gain entry to the property, but was unsuccessful.

Attempted vehicle theft – See vehicle-related thefts.

Burglary – The BCS definition of burglary is based on the broad legal definition which involvesany incident in which someone enters, or tries to enter, a dwelling as a trespasser with theintention of committing theft, rape, grievous bodily harm or unlawful damage. Burglary does notnecessarily involve forced entry; it may be through an open window, or by entering the propertyunder false-pretences (e.g., impersonating a meter reader). The dwelling is a house, flat or anyconnected outhouse or garage. Common areas (e.g., hallways) are also included if usuallysecure. See also: attempted burglary and burglary with entry.

Burglary with entry – This comprises burglary where a house was successfully entered,regardless of whether something was stolen or not.

Common assault – An assault (or attempted assault) where the victim was punched, kicked,pushed or jostled but the incident did not result in an injury, or the injury was negligible (e.g., ablack eye). The victim is unlikely to have required any medical attention (see also assaults).

Comparable subset of crimes – 77 per cent of BCS offences fall into categories which can becompared with crimes recorded under the new police coverage of offences adopted from 1April 1998. The new comparable subset includes common assaults (and assaults on aconstable), and vehicle interference and tampering. As with the old comparable subset, the newcomparable subset is used to observe differences between police and BCS figures. However, itcannot be used to compare trends prior to 1999. Details regarding adjustments to the newcomparable subset are provided in Kershaw et al., 2001, Appendix C.

Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) – The mode of interview changed in the 1994BCS from a paper-based questionnaire to CAPI, whereby the interviewer enters responses to thequestionnaire into a laptop computer. The questionnaire is a computer program that specifies thequestions, range and structure of permissible answers and routing instructions. CAPI alsofacilitates a self-completion component within the BCS, for respondents under 60, to answerquestions on self-reported drug use and other topics. The laptop enables respondents to read


72

questions on the computer screen and key in their own responses in private. The results of theself-completion components are not covered in this bulletin.

Confidence interval – Also called margin of error. The range of values between which thepopulation parameter is estimated to lie. Surveys produce statistics, which are estimates of thereal figure for the population under study. These estimates are always surrounded by a marginon error of plus or minus a given range. A 95 per cent confidence interval is the range withinwhich one would expect the true value to lie one out of every 20 times solely due to chancevariation; a 90 per cent confidence interval relates to a one in ten chance of the true value lyingoutside the range. Confidence intervals can also be constructed for changes in estimatesbetween BCS sweeps. If a change is outside a range set by a 95 per cent confidence intervalthen one judges the change to be ‘statistically significant at the 5 per cent level’; if a change isoutside a 90 per cent confidence interval it is ‘statistically significant at the 10 per cent level’. Inthis bulletin a 10 per cent per cent significance level has been applied. See also the definition ofstatistical significance.

Criminal damage – This is mainly referred to in the report as vandalism. See also: vandalism;vandalism to other property and vehicle vandalism.

Household crimes – For household offences, all members of the household can be regarded asvictims, so the respondent answers on behalf of the whole household. The offence categoriesconcerned are: bicycle theft; burglary; theft in a dwelling; other household theft; thefts of and fromvehicles, and vandalism to household property and vehicles.

Incidence rates – The number of crimes experienced per household or adult in the survey. Seealso prevalence rates.

Old comparable subset of crimes – 62 per cent of BCS offences fall into categories which havebeen used, for BCS sweeps up to and including the 1998 sweep, to make comparisons withpolice figures. This excludes common assaults, ‘other household theft’ and ‘other theft ofpersonal property’. Various adjustments are made to the recorded crime categories to maximisecomparability with the BCS. Comparable crime is used to compare trends in police and BCSfigures, and to identify the amount of crime that is not reported to the police and not recorded bythem. Trends for ‘old comparable’ police recorded crime have been extended to cover the lasttwo sweeps of the survey by applying adjustments to take account of changes in police countingrules.

Old methodology sample – The sample reported on in this bulletin. This has been drawn usingthe methodology applied for previous BCS sweeps (see Type A interviews and recall period)

Other theft of personal property – A BCS offence category referring to theft of personalproperty away from the home (e.g., handbags from offices), where there was no direct contactbetween the offender and victim. Only the respondent can be the victim of this crime category.

Personal crimes – For personal offences, the respondent reports only on his/her experience tothe BCS. This applies to the following offence categories: assault, sexual offences, robbery, theftfrom the person, and other personal theft. Information is also collected on threats, though notreported in this bulletin as few meet the criteria of an offence.

Postcode Address File (PAF) – This has been used as the sampling frame for the BCS since1992. It is a listing of all postal delivery points in the country, with almost all households having

Glossary of terms

73

one delivery point or letterbox. BCS sampling methods take account of the fact that a deliverypoint may correspond to more than one household such as a house with one front door,converted into flats.

Prevalence rates – Prevalence rates show the percentage of the BCS sample who were victimsof an offence once or more during the year. Unlike incidence rates they take no account of thenumber of victimisations experienced.

Recall period – This is the time over which respondents are asked to report offences they hadexperienced. For the results reported (relating to Type A interviews), the recall period wasbetween the 1st January 2000 and the date of the interview. Most interviews took place betweenJanuary and April 2001. Only those incidents occurring in 2000 are counted when computingannual rates. Other information about victims and their experiences is usually derived fromincidents occurring during the full recall period. Under the new arrangements for continuoussampling, the BCS is moving to a recall period relating to the previous 12 months (Type Binterviews).

Repeat victimisation – The recurrence of the same crime against those who have already beenvictimised once in the year.

Robbery – Incidents in which force or the threat of force is used either during or immediatelyprior to a theft or attempted theft.

Sample – The results presented here related to a different BCS sample. In all of the samplesused in this publication the respondents were interviewed following the same methodology as forprevious BCS sweeps. After appropriate weighting, both a representative cross-section of privatehouseholds in England and Wales and of individuals aged 16 and over living in privatehouseholds. During 2001 it is planned that close to 41,500 BCS interviews be undertaken,including an additional ethnic boost of 3,000 and a youth boost of 1,500 respondents aged 16 to24 (both boosts being used for increasing the precision of analyses for these groups).

Sampling error – A sample is a small-scale representation of the population from which it isdrawn. As such, the sample may produce estimates which differ from the figures which wouldhave been obtained if the whole population had been interviewed. The size of the error – whichdepends on the sample size, the size of the estimate, and the design of the survey – can becomputed and be used to contract confidence intervals. The error is also taken into account intests of statistical significance. Sampling error is to be distinguished from confidence interval(or margin of error). Sampling error does not include biases that are sometimes unknown to theresearcher and therefore impossible to measure, such as, non-response bias, selection bias orbiasing effects due to seasonal variations.

Snatch theft – Incidents where force was used just to snatch property away from the victim andthe victim was clearly aware of the incident as it happened. See also stealth thefts, which arethefts from the person in which the victim was not aware of what was happening.

Statistical significance – Because the BCS estimates are subject to sampling error, changesin estimates between sweeps of the survey may occur by chance. Tests of statistical significanceare used to identify which changes are unlikely to have occurred by chance. In this bulletin a 10per cent significance level has been applied (the level at which there is a one in ten chance ofincorrectly identifying a difference solely due to chance variation).


74

Stealth theft – Thefts from the person which involve no force and where – unlike snatch theft –the victim was not aware of what was happening at the time.

Theft from vehicles – See vehicle-related thefts.

Theft of vehicles – See vehicle-related thefts.

2001 Type A and Type B interviews – Close to half interviews conducted in the first six monthsof 2001 were Type A interviews and the remainder were Type B. Type A interviews used the oldBCS methodology and the traditional recall period, while Type B were part of the newcontinuous sampling design. For Type B interviews the new recall period relates to the previous12 months and respondents are further assisted in determining the date of any incident by theuse of a calendar. This report does not use Type B interviews for the analysis.

Urban areas – All ACORN types which are not classified as rural or inner-city.

Vandalism – Intentional and malicious damage to household property and vehicles – equated tothe recorded crime category of criminal damage. Vandalism ranges from arson to graffiti. Caseswhere there is nuisance only (e.g., letting down car tyres) are not included. Where criminaldamage occurs in combination with burglary, robbery or violent offences, these take precedencein offence coding.

Vandalism to other property – This comprises vandalism to the home and other property. Itinvolves intentional or malicious damage to, for example, doors, windows, fences, plants andshrubs etc. It also includes incidents involving arson. See also: vehicle vandalism andvandalism.

Vehicles – Unless otherwise specified, these cover cars, vans, motorcycles, scooters, mopedsetc., either owned or regularly used by anyone in the household, including company cars.Vehicles used solely for business purposes such as lorries or work vans, however, are excluded.See also vehicle-related thefts below.

Vehicle-related thefts – These cover three categories: (i) theft or unauthorised taking of avehicle (where the vehicle is driven away illegally, whether or not it is recovered), (ii) theft frommotor vehicles (i.e. theft of parts, accessories and contents) and (iii) attempts. No distinction ismade between attempted thefts of and attempted thefts from motor vehicles, as it is often verydifficult to ascertain the offender’s intention. If parts or contents are stolen as well as the vehiclebeing moved, the incident is classified as theft of a motor vehicle.

Vehicle vandalism – This includes any intentional and malicious damage to a vehicle such asscratching a coin down the side of a car, or denting a car roof. It does not, however, includecausing deliberate damage to a car by fire. These incidents are recorded as arson and thereforeincluded in vandalism to other property.

Weighted data – Raw data from the survey is adjusted in various ways at the data processingstage to correct for imbalances introduced in sampling and by the design of the interview.

Wounding – A category of comparable violence that includes serious ‘wounding’ involvingintentionally inflicted severe injuries, and ‘other wounding’, involving less serious injury or severeinjuries inflicted unintentionally.

75

ReferencesBrown, R. and Sallybanks, J. (1999) Vehicle crime reduction: Turning a corner. Police Researchseries paper 119. London: Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate.

Budd, T. (1999). Burglary: Practice Messages from the British Crime Survey. Home Office BriefingNote No. 5/01. London: Home Office.

Cabinet Office (2000) All Our Futures: Report of the Better Government for Older PeopleProgramme. http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/servicefirst/1998/op/newop.htm

Car Theft Index (1999) London: Home Office.

Clarke, R., Ekblom, P., Hough, M. and Mayhew, P. (1985). Elderly victims of crime and exposure torisk. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 81-89.

DSS (2000). Opportunity for all: one year on, making a difference. The Stationery Office.

Gubrium, J. F. (1974). Victimisation in old age: available evidence and three hypotheses. Crime andDelinquency, 20, 245-250.

Hough, M. and Mayhew, P. (1983). The British Crime Survey: first report. Home Office ResearchStudy No. 76. London: HMSO.

Hough, M. and Roberts, J. (1998). Attitudes to Punishment: Findings from the British Crime Survey.Home Office Research Study No. 179. London: Home Office.

Hough, M. (1995). Anxiety about Crime: findings from the 1994 British Crime Survey. Home OfficeResearch Study No. 147. London: Home Office.

Kershaw, C., Budd, T., Kinshott, G., Mattinson, J., Mayhew, P. and Myhill, A. (2000). The 2000British Crime Survey. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 18/00. London: Home Office.

Kershaw, C., Chivite-Mathews, N., Thomas, C. and Aust, R. (2001). The 2001 British Crime Survey,first results, England and Wales. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 18/01. London: Home Office.

Mattinson, J., and Mirrlees-Black, C. (2000). Attitudes to Crime and Criminal Justice: Findings fromthe 1998 British Crime Survey. Home Office Research Study No. 200. London: Home Office.

Mayhew, P., Aye Maung, N. and Mirrlees-Black, C. (1993). The 1992 British Crime Survey. HomeOffice Research Study No. 132. London: HMSO.

Midwinter, E (1990). The old order: crime and older people. Centre for Policy on Ageing.

Mirrlees-Black, C., Mayhew, P. and Percy, A. (1996). The 1996 British Crime Survey. Home OfficeStatistical Bulletin 19/96. London: Home Office.

Mirrlees-Black, C., Budd, T., Partridge, S. and Mayhew, P. (1998). The 1998 British Crime Survey.Home Office Statistical Bulletin 21/98. London: Home Office.

Mirrlees-Black, C (2001). Confidence in the criminal justice system: findings from the 2000 BritishCrime Survey. Research Findings No. 137. Home Office Research, Development and StatisticsDirectorate. Crown copyright.

Research, Development and Statistics Directorate mission statement

RDS is part of the Home Office. The Home Office’s purpose is to build a safe, just and tolerant

society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are

properly balanced and the protection and security of the public are maintained.

RDS is also a part of the Government Statistical Service (GSS). One of the GSS aims is to inform

Parliament and the citizen about the state of the nation and provide a window on the work and

performance of government, allowing the impact of government policies and actions to be

assessed.

Therefore –

Research, Development and Statistics Directorate exists to improve policy making,decision taking and practice in support of the Home Office purpose and aims, to providethe public and Parliament with information necessary for informed debate and to publishinformation for future use.

crime, policing and justice: the experience of older...

Documents