Criminology Research Council grant ; (20/85)
The study used structured interviews with households in two inner city Brisbane suburbs: 475 interviews in Paddington and 118 in Spring Hill, a sample of approximately 17 per cent of total dwellings. Private hotels and boarding houses were excluded.
The study sought perceptions of crime amongst residents, in order to compare the two suburbs with each other and Spring Hill with the 1980 survey. Both suburbs are undergoing 'gentrification', but only Spring Hill has been subject to major local authority town planning initiatives. Actual victimisation of household members over the previous twelve months was also identified, and reasons for incidents not being reported to the police were pursued. Respondents were asked about the Queensland Police Department's security advice service.
Respondents did not think their suburbs had high crime rates. People in Spring Hill felt the crime rate there had dropped in the last five years. This supports theories of the relationship between environmental 'cues' and crime perception; but respondents felt the changing social status of the suburbs had had a direct effect on crime. Direct action by police and local agencies was not felt to have greatly influenced the level of crime. Respondents felt there was now more crime against property than previously. It was not possible to compare actual with perceived rates there; but in Paddington the actual crime rates were somewhat ambivalent - rates had fluctuated more from year to year than from the start to the end of the five year period. Few people had seriously considered moving because of crime.
Police actions with high visibility (car and foot patrols particularly) and neighbourhood watch schemes were supported. There was general concern about the involvement of children in crime; and commonly a relationship between (particularly youth) unemployment and crime was identified.
Just over one third of the households had been victims of crime in the twelve months preceding the survey. The most common crimes were nuisance calls, theft, and breaking and entering. The average reporting rate was 25 per cent, but the rate fluctuated considerably according to the type of incident; motor vehicle theft, and breaking and entering were most often reported, nuisance calls the least. The main reasons given for non-reporting were that the value of the goods or the hope of recovery was too small, that punishment of the offenders was not appropriate given the 'trivial' nature of the offence or the youth of the (suspected) offenders, or that the police were already busy enough. Some respondents had had discouraging previous experience with the police.
About 35 per cent were aware of the Queensland Police Department's security inspection service, and about 30 per cent were interested in having an inspection of their dwelling carried out. Those who did not want one felt the current level of security of their dwelling was adequate, but there was also a fatalistic acceptance that break-ins would occur no matter what was done.
Overall, the study revealed two inner city suburbs without overwhelming crime problems but nonetheless still affected and still concerned. There were a number of useful pointers to actions by police, other public authorities and the community in reducing crime.