Search This Blog

Tuesday, 15 June 2010

The interesting case of Home Office Crime Type 1

I have discussed the index of multiple deprivation in a previous post. The conclusion was that the crime element did not fit with incivility theories because it did not positively correlation with the multiple indices. This why I find this slide exciting. It shows two LSOAs in the borough of Camden that are next to each other. It just so happens that one - 858 is the second most deprived in Camden and 962 is the fourth least deprived. In the scatter graph this is plotted with y axis showing the ranking of LSOA in the Borough of Camden - 1 is the most deprived, 133 the least. The x axis shows the ranking of number of victims (of crime that occurred anywhere in London but mainly in Camden Borough) of Home Office Type 1 crimes (primary violence related crimes) living in each LSOA with the LSOA with the most victims having rank 1 and the least rank 133.

The slide above shows graphs where the victims living in the top twenty ranked LSOAs (group1) for victimisation of Home Office Crime Type 1 crimes are compared with the other 113 LSOA (group 2). It can be seen the that the age, gender and ethnicity distributions are similar. This suggests it is the lifestyle that is aligned to measures of deprivation that are responsible for this variation.

Predictably, if you have read my previous posts, burglary has no similar correlation. If fact the less deprived area of the two LSOAs highlighted has more burglary victims than the more deprived.

No comments:

Post a Comment