Victimisation of the elderly in the municipalities of Ljubljana and Uppsala

Abstract

The paper starts by reviewing key studies of victimisation of the elderly and continues by presenting a comparison of some types of victimisation of the elderly in the municipalities of Uppsala (Sweden) and Ljubljana (Slovenia). A randomly chosen sample of women and men over 65 years of age was invited to take part in the survey by receiving a questionnaire by post. The response rate was almost 40% (n = 635) in Ljubljana and almost 71% (n = 1,059) in Uppsala. The results show that the elderly are predominantly victims of property crime in both municipalities. However, the prevalence of victimisation among the elderly over 65 years of age in Ljubljana is higher with respect to harassment, threats, theft and fraud in comparison to Uppsala’s elderly. Even though strangers are the most common offenders in both municipalities, adult children are the second most frequent perpetrators, but only in Ljubljana. The study gives an interesting insight into the similarities/differences between the two municipalities and is also the first study targeting the elderly in Slovenia.

Keywords

Elderly crime victimisation municipality of Ljubljana municipality of Uppsala

As the elderly population in the world grows, higher victimisation rates in this age group are expected. However, victimological studies that focus solely on elderly victimisation and its characteristics are still scarce. In Sweden a few studies focusing on some aspects of elderly victimisation have been carried out (Giannini et al., 2013), meanwhile in Slovenia such research is nearly nonexistent (Pavšič Mrevlje, 2014). This paper’s aim is to present our study as an important contribution to the field of elderly victimisation in Slovenia and Sweden and, moreover, offer some insight into the similarities and differences in the data obtained.

Victimology and victimisation of the elderly

There is no single definition of the age at which an individual is regarded as elderly. Primarily, the boundary is set at the age of retirement; therefore, in most developed countries the chronological age of 65 is used. The same is true for Slovenia and Sweden. However, caution should be exercised in doing so, as the population over 65 is far from homogeneous and is formed by various sub-groups not only with respect to age, but also in terms of health status, lifestyle (such as single, living with their family or in an institution) and income (Fattah and Sacco, 1989).

With the growing population of older people, the number of elderly victims of crime is increasing proportionally. Data from the Slovene police show that the percentage of elderly victims of crime compared to other age groups is increasing (Klančnik and Pavšič Mrevlje, 2013). However, what does the victimisation of the elderly mean? The definitions are far from uniform. Moreover, the most common term found in the literature is elder abuse, which is usually defined as the execution (for example, physical violence, financial abuse, fraud) and/or omission of certain acts (such as neglect, failure to provide medicine and food) by the person who takes care of the welfare of the elderly person (Karmen, 2010). Abuse certainly includes deviant behaviour and crime, but often has an even wider meaning: it encompasses behaviour that violates the norms of social behaviour, but not necessarily the criminal law (Goergen and Beaulieu, 2010). In this paper we will use the narrower definition of victimisation: criminal victimisation. However, in line with Fattah and Sacco (1989) we are aware that the elderly are not victims only because of crime, but other social experiences as well, and therefore other kinds of elderly exploitation cannot be ignored.

Detection of victimisation of the elderly

Data on elderly victims of crime may be obtained from statistics amassed by the social services and police, or from victimisation surveys. One of the first obstacles when comparing victimisation data appears with the definition of victimisation, since it affects the method of measurement and the possibility of comparing data (Bachman and Meloy, 2008; Payne, 2011). Moreover, data from various sources carry other shortcomings. Police statistics cover only reported cases and the same applies to the social services. However, victims do not turn to relevant institutions for a variety of reasons: their fear of further victimisation and/or retaliation; shame; fear that they will not be believed; and that the attitude of police officers or other employees will be inadequate or that their case is simply irrelevant (e.g. Felson and Paré, 2005; Felson et al., 2002; Fisher et al., 2003; Thompson et al., 2007; van Dijk, 2001). An important factor contributing to (non) reporting of crime to the police is the victim’s perceptions and attitudes towards the police, which are themselves influenced by the victim’s previous experience in reporting victimisation (Boateng, 2016).

The results from various studies are not uniform, as some suggest that the elderly do not differ from other age groups in the proportion of unreported crimes (Vaillancourt, 2009), while others suggest that older people are more likely to report violent incidents of crime (Chivite-Matthews and Maggs, 2002; Klaus, 2000). The fact remains that a large percentage of crime remains unreported. In Canada, it is estimated that about half of elder victimisation is unreported (Ogrodnik, 2007), while over a third of cases are allegedly unreported in Ireland (Naughton et al., 2010). In the United States, some findings suggest that at least 90% of victimisation remains unidentified (Lifespan of Greater Rochester Inc., 2011).

Studies of victimisation of the elderly also carry some limitations: relatives, carers and institutions can block access to the elderly. In addition, the elderly may also be reluctant to talk about their personal affairs (Hayman, 2011). Research data can also (unintentionally) exclude cases in which the person does not know that he or she is the victim or denies this fact due to shame or fear (Payne, 2011). Besides, methodological problems can be caused by the health status of older persons, who are not able to fill in questionnaires due to poor vision, hearing or understanding; issues of an ethical nature also emerge as questions regarding victimisation may increase fear of crime in the elderly (Payne, 2011). Additional reasons why the elderly may not wish to disclose their situation (to the police, social services or researchers) may also include a sense of personal responsibility (e.g. for bringing up children who are abusers), fear of retaliation from the perpetrator and potential consequences of the report (e.g. the victim will then be forced to live in a nursing home), and, finally, the fact that they continue to love their children even though they abuse them (Acierno, 2003). By using an appropriate approach (e.g. survey, interview), which: (a) accurately describes the criminal behaviour; (b) uses clear and closed questions; and (c) includes questions about the perpetrator, one may undoubtedly obtain relevant information not only from younger populations but also from the elderly (Acierno et al., 2003).

Victimisation rates and vulnerability of the elderly

Similarly to all other groups in society, elderly people are subjected to various kinds of physical, psychological, sexual and financial crimes. However, studies on the victimisation of the elderly share a common observation that older people fall victim to crime less often than other age groups (Brennan, 2012; Chivite-Matthews and Maggs, 2002; Klaus, 2000; Ogrodnik, 2007). The situation is different when the elderly are discussed in the context of vulnerable adult populations (in addition to, for example, persons with disabilities). In this case, according to American experience, people over 80 years of age are the most frequent victims of abuse (30.9%), followed by a group between 70 and 79 years of age (26.4%) and the group between 60 and 69 years of age (15.1%; Teaster et al., 2007). Perhaps the elderly form the most vulnerable population in this context because of the more frequent overlap of cognitive impairment and functional limitations.

Fattah (1993) identifies possible factors influencing the low criminal victimisation of the elderly. The suggestions are that the elderly are less attractive, less accessible, and less exposed targets in comparison with the rest of the population. Additionally, they are capable guardians who spend most of their time at home and are less involved in illegal and deviant activities. Besides, as a protective factor Fattah also highlights the high fear of crime among the elderly: high level of fear leads people to avoidant and defensive behaviours and consequently to reduced exposure to risk of victimisation.

On the other hand, it is important to emphasise specific contextual factors that contribute to the vulnerability of the elderly. Loneliness and isolation are certainly manifestations of dependency and vulnerability (as indicators of social wellbeing, reflected also in psychophysical health) that may lead to a higher risk for victimisation (Dong et al., 2007). Moreover, some elderly people are less mentally alert, more trusting of people (especially of relatives and professionals like doctors and lawyers) and perhaps more tolerant, having more time for potential profitable actions (Smith, 1999) and consequently are more vulnerable particularly in the context of financial fraud.

Frequency and types of victimisation of the elderly

Extensive studies on the victimisation of the elderly were carried out in Canada, the United States, Korea and in some European countries (Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Germany, Portugal, Spain and Sweden) (e.g. Ogrodnik, 2007; Oh et al., 2006; Soares et al., 2010; Teaster et al., 2007). Despite slightly different methodological approaches and aims of the research studies, most included the population of 65 years and older and focused on the prevalence of psychological (emotional), physical and sexual victimisation, while some also included financial victimisation.

In the United States, older people fall victim especially during the day, at their home or in its immediate vicinity. In comparison with other age groups, they are disproportionately more likely to be victims of property crime (Klaus, 2000). The opposite is true for older people in Canada who are victims of theft of property much less frequently than younger people (Ogrodnik, 2007).

The most common forms of victimisation of older people between countries differ slightly. In a survey of European countries, the elderly are particularly victims of psychological (19.4%; mostly in Germany and Sweden), followed by financial (3.8%; most often in Portugal and Spain), physical (2.7%; most often in Sweden and Lithuania) and sexual abuse (0.7%; mostly in Greece and Portugal) (Soares et al., 2010). The elderly in Ireland mainly suffer from financial (1.3%) and psychological abuse (1.2%), but are more rarely subjected to physical abuse (0.5%), neglect (0.3%) and sexual abuse (0.05%) (Naughton et al., 2010). Similarly, American data suggest that the elderly are by far the most common victims of financial abuse (e.g. theft, deception to obtain money or valuables; 4.2%), followed by physical and sexual abuse (2.2%), neglect (1.8%) and emotional abuse (1.6%) (Lifespan of Greater Rochester Inc., 2011). The Korean elderly are most often victims of emotional (4.2%) and financial abuse (4.1%) (Oh et al., 2006).

Consumer fraud victimisation is a form of financial crime that has become increasingly common (Reisig and Holtfreter, 2013). Studies show that older persons are less likely than persons in younger age groups to become victims of consumer fraud, however, it is one of the largest categories of crime they experience (e.g. AARP Foundation, 2003; Carcach et al., 2001).

In Slovenia, a survey focusing specifically on the victimisation of the elderly has not yet been conducted. As far as can be deduced from the data obtained from the International Survey of Crime Act 1997, persons between 66 and 75 years of age are (when compared with other age groups) the least likely to be multiply victimised (8.4%), as well as the least likely victims of personal theft (5.7%) and physical violence (7.8%) (Pavlović, 1999). Data on violence against the elderly are also available from social services: the elderly (65 years of age or older) constituted 6.5% of all victims of domestic violence in 2010 (Stop Violence Against Elderly Women, 2009). These studies represent merely a rough outline of the victimisation of the elderly in Slovenia. Their findings present many limitations; for instance, they were not adapted to the specifics of elderly victimisation (e.g. including a more accurate insight into some types of victimisation) and had an (upper) age limit of participants. In addition to the aforementioned data, statistical data from the Slovene police are also available. They show that the elderly are the least likely to be victimised of all age groups and that they are most often victims of property crime (over 80%), followed by crimes against human rights and freedoms and financial crime (both around 5%), and offences against life (almost 3%) (Klančnik and Pavšič Mrevlje, 2013).

Swedish research into the elderly victims of crime regarding statistical victimological data has been scarce for a long time. In fact, official crime statistics do not include age variables and it is therefore impossible to determine the characteristics of victims from specific age groups. Moreover, the Swedish Crime Survey set the upper age limit at 79 years of age and thus excluded a large population of the elderly. One of the first studies in the field of elderly victims of crime, entitled ‘Violence Against Elderly Women and Men’, was a prevalence study in the Umeå municipality, which was aimed at obtaining data about the prevalence of violence against elderly people (Eriksson, 2001). It was carried out in 2000 and targeted people aged between 65 and 80 residing in the Umeå municipality. Questionnaires were sent to 1,502 randomly selected persons. The questions were designed to assess the prevalence of neglect, threats and harassment, physical violence, sexual harassment, sexual violence and financial crimes against the elderly. The study showed that at least 16% of women and 13% of men had suffered some form of violence or abuse after the age of 65. The most common type of crime was neglect (19% for women and 13% for men). A considerable difference between the genders was found in sexual harassment: 5.2% of women and 0.2% of men reported having been subjected to such abuse, which was found in other studies as well (e.g. Swedish Crime Survey, 2013). A study entitled ‘The Last Sweet Years’ aimed to identify the prevalence of violence against the disabled and elderly in the districts of Tynnered and Lundby in the Gothenburg municipality (Kristensen and Risbeck, 2004). The study found that a large proportion of the 590 participants who needed some form of assistance or home health care in the near past, had experienced violence. Approximately 30% of women and 24% of men reported that they were victims of violence after the age of 65. One of the latest studies in the field, entitled ‘Molested’, explored the experience of violence among 3,400 Gotlanders (Kristensen, 2013). Results show that more than 15% of respondents experienced some type of violence, that is, physical, financial, sexual and psychological violence, or were neglected after the age of 65. It is worth noting that only about one in ten people had reported the crime to the police.

Perpetrators of crimes against the elderly

The most common perpetrators of crimes against the elderly are people who are trusted and depended on by the elderly, such as family members or care workers. However, the elderly are also victimised by offenders unknown to them, as they fall victims to various kinds of theft and fraud in their homes and in public places.

Studies in the US, Ireland and Canada show that the elderly who are not cognitively impaired and still live at home are most often victims of their adult children, partners (spouses) and other family members (over 40%) (Lifespan of Greater Rochester Inc., 2011; Naughton et al., 2010; Ogrodnik, 2007; Teaster et al., 2007). Furthermore, Krienert et al. (2009) found that in comparison to older women, older men are more often victims of crimes committed by acquaintances and strangers, while older women are more often victims of their partners (spouses) and children. Similarly, the latest research data on financial abuse of the elderly in Florida and Arizona (Holtfreter et al., 2014) show that the elderly are most often victimised by their own children (50% of the criminal offences related to signature falsification) and somewhat less frequently by other relatives (almost 30%), while about a quarter of offences are committed by strangers. American studies show that perpetrators/offenders are most often middle-aged (between 41 and 59), which is consistent with the fact that the elderly are mostly victims of their children and people on whom they depend for care (Tatara et al., 1998).

Victimisation of the elderly in Ljubljana and Uppsala: aim and purpose of the research

The main aim of the present study is to identify and compare the prevalence and incidence of elder victimisation in Uppsala and Ljubljana. Primarily, the municipality of Uppsala was interested in an estimation of elderly victimisation and Ljubljana with the size of its population offers a good ground for comparison. In addition, in both municipalities, a study about the victimisation of the elderly has not yet been carried out. In fact, such studies have never been conducted in Slovenia. Furthermore, the study aimed to identify the nature of victimisation, its perpetrators and the place of crime. The proportion of non-reported crime and reasons for it were also explored.

Method

Participants and procedure

In 2013, the Ljubljana municipality had 282,741 inhabitants, of whom 17.61% were elderly; at the end of the same year, the Uppsala municipality had 205,199 inhabitants with 17.9% being elderly. The participants for the study were selected from the population of 65 years of age and over, not including those living in nursing homes or other care facilities. Mental disabilities were not screened.

Paper questionnaires were sent by post with a cover letter briefly explaining the purpose of the study. A return stamped and addressed envelope was also included. Approximately three weeks later, reminders were sent inviting those who had not yet returned their questionnaires to do so. Since the questionnaires were returned anonymously, reminders were sent to all addressees.

A total of 1,500 questionnaires were sent in Uppsala (randomly selected 750 women and 750 men) in the spring of 2013, whereas in Ljubljana 1,600 questionnaires were sent (systematic randomised sampling¹ of 800 women and 800 men) in the autumn of 2013. The response rate in Ljubljana was 39.69% (n = 635), while in Uppsala it amounted to 70.60% (n = 1,059).

Final samples included 49.5% female (50.5% male) respondents in Ljubljana and 50.4% female (49.6% male) respondents in Uppsala. Participants’ average age was 74.75 (standard deviation (SD) = 7.22) in Ljubljana and 74.03 (SD = 0.23) in Uppsala. The differences between the two samples were not statistically significant with respect to gender and age.

There are no differences between the groups regarding living with spouses/partners. However, more of the elderly from Uppsala live alone while more of the elderly from Ljubljana share the household with their children (Table 1). Ljubljana’s elderly assess their health as slightly worse², however, the difference in terms of participants that needed medical assistance or help with everyday care in the last year was not significant (Table 1). The majority of participants filled in the questionnaire by themselves (Ljubljana = 75.4%; Uppsala = 82.3%), some with their partners/spouses (Ljubljana = 17.5%; Uppsala = 13.0%), children (Ljubljana = 5.3%; Uppsala = 2.4%) and others (Ljubljana = 1.8%; Uppsala = 2.4%).

Table 1.

Basic living conditions of the elderly in Ljubljana and Uppsala.

		Ljubljana	Uppsala
Living alone	%	27.30	36.5
	df	1
	χ²	14.95
	p	0.00
Living with partner	%	57.80	60.80
	df	1
	χ²	1.53
	p	0.218
Living with child	%	21.30	2.60
	df	1
	χ²	159.24
	p	0.00
Current health	M	3.62	3.95
	SD	0.77	0.77
	df	1326.29
	t	–8.21
	p	0.00
Required medical assistance or with everyday care	%	21.20	20.80
	df	1
	χ²	0.03%
	p	0.85

Data were analysed by using SPSS for Windows (version 19.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) and applying descriptive statistics, chi-square test of goodness-of-fit, and Pearson’s chi-square test.

The questionnaire

A questionnaire, which was used to identify crime against the elderly, was devised by a non-governmental organisation Tryggare Sverige (Safer Sweden). It was translated into Slovene by a translating agency and the authors reviewed the translation.

For the purpose of this paper, only certain parts of the questionnaire were analysed. The first part regarded general demographic data (age, sex, residence and health). The second identified the prevalence of specific offences from the age of 65 onwards (harassment, threats, physical and sexual violence, theft and fraud). The third part of the questionnaire focused on the incidence of these offences (i.e. did they occur in the last year) and the identification of the location and perpetrator of the crime. The last part of the questionnaire was used to collect information about reporting the crime to the police and reasons for deciding not to report a crime. The questionnaire ends with a brief presentation of a non-governmental organisation working with victims of crime and its contact information.

Most questions gave respondents the possibility of selecting multiple answers. The Likert scale was used only for the question about health (1 – very poor; 5 – very good).

In order to avoid misinterpretations, each type of victimisation was defined as follows:

Harassment: This may include undesirable visits, phone calls, messaging, stalking and similar. It could even include insulting or preventing you from participating in activities you wish to attend.

Threats: This may include, for example, someone threatening to harm you or your loved ones. Threats may be direct or covert, imposed in person or by telephone or through other means of communication.

Physical violence: This may include, for example, somebody hitting, kicking, pushing or choking you or being physically violent to you in any other way by hurting you.

Sexual violence: This may include, for example, somebody sexually harassing or assaulting you or forcing you into having sex. This applies to both serious and less serious events, which may occur at home or elsewhere.

Theft or damage to property: This may include, for example, somebody stealing your bicycle, jewellery, wallet or anything else, or somebody damaging or destroying your property.

Fraud: This may include, for example, somebody deceiving you to get your money or other valuables. This applies to minor and more serious crimes.

Results

In Ljubljana and Uppsala, the most common crime committed against the elderly was theft (Table 2). Participants from Ljubljana were more frequently victims of crime in comparison to Uppsala’s elderly, with the exception of physical and sexual violence. In the past year, however, Ljubljana’s elderly were significantly more often victims of only one crime, that is, theft.

Table 2.

Elderly victims of crime: prevalence and incidence.

	Over 65 years of age					In the last year
	Ljubljana	Uppsala	df	χ²	p	Ljubljana	Uppsala	df	χ²	p
Theft	15.87%	6.84%	1	34.99	0.00	11.70%	4.9%	1	26.315	0.00
Fraud	4.13%	1.33%	1	13.27	0.00	3.3%	2.5%	1	1.078	0.30
Threats	3.17%	0.38%	1	21.88	0.00	1.9%	1.0%	1	2.16	0.19
Harassment	2.38%	0.38%	1	14.12	0.00	2.2%	1.6%	1	0.801	0.37
Physical violence	0.95%	0.38%	1	2.18	0.14	0.50%	0.60%			1^a
Sexual violence	0.00%	0.10%			1^a	0.00%	0.20%			0.53^a

^aFisher’s exact test.

Due to low frequencies in identifying the perpetrator and place of crime in the last year, it is not possible to make statistical comparisons in Table 3 ³. In three types of crime (harassment, physical violence and theft), strangers were the most common perpetrators. Similarly, threats were most commonly carried out by ‘others’. Answers that specified this group of perpetrators can be qualified as acquaintances (e.g. neighbours, and people offering various services (computer help)). It is interesting, however, that the second most common perpetrators of harassment, threats and physical violence in Ljubljana were the victim’s children, whereas according to data collected in Uppsala, children were very rarely or never perpetrators of such crimes. Additionally, a difference in fraud may also be observed: Ljubljana elderly responded that this was mainly committed by acquaintances (response ‘other’), followed by strangers, while in Uppsala, the data were reversed, since the elderly reported they were mostly deceived by strangers and only then by acquaintances.

Table 3.

Offenders and place of crime in elderly victimisation cases in the last year (number of cases).

	Harassment		Threat		Physical violence		Theft		Fraud
	Upp	Lju	Upp	Lju	Upp	Lju	Upp	Lju	Upp	Lju
Offender
Partner	–	–	1	–	–	–	–	–	1	–
Ex-partner	1	1	1	–	–	–	1	–	–	–
Children	–	3	1	4	–	2	–	1	–	–
Relative	2	–	–	2	–	–	1	1	1	1
Personnel	–	–	–	–	–	–	1	–	1	–
Stranger	5	8	4	2	4	2	45	67	16	8
Other	3	2	5	5	2	–	3	5	4	12
Place of crime
At home	7	12	3	7	1	2	13	26	12	1
Other person’s home	1	–	1	–	–	–	–	1	–	–
Public transport	1	–	1	–	1	–	6	5	–	–
Public place	4	3	–	3	–	1	10	28	1	1
Hospital	1	–	1	–	1	–	–	–	1	–
Other	–	–	2	2	–	–	12	17	6	6

Upp = Uppsala; Lju = Ljubljana.

Our data show that the victim’s home prevails as the place of crime in both groups of participants (harassment, threat, physical violence and fraud). In Uppsala, it was also the most frequent place for theft, whereas Ljubljana’s elderly were most often victims of theft in public places.

Among the participants who were victimised in the last year the proportion of those who reported the crime was higher in Ljubljana (n = 50; 18.6%) than in Uppsala (n = 47; 6.3%; χ² (1)= 34.53; p = 0.00).

A chi-square test of goodness-of-fit was performed to determine whether the major reasons for non-reporting in each municipality were equally distributed. The results are strongly significant and demonstrate that the reasons for non-reporting of crime are not unevenly distributed by chance. In Ljubljana, the feeling that a crime report is pointless is the prominent reason for non-reporting, while in Uppsala, the main reason for non-reporting lies in the fact that the police were called by somebody else, followed by the feeling of pointlessness (Table 4).

Table 4.

Major reasons for non-reporting in Ljubljana and Uppsala.

	Observed N	Expected N	Residual	df	χ²
Ljubljana
Pointless	25	9.8	15.3	3	33.92**
Banality	7	9.8	−2.8
Scared of revenge	1	9.8	−8.8
Family matter	6	9.8	−3.8
Total	39
Uppsala
Somebody else did	83	25.8	57.2
Pointless	27	25.8	1.2	4	176.39**
Banality	16	25.8	−9.8
Scared of revenge	2	25.8	−23.8
Family matter	1	25.8	−24.8
Total	129

**p < 0.001.

Discussion

Victimisation of the elderly has only been recognised as a societal issue for a few decades. However, even though there is more and more interest in elderly victims of crime, the population over 65 years of age remains marginalised. Even Stephanie Hayman (2011), who analyses the victimisation of the elderly in Canada (i.e. one of the most progressive countries in this field), writes that it is alarming how invisible the elderly are in criminological literature and research, which leads to scarce knowledge about this specific population. This paper presents a comparison of prevalence data of elderly victimisation in the municipalities of Uppsala (Sweden) and Ljubljana (Slovenia). To the best of our knowledge, this is also the first research focusing specifically on the elderly population in Slovenia.

The groups of the elderly which have been compared do not differ by age or gender. However, fewer participants from Ljubljana lived alone in comparison to the participants living in Uppsala, which, among other reasons, most likely occurs due to the fact that they shared their household with their adult children much more often. In Slovenia, household sharing or living in the same house was frequently the most economical solution to housing issues.

Data on the prevalence of victimisation among the elderly over 65 years of age show that the elderly were most often victims of theft of personal property in both Ljubljana and Uppsala, which is congruent with the victimological data (irrespective of age) in Europe (Aebi et al., 2014). However, Ljubljana’s elderly were victims of harassment, threats, theft and fraud more often in comparison to Uppsala’s elderly. On the other hand, data about crime in the past 12 months show that in the past year the difference in victimisation was significant only with respect to theft – Ljubljana’s elderly being victims more often. Due to the lack of victimisation studies in Slovenia, it is difficult to clearly understand whether these differences are a characteristic of the elderly victims of crime or whether victimological rates are higher in Slovenia in comparison to Sweden. The only available data from the International Crime Victim Survey from 1996, which also include Slovenia, show that the percentage of different types of crime in Slovenia is only slightly higher than in Sweden (Pavlović, 1998). Nonetheless, Slovenia was strongly affected by the world’s economic situation and this might offer an explanation for higher rates of theft experienced by Ljubljana’s elderly. Contrary to the available data (e.g. Lifespan of Greater Rochester Inc., 2011; Naughton et al., 2010; Ogrodnik, 2007; Teaster et al., 2007) in which family members, especially adult children, are found to be the most frequent offenders, the present study reveals that strangers are the perpetrators of most crimes against the elderly (harassment, physical violence and theft) in both municipalities. One of the main reasons for such a discrepancy is the broader range of victimisation types included in our research, especially including theft of personal property. Nonetheless, while acquaintances are the second most frequent offenders in Uppsala, these are victims’ children in Ljubljana. It is important to remember, that a far greater number of Ljubljana’s elderly share their household with their children, which creates more opportunities and situations to be victimised by them. In fact, the mutual dependence between the elderly and the offender – the former depending on the help of others, and the latter financially dependent on the elderly, which puts him or her in an emotionally inferior position – is one of the factors that may result in the victimisation of the elderly (Pillemer and Suitor, 1988).

The elderly in Uppsala and Ljubljana are most vulnerable at home. Even though they might still lead a very active life, the elderly spend more time at home in comparison to other age groups. These findings are also consistent with other studies (e.g. Klaus, 2000; Teaster et al., 2007).

In the present study, the authors wished to determine the proportion of crimes not reported to the police and identify the reasons for not reporting. Past studies estimate that at least half of the elderly victimisation cases are not reported (Lifespan of Greater Rochester Inc., 2011; Naughton et al., 2010; Ogrodnik, 2007). Our data support these findings, as reporting to the police was very low (18.6% in Ljubljana and 6.3% in Uppsala). The difference between the two participant groups is considerable, but taking into account that in Uppsala the main reason for non-reporting was the fact that somebody else did, the proportion of unreported cases becomes smaller. Therefore, the reasons for non-reporting remain in particular the pointlessness of reporting and the banality of the crime, which shows that the participant elderly are no different from other age groups (Kääriäinen and Sirén, 2011). A suggestion for further research is to include items identifying previous experience with the police as it is known that perceptions and attitudes toward police influence crime reporting (Boateng, 2016).

When trying to understand the results of the study, it is important to be aware of its limitations. First, the sampling excluded persons who live in nursing homes or other care facilities and this must be taken into account as the elderly who need constant care might be suffering from victimisation of a different kind and scale. Secondly, gathering data by sending questionnaires by post is relatively common for economic reasons, but in these cases the response rate is often low and the reasons for not responding are not provided; even though the final sample is large, the response rate in Ljubljana (39.69%) was lower than in Uppsala (70.60%). With this in mind, questions about the population that did not respond – including the most vulnerable – arise.

The findings of this study do not only provide an insight into the victimisation of the elderly in Uppsala and Ljubljana, but also offer suggestions for prevention in this field. Particularly because the elderly do not perceive certain acts as criminal or as important enough to be reported to the police, raising awareness among the elderly about crime remains very important. Furthermore, awareness raising should also be directed towards the importance of crime reporting – by emphasising that reporting does not only represent the possibility of, for instance, reacquiring misappropriated objects, but also facilitates the identification of the offender in conjunction with other similar offences and enables preventive work. On the other hand, there should be slightly different approaches in the two municipalities; in Ljubljana, there should be more emphasis on sensitising the population about family members and acquaintances being possible perpetrators. By informing the younger generations, the elderly can be helped in victimising situations that they themselves either have difficulty in recognising as such or are not reported for a variety of reasons, such as shame, guilt, and fear; moreover, witnesses of elderly victimisation who reacted in Uppsala (e.g. by calling the police), seemed to be passive in Ljubljana and perhaps unaware of the criminal circumstances.

As the population of the elderly is one of the fastest growing population groups in many countries, it is clear that more research is needed to better prevent their victimisation. Furthermore, additional research would also contribute to more efficient policing of this specific but heterogeneous population.

Footnotes

Notes

References

AARP Foundation (2003) Off the hook: Reducing Participation in Telemarketing Fraud. Accessed at http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/consume/d17812_fraud.pdf

Acierno

(2003) Elder mistreatment: epidemiological assessment methodology. In: Bonnie

Wallace

(eds) Elder Mistreatment: Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation in an Aging America. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, pp.261–302.

Acierno

Resnik

Kilpatric

. (2003) Assessing elder victimization: demonstration of a methodology. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 38(11): 644−653.

Aebi

Akdeniz

Barclay

. (2014) European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics 2014. The Hague, The Netherlands: Boom.

Bachman

Meloy

(2008) The epidemiology of violence against the elderly: implications for primary and secondary prevention. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 24(2): 186–197.

Boateng

(2016) Crime reporting behavior: do attitudes toward the police matter? Journal of Interpersonal Violence. DOI: 10.1177/0886260516632356.

Brennan

(2012) Victimization of Older Canadians, 2009. Ottawa: Minister responsible for Statistics Canada. Accessed at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11627-eng.htm

Carcach

Graycar

Muscat

(2001) The Victimization of Older Australians. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Accessed at http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi212.pdf

Chivite-Matthews

Maggs

(2002) Crime, policing and justice: The experience of older people. Findings from the British Crime Survey, England and Wales. London, UK: Information and Publications Group. Accessed at http://library.college.police.uk/docs/hostatbull/hosb0802.pdf

10.

Dong

Simon

Gorbien

. (2007) Loneliness in older Chinese adults: a risk factor for elder mistreatment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 55(11): 1831–1835.

11.

Eriksson

(2001) Ofrid? Våld mot Äldre Kvinnor och män – En Omfångsundersökning i Umeå Kommun. Umeå, Sweden: Åströms tryckeri AB.

12.

Fattah

(1993) Victimisation and Fear of Crime among the Elderly: A Possible Link. Paper Presented at Crime and Older People Conference 23–24 February 1993. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Accessed at http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/conferences/olderpeople/fattah.pdf

13.

Fattah

Sacco

(1989) Crime and Victimization of the Elderly. New York, NY: Springer.

14.

Felson

Messner

Hoskin

. (2002) Reasons for reporting and not reporting domestic violence to the police. Criminology 40(3): 617–648.

15.

Felson

Paré

(2005) The reporting of domestic violence and sexual assault by nonstrangers to the police. Journal of Marriage and Family 67(3): 597–610.

16.

Fisher

Daigle

Cullen

. (2003) Reporting sexual victimization to the police and others results from a national-level study of college women. Criminal Justice and Behavior 30(1): 6–38.

17.

Giannini

Baralla

Cordellieri

. (eds) (2013) ACCESS Project. Against Crime: Care for Elders Support and Security. CDRom. Rome: ACCESS Project.

18.

Goergen

Beaulieu

(2010) Criminological theory and elder abuse research: fruitful relationship or worlds apart? Ageing International 35(3): 185–201.

19.

Hayman

(2011) Older people in Canada: their victimization and fear of crime. Canadian Journal on Aging 30(3): 423–436.

20.

Holtfreter

Reisig

Mears

. (2014) Financial Exploitation of the Elderly in a Consumer Context. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Accessed at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/245388.pdf

21.

Kääriäinen

Sirén

(2011) Trust in the police, generalized trust and reporting crime. European Journal of Criminology 8(1): 65–81.

22.

Karmen

(2010) Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

23.

Klančnik

Pavšič Mrevlje

(2013) Kriminaliteta nad starejšimi in izhodišča za varno staranje v Sloveniji. Varstvoslovje 15(3): 385–397.

24.

Klaus

(2000) Crimes Against Persons Age 65 or Older, 1992–97. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Accessed at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpa6502.pdf

25.

Krienert

Walsh

Turner

(2009) Elderly in America: a descriptive study of elder abuse examining national incident-based reporting system (NIBRS) data, 2000–2005. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect 21(4): 325–345.

26.

Kristensen

(2013) Ofredad - om våld och övergrepp mot äldre personer. Visby: Region Gotland.

27.

Kristensen

Risbeck

(2004) De Sista Ljuva Åren – Om Utsatthet och Erfarenheter av Våld hos Personal och Vårdtagare Inom Hemtjänsten. Göteborg, Sweden: Rondo Grafisk Kommunikation AB.

28.

Lifespan of Greater Rochester Inc. (2011) Under the Radar: New York State Elder Abuse Prevalence Study. New York, NY: New York State Coalition on Elder Abuse. Accessed at http://nyselderabuse.org/prevalence-study.html

29.

Naughton

Drennan

Treacy

. (2010) Abuse and Neglect of Older People in Ireland: Report on the National Study of Elder Abuse and Neglect. Dublin, Ireland: National Centre for the Protection of Older People. Accessed at http://www.ncpop.ie/userfiles/file/Prevalence%20study%20summary%20report.pdf

30.

Ogrodnik

(2007) Seniors as Victims of Crime: 2004 and 2005. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Accessed at http://seniorspolicylens.ca/Root/Materials/Seniors%20as%20Victims%20of%20Crime%202007.pdf

31.

Kim

Martins

. (2006) A study of elder abuse in Korea. International Journal of Nursing Studies 43(2): 203–214.

32.

Payne

(2011) Crime and Elder Abuse: An Integrated Perspective. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

33.

Pavlović

(1998) International Crime Victimization Survey: Slovenia (Ljubljana) 1992–1997. Journal of Criminal Investigation and Criminology 49(3): 57–265.

34.

Pavlović

(1999) International Crime Victimization Survey: Slovenia (Ljubljana) 1992–1997 (part 3). Journal of Criminal Investigation and Criminology 50(2): 122–130.

35.

Pavšič Mrevlje

(2014) Victimization of the elderly in the municipality of Ljubljana. Journal of Criminal Investigation and Criminology 65(2): 96–107.

36.

Pillemer

Suitor

(1988) Elder abuse. In: van Hasselt

Morrison

Bellack

. (eds) Handbook of Family Violence. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media, pp.247–270.

37.

Reisig

Holtfreter

(2013) Shopping fraud victimization among the elderly. Journal of Financial Crime 20(3): 324–337.

38.

Smith

(1999) Fraud and financial abuse of older persons. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 11(3): 273–291.

39.

Soares

JFF

Barros

Torres-Gonzales

. (2010) Abuse and Health Among Elderly in Europe. Kaunas, Lithuania: Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Press.

40.

Stop Violence Against Elderly Women (2009) Analysis and Discussion on the Subject of Violence Against Elderly Women: Final Report. Accessed at http://www.zdus-zveza.si/docs/STOP%20VI.E.W/766_Porocilo_nasilje_nad_starejsimi_zenskami.pdf

41.

Swedish Crime Survey (2013) Victimization, Fear of Crime and Public Confidence in the Criminal Justice System. Stockholm, Sweden: The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.

42.

Tatara

Kuzmeskus

Duckhorn

. (1998) National Elder Abuse Incidence Study: Final Report. Washington, DC: National Center on Elder Abuse, American Public Human Services Association. Accessed at http://aoa.gov/AoA_Programs/Elder_Rights/Elder_Abuse/docs/ABuseReport_Full.pdf

43.

Teaster

Dugar

Mendiondo

. (2007) The 2004 Survey of State Adult Protective Services: Abuse of Vulnerable Adults 18 Years of Age and older. Washington, DC: National Center on Elder Abuse. Accessed at https://ncea.acl.gov/resources/docs/archive/2004-Survey-St-Audit-APS-Abuse-18plus-2007.pdf

44.

Thompson

Sitterle

Clay

. (2007) Reasons for not reporting victimizations to the police: do they vary for physical and sexual incidents? Journal of American College Health 55(5): 277–282.

45.

Vaillancourt

(2009) Fact sheet: police-reported family violence against older adults. In: Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile. Ottawa, Canada: Statistics Canada. Accessed at http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=85-224-X&CHROPG=1&

46.

van Dijk

(2001) Attitudes of victims and repeat victims toward the police: results of the International Crime Victims Survey. Crime Prevention Studies 12(1): 27–52.