🔍💡 Feeling of insecurity in priority neighbourhoods: significant social and gender inequalities that go far beyond mere issues of delinquency.🚶♀️🏙 More than one in four residents of QPV feel unsafe in their neighbourhood, with increased exposure for women, those aged 30–39, and unemployed individuals
Sommaire
🔴🔑AU COEUR DU SUJET : Résumé analytique, Points clés à retenir, Pistes d’action pour les acteurs, Références complémentaires
➕🛠️ RESSOURCES ADDITIONNELLES : Analyse transversale, Questions à choix multiples, Foire aux questions, Facile À Lire et à Comprendre
Source : 📒 Sentiment d’insécurité exprimé par les habitants des quartiers prioritaires de la politique de la ville 📜🔗LIEN
Analytical Summary
Context and stakes
This study analyses the feeling of insecurity reported by residents of France’s Priority Urban Policy Neighbourhoods (QPV) using data from the 2021 “Living Environment and Security” (CVS) victimisation survey. It systematically compares residents of QPVs with those living in surrounding urban areas and in other neighbourhoods outside QPVs. The survey covers 20,000 adults aged 18–74, including a specific subsample of 1,693 residents of QPVs, adjusted by INSEE to ensure geographical representativeness. The analysis focuses on feelings of insecurity both at home and in the neighbourhood, by gender, age, household structure, education level, employment status and place of birth. The report stresses that comparisons between 2018 and 2021 must be treated with caution because of methodological changes (face‑to‑face vs. telephone survey) and the end of the CVS series after 2021. The main issue is to characterise a socially stratified perception, more frequent in QPVs and overlapping with profiles already strongly exposed to insults, threats and discrimination.
Operational contributions
The study provides precise rates of perceived insecurity by residential location: 29.4% of QPV residents feel unsafe in their neighbourhood versus 15.2% in surrounding urban units and 9.1% outside QPVs. It documents sharp gaps between men and women, the specific situation of women living alone in QPVs, people aged 30–39 and the unemployed, identified as priority groups for prevention and public safety actions. Tables and multivariate logistic regression help to rank factors associated with feelings of insecurity, showing that, all else equal, living in a QPV more than quadruples the probability of feeling unsafe in one’s neighbourhood. The report provides an operational definition of “feeling of insecurity” (“often” or “from time to time” feeling unsafe) and a detailed description of the survey design, making the indicators easy to reuse in local diagnostics. For practitioners, it is a national reference to interpret local perceptions, justify priority setting and advocate for tailored interventions by population group.
Key Points of the Document
Just under one third of QPV residents report feeling unsafe in their neighbourhood (29.4%), compared with 15.2% in surrounding urban areas and 9.1% outside QPVs, while feelings of insecurity at home are lower but still more frequent in QPVs (p. 6).
Between 2018 and 2021, feelings of insecurity appear broadly stable at home and only slightly higher in the neighbourhood (+3 percentage points in QPVs, +2 in surrounding urban areas), but these changes must be interpreted cautiously due to survey redesign (p. 7).
Gender, age, household type and place of birth matter: women, women living alone, people aged 30–39 and some groups born abroad show particularly high levels of perceived insecurity, especially in QPVs (p. 8–10).
In QPVs, perceived neighbourhood insecurity is higher among the most educated residents, while unemployed people stand out with elevated levels of insecurity both at home and in their neighbourhood (p. 10).
Logistic regression confirms that, for similar socio‑demographic and socio‑economic profiles, living in a QPV significantly increases the likelihood of reporting insecurity (odds ratio 4.2 for neighbourhood and 2.0 for home), and that women are almost twice as likely as men to feel unsafe (p. 11).
Actionable Directions for Local Stakeholders
Local authorities, housing providers and prevention teams can prioritise women—especially women living alone—and adults aged 30–39 in QPVs by developing safe discussion spaces, women’s safety walks and proximity mediation schemes (p. 8–10).
Integrated safety diagnostics should systematically combine objective victimisation data and subjective perceptions, using the report’s operational definition and location‑based indicators to sharpen territorial priorities (p. 5–7).
Employment and mental health services can include questions on feelings of insecurity in their support to unemployed and precarious residents, and coordinate with public safety and mediation services to address psychosocial impacts (p. 10–11).
Urban policy teams can draw on the regression results to document, in local contracts and programmes, the specific effect of living in a QPV and to advocate intersectoral policies combining security, urban planning, social animation and anti‑discrimination measures (p. 11–13).