09 May 2013
Chapter 1: Property Crime - Overview
Coverage: England and Wales
Date: 09 May 2013
Geographical Area: Local Authority and County
Theme: Crime and Justice
Summary
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Property crime covers a range of criminal activities where the aim is to acquire property by illegal
means or to cause damage to property. It includes offences of burglary, vehicle-related thefts,
robbery and other personal thefts, fraud, and vandalism.
Property crime is an important driver of overall crime, accounting for 72% of all police recorded
offences and 81% of all incidents measured by the Crime Survey for England and Wales. The
2012 Commercial Victimisation Survey showed that the vast majority of crimes against selected
business sectors were property related (91%) and that 67% were incidents of theft experienced
by the wholesale and retail sector.
The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) shows substantial falls in property crime,
with levels having fallen by half since they peaked in the mid-1990s. These were driven by large
reductions in high volume crimes such as vandalism, vehicle-related theft and burglary. While
these high volume crime types continue to show falls, in contrast recent trends show increases in
the lower volume personal theft offences such as theft from the person recorded by the police.
The 2011/12 CSEW also indicates a change in the types of items stolen. Mobile phones were the
most commonly stolen item in incidents of theft from the person, where previously (based on the
2010/11 CSEW) purses, wallets and cash were most commonly stolen in this type of incident.
Computers were the most commonly stolen items in burglaries according to the 2011/12 CSEW.
Previously (based on the 2010/11 CSEW), purses, wallets and cash were most commonly stolen
in incidents of burglary.
Recent increases in personal theft offences may reflect a range of factors including thieves
focusing on high cost portable items such as mobile phones or tablet computers which are
difficult to secure against theft and increasingly widely used.
Improvements in vehicle security are thought to have been a major contributor to the steep falls
in vehicle-related theft. The number of cars stolen by the forcing of door locks has decreased
from 65% of vehicles stolen in 1995 to 22% in 2011/12. A significantly higher proportion of
vehicles were stolen in 2011/12 by the offender using a key (46%) compared with 1995 (9%) and
2010/11 (26%).
Bicycle theft also saw some notable reductions from peak levels in the mid 1990s. However,
increases in bicycle theft were seen between the 2002/03 and 2006/07 surveys, after which
levels have fluctuated year to year, while other property crime types continued to decline.
Office for National Statistics | 1
09 May 2013
•
•
•
Trends over the last 3 to 4 years show increases in some types of theft offences including theft
from the person, other theft of personal property and other household theft measured by the
CSEW and theft from the person and theft of unattended property recorded by the police.
Characteristics that contributed most to explaining the likelihood of victimisation varied by
property crime type. For example, for both vehicle-related theft and theft from the person,
younger adults were more likely to have been victims. The characteristic that contributed most
to explaining the likelihood of being a victim of burglary was the level of home security; those
households with less security measures in place were more likely to fall victim. Households in
urban areas were also more likely to be victims of burglary than those in rural areas.
The profile of burglary victims has remained broadly similar over time and the reduction in the
rate of burglary victimisation from 1995 to 2011/12 can be seen across different demographic
groups.
Overview of property crime
Introduction
Property crime is defined as incidents where individuals, households or corporate bodies are
deprived of their property by illegal means or where their property is damaged. It includes offences
of burglary, offences against vehicles, theft offences, fraud, forgery and criminal damage. For the
1
purposes of this report, robbery is also included as a property crime.
This ‘Focus on: Property crime’ release presents crime statistics from three different sources: the
Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW, previously known as the British Crime Survey), police
recorded crime and the 2012 Commercial Victimisation Survey (CVS).
Police recorded crime includes notifiable offences that have been reported to and recorded by
the police. The CSEW covers crimes against the population of England and Wales resident
in households, and crimes against those households, but does not include crimes against the
commercial or business sector or the population who are not resident in households such as
tourists or visitors. In 2009 the CSEW was extended to cover children aged 10 to 15, and, where
appropriate, data are included for this age group. The CVS is a nationally representative sample of
business premises in four sectors (manufacturing, wholesale and retail, transportation and storage
and accommodation and food).
Property crime accounted for 72% of all police recorded crime (an estimated 2,871,000 offences) in
2011/12 and 81% of all crime measured by the 2011/12 CSEW (an estimated 7,730,000 incidents).
Of the crimes measured by the 2012 CVS, 91% (an estimated 8,365,000 offences) were property
related (see Crime against businesses: headline findings from the 2012 Commercial Victimisation
Survey for more information). The consistently high proportion of crime accounted for by property
crime measured by the Crime Survey for England and Wales since 1981 and the police since
2002/03 means that these types of crimes, in particular the high volume crimes such as vehiclerelated theft, vandalism and burglary, are important in driving overall crime trends.
The largest component of property crime in the 2011/12 CSEW was vandalism (26%). There were
similar proportions of ‘other’ household theft (theft outside a dwelling and theft in a dwelling by
Office for National Statistics | 2
09 May 2013
someone entitled to be there; 18%), vehicle-related theft (16%) and ‘other’ theft of personal property
(theft of unattended property; 14%). For a full breakdown of CSEW property crime, see Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1: Composition of CSEW property crime, 2011/12
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
2. The population, offence coverage and volume of offences differs between police recorded crime and the CSEW and
so Figures 1.1 and 1.2 are not directly comparable.
Download chart
XLS format
(34 Kb)
Burglary and offences against vehicles together make up approximately a third of all police recorded
property crime (17% and 15% respectively). The category of other theft offences, which includes
offences such as theft from the person, shoplifting, bicycle theft and theft of unattended items
accounted for 38% of police recorded crime. For a full breakdown of police recorded property crime,
see Figure 1.2.
Office for National Statistics | 3
09 May 2013
Figure 1.2: Composition of police recorded property crime, 2011/12
Notes:
1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office.
2. The population, offence coverage and volume of offences differs between police recorded crime and the CSEW and
so Figures 1.1 and 1.2 are not directly comparable.
Download chart
XLS format
(20.5 Kb)
Trends in CSEW property crime
The CSEW covers crimes against households and people in those households in England and
Wales. It comprises a narrower range of offences included in the police recorded crime collection
(with necessary exclusions from its main count of crime, for example, crimes against businesses),
but reported volumes are higher as the survey is able to capture all offences experienced by those
interviewed, not just those that have been reported to, and subsequently recorded by, the police.
The long-term trend in CSEW property crime is consistent with the long-term trend in total CSEW
crime, having shown steady increases from 1981 when the survey started, peaking in 1995, followed
by steady declines since that peak. Levels observed in the 2011/12 CSEW have fallen by half
Office for National Statistics | 4
09 May 2013
since 1995 (Figure 1.3). This trend is consistent with that seen in many other countries (Tseloni
et al., 2010). The proportion of all CSEW crime accounted for by property crime has remained
relatively stable over time, fluctuating slightly between 82% and 85% in the early years of the survey
(pre-1995) and remaining between 80% and 82% since 1995.
Figure 1.3: Long-term trends in CSEW property crime and CSEW total crime, 1981 to 1
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
2. The data on this chart refer to different time periods: a) 1981 to 1999 refers to the calendar year (January to
December). b) 2001/02 to 2011/12 refers to the financial year (April to March).
Download chart
XLS format
(24 Kb)
Trends in police recorded property crime
Police recorded crime includes notifiable offences that have been reported to and recorded by the
police. There have been two major changes in the recording of crimes in recent years; in 1998 the
Home Office Counting Rules for recorded crime were expanded to include additional summary
offences, and counts became more victim-based, and in April 2002 the National Crime Recording
Standard was introduced across England and Wales to ensure greater consistency between
forces in recording crime. Although property crime was less affected by these changes (and broad
Office for National Statistics | 5
09 May 2013
comparisons indicate a similar trend to CSEW incidents), police recorded crime figures cannot be
compared back beyond 2002/03 and therefore trends are only shown from 2002/03 onwards.
As with crime measured by the CSEW, the trend in police recorded property crime is similar to the
trend for all police recorded crime (Figure 1.4). Since 2002/03, property crime has shown yearon-year falls and it is 41% lower in volume in 2011/12 than in 2002/03. This represents a faster
rate of reduction than overall police recorded crime which fell by 33% over the same period. Thus,
2
the proportion of total police recorded crime accounted for by property crime has decreased
by 9 percentage points; from 81% in 2002/03 to 72% in 2011/12. Reflecting this change, the
relative contribution of other crime types have increased slightly over this period (violent crime by
5 percentage points, drug offences by 4 percentage points and other miscellaneous offences by 1
percentage point).
Figure 1.4: Trends in police recorded property crime and total recorded crime, 2002/03 to
2011/12
Notes:
1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office.
Office for National Statistics | 6
09 May 2013
Download chart
XLS format
(20.5 Kb)
Existing theories on why property crime has fallen
The reduction in property crime has been an important factor in driving falls in overall crime. There
is broad support for the view that increased quantity and quality of household and vehicle security
has been an important factor in the reduction in property crime, and as a result overall crime
levels. However, improved home and vehicle security only directly impact on the property crimes of
burglary and vehicle-related theft offences. Some additional theories are outlined below. For further
discussion on the trend in property crime, see Trends in crime – a short story 2011/12.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Burglary and vehicle-related theft are considered to be ‘keystone’ crimes, which are thought to
facilitate and encourage other types of crime and more serious crime. If ‘keystone crimes’ are
more difficult to carry out (due to improved security for example), youngsters may never take part
in criminal activity (Farrell et al., 2010).
The rise in the use of the internet has very roughly coincided with falls in crime (in 1995 use of
the internet was not widespread). As it became more popular, it may have helped to occupy
young people’s time when they may otherwise have turned to crime. It also provides more
opportunity for online crime which is not as easily quantifiable at present as traditional crime
types (Farrell et al., 2011).
Reduced consumption of drugs and alcohol (Bunge et al., 2005).
Demographic changes, such as falling numbers of young men in the population (Fox, 2011).
Changes (real or perceived) in technology and infrastructure, including security technology (such
as CCTV).
Improved forensic methods (Farrell et al., 2010)
The introduction of legalised abortion (Donohue and Levitt, 2001).
The impact of longer prison sentences and police activity on reducing crime, particularly property
crimes (Bandyopadhyay et al., 2012)
Many believe the recession in the early 1980s and the resulting unemployment, particularly
concentrated in the young male population, was linked to the increase in crime seen throughout
the 1980s and early 1990s. It was therefore predicted that the onset of recession in 2008/09 would
result in an increase in crime, particularly in property crimes such as burglaries, thefts and robberies.
There have been no such increases apparent in either police recorded crime or CSEW trends.
However, whilst there have been no overall increases in crime, or property crimes specifically, there
has been some upward pressure on some specific crime types, including theft from the person,
other theft of personal property and other household theft measured by the CSEW and theft from the
person and theft of unattended items recorded by the police.
Levels of victimisation
The CSEW provides estimates of victimisation rates for the crimes that it covers, and these vary by
property crime type (Figure 1.5). Among households interviewed in the 2011/12 CSEW, 5.8% had
experienced vandalism, 5.5% of vehicle-owning households had experienced vehicle-related theft,
3.4% of bicycle owning households had had a bicycle stolen and 2.4% of households had been
Office for National Statistics | 7
09 May 2013
burgled. Among adults aged 16 and over, 1.3% had been a victim of theft from the person in the
3
previous 12 months and 0.5% had been a victim of robbery. Eight per cent of children aged 10-15
had been a victim of personal theft (including theft from the person, bicycle theft, other personal theft
etc.) and 0.8% had been a victim of vandalism to personal property.
Figure 1.5: CSEW property crime victimisation of households, adults aged 16 and over and
children aged 10 to 15, 2011/12
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
Download chart
XLS format
(29 Kb)
Characteristics associated with being a victim of property crime
Office for National Statistics | 8
09 May 2013
The proportion of households and individuals that were victims of CSEW property crime in the 12
months prior to being interviewed varied by household and personal characteristics.
Logistic regression can be used to estimate how much the likelihood of victimisation is increased or
reduced according to different characteristics or behaviours, taking in to account the fact that some
variables may be interrelated (for example, marital status and age). Although logistic regression
can be used to explore associations between variables, it does not necessarily imply causation and
results should be treated as indicative rather than conclusive.
Characteristics that contributed most to explaining the likelihood of victimisation varied by property
crime type (Table 1.1). For example, the characteristic that contributed most to explaining the
likelihood of being a victim of burglary was the level of home security in the household (the
absence of presence of window locks and deadlocks on doors), whereas the characteristic that
contributed most to being a victim of vandalism was the number of cars owned by the household
(this stands to reason as the more cars a household owns, the more chance there is of the car being
vandalised). Age was the characteristic that contributed most to explaining the likelihood of vehiclerelated theft and theft from the person (with the likelihood of being a victim higher among younger
age groups). More detail is given on key household and personal characteristics in the overviews of
individual property crime types later in this chapter.
Table 1.1: Characteristics most associated with property crime victimisation, 2011/12
England and Wales
Adults aged 16 and over/households
Property crime type
Burglary
Vandalism
Vehicle-related theft
Theft from the person
Characteristic most associated with being a
victim
Level of home security
Number of cars owned by household
Age of household reference person
Age of respondent
Table notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
2. The household reference person is the member of the household in whose name the accommodation is owned or
rented, or is otherwise responsible for the accommodation.
Download table
XLS format
(23 Kb)
Items stolen
The motive for most types of property crime is to steal. It is possible to analyse which items are
commonly stolen in different types of property crime using data from the CSEW. According to the
2011/12 survey, the items most commonly stolen in incidents of burglary were computers and/or
Office for National Statistics | 9
09 May 2013
4
computer equipment (40% of burglaries). Mobile phones were the most common items stolen in
5
incidents of robbery (56%) and theft from the person (for example pick pocketing; 43%). Table 1.2
shows the items most commonly stolen in different types of property crime where theft is involved.
See the Nature of crime tables for more detail.
Table 1.2: Item most commonly stolen in incidents of property crime, 2011/12
England and Wales
Adults aged 16 and over/households/children aged 10 to 15
Property crime type
Burglary with entry
Item most commonly stolen Proportion of incidents where
item was stolen (%)
Computer/computer equipment
40
Tools/work materials
34
Purse/wallet/money
47
Theft outside a dwelling
Garden furniture
44
All other household theft
Garden furniture
40
Exterior fittings
37
Robbery
Mobile phone
56
Theft from the person
Mobile phone
43
Other theft of personal
property
Cash/foreign currency
25
Thefts experienced by
children
Bicycle/bicycle parts
22
Burglary to non-connected
building
Theft in a dwelling
Theft from a vehicle
Table notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
Download table
XLS format
(32.5 Kb)
Clarke’s CRAVED hypothesis, (1999) says that the most frequently stolen products are those which
are concealable, removable, available, valuable, enjoyable and, probably most critically, disposable
(easily re-sold). In the 2011/12 survey computers overtook purses, wallets and cash as the most
commonly stolen item in incidents of burglary compared with 2010/11. Computers have evolved
to become more attractive to criminals, and would usually be more valuable than purses, wallets
or money which would be kept within the home. Mobile phones have very recently become more
valuable and have been the most common item stolen in incidents of robbery for the past two years.
Mobiles also overtook purses, wallets and cash as the item most commonly stolen in theft from the
person offences according to the 2011/12 survey.
When do property crimes happen?
Office for National Statistics | 10
09 May 2013
Victims of CSEW property crime are asked about the circumstances of the incident, including
when it happened. The 2011/12 CSEW showed that property crimes happened mostly in the
evening or night (ranging from 58% to 82% of incidents depending on the property crime type).
Exceptions to this general pattern were theft in a dwelling, theft from the person and other theft of
personal property which were more likely to happen in the daytime (65%, 60% and 53% of incidents
respectively). As might be expected, the majority of thefts experienced by children aged 10 to 15
took place during daylight hours (83%). See Nature of crime tables for more information.
Crime has been shown to be affected by short-term variations associated with the time of year
(Hird and Ruparel, 2007) with property crimes such as burglary in a dwelling and vehicle-related
theft tending to peak in the winter months, probably due to longer periods of darkness. Burglaries
also tend to peak around the Christmas period when the amount of valuable items in households
increases.
Reporting to the police
Figure 1.6 shows reporting rates by property crime type from the 2011/12 CSEW. Incidents of theft
of a vehicle were most likely to be reported to the police (94% of incidents), which has been the
case since the survey began in 1981, followed by burglary with loss (81% of incidents). Theft from
the person and other household theft incidents were least likely to have been reported to the police
in 2011/12 and in previous years. The most common reason respondents gave for not doing so
was that the incident was trivial/there was no loss or the police could not/would not do anything
(see Crime in England and Wales, year ending March 2012 - Annual trend and demographic tables
2011/12, Table D14).
Office for National Statistics | 11
09 May 2013
Figure 1.6: Proportion of CSEW property crime incidents reported to the police, 2011/12
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
Download chart
XLS format
(33 Kb)
Impact on victims
With the exception of robbery, property crime, by definition, does not result in physical injury to the
victim. However, the emotional impact can still be considerable for victims. Figure 1.7 shows that
victims of burglary were the most likely to say that they had been very emotionally affected by the
crime (30% of victims). In contrast, 9% of victims of other household theft, which is mainly theft of
garden furniture and items from outside the home and therefore less likely to involve an invasion of
privacy, said that they had been very emotionally affected by the incident.
Office for National Statistics | 12
09 May 2013
Figure 1.7: Emotional response to property crime victimisation, 2011/12
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
Download chart
XLS format
(35 Kb)
Respondents who were victims of property crime were asked to rate the seriousness of the crime,
with a score of 1 being the least serious and 20 being the most. As shown in Figure 1.8, theft of a
vehicle, robbery and burglary were considered to be the most serious property crimes.
Office for National Statistics | 13
09 May 2013
Figure 1.8: Mean perceived seriousness scores by property crime type, 2011/12
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
Download chart
XLS format
(20 Kb)
Notes
1.
Robbery is an offence in which violence or the threat of violence is used during a theft (or
attempted theft) and is reported as a separate offence in police recorded crime figures and as a
Office for National Statistics | 14
09 May 2013
violent crime in CSEW incidents. As is contains elements of theft it is included within this ‘Focus
on: Property crime’ publication.
2.
Including robbery.
3.
For more information on crimes experienced by children aged 10-15 see Crimes experienced by
children aged 10-15 in Crime in England and Wales 2011/12 and the User Guide.
4.
For example PCs, Macs, printers, scanners.
5.
Where items are taken from someone with or without their knowledge.
Overview of burglary
The police record an incident of burglary if a person enters any building as a trespasser and with
the intent to commit an offence of theft, grievous bodily harm or unlawful damage (something does
not necessarily have to be stolen for the incident to be recorded as a burglary offence). Police
recorded burglary covers both domestic and non-domestic burglary and accounts for 17% of all
police recorded property crime. The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) covers domestic
burglary only which accounts for 9% of all CSEW property crime.
Trends in burglary
CSEW burglary levels peaked in 1993 (Figure 1.9). Despite some fluctuations from year to year, the
underlying trend has remained fairly stable since 2004/05, at around 700,000 incidents per year.
The proportion of households burgled in the last year has fallen from 7 in 100 in 1993 to 2 in 100
according to the 2011/12 survey. In around three in five burglaries, entry was successful, and of
these, something was taken in 69% of incidents (see Burglary nature of crime tables). This means
that in incidents of burglary where entry was successful, 31% resulted in nothing being taken. Police
recorded burglary has shown year-on-year decreases from 890,099 offences in 2002/03 to 501,053
offences in 2011/12.
Office for National Statistics | 15
09 May 2013
Figure 1.9: Trends in CSEW domestic burglary, 1981 to 2011/12
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
2. The data on this chart refer to different time periods: a) 1981 to 1999 refers to the calendar year (January to
December). b) 2001/02 to 2011/12 refers to the financial year (April to March).
Download chart
XLS format
(22 Kb)
Many commentators cite the reason for the reduction in the level of burglary demonstrated by CSEW
and police recorded crime figures as being attributable to improvements in home security.
The relationship between burglary and home security
Since 1994, the CSEW has measured household use of home security devices. The proportion of
households using them has increased over the same period that burglary incidents have decreased,
supporting the theory that wider use of more and better home security has contributed to this drop
(Tilley et al., 2011). Between 1995 and 2011/12 the number of burglaries in England and Wales has
reduced by 60%, from 1.7 million in 1995 to 0.7 million as measured by the 2011/12 survey. Figure
Office for National Statistics | 16
09 May 2013
1.10 shows the proportion of households with security devices and burglary victimisation indexed
to 1995 to illustrate their inverse relationship. Over the period when burglaries reduced by 60%, the
proportion of households with:
•
•
•
•
window locks increased by 20 percentage points (from 68% to 88% of households);
double/dead locks increased by 12 percentage points (from 70% to 82% of households);
light timers/sensors increased by 12 percentage points (from 39% to 51% of households), and;
burglar alarms increased by 9 percentage points (from 20% to 29% of households).
However, for window locks, double locks and sensors to already be at the levels they were in
1995, they must have been increasing in the early 1990s, during the period when burglaries were
increasing. Although it is likely that improvements in the quality and effectiveness of security devices
on the market over this period will have had an impact on rates of victimisation, it is also likely that
other factors contributed to the dramatic fall in burglary during the latter half of the 1990s.
Figure 1.10: Household security devices and burglary victimisation, 1995 to 2011/12 (indexed
to 1995)
Office for National Statistics | 17
09 May 2013
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
The graph is indexed to 1995 to illustrate the relationship between home security levels and burglary victimisation.
The data on this chart refer to different time periods: a) 1995 to 1999 refers to the calendar year (January to
December). b) 2001/02 to 2011/12 refers to the financial year (April to March).
Download chart
XLS format
(39 Kb)
1
Analysis of the 2011/12 CSEW shows that 6% of households with no or less than basic home
security were victims of burglary in the previous 12 months compared with 1% of households with
2
basic or enhanced security . In terms of the profile of households who were burgled, around two
in three (65%) had no or less than basic home security measures in place. Of the households who
were not victims of burglary, only a quarter (26%) had no or less than basic security measures in
place (Figure 1.11). The security measure with the biggest percentage point difference between
those who were and were not burgled was window locks. Fifty per cent of those who were burgled
had them compared with 88% of those who were not. Research by Tilley et al., (2011) shows that
enhanced security confers the greatest burglary protection for those who can least afford it, for
example in deprived areas.
Office for National Statistics | 18
09 May 2013
Figure 1.11: Home security and burglary victimisation, 2011/12
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
Download chart
XLS format
(20.5 Kb)
Items stolen in burglaries
Results from the 2011/12 CSEW show that in 69% of burglaries with entry, something was stolen.
Figure 1.12 shows common items stolen in such incidents in 1995 and 2011/12; the size of the word
reflects the proportion of burglaries where that item was stolen rather than volume. The 2011/12
survey was the first in which computers were the most common item stolen in burglaries (40% in
2011/12). The items most commonly stolen in burglaries were purses, wallets and money in 2010/11
(35%) and electrical goods in 1995 (62%).
Office for National Statistics | 19
09 May 2013
Figure 1.12: Common items stolen in incidents of burglary with loss, 1995 and 2011/12
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
2. The size of the word reflects the proportion of incidents where the item was stolen, not the volume.
3. More than one item can be stolen in one incident.
Download chart
XLS format
(37 Kb)
Nature of burglary incidents
The 2011/12 CSEW showed that 68% of burglaries occurred during the week (equivalent to 15%
3
per week day) and 32% during the weekend (equivalent to 13% per weekend day) meaning
that the likelihood of being a victim of burglary was slightly higher during the week. Sixty per cent
of burglaries took place in the evening or night and over half (56%) took place when there was
someone at home. Offenders gained entry to the property from the front of the household in 54% of
burglaries and from the back in 40% of burglaries. The most common form of entry was through a
Office for National Statistics | 20
09 May 2013
door (73%) and in 27% of these incidents, the lock was forced. This form of entry has been the most
common since the survey began measuring method of entry.
The cost of the items stolen in burglaries where something was taken was most commonly £1,000
or more (43%). The proportion of burglaries where the value of the items stolen was in this most
valuable category has increased significantly compared with the 2003/04 CSEW, from 31% to 43%
of burglaries, which is expected given inflation.
Damage to property was caused in half of the burglaries measured by the CSEW (50%). Damage
was most commonly a broken or damaged outside door (47% of burglaries where damage was
caused), a broken window (30%) or damage to a lock (23%). Where there was a cost involved from
damage caused during a burglary (in 45% of incidents), the most common amount spent on repairs
was between £100 and £249 (13%). See Burglary nature of crime tables for more information.
Emotional impact of burglary
The CSEW asks victims of crime to say whether they were emotionally affected by the incident. In
85% of burglary incidents, the respondent said that they were emotionally affected, and almost a
third of those (30%) said that they had been very emotionally affected.
The most common type of emotional reaction experienced by victims of burglary was anger (50% of
victims) followed by annoyance (40%). Almost a third of victims said that they experienced feelings
of fear (29%) and/or a loss of confidence or feelings of vulnerability (28%). A significantly higher
proportion of victims of burglary experienced feelings of fear and/or anxiety or panic attacks in the
2011/12 CSEW compared with the 2003/04 CSEW (29% in 2011/12 compared with 23% in 2003/04
for feelings of fear; 17% in 2011/12 compared with 12% in 2003/04 for feelings of anxiety or panic
attacks).
Characteristics associated with victims of burglary (see Crime in England and Wales, year
ending March 2012 – Annual trend and demographic tables 2011/12, Table D6).
Among households interviewed in the 2011/12 CSEW, 2.4% had experienced one or more
burglaries in the previous 12 months. This proportion varied by household characteristics:
•
•
Households with no or less than basic home security were more likely to be victims of burglary
(10.9%) than households with basic security (3.5%) and households with enhanced security
(0.9%).
Households resident in urban areas were more likely to have been victims of burglary in the
previous 12 months compared with those living in rural areas (2.7% compared with 0.9%).
The likelihood of being a victim of burglary was highest in the mid-1990s. The reduction in the rate of
victimisation had a similar impact on the whole population, so the differential between demographic
groups has remained the same, albeit at a lower rate of victimisation in 2011/12:
•
Three per cent of households living in flats or maisonettes were victims of burglary (3.3%), a
higher proportion than those living in detached (1.3%), semi-detached (2.2%) and terraced
houses (2.8%) in 2011/12.
Office for National Statistics | 21
09 May 2013
•
•
•
In 1995, 7.3% of households living in flats were victims of burglary compared with 5.5% of those
living in detached/semi-detached houses. The likelihood of burglary victimisation for households
living in terraced houses was similar to households living in flats (7.2%).
Private (3.8%) and social renters (3.5%) were twice as likely to have been victims of burglary
than households who owned their own property (1.6%) in 2011/12. This compares to 9.0% and
7.4% of social and private renters in 1995 and 5.3% of home owners.
In 1995 the burglary victimisation rate for lone-parent households was more than double (14.9%)
that for households with adults and children (6.1%) and adults only (6.7%). The 2011/12 survey
shows that lone-parent households remain twice as likely to have been burgled (5.8%) as
households with adults and children (2.4%) and adults only (2.1%; Figure 1.13).
Figure 1.13: Household structure and burglary victimisation, 1995 and 2011/12
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
Download chart
XLS format
(34.5 Kb)
Office for National Statistics | 22
09 May 2013
A full breakdown of the prevalence of burglary victimisation by household is shown in Crime in
England and Wales, year ending March 2012 - Annual trend and demographic tables 2011/12, Table
D6 for the 2011/12 CSEW and Table 5.1 in the 1996 British Crime Survey statistical bulletin.
Analysis of likelihood of burglary victimisation using logistic regression
Logistic regression can be used to estimate how much the likelihood of victimisation is increased
or reduced according to different characteristics or behaviours, taking into account the fact that
some variables may be interrelated. For example, a higher proportion of students were victims of
burglary in 2011/12 compared to individuals with other employment statuses, but this may have
been because students were more likely to live in urban areas with no home security (see Crime
in England and Wales, year ending March 2012 – Annual trend and demographic tables 2011/12,
Table D6). Logistic regression is able to isolate each variable and control for the impact of other
variables to show whether it is being a student, living in an urban area or having no home security
which has the biggest impact on likelihood of victimisation. Although it can be used to explore
associations between variables, it does not necessarily imply causation and results should be
treated as indicative rather than conclusive.
Logistic regression shows that those characteristics that contributed most to explaining the
likelihood of burglary in 2011/12 were the home security level and the type of area (rural or
4
urban) the household was in . Other important factors were the length of time the household was
left unoccupied during the day, total household income, age of household reference person and
accommodation type (flat, semi-detached house, terraced house). Note that household structure
was not shown to be a characteristic that contributed most to explaining the likelihood of burglary by
logistic regression analysis, despite the victimisation rate being quite different between categories.
This suggests that it is the presence factors that might be associated with different household
structures that influence the likelihood of being a victim of burglary rather than household structure
itself.
5
The model shows that, assuming all other characteristics are constant :
•
6
households with no or less than basic security had around 10 times the odds of being a victim of
7
•
•
burglary than households with at least basic home security ;
households in urban areas were almost 6 times as likely to have been victims of
burglary compared with households in rural areas, and;
households in an urban area with no or less than basic security had around 50 times the
likelihood of being a victim of burglary than households with at least basic security measures in
rural areas.
For more a more detailed breakdown of these figures see Appendix Table 1.01 (829 Kb Excel
sheet). For more information on the methodology and interpretation of logistic regression presented
here, see Section 8.4 of the User Guide.
Office for National Statistics | 23
09 May 2013
Notes
1.
Households with window and double/deadlocks are described as having 'basic' home security;
'less than basic' includes households with one or more security measures, but not having both
window and double/deadlocks in place.
2.
Households with advanced security are those with at least one other security measure in
addition to both window and double/deadlocks.
3.
The CSEW categorises ‘weekend’ as being from 6pm on Saturday to 6am on Monday.
4.
In 2011/12 home security questions were only asked of an eighth of the CSEW sample and
therefore the reliability of logistic regression is lower that it would be had the whole sample been
included. However, similar analysis with a larger sample was conducted in 2009/10 and results
were similar.
5.
See Appendix table 1.01 (829 Kb Excel sheet). The characteristics that are italicised and have
an odds ratio of 1 remain constant.
6.
No or less than basic security – households with no home security measures or households with
some security devices but without both window locks and double or deadlocks on outside doors.
7.
Basic home security – households with window locks and double or deadlocks on outside doors.
Overview of criminal damage/vandalism
The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) provides estimates of vandalism to household
property, separated into vehicle vandalism (which accounts for around two-thirds of CSEW
vandalism) and vandalism to the home or other property (which accounts for around one-third of
CSEW vandalism). Police recorded criminal damage includes offences of damage to domestic and
non-domestic properties and vehicles. See chapter 5 of the User Guide for more information. CSEW
vandalism accounts for 26% of CSEW property crime; criminal damage accounts for 22% of police
recorded property crime. According to the 2011/12 CSEW, around 34% of incidents of vandalism
were reported to the police (Crime in England and Wales, year ending March 2012 - Annual trend
and demographic tables 2011/12, Table D13). Estimates from the 2011/12 CSEW show that there
were 39,000 incidents of vandalism to the personal property of children aged 10 to 15.
Long-term trends in CSEW vandalism
Figure 1.14 shows CSEW vandalism levels peaking in 1993 and then decreasing until the 2003/04
CSEW. This was followed by a period of increases until the 2006/07 CSEW, after which the number
of incidents have fallen. This recent downward trend in incidents is reflected in the percentage of
households victimised once or more; 6 in 100 households were victims of vandalism in the 2011/12
CSEW compared with 10 in 100 households in 1993 when levels peaked. Roughly two-thirds of
vandalism relates to vehicle vandalism, which has followed a similar trend to overall vandalism.
Around one third of vandalism incidents involve damage to other property. This category showed a
Office for National Statistics | 24
09 May 2013
large increase in 1993 after which levels decreased, so that in 2011/12, as with vehicle and overall
vandalism, levels were the lowest measured since the survey began.
Figure 1.14: Trends in CSEW vandalism, 1981 to 2011/12
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
2. The data on this chart refer to different time periods: c) 1981 to 1999 refers to the calendar year (January to
December). d) 2001/02 to 2011/12 refers to the financial year (April to March).
Download chart
XLS format
(22 Kb)
Nature of CSEW vandalism incidents
The 2011/12 CSEW showed that 60% of vandalism incidents occurred during the week (equivalent
1
to 13% per week day) and 40% during the weekend (equivalent to 16% per weekend day)
meaning that the likelihood of being a victim of vandalism was slightly higher at the weekend. These
proportions were similar for incidents when split into vehicle and household vandalism. Incidents of
Office for National Statistics | 25
09 May 2013
vehicle vandalism most often occurred on the street (59% of vehicle vandalism incidents near the
home).
The most common type of damage caused in vehicle vandalism was scratched bodywork (41%),
followed by damage to bodywork (22%). Broken walls, fences or other garden items were the most
common types of vandalism to the home or property (26%), followed by house or flat windows
being broken (15% of home vandalism incidents). The median value of damage caused in vehicle
vandalism incidents in 2011/12 was £150; in over a quarter of incidents (28%) the cost of damage
was between £200 and £499. The cost of damage was lower for household vandalism incidents;
the median value was £50 and almost a quarter of incidents (24%) cost the victim £20 to £49. See
Vandalism nature of crime tables for more information.
Emotional impact and perceived seriousness of vandalism
The CSEW asks victims of crime whether they were emotionally affected by the incident. The
majority of vandalism victims (86%) said that they were emotionally affected, although a high
proportion of those (46%) said that this was just a little. The most common type of emotional
reaction experienced by victims of vandalism was annoyance (59%), followed by anger (54%).
Three-quarters of victims of vehicle or home vandalism incidents rated the seriousness of the crime
as low (1 to 6 out of 20; 76%).
Offenders
Victims of crime were also asked whether they are able to say anything about the characteristics of
the offender. Reflecting the nature of the crime, only a quarter of vandalism victims were able to do
this. In 44% of these incidents victims said there was just one offender. Survey findings also indicate
that the vast majority of offenders were male (72%) and young (39% were under 16, 41% were aged
16 to 24).
Likelihood of being a victim of vandalism
The 2011/12 CSEW estimated that 5.8% of households experienced some form of vandalism in the
previous 12 months (5.4% of vehicle-owning households had experienced vehicle vandalism and
1.8% of all households had experienced vandalism to the home or other property).
The proportion of households that were victims of vandalism in the last 12 months varied by
household characteristics:
•
•
Households with three or more cars (8.0%) were more likely to have been a victim of vandalism
than households with two (7.0%), one (6.6%) or no cars (2.4%) reflecting the fact that around
two-thirds of vandalism incidents are vehicle-related.
Households living in terraced houses were more likely to have been victims of vandalism (8.0%)
compared with those living in flats/maisonettes (4.9%) and detached houses (4.1%).
A full breakdown of the likelihood of households being a victim of vandalism by personal, household
and area characteristics is shown in Crime in England and Wales, year ending March 1012 - Annual
trend and demographic tables 2011/12, Table D9. Many of these characteristics will be closely
associated so caution is needed in the interpretation of the affect of these different characteristics
Office for National Statistics | 26
09 May 2013
when viewed in isolation. Further analysis using logistic regression can be used to control for
interrelated characteristics and to identify which characteristics are independently associated to
increased likelihood of victimisation.
Analysis of likelihood of vandalism using logistic regression
Logistic regression shows that those characteristics that contribute most to explaining the likelihood
of being a victim of vandalism are the number of cars owned, the type of area (as defined by the
output area classification) and the age of the household reference person. Other important
factors were accommodation type (for example house, flat, other etc), the level of physical disorder
in the area (as assessed by the survey interviewer), total household income, tenure (for example
owner occupiers or privately/socially rented) structure of the household, and whether the area was
rural or urban.
2
The logistic regression model shows that assuming all other characteristics are constant :
•
households with three or more cars had five times the odds of being a victim of vandalism than
households with no cars;
•
households living in areas classified as ‘constrained by circumstances ’ had twice the odds of
being victims of vandalism than those living in areas classified as ‘countryside’;
households with a household reference person aged 16 to 24 had higher odds of being victims
of vandalism than households with an older household reference person; almost 3 times that of a
household with a household reference person aged 75 and over, and;
a household with 3 or more cars living in an area described as ‘constrained by circumstances’
with a household reference person aged 16 to 24 had around 15 times the probability of being
a victim of vandalism compared with a household without a car, living in an area described as
‘prospering suburbs’ and a household reference person aged 65 to 74.
•
•
3
For a more detailed breakdown of these figures see Appendix table 1.02 (829 Kb Excel sheet). For
more information on the methodology and interpretation of logistic regression presented here, see
Section 8.4 of the User Guide.
Notes
1.
The CSEW categorises ‘weekend’ as being from 6pm on Saturday to 6am on Monday.
2.
See Appendix table 1.02 (829 Kb Excel sheet). The characteristics that are italicised and have
an odds ratio of 1 remain constant.
3.
See Section 7.1 of the User Guide for more details on output area classifications. Areas
classified as constrained by circumstances are typically made up of senior communities, older
workers and social housing.
Office for National Statistics | 27
09 May 2013
Overview of vehicle crime
Vehicle-related theft covered by the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) includes
unauthorised taking of a vehicle, theft from a motor vehicle and attempted thefts of vehicles owned
by the population resident in households. Police recorded offences against vehicles cover both
private and commercial vehicles and comprises: aggravated vehicle taking; theft or attempted theft
of a vehicle; theft or attempted theft from a vehicle and interfering with a motor vehicle. For more
information see Section 5.2 of the User Guide.
The 2011/12 CSEW estimated that 77% of households in England and Wales owned one or more
vehicles and that 5.5% of vehicle-owning households had been a victim of vehicle-related theft
compared with 19.7% in 1993. Vehicle-related theft accounted for 16% of all CSEW property crime.
The largest component of this type of incident is theft from a vehicle, accounting for almost threequarters of all CSEW vehicle-related theft in 2011/12 (73%).
Vehicle offences accounted for 15% of all police recorded property crime in 2011/12. Similar to the
CSEW vehicle-related theft, the majority of offences within this category are theft from a vehicle
(72%).
Long-term trends in vehicle crime
Long-term trends show CSEW vehicle-related theft peaking in the mid-1990s after which there were
substantial declines (Figure 1.15). Police recorded vehicle crime has shown a similar trend; since
2002/03 offences against vehicles have fallen by 61%, from 1.1 million offences in 2002/03 to 0.4
million offences in 2011/12.
In England and Wales in the 1980s and 1990s, a quarter of police recorded crimes related to theft
of, and theft from, motor vehicles; they now account for only around one in ten (Farrell et al., 2010).
Although this is in part due to the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard in 2002/03
which resulted in increased numbers of violent crimes being recorded, it also reflects the notable
decline in the number of vehicle crimes being recorded by the police. The reductions in vehiclerelated theft indicated by the CSEW and police recorded crime is in contrast to the number of motor
vehicles licensed in Great Britain, having increased by 35% from 25.4 million in 1995 to 34.2 million
1
in 2011 (Vehicle Licensing Statistics, 2011 ).
Office for National Statistics | 28
09 May 2013
Figure 1.15: Trends in CSEW vehicle-related theft, 1981 to 2011/12
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics, and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing
Agency.
2. The data on this chart refer to different time periods: a) 1981 to 1999 refers to the calendar year (January to
December). b) 2001/02 to 2011/12 refers to the financial year (April to March). c) All licensed vehicle numbers are
based on calendar years, so for example, the number shown for 2011/12 is the 2011 figure.
Download chart
XLS format
(32.5 Kb)
Vehicle security
The reduction in the number of vehicle-related thefts since the mid 1990s may be attributed to
improvements in vehicle security, particularly central-locking (potentially reducing the number of
theft from and of vehicle incidents) and immobilising systems (potentially reducing the number of
theft of vehicle incidents) and has contributed to the drop in overall crime over the same period.
However, improvements in security are unlikely to be the sole factor, and the dramatic decrease
which started in the mid-1990s is also evident in the trend for bicycle theft (see the Overview of
bicycle theft section for more information) and violent crime (see the violence section of Trends in
Office for National Statistics | 29
09 May 2013
Crime - A Short Story 2011/12) which are less likely to be due to improvements in security and may
be evidence for there being other factors that affected the propensity for crime in the mid 1990s.
Evidence suggests that the introduction of immobilisers has affected the type of vehicle stolen, with
a shift towards older cars, and may be the cause of the continued decrease in vehicle theft after
2000 (after which the trend in bicycle theft began to increase). Research by Farrell et al. (2011)
showed that vehicles with a combination of central locking, an electronic immobiliser and often an
alarm were 25 times less likely to be stolen that vehicles without security.
Items stolen in vehicle-related crime
Results from the 2011/12 CSEW show that in incidents of theft from a vehicle, the most common
items stolen were exterior fittings (for example, hub caps, wheel trims, number plates; stolen in
37% of theft from vehicle incidents). Valuables, including jewellery, handbags, wallets and money
were the next most common item stolen (18%) followed by electrical equipment, including satellite
navigation systems and computer equipment (16%). A lower proportion of car radios, CDs, tapes
2
and DVDs were stolen in 2011/12 compared with 2003/04 (Figure 1.16).
Figure 1.16: Items stolen in incidents of theft from vehicles, 2003/04 and 2011/12
Office for National Statistics | 30
09 May 2013
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
The size of the words reflect the proportion of incidents where the item was stolen, not the volume.
More than one item can be stolen in one incident.
Download chart
XLS format
(37 Kb)
Nature of vehicle-related thefts
The 2011/12 CSEW showed that, similarly to burglary, 69% of vehicle-related thefts occurred during
3
the week (equivalent to 15% per week day) and 31% during the weekend (equivalent to 12% per
weekend day) meaning that the likelihood of being a victim of vehicle related theft is slightly higher
during the week. In the 2011/12 CSEW, 41% of vehicle-related thefts occurred on the street at/near
the home and 31% happened in a semi-private location (includes outside areas on the premises and
garages or car parks around but not connected to the home). The most common ways that entry to
the vehicle was gained was using an unlocked door (34%) followed by breaking a window (31%) and
forcing the lock (21%). See Vehicle related theft nature of crime tables for more information.
Theft of vehicles
In incidents of theft of a vehicle, 62% were not returned to the owner. This is significantly higher
than the proportion in 1997 (the first year for which this data are available), where only 39% were
not returned. This might suggest that fewer vehicles are being stolen for the purposes of joyriding and that those that have been stolen in recent years have been targeted for the purposes of
making money. It may also reflect that improvements in vehicle security have reduced the number of
opportunistic car thefts.
Based on the 2011/12 CSEW, 26% of vehicles that were stolen and later returned to the owner had
been damaged beyond repair. Twenty-two per cent of vehicles had extensive damage, 26% had
moderate or slight damage and 26% had not been damaged. A third of vehicles stolen were more
than 10 years old (33%). Most (57%) were between 1 and 10 years old, and 10% were less than
4
1 year old. Vehicle Licensing statistics for Great Britain show that 21% of vehicles were more than
10 years old, 73% were 1 to 10 years old and 7% were less than a year old in 2011. That older cars
in the more than 10 years old category are more likely to be stolen does support the theory that
improved security, which often comes as standard on newer cars, is helping to reduce the number
of vehicle thefts. The mean cost of stolen vehicles was £3,777, significantly more than in 2003/04
(£2,215), showing an increase greater than the rate of inflation. The cost of damage caused in theft
from vehicle incidents was under £50 for the majority of victims, as was the value of the items stolen.
The bulk of the decline in car thefts since the mid-1990s is attributed to falls in the number of cars
stolen by the forcing of door locks (from 65% of vehicles stolen in 1995 to 22% in 2011/12), probably
due to the increase in central-locking over this period. Significantly more vehicles were stolen in
2011/12 by the offender using a key (presumably stolen or copied; 46%) compared with 1995 (9%)
and 2010/11 (26%; Figure 1.17).
Office for National Statistics | 31
09 May 2013
Figure 1.17: Method of entry in incidents of vehicle-related theft, 1995 and 2011/12
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
Download chart
XLS format
(21.5 Kb)
Emotional impact of vehicle-related theft on victim
The CSEW asks victims of crime to say whether they were emotionally affected by the incident.
In 80% of vehicle-related thefts the respondent said that they were emotionally affected, although
the majority of these said that this was just a little (47%). As might be expected, the proportion
very emotionally affected was higher for incidents of theft of a vehicle (27%) than the proportion for
incidents of theft from a vehicle (8%).
Likelihood of being a victim of vehicle-related theft
The CSEW shows that the proportion of vehicle-owning households that had been a victim of
vehicle-related theft (once or more) in the previous 12 months was 5.5%.
Office for National Statistics | 32
09 May 2013
Across the vehicle-owning population there were differences in the risk of experiencing vehiclerelated theft:
•
•
•
Households where the reference person was aged 16 to 24 were most likely to have been
victims of vehicle-related theft (8.7%) compared with other age groups, and this decreased with
age, for example only 1.8% of vehicle-owning households where the household reference person
was aged 75 or over were victims of vehicle related theft.
Households owning three or more cars were most likely to have been victims of vehicle-related
theft (8.9%) compared to households owning one (4.2%) or two cars (6.5%).
Households living in flats or maisonettes were more likely to be victims of vehicle-related theft
(8.0%) than those living in other types of accommodation (for example detached houses; 3.5%).
A full breakdown of the likelihood of vehicle-related theft by personal, household and area
characteristics is shown in Crime in England and Wales, year ending March 2012 - Annual trend
and demographic tables 2011/12, Table D7. Many of the characteristics will be closely associated,
so caution is needed in the interpretation of the effect of these different characteristics when
viewed in isolation. Further analysis using logistic regression can be used to control for interrelated
characteristics and to identify which characteristics are independently associated with increased risk
of victimisation.
Analysis of the likelihood of vehicle-related theft using logistic regression
Logistic regression shows that the age of the household reference person, number of cars
owned, and type of accommodation (for example detached house, terraced house, flat) were the
characteristics that contributed most to explaining the likelihood of vehicle-theft victimisation. Type of
5
area (urban or rural), output area classification , household structure, level of physical disorder, type
of property tenure and the household reference person’s occupation were also important (Appendix
table 1.03 (829 Kb Excel sheet)). The model shows that assuming all other characteristics are
6
constant :
•
•
•
households with a younger household reference person had higher odds of being a victim of
vehicle-related theft than households with an older household reference person; for example
households with a household reference person aged 16 to 24 had almost 3 times the odds of
being a victim of vehicle-related theft compared with households with a household reference
person aged 75 or over;
households living in flats or maisonettes had almost double the odds of being a victim of vehiclerelated theft compared with households living in detached houses, and;
households with a household reference person aged 16 to 24 with 3 or more cars living in a
flat or maisonette had around 16 times the probability of being a victim of vehicle-related theft
compared to a household with a household reference person aged 75 or over, with one car living
in a detached house.
For more information on the methodology and interpretation of logistic regression presented here,
see Section 8.4 of the User Guide.
Office for National Statistics | 33
09 May 2013
Notes
1.
Vehicle Licensing Statistics 2011 are based on the total number of licensed vehicles (including
both private and commercial vehicles) in England, Scotland and Wales taken from the Driver
and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) database.
2.
2003/04 was the first year that a detailed breakdown of items stolen in theft from vehicle
incidents was available. In 1995, when theft from vehicle incidents were near their peak, the
most common items stolen were external fittings (32%; similar to 2003/04 and 2011/12) followed
by stereo equipment, including car radios, tapes and CDs (30%).
3.
The CSEW categorises ‘weekend’ as being from 6pm on Saturday to 6am on Monday.
4.
The CSEW and vehicle licensing statistics are not strictly comparable in terms of time periods
covered and geographical coverage so these analysis presented should be seen as indicative.
5.
The classification of output areas is used to group together geographic areas according to key
characteristics common to the population in that grouping. For more information see Section 7.1
of the User Guide.
6.
See Appendix table 1.03 (829 Kb Excel sheet). The characteristics that are italicised and have
an odds ratio of 1 remain constant.
Overview of robbery
Robbery is an offence in which force or the threat of force is used either during or immediately prior
to a theft or attempted theft. Police recorded robbery covers a wide variety of different incidents
such as robberies from business properties or street robberies, regardless of the amount of money
or property stolen. The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) covers robbery of personal
property only.
Robbery accounts for 3% of all police recorded property crime and, similarly, 3% of CSEW property
crime. Robberies recorded by the police are concentrated in a small number of metropolitan forces
with over half of all offences recorded in London, and a further 19% in the Greater Manchester,
West Midlands and West Yorkshire police force areas combined (Crime in England and Wales, year
ending March 2012 – Police force area tables 2011/12, Table P1). According to police recorded
crime data, 91% of police recorded robberies are of personal property; the remainder being
robberies of business property.
The small number of robbery victims interviewed in any one year means that CSEW estimates for
this crime type are prone to fluctuation. However, the general trend has shown levels increasing
throughout the 1980s and 1990s, then falling to 2002/03 after which levels have fluctuated around
the same level. The 2011/12 CSEW estimates that there were 254,000 robberies in England and
Wales, 25% fewer than 1995. The number of robberies recorded by the police provides a more
robust indication of trends than the CSEW and shows that, with the exception of a notable rise in
2005/06 and 2006/07, there was a general downward trend in robberies between 2002/03 and
Office for National Statistics | 34
09 May 2013
2009/10 after which levels have remained fairly stable (Figure 1.18). The police recorded 74,690
robbery offences in 2011/12, 32% fewer than in 2002/03.
Figure 1.18: Trends in police recorded robbery, 2002/03 to 2011/12
Notes:
1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office.
Download chart
XLS format
(20.5 Kb)
Analysis of data from victims of robbery in the 2011/12 CSEW shows that in incidents where
something was stolen, the most common item was a mobile phone (stolen in 56% of robberies).
For more information on mobile phone thefts see Chapter 2 – Mobile phone theft). Robberies most
commonly occurred in the street (55% of robberies) and in the evening (49%). Ninety per cent of
victims of robbery were emotionally affected by the incident, spread fairly evenly between very much
(25%), quite a lot (27%) and a little (38%) (data not shown).
Office for National Statistics | 35
09 May 2013
Overview of property crime against businesses
The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) is restricted to crimes experienced by the
population resident in households in England and Wales and doesn’t cover crime against
commercial victims. While police recorded crime does include crimes against businesses, it does not
separate these out from other crimes (other than for robbery of business property and offences of
shoplifting which, by their nature, are against businesses) and only includes crimes reported to and
recorded by the police.
The Commercial Victimisation Survey (CVS) took place in 2012, having previously run in 1994 and
2002, and is planned to be repeated in 2013 and 2014.The first release of data examined the extent
of crime against businesses premises in the manufacturing, wholesale and retail, transportation
and storage, and accommodation and food industry sectors in England and Wales (Home Office
Statistics, 2013).
Results from the 2012 CVS
Headline results from the 2012 CVS estimated that there were 9.2 million crimes against business
in the four sectors covered by the survey (manufacturing, wholesale and retail, transportation and
storage and accommodation and food) in the year prior to interview (Figure 1.19). Of the offences
measured by the CVS, 91% were property related.
Office for National Statistics | 36
09 May 2013
Figure 1.19: Crime experienced by businesses in selected sectors, 2012
Notes:
1. Source: 2012 Commercial Victimisation Survey, Home Office.
Download chart
XLS format
(20.5 Kb)
Comparisons with the 2002 CVS
The vast majority of crimes (84%; 7.7 million) measured by the 2012 CVS were experienced by
premises in the wholesale and retail sector. This sector was also included in the 2002 CVS, and
although differences in methodology and some small differences in coverage mean that results are
only broadly comparable, the general pattern appears to be that the level of crime against this sector
has fallen, mirroring the falls seen amongst the household population.
The crime type most frequently experienced by wholesale and retail premises was theft by
customers, which was estimated at 11.5 million crimes in 2002 (55% of all crime against the retail
sector measured by the 2002 CVS) and 4.1 million crimes in 2012 (53% of all crime against the retail
sector measured by the 2012 CVS). Similarly, the proportion of premises experiencing this type of
Office for National Statistics | 37
09 May 2013
crime fell from 43% in the 2002 CVS to 21% in the 2012 CVS. Theft by unknown persons was the
next most frequent crime experienced by the wholesale and retail sector, and estimates of these
offences fell from 3.2 million incidents in 2002 to 1.8 million incidents in 2012.
Explaining the reduction in business crime
The reasons for the reduction in theft by customers and theft by unknown persons (shoplifting)
estimated by the 2012 CVS are likely to be the same as the reasons for the falls seen in other
property crime such as burglary, theft and vandalism seen over the same period. Funding drug
addiction is often cited as the most common reason for shoplifting; according to the British
Retail Consortium, around 65% of shoplifters arrested test positive for drugs or say they steal to
1
support their habit . Therefore any decreases in drug dependency are likely to impact on levels of
shoplifting. Additional theories applicable to businesses in particular include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Improvements in technology, infrastructure and security technology (such as CCTV) and
increased investment by businesses in crime prevention and protection (British retail consortium
retail crime survey 2012).
Increased usage of electronic security tags, crime deterrent signage and audio and visual CCTV
monitoring by retailers (British retail consortium retail crime survey 2012).
An increase in the perception that the amount of CCTV has increased, acting as a deterrent,
attributed to the rise in the profile of CCTV through television documentaries, and, more recently,
social media (Farrell, 2010).
The consolidation of the retail sector (that is, an increased number of chain stores) and therefore
the consolidation of security technology.
Reductions in the real term values of electrical goods, clothing etc.
Improved forensic methods.
For more information see the Introduction section and Trends in crime – a short story.
Notes
1.
British Retail Consortium
Overview of other theft
The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) ‘other’ theft category includes theft from the
person (i.e. pick-pocketing), other theft of personal property and other household thefts. Police
recorded other theft includes these offence types, but additionally covers handling stolen goods and
thefts from businesses (e.g. shoplifting). See Section 5.2 of the User Guide for more information.
Although bicycle theft is included within the other theft category, it is discussed separately in more
detail in the Overview of bicycle theft section.
Other theft offences accounted for 46% of all CSEW property crime and 38% of all police recorded
property crime in 2011/12. The 2011/12 CSEW estimated that 8% of children aged 10 to 15 were
victims of theft of personal property.
Office for National Statistics | 38
09 May 2013
Trends in CSEW other theft
The trend for individual categories within CSEW other theft shows levels peaking in the mid-1990s;
since then, excluding some fluctuations, levels of other household theft and other theft of personal
property fell steadily until 2007/08 (Figure 1.20). CSEW estimates then indicate an upward trend
in ‘other household theft’, which has increased by 33% between the 2007/08 and 2011/12 surveys.
Around half of other household theft incidents involve theft of garden furniture or household items/
furniture from outside the dwelling. Theft from the person offences also appear to show an apparent
underlying upward trend since 2009/10, and levels in 2011/12 were 19% higher than in 2009/10.
These trends should be seen in the context of levels measured for previous years.
Figure 1.20: Trends in CSEW other theft, 1981 to 2011/12
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
2. The data on this chart refer to different time periods: a) 1981 to 1999 refers to the calendar year (January to
December). b) 2001/02 to 2011/12 refers to the financial year (April to March).
Download chart
XLS format
(24.5 Kb)
Evidence from the CSEW data shows that the majority of theft from the person offences involve
stealth theft (where no force is used and the victim is unaware of the incident, e.g. pick-pocketing)
Office for National Statistics | 39
09 May 2013
rather than snatch theft (where there may be an element of force involved but just enough to snatch
the property away).
Trends in police recorded other theft
In 2011/12, other theft offences recorded by the police increased by 2% compared with 2010/11,
driven by theft of unattended property (recorded as other theft or unauthorised taking; up by 2% from
the previous year), theft from the person (up by 8% from the previous year) and shoplifting (up by
1% from the previous year). Although not separately identifiable from other theft offences recorded
by the police, metal theft is included in this category and is also likely to have driven these trends.
Theft from the person began increasing in 2009/10 and has continued to do so each year since
(Figure 1.21). It is thought that this may be due to people carrying more valuable items on their
person than previously, for example more advanced mobile phones and smart phones.
Figure 1.21: Trends in police recorded other theft, 2002/03 to 2011/12
Notes:
1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office.
Office for National Statistics | 40
09 May 2013
Download chart
XLS format
(20.5 Kb)
Interestingly, theft from the person is the only police recorded property crime that began to increase
at the same time as the UK entered the recession in 2008, although it is not possible to say whether
there is a causal link. Increases in police recorded theft of unattended property and handling of
stolen goods followed in 2010/11. CSEW other household theft began to show signs of an upward
trend in 2008/09 with increases in CSEW theft from the person evident since 2009/10.
Nature of other theft
Theft from the person covers theft (including attempts) of items being carried by the victim, but
without the use of physical force, or the threat of it. The most common item stolen in theft from the
person offences measured by the 2011/12 CSEW was a mobile phone (in 43% of theft from the
person incidents; a significantly higher proportion than the 29% of incidents in the 2010/11 survey).
2011/12 was the first year that mobile phones were the most common items stolen in this type
of crime; previously the most common item was purses and wallets. This rise in the targeting on
mobile phones may help to explain the year-on-year increases seen in police recorded theft from the
person. Trends for the most common items stolen in incidents of theft from the person are shown in
Figure 1.22. For more details see Chapter 2 – Mobile phone theft.
Figure 1.22: Selected items stolen in incidents of theft from the person, 2003/04 to 2011/12
Office for National Statistics | 41
09 May 2013
Notes:
1.
Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
Download chart
XLS format
(21 Kb)
The median cost of items stolen in theft from the person offences was £100 and the median cost of
items stolen in other theft of personal property was £70.
The 2011/12 CSEW showed that, 61% of theft from the person incidents occurred during the week
1
(equivalent to 13% per week day) and 39% during the weekend (equivalent to 16% per weekend
day) meaning that the likelihood of being a victim of theft from the person was slightly higher at the
weekend. Sixty per cent of theft from the person incidents happened during the day time. They were
most likely to happen inside a shop or supermarket (17%), on the street (17%), in/around public
entertainment (16%) or on public transport (14%). See Personal and other theft nature of crime
tables for more information.
Other theft of personal property covers theft away from the home where no force is used, there
was no direct contact between the offender and victim and the victim was not holding or carrying
the items when they were stolen (theft of unattended property). Other theft of personal property
incidents most commonly happened in the workplace (23% of incidents). Cash or foreign currency
was stolen in a quarter of incidents; other items stolen included mobile telephones (22%), purses
and wallets (15%), and clothing (15%).
Analysis of the likelihood of being a victim of theft from the person using logistic regression
The 2011/12 CSEW estimated that 1.3% of adults in England and Wales were victims of theft from
the person and 2.1% were victims of other theft of personal property.
2
Logistic regression shows that age of respondent, output area classification and the number
of visits to a nightclub in the past month were the characteristics that contributed most to
explaining the likelihood of theft from the person victimisation. Marital status, long-standing illness
or disability, area type (rural or urban), ethnic group, the number of visits to a pub in the past month,
sex, respondent’s occupation, the number of hours out of home on an average weekday and total
household income were also important (Appendix table 1.04 (829 Kb Excel sheet)).
3
The logistic regression model shows that assuming all other characteristics are constant :
•
•
•
those aged 16 to 24 had around double the odds of being a victim of theft from the person
compared with other age groups;
those who lived in areas classed as multicultural had the highest odds of being a victim of theft
from the person compared with other areas; more than double the odds compared with those
living in areas classified as countryside;
those visiting nightclubs at least once a month were one-and-a-half times more likely to have
been a victim of theft from the person compared with those who never visited nightclubs, and;
Office for National Statistics | 42
09 May 2013
•
a 16 to 24 year old living in a ‘multicultural area’ who visits nightclubs at least once a month had
almost 5 times the probability of being a victim of theft from the person compared with a 55 to 64
year old living in a ‘city living area’ who had not visited a nightclub in the last month.
For more a more detailed breakdown of these figures see Appendix Table 1.04 (829 Kb Excel
sheet). For more information on the methodology and interpretation of logistic regression presented
here, see Section 8.4 of the User Guide.
Notes
1.
The CSEW categorises ‘weekend’ as being from 6pm on Saturday to 6am on Monday.
2.
Output area classifications are used to group together geographic areas according to key
characteristics common to the population in that grouping. Further details can be found in
Chapter 7 of the User Guide.
3.
See Appendix table 1.04 (829 Kb Excel sheet). The characteristics that are italicised and have
an odds ratio of 1 remain constant.
Overview of bicycle theft
The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) covers thefts of bicycles belonging to the
respondent or any other member of the household. Police recorded crime also includes offences
where a pedal cycle is stolen or taken without authorisation. This category includes incidents of
bicycle theft where the theft of the bicycle is the main crime. It does not include every incident, as
some bicycles may be stolen during the course of another offence (for example burglary, theft from a
dwelling or theft from a vehicle) and are therefore classified as such by the police and CSEW.
The 2011/12 CSEW estimated that almost half (47%) of households in England and Wales had
owned a bicycle in the previous 12 months. The proportion of households owning a bicycle has
remained similar since the survey began in 1981; between 42% and 47% of households (data not
shown). Of the households who owned a bicycle, 3.4% had been a victim of bicycle theft according
to the 2011/12 CSEW. This accounts for 6% of all CSEW property crime and an estimated 448,000
offences. Estimates from the CSEW show that 44% of bicycle thefts were reported to the police in
2011/12. The police recorded 115,905 bicycle thefts in 2011/12, which accounts for 4% of all police
recorded property crime.
Bicycles or bicycle parts were the most common item stolen in theft incidents experienced by
children aged 10 to 15 (22% of incidents; see Children aged 10 to 15 nature of crime tables). In the
2011/12 CSEW, an estimated 75,000 children were victims of bicycle theft, equivalent to 1.5% of the
10 to 15 year old population (see Crime experienced by children aged 10 to 15 in Crime in England
and Wales, year ending March 2012 for more information).
Trends in bicycle theft
Long-term trends in CSEW bicycle theft show that levels peaked in 1995 and then fell considerably
until 2002/03. This part of the trend is similar to that seen for vehicle-related theft, after which
Office for National Statistics | 43
09 May 2013
the two diverge. Since 2002/03, where vehicle-related theft continued to decrease bicycle theft
began to increase until 2006/07, after which levels have fluctuated year to year (Figure 1.15). This
suggests that the continued fall (post 2000) in vehicle-related theft and burglary may be explained
by improvements in security (that are not so applicable to bicycle theft), but that the initial fall that is
seen across many types of crime in the mid-1990s is likely to have been driven by additional factors.
Figure 1.23: Trends in bicycle theft incidents, 1981 to 2011/12
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
2.
The data on this chart refer to different time periods: a. 1981 to 1999 refers to the calendar year (January to
December). b. 2001/02 to 2011/12 refers to the financial year (April to March).
Download chart
XLS format
(23 Kb)
Nature of bicycle theft incidents
The 2011/12 CSEW showed that 71% of bicycle thefts occurred during the week (equivalent to
1
16% per week day) and 29% during the weekend (equivalent to 12% per weekend day) meaning
that the likelihood of being a victim of bicycle theft was higher during the week. Fifty-eight per
cent of bicycles were taken in the evening or night. Over half the bicycles were taken from areas
Office for National Statistics | 44
09 May 2013
described as ‘semi-private’ (which includes outside areas on the household premises including
garages and car parks not connected to the home; 57%) and 18% were stolen from the street.
The cost of bicycles stolen was most commonly in the range of £100 - £199. The mean cost was
significantly higher in 2011/12 compared with 2003/04 (£294 in 2011/12 compared with £229 in
2003/04), probably reflecting the increase in the cost of bicycles over time. See Bicycle theft nature
of crime tables for more information.
Emotional impact and perceived seriousness of bicycle theft
The CSEW asks victims of crime to say whether they were emotionally affected by the incident. In
three-quarters of bicycle theft incidents the respondent said that they were emotionally affected,
although the majority of those (41%) said that this was just a little. The most common type of
emotional reaction experienced by victims of bicycle theft was annoyance (48%), followed by
anger (45%). In all previous years that this question has been asked, anger was the most common
response experienced.
The CSEW asks victims of crime to say how serious they thought the incident was on a scale of 1
to 20 (with 20 being the most serious). The majority (76%) placed bicycle theft in the least serious
category of 1 to 6. Victims perceiving the theft to be within the most serious category (a rating of
between 14 and 20) have fallen from 6% in 2003/04 to 3% in 2011/12. The mean seriousness score
has also decreased between these periods; from 6 in 2003/04 to 5 in 2011/12.
Bicycle security
The 2011/12 CSEW estimated that around a third (34%) of bicycles stolen in the previous year
were locked with a chain, cable or shackle at the time. This proportion has increased from 28% in
2005/06 when the question was first introduced to the CSEW. Of those bicycles that weren’t locked,
16% said that it was because there was no need as it was in a locked building. The most common
reason given for the bicycle not having been locked was that the owner had never thought about
it or hadn’t got round to it (23%). These findings suggest that bicycles should always be locked to
prevent them from being stolen, even if stored within a locked building, but that locking a bicycle is
less of a deterrent to thieves than it was 6 years ago. CSEW data also suggests that only a small
proportion of bicycles that were stolen were not locked because there was nowhere to lock them up
(1%).
Notes
1.
The CSEW categorises ‘weekend’ as being from 6pm on Saturday to 6am on Monday.
Background notes
1.
If you have any queries regarding crime statistics for England and Wales please email
[email protected].
2.
Details of the policy governing the release of new data are available by visiting
www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/assessment/code-of-practice/index.html or from the Media
Relations Office email: [email protected]
Office for National Statistics | 45
09 May 2013
The United Kingdom Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in
accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with
the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.
Designation can be broadly interpreted to mean that the statistics:
•
•
•
•
meet identified user needs;
are well explained and readily accessible;
are produced according to sound methods; and
are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest.
Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics it is a statutory requirement that the
Code of Practice shall continue to be observed.
Copyright
© Crown copyright 2013
You may use or re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format
or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team,
The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected].
This document is also available on our website at www.ons.gov.uk.
Office for National Statistics | 46