27 November 2014
Chapter 1: Property Crime - Overview
Coverage: England and Wales
Date: 27 November 2014
Geographical Area: Country
Theme: Crime and Justice
Introduction
1
This overview chapter covers statistics on property crime recorded by the police and property
crimes measured by the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW). As well as covering
trends in property crime, the chapter also discusses CSEW data contained within the ‘Nature of
Crime’ tables published alongside this release, which provide more detailed information on crimes
measured by the survey. The chapter also presents some statistics on property crimes against
businesses based on the Commercial Victimisation Survey (CVS). For further information on each of
these sources, see the ‘Data Sources and References’ section of this release.
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 and other household theft; vehicle offences (which include theft of vehicles or property
from vehicles); bicycle theft; robbery and other personal theft; shoplifting; fraud; and criminal
2
damage. For the purposes of this report, robbery is included as a property crime.
Following an assessment of ONS crime statistics by the UK Statistics Authority, the statistics based
on police recorded crime data have been found not to meet the required standard for designation
as National Statistics. The full assessment report can be found on the UK Statistics Authority
website. Data from the CSEW continue to be badged as National Statistics; data from the CVS are
classed as Official Statistics as they have not yet been assessed for National Statistics status. ONS
are working to address the requirements set out by the UK Statistics Authority and a summary of
progress is available on the Crime statistics methodology page.
Property crime accounted for 70% (2,620,175 offences) of all police recorded crime in 2013/14 and
82% (an estimated 6,006,000 incidents) of all crime covered by the 2013/14 CSEW. Of the crimes
covered by the CVS, in both the 2012 and 2013 CVS 91% were property related (an estimated
8,365,000 offences in the 2012 survey and 6,202,000 offences in the 2013 survey). The consistently
high proportion of offences accounted for by property crime means that these types of crimes, in
particular the high volume ones such as vehicle-related theft, criminal damage and burglary, are
important in driving overall crime trends.
Office for National Statistics | 1
27 November 2014
The largest component of property crime in the 2013/14 CSEW was criminal damage (24%). Other
components that made up CSEW property crime include: ‘other’ theft of personal property (which is
largely theft of unattended property; 16%); vehicle-related theft (16%); domestic burglary (13%); and
‘other’ household theft (that is, theft from a dwelling by someone entitled to be there or theft from
outside a dwelling; 13%). For a full breakdown, see Figure 1.1.
This breakdown of offence types has seen some notable changes over time. The largest component
at the 1995 peak in crime was vehicle-related theft, which made up 28% of CSEW property crime.
Other components included: criminal damage (22%); domestic burglary (16%); and ‘other’ theft of
personal property (14%). For a full breakdown, see Figure 1.1.
Comparing the composition of property crime in 1995 to the 2013/14 survey, the most noticeable
difference is in vehicle-related theft, which has dropped from an estimated 4.2 million offences in
1995 (making up 28% of property crime) to an estimated 0.9 million offences in the 2013/14 survey
(making up 16% of property crime). Domestic burglary also dropped substantially between 1995 (an
estimated 2.4 million offences) and the 2013/14 survey (an estimated 0.8 million offences) and is
the only other category to make up a larger proportion of property crime in 1995 compared with the
2013/14 survey (16% and 13% respectively); all others made up a higher proportion in the 2013/14
survey. This can be attributed to the large falls in vehicle-related theft and domestic burglary over
this period and that other types of property crime have not seen the same level of reduction as these
higher volume crimes.
Figure 1.1: Composition of CSEW property crime, 1995 and 2013/14
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics
2. Click on image to enlarge the chart
Office for National Statistics | 2
27 November 2014
Download chart
XLS format
(30 Kb)
Concerning the profile of offences recorded by the police, in 2013/14 ‘other’ theft offences (20%)
and criminal damage and arson (19%) were the two largest components of police recorded property
crime, similar to the 2013/14 CSEW. Theft from the person (4%), bicycle theft (4%) and robbery
(2%) collectively accounted for a small proportion of all police recorded property crime. For a full
breakdown, see Figure 1.2.
In most respects, the profile of property crime recorded by the police has not substantially changed.
However, comparing the composition of police recorded property crime in 2002/03 to 2013/14, the
most noticeable difference is in vehicle offences, which made up 22% of property crime in 2002/03
and 14% in 2013/14; this drop is consistent with CSEW data. Shoplifting made up a larger proportion
of property crime in 2013/14 (12%) than in 2002/03 (6%), although the number of shoplifting
offences recorded by the police remained roughly the same (321,014 in 2013/14 compared with
310,881 in 2002/03).
Figure 1.2: Composition of police recorded property crime, 2002/03 and 2013/14
Notes:
1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office.
2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics.
3. Fraud offences were recorded by Action Fraud in 2013/14.
4. Click on image to enlarge the chart
Download chart
XLS format
(30 Kb)
Office for National Statistics | 3
27 November 2014
Owing to a change in recording practices brought about by the introduction of the National Crime
3
Recording Standard (NCRS) in April 2002, it is not possible to make direct long-term comparisons
of police recorded crime prior to 2002/03.
The population, offence coverage and volume of offences differ between the CSEW and police
recorded crime, so Figures 1.1 and 1.2 are not directly comparable.
Notes for Introduction
1.
2.
3.
Police recorded crime data presented in this chapter are those notified to the Home Office and
were recorded in the Home Office database on 4 September 2014
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, standalone category in both the police recorded
crime and CSEW data series. As robbery contains an element of theft, it is included within this
‘Focus on: Property crime’ publication.
The NCRS, introduced in April 2002, was designed to ensure greater consistency between
forces in recording crime and to take a more victim-oriented approach to crime recording, with
the police being required to record any allegation of crime unless there was credible evidence to
the contrary.
Trends in CSEW property crime
The proportion of all Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) crime accounted for by property
crime has remained relatively stable over time; it has comprised at least 80% since the survey
began. This makes property crime an important driver in overall CSEW trends. Thus, the long-term
trend for 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 2013/14 CSEW have fallen by over 60% since 1995 (Figure
1.3). This trend is consistent with that seen in many other countries (Tseloni et al., 2010).
Office for National Statistics | 4
27 November 2014
Figure 1.3: Long-term trends in total CSEW crime and CSEW property crime, 1981 to 2013/14
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics
2. Prior to 2001/02, CSEW respondents were asked about their experience of crime in the previous calendar year,
so year-labels identify the year in which the crime took place. Following the change to continuous interviewing,
respondents' experience of crime relates to the full 12 months prior to interview (i.e. a moving reference period), so
year-labels from 2001/02 onwards identify the CSEW year of interview.
Download chart
XLS format
(32.5 Kb)
Most of the higher volume crime types show a similar trend to overall CSEW property crime with
levels peaking in either 1993 or 1995, followed by a general decline from the peaks to the 2013/14
CSEW. Figure 1.4 shows the long term trends for CSEW criminal damage, ‘other’ theft of personal
1
property , vehicle-related theft and domestic burglary from 1981 to 2013/14.
Office for National Statistics | 5
27 November 2014
Figure 1.4: Long-term trends in CSEW criminal damage, other theft of personal property,
vehicle-related theft and domestic burglary, 1981 to 2013/14
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics
2. Prior to 2001/02, CSEW respondents were asked about their experience of crime in the previous calendar year,
so year-labels identify the year in which the crime took place. Following the change to continuous interviewing,
respondents' experience of crime relates to the full 12 months prior to interview (i.e. a moving reference period), so
year-labels from 2001/02 onwards identify the CSEW year of interview.
Download chart
XLS format
(31 Kb)
2
3
Figure 1.5 shows the long term trends in CSEW ‘other’ household theft , theft from the person ,
bicycle theft and robbery from 1981 to 2013/14. These crime types have shown somewhat different
trends compared with that seen for overall CSEW property crime (Figure 1.3):
•
•
After peaking in 1993 and then declining until around the mid-2000s, there was an underlying
upward trend in ‘other’ household theft, which increased by 44% between the 2007/08 and
2011/12 surveys. However, the 2013/14 estimate has decreased to a level similar to that seen in
2007/08.
The trend in theft from the person has remained relatively flat since the mid-1990s, with recent
levels remaining larger than those seen in the 1980s and early 1990s.
Office for National Statistics | 6
27 November 2014
•
•
After peaking in 1995 and then declining until around the early-2000s, the trend in bicycle
theft has been a general increase since 2002/03 (as opposed to a general decline). Albeit, the
2013/14 estimate has decreased to around the same level seen in 2002/03.
Robbery has remained a low volume offence across the history of the survey, typically
accounting for around 2-3% of CSEW property crime. Levels fluctuated from year to year and
showed a small upward trend during the 1990s, peaking in the 1999 survey, before falling to
levels similar to those seen in the 1980s.
Figure 1.5: Long-term trends in CSEW other household theft, theft from the person, bicycle
theft and robbery, 1981 to 2013/14
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics
2. Prior to 2001/02, CSEW respondents were asked about their experience of crime in the previous calendar year,
so year-labels identify the year in which the crime took place. Following the change to continuous interviewing,
respondents' experience of crime relates to the full 12 months prior to interview (i.e. a moving reference period), so
year-labels from 2001/02 onwards identify the CSEW year of interview.
Download chart
XLS format
(31.5 Kb)
Office for National Statistics | 7
27 November 2014
Notes
1.
Thefts, including attempts, of unattended property (that is, not being held or carried by
someone).
2.
Thefts from inside a dwelling by someone who had the right to be there (in contrast to domestic
burglary, where the offender did not have the right to be there) and thefts from outside a
dwelling.
3.
Thefts of property being held or carried by someone, but no or minimal force is used (in contrast
to robbery, where non-minimal force, or the threat of, is used).
Trends in police recorded property crime
Following changes to the Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR) in 1998 and the introduction of the
National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in 2002, police recorded crime data from 2002/03
onwards are not directly comparable with earlier years. However, general long-term trends in
1
property crime are not likely to have been substantially affected by these changes . The trend in
police recorded property crime has been similar to that seen for the CSEW, rising during the 1980s
before peaking in the 1990s and showing gradual decreases for the majority of the 2000s and
beyond (Figures 1.3 and 1.6).
Since 2002/03 (the earliest period for which data are directly comparable), as with crime measured
by the CSEW, the trend in police recorded property crime is similar to the trend for all police
recorded crime. Property crime has shown year-on-year falls and was 46% lower in volume in
2013/14 (2,620,175 offences) than in 2002/03 (4,821,745 offences). This represents a faster rate
of reduction than overall police recorded crime which fell by 38% over the same period. Thus, the
2
proportion of total police recorded crime accounted for by property crime has decreased by 10
percentage points; from 81% in 2002/03 to 70% in 2013/14. Reflecting this change, the relative
contribution of other crime types have increased slightly over this period; the biggest being violence
against the person, with an increase of five percentage points (from 12% in 2002/03 to 17% in
2013/14).
Office for National Statistics | 8
27 November 2014
Figure 1.6: Trends in total police recorded crime and police recorded property crime, 1981 to
2013/14
Notes:
1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office
2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics.
3. Following changes to the Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR) in 1998 and the introduction of the National Crime
Recording Standard (NCRS) in 2002, data from 2002/03 onwards are not directly comparable with earlier years; nor
are data between 1998/99 and 2001/02 directly comparable with data prior to 1998/99.
Download chart
XLS format
(30.5 Kb)
With regard to specific property crime types covered in this chapter, discussions of trends have been
restricted to the period 2002/03 to 2013/14, where data are directly comparable.
Police recorded vehicle offences and burglary have shown the largest decreases in volume over the
last decade, similar to the CSEW; vehicle offences were down by 65% (702,629 offences) between
2002/03 and 2013/14 and burglary was down by 50% (446,914 offences) over the same period
(Figure 1.7).
‘(All) other theft offences’ – which comprises mainly of theft of unattended property – showed a 6%
decrease in 2013/14 compared with the previous year. This is in contrast with a recent upward trend
recorded by the police between 2009/10 and 2011/12, which followed a longer downward trend
between 2003/04 and 2009/10 (Figure 1.7).
Office for National Statistics | 9
27 November 2014
Within ‘(All) other theft offences’, the largest single offence classification is ‘Other theft’. This
sub-category, in addition to theft of unattended personal items (such as a mobile phone left on
a pub table), includes crimes against organisations which are not covered by the CSEW, such
as theft of metal or industrial equipment. However, it is not possible to separately identify thefts
against businesses in centrally held police recorded crime data (this type of crime is covered
by the Commercial Victimisation Survey). ‘Other theft’ offences saw a 7% decrease in 2013/14
compared with the previous year and this followed a 13% increase between 2009/10 and 2011/12.
This initial rise is likely to have been caused in part by a surge in metal theft over this period, which
3
corresponds with a spike in world commodity prices. Some more recent evidence suggests that
such offences are now decreasing and should be seen in the context of new metal theft legislation.
The legislation came into force in May 2013, which increased fines for existing offences under the
Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, and introduced a new offence for dealers of paying for scrap metal in
cash.
Police forces have been required to submit a special data return on offences involving metal theft to
the Home Office since April 2012. For more detailed information on metal theft offences recorded by
the police in 2012/13 and 2013/14, see ‘Chapter 2: Metal theft’ of this release.
Figure 1.7: Trends in selected police recorded theft offences, 2002/03 to 2013/14
Notes:
1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office.
2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics.
Download chart
XLS format
(29.5 Kb)
Office for National Statistics | 10
27 November 2014
Shoplifting
While there has been no overall increase in crime, there has been some upward pressure on some
specific crime types, such as theft of unattended items (including shoplifting).
The longer term trend in shoplifting recorded by the police is different from that seen for other theft
offences. While most theft offences saw steady declines in the number of crimes recorded by the
police over much of the last decade, levels of recorded shoplifting showed comparatively little
change over this time. There has, though, been interest surrounding the recent increase seen in
shoplifting offences recorded by the police in 2013/14.
Shoplifting accounted for 9% of all police recorded crime in 2013/14, with 321,014 offences
recorded. The number of police recorded shoplifting offences in 2013/14 showed a 7% increase
compared with the previous year and is the highest since the introduction of the NCRS in 2002/03
(Figure 1.8).
The typically low rate of reporting to the police presents challenges in interpreting trends in police
recorded shoplifting. There are a number of factors that should be considered, including:
•
a potential increase in reporting, whereby retailers may adopt new strategies or approaches to
4
•
•
deal with shoplifters (such as one announced by the Cooperative supermarket chain ), which in
turn means the police record more shoplifting offences;
changes to police recording practices; while there is no specific evidence to suggest there has
been a recent change in the recording of shoplifting offences, it is not possible to rule this out;
and
a real increase in the number of shoplifting offences being committed.
5
Anecdotal evidence from some police forces suggests that the rise in police recorded shoplifting
offences is likely to be a real increase in reporting rather than any change in police recording
practice. Shoplifting is also less likely than other types of offence to be affected by changes in police
recording practices. Ministry of Justice statistics additionally show a recent rise in the number of
offenders being prosecuted for shoplifting at magistrates’ courts.
Findings from recent surveys of the retail sector have been mixed. The 2013 Commercial
Victimisation Survey (CVS) showed no statistically significant change in the estimated level of
shoplifting compared with the 2012 survey, while a British Retail Consortium (BRC) survey indicated
that their members were experiencing higher levels of shoplifting.
The 2013 CVS provides a measure of shoplifting (referred to in the survey as ‘Theft by customers’)
which includes crimes not reported to the police. The 2013 survey estimated that there were 3.3
million incidents of theft by customers in the wholesale and retail sector; this is over 10 times the
number of shoplifting offences recorded by the police. This reflects the fact that most incidents of
shoplifting do not come to the attention of the police. As such, recorded crime figures for this type of
offence are highly dependent on whether the businesses report the incidents to the police.
Theft from the person
Office for National Statistics | 11
27 November 2014
Theft from the person involves offences where there is theft of property, while the property is being
carried by, or on the person of, the victim. These include snatch thefts (where an element of force
may be used to snatch the property away) and stealth thefts (where the victim is unaware of the
offence being committed, for example, pick-pocketing). Unlike robbery, these offences do not involve
violence or threats to the victim.
The longer term trend in theft from the person recorded by the police is different from that seen for
other theft offences. While most theft offences saw steady declines in the number of crimes recorded
by the police over much of the last decade, levels of recorded theft from the person generally
declined between 2002/03 and 2008/09, before increasing year-on-year between 2008/09 and
2012/13. However, the latest police figures in 2013/14 reverse the trend of year-on-year increases
seen between 2008/09 and 2012/13.
The number of police recorded theft from the person offences in 2013/14 showed a 10% decrease
compared with the previous year; this is in contrast to the 9% increase in 2012/13 compared with
2011/12. Between 2008/09 and 2012/13, there was an average annual increase of 5% in theft from
the person offences recorded by the police (Figure 1.8).
It is thought that the increase seen between 2008/09 and 2012/13 may be due to people carrying
more valuable items on their person than previously, such as more advanced smartphones and
tablet computers which attract high value in the stolen goods market. Analysis conducted on
London-specific data during the period August 2012 to January 2014 in a recent Home Office
research paper 'Reducing mobile phone theft and improving security' indicates that certain
smartphones are significantly more likely to be targeted.
The Home Office research paper suggests that the release of a new operating system for mobile
devices (iOS7) in September 2013, that introduced enhancements in security, is likely to have
contributed to the substantial reduction in mobile phone thefts in London. If this effect was replicated
across the whole of England and Wales, it may help to explain the 10% decrease in theft from the
person offences recorded by the police in 2013/14 compared with the previous year.
Office for National Statistics | 12
27 November 2014
Figure 1.8: Trends in police recorded shoplifting and theft from the person offences, 2002/03
to 2013/14
Notes:
1. Source: Police recorded crime, Home Office.
2. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics.
Download chart
XLS format
(29 Kb)
Notes
1.
Changes to the HOCR and the introduction of the NCRS had a greater impact on the number of
violent crimes recorded by the police; see Section 5.1 of the User Guide for more information.
2.
Including robbery.
3.
For example, Network Rail have reported decreases in the number of incidents of cable theft
affecting rail passengers between 2010/11 and 2013/14, with a substantial drop between
2011/12 (845 incidents) and 2012/13 (287 incidents).
4.
As reported in the Nottingham Post, 18 December 2013.
5.
For example, as reported in The Guardian, 23 January 2014.
Office for National Statistics | 13
27 November 2014
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 quality of building and vehicle security has been an
important factor in the reduction in property crime. This concept of ‘target-hardening’ – making
targets (that is, anything that an offender would want to steal or damage) more resistant to attack
– is likely to deter offenders from committing crime (Cornish and Clarke, 2003). Findings from the
CSEW add some evidence in support of this, indicating that alongside the falls in property crime,
there were also improvements in household and vehicle security.
1
Since 1995 , there have been statistically significant increases in the proportion of households in the
2013/14 CSEW (‘Nature of Crime’ table 3.12 (406 Kb Excel sheet)) with:
•
•
•
•
window locks (up 21 percentage points from 68% to 89% of households);
light timers/sensors (up 16 percentage points from 39% to 55% of households);
double/dead locks (up 12 percentage points from 70% to 82% of households); and
burglar alarms (up 10 percentage points from 20% to 30% of households).
Over the last decade there have also been statistically significant reductions in vehicle-related theft
resulting from offenders gaining entry by forcing locks (35% of vehicle-related theft incidents in the
2004/05 CSEW; 14% in the 2013/14 survey) or breaking windows (45% of vehicle-related theft
incidents in the 2004/05 CSEW; 24% in the 2013/14 survey).
There have been a large number of theories put forward to explain the reduction in property crime;
many of them are contested and subject to continuing discussion and debate. Some of these
include:
•
•
•
•
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), young people may never take
part in criminal activity (Farrell et al., 2010).
The rise in the use of the internet has 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 is likely to have resulted in a drop in offending
(Bunge et al., 2005). A recent Home Office research paper 'The heroin epidemic of the 1980s
and 1990s and its effect on crime trends - then and now' supports the notion that the changing
levels of opiate and crack-cocaine use have affected acquisitive crime trends in England and
Wales, potentially explaining over half of the rise in crime in the 1980s to mid-1990s and between
a quarter and a third of the fall in crime since the mid-1990s.
Significant improvements in forensic and other crime scene investigation techniques and record
keeping, such as fingerprinting and DNA testing may have led to a reduction in crime. Given the
prominence of these advancements, perceived risk to offenders may have increased, inducing a
deterrent effect (Farrell et al., 2010).
Office for National Statistics | 14
27 November 2014
•
•
•
•
The introduction of legalised abortion, which meant that more children who might have been born
into families in poverty or troubled environments and be more prone to get drawn into criminality,
would not be born and therefore be unable to commit these crimes (Donohue and Levitt, 2001).
Changes (real or perceived) in technology and infrastructure, including security technology such
as CCTV, are likely to act as deterrents to committing crime (Welsh and Farrington, 2008).
Demographic changes, such as falling numbers of young men (who are most likely to commit
crime) in the population may have contributed to a reduction in crime (Fox, 2011).
The impacts of longer prison sentences and police activity on reducing crime, particularly
property crimes, are likely to act as deterrents (Bandyopadhyay et al., 2012).
Many believed 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, however, despite some increases seen in specific offences (for example, CSEW ‘other’
household theft between 2007/08 and 2011/12) been no such widespread increases apparent in
either total police recorded property crime or CSEW property crime.
Notes
1.
Sourced from ‘Nature of burglary, 2007/08’ tables (the latest published data on home security
measures from the 1996 CSEW).
Fraud
The extent of fraud is difficult to measure because it is a deceptive crime, often targeted at
organisations rather than individuals. Some victims of fraud may be unaware they have been a
victim of crime, or that any fraudulent activity has occurred. As a result, many incidents of fraud may
not be reported to the police or recalled by survey respondents. Fraud is also inherently different
from other crimes in that one fraud offence can potentially affect thousands of victims. It may also be
difficult to ascertain where the offence originated or took place (if, for example, it took place via the
internet).
Measuring fraud using the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW)
Fraud is not included in the main CSEW crime estimates. However, the CSEW includes
supplementary modules of questions on victimisation across a range of fraud and cyber-crime
offences, including plastic card and bank/building society fraud. These are currently reported
separately from the headline estimates.
The 2013/14 CSEW showed that 5.1% of plastic card owners were victims of card fraud in the
previous year, with a statistically significant rise from the 4.6% estimated in the 2012/13 CSEW.
Before that, there had been small reductions in levels of plastic card fraud over the last few years,
following a rise between the 2005/06 (when the questions were first asked) and 2008/09 surveys.
The current increased level of victimisation remains higher than more established offences such as
theft from the person and ‘other’ theft of personal property (1.1% and 1.9% respectively).
Office for National Statistics | 15
27 November 2014
Separate analysis (based on the 2012/13 CSEW) showed that together, plastic card fraud and bank
and building society fraud could have contributed between 3.6 and 3.8 million incidents of crime
to the total number of CSEW crimes in this survey year. These numbers provide an approximate
indication of the scale of these offences that are not covered in the headline estimates each year.
However, these are based on some simple assumptions given the current absence of data on the
number of times respondents fell victim within the crime reference period.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is currently conducting some work exploring the feasibility
of extending the main victimisation module in the CSEW to cover elements of fraud and cybercrime. This work includes developing and cognitively testing questions for inclusion in the survey
and fieldwork piloting. It will also include examining what impact adding such questions may have
on existing questionnaire length and on existing time series. This work will be extensive and is
expected to run throughout most of 2014 with the aim of questions being implemented in the
2015/16 questionnaire. For more information, see the methodological note 'Work to extend the
Crime Survey for England and Wales to include fraud and cyber crime'.
There are a wide range of associated conceptual challenges that need to be addressed, which
include:
•
•
•
•
Counting incidents – plastic card or bank account fraud often involve separate ‘events’ (for
example, card purchases at different retailers on different days) and a clear set of rules for
counting incidents would need to be established. These need to be conceptually sound, but
practical in terms of respondents being able to recall and group, or separate, such events into
individual incidents.
Identifying and counting victims – for example, in areas such as bank and credit card (cyberenabled) fraud, there may be ambiguity about the victim. It is unclear whether the victim is the
bank or financial institution who suffers the loss, or the customer.
Identifying where the crime took place – while it is often possible to identify where the victim or
victims reside, it is often not possible to identify where the offence originated (and only those
which take place within England and Wales should be counted).
The means for criminals to attempt to commit this type of crime on a grand scale – a single act
of uploading a computer virus or sending a malicious e-mail may impact on thousands of people
and could (in theory) result in thousands of crimes being recorded.
Recent changes to police recorded fraud
There have been a number of recent changes to the presentation of fraud in ONS’ crime statistics
publications. These reflect changes in operational arrangements for reporting and recording of fraud
with the police recorded crime series now including offences recorded by Action Fraud. This is a
public facing national reporting centre that records incidents reported directly to them from the public
and other organisations.
Since 1 April 2013, Action Fraud has taken responsibility for the central recording of fraud offences
1
previously recorded by individual police forces . To allow for piloting and development of the Action
Fraud service this transfer had a phased introduction between April 2011 and March 2013. For
example, by the end of December 2012, 24 police force areas had transferred responsibility with
Office for National Statistics | 16
27 November 2014
2
the remaining transferring by the end of March 2013 . From 2013/14 onwards, all fraud figures
3
encompass all police recorded fraud under Action Fraud .
The move to centralised recording of fraud makes comparisons over time problematic. Although,
in 2013/14, there was an increase of 17% in recorded fraud offences compared with the previous
year (211,292 offences; up from 179,891 in 2012/13), there are a number of factors that may have
contributed to this increase including:
•
•
•
•
the centralisation of recording fraud and a possible improvement in recording practices resulting
from having a specialist team dealing with fraud;
a possible increased proportion of victims reporting fraud following publicity around the launch of
Action Fraud;
availability of online reporting tools to facilitate reporting of fraud offences to Action Fraud; and
a possible increase in the volume of fraud.
It is not currently possible to separate out, or quantify the scale of each possible factor. It is hoped
that a clearer picture will soon emerge, once the new recording arrangements have matured. It
will only be in 2014/15 (data for which are due to be published in July 2015) that all effects of the
transition will no longer be a factor when considering the year on year changes.
The level of fraud reported to the police / Action Fraud is thought to significantly understate the true
level of such crime.
Fraud offences reported by industry bodies
The National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB) also collect data on fraud direct from industry bodies.
The NFIB are based at the City of London Police, who lead national policing on fraud.
The NFIB currently receive data from two industry bodies:
•
•
CIFAS is a UK-wide fraud prevention service representing around 300 organisations from the
public and private sectors. These organisations mainly share data on confirmed cases of fraud,
particularly application, identity and first party frauds, via the CIFAS National Fraud Database.
Financial Fraud Action UK (FFA UK) is the name under which the financial services industry
co-ordinates its activity on fraud prevention. FFA UK works in partnership with the UK Cards
Association, and collates information from the card payments industry in the UK on fraud relating
to cheque, plastic card and online bank accounts, via their central Fraud Intelligence Sharing
System (FISS) database.
In addition, users should also be aware that the NFIB data sourced from industry bodies cover
the UK as a whole, while all other data refer to England and Wales. However, the NFIB data does
provide additional context to official statistics on crime.
In addition to the offences recorded by Action Fraud, the NFIB received 333,672 reports of fraud in
the UK in the year ending March 2014 from industry bodies CIFAS and FFA UK; this represents a
2% increase from the previous year (326,609 reports).
Office for National Statistics | 17
27 November 2014
Of the fraud offences reported by those bodies, 85% were in the category of ‘banking and credit
industry fraud’ (282,199). This category includes fraud involving plastic cards, cheques and
online bank accounts which accounted for the majority of the offences recorded in the year
ending March 2014. The category also covers payment-related frauds under the sub-category
‘Application Fraud’ which includes offences that occurred outside of the banking sector; for example,
fraudulent applications made in relation to hire purchase agreements, as well as to insurance,
telecommunications or retail companies, or public sector organisations.
For further information on fraud, see ‘Data Source and References’ within this release.
Notes
1.
Police forces continue to record forgery offences, which fall under ‘Other crimes against society’
and are not included under ‘Fraud offences’; see Section 5.4 of the User Guide for more
information.
2.
For more information regarding the date when each police force transferred responsibility to
Action Fraud see Section 5.4 of the User Guide.
3.
Although Action Fraud had taken over the recording of all fraud offences from police forces
by the end of 2012/13, there were 65 cases in 2013/14 where police forces recorded a fraud
offence. This is a consequence of the transition process, and these cases are likely to be
revised in the future.
Property crime against children aged 10-15
Based on Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) in the year ending March 2014, there
were an estimated 322,000 incidents of personal theft and 43,000 incidents of criminal damage to
1
personal property experienced by children aged 10 to 15 . Around 70% of the thefts were classified
as ‘Other theft of personal property’ (225,000 incidents), which includes thefts of unattended
property.
It is difficult to ascertain any clear trend within the estimates for property crime experienced by
children aged 10 to 15 as data are only available from 2009/10 onwards. The relatively small
number of children aged 10 to 15 interviewed by the CSEW means that the estimates for crime
experienced by children aged 10 to 15 are much more prone to year-on-year fluctuation than
estimates from the CSEW for adults aged 16 and over.
Notes
1.
Based on the preferred measure of crime. More information about the preferred and broad
measures of crime against children aged 10 to 15 can be found in Section 2.5 of the User
Guide.
Office for National Statistics | 18
27 November 2014
Levels of victimisation
The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) provides estimates of victimisation rates for the
crimes that it covers, and these vary by property crime type (Figure 1.9). In the 2013/14 CSEW,
4.3% of vehicle-owning households had experienced vehicle-related theft and 4.2% of households
had experienced criminal damage. In contrast, 1.1% of adults had been a victim of theft from the
person and 0.3% had been a victim of robbery. Some 6.2% of children aged 10 to 15 had been a
victim of personal theft
1,2
1
, and 0.9% had been a victim of criminal damage to personal property .
Comparing victimisation rates in 1995 (when crime was at its peak) to the 2013/14 CSEW:
•
•
•
•
The most noticeable difference is in vehicle-related theft which decreased from 19.7% of vehicleowning households experiencing a vehicle-related theft in 1995 to 4.3% in the 2013/14 CSEW;
Criminal damage has shown a large decrease from 10.1% of households experiencing criminal
damage in 1995 to 4.2% in the 2013/14 CSEW;
Domestic burglary has also shown a large decrease from 8.7% of households experiencing
domestic burglary in 1995 to 2.7% in the 2013/14 CSEW; and
Personal crimes such as theft from the person have shown smaller decreases; 1.6% of adults
aged 16 and over experienced theft from the person in 1995 compared with 1.1% in the 2013/14
survey.
Although not included in the main crime estimates, 5.1% of adults aged 16 and over experienced
plastic card fraud in the 2013/14 CSEW, compared with 3.7% in the 2005/06 CSEW (the earliest
data are available).
Office for National Statistics | 19
27 November 2014
Figure 1.9: CSEW property crime victimisation, 1995 and 2013/14
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics
2. Vehicle-related theft victimisation rates relate to vehicle-owning households only.
3. Bicycle theft victimisation rates relate to bicycle-owning households only.
Download chart
XLS format
(29 Kb)
Notes
1.
Based on the preferred measure of crime. More information about the preferred and broad
measures of crime against children aged 10 to 15 can be found in Section 2.5 of the User
Guide.
2.
Personal theft includes: theft from the person (stealth theft, snatch theft and attempted snatch
or stealth theft) and ‘other’ theft of personal property, but also theft from inside and outside a
dwelling and theft of bicycles where the property stolen belonged solely to the child respondent.
Characteristics associated with being a victim of CSEW property crime
Additional analysis has been conducted on the 2013/14 Crime Survey for England and Wales
(CSEW) on the characteristics associated with being a victim of property crime. All CSEW
differences described in this section are statistically significant, unless stated otherwise. Full
Office for National Statistics | 20
27 November 2014
breakdowns of the likelihood of being a victim of property crimes by household and personal
characteristics are shown in Appendix tables 1.01-1.11 (436.5 Kb Excel sheet). 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.
Age
Among respondents interviewed in the 2013/14 CSEW, those in younger age groups were more
likely to be victims than those in older age groups in all property crime types:
•
Households where the household reference person was aged 16-24 or 25-34 (both 3.8%) were
more than twice as likely to be victims of domestic burglary as households where the household
reference person was 65-74 (1.9%) or aged 75 and over (1.4%).
•
Bicycle-owning households where the household reference person was aged 16-24 (6.9%) were
more than twice as likely as households where the household reference person was in all other
age groups apart from those aged 25-34 (3.9%).
Respondents aged 16-24 (2.9%) were more than twice as likely as those in all other age groups
to be a victim of theft from the person.
•
1
Sex
According to the 2013/14 CSEW, for most property crime types, there was no variation in
victimisation rates between men and women. Apparent differences, suggesting women (or
households where the household reference person was female) were typically more likely to be
victims than men (or households where the household reference person was male), were not
statistically significant. Exceptions to this were:
•
•
Females (1.5%) were twice as likely to be victims of theft from the person compared with males
(0.8%).
Males (0.4%) were twice as likely to be victims of robbery compared with females (0.2%).
Household structure
In the 2013/14 CSEW, for most property crime types, respondents in lone-parent households were
most likely to be victims:
•
•
Lone-parent households (5.3%) were more likely to be victims of domestic burglary than adults
with children households (3.0%) and households without children (2.4%).
Respondents in lone-parent households (7.0%) were more likely to be victims of plastic card
fraud than respondents living in households without children (4.8%).
Employment/occupation
According to the 2013/14 CSEW, for almost all property crime types, respondents who were
unemployed (or households where the household reference person was unemployed) were more
2
likely to be victims than those who are in employment or classed as ‘economically inactive ’:
Office for National Statistics | 21
27 November 2014
•
•
•
Households where the household reference person was unemployed (5.8%) were over twice
as likely to be victims of domestic burglary compared with households where the household
reference person was in employment (2.7%) or economically inactive (2.3%).
Households where the household reference person was unemployed (6.6%) were over twice as
likely to be victims of bicycle theft compared with households where the household reference
person was in employment (2.6%) or economically inactive (2.5%).
Apparent exceptions to this, where those in employment were more likely to be a victim
compared with those who were unemployed, were ‘other’ theft of personal property and plastic
card fraud, but these differences were not statistically significant.
3
For almost all types of property crime, respondents living in the most deprived (employment )
output areas were most likely to be victims; one notable exception was for plastic card fraud, where
respondents living in the most deprived output areas (4.2%) were less likely to be victims than those
living in the least deprived output areas or in ‘other’ output areas (both 5.3%).
Full-time students (or households where the household reference person was a full-time student)
were more likely to be victims of bicycle theft (10.5%), theft from the person (3.9%) and ‘other’ theft
of personal property (3.6%) than those in other occupations or who are unemployed.
Household income
In the 2013/14 CSEW, for plastic card fraud, respondents in higher-income households (for example
7.1% of households with a total income of £50,000 or more) were more likely to be victims than
respondents in lower-income households (for example, 3.5% of households with a total income of
less than £10,000). Although less pronounced, this general pattern was also seen among victims of
vehicle-related theft, criminal damage and other theft of personal property.
The opposite distribution was evident for bicycle theft; respondents in lower-income households (for
example, 5.4% of bicycle-owning households with a total income of less than £10,000) were more
likely to be victims than respondents in higher-income households (for example, 2.2% of bicycleowning households with a total income of £50,000 or more). This general pattern was also seen
among victims of domestic burglary.
Accommodation type
According to the 2013/14 CSEW, for almost all property crime types, respondents living in flats/
maisonettes were more likely to be victims than those living in houses:
•
•
•
Respondents from vehicle-owning households living in flats/maisonettes (5.7%) were more likely
to be victims of vehicle-related theft than those living in houses (4.1%).
Respondents from bicycle-owning households living in flats/maisonettes (6.1%) were more than
twice as likely to be victims of bicycle theft as those living in houses (2.3%).
The exceptions to this were criminal damage, where those living in houses (4.4%) were
more likely to be a victim (compared with those living in flats/maisonettes; 3.3%) and ‘other’
household theft, where again, respondents living in houses (2.8%) were more likely to be a victim
(compared with those living in flats/maisonettes; 2.1%). The latter is owing to the majority of
Office for National Statistics | 22
27 November 2014
‘other’ household theft offences being categorised as ‘theft from outside a dwelling’ (typically
gardens) and flats/maisonettes are less likely to have gardens than houses.
Area type
In the 2013/14 CSEW, for almost all property crime types, respondents living in urban areas were
more likely to be victims than those living in rural areas:
•
•
•
For respondents in bicycle-owning households, those living in urban areas (3.2%) were three
times as likely to be victims of bicycle theft compared with those living in rural areas (1.1%).
Respondents living in urban areas (1.3%) were twice as likely to be victims of theft from the
person compared with those living in rural areas (0.7%).
An apparent exception to this, where respondents living in rural areas were more likely to be a
victim (compared with those living in urban areas), was plastic card fraud, but these differences
were not statistically significant.
Level of physical disorder (incivility)
According to the 2013/14 CSEW, for most property crime types, respondents living in areas with
4
high incivility were more likely to be victims than those living in areas with low incivility:
•
•
•
Respondents living in vehicle-owning households in areas of high incivility (6.8%) were more
likely to be victims of vehicle-related theft than those living in vehicle-owning households in areas
of low incivility (4.2%).
Respondents living in bicycle-owning households in areas of high incivility (4.6%) were more
likely to be victims of bicycle theft than those living in bicycle-owning households in areas of low
incivility (2.6%).
Apparent exceptions to this, where respondents living in areas with low incivility were more
likely to be a victim (compared with those living in areas with high incivility), were ‘other’ theft of
personal property and plastic card fraud, but these differences were not statistically significant.
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). Analysis previously carried out
on the 2011/12 CSEW has not been repeated for the 2013/14 survey. For details of the 2011/12
CSEW logistic regression analysis, see Focus on: Property Crime, 2011/12.
Notes
1.
The household reference person (HRP) is the member of the household in whose name
the accommodation is owned/rented, or is otherwise responsible for the accommodation.
In households with a sole householder, that person is the HRP, and in households with joint
Office for National Statistics | 23
27 November 2014
householders, the person with the highest income is the HRP (or if two or more householders
have exactly the same income, the oldest person is the HRP).
2.
People who are not in employment or unemployed (people without a job who have not actively
sought work in the four weeks prior to their interview and/or are not available to start work in the
two weeks following their interview) including, for example: students, unpaid carers and retirees.
3.
Data are available for England only. For more information on the employment deprivation
indicator, see Section 7.1 of the User Guide.
4.
A physical disorder measure based upon a CSEW interviewer’s assessment of the level of: (a)
vandalism, graffiti and deliberate damage to property; (b) rubbish and litter; and (c) homes in
poor condition in the area.
Reporting of CSEW property crime to the police
Not all incidents of crime recorded by the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) are reported
to the police. Figure 1.10 shows reporting rates by property crime type from the 2013/14 CSEW.
Incidents of theft of vehicles were most likely to be reported to the police (97% of incidents), which
has been the case since the survey began in 1981, followed by domestic burglary in a dwelling with
loss (89% of incidents). The high reporting rates for theft of vehicles and domestic burglary in a
dwelling are likely to reflect the need for a crime reference number in order to claim on an insurance
policy, given the higher severity of these crimes.
As in previous survey years, incidents of theft from the person (32%), criminal damage (32%), ‘other’
theft of personal property (28%) and theft from outside a dwelling (19%) were least likely to be
reported to the police. This is likely owing to, in particular for incidents of ‘other’ theft of personal
property (largely theft of unattended items) and theft from outside a dwelling, the monetary value
of items stolen being comparatively small and victims being less likely to have had contact with the
perpetrator(s).
Broadly speaking, since 1995 the proportions of specific CSEW property crime types reported to
the police have remained fairly stable or shown small reductions, with the exception of bicycle theft
incidents reported to the police, which have dropped by almost 20 percentage points from 63%
in 1995 to 44% in the 2013/14 survey (see Table D8 of Crime in England and Wales, year ending
March 2014).
Office for National Statistics | 24
27 November 2014
Figure 1.10: Proportion of CSEW property crime incidents reported to the police, 2013/14
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics
Download chart
XLS format
(28 Kb)
Notes
CSEW mobile phone ownership and theft
Since 2005/06, the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) has asked respondents about
every household member’s ownership of mobile phones and their experience of mobile phone theft.
1
It is not currently possible to differentiate ‘smartphones ’ from ‘mobile phones’ in the survey, as the
2
question wording has remained constant since it was first introduced . Data on CSEW mobile phone
ownership and theft are shown in Appendix Tables 1.12-1.15 (436.5 Kb Excel sheet).
Ownership
According to the 2013/14 CSEW, 81% of people resident in households in England and Wales
owned a mobile phone; this is equivalent to 45.4 million individuals owning a mobile. Mobile
phone ownership has been increasing steadily over time and the latest figures compare with 71%
ownership in the 2005/06 survey.
Office for National Statistics | 25
27 November 2014
Mobile phone ownership among males and females has increased at a similar rate between the
2005/06 and 2013/14 surveys, with the 2013/14 CSEW showing that similar proportions of males
and females were mobile phone owners (both 81%), equivalent to around 22.3 million males and
23.1 million females.
The highest levels of mobile phone ownership according to the 2013/14 CSEW were among those
aged 22 to 44 at 98%; adults aged 75 or older (65%) were least likely to own a mobile phone.
Among children, ownership was low for those aged under 10 (5%) but almost three-quarters of those
aged 10 to 13 (72%) owned a mobile phone.
Theft
According to the 2013/14 CSEW, 1.7% of mobile phone owners experienced a phone theft in the
previous year (similar to 1.6% in 2012/13), equivalent to 784,000 people.
Between 2005/06 (when measurement began on the CSEW) and the 2008/09 survey, levels of
mobile phone theft were similar, but this was followed by a fall between 2008/09 and 2009/10 (from
2.1% to 1.7%). Since then levels have remained stable (Figure 1.11).
Figure 1.11: Proportion of individual mobile phone owners experiencing theft in the last year,
2005/06 to 2013/14 CSEW
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics
2. Information on mobile phone theft was collected about the respondent and all other members of the household
Download chart
XLS format
(29 Kb)
Office for National Statistics | 26
27 November 2014
It is not clear what caused the fall in mobile phone theft prevalence between the 2008/09 and
2009/10 surveys, although they cover a period relatively soon after a charter was launched by the
Mobile Industry Crime Action Forum (at the end of 2006) where the majority of mobile phones would
be blocked (and hence unusable) within 48 hours of being reported stolen.
The trend in prevalence of mobile phone theft since CSEW measurement began in 2005/06 is
similar for males and females. In the 2013/14 CSEW, 1.6% of males and 1.8% of females had their
mobile phone stolen in the last year, equivalent to around 364,000 males and 420,000 females.
According to the 2013/14 CSEW, teenagers and young adult mobile phone owners (those aged
18-24) were more likely than other age groups to have had their mobile phone stolen (18-21: 4.1%;
22-24: 3.6%). Children under 10 (0.3%), adults aged 75 or older (0.7%) and adults aged 65-74
(0.8%) who own a mobile phone were least likely to have had their phone stolen.
The Home Office research paper Reducing mobile phone theft and improving security provides
further information on mobile phone ownership and theft, using results from the CSEW and Londonspecific data from the Metropolitan Police.
The London-specific analysis showed that some brands of phone were more likely to be stolen
than others. There are several factors that are likely to affect this, from how desirable a phone is,
including its potential resale in second hand markets, to how easy it is to steal the personal data
3
contained within it. The Mobile Phone Ratio , which shows how likely different types of phone are to
be deliberately targeted, indicates that Apple iPhones are the most likely to be stolen, based on the
data from August 2012 to January 2014.
Notes
1.
Smartphones are a subset of mobile phones which have advanced computer capability,
enabling functions such as cameras, GPS, touchscreens and web browsers.
2.
In the 2014/15 CSEW, for the first time, a follow-up question will be asked of respondents who
say they had a mobile phone stolen, as to whether it was a smartphone.
3.
Not all stolen phones could plausibly have been targeted; some mobile phones are stolen, for
example, from a home during the course of a burglary together with other valuables. In order to
control for this, a Mobile Phone Theft Ratio can be constructed. This ratio is derived by dividing
the share of thefts of a given model that were plausibly targeted (for example, a phone that has
been snatched) by the share of thefts of a given model that was unlikely to have been targeted
(for example, a phone stolen as part of a burglary).
CSEW cyber-crime
As previously mentioned, cyber-crime is not currently included in the main Crime Survey for
England and Wales (CSEW) estimates, although the Office for National Statistics (ONS) is currently
conducting some work exploring the feasibility of extending the main victimisation module in the
CSEW to cover elements of cyber-crime (see the ‘Fraud’ section for further details).
Office for National Statistics | 27
27 November 2014
Since 2008/09, the CSEW has asked adults about their internet use. From 2010/11, it has also
asked about measures taken to protect personal details when using the internet, relating to the
‘citizens know what to do to protect themselves’ element of the UK Cyber Security Strategy
(published in November 2011).
Experiences of negative online experiences (such as a computer virus or loss of money) have also
been asked in the CSEW since 2010/11 and questions on whether respondents reported negative
online experiences to any organisations and, if so, how satisfied they were with the service they
received, were added to the 2013/14 survey. The questions on negative online experiences provide
an indicator, but not a measure, of cyber-enabled crimes as the experiences asked about may or
may not have been criminal.
Data on CSEW cyber-crime are shown in Appendix Tables 1.16-1.21 (436.5 Kb Excel sheet).
Negative online experiences
CSEW respondents are asked whether they experienced any of the following types of negative
online behaviours/actions (some relating to property and others to upsetting/threatening behaviour)
as a result of using the internet in the 12 months prior to their interview:
•
•
•
•
•
a computer virus;
unauthorised access to/use of personal data;
upsetting/illegal images;
loss of money; and
abusive/threatening behaviour.
In the 2013/14 CSEW, two-thirds (67%) of adults said that they had not experienced any of these
negative behaviours or actions. The most commonly cited negative experience was a computer virus
which had been experienced by around a quarter of internet-using adults (24%) in the last year; 8%
reported that someone had unauthorised access to or had used their personal data (for example,
their email or bank account) while 3% said they had lost money while using the internet.
Reporting of online incidents
For respondents in the 2013/14 CSEW that experienced a computer virus in the last year, an antivirus software company (35%) was the most common organisation that the incident was initially
reported to. Over nine in ten (93%) respondents who experienced a computer virus were satisfied
with the way the organisation they first reported the incident to handled it.
In the 2013/14 CSEW, a bank/building society or credit card company was the most common
organisation that an incident of loss of money (75%) or unauthorised access (38%) was initially
reported to. Around three-quarters (73%) of respondents who experienced loss of money were
satisfied with the way the organisation they first reported the incident to handled it and 86% of
respondents who experienced an incident of unauthorised access were satisfied with the way the
organisation they first reported the incident to handled it.
Security measures taken
Office for National Statistics | 28
27 November 2014
The majority of respondents to the 2013/14 CSEW had adopted one or more security measures
when using the internet, for example: 83% had installed anti-virus or other security software; 71%
deleted suspicious emails without opening them; and 69% used complex passwords. Only 4% had
not adopted any security measures.
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, so 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) is a telephone survey in which respondents from a
representative sample of business premises in certain sectors in England and Wales are asked
about crimes experienced at their premises in the 12 months prior to interview. Surveys took place
in 2012 and 2013, having previously run in 1994 and 2002, and work is currently underway on the
2014 CVS.
The 2012 CVS provided information on the volume and type of crime committed against businesses
in England and Wales across four sectors: ‘Manufacturing’; ‘Wholesale and retail’; ‘Transportation
and storage’; and ‘Accommodation and food’. For more information, see the Home Office’s 'Headline
findings from the 2012 Commercial Victimisation Survey' and 'Detailed findings from the 2012
Commercial Victimisation Survey'.
The 2013 CVS covered a slightly different set of business sectors; it continued to include the
‘Accommodation and food’, and ‘Wholesale and retail’ sectors, but the ‘Manufacturing’ and
‘Transportation and storage’ sectors were replaced by the ‘Agriculture, forestry and fishing’ and the
‘Arts, entertainment and recreation’ sectors. For more information, see the Home Office’s 'Headline
findings from the 2013 Commercial Victimisation Survey' and 'Detailed findings from the 2013
Commercial Victimisation Survey'.
Results from the 2012 and 2013 CVS
2012 CVS data estimated that there were 9.2 million crimes against business in the four sectors
covered by the survey in the year prior to interview; of these 91% were property related (Figure
1.12).
2013 CVS data estimated that there were 6.8 million crimes against business in the four sectors
covered by the survey in the year prior to interview; of these, 91% were property related (Figure
1.12).
Office for National Statistics | 29
27 November 2014
Figure 1.12: Crime experienced by businesses in selected sectors, 2012 and 2013
Notes:
1. Source: 2012 and 2013 Commercial Victimisation Survey, Home Office
2. Click on image to enlarge the chart
Download chart
XLS format
(30 Kb)
In the 2013 CVS there were an estimated total of 5,915,000 crimes experienced by business
premises in the wholesale and retail sector, down 23% from the estimated total of 7,708,000 crimes
experienced by business premises in the wholesale and retail sector in the 2012 CVS, although this
decrease was not statistically significant. In both the 2012 and 2013 CVS, the category ‘Other theft’,
which includes thefts by customers (shoplifting), accounted for 80% of all crimes experienced by the
wholesale and retail sector.
In the 2013 CVS there were an estimated total of 575,000 crimes experienced by business premises
in the accommodation and food sector, down 42% from the estimated total of 985,000 crimes
experienced by business premises in the accommodation and food sector in the 2012 CVS.
In the 2013 CVS, the category ‘Other theft’ accounted for 25% all crimes experienced by the
accommodation and food sector, almost half the amount in the 2012 CVS (47%).
Nature of CSEW property crime
For further detail on the data contained within this section, see the ‘Nature of Crime’ tables
accompanying this release.
Timing
Office for National Statistics | 30
27 November 2014
The 2013/14 CSEW showed that property crimes happened mostly in the evening or night (ranging
from 53% to 81% of incidents depending on the property crime type) (Figure 1.13). Exceptions to
this general pattern were ‘other’ theft of personal property and theft from the person, which were
more likely to happen in the daytime (60% and 57% of incidents respectively). Incidents of robbery
were equally likely to occur during the daytime and the night-time (both 50%). As might be expected,
the majority of thefts experienced by children aged 10 to 15 took place during daylight hours (81%).
Figure 1.13: Time during day when incidents of property crime occurred, 2013/14 CSEW
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
2. Morning/afternoon is from 6am to 6pm.
3. Evening/night is from 6pm to 6am.
Download chart
XLS format
(30 Kb)
Office for National Statistics | 31
27 November 2014
Looking at days of the week on which offences take place (Figure 1.14), the timing of victimisation
is similar across domestic burglary, vehicle-related theft, bicycle theft, ‘other’ household theft and
‘other’ theft of personal property where the likelihood of being a victim was slightly higher during
a week day compared with a weekend day. Across these crime types between 67% and 72% of
1
incidents occurred during the week (this is equivalent to between 15% and 16% per week day )
and between 28% and 33% of these incidents occurred during the weekend (this is equivalent to
2
between 11% and 13% per weekend day ).
Offences of theft from the person and criminal damage showed a different pattern, with the likelihood
of being a victim being slightly higher during a weekend day compared with a week day. For theft
from the person offences, 60% of incidents occurred during the week (equivalent to 13% per week
day) and 40% of incidents occurred during the weekend (equivalent to 16% per weekend day). For
criminal damage offences, 58% of incidents occurred during the week (equivalent to 13% per week
day) and 42% of incidents occurred during the weekend (equivalent to 17% per weekend day).
Robbery offences were equally likely to occur during the week and the weekend (both 14% per
week/weekend day).
In the 2013/14 CSEW, 86% of incidents of theft from children aged 10 to 15 occurred during
the week (equivalent to 19% per week day) and 14% of incidents occurred during the weekend
(equivalent to 6% per weekend day). This means that the likelihood of a child aged 10 to 15 being a
victim of theft is much higher during the week and reflects the fact that a large proportion of incidents
occurred in or around school (60%).
Office for National Statistics | 32
27 November 2014
Figure 1.14: Time during week when incidents of property crime occurred, 2013/14 CSEW
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
2. Weekend is from Friday 6pm to Monday 6am.
Download chart
XLS format
(30.5 Kb)
Location
In the 2013/14 CSEW incidents of vehicle-related theft, criminal damage to a vehicle and bicycle
theft most often occurred at or nearby the victim’s home; (75%, 74% and 68% respectively) (Figure
1.15). Looking in more detail at the location of these incidents (‘Nature of Crime’ tables 4.2, 8.2, and
3
5.2), bicycle theft was most likely to occur in a semi-private location nearby the victim’s home (54%
of incidents), while criminal damage to a vehicle was most likely to occur in the street outside the
victim’s home (53% of incidents). Vehicle-related theft was almost equally likely to occur in the street
Office for National Statistics | 33
27 November 2014
outside the victim’s home (37% of incidents) or in a semi-private location nearby the victim’s home
(36% of incidents).
Figure 1.15: Location of where incidents of property crime occurred, 2013/14 CSEW
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
Download chart
XLS format
(29 Kb)
Items stolen
Table 1.1 shows the items most commonly stolen in different types of property crime where a theft
was involved.
4
The 2013/14 CSEW found that purses/wallets/money/cards were the items most commonly stolen
in incidents of domestic burglary in a dwelling (45%) and theft from a dwelling (39%). Computers/
computer equipment were the second most commonly stolen items in incidents of domestic burglary
in a dwelling (39%) and jewellery was the second most commonly stolen item in incidents of theft
from a dwelling (27%) (‘Nature of Crime’ tables 3.6 and 6.2).
Office for National Statistics | 34
27 November 2014
4
The 2013/14 survey found that cash/foreign currency was the most commonly stolen item in
incidents of robbery (48%) and mobile phones were the most commonly stolen item in incidents of
theft from the person (51%).
Results from the 2013/14 CSEW showed that in incidents of theft from vehicles, the items most
commonly stolen were exterior fittings (for example, hub caps, wheel trims, number plates); stolen
in 37% of incidents. Car radios were stolen in a much lower proportion of thefts from vehicles in
5
the 2013/14 CSEW (4%) compared with the 2004/05 survey (25%). Conversely, according to the
2013/14 CSEW, electrical equipment was stolen in 19% of incidents, higher than in the 2004/05
(3%). This reflects the changing value of such goods and of the emergence of new consumer
electronics, mobile telephony and computing (such as satellite navigation systems), which have
become more attractive to criminals (‘Nature of Crime’ table 4.5 (255.5 Kb Excel sheet)).
Table 1.1: Item most commonly stolen in incidents of property crime, 2013/14 CSEW
England and Wales
Households/adults aged 16
and over/children aged 10 to
15
Property crime type
Item most commonly stolen
Proportion of incidents where
item was stolen (%)
2
Domestic burglary in a dwelling Purse / wallet / money / cards
45
Domestic burglary in a nonconnected building to a
Tools / work materials
41
Theft from a dwelling
Purse / wallet / money / cards
39
Theft from outside a dwelling
Garden furniture
41
Exterior fittings
37
Cash / foreign currency
48
Mobile phone
51
dwelling
2
2
Theft from vehicles
2
Robbery
Theft from the person
2
Other theft of personal property Cash / foreign currency
27
Personal theft (children aged 10 Mobile phone
to 15)
22
Table notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics
2. Where an item was stolen (excludes attempts)
Download table
XLS format
(29 Kb)
Office for National Statistics | 35
27 November 2014
The 2013/14 survey showed that mobile phones were the most commonly stolen items in incidents
of theft experienced by children aged 10-15 (stolen in 22% of incidents). Cash/foreign currency were
stolen in 13% of incidents and clothing was stolen in 12% of incidents (‘Nature of Crime’ table 10.6
(121 Kb Excel sheet)).
Impact on victims
6
Property crime does not generally result in physical injury to the victim ; one possible exception
to this is robbery, which by definition involves the use or threat of force or violence. However, the
emotional impact can still be considerable for victims (Figure 1.16).
In the 2013/14 CSEW, victims of theft from a dwelling were the most likely to say that they had been
very emotionally affected by the crime (34% of victims), which could reflect the fact that the theft was
committed by someone who was entitled to be there (often an acquaintance or workmen) and broke
the respondent’s trust. In contrast, 6% of victims of theft from outside a dwelling said that they had
been very emotionally affected by the incident; this is because theft from outside a dwelling is less
likely to be perceived as an invasion of privacy.
Office for National Statistics | 36
27 November 2014
Figure 1.16: Emotional response to property crime victimisation, 2013/14 CSEW
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics.
Download chart
XLS format
(31 Kb)
The most common types of reaction to property crimes were anger and annoyance. According to
the 2013/14 CSEW, anger was the most common reaction to incidents of theft of vehicles (64%),
criminal damage (64%), theft from a dwelling (63%), ‘other’ theft of personal property (62%) and
domestic burglary in a dwelling (48%). Annoyance was the most common reaction to incidents of
theft from vehicles (61%), bicycle theft (58%), domestic burglary in a non-connected building to a
dwelling (57%), theft from the person (57%) and theft from outside a dwelling (54%). Shock and
anger were the two most common reactions to incidents of robbery (both 50%).
Perceived seriousness
Office for National Statistics | 37
27 November 2014
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 (Figure 1.17).
As in previous years, theft of vehicles, domestic burglary in a dwelling, theft from a dwelling and
robbery were considered to be the most serious property crimes. Theft from outside a dwelling was
considered to be the least serious property crime.
Figure 1.17: Mean perceived seriousness score to property crime, 2013/14 CSEW
Notes:
1. Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales, Office for National Statistics
Download chart
XLS format
(29.5 Kb)
According to the 2013/14 CSEW, children aged 10 to 15 perceived just over half (52%) of thefts
they experienced (and officially recognised as crimes in-law) to be crimes. They perceived a quarter
(25%) of thefts as ‘wrong, but not crimes’ and the remaining 23% of thefts as ‘just something that
happens’. Around one in six theft incidents (16%) were perceived to be part of a series of bullying
(‘Nature of Crime’ table 10.4 (121 Kb Excel sheet)).
Offender profile
For certain crime types, it is possible to provide further information on the characteristics of
offenders. Data within this sub-section relate only to respondents to the 2013/14 CSEW who were
able to say something about the offender(s). As such, some of the analysis presented here is based
on a subset of incidents and may not be representative of offender traits/characteristics across all
incidents of particular crime types.
Office for National Statistics | 38
27 November 2014
According to the 2013/14 CSEW, in almost all incidents of robbery, the victim was able to say
something about the offender(s). In 76% of robbery incidents, the offender was not known to the
victim. In 97% of robbery incidents the offender was male, in 2% the offender was female and in
1% there were offenders of both sexes. In 60% of robbery incidents an offender was aged 16 to 24
and in 34% of incidents an offender was aged 25 to 39 (‘Nature of Crime’ table 9.1 (190 Kb Excel
sheet)).
In the 2013/14 CSEW, in 40% of incidents of domestic burglary in a dwelling, the victim was able to
say something about the offender(s). In 58% of these incidents the offender was known to the victim
(equivalent to 23% of all domestic burglary in a dwelling incidents). Of incidents of domestic burglary
in a dwelling where the victim was able to say something about the offender(s), in 87% of incidents
the offender was male, in 9% of incidents the offender was female and in 5% of incidents there were
offenders of both sexes. In 53% of incidents of domestic burglary in a dwelling, someone was at
home at the time it happened. Of those incidents where someone was at home, aware and saw
the offender(s), force or violence was either threatened or used in just under half (48%) of cases
(‘Nature of Crime’ tables 3.8 and 3.9).
In the 2013/14 CSEW, in 27% of criminal damage incidents the victim was able to say something
about the offender(s). Of incidents of criminal damage where the victim was able to say something
about the offender(s), in 68% of incidents the offender was male, in 12% the offender was female
and in 20% there were offenders of both sexes. In 34% of criminal damage incidents an offender
was aged under 16 and in 21% of incidents an offender was aged 40 or older (‘Nature of Crime’
table 8.7 (158.5 Kb Excel sheet)).
According to the 2013/14 CSEW, in 53% of thefts of personal property experienced by children aged
10 to 15 the victim was able to say something about the offender. In 42% of incidents the offender
was a pupil at the victim’s school and in 31% of incidents the offender was a friend (including boy/
girlfriend) of the victim (‘Nature of Crime’ table 10.3 (121 Kb Excel sheet)).
Notes
1.
Daily data are calculated from the weekly total with the week classified at 6am Monday until 6pm
Friday.
2.
Daily data are calculated from the weekend total with the weekend classified as 6pm Friday until
6am Monday
3.
'Semi-private' includes outside areas on or near the premises and garages or car parks around,
but not connected to the home.
4.
For personal theft offences (robbery, theft from the person and ‘other’ theft of personal property)
‘Purse/wallet’, ‘Cash/foreign currency’ and ‘Credit cards’ are separate stolen item categories;
for household theft offences (domestic burglary and ‘other’ household theft) they have been
combined into one stolen item category: ‘Purse/wallet/money/cards’.
5.
2003/04 was the first year that a detailed breakdown of items stolen in theft from vehicle
incidents was available. In 1995, when incidents of theft from vehicles were near their peak, the
Office for National Statistics | 39
27 November 2014
most common items stolen were external fittings (32%; similar to 2004/05 and 2013/14) followed
by stereo equipment, including car radios, tapes and CDs (30%).
6.
CSEW offences are coded according to the Home Office Principal Crime Rule, where if the
sequence of crimes in an incident contains more than one type of crime, then the most serious
is counted. For example, if the respondent was seriously wounded during the course of a
burglary this would be recorded as a violent crime, however if the respondent was assaulted but
not seriously wounded this would be recorded as a burglary.
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]
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 2014
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 | 40