Scottish Crime and Justice Survey 2023/24: Main findings

Property crime

What is the extent and prevalence of property crime?

The Scottish Crime and Justice Survey (SCJS) estimates that 10.3% of adults were victims of property crime in 2023/24, within a margin of error between 9.1% and 11.4%.

As a sample survey of the general public, SCJS results on property crime are estimates with wide margins of error, not exact counts. Analysis here is focused on the best estimates for each year of the survey. Further details are provided in the Background chapter and in the Technical Report.

This proportion has fallen over the longer term, from 18.0% in 2008/09 (Figure 4.1). Between 2021/22 and 2023/24, there was an increase of 1.6 percentage points from 8.7% of adults being a victim of a property crime. Despite this increase, the chances of being a victim of a property crime is at a similar level to the pre-covid position in 2019/20.

Figure 4.1: The proportion of adults experiencing property crime has fallen by 18 percentage points since 2008/09 but increased by 1.6 percentage points since 2021/22.

Proportion of adults experiencing property crime, 2008/09, 2019/20 to 2023/24.

Variable: PREVPROPERTY.

The number of property crime incidents in 2023/24 is estimated at 429,000 – between a lower estimate of 367,000 and an upper estimate of 492,000. This is a 41% decrease from 728,000 in 2008/09 but is unchanged from 2021/22, the apparent increase shown in Figure 4.1 is not statistically significant, and at a similar level to 2019/20. These results are shown in Figure 4.2 and Table 4.1. [1] [2]

Property crime accounted for over a third (36%) of all crime estimated by the SCJS in 2023/24 – with the remainder being violent crime, fraud, or computer misuse.

As discussed in the Background chapter, this estimate is rounded to the nearest 1,000 and is subject to a margin of error, with the actual number of incidents likely between 367,000 and 492,000.

Figure 4.2: Property crime in Scotland has shown a declining trend since 2008/09, but has remained stable in recent years and unchanged from 2021/22.

Estimated number of property crime incidents, 2008/09 to 2023/24.

Variable: INCPROPERTY.

Table 4.1 examines results from key comparator years more closely and shows that the estimated number of incidents of property crime has:

• decreased by 41% since 2008/09, from 728,000 to 429,000 – the decrease of 299,000 is statistically significant
• shown no change since 2019/20 and 2021/22 – the apparent increase from 360,000 in 2021/22 is not statistically significant

Table 4.1: There has been a reduction in the number of property crimes across several categories since 2008/09 but no change since 2021/22.

Estimated number of incidents of property crimes (2008/09, 2021/22 and 2023/24) with percentage change, where statistically significant, since 2008/09 and 2021/22.

Crime type	2008/09	2021/22	2023/24	Change since 2008/09	Change since 2021/22
All property crime	728,000	360,000	429,000	Down 41%	No change
Housebreaking	25,000	15,000	17,000	No change	No change
Personal theft	110,000	72,000	107,000	No change	No change
Other household theft including bicycle	173,000	124,000	139,000	Down 19%	No change
All motor vehicle related theft	70,000	25,000	35,000	Down 50%	No change
Vandalism	350,000	125,000	131,000	Down 63%	No change
Number of respondents	16,000	5,520	4,970	-	-

Variables: INCPROPERTY; INCHOUSEBREAK; INCPERSTHEFT; INCOTHERHOUSEHOLDTHEFTCYCLE; INCALLMVTHEFT; INCVAND.

What types of property crime were most commonly experienced?

In 2023/24, unlike in previous years, household theft (including bicycle theft) accounted for the largest proportion of property crime incidents (32%). This was followed by vandalism (31%), personal theft (25%), all motor vehicle theft (8%) and housebreaking (4%).

Figure 4.3: Other household theft and vandalism together comprise almost two-thirds of all property crime.

Categories of crime as proportions of property crime overall in 2023/24.

Variables: INCVAND; INCPERSTHEFT; INCOTHERHOUSETHEFTCYCLE; INCALLMVTHEFT; INCHOUSEBREAK.

Since 2008/09, there have been notable reductions in all types of property crime, including vandalism (down 63%), motor vehicle related theft (down 50%), and housebreaking (33%).

Similar to the estimated number of incidents, the prevalence rates for vandalism, other household theft, motor vehicle related theft, personal theft and housebreaking have all fallen since 2008/09, as shown in Figure 4.4.[3] For example, like the incident count, the prevalence rate for vandalism more than halved between 2008/09 and 2023/24 (from 8.9% to 3.8%).

The victimisation rates for all sub-categories of property crime were unchanged between 2021/22 and 2023/24.

Figure 4.4: Under 1 in 25 households (3.8%) experienced other household theft in 2023/24, whilst 0.5% were victims of housebreaking.

Proportion of adults/households experiencing types of property crime.

Variables: PREVHOUSEBREAK; PREVPERSTHEFT; PREVOTHERHOUSETHEFTCYCLE; PREVALLMVTHEFT; PREVVAND.

Note: Prevalence rates for vandalism, other household theft, motor vehicle related theft and housebreaking are presented as proportions of households experiencing each crime type, rather than individuals.

How did experiences of property crime vary across the population?

The SCJS found that victimisation for property crime was:

• lowest for those aged 60 and over
• greater for adults living in urban locations than rural locations
• greater for disabled adults compared to those who are not disabled
• the same for males and females, those living in most deprived areas and the rest of Scotland

Figure 4.5: The likelihood of being a victim of property crime is higher for those living in urban areas.

Proportion of adults experiencing property crime, by demographic and area characteristics.

Variables: PREVPROPERTY; QDGEN; QDAGE; SIMD_TOP; URBRUR.

Property crime victimisation has decreased significantly since 2008/09 across most key groups in the population – including across all the demographic and area characteristics discussed above.

What can the SCJS tell us about repeat victimisation?

As outlined in the ‘Overview of crime’ chapter, the SCJS estimates that the majority of adults did not experience any property crime in 2023/24 and 10.3% of adults were victims of at least one property crime. However, the survey also enables us to further explore how experiences varied amongst victims and examine the concentration of crime, including what proportion of victims experienced a particular type of crime more than once during the year.[4] This is known as ‘repeat victimisation’.

Looking at the volume of crime experienced by individual victims in more detail shows that 7.7% of adults were victims of only one property crime, whereas 2.5% of adults experienced two or more property crimes in 2023/24, accounting for almost half (48%) of all property crime. On average this group is estimated to have experienced 1.8 property crimes each over the year[5].

Figure 4.6 displays trends in single and repeat property crime victimisation over time. It shows that between 2008/09 and 2023/24 there were decreases in the proportion of adults experiencing:

• single incidents of property crime - from 11.6% to 7.7%.
• repeat victimisation (two or more incidents of property crime) – from 6.4% down to 2.5%
• high frequency repeat victimisation (five or more incidents of property crime) – from 0.9% to 0.4%

The fall in the various levels of victimisation since 2008/09 have occurred in line with a decrease in the overall property crime victimisation rate over the same period.

Figure 4.6: The prevalence of repeat victimisation for property crimes has fallen since 2008/09.

Proportion of adults experiencing a number of property crimes, 2008/09 to 2023/24.

Variables: INCSURVEYCRIME; PREVSURVEYCRIME.

What do we know about the perpetrators of property crime?

Most victims of property crime couldn't provide details about offenders. Only around a third (36%) of incidents included offender descriptions, compared to 97% for violent crimes. Where respondents could provide details, they reported that:

• 84% involved at least one male offender, 17% involved at least one female offender, and 4% involved a mixed sex group of perpetrators[6]
• most offenders were under 40; only 15% were 40 or older. The largest group was under 16 (33%)
• 41% of offenders were well known to the victim. The majority of them  were neighbours (29%)

Given the relatively low proportion of victims who could provide details on offenders, findings should be interpreted with caution and may not reflect all property crimes.

What was the impact of property crime?

Direct financial costs resulting from property crime were typically of relatively low value – but the impact of such costs will vary for each victim. Victims of property crime where something was stolen (54% of property crimes) were asked to provide the approximate value of the items concerned.

Of the 56% of property crimes involving theft, 64% valued items at £100 or less, with around 3% exceeding £1,000.

How did victims view the incident and what proportion was reported to the police?

The results show that 68% of property crime victims saw their reported experience as ‘a crime’, while 17% of respondents viewed it as ‘wrong but not a crime,’ and 15% as ‘just something that happens’. Property crime incidents were more likely to be viewed as criminal by the victim compared to experiences of violent crime in 2023/24 (of which 52% of violent crime incidents were considered ‘a crime’).

However, only a quarter (24%) of property crimes were reported to police in 2023/24. This is unchanged from 2021/22 following a stable period between 2008/09 (36%) and 2019/20 (36%) and a fall in 2021/22 (27%).

The main reasons given by victims for not reporting their experience to the police were that the incident was too trivial (41%) or the perception that the police could do nothing (34%).

What consequences did victims believe property crime offenders should have faced?

Regardless of whether their experience was reported to the police, 42% of property crime victims in 2023/24 thought the offender should have been prosecuted in court. This is not significantly different to the equivalent figure for violent crime in 2023/24 (46%). Of the respondents where they do not think the offender should have been prosecuted, the most common reason given was “incident was too trivial” (40%).

Where victims thought an incident should have resulted in a court prosecution, a prison sentence was considered a suitable outcome in relation to approximately one-in-every-10 cases (10%).

Respondents who did not think property crime offenders should have been prosecuted in court (and those who were not sure) were asked about alternatives to prosecution and whether any other course of action should have taken place. Victims mentioned a range of alternatives, including that offenders should have:

• been given some kind of warning (29% of such incidents)
• apologised for their actions (18% of such incidents)
• been made to pay them compensation (17% of such incidents)
• been given some kind of help to stop them (11% of incidents)

Notably, victims said that ‘nothing should have happened’ in relation to only 2% of these property crime incidents (i.e. where they did not think the offender should have been prosecuted in court). This compares to 17% of violent incidents (where prosecution in court was deemed unnecessary by victims).

What property crime has a cyber element?

Very few property crime incidents involved a cyber element. Respondents who had experienced property crime were asked if the incident involved the internet, any type of online activity or an internet enabled device. In 2023/24, only 1% of property crime incidents involved a cyber element, unchanged since 2019/20 (1%), when this question was asked for the first time.