Scottish Crime and Justice Survey 2024/25: Main findings

Property crime

What proportion of adults experienced property crime?

In 2024/25, 9.4% of adults experienced property crime. This proportion has fallen over the long term, from 18.0% in 2008/09, but has remained at similar levels in recent years. The latest figure, 9.4%, does not show a statistically significant difference to the previous year.

Figure 4.1: The proportion of adults experiencing property crime has fallen by 9 percentage points since 2008/09 but remains unchanged since 2023/24.

Proportion of adults experiencing property crime, 2008/09, 2019/20 to 2024/25.

Variable: PREVPROPERTY.

What was the estimated volume of property crime in Scotland in 2024/25?

The Scottish Crime and Justice Survey (SCJS) estimates that 412,000 incidents of property-related crime were experienced by adults in Scotland in 2024/25. As discussed in the Background chapter, this estimate is subject to a margin of error, with the actual number of incidents likely to be between 353,000 and 471,000, based on the survey’s 95% confidence interval.

Looking at trends over time, the SCJS finds that the number of property crime incidents has decreased by 43% since 2008/09. Current levels remain similar to recent survey years, and any apparent change shown in Figure 4.2 is not statistically significant.

Figure 4.2: Property crime in Scotland has declined since 2008/09, but has remained stable in recent years and unchanged from 2023/24.

Estimated number of property crime incidents, 2008/09 to 2024/25.

Variable: INCPROPERTY.

Table 4.1: There has been a reduction in the number of property crimes across several categories since 2008/09.

Estimated number of incidents of property crimes (2008/09, 2023/24 and 2024/25) with percentage change, where statistically significant, since 2008/09.

Crime type	2008/09	2023/24	2024/25	Change since 2008/09	Change since 2023/24
All property crime	728,000	429,000	412,000	Down 43%	No change
Housebreaking	25,000	17,000	29,000	No change	No change
Personal theft	110,000	107,000	108,000	No change	No change
Other household theft including bicycle	173,000	139,000	117,000	Down 32%	No change
All motor vehicle related theft	70,000	35,000	40,000	Down 43%	No change
Vandalism	350,000	131,000	119,000	Down 66%	No change
Number of respondents	16,000	4,970	4,950	-	-

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

What types of property crime were most commonly experienced?

In 2024/25, unlike last year vandalism accounted for the largest proportion of property crime incidents (29%). This was followed by household theft (including bicycle theft) (28%), personal theft (26%), all motor vehicle related theft (10%), and housebreaking (7%).

Figure 4.3: Vandalism, other household theft and personal theft comprise over four-fifths of all property crime.

Categories of crime as proportions of property crime overall in 2024/25.

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

Since 2008/09, there have been notable reductions in vandalism (down 66%) motor vehicle related theft (down 43%), and Other household theft including bicycle (down 32%). The volume of vandalism in 2024/25 (119,000) is the lowest estimated by the SCJS.

Similar to the estimated number of incidents, the prevalence rates for vandalism, motor vehicle theft, and Other household theft (including bicycle theft) have all fallen between 2008/09 and 2024/25, as shown in Figure 4.4. For vandalism, the fall was more than half, from 8.9% to 3.1%, while household theft decreased from 5.3% to 3.9%.

The victimisation rates for all sub-categories of property crime were unchanged between 2023/24 and 2024/25.

Figure 4.4: The biggest change was seen for vandalism, falling from 8.9% of households to 3.1% between 2008/09 and 2024/25.

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
• there is no difference between males and females or between 15% most deprived and the rest of Scotland.

Figure 4.5: Property crime victimisation is higher for those living in urban areas and disabled people, and lower for people aged 60+.

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

Variables: PREVPROPERTY; TABAGE; TABSIMD_TOP; TABURBRUR.

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?

The SCJS estimates 9.4% of adults were victims of at least one property crime. It also shows the unequal concentration of crime among victims, with some being victims more than once, known as ‘repeat victimisation’.

7.0% of adults were victims of only one property crime. Only 2.4% of adults experienced two or more, but these accounted 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.

Figure 4.6 displays trends in single and repeat property crime victimisation over time. It shows that between 2008/09 and 2024/25 there were decreases in the proportion of adults experiencing:

• single incidents of property crime - from 11.6% to 7.0%
• repeat victimisation (two or more incidents of property crime) – from 6.4% down to 2.4%
• high frequency repeat victimisation (five or more incidents of property crime) – from 0.9% to 0.2%

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 single and repeat victimisation for property crimes has fallen since 2008/09.

Proportion of adults experiencing a number of property crimes, 2008/09 to 2024/25.

Variables: INCPROPERTY; PREVPROPERTY.

What do we know about the perpetrators of property crime?

Most victims of property crime couldn't provide details about offenders. Only a third (32%) of incidents included offender descriptions, compared to 94% for violent crimes. Where respondents could provide details, they reported that:

• most (87%) were male
• most offenders were under 40; only 17% were 40 or older. The largest group was under 16 (33%)
• around one-in-ten (13%) of offenders were known to the victim in some way, including 6% who were known well. Of these, neighbours made up the largest category of offenders (28%), followed by young people from the local area (23%)

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 cost of property crime?

Direct financial costs resulting from property crime were typically, but not always, of relatively low value. 56% of property crimes involved theft. Of these, 63% valued items at £100 or less, 28% were between £100 and £1000, 5% over £1000 and 5% unknown. Where property was damaged, 22% reported it being under £100, 34% reported £100 to £1000, 7% over £1000, and 38% respondents didn’t know the value.

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

The results show that 72% of property crime victims saw their reported experience as ‘a crime’, while 19% of respondents viewed it as ‘wrong but not a crime,’ and 9% 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 2024/25 (of which 43% of incidents were considered ‘a crime’).

However, only a quarter (27%) of property crimes were reported to police in 2024/25. This is unchanged from 2023/24 following a stable period in recent years after a fall from 36% in 2019/20.

The main reasons given by victims for not reporting their experience to the police were the perception that the police could do nothing (39%) or that the incident was too trivial (38%). 31% thought that the police would not have bothered/ not been interested, which has shown an increase over time from 14% in 2019/20.

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

Regardless of whether their experience was reported to the police, 48% of property crime victims in 2024/25 thought the offender should have been prosecuted in court. Of the respondents where they do not think the offender should have been prosecuted, the most common reason given was “incident was too trivial” (33%).

Where victims thought an incident should have resulted in a court prosecution, 12% thought the offender should be given a prison sentence, and 77% thought some other sentence. Of those who thought an alternative to prison should be given, the most common were:

• a community service or payback order where the offender carries out unpaid work in the community under supervision (27%)
• compensation order where the offender has to pay for any loss or damage caused to property as a result of their crime (28%)

Where respondents didn’t think property crime offenders should have been prosecuted in court (or not sure), other alternatives were suggested. Most commonly agreed to were: given some kind of warning (26% of such incidents), apologised for their actions (21%), given some kind of help to stop them offending (16%), or made to pay them compensation (14%). Only 3% thought that ‘nothing should have happened’ (i.e. where they did not think the offender should have been prosecuted in court).