Scottish Crime and Justice Survey 2018/19: main findings
Main findings from the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey 2018/2019.
This document is part of a collection
4. Focus on property crime
What was the extent and prevalence of property crime in 2018/19?
There were an estimated 408,000 property crimes in Scotland in 2018/19, representing around 70% of all crime experienced by adults.
The Scottish Crime and Justice Survey (SCJS) estimates that 408,000 incidents[36] of property-related crime[37] were experienced by adults in Scotland in 2018/19. This represents 71% of all crime measured by the SCJS in 2018/19; the remainder being violent incidents.
As a sample survey of the general public, SCJS results are estimated values with margins of error, rather than exact counts of criminal incidents. Further information on the process used to calculate estimates is contained within the Technical Report. Taking into account confidence intervals, the SCJS estimates that there were between 365,000 and 451,000 incidents of property crime in Scotland in 2018/19. Analysis from this point onwards will focus on the best estimates for results across the survey for each survey year.
The amount of property crime experienced by adults in Scotland has shown a substantial decrease since 2008/09.
Looking at trends over time, the SCJS finds that the number of property crime incidents has decreased by 44% since 2008/09. Figure 4.1 displays the number of property incidents estimated to have taken place by each year of the SCJS since 2008/09, demonstrating a large fall over the past decade[38].
Base: SCJS 2008/09 (16,000); 2009/10 (16,040); 2010/11 (13,010); 2012/13 (12,050); 2014/15 (11,470); 2016/17 (5,570); 2017/18 (5,480); 2018/19 (5,540). Variable: INCPROPERTY
Table 4.1 examines results from key comparator years[39] more closely and shows that the estimated number of incidents of property crime experienced by adults has:
- reduced by 44% since 2008/09, from 728,000 to 408,000 – the decrease of over 320,000 incidents is statistically significant
- shown no change since the last SCJS in 2017/18 – the apparent decrease from 430,000 in 2017/18 is not statistically significant
| Crime type | 2008/09 | 2017/18 | 2018/19 | Change since 2008/09 | Change since 2017/18 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best estimate | 728,000 | 430,000 | 408,000 | by 44% | No change |
| Lower estimate | 679,000 | 384,000 | 365,000 | ||
| Upper estimate | 777,000 | 476,000 | 451,000 | ||
| Number of respondents | 16,000 | 5,480 | 5,540 |
Variable: INCPROPERTY.
Whilst the SCJS has detected no change in the level of property crime in the last year, it does find evidence that property crime has continued to fall in recent years with a significant decrease of 15% detected between 2016/17 and 2018/19. Given that it is often more challenging to find significant changes between adjacent survey years, this decrease over the last few years provides some indication that property crime has remained on a declining trend despite the lack of change detected since the 2017/18 SCJS.
The proportion of adults experiencing property crime has also fallen since 2008/09.
The SCJS results show that, as in previous years, most adults were not victims of any crime in 2018/19, with 10.9% experiencing property crime. Adults were around five times more likely to have experienced property crime than violent crime in 2018/19, which was experienced by 2.2% of the population.
As with incident numbers, crime prevalence rates are also estimates derived from a sample survey of the population which have associated margins of error around them. Taking into account this margin of error, between 9.9% and 11.9% of the adult population were estimated to have experienced property crime in 2018/19, with 10.9% representing the best estimate[40]. Again, as with incident counts, analysis from this point onwards will focus on the best estimates for results across the survey for each survey year[41].
Looking at trends over time, the proportion of adults who were victims of property crime has fallen in the last decade from 18.0% in 2008/09 to 10.9% in 2018/19, as shown in Figure 4.2.
The SCJS detects no change in experiences of property crime comparing results for 2018/19 with the 2016/17 and 2017/18 surveys. Although it is often more difficult to find significant changes between adjacent years of the SCJS, the fact that there was also no significant change between 2016/17 and 2018/19 suggests that the level of property crime victimisation is seeing more stability in recent years.
Base: SCJS 2008/09 (16,000); 2017/18 (5,480); 2018/19 (5,540). Variable: PREVPROPERTY
What types of property crime were most commonly experienced?
Vandalism continues to be the most common form of property crime experienced in Scotland, but has more than halved in volume since 2008/09.
As shown in Figure 4.3, a range of different types of property crime[42] were experienced in Scotland in 2018/19. As in previous years, incidents of vandalism accounted for the largest proportion of property crime incidents (38%), followed by personal theft (24%) and other household theft (including bicycle theft) (23%)[43].
Base: SCJS 2018/19 (650). Variables: INCVAND; INCPERSTHEFT; INCOTHERHOUSETHEFTCYCLE; INCALLMVTHEFT; INCHOUSEBREAK.
There have been notable reductions in the number of incidents of vandalism, other household theft and motor vehicle related theft since 2008/09, as Table 4.2 below outlines. For example, the SCJS finds that the amount of vandalism in Scotland has more than halved since 2008/09, from an estimated 350,000 incidents to 155,000.
Since 2017/18, the estimated amount of other household theft (including bicycle) has fallen by just over a quarter, whilst all other categories of property crime have shown no change in the number of incidents over the short-term.
| Crime type | 2008/09 | 2017/18 | 2018/19 | Change since 2008/09 | Change since 2017/18 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PROPERTY CRIME | 728,000 | 430,000 | 408,000 | by 44% | No change |
| Housebreaking | 25,000 | 25,000 | 25,000 | No change | No change |
| Personal theft | 110,000 | 93,000 | 99,000 | No change | No change |
| Other household theft including bicycle | 173,000 | 125,000 | 93,000 | by 46% | by 25% |
| All motor vehicle related theft | 70,000 | 24,000 | 35,000 | by 49% | No change |
| Vandalism | 350,000 | 163,000 | 155,000 | by 56% | No change |
| Number of respondents | 16,000 | 5,480 | 5,540 |
Variables: INCPROPERTY; INCHOUSEBREAK; INCPERSTHEFT; INCOTHERHOUSEHOLDTHEFTCYCLE; INCALLMVTHEFT; INCVAND.
Looking at the prevalence of different categories of property crime reveals that some sub-types were more commonly experienced than others in 2018/19, as outlined in Figure 4.4[44].
Similar to the estimated number of incidents, the prevalence rates for vandalism, other household theft and motor vehicle related theft have all fallen since 2008/09, whilst the likelihood of experiencing personal theft and housebreaking have not changed. For example, like the incident count, the prevalence rate for vandalism almost halved between 2008/09 and 2018/19 (from 8.9% to 4.5%).
The prevalence rate for all sub-categories of property crime were unchanged between 2017/18 and 2018/19.
Base: SCJS 2008/09 (16,000); 2018/19 (5,540). 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.
How did experiences of property crime vary across the population?
Women were more likely to experience property crime in 2018/19, as well as those under 60, people in the most deprived areas of Scotland, and those living in urban locations.
The SCJS enables us to examine how experiences of property crime in 2018/19 varied across the population according to demographic and area characteristics. For example, as shown in Figure 4.5, the likelihood of being a victim of property crime in 2018/19 was:
- greater for women than men
- lowest for those aged 60 and over – with no differences detected amongst different categories of younger adults
- greater for those living in the 15% most deprived areas in Scotland
- greater for adults living in urban locations than rural locations
Since the SCJS started in its current format in 2008/09, this is the first time that there has been a difference in the likelihood of experiencing property crime by gender, with females found to have a higher likelihood (12.1%) than males (9.8%). Both males and females have seen a decrease in the likelihood of being a victim of property crime since 2008/09, although differences in the magnitude of the decrease has caused this difference between the genders to emerge in the latest year.
Base: 2018/19 (5,540). Variable: PREVPROPERTY; QDGENQDAGE; SIMD_TOP; URBRUR.
Although some inequalities remain, the likelihood of experiencing property crime has fallen for most groups since 2008/09.
Looking at trends over time reveals that the prevalence of property crime victimisation has decreased significantly since 2008/09 across many key groups in the population – including across all the demographic and area characteristics discussed above[45].
The SCJS detected no change in the prevalence rates for any of the above population groups between 2017/18 and 2018/19.
What can the SCJS tell us about repeat victimisation?
As outlined previously, the SCJS estimates that the majority of adults did not experience any crime in 2018/19 and 10.9% of the population 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[46]. This is known as 'repeat victimisation'.
Further information about the approach taken to process and derive SCJS results, including on repeat victimisation, is provided in the Technical Report.
2.5% of adults experienced two or more property crimes in 2018/19, accounting for almost half of all property crime.
Looking at the volume of crime experienced by individual victims in more detail shows that 8.3% of adults were victims of one property crime only and 2.5% were repeat victims of property crime.
Table 4.3 highlights the extent of different levels of repeat property victimisation and the proportion of property crime accounted for by each group. For instance, 45% of all property crime in Scotland in 2018/19 was experienced by the 2.5% of the population who were repeat victims. On average this group is estimated to have experienced 1.6 property crimes each over the year.
Table 4.3: Proportion of property crime experienced by victims, by number of crimes experienced in 2018/19
Base: SCJS 2018/19 (5,540). Variable: PREVPROPERTY, INCPROPERTY.
The likelihood of experiencing repeat victimisation has fallen since 2008/09.
Figure 4.6 displays trends in single and repeat property crime victimisation over time. It shows that between 2008/09 and 2018/19 there were decreases in the proportion of adults experiencing:
- single incidents of property crime – from 11.6% to 8.3%
- repeat victimisation (two or more incidents of property crime) – from 6.4% to 2.5%
- 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[47] over the same period, as discussed previously.
Base: SCJS 2008/09 (16,000); 2009/10 (16,040); 2010/11 (13,010); 2012/13 (12,050); 2014/15 (11,470); 2016/17 (5,570); 2017/18 (5,480); 2018/19 (5,540). Variable: INCSURVEYCRIME, PREVSURVEYCRIME.
Note: the 'five or more' category is a sub-set of the 'two or more' category.
Since the last SCJS in 2017/18, there has been no change in the level of single, repeat or high frequency repeat property crime victimisation – any apparent falls shown in Figure 4.6 are not statistically significant.
What do we know about the characteristics of property crime?
Most property crime incidents occurred in or near the home of the victim.
Consistent with previous years, the majority of property crime incidents in 2018/19 (67%) took place in and around the victim's home. The most common specific location was immediately outside the respondent's home[48], representing around half of all property crime in 2018/19 (53%).
Base: Property crime incidents (650); Variable: QWH1 / QWH3 / QWH5 / QWH7
The majority of property crime incidents took place on weekdays.
Where respondents provided details about when an incident occurred[49], over half of all property crimes in 2018/19 (59%) were said to have taken place during the week, with 41% occurring at weekends[50].
Most property crime did not involve a cyber element.
In 2018/19, respondents who had experienced property crime were asked for the first time if the incident involved the internet, any type of online activity or an internet enabled device. Only 2% of property crime incidents involved a cyber element. Cyber crime is discussed in more detail in Section 8.1.
What do we know about the perpetrators of property crime?
Victims were unable to provide any details about the offender(s) in most instances.
Compared to violent crime incidents, victims of property crime are generally much less likely to report being able to say something about the offender in the incident(s) they experience. Respondents were able to provide any relevant information about the offender for just one-third of incidents (32%) in 2018/19, compared to 97% of violent incidents.
As such, the section below presents a summary of the sort of information provided by victims, although these findings should be interpreted with caution as they are not necessarily representative of all property crime incidents. This is particularly the case if comparing with findings from previous years[51]. Further results are available in the supporting data tables.
Where respondents were able to say something about the person or people who carried out the offence, victims noted that property crimes in 2018/19:
Were mostly committed by males
64% of incidents involved male offenders only, while 19% involved female only perpetrators, and 12% involved perpetrators of both sexes. In 6% of incidents the respondent did not know the gender of the offenders.
Most commonly involved offenders under the age of 40
Whilst property crimes were committed by people from a range of age categories, only 21% of incidents were noted as having involved offenders aged 40 or over.
Often involved perpetrators known by the victims
Most incidents (55%) were committed by offenders who the victims knew or had seen before. Where offenders were known by the victim, two-fifths of incidents (40%) were said to have involved people 'known well'.
Respondents who said that someone saw or heard what was going on, or had some form of contact with the offender (the case in 21% of property crime incidents) were asked additional questions about their experience, including the presence of weapons. In 2018/19, 5% of such incidents[52] were said to have involved perpetrators who possessed weapons.
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. As Figure 4.8 shows, in almost two-thirds of incidents (65%) where the victim was able to provide an estimate, the total value of items stolen was £100 or less. The total value was over £1,000 in just over one-in-twenty incidents.
Base: Property crime incidents where something was stolen (310) or damaged (220); Variables: QSVAB; QDVAB. Excludes those who said 'don't know' or 'refused' to the value of items lost or cost of damage.
Considering incidents where property was damaged (46% of property incidents), victims said the total cost of the damage was £100 or less in 35% of incidents where they were able to provide an estimate. Looking at instances of more costly damage, just under one-in ten incidents (9%) led to damages totalling more than £1,000.
The most frequent emotional responses to experiences of property crime were annoyance and anger.
Consistent with previous years, victims of property crime most commonly reported being annoyed or angered by their experience (in 63% and 53% of incidents, respectively).
What proportion of property crime was reported to the police?
Although most instances of property crime in 2018/19 were considered by victims to be criminal incidents, as in previous years only one-third of cases were reported to the police.
Victims of property crime described their experience as 'a crime' in two-thirds of incidents (67%), with 19% of incidents said to be 'wrong but not a crime' and 14% viewed as 'just something that happens'. These results are shown in Figure 4.9. Property crime incidents were more likely to be viewed as criminal by the victims compared to experiences of violent crime in 2018/19 (of which 43% of incidents were considered to be 'a crime').
However, the SCJS estimates that only around one-in-every-three property crimes (34%) were reported to the police in 2018/19. The reporting rate for property crime has remained constant over the last decade with no change shown since 2008/09 (36%) and was not significantly different from the reporting rate for violent crime in 2018/19 (40%).
Base: Property crime incidents (650); Variable: QCRNO
Incidents were more likely to be reported if any damaged or stolen goods were insured (50%), compared to around a quarter of cases (26%) where items were not covered.
Victims often considered incidents to be too trivial to report to the police.
The most common reasons given by victims for not reporting their experience to the police was that the incident was perceived to be too trivial or not worth reporting (37% of incidents) and that it was believed the police could have done nothing about the incident (33% of incidents).
Where crimes were brought to the attention of the police, victims received information or assistance about the investigation and the case (where relevant) from the police in relation to around half of all incidents (46%). Information or assistance was provided by the Witness Service/Victim Support Scotland in 8% of such cases, whilst in over a quarter of incidents (29%) victims said they did not receive information or assistance from any organisation.
What consequences did victims believe property crime offenders should have faced?
Victims believed the majority of cases should have been prosecuted in court, although prison sentences were not considered appropriate in most incidents.
Regardless of whether their experience was reported to the police, victims in half of all incidents of property crime in 2018/19 (51%) thought the offender should have been prosecuted in court, which has decreased since 2017/18 (60%). This decrease means that, unlike in previous years, this is a similar proportion to the equivalent figure for violent crime in 2018/19 (50%).
Where victims thought an incident should have resulted in a court prosecution, a prison sentence was only considered a suitable outcome in relation to one-in-every-ten cases (12%), which is lower than that for violent crimes (29%).
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. The most frequent responses provided by victims were that offenders:
- should have apologised for their actions (cited in relation to 22% of such incidents)
- should have been given some kind of warning (18%)
- should have been made to pay the victim(s) compensation (16% of incidents)
Notably, victims said that 'nothing should have happened' in relation to only 6% of these property crime incidents (i.e. where they did not think the offender should have been prosecuted in court). This compares to 30% of violent incidents (where prosecution in court was deemed unnecessary by victims).
Contact
Email: scjs@gov.scot
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback