HOW MANY HOUSEHOLDS EXPERIENCED HOUSEHOLD CRIME IN 2012-13?

VICTIMISATION (see Datacube 1, Table 1)

In the 12 months prior to interview in 2012–13, Households were more likely to be a victim of malicious property damage than any of the other selected household crimes and less likely to be a victim of motor vehicle theft than any of the other types of household crime.^{Endnote 1}

Of the 8.9 million households in Australia, an estimated:

• 555.900 (6.3%) households were victims of at least one incident of malicious property damage
• 276,200 (3.1%) households were victims of at least one theft from a motor vehicle
• 248,800 (2.8%) households were victims of at least one incident of other theft
• 239,700 (2.7%) households were victims of at least one break-in to their home, garage or shed
• 171,000 (1.9%) households were victims of at least one attempted break-in to their home, garage or shed
• 57,200 (0.6%) households had at least one motor vehicle stolen.
  

REPORTING TO POLICE (see Datacube 1, Table 1)

The proportion of households that reported the most recent incident of each type of household crime to police varied depending on the type of crime. The reporting rate for households that experienced motor vehicle theft was higher than for any other selected household crime, while the reporting rate was lower for other theft (than for any other selected household crime). Households that experienced attempted break-in were less likely to report their most recent incident to police than those that experienced break-in.

In 2012-13 an estimated:

• 93% of households that experienced motor vehicle theft had their most recent incident reported to police
• 78% of households that experienced break-in had their most recent incident reported to police
• 55% of households that experienced theft from a motor vehicle had their most recent incident reported to police.

EXPERIENCE OF MULTIPLE VICTIMISATION (see Datacube 2, Table 8)

Table B (below) provides a summary of the number and proportion of households that experienced a single incident compared to multiple incidents of each type of selected household crime. For each type of household crime, the majority of household victims experienced only one incident. Households were more likely to experience one incident than either two or three or more incidents of break-in, attempted break-in, theft from a motor vehicle, malicious property damage and other theft in the 12 months prior to interview in 2012-13.

• Of households that experienced motor vehicle theft, 96% experienced a single incident
• Of households that experienced theft from a motor vehicle, 85% experienced a single incident
• Of households that experienced break-in, 81% experienced a single incident.
  

Motor vehicle theft was excluded from this analysis due to high levels of sample error. ^{Endnote 2}

	Households				Proportions
	Victims experiencing one or multiple incidents			Total victims(a)	Victims experiencing one or multiple incidents			Total victims(a)
	One incident	Two incidents	Three or more incidents		One incident	Two incidents	Three or more incidents
	'000	'000	'000	'000	%	%	%	%
Break-in	194.4	30.0	14.0	239.7	81.1	12.5	5.8	100.0
Attempted break-in	132.4	26.2	12.2	171.0	77.4	15.3	7.1	100.0
Motor vehicle theft	54.8	*1.6	**0.8	57.2	95.9	*2.7	**1.4	100.0
Theft from a motor vehicle	235.4	32.9	7.9	276.2	85.2	11.9	2.8	100.0
Malicious property damage	436.8	67.8	50.3	555.9	78.6	12.2	9.1	100.0
Other theft(b)	199.3	31.6	16.7	248.8	80.1	12.7	6.7	100.0
(a) Includes person where number of incidents is unknown (b) Includes property stolen from a yard, as well as property stolen in other situations/locations. Excludes any incidents involving theft covered in other sections of the survey such as break-ins or robberies. See glossary for further details. * Estimate has a relative standard error of 25% to 50% and should be used with caution. ** Estimate has a relative standard error greater than 50% and is considered too unreliable for general use.

ENDNOTES

1 All comparisons discussed have been tested for statistical significance with a 95% level of confidence that there is a real difference between the two populations being tested. Only data with a relative standard error (RSE) of less than 25% is referred to in the text of this publication. For further information, refer to the Technical Note.

2 Due to the relatively small numbers of households experiencing two and three or more incidents of motor vehicle theft in the 12 months prior to interview, these estimates are subject to high sampling error and as such have not been commented on (for further details refer to the Technical Note).