The impact of personal and household characteristics on the use of crime prevention measures

Personal characteristics
Household characteristics

Personal characteristics

The likelihood that a person will take preventive actions or modify their behaviours and lifestyles to prevent criminal victimization will often depend on their demographic and personal characteristics. Activities and behaviours intended to reduce the risk of victimization were most common among women, recent victims of crime,¹ and the well-educated (Table 1).

Crime prevention measures used more often by women

When examining measures ever taken over a lifetime, women were more likely than their male counterparts to have employed measures to protect themselves from crime. Specifically, they were more likely to have changed their phone number at some point in time (7%, versus 3% of men), obtained a dog (11% versus 8%) and changed residences (5% versus 3%). In addition, a greater proportion of women physically withdrew from risky situations by changing activities or avoiding certain places (40%, compared to 31% of men). There were no gender differences in activities related to protecting the home from intruders, such as installing new locks and burglar alarms (32% of women and 31% of men).

When asked about five types of routine measures, women were also much more likely than men to have used all five measures. For example, about three-quarters (74%) of women stated that they locked their car doors for safety when alone, compared to less than half of men (44%). Similarly, over half of women (57%) checked for intruders when returning to their vehicles alone, while only 29% of men did so. Women were also five times more likely than men to stay home at night because they were fearful to go out alone (16% versus 3%). Again, these findings are similar to results from the 1999 GSS.

One explanation for the greater use of prevention measures among women may be related to their higher levels of fear relative to men. In 2004, women were over twice as likely as men to indicate that they felt fearful when walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark.² They were also more likely than men to express fear of crime when using public transit alone at night³ (58% versus 29%) and staying home alone at night (27% versus 12%).

Older Canadians no more likely to use routine prevention measures

Despite the inherently longer period of time to have ever engaged in crime prevention measures, people aged 65 years of age and older were no more likely to have used protective measures compared to younger adults. In fact, older Canadians were nearly half as likely as those aged 25 to 44 years to have ever changed their activities or avoided certain places to reduce their risk of victimization (23% versus 40%). They were also three times less likely to have taken a self-defence course compared to 15 to 24 year olds, the age group most likely to have taken such a course (6% versus 19%).

Routinely staying home at night for fear of going out alone was the only precautionary measure more commonly employed by older adults (15% compared to 11% of those aged 55 to 64 years, and 9% of those aged 35 to 54). This is consistent with results from the 1999 GSS.

Those who had been the victim of a crime in the last 12 months were more likely to use crime prevention measures

In general, individuals who had been the victims of crime in the 12 months preceding the 2004 GSS were more likely than those not so victimized to have employed protective measures during their lifetime. This was particularly evident for changing activities or avoiding certain places, as well as installing new locks or security bars. More than half of victims (52%) indicated that they modified their activities at some point in their lives to prevent victimization, compared to 29% of non-victims. Installing new locks or security bars was employed at least once by 42% of victims and only 27% of non-victims. It is not possible to determine from the survey whether these measures were undertaken prior to respondents’ experiences of victimization or as a consequence of their victimization.

Victims also reported greater use of routine measures, with the exception of staying home at night to avoid victimization. In this case, victims and non-victims were equally as likely to employ the measure (10% each).

The use of prevention strategies steadily increased with the number of victimizations. For example, 45% of those who had been victimized once in the year prior to the 2004 GSS reported that during the course of their lifetime they had modified their activities as a protective measure. This proportion increased to 65% among those who had experienced three or more victimizations over the same 12-month period. There was, however, no difference among single and multiple victims in their likelihood of ever installing burglar alarms or motion detectors and routinely locking car doors for safety when alone.

Socio-economic status linked to use of precautionary measures

Indicators of socio-economic status, such as education and personal income, have also been found to be related to the use of protective and precautionary measures. Consistent with findings from the previous GSS on victimization (Ogg, 2001), higher levels of education generally increased the likelihood of using crime prevention measures. In particular, university-educated individuals were most likely to have ever physically withdrawn from places to elevate their personal safety. Four in ten people with a university degree changed activities or avoided certain places, compared to 26% of people with less than a high school education. Installing security features on homes, such as locks, security bars, burglar alarms or motion detectors was also more common among the well-educated.

Staying at home at night was the one precautionary measure that was more frequently employed by those with less than a high school education (13% compared to 8% of university educated).

When asked about the protective strategies ever employed in their lifetime, individuals with higher personal incomes were most likely to state that they had changed activities, installed new locks or burglar alarms, and taken a self-defence course. In particular, the likelihood of installing burglar alarms or motion detectors consistently increased with personal income. Just over one-quarter of individuals with incomes less than $15,000 installed burglar alarms, compared to 34% of people with an income between $30,000 and $39,000, 39% with an income between $40,000 and $59,999, and 45% with an income of $60,000 or more.

Despite the fact that individuals with higher incomes were most likely to have ever used protective strategies, they were less likely to make use of routine measures to protect themselves or their property. People with incomes of less than $30,000 were most likely to routinely lock car doors for safety when alone, check the back seat when returning to their car alone, and remain at home at night.

Differences in the usage of lifetime and routine measures by personal income level may be partially explained by the availability of financial resources. In some cases, implementing lifetime protective measures necessitates financial resources, such as the purchase of an alarm system or installing security bars. In contrast, routine precautionary measures are often behavioural patterns that entail little or no financial cost, such as staying home at night because of fear of going out alone. Moreover, the installation of security bars, burglar alarms or motion detectors is likely linked to homeownership which, in turn, may be associated with greater financial resources.

Currently married and separated or divorced persons more likely than others to protect home

Making crime prevention modifications to the home or ‘target hardening’ was more frequently used by currently- or ever-married persons. Specifically, installing burglar alarms or motion detectors was most common among married persons (40%), while installing new locks or security bars was most prevalent among married persons and those legally separated and divorced (35% each).

Single persons were more likely to have ever taken a self-defence course, while widowed persons, who often tend to be older, were more likely to routinely stay home at night because of fear of going out alone. There were few other notable differences by marital status in the use of additional prevention measures.

Aboriginal people more likely than non-Aboriginal people to use crime prevention measures

According to the 2004 GSS, Aboriginal people were more likely than non-Aboriginal people to have been the victims of crime (40% versus 28%), and were 3 times more likely than non-Aboriginal people to have experienced violent victimization (Brzozowski, Taylor-Butts and Johnson, 2006). Similarly, Aboriginal status is also closely related to using protective and precautionary strategies. Most significantly, the proportion of Aboriginal people who had ever changed their phone number was more than double the proportion for non-Aboriginal people (13% versus 5%). Routine measures were also more common among the Aboriginal population, with the greatest difference occurring in the proportion planning their route with safety in mind (49% versus 43%).

Target hardening, however, was less common among the Aboriginal population. In fact, installing burglar alarms or motion detectors was more often employed by non-Aboriginal people (34% versus 22%). This finding may be related to the fact that non-Aboriginal people, on average, have higher incomes and may be more likely to own homes than the Aboriginal population (Statistics Canada, 2001).

Visible minorities and immigrants were more likely to routinely employ some precautionary measures⁴

There were very few differences between visible minorities and non-visible minorities in the likelihood of utilising lifetime protective measures to prevent crime. However, visible minorities were much more likely to routinely employ precautionary measures. Specifically, they were twice as likely to stay home at night, 1.7 times as likely to carry something to defend themselves and 1.4 times more likely to plan their route with safety in mind. This may be due in part to their higher levels of fear compared to the non-visible minority population. According to the GSS, visible minorities were less likely than others to report feeling safe walking alone in their neighbourhood at night (84% compared to 90%).

While there were few differences in crime prevention measures between immigrant and Canadian-born individuals, immigrants were less likely to change activities or avoid certain places compared to their Canadian-born counterparts (32% versus 36%). On the other hand, immigrants were more likely than Canadian-born persons to routinely plan their route with safety in mind (50% versus 41%) and regularly stay at home at night because of fear of going out alone (15% versus 8%).

Top of Page

Household characteristics

While the decision to take protective strategies is often related to personal characteristics, there are also significant differences in the use of crime prevention strategies by characteristics of the household, such as the location of the home, whether the home is owned or rented, and the type of dwelling (Table 2). The most consistent household factor was the location of the home, namely whether or not it was located in an urban setting.

Urbanization associated with the use of crime prevention strategies

Compared to people living in rural areas, urban-dwellers generally have higher levels of violent and household victimization and, as might be expected, are more fearful of crime. Therefore, it is not surprising that those living in an urban area were more likely to rely on crime prevention measures than persons living in a rural setting. For example, in 2004, 62% of urban residents reported routinely locking car doors for safety when alone in the vehicle, compared to 48% of rural residents. Other considerable differences between urban and rural residents related to avoidance behaviours, namely having ever changed activities or avoided certain places (37% versus 27%) and routinely staying home at night because of fear of going out alone (11% versus 5%). Installing new locks or security bars was also a considerably more common practice among urban residents (34% versus 23% of rural residents).

While preventive measures were almost consistently more common in urban areas, there were two exceptions. Rural residents were more likely to have ever obtained a dog or a gun to protect themselves or their property from crime. These findings may reflect urban-rural cultural differences, stemming from the traditional use of guns and dogs by farmers to protect livestock from other animals.

Owning a home, living in a single detached home and residing in the same home for a long period increase security-related modifications to the home

Over one-third (34%) of home owners installed new locks or security bars, compared to 26% of renters. The difference was even more pronounced for obtaining alarm systems or motion detectors, where home owners were over 2.5 times as likely to have engaged in this target hardening measure. Renters may be less likely than homeowners to target harden for a number of reasons, such as a reduced need to do so, limitations on their ability to modify the rental property and fewer financial resources.

Specifically, landlords or property owners are typically responsible for installing and maintaining security measures. As such, many apartment buildings have controlled entries. Renters who might consider installing their own security measures, however, may be deterred from doing so by the need to obtain permission prior to making any such modifications to the home. In addition, the average personal income of homeowners is higher than that of renters, meaning that renters may have fewer financial resources available to spend on security measures, compared to homeowners.

Given that homeownership is greatest for single detached homes (91%) and lowest for apartments (19%), it is not surprising that residents of single detached homes were over twice as likely to have installed burglar alarms or motion detectors (40%, versus 14% of apartment dwellers). Persons in single detached homes were also more likely than other residents to have ever installed new locks or security bars to prevent crime.

Greater residential stability also increased the likelihood of target hardening. That is, as the length of residency increased, so did the percentage of people who obtained new locks, security bars, burglar alarms and motion detectors on their home. For instance, 24% of people residing in their home for less than one year obtained a burglar alarm system, compared to 34% of people residing in their home between 3 and 5 years, and 37% of people residing in their home for 10 years or more.

Size of household has little impact on use of prevention measures

Among all the household characteristics, household size had the weakest impact on a person’s use of preventive actions. The only discernible pattern occurred for routinely staying home at night because of fear of going out alone. In this case, persons living alone were most likely to stay home, while households with four or more members were least likely to employ this routine avoidance technique (15% versus 8%).

Top of Page

Notes

1. Victims of crime who indicated that they had experienced a crime in the 12 months prior to the 2004 GSS.
2. Includes only responses of those who walk alone at night in their neighbourhood.
3. Includes only responses of those who use public transportation alone at night.
4. Readers should note the significant overlap between visible minority status and immigrant status. A sizeable proportion of Canada’s visible minority population also forms part of its immigrant population and vice versa. On the 2004 GSS, 79% of visible minority individuals are also immigrants and 44% of immigrants are also part of a visible minority.