Mar 04 , 2021

Paul McGarry

Advantages of Security Cameras and Lighting

Home Burglary And Property Crime in Australia Statistics 2020

 Quick Home Invasion Statistics

• Between 2018-2019, an estimated 2.4% of Australian households experienced a break-in, totalling 231,000.
• 20.3% of Australian homes have been burgled at some point
• It takes 75% of burglars less than 5 minutes to enter a property


House Burglary Facts

Burglary is classified as any offence involving unlawfully entering a house or other building to steal property, usually at night; the statutory offence of entering a building as a trespasser (or without consent of the owner) with the intent to steal anything in the building.

From 2018 to 2019, an estimated 2.4% of Australian households experienced at least one break-in, but only 77% reported the incident to the police. Of the reported break-ins, 73% of the households had property stolen and 49% of the households had property damaged. The offender/s confronted someone in 10% of households that were broken into.

An estimated 1.9% of Australian households experienced at least one attempted break-in 2018-2019. Only 44% of households that experienced an attempted break-in reported the incident to the police. 24% of those that didn’t report to the police considered the incident too trivial/unimportant to report. 18% of the households believed there was nothing the police could do and therefore it was pointless to report the incident.

47% of the households that experienced an attempted break-in reported damage to or tampering with doors or windows and 21% of the households saw or heard someone trying to break-in.


Australia vs Global2

In 2015 Australia had the 5th highest rate of burglaries in the world. The four countries with higher rates of burglary than Australia in 2015 were all located in Europe and had much smaller populations.

Reasons for targeting a premise

The detainees identified two main areas of focus for targeting premises, a lack of activity around the property and the visibility/attractiveness of the property.

Lack of activity was indicated by:
• Houses that appeared vacant or unoccupied
• Rubbish bins left outside on the curb
• No lights turned on inside the house in the evening
• No vehicles parked in the driveway
• An overflowing mailbox

Visibility/attraction was ascertained by:
• Houses located in an affluent area
• Houses that had an expensive car in the driveway
• Any valuable items on display or in view either in the yard on from a door or window

Perceived mistakes from burglars
Participants were questioned on what they perceived to be mistakes that residents made that identified their homes as potential targets for burglary4.
Participants could include more than one answer so the % may total more than 100%
• Doors/windows left open - 70%
• Minimal security - 40%
• Easy to enter backyards - 25%
• Detectable keys - 12%
• False security systems - 8%
• Environmental design - 5%
• Skylights - 2%


Successful deterrents

The detained burglars were asked if the following factors would deter them from attempting to enter a property.

Participants could include more than one answer so the % may total more than 100%
• A barking dog - 61.4%
• A working alarm system - 49.1%
• Sensor lights on the outside of the property - 22.8%
• Lights on inside of the house - 19.3%
• Grilled windows/doors - 19%
• An unknown area - 14%
• Visibility of the property from road - 14%
• Gates - 12.3%

A lack of security measures around the property is one of the first thing burglars check for when selecting a target. Fake or poorly implemented security systems that could be easily disarmed were not counted as a successful deterrent.


Home security

55% of those surveyed who had their homes being broken into said they don’t have a security system. 24.3% of the people who didn’t already have a security system then had a system installed in their home after their homes were broken into. Younger age groups were more reactive about installing home security after experiencing a break-in.

Only 29.6% of all Australian homes have working security systems installed. This could be attributed to the fact that 42.2% of people surveyed deemed home security was an unnecessary or unaffordable expense. 20% of respondents said home security was unnecessary as their neighbourhoods were safe.

While it certainly is true some neighbourhoods are affected by burglaries more heavily than others, no neighbourhood is completely free from danger. Experienced burglars are always looking for new neighbourhoods to target to ensure that they stay off police radars and aren’t linked to multiple crimes in the one area.

Owning a security system is not a 100% fail-safe method of protecting your home from break-ins, it is a great deal safer than having fake cameras or nothing at all. Most criminals are familiar with the most popular ‘dummy’ units and won’t be put off by them. In the event a break-in occurs, the captured footage from your security system can provide evidence to police or an insurance company for a claim regarding contents insurance.


Deterrents

35.7% of people surveyed thought that fake security cameras were enough of a deterrent for burglars. Younger renters were more likely to believe a fake camera will deter burglars and 25% of people that owned an active home security system still believed that a fake camera was enough of a visual deterrent for burglars.

46.6% of people surveyed thought that a “guard dog on duty” sign would deter a burglar from targeting their home. It was predominantly younger people that believed having a “guard dog on duty” sign would deter burglars.

However the DUMA study found that unless burglars could see a more tangible indication that a dog lived on the property, a simple sign would not be enough to put them off. Burglars want to enter your property as quickly and quietly as possible and a barking dog is sure to disrupt these plans.

Disclaimer: Data on this website is the latest available from the named sources in this article and was obtained in April 2020. Auto & General Services Pty Ltd does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the data and accepts no liability whatsoever arising from or connected in any way to the use or reliance upon this data.