Prof Jan Van DijkHousehold Security and European Trends in Burglary

Copenhagen, March 20, 2013

“An open door may tempt a saint”

Burglary victimization rate, ICVS 2005

3

1.7

5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

Sweden *

Spain *

Finland *

Japan

Austria *

Germ any *

Norway

Netherlands *

Portugal *

Poland

Northern Ireland

Scotland

Iceland

France *

Switzerland

Hungary *

Luxem bourg *

Belgium *

Greece *

Canada

Italy *

Ireland *

USA

Estonia

Aus tralia

Bulgaria

Denm ark *

Mexico

New Zealand

England & Wales *

Average

Burglary Attempted burglary

1.8

* Source: van Dijk, Manchin, van Kes teren & Hideg (2007) The Burden of Crim e in the EU, A com parative Analys is of the European Survey of Crim e and Safety (EUICS 2005). Gallup-Europe, Brussels

Trends in rates of victimization by burglary in five european countries (national surveys)

4

The Danish exception

Over the past ten years household burglaries have been decreasing across the Western world according to police records and surveys

But not in Denmark !

The Danish rate of police-recorded burglaries of 1.939 per 100.000 in 2009 is the highest rate ever recorded by UNODC anywhere in the world

The crime boom and bust cycle

6

Van Dijk (2008)’

Diagnosing the Danish exception

Most Western countries have by 2005 come full circle: greater opportunities led to higher burglary rates, led to more fear of burglary, led to improved security, led to reduced opportunities, led to lower burglary rates (led to reduced fear……..).

Hypothesis: In Denmark the spontaneous feedback loop of improved security has been relatively slow

7

% of public thinking a burglary in their house in the coming year is likely

8

  1989 surveys

1992 surveys

1996 surveys

2000 surveys

2004/05 surveys

Italy . 38 . . 43

France 36 . 53 44 38

England & Wales

35 45 41 33 35

Portugal . . . 58 35

Belgium 28 31 . 45 33

Ireland . . . . 33

Spain 41 . . . 26

Switzerland 46 . 29 27 26

Poland . 40 24 26 25

Canada 33 33 30 29 25

Germany 54 . . . 23

Hungary . . . . 23

Austria . . 13 . 21

Norway 21 . . . 21

Scotland 30 . 28 23 21

Netherlands 28 28 27 19 18

Sweden . 34 16 16 17

USA 31 . 23 16 16

Denmark . . . 20 14

Finland 9 14 11 13 na

Average* 35 41 29 31 29

Risk assessment of the public and actual victimization rates in 2004

9

0

20

40

60

80

0 5 10 15

Burglary

Ris

k a

sse

ssm

en

t

(sca

le 1

to

10

, h

igh

is le

ss c

orr

up

tio

n)

Maputo (outlier)

Sao Paulo

Istanbul

Lima

Johannesburg

Rio de Janeiro

USA

Denmark

Japan

Sw eden r=-.54n=35p<0.05

Not a Care in the World

Considering the actual burglary risks in Denmark, concern about burglary should have been two times more common than it is.

Lack of concern prevents Danish households from investing in their security?

10

% households with security locks

11

  1989

surveys 1992

surveys 1996

surveys 2000

surveys 2004/05 surveys

Netherlands 59 68 70 72

Germany . . . 61*

England & Wales 68 68 69 60*

USA 58 53 60

Austria . 37 . 56*

Ireland . . . 54*

Italy 36 . . 52*

Portugal . . 36 49*

Spain . . . 45*

Belgium 25 . 50 45*

Sweden 44 38 43 44*

Greece . . . 44*

Estonia 2 18 23 40

Norway . . . 37

France . 34 40 34*

Denmark . . 21 31*

Finland 20 37 29*

Switzerland . 29

Poland 15 15 17 18

Average**   38 43 43 45

LEVELS OF HOME SECURITY IN EIGHT WESTERN NATIONS in 2004

High-grade door locks, 2004 (%)

Burglar alarm, 2004 (%)

England and Wales 60 41

Netherlands 78 15

Canada 48 28

Germany 63 14

Sweden 46 16

Estonia 40 7

Switzerland 29 5

Denmark 32 9

19 april 2023 12

Rates of home security in 2004 and burglary victimization trends between 2004 and 2010 in eight countries

High-grade door locks, 2004 (%)

Burglar alarm, 2004 (%)

Burglary rate,2004 (%)

Burglary rate, 2010 (%) Change burglary rate (%-point)

England and Wales 60 41 3.5 1.5 - 2.0

Netherlands 78 15 1.3 0.8 - 0.5

Canada 48 28 2,0 1.3 - 0.7

Germany 63 14 0.9 1.2 +0.3

Sweden 46 16 0.7 1.0 +0.3

Estonia 40 7 2.5 3.0 +0.5

Switzerland 29 5 1.1 1.9 +0.8

Denmark 32 9 2.7 3.6 +0.9

19 april 2023 13

Levels of household security in 2004 (high grade locks and alarms) and changes in burglary rates between 2004 and 2010

19 april 2023 14

The crime and security loops

19 april 2023 15

Trends in the use of burglar alarms and trends in burglary vicimization since 1992 by income quartiles in twelve Western nations (ICVS 1989-

2005)

percentages secured percentages victimised

19 april 2023 16

Policy interventions Why are Dutch houses the best secured in

Europe ?

Regulatory securitization:

1. Security certification since 1990 promoted by police (Politie Keurmerk)

2. Mandatory security standards incorporated in national Building Code in 1999

17

Security certification of housing situation

At the initiative of the police both existing and newly built houses can be certified, looking at:

• Urban environment (recreational facilities, routing) • Immediate environment (lightening)• Building (preferably not more than 5 levels,

surveillance)• Dwelling (security locks, fire alarms)

18

Effectiveness

• More than 500.000 housing units have been certified (50.000 per year)

• Burglary risk per unit was reduced by 90% Source: De Effectiviteit van het PKVW, DSP Group, 2004

• Reduced fear of burglary

• Reduced insurance premiums

19

• Change in building regulations in the Netherlands in 1999

• All new-built homes must have burglary-proof windows and doors, regardless of their vulnerability

20

Natural experiment in regulation of built-in security

Homes built under old Building

Code

Transition

periodHomes built under new Building

Code

Year of construction of the home

Hom

es

meeti

ng

new

re

gu

lati

ons

(%)

COMPARE

The impact of mandatory security on domestic burglary in NL; source: Vollaard & Van Ours, 2010

19 april 2023 22

Benefits outweigh costs

• Benefits over lifespan of home: €560 p/h

(less losses , less expenses for police etcetera)

• Costs of measures+ enforcement: €430 p/h

• Benefits far exceed the costs

• A country which introduces mandatory security standards increases its welfare

• Such country will also reduce widening security gap between income groups

23

A lesson for Denmark?

• Security feedback loop in Denmark is falling behind

• Certification and national regulation of household security is indicated

• It would be even more cost effective than in NL because of higher burglary rates

24