1

Behind Closed Doors Western Australian Seniors and Burglary:

Prevention, Strategies, and Policy Implications

2

Acknowledgements We acknowledge the assistance of the following, without whose help we could not have prepared this report:

• Mr Malcolm Ginn • Mr Charles O’Donnell • Dr Hoe Lee, Senior Lecturer, School of Occupational Therapy, Curtin

University of Technology • Stuart Reid and Anthony Morgan, Office of Crime Prevention • Our individual and organisational members who contributed to the

development of this report • Seniors who took part in the Behind Closed Doors survey and follow up

consultations Citation Marston, K.G. and Lee, H.C. Behind Closed Doors – Western Australian Seniors and Burglary: Prevention, Strategies, and Policy Implications, Council on the Ageing Western Australia, ABN 79 970 893 100 January 2006. ISBN 0-646-45653-9

Copyright This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Council On The Ageing (WA) Inc. Research for this report was funded from the Research and Development Fund of the WA Office of Crime Prevention. Opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Crime Prevention or the Western Australian Government.

3

Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... 2 Citation ..................................................................................................................... 2 Council on the Ageing Western Australia .................................................................. 4 Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 5 SECTION 1 ............................................................................................................ 8 Structure of this Report.............................................................................................. 8 Crime and Seniors: the Background Issues ................................................................ 8 The Political Environment ....................................................................................... 10 Our Policy Position 2000 - 2005 .............................................................................. 11 Our Ongoing Policy Development Process .............................................................. 13 SECTION 2 .......................................................................................................... 14 The Behind Closed Doors Study .............................................................................. 14 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................ 14 Project Team and Management Structure................................................................. 15 Context of the Study ................................................................................................ 15 Research Methodology ............................................................................................ 18 Findings .................................................................................................................. 19 Implications of Findings of the Survey .................................................................... 34 How Does Behind Closed Doors Compare With ABS (2004)? ................................ 35 SECTION 3 .......................................................................................................... 37 COTA (WA)’s Further Policy Development Work .................................................. 37 Reassessment of Policy ........................................................................................... 37 Recommendations ................................................................................................... 39 Recommendation 1: Victim support services ........................................................... 39 Recommendation 2: Under-reporting ....................................................................... 40 Recommendation 3: Seniors’ beliefs about crime .................................................... 40 Recommendation 4: Security hardware .................................................................... 41 Recommendation 5: Burglar alarms ......................................................................... 41 Recommendation 6: Security assessment and advice ............................................... 41 Recommendation 7: Fire risk ................................................................................... 42 Recommendation 8: Town planning ........................................................................ 42 Recommendation 9: Sampling issues ....................................................................... 43 Recommendation 10: Pets ....................................................................................... 43 Recommendation 11: Local Government security patrols ........................................ 43 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 44 References ............................................................................................................... 46

4

Council on the Ageing Western Australia Council on the Ageing (Western Australia) Inc. (COTA (WA)) is the State’s peak non-government seniors’ organisation. Established in 1959, COTA (WA) works to protect and promote the wellbeing of all older Western Australians. Our altruistic, community-minded approach differs from that of many member-driven organisations that advocate for benefits solely for their members. This report has been developed in close consultation with our 161 Western Australian member organisations, our individual members and non-members. Drawing on the experience of seniors and the most recent evidence available, we seek to assist the Government of Western Australia to continue its Active Ageing policies to meet the needs of seniors. COTA (WA) is a member of the COTA Over 50s Alliance, a national group which draws together Councils on the Ageing and the ARPA Over 50s Association. These organisations are run by older people for older people; together they have nearly 1000 organisational members whose individual membership numbers over half a million people, making the Alliance the largest grouping of seniors in the southern hemisphere. Effective and appropriate seniors’ policy development and implementation has become a matter of increasing importance as the effects of demographic transition and an ageing population have become better recognised. Seniors’ policy is, indeed, in the spotlight and will remain so for many years. For the long-term benefit of the State, it is vital that policies are developed and implemented to meet the needs of this growing sector of the population and that intergenerational issues are also taken into account. Seniors’ issues are whole of community issues. We do not seek special treatment for seniors, just a fair go! The Western Australian Government has acknowledged the need to positively engage with seniors, some of whom feel marginalised, disadvantaged and unheard. Initiatives such as the Active Ageing Taskforce have demonstrated how willing seniors are to participate in policy discussion and just how valuable their contribution can be.

5

Executive Summary Council on the Ageing (WA) has undertaken research and development work on crime and safety over a period of 5 years. This has included a working party of the Policy Committee examining key evidence, a literature review, and obtaining a grant from the Office of Crime Prevention to commission a Curtin University of Technology researcher, Dr Hoe Lee, Senior Lecturer, School of Occupational Therapy, Curtin University of Technology, to conduct the Behind Closed Doors Study. The Study collected information about the home security of Western Australians aged 65 years or older. Analysis of the 5,582 structured questionnaires provided useful information relating to the magnitude of the problem of burglary and older people, their home security status, social and personal factors relating to home security, fear and social isolation related to burglary, the effectiveness of burglary prevention and risk factors for burglary. This research provides important contributions to our understanding of the issues surrounding older people and security in the community and could assist in developing programs that increase the physical security as well as sense of security and safety among older people. The Behind Closed Doors Survey was supplemented by focus group work and consultation with seniors to develop new policy recommendations.

Use of security hardware Most seniors who participated in this research demonstrated that they are well prepared, in terms of security hardware installation, for burglary. They have a higher than average usage of every security device, and a general belief that installation of security hardware improves home security. Installation of security devices does not appear to alleviate the fear of future burglary. Consultations revealed dissatisfaction and difficulties with the use of burglar alarms to such an extent that some seniors do not activate their alarm. Some people also stated that they do not use their door and window locks, as they are afraid that they could be locked in and unable to get out in the event of fire.

Fear of crime Seniors who responded to the questionnaire are not overly fearful of crime. However, our discussions with seniors revealed that many have adopted protective behaviours to avoid exposure to situations that they perceive as dangerous. Fear of crime increases with age, which is a matter of concern given that the oldest cohorts are growing rapidly and that women, who feel more vulnerable and fearful than men, are over represented in the oldest age groups. The study showed no significant correlation between self assessed health status and fear of crime. Most respondents assessed their health status positively. However, the sample may have excluded people who are anxious, fearful and unwell. Fear and anxiety are multi-dimensional and complex, but we are convinced, from the Behind Closed Doors questionnaire data and our ongoing contact with seniors, that

6

the majority are concerned about crime, that many express anger and resentment about crime, but that they are resilient enough, having taken reasonable precautions, to continue their active participation in the community despite their feelings and perceptions about crime. However, many older women have expressed a level of concern about burglary sufficient to suggest that their well-being may be diminished by their anxiety.

Social isolation Feelings of social isolation and fear of crime are positively correlated although it is impossible to state whether there is a causal connection between the variables, or in which direction any causality may occur. Most respondents reported being neither over-fearful of crime nor socially isolated and on average, participants estimated they spent 27.9 hours away from home in the previous week. From the evidence of this study it appears that crime is not a major determinant of social isolation for most seniors.

Beliefs about crime Our research confirms that seniors tend to hold mistaken beliefs regarding the prevalence of crime against their age group, and that these beliefs may have some negative consequences in terms of social participation. This requires further research.

Models of risk factors in relation to burglary incidence and fear of burglary The research did not identify any clear models in relation to burglary incidence and fear of burglary.

Achieving a reasonable balance Although victimisation rates are low, seniors are vulnerable to crime and the consequences of victimisation may be severe. Crime is a serious matter for seniors, and this should not be minimised. However, overemphasis on crime against seniors can provoke anxiety with as great, if not greater, negative consequences. The policy recommendations resulting from this work follow. Summary Recommendation 1: Victim support services

The Western Australian Government should provide additional resources to support, educate and inform aged victims of home burglary, including provision of supportive counselling and regular contact in the first three months after burglary from crime prevention and community policing officers.

Summary Recommendation 2: Under-reporting

The Western Australian Government should commission further research to determine the causes of seniors’ failure to report burglary and develop programs to reduce under-reporting.

Summary Recommendation 3: Seniors’ beliefs about crime

The Western Australian Government should fund a peer education program to influence seniors’ attitudes and beliefs about crime so that they can base their behaviour on fact rather than surmise.

7

Summary Recommendation 4: Security hardware

4a. The Western Australian Government should make available a small pool of funding to assist those seniors who cannot afford a minimum level of security to have it installed in their homes.

4b. The Residential Tenancy Act should be amended to require all landlords to provide a minimum level of security in private residential rental accommodation.

Summary Recommendation 5: Burglar alarms

The security industry and security hardware manufacturers should discuss seniors’ needs regarding burglar alarms with peak seniors’ organisations to improve the design and installation of alarm systems to make them senior-friendly.

Summary Recommendation 6: Security assessment and advice

The security industry should act to ensure that public confidence is maintained in them and their products by widely publicising the Security Agents Institute of WA’s Code of Ethics to allay seniors’ fears regarding confidentiality.

Summary Recommendation 7: Fire risk

Recommendations on security hardware and safe egress from homes should be made readily available to seniors. The Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia (FESA), in conjunction with the Office of Crime Prevention and the Security Agents Institute of WA should widely publicise the Make Your Home Fire Safe and Secure brochure and target other consumer safety information to seniors in a wider range of media.

Summary Recommendation 8: Town planning

Designing Out Crime Planning Guidelines should be adopted and well publicised so that seniors are aware of their benefits.

Summary Recommendation 9: Sampling issues

Further research is required to investigate Indigenous and CALD seniors’ home security requirements.

Summary Recommendation 10: Dogs

The State Government provide specific funding to the RSPCA to subsidise the cost of the Seniors Pet Bequest Program.

Summary Recommendation 11: Local Government security patrols

Local Government Authorities should consult seniors to investigate their comparatively low estimation of the value of security patrols in preventing burglary.

8

Behind Closed Doors Western Australian Seniors and Burglary: Prevention,

Strategies, and Policy Implications

SECTION 1

Structure of this Report This report covers a five-year period of policy development and is arranged in three sections. Background issues, including the political environment are described in the first section. While much of this section is historical, the background issues remain as valid today as they were five years ago. The second section comprises the report of the researchers who undertook the Behind Closed Doors research project on behalf of COTA (WA). This quantitative study provides insights into seniors and burglary. The quantitative study was followed by some qualitative research, including focus group discussions and meetings with seniors to “flesh out” the Behind Closed Doors quantitative data, and policy development work which is described in section three of this report. This section also contains our policy recommendations.

Crime and Seniors: the Background Issues There are a number of background issues, well known prior to COTA(WA)’s research, that must be taken into account in considering crime and seniors.

Vulnerability and impact Seniors are amongst the most vulnerable of all citizens and have the least capacity of all age groups to recover from the consequences of crime. Many seniors have low and/or fixed incomes, making it difficult to them to recover from the financial impact of crime.

…people aged 65 and over had the lowest mean incomes in 2003–041

In addition, older people do not recover from the physical and emotional trauma associated with crime as quickly as do many younger people. Both factors - greater vulnerability and its increased impact - make crime a serious issue for older people.

Victimisation Seniors are amongst the least likely Western Australians to be victims of crime.

…older people in Australia are far less likely to be victims of crime than people in other age groups2

Younger people commit most crime, and younger people tend to be the victims of most crime. There is no evidence that crime against older people is increasing despite

9

public perceptions and media presentations suggesting the contrary. However, this is neither to suggest that crime is not a problem for seniors, nor that crime against seniors is not a serious matter.

Fear It has been suggested that fear of crime may lead to social isolation and reduce participation in society3, both of which have negative consequences for seniors and the community as a whole. Older women report4 that they feel more fearful of crime than do younger people in particular situations such as being home alone at night. An increasing proportion of seniors live in single person households, and as women tend to outlive men, women are more likely to live alone during later life.

The number of people living alone is projected to increase from 1.8 million in 2001 to between 2.8 million (Series I) and 3.7 million (Series III) in 2026 - an increase of between 57% and 105%. This large projected increase is related to rapid population growth in older age groups, delayed marriage and increase in divorce and separation. In all three series, women account for more than half of the number of people living alone (between 54% in Series III and 59% in Series I). This reflects the greater number of women than men in older age groups as a result of women’s longer life expectancy. While women are more likely to live alone in old age…5

However, the extent to which fear of crime causes social isolation is unknown: both fear and social isolation are complex issues.

Beliefs Seniors’ beliefs about crime and safety are also complex and may appear contradictory. Research6 suggests that seniors feel no less safe than younger people when asked questions that measure a general fear of crime, such as “How safe from crime do you feel day to day?” However, when asked about particular situations, such as being on public transport at night, they report that they believe they are vulnerable to victimisation. Asked how they think they compare with other age groups in respect to safety from crime, seniors consistently report that they believe they are more at risk than younger people. Seniors believe (mistakenly) that they are more at risk of being crime victims than younger people (although they correctly assess the consequences of crime against people of their age group as being potentially severe).

Ageing in place Most seniors state a preference to age in place – to continue living independently in the community as long as possible.

The preferred option of most older Australians is to remain in their homes for as long as possible and until their changing circumstances necessitate a move to an assisted care environment7.

10

Various government programs support this goal. Fear of crime and/or victimisation, and the belief that seniors are victimised more than they are, may act to prevent seniors from ageing in place and result in premature admission to residential care, at enormous cost to individuals, families and the community. Seniors living alone in the community may become socially isolated as a result of crime, fear of crime or their beliefs about crime. It is vital that policies, including those related to crime prevention and the mitigation of the effects of crime are well targeted to support ageing in place and prevent or reduce the perceived potential for crime to increase social isolation and fear amongst seniors.

The Political Environment The WA Liberal Party’s 2004 Policy The WA Liberal Party’s 2004 Policy advocates

Mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes against seniors. A home security subsidy for seniors. Preventative Tools – Community Policing and Education (utilising

volunteers and community policing initiatives). An advice service to enhance Seniors’ safety. A community education campaign to raise awareness as to the seriousness

and criminality of elder abuse and provide funding for support groups catering to those suffering from elder abuse.

Our response: COTA (WA) opposes mandatory sentencing as it is undiscriminating, costly and ineffective in reducing crimei. We supported the other measures suggested.

i

a) Roche, D. (1999) Mandatory sentencing. Accessed at: www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti138.pdf. b) Families Against Mandatory Minimums (http://www.famm.org/si_sentencing.htm) states: In the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. Congress and many State legislatures passed laws that force judges to give fixed prison terms to those convicted of specific crimes, most often drug offenses. Lawmakers believed these harsh, inflexible sentencing laws would catch those at the top of the drug trade and deter others from entering it. Instead, this heavy-handed response to the nation's drug problem filled prisons with low-level offenders, resulting in over-capacity prison populations and higher costs for taxpayers. Mandatory sentencing laws disproportionately affect people of color and, because of their severity, destroy families. Two decades after the enactment of mandatory sentences, these laws have failed to deter people from using or selling drugs: drugs are cheaper, purer and more easily obtainable than ever before. c) Similar effects were found when mandatory sentencing for property offences was introduced in the Northern Territory of Australia. Refer: www.nt.gov.au/justice/ocp/docs/mandatory_sentencing_nt_experience_20031201.pdf.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti138.pdfhttp://www.nt.gov.au/justice/ocp/docs/mandatory_sentencing_nt_experience_20031201.pdf%20pdf

11

The Labor Party’s 2000 Policy Protecting Our Seniors (2000) stated that a Western Australian ALP would, if elected to Government:

Introduce the Criminal Code (Protection of Vulnerable Persons) Amendment Bill as a matter of priority. This will increase maximum jail sentences in situations where the victim is aged 60 years or more or is suffering from a significant intellectual or physical disability.

Boost police numbers by 250 officers over four years with these extra officers being deployed throughout Western Australia; and to target known crime hotspots.

Increase support for the Mounted Police and the Canine Section by $1.4 million over four years, and encourage a more visible police presence in the suburbs and country towns.

A $52 million plan to make trains safer.

Our response: COTA (WA) supports these initiatives. Initiatives announced in Generations Together – A Guide to the Western Australian Active Ageing Strategy Key Priority Protection and Security Action 20048 are:

Develop elder abuse prevention initiatives. Establish a strategic alliance between government and community partners

to promote awareness and prevention of elder abuse. Work with Indigenous and culturally and linguistically diverse

communities to identify and develop local responses to elder abuse. Publish an information sheet on Crime and Safety for seniors. Build the capacity of senior consumers by supporting the work of the

Consumer Advisory Council.

Our response: While supporting these initiatives, we believe that there is insufficient emphasis on overcoming the fear of crime and its impact upon seniors. In particular, we suggest that publication of an information sheet on crime and safety for seniors is neither likely to significantly change seniors’ beliefs, nor alleviate their fears about crime.

Our Policy Position 2000 – 2005 In response to our understanding of these background issues, COTA (WA) stated in its 2005 Pre Budget Submissions to the State Government that the Western Australian Government should:

Provide an adequate and visible police presence in public places. Subsidise burglar alarms for lower income seniors to discourage

residential burglary. Fund a peer support crime prevention initiative. Provide enhanced victim support services to seniors who are the

victims of crime.

12

How did we arrive at this position? There has been widespread media coverage of crimes against seniors and considerable political debate about crime. Our members have raised crime and safety issues from time to time in correspondence and at meetings and forums. In response to these member concerns, a working party comprising several members of our Policy Working Group and our Policy Officer, was established in 2003 to research the policy position that COTA (WA) should have on this issue. From the outset it was clear that this is a complex issue and that there are many and varied opinions and proposed responses to crime against seniors. It was also clear that this was a subject that raised heated argument and that some extreme opinions existed in the community, particularly regarding punishment. The decision was made to look at the evidence to get a clear picture of the situation before proceeding. It was recognised that there are many kinds of evidence – the academic, the layman’s and the practitioners’ perspectives would be expected to differ. The working party resolved to look at the evidence from all perspectives. Experts from the Crime Research Centre at UWA, the Office of Crime Prevention and Advocare presented practitioners' views and perspectives on crime against seniors, including elder abuse. Our Policy Officer researched relevant literature and distributed it to the working party. Members of the working party and seniors in the community to whom they spoke provided the layman’s perspective. Participants in our CitiPlace and Melville Forums were asked to air their views on the subject. A number of articles were distributed to members. The literature, together with the consultations with seniors suggested that:

Older people in Australia have lower crime victimisation rates than the population as a whole. Personal offence victimisation rates remain the lowest for those aged 65 years and older. The rate of assault for people aged over 65 is 1.8 per 100 persons; this compares to a rate of 7.8 per 100 persons in the general population. Rates of robbery, theft from a person, break and enter, vehicle theft and consumer fraud were also lower for older people9.

Many seniors believe that they are very vulnerable to crime and that they are targeted by criminals as they have little capacity to resist i.e. they see themselves as “easy targets” and that criminals exploit their vulnerability.

The media tends to sensationalise crime generally, and does so even more when the victim is a senior.

Crime is often used by politicians for political point scoring, and this has a tendency to distort the true picture of the nature and extent of crime in the community.

A number of crime prevention strategies are in place. This includes the provision of information and advice to seniors in a variety of media, including brochures, websites, talks given by community police, neighbourhood watch, an email warning system in some suburbs and a system where utilities workers are asked to report suspicious events in suburban streets.

13

The effect of punishment on recidivism and crime prevention is minimal, according to papers presented in Australia and Canada10.

The cost of prosecution and imprisonment of criminals is high (imprisonment costs approximately $70 000 pa per prisoner, for example). While crime prevention is a more cost effective option, incarceration is acknowledged to be necessary in some cases.

Elder abuse is a largely unacknowledged and under-reported crime. Many seniors are totally unaware of their vulnerability to elder abuse11.

Discussions continued throughout the research and policy development process. Working party members questioned the speakers, tested their ideas, formed tentative conclusions and found new issues to examine. At the conclusion of the information-gathering phase, a briefing paper and some tentative recommendations were distributed to all working party members. The working party unanimously agreed to the policy position outlined above, it was endorsed by our Board and has been put forward in our submissions to government.

Our Ongoing Policy Development Process In 2005, the Office of Crime Prevention supported COTA (WA) to conduct a study into seniors and burglary through its Research and Development Fund. Behind Closed Doors, a survey of over 5000 seniors, produced considerable data and raised a number of issues requiring further investigation. This study, together with follow up focus group and qualitative research, has been used to inform the policy recommendations contained in section three of this report.

14

Behind Closed Doors Western Australian Seniors and Burglary: Prevention,

Strategies, and Policy Implications

SECTION 2

The Behind Closed Doors Study

Introduction Dr Hoe Lee of Curtin University of Technology was commissioned by COTA (WA) to conduct a study of seniors and burglary as part of our policy development process. This cross-sectional study used a structured questionnaire to investigate the prevalence of safety and security features in the households of older Western Australians. It also assessed the risk factors related to home burglary and fear of burglary as well as the effects on social isolation. The Behind Closed Doors Study was funded by the Western Australian Office of Crime Prevention. Purpose of the Study This study aimed to:

1. Document the home security status of older Western Australians in terms of household security measures;

2. Investigate the social and personal factors related to ‘unsafe’ home environment;

3. Assess the effectiveness of home security features for burglary prevention and improving sense of safe feelings among the older adults;

4. Investigate the effects burglary and fear of burglary on social isolation in older adults;

5. Develop models of risk factors in relation to the burglary incidence and fear of burglary among older Western Australians;

6. Make recommendations, where appropriate, for burglary prevention and fear management thereby providing a safe and secure environment for senior citizens.

15

Project Team and Management Structure Members Responsibility

Nigel Barker (Executive Director of COTA)

Project manager, main applicant of research grant, overall co-ordination of the project, dissemination of findings to media and other stakeholders.

Dr Hoe Lee (Practising Occupational Therapist)

Principal Investigator, survey design, liaise with industry partners, provide clinical information of older adults’ perception/behaviours related to burglary, dissemination of findings to research fields.

Associate Professor Andy Lee (Biostatistician and epidemiologist)

Principal Investigator, research methodology, statistical modelling and data analysis, dissemination of findings to research fields, supervision and support of research officer.

Dr Clive Begg (Executive Director of ACRO)

Research advisor, provide criminology research expertise, questionnaire design, interpretation and analysis.

Ms Veronica Clarke (Community Development Co-ordinator, City of Melville)

Research advisor, assistant to Project Officer, logistic support.

Mr Brad G. Zhang (Project Officer)

Research Officer (half-time), conduct postal survey, data collection, data entry and statistical analysis.

Ms Michelle Fraser Research Officer (half-time), conduct postal survey, data collection, data entry and statistical analysis.

Context of the Study The ageing society According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the population aged 65 years and over is projected to increase rapidly both in numbers and as a proportion of the total population, from 2.3 million (12% of population) in 1999 to about 4.2 million (18-19%) by 2021. It is also projected that by 2021 between 35-40% of older Australians will live alone12. The World Health Organization’s Active Ageing Policy Framework13 suggests that three pillars underlie Active Ageing, which is defined as "the process of optimising opportunities for health, participation and security in order to enhance quality of life

16

as people age”.14 Crime has impact on all three pillars of the framework and it is therefore essential that crime be considered in the context of an ageing population. The Australian Institute of Criminology15 has emphasised that “The challenge for all societies as a whole is to ensure that all older people achieve their full potential while living their lives with dignity and respect”. Research should focus on promoting a sense of security and safety among older people, as well as developing effective programs that increase the physical security and personal safety of this vulnerable subpopulation16.

Burglary in Western Australia Burglary (including break, enter and steal) has become a matter of serious concern in Australia and in most of the Western world17. Indeed, the offence of home burglary is amongst the most prevalent forms of crime18. Data from the recent Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd.19 survey indicated that four in 10 Australians have experienced a break-in at some time. The situation is serious for Perth, which has had the highest break-in rate among all capital cities in Australia. During the twelve months to October 2000, for example, 83,400 households (11.4% of all households in Western Australia at October 2000) were victims of at least one household crime. The victimisation rate was higher for the Perth metropolitan area (12.3%) than the rest of Western Australia (9%). The most common household offence was break-in, reported by 44,100 households or 6% of all households20. A recent survey also showed that about 10% of older people in Western Australia experienced an actual or attempted break-in within the past 12 months21. The burglary problem has been identified by the WA Office of Crime Prevention as a priority for action and research, leading to funding of this study and a number of others. Interestingly, there has been a dramatic improvement in the rate of burglary over the last 24 months. In 2004 burglary fell by 24% state-wide when compared with the previous year. There was a further 12% reduction in 2005, a 33.5% reduction over two years. The metropolitan area reported a 34.5% reduction over the same two year period, and the South East metropolitan district a staggering 41% reduction over this period. These improvements in the burglary rate perhaps reflect a combination of more effective policing, Burglar beware marketing campaigns, increased crime prevention activities and more effective protective behaviour in the community resulting from increased awareness of ways in which households can help themselves.

Burglary and older people The literature has focused on risk factors and prevention of burglary22. However, findings of crime victimisation surveys differ between countries23 and burglary victimisation can also vary from one small area to the next24. Few studies have specifically targeted burglary and older people25. The recent Australian Institute of Criminology report, ‘A Safe and Secure Environment for Older Australians,’26 reviewed the issues of providing a secure environment for older Australians and stressed the importance of studying domestic safety and security for this population subgroup. Risk factors of burglary are known to be complex and the older population can have different risk patterns of burglary from other sectors of the community.

17

Home security features The strategy of “target hardening” has been recommended for preventing domestic burglary in many crime prevention initiatives27. There are many options to make the home less vulnerable to burglary. Installation of security features is expected to reduce illegal entry to premises. Although some studies have shown the effectiveness of installing security features to prevent burglary, the beneficial outcomes of all such devices have not been consistently demonstrated28. For example, Hakim and Shachmurove29 found that 94 to 98 percent of all home burglar alarm activations were false and this imposed a significant burden on police resources. This would certainly appear to be the case in Western Australia, where police no longer respond to burglar alarms due to the high incidence of false alarms30. An ABS31 survey on the prevalence of security features found a significant proportion of Australian households have or partly have deadlocks (> 60%), security screen doors (nearly 70%), security screens on windows (nearly 55%), burglar alarms (around 15%), and guard dogs (nearly 40%). Moreover, the proportion of households with security features was generally lower for those who were renting than those who owned or were purchasing their dwelling. A surprise finding was that proportionally more victim than non-victim households had deadlocks on all doors, security on all windows, and burglar alarms. There was little difference in the proportion of victim and non-victim households in terms of other dwelling security features. Nevertheless, factors that influence the choice of security devices by older people were not examined. A significant proportion of Australian households have installed various types of home security features, but the attitudes of older Australians towards such security measures remain unclear. Contributing factors related to the installation of security hardware and the effectiveness of such security features for older people have not been adequately addressed in the literature.

Fear of burglary Fear of burglary is common amongst people of all age groups. According to the recent survey by AAMI32, 37% of Australians are apprehensive about being burgled while away on holidays. Fear of crime has attracted much research attention33. Studies have found that older people are more likely than younger people to be fearful of crime due to their physical vulnerability. Dr Clive Begg (Research Adviser of this project), found that older people tended to be unsure about safety in all situations, even within their own home34 and therefore older community members should be encouraged and provided with opportunities to participate in community development initiatives that empower them to be confident about their position within the community in terms of safety. The Mulgrave Community Safety Attitudes Survey35 in Queensland recommended strategies to create more effective community networks particularly for those elderly people living alone.

Impact of crime on social interaction A large number of adults express significant and distressing crime-related fears; concern exists that crime could contribute to social isolation in older people and a number of studies36 have indicated that fear of crime can result in restriction of activity, including leaving the house, attending social group gatherings and walking

18

outside after dark This can result in fewer opportunities for social contact and support for older people, leading to social isolation37. Social support and social networks have an important causal effect on health38. Numerous studies39 have suggested that social isolation is associated with adverse health outcomes. These include mental illness, physical illness, loneliness and depression, leading to reduced quality of life. Research40 has indicated that living alone, being female, non-Caucasian, depressed,41 of lower socio-economic status42 and living in urban areas43 may be factors associated with higher fear of crime in older people. A better understanding of the influence of fear of crime on social interaction in older people and factors predicting this fear are essential for managing these adverse consequences.

Research Methodology

Study design and recruitment procedure A cross-sectional survey of individuals aged 65 or over residing in the Perth metropolitan area was conducted between January and March 2005. Participants of the survey were required to be able to read and understand English. Subjects were ineligible if they were institutionalised (i.e. hostel or nursing home residents) or if their partner (of the same household) had previously completed the questionnaire. To attract the required number of participants, a postal survey was conducted through the membership of Council On The Ageing (WA), the Positive Ageing Foundation and Retirees (WA). The structured questionnaire, together with a letter of invitation from the Executive Director of COTA (WA) and a reply-paid envelope, was sent by mail to 15,000 households randomly selected from the membership lists of the three associations. COTA (WA) sent the postal survey by distributing the package. The mailing database was inaccessible to the investigators: potential participants remained anonymous.

Instrument Curtin University of Technology had previously invested substantial funds to develop and pilot test the survey instrument and provided expertise and technical support to the project. The self-administered structured questionnaire consisted of three parts -Part A: safety and security measures, Part B: perception and experience, and Part C: general information. The 35 questions took about 15 minutes to complete. Most questions required a single response by ticking one box, but there were also questions where the participant could tick as many boxes as applicable. Part A of the questionnaire sought information about contents insurance coverage and security devices installed in the home, and requested the participant to rank the security features in terms of effectiveness in property crime prevention. Part B focused on the perceived social support and relationships of older adults, attitudes and perceptions regarding the burglary/break-in problem, and whether they had been victims of burglary within the past three years. Part C collected general information on residence type, household composition and basic demographic characteristics. These questions were either taken from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ 2002 General Social Survey44, the Queensland Crime Survey45 or were developed in conjunction with experts in the field through focus group discussions. Data items from the ABS 2004

19

WA Home Safety and Security Supplementary Survey, which focused on household security devices, were also consulted. The questionnaire was modified after consulting a panel of stakeholders.

Pilot testing The validity of the instrument was confirmed by a pilot test involving 498 community-dwelling older adults. These voluntary participants (corresponding to 10% of the target sample) were recruited with the assistance from the City of Melville between July and September 2004. The questionnaire was distributed to senior volunteers at community halls and centres, together with the information sheet and a verbal briefing of the study. The self-administered questionnaire was collected immediately after completion.

Statistical analysis During the data collection phase, the data was screened and plausibility checks made to ensure quality of the information recorded. Implausible and inconsistent entries were identified and corrected. Both univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed. Prevalence rates (%) of risk factors and their 95% confidence intervals were first estimated. Descriptive and other summary statistics were also obtained. The risks of burglary were assessed using a Poisson regression model after adjusting for potential confounding variables. Pertinent factors influencing the fear of burglary were identified using a separate multivariate logistic regression model, accounting for covariates and other known confounding factors.

Findings Response rate The response rate of this survey was approximately 40% with a total of 5612 questionnaires being returned and included in the database. After deleting the blank or mostly black questionnaires, 5582 remained.

Demographics

a) Country of birth The average age of the sample was 73.9 years. Women made up 57.5% of the sample and men accounted for 42.5%. The majority (59.2%) were born in Australia, 28% were born in the UK or Ireland, 3.8% in other European countries and 3.3% in Asia. Table 1 presents the number and percentage of participants born in each country. Of the 2242 participants born overseas, the average number of years they had lived in Australia was 38.8 years.

b) Source of income Pensioners comprised the majority of the sample (66.6%) and 48.5% were retired. Only 2.5% were employed for a wage and 2.1% were self-employed. Table 2 shows the number and percentage of participants in each situation.

20

Table 1: Country of birth of the participants

Number Percent

Australia 3285 59.2

New Zealand 88 1.6

UK or Ireland 1553 28.0

Greece 4 .1

Italy 26 .5

Asia 183 3.3

Other European 212 3.8

Other country 200 3.6

Total 5551 100.0

Table 2: Current situation of participants

Number Percent

Employed for wage 138 2.5

Self employed 119 2.1

Care giver 166 3.0

Retired 2691 48.5

Pensioner 3717 66.6

Self-funded 1211 21.8

N.B Table sums to more than 100% as participants were able to select more than one response – e.g. a senior may be both a pensioner and employed, or self funded and a care giver.

c) Education In terms of education level, 43.0% of participants did not complete high school but 22.8% had university or other tertiary education and 14% had a TAFE/ Diploma. Figure 1 shows highest level of education reached by participants (percentage).

21

Figure 1: Highest levels of education obtained by participants

8%

34%

16%

14%

23%

2% 3% Primary school

Some high school

Year 12

TAFE/ Diploma

University or other tertiaryeducationMilitary training

Others

d) Health status 43.1% of respondents rated their health as ‘good’, 22.3% rated it as ‘fair’ and 24.4% as ‘very good’. Only 7.1% and 3.1% rated their health as ‘excellent’ or ‘poor’ respectively. Table 3 shows the number and percentage of participants ranking their health from ‘poor’ to ‘excellent’. Table 3: Self assessed health status of participants

Number Percent

Poor 172 3.1

Fair 1234 22.3

Good 2391 43.1

Very good 1353 24.4

Excellent 394 7.1

Total 5544 100.0

A third (33.1%) of participants reported difficulty coping due to physical problems in the past 6 months. The majority of the sample (68.1%) reported that no psychological problems caused difficulty coping in the past four weeks but the most common psychological problems reported were ‘memory problems’ (13.9%), ‘feeling more down than usual’ (13.0%) and ‘feeling more worried than usual’ (8.2%). Table 4 presents the number and percentage of participants experiencing each of the psychological problems in the past 4 weeks. On average, participants estimated they spent 27.9 hours away from home in the previous week.

22

Table 4: Self assessed psychological problems experienced by participants in the past 4 weeks

Number Percent

Feeling more down than usual 702 13.0

Feeling more worried than usual 443 8.2

Memory problems 752 13.9

Poor concentration 408 7.5

Forget who familiar people are 123 2.3

None 3699 68.4

The participants in the survey are healthy in general and we have no reason to believe that responses were confounded by poor memory or cognitive states.

e) Residence arrangements The majority of participants lived with their spouse or defacto (53.3%) but 2122 participants (38.4%) lived alone. Figure 2 presents the percentage of participants living in each type of household. Figure 2: Households of participants

38%

53%

3% 3%3%

Live alone

Live with spouse/ defacto

Live with spouse/ defacto andchild(ren)

Live with my child(ren)

Others

The majority of the sample (62.2%) lived in detached houses, 18.4% lived in flats, units or apartments on the ground floor, 11.7% lived in semi-detached houses or terrace houses, 3.0% lived in flats, units or apartments on other than the ground floor and 4.7% responded with ‘other’. Figure 3 shows the percentage of participants living in each type of home.

23

Figure 3: Types of homes of participants

62%12%

18%

3%5%

Detached house

Semi-detached house or terrace house

Flat, unit or apartment (ground floor)

Flat, unit or apartment (other than groundfloor)

Others

A high proportion of participants (81.6%) fully owned or mortgaged their homes. Only 12.5% in total rented their home either publicly or privately. The average number of years participants had been living at their current residence was 15.8 years. Figure 4 shows the percentages of participants’ ownership of their homes. Figure 4: Participants’ tenure of their homes

82%

6%

6%

6%

Fully owned ormortgaged

Rented (public)

Rented (private)

Others

Security features in the home More than half of the sample had security screens (79.3%), key-operated deadlocks (70.2%), keyed window locks (66.7%) and external lights (55.5%). Many participants

24

(37.3%) also had security film, bars or grilles on windows. However, there were 148 participants (2.7%) who reported having no security features at home. Figure 5 illustrates the percentages of security features participants have in their homes. When asked which of the security devices participants would recommend others to install to improve home security the highest recommended device was the key operated deadlock (34.4%) followed by security screens (33.9%), burglar alarms (33.2%), external lights (29.6%), keyed window locks (26.8%) and security film, bars or grilles on windows (21%). Table 5 presents the number and percentage of participants recommending each security device. Figure 5: Percentage of participants with each security feature in their home.

70.2

79.3

66.7

55.5

37.3

28.1

14.7

7.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

key-operateddeadlock

securityscreens

keyedwindow

locks

externallights

securityfilm, barsor grilles

onwindows

burglaralarm

guard dog others ofsecurityfeatures

Perc

enta

ges

(%)

Table 5: Percentages of participants recommending each security device

Yes No Items Number % Number % Key-operated deadlock

1769 34.4 3366 65.6

Security screens

1741 33.9 3394 66.1

Keyed window locks

1376 26.8 3759 73.2

External lights

1519 29.6 3616 70.4

Security film, bars or grilles on windows

1080 21.0 4055 79.0

Burglar alarm

1705 33.2 3430 66.8

25

Participants rated security measures between 1 (most effective) and 5 (least effective) in property crime prevention. All measures were considered to be effective (all means were less than 3). However, security hardware was considered most effective (mean = 1.56) followed by street lighting (mean = 1.92), guard dog (mean = 2.40), neighbourhood watch (mean = 2.4), police patrol (mean = 2.46) and personal alarm (mean = 2.61). Those rated least effective were council security patrols (mean = 2.87) and security assessment and advice (mean = 2.70). Table 6 shows the means of the scores for each measure. Table 6: Means of scores for each security measure (1: most effective, 5: least effective)

Security Measure

Mean

Security hardware

1.56

Security assessment and advice

2.70

Police patrol

2.46

Council security patrol

2.87

Street lighting

1.92

Neighbourhood watch

2.43

Personal alarm

2.61

Guard dog

2.40

Participants believe that all devices are useful in crime prevention. 28.1% of the sample had burglar alarms and 33.2% recommended their installation to improve home security. Some research46 has suggested that burglar alarms are an effective deterrent to burglary though this has not been consistently demonstrated47. However, it is important to explore why older people do not have burglar alarms in their homes. Participants rated council security patrols, then security assessment and advice as the least effective measures in property crime prevention. Considering several Local Government Authorities spend large amounts of money on patrols with the aim of contributing to residents’ feelings of security and deterring burglars, it is important to further explore older people’s views on these patrols. The fact that security assessment and advice was rated comparatively low on effectiveness may indicate that older people are not being reached with security education. Therefore, it may be important to explore effective methods of reaching and educating this group and develop effective programs that increase security and safety of this group without increasing their fear of crime. Factors influencing choice of security devices by older people have not been adequately addressed in the literature are an important area for future exploration.

26

Out of eight possible security devices in the survey (Question 1), this sample has installed half of them in average (Average 4.4; SD 1.5). There is a non-significant association (Pearson Correlation = 0.009 and p>0.05) between “number of security devices” at home and age. It suggests getting old does not seem to make the seniors get more security devices installed. Table 7: Age Groups (categorised in five-year bracket)

Age Group

Number Percent

65-69

1217 24.9

70-74

1327 27.1

75-79

1180 24.1

80-84

788 16.1

85-89

356 7.3

90 plus

29 0.6

Table 8: Prevalence of security device within the age groups

Security devices 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90 plus

Key-operated deadlocks

72.3% 72.9% 70.8% 66.4% 59.5% 50.0%

Security screen in front door

75.7% 79.1% 81.0% 82.0% 82.2% 84.6%

Keyed window locks

68.5% 70.3% 66.7% 63.1% 56.3% 50.0%

Security film, bars or grilles on windows

35.7% 35.8% 41.1% 41.4% 36.4% 19.2%

External lights

60.3% 55.7% 55.1% 48.1% 49.3% 34.6%

Burglar alarm

33.6% 31.3% 25.7% 20.3% 17.5% 7.7%

Guard dog

17.7% 15.8% 12.0% 11.1% 8.2% 3.8%

Further analysis by grouping participants in age-groups (Table 7) was conducted. Cross tabulation reveals that within the 85-plus cohort, fewer individuals use key-operated deadlocks to protect the property (Table 8). Nevertheless, the older groups use more security screens to guard their main entrance. The data also indicate that respondents tend not to worry too much about window security (fewer keyed widow locks, bars/grilles in window) and they have also have fewer external lights/burglary alarm installed. Forced entry from the front door is uncommon in Perth; however,

27

reinforcing security there is still essential. However, less security in windows/around of premises may make this group of participants vulnerable to break-ins through windows or back doors. Guard dogs are perceived as a good measure to prevent home burglary, however, the data indicates a low prevalence of dog ownership in all groups. The percentage of people owning a dog decreases as age increases.

Social and personal factors relating to security features in the home Further data analysis explored the social and personal factors related to the prevalence of different security features in the home. Factors of particular interest include gender, living arrangements and home ownership.

a) Gender and home security features A comparison of security features between male and female participants revealed that men were statistically significantly more likely to live in houses with key-operated deadlocks (74.9% versus 67.0%) keyed window locks (69.9% versus 64.4%) and burglar alarms (33.3% versus 24.1%). In contrast, women were more likely to live in houses with security screens or security film (82.8% versus 74.5%) and bars or grilles on the windows (39.8% versus 34.1%). Table 7 compares the prevalence of security measures between these groups. While it is not clear why these gender differences exist, it is possible they reflect different attitudes and beliefs relating to the efficacy of home security features. Table 9: Comparison of the prevalence of security measures between males and females

Males (n=2301) Females (n=3109) Yes Yes

N % N % P Key-operated deadlocks

1723 74.9 2083 67.0

28

b) Living arrangements and home security features Analysis revealed that subjects who lived alone had statistically significantly less prevalence of key-operated deadlocks (65.8% versus 73.1%), external lights (50.0% versus 59.0%), burglar alarms (19.7% versus 33.3%) and guard dogs (11.1% versus 17.0%) but a higher prevalence of security screens (84.1% versus 76.4%) and security film, bars or grilles on windows (41% versus 35.1%) than those living with others. Table 10 compares the prevalence of security measures between these groups. Table 10: Comparison of the prevalence of security measures between participants living alone or living with others

Living with others (n=3315)

Living alone (n=2073)

Yes Yes N % N % P Key-operated deadlocks

2422 73.1 1363 65.8

29

protect their homes from burglary than tenants. It may also be the case that tenants are not allowed to install security hardware under the conditions of their tenancy agreement or that they do not think it worthwhile or find it affordable to do so. Table 11: Comparison of the prevalence of security measures among house ownerships

Fully owned

Rented public

Rented private

Others P

Key-operated deadlocks

72.2% 61.9% 57.9% 64.5%

30

Table 12: Educational level and total number of security devices installed

Education level

N Mean Std. Deviation

Primary school

389 4.47 1.48

Some high school

1687 4.40 1.51

Year 12

735 4.42 1.53

Tafe

653 4.53 1.48

University

1092 4.37 1.53

Military

84 4.10 1.47

Others

147 4.39 1.38

Victims of burglary Nearly half of the sample (43.1%) had been the victim of a property-related crime or burglary at home at some time and 22.2% had been victims in the past three years. Data from the recent Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd (AAMI) 2004 Survey48 indicated that four in 10 of all Australians have experienced a break-in at some time. The rate of 43.1% reported by the sample is slightly higher than this. Also during the 12 months to October 2000, 12.3% of Perth metropolitan households were victims of at least one household crime49. In the sample, 22.2% had been victims in the past three years but this is difficult to compare due to the different time spans. Only 77% of the incidents in the past three years were reported to the police meaning 23% of incidents were not reported. This low reporting rate may mean older people are not represented correctly in WA property crime statistics.

Effectiveness of home security features for burglary Table 13 compares the prevalence of security features and rates of burglary. Analysis revealed that participants who experienced burglary in the last three years had a statistically significantly higher prevalence of the majority of the security measures in their homes. The exception was that fewer victims of burglary had a guard dog, suggesting that guard dogs may be effective in preventing burglary. ABS (2002) found that proportionally more of the total victim than non-victim households had deadlocks on all doors, security on all windows, and burglar alarms but there was little difference in the proportion of victim and non-victim households in terms of other dwelling security features. It is impossible to determine from the survey, however, if participants experiencing burglary in the past three years installed additional security measures as a result of the burglary.

31

Table 13: Prevalence of security features and rates of burglary in the past three years

Having security feature

No security feature

Burglary (Yes) Burglary (Yes) n/N % n/N % P Key-operated deadlocks

828/3617 22.9 311/1534 20.3 0.038

Security screen

917/4067 22.5 222/1084 20.5 0.145

Keyed window locks

784/3418 22.9 355/1733 20.5 0.045

External lights

677/2865 23.6 462/2286 20.2 0.003

Security film, bars or grilles on windows

472/1914 24.7 667/3237 20.6 0.001

Burglar alarm

364/1451 25.1 775/3700 20.9 0.001

Guard dog

149/766 19.5 990/4385 22.6 0.054

Risk factors related to burglary events in the past three years Backwards logistic regression was employed to analyse the risk factors related to burglary events in the last three years (see Table 14). Findings include that having a guard dog can decrease the risk of burglary but that detached houses are likely to be a target for burglary. Participants’ perception and fears of burglary problems also correlated with burglary events and those who had experienced burglary had increased worry of break-in. Table 14: Risk factors and burglary at home

B S.E. Sig. Exp(B) 95.0%C.I.for EXP(B)

Lower Upper Having guard dog

-.257 .104 .014 .773 .630 .949

Scores of worry about night time break in

-.051 .017 .003 .950 .918 .983

Scores of Worry about break in away home

-.071 .017 .000 .931 .901 .962

Problems in your suburb

.291 .021 .000 1.337 1.283 1.394

Detached house

.246 .076 .001 1.279 1.102 1.483

32

Social isolation and fear of crime Several survey items addressed issues of social isolation/ loneliness and fear of crime. When participants were asked if they feel lonely the mean response fell between ‘sometimes’ and ‘never’. Regarding participants feeling there are people who really understand them, the mean response fell between ‘sometimes’ and ‘all the time’. The mean response was closest to ‘agree’ for the four items addressing if there was someone participants can talk to, if they have enough friends, there is someone to depend on for aid if they really need it and if they enjoy their relationships with family and friends. Participants also responded to questions addressing their beliefs and fears of property crime or burglary. When asked how often they worry about night-time break-in/ burglary when alone at home, the mean response fell between ‘sometimes’ and ‘seldom’. For worrying about break-in/ burglary when away from home, the mean response was closest to ‘sometimes’. Participants’ mean response fell between ‘disagree’ and neutral’ for police being able to prevent a break-in/ burglary at their residence. Participants mean response was ‘agree’ that older adults are more likely to be victims of burglary at home than younger Australians. Mean responses fell between ‘neutral’ and ‘agree’ for burglary being a problem in their suburb and burglary interfering with the lifestyles of people in their suburb. Questions 7 to 9 were designed to measure the feeling of social isolation of the participants and Questions 11 to 14 were structured to gauge the participant’s fear of being a crime victim. Principal Component Analysis was employed to extract the questions into ‘Social Isolation Index’ and ‘Fear of Victim of Crime Index’ for each participant. Social Isolation Index = 0.72 x Aid Availability + 0.72 x Feel Lonely +0.25 x Felt Being Understood. Fear of Victim of Crime Index = 0.75 x WorryBreak-inNight + 0.76 x WorryBreak-inAway + 0.62 x PolicePreventBurglary + 0.55 x VictimOfCrime There is a slight, but significant positive relation between age and Fear of Victim of Crime Index (Pearson Correlation = 0.07, p = 0.01). In the population surveyed, the older the participants, the more they fear being a victim of crime. There is also a slight, but significant positive relationship between Social Isolation Index and Fear of Victim of Crime Index (Pearson Correlation = 0.19, p = 0.01). Participants in this survey have more fear of being victim of crime, if they feel more socially isolated. Older people who had been victims of property-related crime in the past three years showed slightly but statistically significantly more social isolation and fear of crime on every item than those who had not. This relationship was more pronounced in females than males in the sample. Research50 has indicated that older people are more likely to be fearful of crime than younger people. Results showed that participants believe that older adults are more likely to be victims of burglary at home than younger Australians. Australian statistics51 however, do not support this belief.

33

Ninety percent of participants reported that they had contents insurance for their homes. Interestingly, statistics for the general Australian population report that only 49.9% had some level of contents insurance for their homes in 1998/9952 This difference may result from a higher proportion of the older sample owning their homes as opposed to renting. It is also possible that greater fear of property crime within the older WA population may contribute to this high level of insurance.

Fear of break-in /burglary and home security features Analysis of fear of night time break-in while home alone and its relationship to the prevalence of security features showed that participants with almost each security feature worried more often about night time break-in than those without. This was statistically significant for having security screens, external lights, security film, bars or grilles on windows and burglar alarm. Table 15 compares the mean scores for worry about night-time break for those with and without each security feature. Table 15: Worry about night time burglary for participants with and without each security feature

Having security feature

No security feature

Worry about night time break in

Worry about night time break in

N Mean N Mean P Key-operated deadlocks

3750 6.89 1589 6.94 0.512

Security screen

4231 6.85 1108 7.12 0.001

Keyed window locks

3559 6.89 1780 6.94 0.41

External lights

2965 6.83 2374 7.0 0.007

Security film, bars or grilles on windows

1995 6.77 3344 6.99 0.001

Burglar alarm

1504 6.71 3835 6.98

34

Table 16: Worry about burglary when away from home for participants with and without each security feature

Having security feature

No security feature

Worry about break in away home

Worry about break in away home

N Mean n Mean P Key-operated deadlocks

3762 5.78 1590 6.11

35

levels of fear of crime in this population. In addition, older people who had been victims of property-related crime in the past three years showed more social isolation and fear of crime than those who had not. This relationship was more pronounced in females and highlights that older victims of burglary may require intervention or counselling to reduce fear, social isolation and improve quality of life. Having home security did not appear to alleviate fears as those who had security features worried more about burglary than those who did not. In addition participants who experienced burglary in the last three years actually had a higher prevalence of the majority of security measures in their homes. It cannot be ascertained from the data, however, whether participants had installed security hardware prior to burglary or as a result of the burglary. Findings confirm that risk factors for burglary are very complex and require further research. Risk factor analysis to identify risk factors for burglary revealed that having a guard dog can potentially reduce the risk of burglary and that detached houses are likely to be a target. This research has the potential to contribute towards the development of effective strategies for providing a safe and secure environment for elderly citizens in our community. The intention is to reduce their fear of burglary and their social isolation without encouraging complacency about basic security. Focus group work will enhance our understanding of these complex issues.

How Does Behind Closed Doors Compare With ABS (2004)? The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Home Safety and Security for Western Australia, 200453 provided interesting and useful data which assisted the researchers in developing the Behind Closed Doors (BCD) study. However, there are significant differences between the two pieces of research and the subsequent follow up work undertaken by COTA (WA).

♦ ABS (2004) surveyed households whereas BCD questionnaires were addressed to individuals.

♦ The BCD questionnaire was targeted to people aged over 65 years, while the ABS survey was not limited by age.

♦ The BCD sample was drawn from the membership lists of three Western Australian seniors’ organisations, while ABS (2004) used a random sample of all Western Australian households.

♦ The BCD questionnaire survey focused only on burglary, while ABS (2004) took a broader approach, and included questions on smoke alarms.

♦ BCD went beyond ABS (2004) in that it sought to investigate the relationship between the presence of security features in homes and social isolation and fear of crime amongst seniors.

♦ The BCD sample comprised a comparatively well-educated group of seniors living in owner occupied, mainly detached, housing. This group differs significantly from average Western Australian householders. While there are both commonalities and differences

36

between the findings of the two surveys, the two are broadly consistent.

♦ The BCD questionnaire study was followed up by qualitative research through discussions with COTA (WA)’s organisational members, focus groups and meetings with seniors to “flesh out” the data to enable us to make policy recommendations.

As a result of the methodological differences, it has not been possible to draw meaningful comparisons between the ABS survey and the COTA (WA) research.

37

Behind Closed Doors Western Australian Seniors and Burglary: Prevention,

Strategies, and Policy Implications

SECTION 3

COTA (WA)’s Further Policy Development Work

Reassessment of Policy Following the Behind Closed Doors survey, COTA (WA) undertook development of a Discussion Paper and held consultations with seniors to add to the overall picture presented by the questionnaire data. An article appeared in COTA (WA) News, a request for comment on crime and safety issues was posted on our web-based Policy Bulletin Board, and we met groups of seniors to gain a better understanding of their opinions regarding crime and safety. As a result of this process of gathering ‘soft data’ to complement the ‘hard’ survey data, we have developed a number of policy recommendations, some of which are intended to inform government policies and programs, while others are targeted at the security industry. The consultations took place in a variety of venues, with groups varying in size and composition. Approximately 120 seniors participated in these consultations. The research was unstructured and opportunistic. Building on information gathered in the questionnaire survey, we were able to ask seniors questions including:

Do seniors require additional victim support services? There was little opportunity to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of victim support services as, almost universally, seniors had no awareness of these services, despite the fact that a number had been the victim of burglary.

Have you ever been burgled and not reported the incident to police, and if so, why did you not do so? There were few positive responses to this line of questions; most people said that they had always reported burglary. However, we received a couple of ‘second hand’ accounts which suggested that a friend or neighbour had not reported a burglary when nothing had been stolen (they assumed the burglar was disturbed in the act), and another account of security screens having been removed but entry had not been completed, so the owner considered it ‘not worthwhile’ to contact police. The latter is consistent with ABS (2004), which found that only 50% of attempted burglaries were reported. We received one letter on this topic in response to our COTA News article. The writer stated that police had been unhelpful and appeared not to care when she reported a first burglary, so she did not report a second offence when it occurred.

38

If they were tenants in private rental accommodation, did they have any security hardware installed, and, if not, what were the barriers to its installation? The few seniors to whom we talked who are private tenants confirmed that their homes lacked security hardware. Comments were made that landlords wanted to minimise costs. Tenants were unwilling to meet the cost of improving the landlord’s property. However, in some cases, tenants had installed deadlocks and window locks at their own expense in order to meet insurance company requirements for contents insurance.

What were their opinions on private landlords being compelled to install security hardware? (The groups included both tenants and landlords.) There was universal agreement that private rental homes should have deadlocks to doors and window locks installed. The seniors who owned rental properties did not think that this was an unrealistic expectation, or an unreasonable cost to bear.

What were the strengths and weaknesses of burglar alarms, from their perspective? Burglar alarms were criticised by many seniors, some of whom said they would not use their system any more as it had proved to be a nuisance. Seniors commented on the lack of response of police to alarms and the need to have a monitored system, which is expensive. Many said that a monitored system is unaffordable. Some seniors found burglar alarm systems difficult to use as the buttons are too small and displays difficult to read.

What comments did they have to make about fear of crime and social isolation? Seniors reported that they have changed their behaviour to avoid potentially dangerous situations. Although most of the people who spoke to us are very active, most avoid going out at night, travelling on public transport, visiting places that they perceive to be dangerous (Northbridge was mentioned by several people), or being alone in unfamiliar places. These constraints were not regarded as onerous or overly restrictive, however. Understandably, the seniors who attended the groups did not report social isolation as a problem. These were clearly people who were participating in social activities. Both seniors and service delivery staff who work with seniors in their own homes stated that they know of seniors who remain socially isolated and that these people often express anxiety and concerns about the potential for crime victimisation, as well as a range of other worries and concerns. However, it is unclear whether fear of crime alone leads to social isolation, or whether those who are socially isolated have a number of concerns and/or generalised anxiety, which leads to their isolation. Infirmity and lack of mobility were regarded as the key determinants of social isolation. Seniors also spoke of people who had ‘always been alone and never went out and did things.’

Were people concerned about experiencing difficulty in leaving their home due to the bars on windows and locks on doors if there were to be a fire? Many seniors saw this as an issue, and some said that they did not lock all their doors and windows because of their concern that they could be caught inside a blazing building.

39

What views do seniors hold on local government security patrols? There was considerable scepticism about the effectiveness of local government security patrols in preventing burglary. Some seniors said that they are too thinly spread and unlikely to be about when something happens, but others suggested they were a useful supplement to police, who are also thinly spread.

Why is there a low take up rate of home security assessment and advice amongst seniors? Some seniors expressed concerns about private security companies and most seniors expressed a strong preference for police as ‘the real thing’. Although they were willing to call in a licensed company to install security hardware, there were concerns that information could be passed to criminals that might assist them to enter the premises at a later date. A general lack of trust of security companies was expressed by a significant number of seniors.

What issues influence dog ownership? Is dog ownership amongst seniors affected by dog licence fees? Licence fees were not thought to be a significant issue affecting dog ownership. Many seniors said that their dog had died and they would not replace it as they were concerned for its fate should they outlive the dog. There were also concerns about the cost of keeping a dog in kennels if the owner was travelling and the difficulty of travelling with a dog.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: Victim support services The Behind Closed Doors survey found that: Older people who had been victims of property-related crime in the past three years showed slightly but statistically significantly more social isolation and fear of crime on every item than those who had not. Our follow up consultations showed that few seniors are aware of victim support services, criminal compensation and other measures that are available to assist the victims of crime or prevent further burglary. In another context (our 2006-7 Pre Budget Submission to the State Government), we have suggested that additional counselling and mental health services are required for seniors. Furthermore, we believe that enhanced victim support services for seniors are needed. The Western Australian Government should provide additional resources to support, educate and inform aged victims of home burglary, including provision of supportive counselling and regular contact in the first three months after burglary from crime prevention and community policing officers.

40

Recommendation 2: Under-reporting Both Behind Closed Doors and ABS surveys show a high level of unreported crime. This is particularly interesting given the high levels of contents insurance, (90% of survey participants reported that they had contents insurance for their homes) as one would assume that victims of burglary would make a claim on their insurance and they would be required to have reported the incident to the police. Under-reporting may cause police and crime prevention agencies to underestimate the importance of burglary and, in an age when crime intelligence is of major importance in both apprehending perpetrators and preventing crime, this may result in misallocation of resources. In our consultations, we have been unable to ascertain why aged victims would not report victimisation. The Western Australian Government should commission further research to determine the causes of seniors’ failure to report burglary and develop programs to reduce under-reporting.

Recommendation 3: Seniors’ beliefs about crime Many seniors hold erroneous beliefs about crime. The Behind Closed Doors Study reported that “Participants mean response was ‘agree’ that older adults are more likely to be victims of burglary at home than younger Australians”. The belief that seniors suffer a high rate of victimisation has negative consequences for health, reduces social interaction and participation and may result in premature admission to residential care. The Mulgrave Community Safety Attitudes Survey54 in Queensland recommended strategies to create more effective community networks particularly for those elderly people living alone. …older community members should be encouraged and provided with opportunities to participate in community development initiatives that empower them to be confident about their position within the community in terms of safety. Peer education has been effective in changing seniors’ beliefs, attitudes and behaviour in a number of contexts, and has been particularly successful in delivering the Seniors’ Quality Use of Medicines and other programs. Trained and well-supported senior volunteers providing peer education programs give seniors a sense of empowerment and alleviate the ‘fear factor’. The Western Australian Government should fund a peer education program to influence seniors’ attitudes and beliefs about crime so that they can base their behaviour on fact rather than surmise.

41

Recommendation 4: Security hardware 4a. The research suggests that many seniors have installed a range of appropriate security features in their homes. However, 2.7% of the Behind Closed Doors sample had no security features at all and tenants in private rental accommodation had far fewer security measures in place than owner-occupiers and public housing tenants. The small percentage of seniors without security features at all should be targeted through advertising and peer education, and some financial assistance, if necessary, to install at least a minimum level of security in their homes – i.e. provision of deadlocks to external doors and window locks. The Western Australian Government should make available a small pool of funding to assist those seniors who cannot afford a minimum level of security to have it installed in their homes. 4b. Private tenants face particular difficulty in respect to security hardware. They may be reluctant to improve their landlord’s premises, prohibited from doing so under the terms of their lease and/or unable to afford security hardware. Every tenant has the right to safety and security, and provision of security features should be viewed as a requirement. The Residential Tenancy Act should be amended to require all landlords to provide a minimum level of security in private residential rental accommodation.

Recommendation 5: Burglar alarms In discussions with seniors regarding burglar alarms, we became aware of many difficulties associated with them. Seniors complain that alarms are difficult to use, with small buttons and displays and complex operating instructions. Comment was also made about the failure of police to respond to alarms, and difficulties, and the cost of call outs when monitored alarm systems are installed. These problems were sufficient to discourage their use in some cases i.e. some people with alarms installed do not activate them. The security industry and security hardware manufacturers should discuss seniors’ needs regarding burglar alarms with peak seniors’ organisations to improve the design and installation of alarm systems.

Recommendation 6: Security assessment and advice In discussion groups, seniors expressed some concern that obtaining security advice and assessment may be a security risk – i.e. that a person visiting their home might divulge details of their home and contents to criminals, and a burglary might shortly

42

follow. Seniors generally have confidence in the police, but less confidence in security industry staff. While there is no evidence that these concerns are justified, greater public awareness of the Security Agents Institute of WA Code of Ethics would allay seniors’ fears regarding confidentiality. The security industry should act to ensure that public confidence is maintained in them and their products by widely publicising the Security Agents Institute of WA’s Code of Ethics to allay seniors’ fears regarding confidentiality.

Recommendation 7: Fire risk Some seniors are concerned that security hardware may trap them inside their homes should there be a fire. There have been cases of this occurring. Some seniors have inappropriate hardware installed such as multiple chains and locks that would prevent swift egress from the home. Some seniors also report that they do not use the security hardware installed because of their fear of being locked in if there is a fire. This compromises their safety from burglary. Community education could assist seniors to overcome these problems. Recommendations on security hardware and safe egress from homes should be made readily available to seniors. The Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia (FESA), in conjunction with the Office of Crime Prevention and the Security Agents Institute of WA should widely publicise the Make Your Home Fire Safe and Secure brochure and target other consumer safety information to seniors in a wider range of media.

Recommendation 8: Town planning The Behind Closed Doors survey indicates that seniors living in detached houses face greater risk of burglary than others. This problem can be alleviated through appropriate streetscape and urban design and seniors’ sense of security may be enhanced by Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design measures. The recently proposed WA Planning Commission Designing Out Crime Planning Guidelines should be adopted, implemented and well publicised so that seniors are aware of their benefits. Designing Out Crime Planning Guidelines should be adopted and well publicised so that seniors are aware of their benefits.

43

Recommendation 9: Sampling issues The questionnaire did not ask participants to identify themselves as Indigenous/non-indigenous, an