Multiple & repeat victimisation

On this page you will find information about:

What is the difference between multiple and repeat victimisation?

The NZCASS can show us whether people experience crime multiple times and how much crime is experienced by how many people.

When discussing whether people have experienced crime multiple times or just once (in a given period), we use two terms: ‘multiple victimisation’ and ‘repeat victimisation’. Although these terms seem similar, they refer to slightly different things:

  1. Multiple victimisation is when someone has been the victim of crime more than once regardless of the type of offence, for example, someone might have been assaulted, had their car stolen and had their house burgled all in the same year.
  2. Repeat victimisation is when someone has been the victim of the same offence more than once, for example, two or more burglaries.

Back to top

Multiple victimisation

In 2013, we found that:

  • 76% of adults experienced no crime, up from 63% in 2008.
  • 13% of adults were the victim of one crime, down from 18% in 2008.
  • 11% of adults were victims of multiple crimes (two or more), down from 19% in 2008.

Back to top

How much crime is experienced by how many people?

As with previous years, a small percentage of people experienced a large percentage of all crimes collected in the NZCASS.

In 2013, 3% of adults experienced five or more offences or 53% of all crime.

A smaller percentage of adults are experiencing about the same percentage of crime, when compared to 2008 (where 6% of adults experienced 52% of all crime). While crime is falling overall, this shows that the distribution of victimisation is becoming more unequal over time.

Back to top

Repeat victimisation

Repeat victimisation is when someone has experienced the same type of offence two or more times. Repeat victimisation can be looked at in two ways:

  1. the percentage of all adults or households who were repeat victims
  2. the percentage of victims who experienced the same type of offence two or more times.

To put repeat victimisation in perspective, we first look at the percentage of all adults or households who experienced the same type of offence two or more times:

  • 5% of adults were the victim of two or more violent interpersonal offences
  • 2% of households were the victim of two or more burglaries
  • 2% of adults were the victim of two or more theft and damage offences
  • 1% of households were the victim of two or more vehicle offences

When we look at the percentage of victims (rather than all adults or households) who experienced two or more of the same type of offence, we find that:

  • 51% of victims experienced two or more violent interpersonal offences
  • 23% of victims experienced two or more burglaries
  • 25% of victims experienced two or more theft and damage offences
  • 21% of victims experienced two or more vehicle offences

Back to top

Preventing crime

By looking at how much crime would be stopped if no more than two offences occurred, we can see what impact an intervention might have if it could prevent further victimisation.

If the intervention was targeted at specific offence types, the following show how much crime could have been prevented in 2013 if we could have stopped victimisation after two offences:

  • 59% of violent interpersonal offences could be prevented
  • 18% of burglaries could be prevented
  • 8% of vehicle offences could be prevented
  • 14% of theft and damage offences could be prevented

Back to top

Who are the repeat victims?

When we look at who were repeat victims of violent interpersonal offences (the most common type of repeat victimisation), we find that those more likely than the NZ average (5%) include:

  • young adults (9% of 15 to 19 year olds – 11% of 20 to 29 year olds)
  • Māori (12%)
  • those in a non-legally registered partnership (9%) or non-partnered (8%)
  • people who are unemployed (15%), studying (9%), not actively seeking work/unable to work (9%) or undertaking home or caring duties (7%)
  • people who were financially stressed (10% of people who were very limited or couldn’t buy a non-essential item for $300, or 11% of people who said they couldn’t meet a $500 unexpected expense)
  • people living in the most deprived areas (quintile 5) (8%)
  • people with a personal or household income equal or less than $30,000 a year (both 7%)
  • those living in households made up of one parent with child(ren), with or without other persons (13% and 10% respectively)
  • people living in rented government (9%) or rented private (8%) homes
  • those living in Auckland (6%).

Back to top

This page was last updated:

 
Share