NZ Crime and Victim Survey Final Report 2018

Key findings
Cycle 1 (March - September 2018)

Descriptive statistics
Content
List of figures ...................................................................................................................... 5
List of tables .......................................................................................................................13
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................14
Survey participants ........................................................................................................14
Service provider.............................................................................................................14
External experts.............................................................................................................14
Foreword .............................................................................................................................15
About this report ................................................................................................................16
Key findings........................................................................................................................18
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................22
1.1 Survey objectives .................................................................................................22
1.2 Survey scope........................................................................................................22
1.3 Key terms and definitions .....................................................................................23
1.4 Comparison with previous victimisation surveys ...................................................25
2 How much crime is there in New Zealand? ...............................................................28
2.1 Number of incidents..............................................................................................28
2.2 Number of offences per 100 adults and 100 households (incidence rates) ...........29
2.3 Number of adults and households victimised ........................................................29
2.4 Percentage of adults and households victimised (prevalence rates) .....................30
3 Who is experiencing offences? ..................................................................................32
3.1 Sex and sexual orientation of victims – equal chance for men and women to be
victimised overall ..................................................................................................32
3.2 Age of victims – higher victimisation for 20–29 age group ....................................33
3.3 Ethnicity of victims – Māori at higher risk ..............................................................34
3.4 Family/partnership status – never married under higher risk .................................36
3.5 Life satisfaction level – strong association with victimisation.................................37
3.6 Perception of safety – another strong association ................................................38
3.7 Disability – no difference in victimisation of disabled people .................................40
3.8 Psychological state – strongly associated with high victimisation..........................41
3.9 Geographical areas – rural areas are less victimised............................................43
3.10 Household composition, size and ownership status – solo parents at risk ............45
3.11 Economic factors and employment – financial pressure is associated with
higher victimisation ...............................................................................................49
3.12 Deprivation index – level of deprivation affects household crime ..........................55
4 Types of offence ..........................................................................................................58
4.1 Violent interpersonal crime affected almost 300,000 adults ..................................58
4.2 Family violence – Māori and women at higher risk................................................60
4.3 Intimate partner violence (IPV) – women victimised almost four times more than
men ......................................................................................................................63
2
4.4 Current-partner violence – proportion of Māori victims twice as high as national
average ................................................................................................................65
4.5 Psychological violence experienced by 100,000 New Zealanders ........................66
4.6 Preventing contact with friends or family – 70,000 victims ....................................68
4.7 Being followed or tracked – 69% of victims are women ........................................69
4.8 Controlled access to phone/internet/transport – Māori more than twice as likely
to be victims .........................................................................................................70
4.9 Prevented from doing paid work – more likely Māori and younger people ............71
4.10 Family violence (including psychological violence) – almost 40% of victims are
15–29 years old ....................................................................................................72
4.11 Intimate Partner Violence (including psychological violence) – proportion of
Māori victims 75% higher than New Zealand Europeans ......................................74
4.12 Sexual violence – women form the vast majority of victims...................................75
4.13 Lifetime experience of IPV and sexual violence – more than a million victims ......77
4.14 IPV experienced by one in six adult New Zealanders during their lifetime ............77
4.15 One in three women experienced sexual violence during their lifetime .................82
4.16 Non-violent personal crime (fraud and cybercrime) – the level of victimisation
correlates with the level of psychological distress .................................................86
4.17 Property crime experienced by 20% of households ..............................................90
4.18 Prevalence of theft and damage does not depend on household income .............91
4.19 Vehicle offences are less likely in households with no children .............................94
4.20 Prevalence of burglaries clearly correlates with feeling of safety ..........................96
5 Distribution of criminal offences – almost half of all crime incidents are
experienced by only 4% of adults ............................................................................100
6 Incidents caused by discrimination – sex-based discrimination prevails .............108
7 Selected drivers of family violence – alcohol and drugs are involved in almost
half of incidents .........................................................................................................111
8 Consequences of crime ............................................................................................113
9 Reporting to the Police – three out of four crimes are unreported ........................114
9.1 Reporting to the Police by offence type – household crime reported much more
often ...................................................................................................................114
9.2 Reporting to the Police by demographic characteristics – students report less
often ...................................................................................................................116
9.3 Reporting to the Police by relation with offender – intimate partner offending
reported more often ............................................................................................120
9.4 Reporting to the Police by self-assessed seriousness of crime – important factor
affecting the decision to report ............................................................................121
10 Family violence victims’ experiences ......................................................................123
10.1 Awareness of support organisations is very high ................................................123
10.2 Seeking formal support – only a small proportion ...............................................124
10.3 Seeking informal support – much higher proportion ............................................125
10.4 Reasons for not applying for formal support – many perceive family violence as
a private matter ..................................................................................................127
Appendix A: Summary of findings ..................................................................................130
3
The extent and nature of crime ....................................................................................130
Who experiences crime ...............................................................................................130
Types of offence ..........................................................................................................134
Appendix B: Brief survey methodology..........................................................................143
Survey structure and questionnaire .............................................................................144
4
List of figures
Figure 1: NZCVS reporting framework ..................................................................................16
Figure 2.1: The profile of crime by personal and household offences over the last 12
months ..........................................................................................................28
Figure 2.2: Proportion of adults victimised once or more, by personal offence type ..............31
Figure 2.3: Proportion of households victimised once or more, by household offence type ..31
Figure 3.1: Prevalence rates by sex – all offences................................................................33
Figure 3.2: Prevalence rates by sex – personal offences......................................................33
Figure 3.3: Incidence rates by sex – personal offences ........................................................33
Figure 3.4: Prevalence rates by sexual orientation – all offences .........................................33
Figure 3.5: Prevalence rates by age group – all offences .....................................................34
Figure 3.6: Prevalence rates by age group – personal offences ...........................................34
Figure 3.7: Prevalence rates by ethnicity – all offences ........................................................35
Figure 3.8: Prevalence rates by ethnicity – personal offences ..............................................35
Figure 3.9: Incidence rates by ethnicity – personal offences .................................................36
Figure 3.10: Prevalence rates by marital status – all offences ..............................................36
Figure 3.11: Prevalence rates by marital status – personal offences ....................................37
Figure 3.12: Incidence rates by marital status – personal offences .......................................37
Figure 3.13: Prevalence rates by life satisfaction – all offences ............................................38
Figure 3.14: Prevalence rates by life satisfaction – personal offences ..................................38
Figure 3.15: Prevalence rates by perception of safety – all offences ....................................39
Figure 3.16: Prevalence rates by perception of safety – personal offences ..........................39
Figure 3.17: Prevalence rates by perception of safety – household offences........................40
Figure 3.18: Proportion of disabled and non-disabled adult New Zealanders who
experienced crime .........................................................................................41
experienced one or more personal offences ..................................................41
experienced one or more household offences ...............................................41
Figure 3.21: Proportion of adults who experienced crime, by level of psychological distress 42
Figure 3.22: Proportion of adults who experienced personal offences, by level of
psychological distress ....................................................................................42
Figure 3.23: Proportion of adults who experienced household offences, by level of
Figure 3.24: Number of incidents of household offences per 100 households, by level of
Figure 3.25: Prevalence rates by location – all offences .......................................................44
Figure 3.26: Prevalence rates by location – household offences ..........................................44
Figure 3.27: Proportion of adults who experienced crime in urban vs rural areas .................45
Figure 3.28: Proportion of households that experienced one or more household offences
in urban vs rural areas ...................................................................................45
Figure 3.29: Prevalence rates by household composition – all offences ...............................47
5
Figure 3.30: Prevalence rates by household size – all offences............................................47
Figure 3.31: Prevalence rates by household composition – personal offences .....................48
Figure 3.32: Prevalence rates by household composition – household offences ..................48
Figure 3.33: Prevalence rates by household size – household offences ...............................48
Figure 3.34: Prevalence rate by number of children in a household – household offences ...49
Figure 3.35: Prevalence rates by household ownership – household offences .....................49
Figure 3.36: Proportion of adults who experienced crime, by household income ..................51
Figure 3.37: Prevalence rates by level of financial pressure (1) – all offences ......................51
Figure 3.38: Prevalence rates by level of financial pressure (2) – all offences ......................51
Figure 3.39: Prevalence rates by employment status – all offences .....................................52
Figure 3.40: Proportion of adults who experienced personal offences, by household
income ...........................................................................................................52
Figure 3.41: Prevalence rates by financial pressure (1) – personal offences ........................52
Figure 3.42: Prevalence rates by financial pressure (2) – personal offences ........................53
Figure 3.43: Prevalence rates by employment status – personal offences ...........................53
Figure 3.44: Incidence rates by financial pressure (1) – personal offences ...........................53
Figure 3.45: Incidence rates by financial pressure (2) – personal offences ...........................54
Figure 3.46: Incidence rates by employment status – personal offences ..............................54
Figure 3.47: Prevalence rates by financial pressure (1) – household offences .....................54
Figure 3.48: Prevalence rates by financial pressure (2) – household offences .....................55
Figure 3.49: Incidence rates by employment status – household offences ...........................55
Figure 3.50: Prevalence rates by deprivation level (deciles) – all crimes ..............................56
Figure 3.51: Prevalence rate by deprivation level (quintiles) – personal crime ......................57
Figure 3.52: Prevalence rates by deprivation level (quintiles) – household crime .................57
Figure 4.1: Number of interpersonal violence incidents, by offence type ..............................58
Figure 4.2: Number of interpersonal violence incidents per 100 adults .................................59
Figure 4.3: Proportion of interpersonal violence incidents, by offence type ...........................59
Figure 4.4: Number of victims of interpersonal violence, by offence type ..............................60
Figure 4.5: Proportion of adult victims of interpersonal violence, by offence type .................60
Figure 4.6: Interpersonal violence relationship to offender framework ..................................61
Figure 4.7: Number of adults who experienced family violence, by relation with offender .....62
Figure 4.8: Proportion of adults who experienced family violence over the last 12 months,
by relation with offender .................................................................................62
Figure 4.9: Number of family violence victims, by sex ..........................................................62
Figure 4.10: Proportion of family violence victims, by sex .....................................................62
Figure 4.11: Number of family violence victims, by age group ..............................................63
Figure 4.12: Proportion of family violence victims, by age group ..........................................63
Figure 4.13: Number of family violence incidents per 100 adults, by ethnicity .......................63
Figure 4.14: Proportion of adults who experienced family violence, by ethnicity ...................63
Figure 4.15: Proportion of IPV incidents in all family violence incidents ................................64
Figure 4.16: Number of IPV victims, by sex ..........................................................................64
Figure 4.17: Proportion of adults who experienced IPV, by sex ............................................64
6
Figure 4.18: Proportion of IPV, by victim’s age .....................................................................64
Figure 4.19: Number of IPV incidents per 100 adults, by age group .....................................64
Figure 4.20: Proportion of adults who experienced IPV, by ethnicity.....................................64
Figure 4.21: Number of IPV incidents per 100 adults, by ethnicity ........................................65
Figure 4.22: Number of current-partner violence victims, by sex ..........................................66
Figure 4.23: Proportion of current-partner violence victims, by sex .......................................66
Figure 4.24: Proportion of adults who experienced current-partner violence, by ethnicity .....66
Figure 4.25: Number of adult victims of psychological violence, by offence type ..................67
Figure 4.26: Proportion of victims of psychological violence, by sex .....................................68
Figure 4.27: Proportion of adults who experienced psychological violence, by ethnicity .......68
Figure 4.28: Proportion of adults who experienced psychological violence, by age group ....68
Figure 4.29: Number of adults stopped from contacting friends or family, by sex..................69
Figure 4.30: Proportion of adults stopped from contacting friends or family, by sex ..............69
Figure 4.31: Proportion of adults stopped from contacting friends or family, by age group ...69
Figure 4.32: Proportion of adults stopped from contacting friends or family, by ethnicity ......69
Figure 4.33: Number of adults who were followed or tracked, by sex ...................................70
Figure 4.34: Proportion of adults who were followed or tracked, by sex ................................70
Figure 4.35: Proportion of adults who were followed or tracked, by age group .....................70
Figure 4.36: Proportion of adults who were followed or tracked, by ethnicity ........................70
Figure 4.37: Number of adults who experienced controlled access to
phone/internet/transport, by sex ....................................................................71
Figure 4.38: Proportion of adults who experienced controlled access to
phone/internet/transport, by sex ....................................................................71
phone/internet/transport, by age group ..........................................................71
phone/internet/transport, by ethnicity .............................................................71
Figure 4.41: Number of adults stopped from doing paid work, by sex ...................................72
Figure 4.42: Proportion of adults stopped from doing paid work, by ethnicity ........................72
Figure 4.43: Number of adults who experienced family violence (including psychological
violence), by sex ............................................................................................73
Figure 4.44: Proportion of adult family violence victims (including psychological violence),
by sex ............................................................................................................73
Figure 4.45: Proportion of adult family violence victims (including psychological violence),
by age group .................................................................................................73
Figure 4.46: Proportion of adult family violence (including psychological violence) victims,
by ethnicity ....................................................................................................74
Figure 4.47: Number of adults who experienced IPV (including psychological violence), by
sex.................................................................................................................75
Figure 4.48: Proportion of adult IPV victims (including psychological violence), by sex ........75
Figure 4.49: Proportion of adult IPV victims (including psychological violence), by age
group .............................................................................................................75
Figure 4.50: Proportion of adults who experienced IPV (including psychological violence),
by ethnicity ....................................................................................................75
7
Figure 4.51: Number of sexual assault incidents, by sex ......................................................76
Figure 4.52: Proportion of sexual assault incidents, by sex ..................................................76
Figure 4.53: Number of adults who experienced sexual assault, by sex ...............................76
Figure 4.54: Number of sexual assault incidents per 100 adults ...........................................76
Figure 4.55: Proportion of victims of sexual assault, by age group .......................................77
Figure 4.56: Number of sexual assault incidents per 100 adults, by ethnicity .......................77
Figure 4.57: Number of adults who experienced IPV at some point during their lifetime, by
offence type ...................................................................................................78
Figure 4.58: Proportion of adults who experienced IPV at some point during their lifetime,
by offence type ..............................................................................................78
Figure 4.59: Number of adults who experienced IPV or threats at some point during their
lifetime, by sex ...............................................................................................79
Figure 4.60: Proportion of adults who experienced IPV or threats at some point during
their lifetime, by sex .......................................................................................79
their lifetime, by age group.............................................................................79
their lifetime, by ethnicity ...............................................................................80
Figure 4.63: Number of adults who experienced IPV at some point during their lifetime, by
sex.................................................................................................................80
by sex ............................................................................................................80
by age group .................................................................................................80
by ethnicity ....................................................................................................81
Figure 4.67: Number of adults who experienced intimate partner threats at some point
during their lifetime, by sex ............................................................................81
Figure 4.68: Proportion of adults who experienced intimate partner threats at some point
during their lifetime, by sex ............................................................................81
during their lifetime, by age group ..................................................................81
during their lifetime, by ethnicity .....................................................................82
Figure 4.71: Number of adults who experienced sexual assault at some point during their
lifetime, by offence type .................................................................................83
Figure 4.72: Proportion of adults who experienced sexual assault at some point during
their lifetime, by offence type .........................................................................83
Figure 4.73: Number of adults who experienced sexual assault at some point during their
lifetime, by sex ...............................................................................................83
8
Figure 4.77: Number of adults who experienced forced intercourse at some point during
Figure 4.78: Proportion of adults who experienced forced intercourse at some point during
Figure 4.81: Number of adults who experienced non-consensual sexual touching at some
point during their lifetime, by sex ...................................................................85
Figure 4.82: Proportion of adults who experienced non-consensual sexual touching at
some point during their lifetime, by sex ..........................................................85
some point during their lifetime, by age group ...............................................86
some point during their lifetime, by ethnicity ..................................................86
Figure 4.85: Number of incidents of non-violent personal crime, by offence type..................87
Figure 4.86: Number of adults who experienced fraud or cybercrime offences, by offence
type ...............................................................................................................87
Figure 4.87: Proportion of adults who experienced fraud or cybercrime offences .................88
Figure 4.88: Proportion of adults who experienced fraud or cybercrime offences, by
ethnicity .........................................................................................................88
marital status .................................................................................................88
Figure 4.90: Proportion of adults who experienced fraud or cybercrime offences, by level
of psychological distress ................................................................................88
Figure 4.91: Proportion of adults who experienced fraud or cybercrime offences, by level
of life satisfaction ...........................................................................................89
perception of safety .......................................................................................89
personal income ............................................................................................89
household income .........................................................................................90
Figure 4.95: Number of households that experienced property crime incidents, by offence
type ...............................................................................................................91
Figure 4.96: Proportion of households that experienced property crime, by offence type .....91
Figure 4.97: Proportion of households that experienced theft and damage, by location........92
Figure 4.98: Proportion of households that experienced theft and damage, by location
type ...............................................................................................................93
Figure 4.99: Proportion of households that experienced theft and damage, by perception
of safety .........................................................................................................93
Figure 4.100: Proportion of households that experienced theft and damage, by household
composition ...................................................................................................93
Figure 4.101: Proportion of households that experienced a vehicle offence, by perception
of safety .........................................................................................................95
9
Figure 4.102: Proportion of households that experienced a vehicle offence, by household
income ...........................................................................................................95
Figure 4.103: Proportion of households that experienced a vehicle offence, by number of
children in household .....................................................................................96
size ................................................................................................................96
Figure 4.105: Proportion of households that experienced incidents of burglary, by location .97
Figure 4.106: Proportion of households that experienced incidents of burglary in urban vs.
rural areas .....................................................................................................97
Figure 4.107: Proportion of households that experienced incidents of burglary, by
perception of safety .......................................................................................98
household composition ..................................................................................98
Figure 4.109: Proportion of households that experienced incidents of burglary, by number
of household residents...................................................................................99
Figure 4.110: Proportion of households that experienced incidents of burglary, by number
of children in household .................................................................................99
residency ownership ......................................................................................99
Figure 5.1: Proportion of adult New Zealanders, by number of incidents experienced over
the last 12 months .......................................................................................101
Figure 5.2: Concentration of victimisation in New Zealand .................................................101
Figure 5.3: Proportion of victims of crime, by number of incidents experienced over the
last 12 months .............................................................................................102
Figure 5.4: Distribution of household offence incidents, by number of incidents
experienced over the last 12 months ...........................................................102
Figure 5.5: Proportion of victims of household offences, by number of incidents
Figure 5.6: Distribution of incidents of personal offences, by number of incidents
Figure 5.7: Proportion of victims of personal crime, by number of incidents experienced
over the last 12 months ...............................................................................103
Figure 5.8: Proportion of victims of interpersonal violence, by number of incidents
Figure 5.9: Distribution of interpersonal violence incidents, by number of incidents
Figure 5.10: Proportion of family violence incidents, by number of incidents experienced
Figure 5.11: Proportion of family violence victims, by number of incidents experienced
Figure 5.12: Proportion of IPV incidents, by number of incidents experienced over the last
12 months....................................................................................................105
Figure 5.13: Proportion of fraud and cybercrime victims, by number of incidents
Figure 5.14: Proportion of theft and property damage victims, by number of incidents
10
Figure 5.15: Proportion of vehicle offence incidents, by number of incidents experienced
Figure 5.16: Proportion of vehicle offence victims, by number of incidents experienced
Figure 5.17: Distribution of burglary incidents, by number of incidents experienced over
the last 12 months .......................................................................................107
Figure 5.18: Proportion of victims of burglaries, by number of incidents experienced over
the last 12 months .......................................................................................107
Figure 6.1: Proportion of all incidents perceived to be driven by discrimination, by
discrimination type .......................................................................................109
Figure 6.2: Proportion of personal offence incidents perceived to be driven by
discrimination, by discrimination type ...........................................................109
Figure 6.3: Proportion of household offence incidents perceived to be driven by
discrimination, by discrimination type ...........................................................109
Figure 6.4: Proportion of all violent interpersonal offence incidents and sexual offence
incidents perceived to be driven by discrimination, by discrimination type ...110
Figure 6.5: Proportion of family violence incidents perceived to be driven by
discrimination, by relation with offender .......................................................110
Figure 7.1: Perceived reasons for family violence incidents ................................................112
Figure 7.2: Proportion of family violence incidents where offenders were under the
influence of alcohol and/or drugs .................................................................112
Figure 7.3: Proportion of family violence incidents where victims were under the influence
of alcohol and/or drugs ................................................................................112
Figure 9.1: Reporting rate to the Police, by offence type ....................................................115
Figure 9.2: Reporting rate to the Police, by groups of offences...........................................115
Figure 9.3: Reporting rate to the Police, by family violence type .........................................116
Figure 9.4: Reporting rate to the Police, by sex ..................................................................117
Figure 9.5: Reporting rate to the Police, by self-identified gender and sexual orientation ...117
Figure 9.6: Reporting rate to the Police, by age group ........................................................117
Figure 9.7: Reporting rate to the Police, by deprivation decile ............................................118
Figure 9.8: Reporting rate to the Police, by level of life satisfaction ....................................118
Figure 9.9: Reporting rate to the Police, by perception of safety .........................................118
Figure 9.10: Reporting rate to the Police, by employment status ........................................119
Figure 9.11: Reporting rate to the Police, by household income .........................................119
Figure 9.12: Reporting rate to the Police, by household composition..................................120
Figure 9.13: Reporting rate to the Police, by number of children in household ...................120
Figure 9.14: Reporting rate to the Police, by relation with offender .....................................121
Figure 9.15: Reporting rate to the Police, by perception of incident’s seriousness ..............122
Figure 9.16: Reporting rate to the Police, by perception of incident’s criminality .................122
Figure 10.1: Number of victims aware of family violence services, by organisation ............124
Figure 10.2: Proportion of victims aware of family violence helplines, by organisation ........124
Figure 10.3: Number of victims who contacted family violence organisations or family for
help .............................................................................................................125
Figure 10.4: Proportion of victims who contacted support organisations vs. those asking
their family for help ......................................................................................125
11
Figure 10.5: Number of victims that got help from family/whānau, by type of help they
received .......................................................................................................126
Figure 10.6: Proportion of victims that got help from family/whānau, by type of help they
received .......................................................................................................126
Figure 10.7: Types of support that victims of family violence received from support
organisations ...............................................................................................127
Figure 10.8: Reasons why victims did not ask for help from a support service ...................128
Figure 10.9: Proportion of victims who did not ask for help from a support service, by
reason .........................................................................................................128
Figure 10.10: Proportion of victims who did not ask for advice from whānau, by reason.....129
12
List of tables
Table 1.1: Scope of crimes/offences covered in the NZCVS ................................................23
Table 1.2: Key terms and definitions.....................................................................................23
Table 1.3: Key methodological differences of the NZCVS compared to the NZCASS ...........25
Table 2.1: Number of adults victimised once or more, by offence type .................................30
Table 2.2: Number of households victimised once or more, by offence type.........................30
Table A2.1: Key features of the NZCVS methodology ........................................................143
Table A2.2: Topics covered in the NZCVS questionnaire ...................................................144
Disclaimer
1. While all care and diligence has been taken in processing, analysing, and extracting data
and information for this publication, the Ministry of Justice gives no warranty that it is
error free and will not be liable for any loss or damage suffered by the use directly, or
indirectly, of the information in this publication.
2. This report contains highly aggregated data. No identifiable personal data are included in
the report.
3. Estimates in the text (including percentages) are rounded to the nearest thousands,
hundreds or whole numbers. Graphs and tables provide accuracy to two decimal places.
Crown copyright © 2019
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 New Zealand licence. You
are free to copy, distribute, and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work to New
Zealand Ministry of Justice and abide by the other licence terms. Please note you may not
use any departmental or governmental emblem, logo, or coat of arms in any way that
infringes any provision of the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981. Use the
wording “New Zealand Ministry of Justice” in your attribution, not the New Zealand Ministry of
Justice logo.
13
Acknowledgements
The Ministry of Justice acknowledges and thanks the following people and organisations for
their valuable contribution to the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey (NZCVS) 2018.
Survey participants
We would like to thank the 8030 New Zealanders who gave their time to take part in the
survey and share their stories.
Service provider
We appreciate the work of CBG Health Research Ltd. Their interviewing and data
management services made this survey possible.
External experts
We are grateful for the support, guidance and advice of the experts who contributed to the
project. Our special thanks go to consultant Patricia Mayhew for her invaluable contribution
in the survey design, Andrea Johnston (New Zealand Police) for her support of the coding
design and process, Chris Hansen and Naeimeh Abi (Statistics New Zealand) for their
methodological advice and peer-review, Associate Professor Louise Dixon and Adrienne
Everest for reviewing the methodological report, and our colleagues from the Ministry of
Justice for their ongoing help and support.
NZCVS Project Team
14
Foreword
We are delighted to present the main report of the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey
(NZCVS) 2018.
Last year 8030 New Zealanders over the age of 15 were personally interviewed about their
experience of crime in the last 12 months.
To complete such a large and complex survey in a year is a very considerable achievement,
and the result of hard work by many individuals and organisations.
This survey is New Zealand’s largest crime survey. Without the survey we would have much
less reliable information on New Zealanders’ experiences with crime, as only 23% of crime is
reported to the Police. The results from the survey will help government agencies to create
safer neighbourhoods and communities.
This report reflects the first year of interviewing. It will be followed by two more annual
reports, in early 2020 and early 2021. This will make it possible to both increase the accuracy
of the survey results and to analyse changes in the volume and structure of victimisation in
New Zealand.
The NZCVS replaces the New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey (NZCASS), which often
took years to publish the results. Our new annual survey uses a different methodology to its
predecessor and therefore the data between the two surveys are not comparable.
Many people made this survey possible. Thank you to the research and evaluation staff at
the Ministry of Justice who designed and analysed it, Statistics New Zealand and the Police
who reviewed it, and the 13 government and non-governmental organisations that provided
input. We would also like to acknowledge Victoria University of Wellington and international
criminology expert, Pat Mayhew OBE, for their expert advice.
Thank you to CBG Public Sector Surveying for their analytic work and the hundreds of
interviewers for their commitment and very professional contribution.
Finally, to the 8030 people who told us the story of their experience of crime, a very heartfelt
thank you from us. The gift of insight and information you have given us to help our
community is very precious.
Ngā manaakitanga
Andrew Kibblewhite
Secretary for Justice and Chief Executive
Ministry of Justice
15
About this report
This report provides detailed insights and analysis of the New Zealand Crime and Victims
Survey (NZCVS) results. It extends the topline report released in December 2018.
This report reflects the first year of interviewing. It will be followed by two more annual
reports, in early 2020 and early 2021. This will make it possible to both increase the accuracy
of the survey results and to analyse changes in the volume and structure of victimisation in
New Zealand. We consider this report as the “first volume” in the annual reports’ series.
This report contains mostly descriptive statistics. It does not include analysis of
relationships between variables.
We intend to gradually provide other reports and resources on the NZCVS pages of the
Ministry of Justice website. In particular, we are planning a series of follow-up reports on
specific topics, such as family violence, Māori victimisation, consequences of crime, heavily
victimised people, victimisation of young and aged people, and more. These reports will
provide in-depth analysis on the above topics (including relations between variables) using
confidentialised data in Statistics New Zealand’s Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI).
This report does not include survey methodology and metadata. These technical aspects are
discussed in detail in the NZCVS methodology report.1
The NZCVS reporting framework is presented below.
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Topline Methodology Topline Methodology Topline Methodology

report report report report report report
Key findings report (this Key findings report Key findings report
document)
Topical reports Topical reports Topical reports

Tt
Figure 1: NZCVS reporting framework
1https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/NZCVS-2018-Methodology-Report-Year-
1-fin.pdf
16
The NZCVS is a nationwide, face-to-face, annual, random-sample survey asking New
Zealanders aged 15 and over about incidents of crime they experienced over the last 12
months. This includes both incidents reported to the Police and unreported incidents.
All observations and graphs in the report are based on data tables available from the
separate Excel document located on the Ministry of Justice website (see
https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/research-data/nzcvs/resources-and-results/).
This document also provides information about accuracy of the estimates. Please be aware
that some estimates should be used with caution due to small sample size – this is clearly
stated in relevant spreadsheets. As a rule, we advise using caution with all count estimates
with a relative standard error (RSE) between 20% and 50% and all percentage estimates
with the margin of error (MOE) between 10 and 20 percentage points. All estimates with an
RSE more than 50% or an MOE higher than 20 percentage points are either suppressed or
aggregated. Ratio-based estimates are also suppressed or aggregated if their numerators or
denominators have an RSE more than 50%.
The NZCVS is a new survey with some significant improvements in design compared with its
predecessors such as the New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey (NZCASS).
Methodological differences between the surveys mean that direct comparison of NZCVS
results with its predecessor NZCASS is potentially misleading, even within similar offence
types. This is discussed in detail in section 1.4.
The NZCVS results are also not comparable with Police crime statistics. The main reason for
this is that more than three quarters of crime incidents collected by the NZCVS were not
reported to the Police (see section 9) and the proportion of incidents reported to the Police
varies significantly depending on the offence type.
The report starts from the list of the most significant findings. This list includes references to
the relevant sections of the report where more detailed information may be found.
Additionally, Appendix A contains the complete summary of findings for Year 1 of the survey.
The report contains a large number of graphs that help to visualise key facts and findings.
Only those graphs that support the key findings are included. In most bar graphs (except the
multi-serial ones) orange colour was used to highlight values with statistically significant
difference from the national average (on 95% confidence level) and green colour to mark
totals.
Answers for frequently asked questions may be found on the Ministry of Justice website –
see https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/NZCVS-FAQs.pdf
If you have any feedback or questions about NZCVS results, please email us on
nzcvs@justice.govt.nz
17
Key findings
Topic Key findings More
details on
The extent and A significant majority of adults2 (71%) experienced no crime page 28
nature of crime over the last 12 months.3
Approximately 1,777,000 offences were identified over the

last 12 months, where personal offences make up the majority
(68% of total offences).
On average, there were 32 household offences per 100

households and 30 personal offences per 100 adults.
About 355,000 households experienced one or more

household offences and 575,000 adults experienced one or
more personal offences.
Who experiences Males (29%) and females (29%) were equally likely to be page 32
crime victims of crime over the last 12 months.
People aged 65 and over (18%) were less likely to be victims

of crime. People aged 20–29 were more likely to be victims of
crime (40%).
Māori (37%) were more likely to be victims of crime than the

national average (29%).
Chinese people (19%) were less likely to be victims of crime

than the national average.
A higher level of life satisfaction is associated with lower

prevalence and incidence rates of victimisation overall and for
personal offences.
A higher level of perceived safety is associated with lower

prevalence and incidence rates of victimisation overall, for
personal offences and for household offences.
Neither disabled nor non-disabled people were more or less

likely to be victims of crime. This relates both to overall
victimisation and to personal and household offences taken
separately.
Moderate and high levels of psychological distress are both

associated with significantly higher prevalence and incidence
rates of victimisation than the national average.
People living in three major urban areas had no statistically

significant difference in offence prevalence compared with the
national average (29%).
2 For the purposes of this survey, adults are identified as people aged 15 years and above.
3 From the date of the interview.
18
Those living in larger households (five or more people) are
more likely to experience household crime than the national
average.
Students who are not employed are more likely than the
national average to be victimised overall or experience
personal or household offences taken separately.
Higher area deprivation is associated with higher

victimisation, although no statistically significant difference in
victimisation was found for overall crime and personal crime.
People with a high level of financial hardship are more likely

than the national average to be victimised overall or
experience personal or household offences taken separately.
Interpersonal Almost 300,000 adults experienced interpersonal violence page 58

violence over the last 12 months.
These victims were victimised more than 747,000 times.
Nineteen personal violence incidents happened for every 100

adults.
More than one quarter of incidents related to sexual assaults,

and almost a third related to other assaults and robberies.
Family violence Almost 80,000 adults experienced more than 190,000 page 60
incidents of family violence over the last 12 months.
The proportion of female victims of family violence (71%)

more than twice exceeds that of male victims (29%).
More than 40% of all victims are between 15 and 29 years

old.
The number of family violence incidents per 100 adults among

Māori is twice as high as among New Zealand Europeans.
More than 30,000 adults were victimised by partners, more

than 16,000 by ex-partners, and approximately 40,000 by
other family members.
Note: For some incidents more than one offender may be
involved.
Psychological More than 100,000 adults (3.6%) experienced psychological page 66

violence violence over the last 12 months.
The most frequent type of psychological violence is stopping

someone from contacting family or friends. The least frequent
type is pressing a victim into paid work.
Māori and those aged between 15 and 29 years old are

almost twice more likely than the national average to
experience psychological violence.
Sexual violence Almost 200,000 sexual assault incidents happened to almost page 75
90,000 adults over the last 12 months.
Females made up 71% of the victims and suffered from 80%

of sexual assault incidents.
19
The number of sexual assault incidents per 100 females is
almost four times higher than per 100 males.
Every two of three sexually assaulted people are between 15

and 29 years old.
Lifetime violence More than half a million people (16% of adults) experienced page 77
one or more incidents of intimate partner violence (IPV) at
some point during their lives.
Females (21%) were more likely than males (10%) to have

experienced one or more incidents of IPV at some point
during their lives.
More than 900,000 people (23% of adults) experienced one or

more incidents of sexual violence at some point during their
lives.
Females (34%) were almost three times more likely than

males (12%) to have experienced one or more incidents of
sexual violence at some point during their lives.
Māori are more likely to be victims of lifetime sexual violence

than the national average, while Asian people (including
Chinese and Indian) are less likely.
Non-violent Almost 400,000 people (about 7.5% of adults) experienced page 86

personal crime one or more incidents of fraud or cybercrime over the last 12
months.
More than 200,000 adults were victims of one or more fraud

incidents, and more than 100,000 were victims of one or more
cybercrime incidents.
Property crime Approximately 577,000 property crime incidents happened page 90

over the last 12 months.
Approximately 355,000 households (20% of all New Zealand

households) experienced one or more property crime
incidents over the last 12 months.
There were approximately 32 property crime incidents per

every 100 households.
New Zealand households experienced 73,000 theft and

damage incidents (almost 6 incidents per 100 households),
more than 100,000 vehicle offences (6.6 per 100 households)
and 215,000 burglaries (17.5 per 100 households).
Distribution of Thirty percent of victims of household offences and 31% of page 100
crime victims of personal crime were victimised more than once
within 12 months.
Thirty-seven percent of victims of interpersonal violence were

victimised more than once within 12 months; 15% were
victimised five or more times.
Four percent of victims of household offences and 10% of

victims of personal crime were victimised five or more times
within 12 months.
20
Almost half (47%) of all crime incidents were experienced by
only 4% of adults.
Incidents caused About 20% of all incidents are perceived to happen because page 108
by discrimination of the offender’s attitude towards the victim’s race/ethnicity,
sex, age, sexuality, religion or disability.
More than one third of violent interpersonal offences were

perceived as driven by discrimination. Attitude towards the
sex of the victim (30%) was the major perceived driver.
Selected drivers Argument is the most often perceived reason for all family page 111
of family violence violence incidents (44%) and especially for current-partner
violence (66%). It is followed by jealousy (33% for all family
violence incidents and 40% for intimate partner violence
(IPV)).
About one in three incidents of current-partner violence is

believed to be triggered by financial issues.
Reporting crime Less than a quarter (23%) of all crime was reported to the page 114
Police over the last 12 months. This proportion is twice as
high for household offences (34%) compared to personal
offences (17%).
Theft of/unlawful takes/converts of motor vehicle is the

offence most commonly reported to the Police over the last 12
months (82%). Also, theft of/from motor vehicles as well as
vehicle offences as a group were reported more often than
the national average of 23%.
Burglaries (36%) are also reported more often than the

national average.
Fraud/deception and cybercrime are the offences least

commonly reported to the Police (7%).
People’s perception about the seriousness of an incident

significantly affects the level of reporting to the Police
Family violence Most family violence victims (more than 90%) are aware of page 123
victims’ support organisations.
experience
Only a small proportion of those aware of the support
organisations actually contacted them (23%). Even well-
known support organisations were contacted by only 10–12%
of victims. Significantly more family violence victims are
seeking help from other family members than from
organisations providing formal support.
The reasons most often given for not contacting support

organisations were “Did not need help” (30%), “Wanted to
handle it myself” (22%) and “Private matter” (17%).
21
1 Introduction
This report aims to answer five research questions:
1. What is the extent and nature of crime and victimisation in New Zealand?
2. What is the extent and nature of crime that goes reported or unreported to the Police?
3. Who experiences crime?
4. How is crime distributed among victims?
5. What did victims of family violence experience, and what support did they receive?
The NZCVS is a nationwide, face-to-face, annual, random-sample survey asking New

Zealanders aged 15 and over about incidents of crime they experienced over the last 12
months. This includes both incidents reported to the Police and unreported incidents.
The first NZCVS was undertaken between March and October 2018 and achieved 8030
interviews. The response rate was 81%, which means that the survey results are
representative.
1.1 Survey objectives

The research objectives of the 2018 NZCVS are to:
• measure the extent and nature of both reported and unreported crime across New
Zealand
• understand who experiences crime and how they respond
• identify the groups at above-average risk of victimisation
• facilitate a better understanding of victims’ experiences and needs
• provide a measure of crime trends in New Zealand
• provide more timely and adequate information to support strategic decisions
• significantly shorten the period between data collection and reporting
• match survey data with relevant administrative records in order to reduce information
gaps in the decision- and policy-making process.
1.2 Survey scope

It is worth noting that while the NZCVS delivers the best estimate available about a wide
range of personal and household offences that are not captured elsewhere, it still does not
report the total amount of crime in New Zealand. This is because the NZCVS is a sample
survey4 subject to sample errors, and also it does not cover every type of crime that
someone might experience (see Table 1.1).
4 A sample survey means that not every New Zealander gives information about their experiences; it’s
not a census of the population. Also, not all respondents may want to talk about their experiences,
remember the incidents that they have experienced, and/or provide accurate information about
incidents (deliberately or due to imperfect recall).
22
Table 1.1: Scope of crimes/offences covered in the NZCVS
In/out of scope Description
Covered in the • personal offences, either reported to the Police or not, where the
NZCVS respondent was the victim of the crime
• household offences, either reported to the Police or not, where the
respondent’s household was offended
Not covered in the • manslaughter and murder

NZCVS
• abduction
• crimes against children 14 years old and under
• “victimless crime” (such as drug offences)
• commercial crime/white-collar crime/crimes against businesses or public-
sector agencies
• crimes against people who do not live in permanent private dwellings
• crimes against people living in institutions*
* Those living in care facilities, prisons, army barracks, boarding schools and other similar institutions
or non-private dwellings are excluded from the NZCVS sampling and interviewing process.
1.3 Key terms and definitions

The following key terms and definitions are used in this report.
Table 1.2: Key terms and definitions
Key terms Definitions
Crime A general description of an act or omission that constitutes an offence and is

punishable by law.
Offence A specific crime that has been coded according to the Crimes Act 1961 and
Police practice.
Offender A person who committed an offence. An offender may or may not have been
convicted of an offence.
Incident A situation that happened at a specific place and time where one or more
offences were committed.
Note: If an incident includes more than one offence, in most cases only the most
serious offence is coded. For example, an assault with property damage would
just be coded as assault. The only exception when two offences will be
registered is the situation where the primary offence is burglary and the
secondary offence is theft of/unlawful takes/converts motor vehicle. This
approach reflects current Police practice.
Personal In the NZCVS, personal offences include the following offence types: theft and
offences property damage (personal); robbery and assault (except sexual assault); fraud
and deception; cybercrime; sexual assault; and harassment and threatening
behaviour.  
23
Household In the NZCVS, household offences include the following offence types: burglary;
offences theft of/unlawful takes/converts motor vehicle; theft from motor vehicle; unlawful
interference/getting into motor vehicle; damage to motor vehicles; unlawful
takes/converts/interferes with bicycle; property damage (household); theft
(except motor vehicles – household); and trespass.
Interpersonal In the NZCVS, interpersonal violence includes the following offence types:
violence robbery and assault (except sexual assault); sexual assault; harassment and
threatening behaviour; and household and personal property damage where the
offender is known to the victim. 
Family In the NZCVS, family violence includes the following offence types: robbery and
violence assault (except sexual assault); sexual assault; harassment and threatening
behaviour; and damage to motor vehicles and property damage provided the
offender is a family member.
Intimate In the NZCVS, IPV includes robbery and assault (except sexual assault); sexual
partner assault; harassment and threatening behaviour; and damage to motor vehicles
violence (IPV) and property damage provided the offender is a current partner or ex-partner. 
Psychological Psychological violence includes multiple types of occurrences such as: forcing a
violence victim to stop contacting family or friends; following or keeping track of a victim;
controlling a victim’s access to phone, internet or transport; preventing a victim’s
access to healthcare; and pressing a victim into paid work or preventing a victim
from doing paid work. Note: During the data collection period (March to October
2018) these actions were not formally considered as crime and therefore were
not included in our crime volume calculations. This approach may be reviewed
in line with the legislative changes.
Adults Refers to people aged 15 or over.
Family member Family members include a current partner (husband, wife, partner, boyfriend or
girlfriend), ex-partner (previous husband, wife, partner, boyfriend or girlfriend), or
other family member (parent or step-parent; parent’s partner, boyfriend or
girlfriend; son or daughter including in-laws; sibling or step-sibling; other family
members including extended family).
Incidence An estimated total number of offences.
Incidence rate An average number of offences per 100 adults and/or per 100 households.
Note: Incidence rates take into account that one adult and one household may
be victimised more than once, but they do not take into account that
victimisation is unevenly distributed across the population.
Prevalence The number of adults and/or households who were victims of crime.
Note: Prevalence does not take into account that some people and/or
households may be victimised more than once.
Prevalence rate The percentage of the adults and/or households that experienced criminal
offences.
24
1.4 Comparison with previous victimisation
surveys
The NZCVS is a new survey with some significant improvements in design compared with its
predecessors such as the New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey (NZCASS). In particular,
the NZCVS:
• has a slightly different approach to selecting an interviewed person within the household
• uses a different approach to coding offences that is more consistent with the Police
approach
• applies a different approach to incidents capping
• applies a much lower level of data imputations
• covers additional offence types (eg, fraud, cybercrime, trespass)
• employs a different approach for collecting data from highly victimised people (allowing
similar incidents to be reported as a group).
Table 1.3 describes these differences in more detail.

Table 1.3: Key methodological differences of the NZCVS compared to the NZCASS
Key difference Description Consequences for

comparison
Different Sample Manager software automatically selected one May potentially affect
approach to person to be the respondent based on the following the comparison of
selecting an rules: both crime incidence
interviewed and prevalence, as
• if there were occupant(s) present who identified as
person within well as the
Māori, one person was randomly selected from
the household comparison of Police
those identifying as Māori
reporting numbers.
• if there were no occupant(s) present who identified
as Māori, one occupant was selected at random.
Previously, the NZCASS applied only the second rule.
The change is intended to increase the proportion of
Māori in the sample and to mitigate risk of Māori under-
representation.
Different In line with the Police practice, if an incident involves May potentially affect
approach to multiple offences, the NZCVS counts only the major the comparison of
coding one (the only exception is burglary combined with theft crime incidence.
offences of/unlawfully taking/converting a motor vehicle).
Previously, the NZCASS allowed counting two main
offences within one incident.
Different Very high frequency incidents are censored or May potentially affect
approach to “capped” to stabilise wide swings in offence incidence the comparison of
incidents that can occur as a result of a small number of crime incidence.
capping respondents reporting very high victimisation. In line
with international practice, capping removed 2% of the
most frequent incidents.
Much lower In the NZCVS, victim forms were not available for May potentially affect
level of data about 5% of incidents, as the maximum of eight the comparison of
imputations allowed victim forms had already been achieved. both crime incidence
These data were imputed from the distribution of and prevalence as
25
offence codes associated with the scenario that well as the
generated the incident. This is very different from the comparison of Police
NZCASS, where victim form information was collected reporting numbers.
for only 17% of reported incidents while the rest was
imputed.
Covering The NZCVS incorporates three new offence types – May potentially affect
additional cybercrime, fraud and trespass. the comparison of
offence types both crime incidence
and prevalence as
well as the
comparison of Police
reporting numbers.
Different Where a respondent indicated that an incident scenario May potentially affect
approach for had occurred three or more times, they were asked to the comparison of
collecting data consider if the incidents were similar (ie, a similar thing both crime incidence
from highly was done, under similar circumstances and probably and prevalence as
victimised by the same person/people). In order to collect as well as the
people much information about as many incidents as possible, comparison of Police
similar incidents were grouped together, and the reporting numbers.
respondent was asked the victim form questions about
the group of incidents as a set. These were termed
“cluster” victim form questions.
The differences in design mean that direct comparison of NZCVS results with its predecessor
NZCASS is potentially misleading, even within similar offence types.
Examples
1. The NZCVS assessed that over the last 12 months adult New Zealanders experienced
approximately 1,777,000 offences. The 2013 NZCASS assessed the total number of
offences as approximately 1,872,000. Does it mean that the number of offences reduced
over the last five years?
Answer. No, this is inconclusive. On the one hand, the NZCVS includes more offence
types than the NZCASS. But on the other hand, if an incident involves multiple offences,
the NZCASS counts two main offences while the NZCVS in most cases counts only the
major one, which is in line with Police practice. In addition, the NZCASS uses many more
statistical imputations to assess the total number of offences while the NZCVS is mostly
using the actual responses. Finally, the NZCVS is using different approaches to limit the
influence of statistical outliers (capping), which is more aligned with international practice.
2. According to the NZCVS, 23% of offences were reported to the Police. This is 8
percentage points lower than the 31% found by the NZCASS. Does it mean that the level
of reporting to the Police decreased over the last five years?
Answer. No, this is inconclusive. The NZCVS incorporates three new offence types –
cybercrime, fraud and trespass – all with a very low proportion of reporting to the Police.
This will affect the average reporting to the Police proportion.
3. The NZCVS assessed that 80,000 adults experienced more than 190,000 incidents of
family violence over the last 12 months. This is significantly less than the 229,000 adults
26
and 781,000 offences reported by the 2013 NZCASS. Does it mean that the volume of
family violence in New Zealand significantly decreased?
Answer. No, these numbers are not comparable for many reasons. The NZCVS is using
a different approach to coding offences (closer to the Police practice), a different incident
capping methodology (aligned with leading overseas surveys), a different approach for
collecting data from highly victimised people and recording multiple incidents (introducing
“cluster” victim forms), and fewer data imputations. All the above may significantly affect
the accuracy of the comparison, especially when it relates to a reasonably small sample
size. Analysis of the family violence trends will be possible after publishing further
NZCVS reports.
27
2 How much crime is there
in New Zealand?
The NZCVS provides a larger picture of crime in New Zealand because it captures incidents
of crime that may not have been recorded elsewhere.
The key question people usually ask is: “How much crime is there?” We can think about the
“amount of crime” in different ways.
One way is to measure the number of committed offences, overall or in relation to population
size. Alternatively, we can measure the number of people or households that were the
victims of particular offences. In the NZCVS we have looked at four main measures of crime:
1. the number of incidents of crime experienced by adult New Zealanders (15 years of age
or older) in a given year (incidence of crime)
2. the average number of offences for every 100 adults or 100 households (incidence rate)
3. the number of adults and/or households victimised once or more (prevalence of crime)
4. the percentage of adults and/or households that were victimised once or more
(prevalence rate).
2.1 Number of incidents

Overall, about 1,777,000 incidents of crime were estimated over the last 12 months,
including 1,200,000 personal offences and 577,000 household offences.5 This tells us that
personal offences make up the majority of crime.
Figure 2.1: The profile of crime by personal and household offences over the last 12 months
5 Personal offences are when the respondent themselves is the victim. Household offences are when
the respondent’s household is victimised. See Table 1.2 for more details.
28
Burglary is the most common type of offence over the last 12 months. The estimated total
number (incidence) of burglaries is 312,000, which makes up 18% of all incidents and 54%
of all incidents of household offences.
Burglary is followed by harassment and threatening behaviour (300,000 incidents, which

makes up 17% of all incidents and 25% of all incidents of personal offences).
Fraud and deception is the third most common type of offence (273,000 incidents, which
makes up 15% of all incidents and 23% of all incidents of personal offences).
2.2 Number of offences per 100 adults and

100 households (incidence rates)
To account for the population size, we link offences and the number of residents. This
produces an incidence rate and is reported as an average number of offences (incidents)
per 100 adults and/or per 100 households. Incidence rates take into account that some
people or households are victimised more than once, but they do not take into account that
victimisation is unevenly distributed across the population.
On average, there were:

• 32 household offences per 100 households
• 30 personal offences per 100 adults.
The top three incidence rates over the last 12 months were for:
1. burglary (17 offences per 100 household)
2. harassment and threatening behaviour (8 offences per 100 adults)
3. fraud and deception (7 offences per 100 adults).
2.3 Number of adults and households

victimised
To understand how victimisation is distributed across the population, we estimated the
number of households and adults who were victims of crime (prevalence). Prevalence as a
measure of crime does not take into account that some people and/or households may be
victimised more than once.
The estimated total number of adults who experienced either a household or personal
offence, once or more, is 1,155,000. This estimate relates to offences experienced by adults
where they were a victim of a personal offence or lived in a household that experienced a
household offence.
When we look at household and personal offences separately, about 355,000 households
experienced one or more household offences, and 575,000 adults experienced one or more
personal offences over the last 12 months.
29
Table 2.1: Number of adults victimised once or more, by offence type
Personal offences Total number of adults

victimised once or more
000s
Theft and property damage (personal) 65
Robbery and assault (except sexual assault) 111
Fraud and deception 207
Cybercrime 101
Sexual assault 87
Harassment and threatening behaviour 118
All personal offences 575
Table 2.2: Number of households victimised once or more, by offence type
Household offences Total number of households

victimised once or more
000s
Burglary 215
Theft of/unlawful takes/converts motor vehicle 27
Theft (from motor vehicle)  33
Unlawful interference/getting into motor vehicle 9
Damage to motor vehicles 37
Unlawful takes/converts/interferes with bicycle 8
Property damage (household) 34
Theft (except motor vehicles – household) 36
Trespass 31
All household offences 355
2.4 Percentage of adults and households

victimised (prevalence rates)
The prevalence rate is different from prevalence in that it calculates the percentage of the
adult population and/or households that experienced criminal offences.
Overall, 29% of adults experienced one or more personal or household offences over the last
12 months. While this is a considerable proportion, it means that over 70% of adult New
Zealanders experienced no crime.
30
Looking at personal and household offences separately, we found that over the last 12
months about 15% of adults experienced one or more personal offences and about 20% of
households experienced one or more household offences.
All personal offences 14.60%
Fraud and deception 5.24%
Harassment and 2.98%

threatening behaviour
Assault (except sexual) 2.62%
Cybercrime 2.57%
Sexual assault 2.22%
Theft (except motor

1.53%
vehicles – personal)
Robbery 0.23%
Property damage
0.13%
(personal)
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00%
Figure 2.2: Proportion of adults victimised once or more, by personal offence type
All houshold offences 19.94%
Burglary 12.07%
Damage to motor vehicles 2.07%
Theft (except motor vehicles – household) 2%
Property damage (household) 1.93%
Theft (from motor vehicle) 1.84%
Trespass 1.74%
Theft of/unlawful takes/converts motor vehicle 1.52%
Unlawful interference/getting into motor vehicle 0.51%
Unlawful takes/converts/interferes with bicycle 0.47%
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%
Figure 2.3: Proportion of households victimised once or more, by household offence type
31
3 Who is experiencing
offences?
What is included in this section?
So far, we have discussed the extent and nature of crime. But who is experiencing
offending? For this report, we looked at various demographic and socioeconomic factors that
describe individuals, such as sex, age, ethnicity, marital status, disability, mental health and
financial pressure. We also looked at geographical areas (based on regional council
boundaries) such as deprivation index meshblocks to link offences with where people live.
The analysis is done for all crimes and, where relevant, separately for personal and
household crimes.6
Each factor has been looked at against the two key measures of crime: the prevalence rate
and the incidence rate. The estimates for each factor have been compared with the national
average and tested to see which ones are significantly (in statistical terms) above or below
the national average. Statistically significant difference with the national average is shown in
orange colour on the graphs. In the following sections we present our key findings related to
each factor.
3.1 Sex and sexual orientation of victims –

equal chance for men and women to be
victimised overall
What did we find?

• Overall, neither men (29%) nor women (29%) were more or less likely to be victims of
crime.
• The proportion of victims of personal offences is also the same for men and women
(rounded 15%). However, the number of personal offence incidents per 100 adults is
about 20% higher for women.
• The proportion of gay and lesbian victims is almost 40% higher than that of heterosexual
or straight victims. However, the difference between the proportion of gay and lesbian
victims and the national average is not statistically significant due to a small sample size.
• The proportion of bisexual victims is almost 70% higher than that of heterosexual or
straight victims. This is a statistically significant difference with the national average.
6 Individual demographic and socioeconomic factors were not associated with household crimes.
32
See more details7
35.00% 16.00% 14.60% 14.59%

29.15% 29.47%
30.00% 14.00%
25.00% 12.00%
10.00%
20.00%
8.00%
15.00% 6.00%
10.00% 4.00%
5.00% 2.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Male Female
Male Female
Figure 3.1: Prevalence rates by sex – all Figure 3.2: Prevalence rates by sex –
offences personal offences
35.00 33.25 60.00%

49.02%
Incidents per 100 adults
30.00 27.49 50.00%

40.27%
25.00 40.00%
20.00 29.09%
30.00%
15.00
20.00%
10.00
10.00%
5.00
0.00%
0.00
Heterosexual or Gay or lesbian Bisexual
Male Female
straight
Figure 3.3: Incidence rates by sex – Figure 3.4: Prevalence rates by sexual
personal offences orientation – all offences
3.2 Age of victims – higher victimisation for

20–29 age group
What did we find?

• People aged 65 and over (18%) were less likely to be victims of crime than the national
average (29%).
• People aged 20–29 were more likely to be victims of crime (40%).
• The same trend was found for personal offences as a standalone group.
• On average, over the last 12 months, there were 91 offences per 100 adults aged 20–29
and only 28 offences per 100 adults aged 65 and over.
7Further in the report in most bar charts (except multi-serial ones) green colour is used to mark totals
and orange colour to mark statistically significant differences on the 95% confidence level.
33
• Differences between prevalence rates of other age groups and the national average are
not statistically significant.
See more details
45.00%
39.85%
40.00%
35.00% 30.55% 31.19% 30.42%
29.74%
30.00%
24.15%
25.00%
20.00% 18.04%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
15–19 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–64 65 and over
Years of age
Figure 3.5: Prevalence rates by age group – all offences
25.00%
20.88%
19.64%
20.00%
14.90% 14.14% 14.13%
15.00%
11.72%
10.00% 8.65%
5.00%
0.00%
15–19 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–64 65 and over
Years of age
Figure 3.6: Prevalence rates by age group – personal offences
3.3 Ethnicity of victims – Māori at higher risk
What did we find?

• Overall, Māori (37%) were more likely to be victims of crime than the national average
(29%).8
8Respondents were able to choose multiple ethnicities; therefore, throughout the report, the totals of
all ethnicity groups may make more than 100%.
34
• On average over the last 12 months, Māori experienced 91 offences per 100 Māori
adults.
• Chinese people (19%) were less likely to be victims of crime than the national average.9
• For personal offences, Māori were more likely to be victims of crime than the national
average, while Asian people were less likely to be victims of crime.
• Differences between prevalence rates of other ethnic groups and the national average
are not statistically significant.
See more details
40.00% 37.27%
35.00%
29.65% 29.65%
30.00% 26.76% 27.13%
24.19%
25.00%
18.53%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
NZ European Māori Pacific peoples Asian Chinese Indian Other ethnicity
Figure 3.7: Prevalence rates by ethnicity – all offences
25.00%
19.29%
20.00%
15.68%
14.65%
15.00% 13.23%
10.00% 7.36%
5.00%
0.00%
NZ European Māori Pacific peoples Asian Other ethnicity
Figure 3.8: Prevalence rates by ethnicity – personal offences
9Chinese and Indian people are part of the Asian ethnicity group and not excluded from the Asian
ethnicity group results.
35
45.00 42.42
40.00
33.84
35.00
30.00 25.80
25.00
20.00
15.00 10.52
10.00
5.00
0.00
NZ European Māori Pacific peoples Asian
Figure 3.9: Incidence rates by ethnicity – personal offences
3.4 Family/partnership status – never married

under higher risk
What did we find?

• The groups most likely to be victimised include those who were never married or in a civil
union and those partnered but not legally registered. This finding relates both to all
offences and to personal offences taken separately.
• The widowed or surviving partners group was least likely to be victimised (both for all
offences and for personal offences taken separately).
• The difference between other groups and the national average is not statistically
significant.
See more details
45.00% 39.23%
40.00% 35.44% 35.43%
35.00% 31.73%
30.00% 26.58% 26.58%
25.00% 19.96%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Figure 3.10: Prevalence rates by marital status – all offences
36
25.00% 22.51%
18.97% 19.97%
20.00% 16.87%
15.00% 12.22% 12.27%
10.00% 8.38%
5.00%
0.00%
Figure 3.11: Prevalence rates by marital status – personal offences
80.00
67.85
70.00
60.00 53.52
50.00 39.43 38.15
40.00
30.00 20.83 20.88
20.00 11.52
10.00
0.00
Figure 3.12: Incidence rates by marital status – personal offences
3.5 Life satisfaction level – strong association

with victimisation
What did we find?

• We found a strong relationship between life satisfaction and crime prevalence rates both
for all victims and for victims of personal crime.
• Those with a lower level of life satisfaction (rates from 0 to 7 on the 10-point scale for
overall victimisation and rates from 0 to 6 for personal offences) have significantly higher
prevalence and incidence rates of victimisation compared to the national average.
• Those with a very high level of life satisfaction (rate 10 on the 10-point scale) have
significantly lower prevalence and incidence rates of victimisation compared to the
national average.
• In general, a higher level of life satisfaction is associated with lower prevalence and
incidence rates of victimisation overall and for personal offences. Note: The high level of
association does not necessarily prove a causal link.
37
See more details
50.00%
41.74%
40.00% 35.65%
29.00%
30.00% 26.40%
21.85%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Between 0 and 6 7 8 9 10
Life satisfaction rate
Figure 3.13: Prevalence rates by life satisfaction – all offences
30.00%
25.34%
25.00%
20.00% 17.60%
14.58%
15.00% 12.31%
9.27%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Life satisfaction rate
Figure 3.14: Prevalence rates by life satisfaction – personal offences
3.6 Perception of safety – another strong

association
What did we find?

• We found a strong relationship between expressed perception of safety and crime
prevalence rates for all victims, victims of personal crime and victims of household crime.
• Those with a lower level of perceived safety (rates from 0 to 6 on the 10-point scale for
overall victimisation and personal offences, and rates from 0 to 7 for household offences)
have significantly higher prevalence and incidence rates of victimisation compared to the
national average.
38
• Those with a very high level of perceived safety (rate 10 on the 10-point scale for overall
victimisation and personal offences, and rates 9 and 10 for household offences) have
national average.
• In general, a higher level of perceived safety is associated with lower prevalence and
incidence rates of victimisation overall, for personal offences and for household offences.
Note: The high level of association does not necessarily prove a causal link.
See more details
60.00%
51.36%
50.00%
40.00% 37.62%
30.21%
30.00% 25.76%
20.56%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Perception of safety rate
Figure 3.15: Prevalence rates by perception of safety – all offences
30.00%
25.25%
25.00%
20.00% 18.89%
14.69% 14.13%
15.00%
9.56%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Figure 3.16: Prevalence rates by perception of safety – personal offences
39
45.00%
39.66%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00% 26.37%
25.00%
19.56%
20.00% 16.02%
15.00% 13.17%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Figure 3.17: Prevalence rates by perception of safety – household offences
3.7 Disability – no difference in victimisation

of disabled people

The measures of disability used in this survey are suggested by the Washington Group on
Disability Statistics, a United Nations city group established to create robust measures of
disability status and promote international comparability in disability data. According to this
approach, disabled people are identified as those who have a lot of difficulty, or cannot do at
all, at least one of six specified activities: seeing (even with their glasses), hearing (even with
their hearing aid), walking or climbing stairs, remembering or concentrating, self-care, and
communicating. This measure is also consistent with the New Zealand Household Labour
Force Survey.10
What did we find?

• Overall, having a disability does not make a person more likely to be a victim of crime.
This relates both to overall victimisation and to personal and household offences taken
separately.
10 https://www.stats.govt.nz/reports/labour-market-measures-for-disabled-people
40
See more details
16.00% 14.66%
35.00%
29.41% 14.00% 13.21%
30.00% 27.38%
12.00%
25.00%
10.00%
20.00% 8.00%
15.00% 6.00%
10.00% 4.00%
5.00% 2.00%
0.00% 0.00%
Disabled Not disabled Disabled Not disabled
Figure 3.18: Proportion of disabled and non- Figure 3.19: Proportion of disabled and non-
disabled adult New Zealanders who disabled adult New Zealanders who
experienced crime experienced one or more personal offences
25.00%
19.24% 19.98%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Disabled Not disabled
Figure 3.20: Proportion of disabled and non-

disabled adult New Zealanders who
experienced one or more household
offences
3.8 Psychological state – strongly associated

with high victimisation

For measuring psychological state, we used the Kessler-6 (K6) scale. This is a short six-item
scale that screens for non-specific psychological distress in the general population. The
scale is intended to yield a global measure of distress based on questions about anxiety and
depressive symptoms that a person has experienced in the most recent four-week period.
41
It was designed for use in population health screening surveys and has previously been used
in the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study, with the long form version (the Kessler-10 or
K10) used in the New Zealand Health Survey since 2006/2007.11
The bands were derived from previous validation studies using the K6 (both international and
New Zealand studies) and can be interpreted in the following way.
A score of 0 to 7 is labelled as “low level” and is considered as a probable absence of mental

illness in the previous 30 days.
A score of 8 to 12 is labelled as “moderate level” and is considered as probable mild to

moderate mental illness in the previous 30 days.
A score of 13 or greater is labelled as “high level” and is considered as probable serious

mental illness in the previous 30 days.
What did we find?

• Moderate and high levels of psychological distress are both associated with significantly
higher prevalence and incidence rates of victimisation than the national average. This
relates both to overall victimisation and to personal and household offences taken
separately. Note: The high level of association does not necessarily prove a causal link.
See more details
70.00% 64.96%
60.00%
60.00% 49.71%
47.64% 50.00%
50.00%
40.00%
40.00% 31.16%
27.33% 30.00%
30.00%
20.00% 20.00%
12.67%
10.00% 10.00%
0.00% 0.00%
Low level of Moderate level High level of Low level of Moderate level High level of
psychological of psychological psychological psychological of psychological psychological
distress distress distress distress distress distress
Figure 3.21: Proportion of adults who Figure 3.22: Proportion of adults who
experienced crime, by level of psychological experienced personal offences, by level of
distress psychological distress
11Krynen, A. M., Osborne, D., Duck, I. M., Houkamau, C. A., & Sibley, C. G. (2013). Measuring
psychological distress in New Zealand: Item response properties and demographic differences in the
Kessler-6 screening measure. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 42(2), 69–83.
42
50.00% 43.91% 140.00 126.30

120.00
40.00%
31.05% 100.00
30.00%
80.00
18.59% 59.56
20.00% 60.00
40.00 28.05
10.00%
20.00
0.00%
0.00
Low level of Moderate High level of
Low level of Moderate High level of
psychological level of psychological
psychological level of psychological
distress
distress
Figure 3.23: Proportion of adults who Figure 3.24: Number of incidents of

experienced household offences, by level of household offences per 100 households, by
psychological distress level of psychological distress
3.9 Geographical areas – rural areas are less

victimised

Two types of geographical comparison are included in this section.
The first type is a comparison between 16 New Zealand regions defined within the
boundaries provided by Statistics New Zealand.12 Where necessary, the regions were
combined to avoid data suppression due to low sample sizes.
The second type is a comparison between several types of urban and rural areas (major
urban areas, large urban areas, medium urban areas, small urban areas, rural areas) also
identified by Statistics New Zealand.13
What did we find?

• People living in the three major urban areas did not have a statistically significant
difference in offence prevalence compared with the national average (29%). The
proportions of residents who experienced criminal offences for these regions are:
– Auckland – 29%
– Wellington – 33%
– Canterbury – 29%.
12 http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/Maps_and_geography/Geographic-areas.aspx
13 https://datafinder.stats.govt.nz/layer/92218-urban-rural-2018-generalised/
43
• There was also no statistically significant difference between offence prevalence for
personal crime.
• People in the South Island (except Canterbury) are less likely to experience household
crime than average New Zealanders.
• Overall, those living in rural areas are less likely to experience criminal offences than
average New Zealanders. The same is true for household crime taken separately.
See more details
35.00% 32.75%
29.22% 30.00% 28.76% 29.02%
30.00% 26.78%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Auckland Waikato Wellington Canterbury Other North Other South
Island Island
Figure 3.25: Prevalence rates by location – all offences
25.00% 22.86% 21.91%

20.41% 20.82%
20.00% 18.80%
15.00% 13.84%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Island Island
Figure 3.26: Prevalence rates by location – household offences
44
35.00% 32.28%
30.59%
30.00% 28.39%
26.64%
23.82%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Major urban area Large urban area Medium urban area Small urban area Rural
settlement/Rural
other
Figure 3.27: Proportion of adults who experienced crime in urban vs rural areas
25.00% 22.56%
20.81% 20.65%
20.00% 18.27%
14.93%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Major urban area Large urban area Medium urban area Small urban area Rural
settlement/Rural
other
Figure 3.28: Proportion of households that experienced one or more household offences in
urban vs rural areas
3.10 Household composition, size and

ownership status – solo parents at risk

Four types of comparison are included in this section.
The first type is a comparison between different household compositions. The questions
used to derive household composition were the same as those used by Statistics New
45
Zealand in their other household surveys. The relevant programming code was provided by
Statistics New Zealand.14
The second type is a comparison between different household sizes. For this comparison we
formed five groups of household size, from a one-person household up to a five or more
person household.
We did a similar comparison between households with no children, one child, two children,
three children, and four or more children.
Finally, we compared victimisation for households with three different ownership types:
privately owned, privately rented, and owned by government (ie, state houses).
What did we find?

• People living in one parent with child(ren) households are more likely to be victimised
than average New Zealanders. The same observation relates to personal and household
crime taken separately.
• People living in a couple-only household are less likely to be victimised than average
New Zealanders. The same observation relates to household crime taken separately.
• Those living in larger households (five or more people) are more likely to experience
household crime than average New Zealanders. The same relates to three-person
households.
• Generally (with minor exceptions) the number of children in the household is associated
with the prevalence of household crime.
• People living in rental households belonging to the state are more likely to experience
household crime than average New Zealanders.
• No statistically significant relations were found between household size or ownership
status and personal offences.
14 More details are available in the NZCVS methodology report:

https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/NZCVS-2018-Methodology-Report-Year-1-
fin.pdf
46
See more details
50.00%
44.97%
41.59%
40.00% 36.65%
33.93% 33.05%
31.24%
27.49% 28.94%
30.00%
23.65%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
One person One parent One parent Couple only Couple with Couple with Couple with Multiple Other multi-
household with with no children child(ren) child(ren) and family person
child(ren) child(ren) and and other other household household
other person(s) person(s)
person(s)
Figure 3.29: Prevalence rates by household composition – all offences
40.00%
33.90% 33.92%
35.00%
29.79%
30.00% 27.49%
25.86%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
One Two Three Four Five or more
Number of people in the household
Figure 3.30: Prevalence rates by household size – all offences
47
25.00%
20.60% 20.63% 20.44%
20.00% 18.54%
17.36% 16.79%
15.00% 13.48%
11.95% 12.22%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
household with with no children child(ren) child(ren) family person
child(ren) child(ren) and other and other household household
and other person(s) person(s)
person(s)
Figure 3.31: Prevalence rates by household composition – personal offences
40.00%
35.31%
31.21%
30.00%
25.08%
21.12% 22.24% 21.92%
20.64%
18.86%
20.00%
14.76%
10.00%
0.00%
household with with no children child(ren) child(ren) family person
child(ren) child(ren) and other and other household household
and other person(s) person(s)
person(s)
Figure 3.32: Prevalence rates by household composition – household offences
30.00%
25.02% 25.10%
25.00% 22.66%
18.86%
20.00%
16.63%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
One Two Three Four Five
Number of people in the household
Figure 3.33: Prevalence rates by household size – household offences
48
40.00%
34.78%
30.00% 27.53%
24.93% 24.03%
20.00% 18.27%
10.00%
0.00%
No children One Two Three Four or more
Number of children in the household
Figure 3.34: Prevalence rate by number of children in a household – household offences
35.00%
29.58%
30.00%
25.00% 22.28%
20.00% 18.14%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Owned (including with a Rented, private Rented, government
mortage) (local/central)
Figure 3.35: Prevalence rates by household ownership – household offences
3.11 Economic factors and employment –

financial pressure is associated with
higher victimisation

Four types of comparison are included in this section.
Firstly, we compare people with different levels of personal income (for overall and personal
crime) and household income (for overall and household crime). Very detailed income bands
of $10,000 are applied.
49
Two further comparisons relate to people with different level of financial pressure. We use
two tests to assess financial pressure. The first (named the level of financial pressure 1)
checks an ability to afford an attractive but not essential item for $300. The second (level of
financial pressure 2) is testing an ability to afford an unexpected $500 of extra spending
within a month without borrowing money.
Finally, we compare people with different employment status (not employed people are split
into distinct categories depending on reasons for not working).
What did we find?

• Households with very high income (more than $150,000) are more likely to be victimised
overall than average New Zealand households. This also relates to personal offences
taken separately.
• Except for the above observation, there are no statistically significant differences in
victimisation of people or households with different level of income.
• People with very limited or no ability to afford purchasing a non-essential $300 item are
more likely to be victimised overall or experience personal or household offences taken
separately.
• People who cannot afford an unexpected $500 of extra spending within a month without
borrowing money are more likely to be victimised overall or experience personal or
household offences taken separately.
• Retired people are less likely to be victimised overall or experience personal or
• Students who are not employed are more likely to be victimised overall or experience
personal or household offences taken separately.
victimisation between employed and not employed people.
50
See more details
40.00% 36.93%
35.00% 30.65% 30.31% 29.50%
28.74% 29.13%
30.00% 25.68% 27.04%
24.92% 25.05%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Household income
Figure 3.36: Proportion of adults who experienced crime, by household income
40.00% 36.43%
33.81% 32.95%
28.97%
30.00% 26.18%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Not at all limited A little limited Quite limited Very limited Couldn't buy it
Ability to afford purchasing a non-essential item for $300
Figure 3.37: Prevalence rates by level of financial pressure (1) – all offences
40.00% 35.76%
28.31%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Yes, can meet unexpected expense No, cannot meet unexpected expense
Ability to afford an unexpected spending of $500 within a month without borrowing
Figure 3.38: Prevalence rates by level of financial pressure (2) – all offences
51
45.00%
38.84%
40.00%
35.00% 31.34% 31.45% 32.25%
29.00%
30.00% 25.63%
25.00%
20.00% 17.89%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Employed Unemployed Retired Home or caring Not employed, Not employed, Other (not
duties studying not actively specified
seeking work
Figure 3.39: Prevalence rates by employment status – all offences
25.00%
21.80%
20.00%
16.21% 15.45%
14.51% 14.79% 14.17%
15.00% 12.88% 12.95%
11.79% 11.56%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Household income
Figure 3.40: Proportion of adults who experienced personal offences, by household income
25.00%
19.91%
20.00% 17.41%
16.72%
14.38%
15.00% 12.39%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Figure 3.41: Prevalence rates by financial pressure (1) – personal offences
52
25.00%
20.40%
20.00%
15.00% 13.49%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Figure 3.42: Prevalence rates by financial pressure (2) – personal offences
30.00%
24.57%
25.00%
19.38%
20.00% 17.29%
15.39%
15.00% 13.32%
10.68%
10.00% 8.06%
5.00%
0.00%
Employed Unemployed Retired Home or caring Not employed, Not employed, Other (not
duties studying not actively specified)
seeking work
Figure 3.43: Prevalence rates by employment status – personal offences
50.00 47.55
45.00 38.99
40.00 36.40
35.00 32.16
30.00
25.00 21.98
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
Figure 3.44: Incidence rates by financial pressure (1) – personal offences
53
60.00
48.24
50.00
40.00
30.00 27.19
20.00
10.00
0.00
Figure 3.45: Incidence rates by financial pressure (2) – personal offences
50.00 43.43 44.96

45.00
40.00
35.00 32.08
30.00 25.37
25.00 22.33
20.00
15.00 11.39
10.00
5.00
0.00
Employed Unemployed Retired Home or caring Not employed, not Other (not
duties actively seeking specified)
work
Figure 3.46: Incidence rates by employment status – personal offences
30.00%
23.71% 24.07% 24.51%
25.00%
18.98%
20.00% 17.54%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Figure 3.47: Prevalence rates by financial pressure (1) – household offences
54
30.00%
26.01%
25.00%
20.00% 18.79%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Figure 3.48: Prevalence rates by financial pressure (2) – household offences
60.00 55.96
50.00
41.79 41.77
40.00
33.14 32.00
30.00
20.00 15.45
10.00
0.00
Employed Unemployed Retired Home or caring Not employed, Other (not
duties studying specified)
Figure 3.49: Incidence rates by employment status – household offences
3.12 Deprivation index – level of deprivation

affects household crime

This section compares victimisation (overall, personal, and household) based on the level of
area deprivation.
The New Zealand Index of Deprivation 201315 (NZDep2013) groups deprivation scores into
deciles, where 1 represents the areas with the least deprived scores and 10 the areas with
the most deprived scores. A value of 10 therefore indicates the most deprived 10% of areas
15 https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/nzdep2013-index-deprivation
55
in New Zealand. NZDep2013 was obtained from Statistics New Zealand. The deciles then
were converted to quintiles through combining deciles 1 and 2, 3 and 4, etc.
What did we find?

• Although higher deprivation is generally associated with higher victimisation, no
statistically significant difference in victimisation was found for both overall crime and
personal crime.
• For household crime, households located in the most deprived areas (deciles 9 and 10,
quintile 5) are more likely to experience crime than the national average, while
households located in the least deprived areas (decile 1) are less likely to experience
crime than the national average.
See more details
40.00%
34.86%
35.00% 33.58%
31.22% 31.76% 32.05%
30.00% 27.56% 27.42%
26.13%
25.01%
25.00% 23.69%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deprivation deciles
Figure 3.50: Prevalence rates by deprivation level (deciles) – all crimes
56
18.00%
16.11%
15.48%
16.00%
14.18% 13.90% 13.48%
14.00%
12.00%
10.00%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
1 2 3 4 5
Deprivation quintiles
Figure 3.51: Prevalence rate by deprivation level (quintiles) – personal crime
30.00%
27.25%
25.00%
21.67%
20.00% 17.85% 18.06%
14.66%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1 2 3 4 5
Deprivation quintiles
Figure 3.52: Prevalence rates by deprivation level (quintiles) – household crime
57
4 Types of offence
4.1 Violent interpersonal crime affected
almost 300,000 adults
What is included in violent interpersonal crime?

Violent interpersonal crime includes sexual assault, other assault, harassment and
threatening behaviour, robberies and damage of personal or household property if the
offender is known to the victim. Due to the small sample size for some of these groups of
assault, for analysis purposes we combined other assault with robberies, and harassment
and threatening behaviour with property damage.
What did we find?

• Almost 300,000 adult New Zealanders experienced interpersonal violence over the last
12 months.
• Overall, these victims were victimised more than 747,000 times.
• Nineteen personal violence incidents happened for every 100 adults.
• More than one quarter of incidents related to sexual assaults, and almost a third related
to other assaults and robberies.
See more details
800,000 747,639
700,000
600,000
Number of incidents
500,000
400,000
321,834
300,000 233,305
192,500
200,000
100,000
0
Sexual assaults Assaults and robberies Threatening behaviour All interpersonal
and property damage violence
Figure 4.1: Number of interpersonal violence incidents, by offence type
58
20.00 18.97
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00 8.17
8.00
5.92
6.00 4.88
4.00
2.00
0.00
Sexual assaults Assaults and robberies Threatening behaviour All interpersonal
and property damage violence
Figure 4.2: Number of interpersonal violence incidents per 100 adults
25.75%
43.05%
31.21%
Sexual assaults Assaults and robberies Threatening behaviour and property damage
Figure 4.3: Proportion of interpersonal violence incidents, by offence type
59
350,000
294,860
300,000
Number of victims
250,000
200,000
150,000 134,379
111,309
100,000 87,478
50,000
0
Sexual assaults Assaults and robberies Threatening behaviour All interpersonal violence
and property damage
Figure 4.4: Number of victims of interpersonal violence, by offence type
8.00% 7.48%
7.00%
6.00%
5.00%
4.00% 3.41%
2.82%
3.00%
2.22%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
Sexual assaults Assaults and robberies Threatening behaviour and All interpersonal violence
property damage
Figure 4.5: Proportion of adult victims of interpersonal violence, by offence type
4.2 Family violence – Māori and women at

higher risk
What is included in family violence incidents?

Where a victim had contact with the offender or came to know who committed the offence,
they are asked: “What were their relationships to you at the time it happened?” This
information is used to group relationship types as shown in Figure 4.6.
60
Figure 4.6: Interpersonal violence relationship to offender framework
As seen from Figure 4.6, family violence includes violence from a current partner (husband,
wife, partner, boyfriend or girlfriend), ex-partner (previous husband, wife, partner, boyfriend
or girlfriend), or other family member (parent or step-parent; parent’s partner, boyfriend or
girlfriend; son or daughter including in-laws; sibling or step-sibling; other family members
including extended family). In addition, for analysis purposes, violence from current partners
and ex-partners is combined in a wider category named intimate partner violence (IPV).
Note: The family violence category analysed in this section is part of wider interpersonal
violence and does not include psychological violence. Later we will analyse psychological
violence (see section 4.5) and combined family and psychological violence (see section
4.10).
What did we find?

• Almost 80,000 adults experienced family violence over the last 12 months.
• Over the last 12 months victims experienced more than 190,000 incidents of family
violence.
• More than 30,000 adults were victimised by partners, more than 16,000 by ex-partners,
and approximately 40,000 by other family members.16
16 For some incidents more than one offender may be involved.
61
• The proportion of female victims of family violence (71%) more than twice exceeds that of
male victims (29%).
• More than 40% of all victims are between 15 and 29 years old.
• The number of family violence incidents per 100 among Māori is twice as high as among
New Zealand Europeans.
• While the prevalence of family violence is small (2% of adults overall), many important
sources of family violence are outside the scope of the NZCVS – for example, violence
against children and violence against people not living in private households.
See more details
90,000 2.50%
79,435
80,000 2.02%
70,000 2.00%
Number of adults
60,000
1.50%
50,000 40,027 1.02%
40,000 30,215 1.00% 0.77%
30,000
16,418 0.42%
20,000 0.50%
10,000
0 0.00%
Partner Ex-partner Other Family Partner Ex-partner Other family Family
family violence member violence
member total total
Figure 4.7: Number of adults who Figure 4.8: Proportion of adults who
experienced family violence, by relation experienced family violence over the last 12
with offender months, by relation with offender
90,000 Male
79,435
80,000 Female
70,000
Number of adults
56,776 29%
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000 22,659 71%
20,000
10,000
0
Male Female Total
Figure 4.9: Number of family violence Figure 4.10: Proportion of family violence
victims, by sex victims, by sex
62
100,000
79,435
80,000
Number of adults
60,000 22.81%
32,475 40.88%
40,000
17,907 18,120
20,000 10,933 22.54%
0 13.76%
15–29 30–39 40–49 50 and Total
over
Years of age 15–29 30–39 40–49 50 and over
Figure 4.11: Number of family violence Figure 4.12: Proportion of family violence
victims, by age group victims, by age group
12.00 10.95 5.00%

4.09%
10.00 4.00%
8.00
3.00% 2.30%
6.00 5.28 4.85 2.02%
2.00%
4.00
2.00 1.00%
0.00 0.00%
NZ European Māori Total NZ European Māori Total
Figure 4.13: Number of family violence Figure 4.14: Proportion of adults who
incidents per 100 adults, by ethnicity experienced family violence, by ethnicity
4.3 Intimate partner violence (IPV) – women

victimised almost four times more than
men
What did we find?

• Almost 45,000 adult New Zealanders were victimised by their intimate partners over the
last 12 months. More than 30,000 adults were victimised by partners and more than
16,000 by ex-partners. Note: For some incidents more than one offender may be
involved.
• Seventy-seven percent of victims are women.
• Almost half are between 15 and 29 years old. However, women between 40 and 49 years
old experience more violent incidents per 100 adults.
• Māori experience almost three times more IPV incidents per 100 adults than the national
average.
63
See more details
50,000
70% 43,767
59%
60% 40,000
33,759
Number of adults
50%
40% 36% 30,000
30% 23%
20,000
20%
10,008
10% 10,000
0%
Partner Ex-partner Intimate 0
partner total Male Female Total
Figure 4.15: Proportion of IPV incidents Figure 4.16: Number of IPV victims, by sex
in all family violence incidents
2.00%
1.67%
1.60%
1.20% 1.11% 37%

46%
0.80%
0.52% 17%
0.40%
0.00%
Male Female Total 15–29 years 30–39 years 40 years and over
Figure 4.17: Proportion of adults who Figure 4.18: Proportion of IPV, by victim’s age
experienced IPV, by sex
6.00 5.67
3.00%
5.00 4.32 2.48%

2.50%
4.00
2.86 2.00%
3.00 2.73
1.50% 1.24%
1.11%
2.00
1.00%
1.00
0.50%
0.00
15–29 30–39 40–49 Total 0.00%
Years of age NZ European Māori Total
Figure 4.19: Number of IPV incidents per Figure 4.20: Proportion of adults who
100 adults, by age group experienced IPV, by ethnicity
64
9.00
8.07
Incidents per 100 adults 8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
2.93 2.86
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
NZ European Māori Total
Figure 4.21: Number of IPV incidents per 100 adults, by ethnicity
4.4 Current-partner violence – proportion of

Māori victims twice as high as national
average
What did we find?

• More than 30,000 adult New Zealanders were victimised by their current partners over
the last 12 months.
• Seventy-three percent of victims are women.
• The age group 40–49 years old has the largest proportion of victims.
• The proportion of Māori who experienced current-partner violence is twice as high as the
national average.
• The proportion of adults who experienced current-partner violence in the North Island is
50% higher than in the South Island.
65
See more details
35,000
30,215
30,000
25,000 22,144
27%
20,000
Number of adults
15,000
10,000 8,071 73%
Male
5,000
Female
0
Male Female Total
Figure 4.22: Number of current-partner Figure 4.23: Proportion of current-partner

violence victims, by sex violence victims, by sex
1.80%
1.60% 1.53%
1.40%
1.20%
1.00% 0.85%
0.77%
0.80%
0.60%
0.40%
0.20%
0.00%
Figure 4.24: Proportion of adults who experienced current-partner violence, by ethnicity
4.5 Psychological violence experienced by

100,000 New Zealanders
What is included in psychological violence?

Psychological violence includes multiple types of occurrences such as:
• forcing a victim to stop contacting family or friends
• following or keeping track of a victim
• controlling a victim’s access to phone, internet or transport
• preventing a victim’s access to healthcare
66
• pressing a victim into paid work or preventing a victim from doing paid work.
Note: During the data collection period (March to October 2018) these actions were not
formally considered as crime and therefore were not included in our crime volume
calculations. This approach may be reviewed in line with the legislative changes.
What did we find?

• More than 100,000 adults (3.6%) experienced psychological violence over the last 12
months.
• The most frequent type of psychological violence is stopping someone from contacting
family or friends, and the least frequent is preventing access to healthcare.
• Women are slightly more likely than men to be the victims of psychological violence.
• Māori and those aged between 15 and 29 years old are almost twice more likely to
experience psychological violence than the national average.
See more details
120,000
104,212
100,000
Number of adults
80,000
68,028
60,000
43,064
40,000 35,542
30,111
20,699
20,000
0
Stopping Following/ Controlling Pressing into paid Stopping from All psychological
contacting keeping track access to phone/ work doing paid work violence
friends/family internet/
transport
Figure 4.25: Number of adult victims of psychological violence, by offence type
67
7.00% 6.57%
6.00%
5.00%
3.73% 3.60%
4.00% 3.34%
46%
54% 3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
NZ Māori Other Total
Male Female European
Figure 4.26: Proportion of victims of Figure 4.27: Proportion of adults who

psychological violence, by sex experienced psychological violence, by
ethnicity
8.00%
6.87%
7.00%
6.00%
5.00% 4.34%
4.00% 3.38% 3.60%
3.00%
2.01%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
15–29 30–39 40–49 50 and over Total
Years of age
Figure 4.28: Proportion of adults who experienced psychological violence, by age group
4.6 Preventing contact with friends or family –

70,000 victims
What did we find?

• Almost 70,000 adults (2.35%) were stopped from contacting their family or friends over
the last 12 months.
• Sixty percent of those stopped from contacting their family or friends are women.
• Those aged 15–29 and 40–49 were about 50% more likely than the national average to
be stopped from contacting their family or friends.
68
• Māori were about 80% more likely than the national average to be stopped from
contacting their family or friends.
• There was no notable difference between geographical regions in adults being stopped
from contacting family or friends.
See more details
80,000 3.00% 2.84%

68,028
2.50% 2.35%
Number of adults
60,000
1.87%
2.00%
40,816
40,000 1.50%
27,212
1.00%
20,000
0.50%
0 0.00%
Male Female Total Male Female Total
Figure 4.29: Number of adults stopped Figure 4.30: Proportion of adults stopped from
from contacting friends or family, by sex contacting friends or family, by sex
3.80% 3.76%
4.00%
5.00% 4.29%
3.00%
2.35% 4.00%
1.98%
2.00% 3.00% 2.35%
1.36% 2.18%
1.00% 2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
15–29 30–39 40–49 50 and Total 0.00%
over NZ European Māori Total
Years of age
Figure 4.31: Proportion of adults stopped Figure 4.32: Proportion of adults stopped from
from contacting friends or family, by age contacting friends or family, by ethnicity
group
4.7 Being followed or tracked – 69% of

victims are women
What did we find?

• More than 40,000 adult New Zealanders (1.5%) were followed or tracked over the last 12
months.
• Sixty-nine percent of those followed or tracked are women.
69
• Māori and those aged 15–29 were twice more likely than the national average to be
followed or tracked.
See more details
50,000 2.50%
43,064 2.07%
40,000 2.00%
Number of adults
29,760 1.49%
30,000 1.50%
0.91%
20,000 13,304 1.00%
10,000 0.50%
0 0.00%
Figure 4.33: Number of adults who were Figure 4.34: Proportion of adults who were
followed or tracked, by sex followed or tracked, by sex
4.00% 4.00%
3.22% 3.25%
3.00% 3.00%
2.00% 1.49%
1.25% 2.00% 1.42% 1.49%
1.03%
1.13%
1.00%
1.00%
0.00%
15–29 30–39 40 and Total 0.00%
over NZ Māori Other Total
Years of age European
Figure 4.35: Proportion of adults who Figure 4.36: Proportion of adults who were
were followed or tracked, by age group followed or tracked, by ethnicity
4.8 Controlled access to

phone/internet/transport – Māori more
than twice as likely to be victims
What did we find?

• More than 35,000 adults experienced controlled access to phone, internet or transport
• Sixty percent of those who experienced controlled access to phone, internet or transport
are women.
70
• Māori were more than twice more likely than the national average to experience
controlled access to phone, internet or transport.
• Those aged 15–29 were 60% more likely than the national average to experience
See more details
40,000 35,542 1.60% 1.47%

1.23%
Number of adults
30,000
1.20%
0.99%
21,156
20,000 0.80%
14,387
10,000 0.40%
0 0.00%
experienced controlled access to experienced controlled access to
phone/internet/transport, by sex phone/internet/transport, by sex
2.50% 3.00% 2.77%

1.97%
2.00% 2.50%
1.46%
1.50% 1.23% 2.00%
0.91%
1.00% 1.50% 1.23%
0.99%
0.50% 1.00%
0.00% 0.50%
15–29 30–39 40 and Total
over 0.00%
Years of age
experienced controlled access to experienced controlled access to
phone/internet/transport, by age group phone/internet/transport, by ethnicity
4.9 Prevented from doing paid work – more

likely Māori and younger people
What did we find?

• Approximately 30,000 adults were stopped from doing paid work over the last 12 months.
71
• No significant difference was found between men and women.
See more details
35,000
30,111 2.50% 2.31%
30,000
2.00%
25,000
20,000 16,508 1.50%
13,603 1.06%
15,000 0.93%
1.00%
10,000
0.50%
5,000
0 0.00%
Male Female Total NZ European Māori Total
Figure 4.41: Number of adults stopped from Figure 4.42: Proportion of adults stopped
doing paid work, by sex from doing paid work, by ethnicity
4.10 Family violence (including psychological

violence) – almost 40% of victims are 15–
29 years old

This section combines data from two previous sections related to physical and psychological
family violence. While there is no single robust measure for family violence, many
researchers include both physical and psychological violence in the total amount. Note:
During the data collection period (March to October 2018) psychological violence was not
formally considered as crime and therefore was not included in our crime volume
calculations.
What did we find?

• More than 160,000 adults experienced physical or psychological family violence over the
last 12 months.
• Women experienced physical and psychological family violence almost 40% more often
than men.
• Almost 40% of the victims of physical and psychological family violence are 15–29 years
old.
• New Zealand Europeans experience less physical or psychological family violence
compared to Māori (70% less likely) and Pacific people (44% less likely).
72
• No significant difference in physical or psychological family violence was found between
geographical regions.
See more details
200,000
163,521
160,000
Number of adults
120,000
96,708
41%
80,000 66,813
59% Male
40,000 Female
0
Male Female Total
Figure 4.43: Number of adults who Figure 4.44: Proportion of adult family
experienced family violence (including violence victims (including psychological
psychological violence), by sex violence), by sex
25%
38%
19%
18%
15–29 years 30–39 years 40–49 years 50 years and over
Figure 4.45: Proportion of adult family violence victims (including psychological violence), by
age group
73
8.00% 7.30%
7.00% 6.17%
6.00%
5.00% 4.29%
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
NZ European Māori Pacific
Figure 4.46: Proportion of adult family violence (including psychological violence) victims, by
ethnicity
4.11 Intimate Partner Violence (including

psychological violence) – proportion of
Māori victims 75% higher than New
Zealand Europeans

This section describes combined physical and psychological family violence where offenders
are either current or ex-partners. While there is no single robust measure for family violence,
many researchers include both physical and psychological violence in the total amount.
Note: During the data collection period (March to October 2018) psychological violence was
not formally considered as crime and therefore was not included in our crime volume
calculations.
What did we find?

• More than 130,000 adults experienced physical or psychological IPV over the last 12
months.
• Women experienced physical and psychological family violence 36% more often than
men.
• The age groups 15–29 and 40–49 years old have a higher proportion of victimised people
than other age groups.
• The proportion of Māori who experienced physical or psychological IPV is 75% higher
than that of New Zealand Europeans.
• No significant difference in physical or psychological IPV was found between
74
See more details
140,000 132,759
120,000
Number of adults
100,000
78,358 41%
80,000
54,401 59%
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Male Female Total Male Female
Figure 4.47: Number of adults who Figure 4.48: Proportion of adult IPV victims
experienced IPV (including psychological (including psychological violence), by sex
violence), by sex
7.00%
5.94%
6.00%
23%
36% 5.00%
4.00% 3.38%
21% 2.83%
20% 3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
15–29 years 30–39 years
0.00%
40–49 years 50 years and over
NZ European Māori Other
Figure 4.49: Proportion of adult IPV victims Figure 4.50: Proportion of adults who
(including psychological violence), by age experienced IPV (including psychological
group violence), by ethnicity
4.12 Sexual violence – women form the vast

majority of victims

This section describes sexual assaults by all types of offenders including intimate partners,
other family members, other known people and strangers.
75
What did we find?
• Almost 200,000 sexual assault incidents happened to almost 90,000 adults over the last
12 months.
• Women made up 71% of the victims and suffered from 80% of sexual assault incidents.
• The number of sexual assault incidents per 100 women is almost four times higher than
per 100 men.
• Two out of three sexually assaulted people are between 15 and 29 years old.
• No significant difference was found between Māori and New Zealand European victims.
See more details
250,000
192,500
200,000
Number of incidents
20%
153,639
150,000
100,000
80%
50,000 38,861
0
Male Female Total Male Female
Figure 4.51: Number of sexual assault Figure 4.52: Proportion of sexual assault
incidents, by sex incidents, by sex
8.00 7.60
100,000
87,478 7.00
Assaults per 100 adults
80,000 6.00
Number of adults
4.88
62,241 5.00
60,000
4.00
40,000 3.00
25,237 2.03
2.00
20,000
1.00
0 0.00
Figure 4.53: Number of adults who Figure 4.54: Number of sexual assault
experienced sexual assault, by sex incidents per 100 adults
76
8.00
6.86
7.00
Assaults per 100 adults

15–29 5.73
6.00
years 4.88
11% 5.00
10% 30–39
years 4.00
13% 3.00
40–49
66% years 2.00
50 years 1.00
and over 0.00
NZ Māori Total
European
Figure 4.55: Proportion of victims of sexual Figure 4.56: Number of sexual assault
assault, by age group incidents per 100 adults, by ethnicity
4.13 Lifetime experience of IPV and sexual

violence – more than a million victims

As part of understanding family violence, the NZCVS asked whether someone had ever
experienced partner and sexual violence at some point during their lives. With sensitive
questions like these, survey respondents may not want to admit that an incident has taken
place, even when these questions are answered confidentially by respondents entering their
own responses. They may choose to put “don’t know” or “don’t wish to answer” as their
responses. As such, we have included people who said “yes”, “don’t know” and “don’t wish to
answer” in these estimates.
What did we find?

Overall, almost 1.1 million adults (28% of the entire adult population) experienced either IPV
or sexual violence at some point during their life. More details are provided in the following
sections.
4.14 IPV experienced by one in six adult New

Zealanders during their lifetime
What did we find?

• More than half a million people (16% of adults) experienced one or more incidents of IPV
at some point during their lives.
77
• Women (21%) were more likely than men (10%) to have experienced one or more
incidents of IPV at some point during their lives.
• Victims experienced almost equal proportions of deliberately used force or violence
(13%) and threats to use force or violence (12%).
• Māori are more likely to be victims of IPV than the national average, while Asian people
are less likely.
• Geographically, the highest proportions of people who experienced IPV at some point
during their lifetime were found in the Tasman and Northland areas, although the
difference is not statistically significant.
• The above findings do not change while considering deliberately used force and threat to
use force separately.
See more details
600,000 563,117 20.00%
479,864 15.76%
500,000 16.00%
434,887
13.43%
Number of adults
400,000 12.17%
12.00%
300,000
8.00%
200,000
4.00%
100,000
0 0.00%
Deliberately Threat to use Any of the Deliberately Threat to use Any of the
used force or force or above used force or force or above
violence violence violence violence
experienced IPV at some point during their experienced IPV at some point during their
lifetime, by offence type lifetime, by offence type
78
450,000 25.00%
398,362 21.39%
400,000
20.00%
Number of adults
350,000
300,000
15.00%
250,000
200,000 164,755 9.63%
10.00%
150,000
100,000 5.00%
50,000
0 0.00%
Male Female Male Female
experienced IPV or threats at some point experienced IPV or threats at some point
during their lifetime, by sex during their lifetime, by sex
25.00%
19.68% 19.77%
20.00%
16.89% 16.38%
15.00% 13.51%
10.11%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
15–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–64 65 and over
Figure 4.61: Proportion of adults who experienced IPV or threats at some point during their
lifetime, by age group
79
25.00% 22.59%
20.00%
16.49%
14.73%
15.00%
10.00% 9.02%
5.00%
0.00%
Figure 4.62: Proportion of adults who experienced IPV or threats at some point during their
lifetime, by ethnicity
400,000 20.00% 18.20%

338,980
350,000
16.00%
300,000
Number of adults
250,000 12.00%
200,000 8.24%
140,884 8.00%
150,000
100,000
4.00%
50,000
0 0.00%
experienced IPV at some point during their experienced IPV at some point during their
lifetime, by sex lifetime, by sex
20.00% 17.82% 17.42%

18.00%
16.00% 14.49%
14.00% 12.70%
12.00% 10.76%
10.00% 8.43%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
15–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–64 65 and over
Figure 4.65: Proportion of adults who experienced IPV at some point during their lifetime, by
age group
80
25.00%
19.94%
20.00%
15.00% 13.95%
12.44%
10.00% 7.81%
5.00%
0.00%
Figure 4.66: Proportion of adults who experienced IPV at some point during their lifetime, by
ethnicity
400,000
334,290 20.00% 17.95%
350,000
300,000
Number of adults
16.00%
250,000
12.00%
200,000
150,000 8.00% 5.88%
100,597
100,000
4.00%
50,000
0 0.00%
experienced intimate partner threats at some experienced intimate partner threats at some
point during their lifetime, by sex point during their lifetime, by sex
18.00%
15.67%
16.00% 14.91%
14.00% 12.65% 13.25%
12.00% 10.20%
10.00% 8.14%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
15–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–64 65 and over
during their lifetime, by age group
81
20.00% 18.33%
16.00%
13.43%
12.43%
12.00%
8.00% 7.12%
4.00%
0.00%
during their lifetime, by ethnicity
4.15 One in three women experienced sexual

violence during their lifetime
What did we find?

• More than 900,000 people (23% of adults) experienced one or more incidents of sexual
violence at some point during their lives.
• Women (34%) were more likely than men (12%) to have experienced one or more
incidents of sexual violence at some point during their lives.
• Māori are more likely to be victims of lifetime sexual violence than the national average,
while Asian people (including Chinese and Indian) are less likely.
• Geographically, only one region (Wellington) has a significantly higher proportion of
people who experienced lifetime sexual violence.
• Most of these findings do not change while considering forced intercourse and non-
consensual sexual touching separately.
82
See more details
1,000,000 894,359 904,486

900,000 25.00% 23.12% 23.38%
800,000
Number of adults
700,000 20.00%
600,000 498,728 15.00% 12.89%
500,000
400,000
10.00%
300,000
200,000 5.00%
100,000
0 0.00%
Forced Sexual Any of the Forced Sexual touches Any of the
intercourse touches above intercourse above
experienced sexual assault at some point experienced sexual assault at some point
during their lifetime, by offence type during their lifetime, by offence type
800,000
674,990 40.00%
700,000 34.01%
Number of adults
35.00%
600,000
30.00%
500,000 25.00%
400,000 20.00%
300,000 229,496 15.00% 12.19%
200,000 10.00%
100,000 5.00%
0 0.00%
experienced sexual assault at some point experienced sexual assault at some point
during their lifetime, by sex during their lifetime, by sex
83
30.00% 28.08%
25.35% 25.95%
25.00% 22.90% 23.67%
20.00% 18.40% 17.84%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
15–19 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–64 65 and over
Years of age
Figure 4.75: Proportion of adults who experienced sexual assault at some point during their
lifetime, by age group
35.00%
29.07%
30.00% 26.31%
25.00%
19.12% 18.25%
20.00%
15.00% 11.93%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Figure 4.76: Proportion of adults who experienced sexual assault at some point during their
lifetime, by ethnicity
25.00%
450,000 404,637
20.39%
400,000
20.00%
350,000
Number of adults
300,000
15.00%
250,000
200,000 10.00%
150,000
94,091 5.00%
100,000 5.00%
50,000
0 0.00%
experienced forced intercourse at some experienced forced intercourse at some point
point during their lifetime, by sex during their lifetime, by sex
84
18.00% 15.85%
16.00% 14.80% 14.61%
13.69%
14.00% 11.96%
12.00%
9.51%
10.00% 8.50%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
15–19 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–64 65 and over
Years of age
their lifetime, by age group
25.00%
19.63%
20.00%
15.00% 13.95% 13.57%

12.13%
10.00%
5.76%
5.00%
0.00%
their lifetime, by ethnicity
40.00%
800,000 33.64%
667,654 35.00%
700,000
30.00%
Number of adults
600,000
25.00%
500,000
400,000 20.00%
300,000 226,706 15.00% 12.04%
200,000 10.00%
100,000 5.00%
0 0.00%
experienced non-consensual sexual experienced non-consensual sexual
touching at some point during their lifetime, touching at some point during their lifetime,
by sex by sex
85
30.00% 28.03%
24.98% 25.59%
25.00% 22.67% 23.41%
20.00% 18.14% 17.56%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
15–19 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–64 65 and over
Years of age
Figure 4.83: Proportion of adults who experienced non-consensual sexual touching at some
point during their lifetime, by age group
35.00%
30.00% 28.67%
26.04%
25.00%
19.12%
20.00% 17.71%
15.00% 11.71%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Figure 4.84: Proportion of adults who experienced non-consensual sexual touching at some
point during their lifetime, by ethnicity
4.16 Non-violent personal crime (fraud and

cybercrime) – the level of victimisation
correlates with the level of psychological
distress

Non-violent personal crime includes two offence types: fraud and cybercrime. The following
section provides key victimisation results for these two groups.
86
What did we find?
• Almost 400,000 people (about 7.5% of adults) experienced one or more incidents of fraud
or cybercrime over the last 12 months.
• More than 200,000 adults were victims of one or more fraud incidents, and more than
100,000 adults were victims of one or more cybercrime incidents.
• No statistically significant difference in victimisation was found between women and men,
between different age groups, between different ethnic groups (with the exception of
Asian people, who were victimised less), and between different geographical regions.
• The proportion of victimised people with a moderate or high level of psychological
distress is significantly higher than average.
• There is a clear negative trend between the proportion of fraud and cybercrime
victimisation and the level of life satisfaction. A similar clear negative trend was found
between the proportion of fraud and cybercrime victimisation and the feeling of safety.
• For people with annual personal income between $30,000 and $100,000, a higher
income is associated with a higher proportion of victimisation.
• People with very high household income ($150,000 and more) have a significantly higher
proportion of victimisation.
See more details
500,000 350,000
298,628
391,320 300,000
400,000
Number of adults
Number of incidents
250,000
206,711
300,000 272,640
200,000
150,000
200,000 101,116
118,680 100,000
100,000
50,000
0 0
Fraud and Cybercrime Total Fraud and Cybercrime Total
deception deception
Figure 4.85: Number of incidents of non- Figure 4.86: Number of adults who experienced
violent personal crime, by offence type fraud or cybercrime offences, by offence type
87
8.00% 7.58%
10.00% 8.85%
8.28%
6.00% 5.24% 8.00% 7.20%
6.00%
4.00%
2.57% 3.70%
4.00%
2.00%
2.00%
0.00% 0.00%
Fraud and Cybercrime Total NZ Māori Pacific Asian
deception European peoples
experienced fraud or cybercrime offences experienced fraud or cybercrime offences, by
ethnicity
12.00%
10.18%
10.00%
8.21%
7.48% 7.57% 7.49% 7.55%
8.00%
6.00%
4.45%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
Figure 4.89: Proportion of adults who experienced fraud or cybercrime offences, by marital
status
25.00%
21.47%
20.00%
15.00% 12.21%
10.00% 6.93%
5.00%
0.00%
Low level of psychological Moderate level of High level of psychological
distress psychological distress distress
Figure 4.90: Proportion of adults who experienced fraud or cybercrime offences, by level of
psychological distress
88
12.00%
10.01%
10.00%
8.57%
7.88%
8.00%
6.63%
6.10%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
0 to 6 7 8 9 10
Level of life satisfaction
Figure 4.91: Proportion of adults who experienced fraud or cybercrime offences, by level of life
satisfaction
12.00%
9.66% 9.30%
10.00%
8.47%
7.57%
8.00%
6.00% 5.38%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
0 to 6 7 8 9 10
Feeling of safety level
Figure 4.92: Proportion of adults who experienced fraud or cybercrime offences, by perception
of safety
12.00% 11.22%
9.58%
10.00% 8.47%
7.76% 7.64%
8.00% 6.90% 6.91%
6.08%
6.00% 4.99%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
Personal income
Figure 4.93: Proportion of adults who experienced fraud or cybercrime offences, by personal
income
89
14.00%
11.58%
12.00%
10.00% 8.19%
8.07% 7.62% 7.60%
8.00% 6.72% 7.17%
6.39%
5.10% 5.49%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
Household income
Figure 4.94: Proportion of adults who experienced fraud or cybercrime offences, by household
income
4.17 Property crime experienced by 20% of

households

Property crime includes three groups of offence types:
• theft and damage – a group combining theft (except motor vehicle theft); damage of
household and personal property if the offender is unknown to the victim; and unlawful
takes, converts or interference with bicycle
• vehicle offences – a group combining theft of, unlawful takes of, or converts of motor
vehicles; theft from motor vehicles; and unlawful interference or getting into motor
vehicles
• burglaries.
The following sections provide key victimisation results for overall property crime and the
above three groups separately.
What did we find?

• Approximately 577,000 property crime incidents happened over the last 12 months.
• Approximately 355,000 households (20% of all New Zealand households) experienced
one or more property crime incidents over the last 12 months.
• There were approximately 32 property crime incidents per every 100 households.
• New Zealand households experienced 73,000 theft and damage incidents (almost 6
incidents per 100 households), more than 100,000 vehicle offences (6.6 per 100
households) and 215,000 burglaries (17.5 per 100 households).
• The proportions of victimised households were 4% for theft and damage offences, 5.7%
for vehicle offences and over 12% for burglaries.
90
See more details
14.00%
250,000 12.07%
215,047 12.00%
Number of households
200,000
10.00%
150,000 8.00%
101,325 5.68%
6.00%
100,000 4.10%
73,049
4.00%
50,000
2.00%
0 0.00%
Theft and Vehicle Burglary Theft and Vehicle Burglary
damage offences damage offences
Figure 4.95: Number of households that Figure 4.96: Proportion of households that
experienced property crime incidents, by experienced property crime, by offence type
offence type
4.18 Prevalence of theft and damage does not

depend on household income

This section provides key results for theft and damage, a group combining theft (except
motor vehicle theft); damage of household property except direct personal property theft17;
and unlawful takes, converts or interference with bicycle. This group is a subset of property
crime.
What did we find?

• Approximately 73,000 households (about 4% of all households) experienced one or more
incidents of theft and damage over the last 12 months.
• No statistically significant difference between geographical regions was found for theft
and damage incidents, although Wellington had the highest prevalence rate while the
South Island (excluding Canterbury) and Auckland had the lowest rate.
• No statistically significant difference in the theft and damage prevalence rate was found
between different types of urban areas. However, rural areas had a significantly lower
prevalence rate.
17 Direct theft offences are those when the victim knew the offender before the incident happened.
91
• A clear relation was found between the theft and damage prevalence rates and
inhabitants’ feeling of safety. Generally, households with higher levels of perceived safety
had lower prevalence rates than households with lower levels of perceived safety.18
• No clear relation was found between household income and the proportion of households
that experienced theft and damage incidents.
• Households inhabited by lone parents with children experience a significantly higher
proportion of theft and damage compared to the national average.
• The theft and damage prevalence rate for rented households owned by government is
higher than for other household types, but the difference is not statistically significant.
for both households with different numbers of inhabitants and households with different
numbers of children.
See more details
6.00% 5.44%
5.00% 4.49%
4.03% 4.21%
3.82%
4.00%
3.10%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
Island Island
Figure 4.97: Proportion of households that experienced theft and damage, by location
18We assumed that the feeling of safety of a person interviewed in the survey represents the overall
feeling of safety for the household.
92
6.00%
5.00% 4.77%
4.41% 4.47%
4.00% 3.71%
3.00%
2.33%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
Figure 4.98: Proportion of households that experienced theft and damage, by location type
9.00% 8.16%
8.00%
7.00%
6.00% 5.30%
5.00%
4.00% 3.44% 3.49%
3.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
0 to 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 4.99: Proportion of households that experienced theft and damage, by perception of
safety
8.00% 7.27%
7.00%
6.00% 5.50%
5.00% 4.39%
3.67%
4.00% 3.06%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
* with or without other person(s)
Figure 4.100: Proportion of households that experienced theft and damage, by household
composition
93
4.19 Vehicle offences are less likely in
households with no children

This section provides key results related to vehicle offences, a group combining theft of,
unlawful takes of, or converts of motor vehicles; theft from motor vehicles; and unlawful
interference or getting into motor vehicles. This group is part of property crime.
What did we find?

• Approximately 100,000 households (about 6.6% of all households) experienced one or
more incidents of vehicle offences over the last 12 months.
• No statistically significant difference between geographical regions was found for vehicle
offences, although Auckland and Wellington had the highest prevalence rate, while the
South Island (excluding Canterbury) and Waikato had the lowest.
• No statistically significant difference in the vehicle offences prevalence rate was found
between different types of urban areas and rural settlements, although major and large
urban areas had a higher prevalence rate.
• A strong relation was found between the vehicle offence prevalence rates and
inhabitants’ levels of perceived safety. Generally, the proportion of households with
higher levels of perceived safety was lower than the proportion of households with lower
levels of perceived safety.
• With the exception of the lowest and highest household income categories, we found a
clear relation between the proportion of households that experienced vehicle offence
incidents and household income.
• Households with no children have a lower vehicle offence prevalence rate than the
national average, although not statistically significant.
• Generally, households inhabited by one or two people have a lower vehicle offence
prevalence rate compared with households inhabited by three or more people.
• No statistically significant difference in the vehicle offence prevalence rate was found for
households with different types of ownership, although it was higher in privately rented
households.
94
See more details
12.00% 10.73%
10.00%
8.00% 7.36%
5.69%
6.00%
4.09% 4.30%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
0 to 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 4.101: Proportion of households that experienced a vehicle offence, by perception of

safety
9.00% 7.87%
8.00%
6.65% 6.41%
7.00%
6.00% 5.17% 5.22% 5.30%
4.85%
5.00% 3.94% 4.06%
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%

income
95
7.54% 9.00% 8.23%
8.00% 7.97%
8.00% 7.53%
7.00% 6.70%
7.00%
6.00% 5.29% 6.00%
4.98%
5.00% 5.00% 4.02%
4.00%
4.00%
3.00%
3.00% 2.00%
2.00% 1.00%
0.00%
1.00%
0.00%
No children One child Two or more
children
Figure 4.103: Proportion of households Figure 4.104: Proportion of households that

that experienced a vehicle offence, by experienced a vehicle offence, by household
number of children in household size
4.20 Prevalence of burglaries clearly correlates

with feeling of safety

This section provides key results related to burglaries, a subset of property crime.
What did we find?

• Approximately 215,000 households (about 12%) experienced one or more incidents of
burglary over the last 12 months. There were 17.5 burglaries per each 100 households.
• The proportion of households burgled in the South Island (except Canterbury) was
significantly lower than the national average. No other regions showed a statistically
significant difference, although Waikato had the highest prevalence rate.
• No statistically significant difference in the burglary prevalence rate was found between
different types of urban areas; however, the rate in rural settlements was significantly
lower than the national average.
• A strong relation was found between the burglary prevalence rates and inhabitants’
feeling of safety. Generally, households with higher levels of perceived safety had lower
prevalence rates than households with lower levels of perceived safety.
• No relation was found between the proportion of households that experienced burglaries
and household income.
• The burglary prevalence rate was significantly higher than the national average for
households inhabited by one parent with child(ren) or by one parent with child(ren) and
96
other person(s). The rate was significantly lower than the national average for
households inhabited by a couple without children.
• Generally, the burglary prevalence rate increased with the increase of children in the
household.
• In rented households owned by government, the burglary prevalence rate is significantly
higher than the national average.
See more details
20.00%
15.56%
16.00%
13.15% 13.44%
12.00% 10.35% 9.76%

7.72%
8.00%
4.00%
0.00%
Island Island
Figure 4.105: Proportion of households that experienced incidents of burglary, by location
16.00%
13.86%
14.00% 13.14%
12.60%
12.00% 10.83%
10.00% 8.67%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
Figure 4.106: Proportion of households that experienced incidents of burglary in urban vs.
rural areas
97
30.00% 27.23%
25.00%
20.00%
15.92%
15.00%
11.74%
9.46%
10.00%
7.06%
5.00%
0.00%
0 to 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 4.107: Proportion of households that experienced incidents of burglary, by perception

of safety
25.00%
20.61%
20.00% 18.85%
14.80%
15.00% 12.73% 12.68% 12.50%
12.27%
10.47%
10.00% 8.41%
5.00%
0.00%
Figure 4.108: Proportion of households that experienced incidents of burglary, by household

composition
98
20.00%
15.59%
16.00%
13.84% 13.59%
12.27%
12.00%
9.76%
8.00%
4.00%
0.00%
One person Two people Three people Four people Five or more people
Figure 4.109: Proportion of households that experienced incidents of burglary, by number of

household residents
30.00%
26.59%
25.00%
20.00% 18.44%
14.62% 14.81%
15.00%
10.90%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
No children One child Two children Three children Four or more
children
Figure 4.110: Proportion of households that experienced incidents of burglary, by number of

children in household
25.00%
21.17%
20.00%
13.94%
15.00%
10.49%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Owned (including with a Rented, private Rented, government
mortage) (local/central)
Figure 4.111: Proportion of households that experienced incidents of burglary, by residency

ownership
99
5 Distribution of criminal
offences – almost half of
all crime incidents are
experienced by only 4% of
adults
This section discusses distribution of crime – that is, how much crime was experienced by
how many people. Distribution of crime is measured by the level of multiple victimisation and
the level of repeated victimisation.
Multiple victimisation occurs 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 within the same 12 months).
Repeat victimisation is when someone has been the victim of the same offence more than
once (for example, two or more burglaries).
What did we find?

• Approximately 11% of adults experienced more than one crime incident over the last 12
months.
• Thirty percent of victims of household offences and 31% of victims of personal crime
were victimised more than once within 12 months.
• Thirty-seven percent of victims of interpersonal violence were victimised more than once
within 12 months; 15% were victimised five or more times. These 15% were victims of
more than half of all interpersonal violence incidents.
• Four percent of victims of household offences and 10% of victims of personal crime were
victimised five or more times within 12 months.
• Almost half (47%) of all crime incidents were experienced by only 4% of adult New
Zealanders.
• Three of every four family violence incidents and four of every five IPV incidents were
experienced by repeatedly victimised people.
• The proportion of repeatedly victimised people is comparatively lower for fraud and
cybercrime (15% of victims), theft and property damage (18% of victims), and vehicle
100
offences (11% of victims). For property crime, the highest proportion of repeat
victimisation was found for burglaries (23% of victims).
See more details
80%
71%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
18%
20%
10% 6%
2% 1% 2%
0%
0 incidents 1 incident 2 incidents 3 incidents 4 incidents 5 or more
incidents
Figure 5.1: Proportion of adult New Zealanders, by number of incidents experienced over the
last 12 months
100%
71% of adults experience no

crime incidents
73%
100%
57%
47%
40%
29% 2% of adults experience 40% of

crime incidents
11%
6%
4%
2%
Cumulative proportion of adults Proportion of crime incidents
Figure 5.2: Concentration of victimisation in New Zealand
101
8% 1 incident
4%
7% 2 incidents
3 incidents
19%
62% 4 incidents
5 or more incidents
Figure 5.3: Proportion of victims of crime, by number of incidents experienced over the last 12
months
16% Victimised once

Victimised twice
9% 43%
Victimised three times
11% Victimised four times
Victimised five or more times
21%
Figure 5.4: Distribution of household offence incidents, by number of incidents experienced

over the last 12 months
80%
70%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
30%
17%
20%
10% 6% 4% 4%
0%
1 incident More than 1 2 incidents 3 incidents 4 incidents 5 or more
incident incidents
Figure 5.5: Proportion of victims of household offences, by number of incidents experienced

102
Victimised once
33%
Victimised twice
41%
Victimised three times
Victimised four times
11% Victimised five or more times

5% 9%
Figure 5.6: Distribution of incidents of personal offences, by number of incidents experienced

80%
69%
70%
60%
50%
40%
31%
30%
20%
11% 10%
10% 7%
3%
0%
incident incidents
Figure 5.7: Proportion of victims of personal crime, by number of incidents experienced over
the last 12 months
103
70%
63%
60%
50%
40% 37%
30%
20% 15%
10%
10% 7%
4%
0%
incident incidents
Figure 5.8: Proportion of victims of interpersonal violence, by number of incidents experienced

25% Victimised once

Victimised twice
52% Victimised three times

8% Victimised four times
9% Victimised five or more times

6%
Figure 5.9: Distribution of interpersonal violence incidents, by number of incidents

experienced over the last 12 months
104
25%
Victimised once
Repeatedly victimised
75%
Figure 5.10: Proportion of family violence incidents, by number of incidents experienced over
the last 12 months
70%
61%
60%
21%
50%
39%
40%
30%
79%
20%
10%
Victimised once
0%
1 incident More than 1 incident Repeatedly victimised
Figure 5.11: Proportion of family violence Figure 5.12: Proportion of IPV incidents, by
victims, by number of incidents experienced number of incidents experienced over the
over the last 12 months last 12 months
105
90% 85%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% 15%
7%
10%
0%
1 incident More than 1 incident More than 2 incidents
Figure 5.13: Proportion of fraud and cybercrime victims, by number of incidents experienced
18%
1 incident
Repeatedly victimised
82%
Figure 5.14: Proportion of theft and property damage victims, by number of incidents
experienced over the last 12 months
100% 89%
90%
80%
23%
70%
60%
50%
77%
40%
30%
20% 11%
10%
Victimised once
0%
Repeatedly victimised 1 incident More than 1 incident
Figure 5.15: Proportion of vehicle offence Figure 5.16: Proportion of vehicle offence
incidents, by number of incidents victims, by number of incidents experienced
experienced over the last 12 months over the last 12 months
106
19%
10%
53%
18%
Victimised once Victimised twice

Victimised three times Victimised four or more times
Figure 5.17: Distribution of burglary incidents, by number of incidents experienced over the
last 12 months
90%
77%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30% 23%
20% 13%
10% 5% 5%
0%
1 incident More than 1 2 incidents 3 incidents 4 or more incidents
incident
Figure 5.18: Proportion of victims of burglaries, by number of incidents experienced over the
last 12 months
107
6 Incidents caused by
discrimination – sex-
based discrimination
prevails
We asked respondents if they think that the incidents they experienced were driven by
discrimination – that is, the incidents happened, at least partly, because of the offender’s
attitude towards the victim’s race, sex, sexuality, age, religion or disability. In this section we
analyse victims’ perceptions related to incidents.
What did we find?

• Overall, about 20% of all incidents are perceived to happen because of the offender’s
attitude towards the victim’s race/ethnicity, sex, age, sexuality, religion or disability.
• A much higher proportion of personal offences (26%) were perceived as driven by
discrimination compared to household offences (6%).
• Attitude towards the sex of the victim was perceived as the most frequent offence driver
(14% of all incidents and 19% of personal offences).
• More than one third of violent interpersonal offences were perceived as driven by
discrimination. Attitude towards the sex of the victim (30%) was the major perceived
driver.
• Every four out of five sexual offences were perceived as driven by discrimination. Attitude
towards the sex of the victim (70%) was the major perceived driver.
• One in four intimate partner violence incidents were perceived as driven by
discrimination. Again, attitude towards the sex of the victim was the major perceived
driver.
108
See more details
25%
20%
20%
14%
15%
10% 7%
6% 6%
5%
0%
Race/Religion Sex Age Sexuality Total
Figure 6.1: Proportion of all incidents perceived to be driven by discrimination, by

discrimination type
30%
26%
25%
19%
20%
15%
9%
10% 8% 8%
5%
0%
Race/Religion Sex Age Sexuality Total
Figure 6.2: Proportion of personal offence incidents perceived to be driven by discrimination,

by discrimination type
7%
6%
6%
5%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
1%
0%
Race/Religion Sex Total
Figure 6.3: Proportion of household offence incidents perceived to be driven by discrimination,

by discrimination type
109
90%
79%
80% 70%
70%
60%
50%
39%
40% 35%
30%
30% 23%
20% 11% 13%
10%
0%
Race/Religion Sex Age Sexuality All
Violent interpersonal offences Sexual offences
Figure 6.4: Proportion of all violent interpersonal offence incidents and sexual offence
incidents perceived to be driven by discrimination, by discrimination type19
30%
24%
25%
20%
16%
15%
10%
5%
0%
All family violence Intimate partner violence
Figure 6.5: Proportion of family violence incidents perceived to be driven by discrimination, by

relation with offender
19 Some categories are suppressed due to insufficient accuracy.
110
7 Selected drivers of family
violence – alcohol and
drugs are involved in
almost half of incidents
The NZCVS uses a few questions to explore potential drivers behind reported incidents of
family violence. We asked respondents about the influence of alcohol and/or drugs as well as
other perceived triggers for an incident (for example, an argument, financial issue, jealousy).
In this section we analyse victims’ responses.
What did we find?

• Two out of five family violence incidents happened when an offender was under the
influence of alcohol or drugs. Alcohol was involved in one of every three incidents, while
drugs were involved in one of every four incidents.
• Victims were under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs in 12% of all family violence
incidents. This proportion increases to 17% for IPV violence.
• Argument is the most often perceived reason for family violence incidents (44%). It is
followed by jealousy (33% for all family violence incidents and 40% for IPV).
111
See more details
70%
58%
60%
52% 52%
50% 44%
40%
40% 33%
30% 25%
22%
20% 17%
10%
0%
Argument Financial Jealousy Separation Other
All family violence incidents Intimate partner violence
Figure 7.1: Perceived reasons for family violence incidents20
45% 40%
40%
35% 31%
30% 25%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Alcohol Drugs Alcohol and/or drugs
Figure 7.2: Proportion of family violence incidents where offenders were under the influence of
alcohol and/or drugs
18% 17%
16%
14% 12%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
All family violence incidents Intimate partner violence
Figure 7.3: Proportion of family violence incidents where victims were under the influence of
alcohol and/or drugs
20 Some categories are suppressed due to insufficient accuracy.
112
8 Consequences of crime
The NZCVS asks multiple questions related to the consequences of crime incidents. They
include injuries, health related harm, cost of stolen and damaged property, influencing
children and some psychological consequences.
What did we find?

Reporting these results requires in-depth analysis and is out of the scope of this report. We
will release the in-depth analysis of consequences of crime later in 2019.
113
9 Reporting to the Police –
three out of four crimes
are unreported
In the NZCVS, where someone experienced an incident of crime, they are asked whether the
incident became known to the Police.21
The next few sections analyse the level of reporting crime incidents to the Police by different
offence types and groups of offences, victims’ demographics, relations with offenders and
self-assessed seriousness of offences. We also analyse the reasons of not reporting
incidents to the Police.
What did we find?

• Overall, it is estimated that only 23% of crimes were reported to the Police over the last
12 months.
• This proportion is twice as high for household offences (34%) compared to personal
offences (17%).
• Detailed analysis of reporting to the Police by offence types, victims’ demographics,
relations with offenders and self-assessed seriousness of crime is provided in the
following sections.
9.1 Reporting to the Police by offence type –

household crime reported much more
often
What did we find?

• Theft of/unlawful takes/converts of motor vehicle is the offence most commonly reported
to the Police over the last 12 months (82%). Also, theft of/from motor vehicles as well as
vehicle offences as a group were reported more often than the national average of 23%.
Burglaries (36%) are also reported more often than the national average.
21Incidents found out by the Police include where the victim or a member of the victim’s household
reported the incident to the Police, or where the victim knew that the Police had found out about the
incident in some way.
114
• Fraud/deception and cybercrime are the offences least commonly reported to the Police
(7%).
• No statistically significant difference was found for reporting family violence (27%).
• No statistically significant difference was found between reporting of other types of
offences and the national average. Note: The reporting rate for sexual offences was
suppressed due to the low level of accuracy. Sexual assaults were included in the assault
and robbery offence type (reporting rate 18%).
See more details
90.00% 81.54%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
47.14%
50.00%
40.00% 34.48% 35.74%
31.83%
25.39% 27.37% 27.59%
30.00% 24.18% 22.86%
17.27% 19.24% 18.03%
20.00%
7.07%
10.00%
0.00%
Figure 9.1: Reporting rate to the Police, by offence type
50.00% 45.06%
45.00%
40.00% 35.74%
35.00% 28.78%
27.37% 27.97%
30.00%
25.00% 22.31% 20.88%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00% 7.07%
5.00%
0.00%
Violent Theft and Fraud Vehicle Burglary Trespass Threat and Non-sexual
interpersonal property offences personal assault and
damage damage robbery
Figure 9.2: Reporting rate to the Police, by groups of offences
115
40.00 37.42
35.00
30.00 26.94
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
Current partner violence All FV
Figure 9.3: Reporting rate to the Police, by family violence type
9.2 Reporting to the Police by demographic

characteristics – students report less
often
What did we find?

• No significant difference was found between reporting to the Police by male and female
victims.
• Gay, lesbian or bisexual victims are less likely to report to the Police than the national
average.
• Students who are not employed are less likely to report to the Police than the national
average.
• There is no clear trend in reporting to the Police by age group. The lowest level (below
20%) was found for younger people (aged 15–19 and 20–29) and for older people (aged
60–64). The highest level (31%) was found for people aged 30–39.
• Generally, people in more deprived areas are more likely to report to the Police. The
difference, however, is not statistically significant.
• Although not statistically significant, the following differences in reporting to the Police
were found:
– Separated or divorced people were more likely than others to report to the Police.
– Households with children were more likely than households without children to report
to the Police.
– People with higher levels of life satisfaction were slightly more likely to report to the
Police.
– People with higher levels of perceived safety were slightly less likely to report to the
Police.
• There is no significant difference in reporting to the Police by ethnicity, location, family
status, disability status, level of psychological distress and level of financial pressure.
116
See more details
24.00%
23.46%
23.50%
23.00% 22.86%
22.50%
22.04%
22.00%
21.50%
21.00%
Male Female NZ population
Figure 9.4: Reporting rate to the Police, by sex
25.00% 23.59% 23.39%

21.95%
20.00%
15.00% 13.36%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Figure 9.5: Reporting rate to the Police, by self-identified gender and sexual orientation
35.00%
30.72%
30.00% 27.61%
24.42%
25.00% 22.44%
20.00% 17.52%
16.25%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
15–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–64 65 and over
Years of age
Figure 9.6: Reporting rate to the Police, by age group
117
35.00%
30.00% 27.99% 28.40%
26.36% 25.34%
25.00% 22.52%
18.77%
20.00% 17.24%
13.60%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1 and 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 and 9 10
Deprivation decile
Figure 9.7: Reporting rate to the Police, by deprivation decile
35.00%
29.04%
30.00%
24.98%
25.00% 23.59%
20.06% 20.69%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
0 to 6 7 8 9 10
Level of life satisfaction
Figure 9.8: Reporting rate to the Police, by level of life satisfaction
30.00%
26.17%
25.00% 23.36%
22.03% 21.03%
20.57%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
0 to 6 7 8 9 10
Level of safety feeling
Figure 9.9: Reporting rate to the Police, by perception of safety
118
40.00%
35.00% 33.54%
30.00%
25.00% 23.44%
22.28%
20.00% 17.35%
15.00%
9.86%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Employed Unemployed Retired Home or caring Not working,
duties studying
Figure 9.10: Reporting rate to the Police, by employment status
40.00% 35.11%
30.00% 26.37% 27.71%

24.58%
21.71%
19.58% 18.08%
20.00% 17.61%
15.67%
10.00%
0.00%
Household income
Figure 9.11: Reporting rate to the Police, by household income
119
35.00% 30.90%
30.00% 25.80%
25.05% 24.78%
25.00%
18.85%
20.00% 17.21%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
* with or without other person(s)
Figure 9.12: Reporting rate to the Police, by household composition
40.00%
34.07%
35.00%
30.07%
30.00% 27.96%
25.00%
19.90%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
No children One child Two children More than two
children
Figure 9.13: Reporting rate to the Police, by number of children in household
9.3 Reporting to the Police by relation with

offender – intimate partner offending
reported more often
What did we find?

• People were more likely report to the Police when offenders were intimate partners of
victims and less often when offenders were other family members. The difference,
however, is not statistically significant.
120
40.00%
35.27% 36.12%
35.00%
30.00% 26.48%
25.03% 25.76%
25.00% 21.69%
20.00% 16.95%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
A family An intimate A current Another family A community A known A stranger
member partner partner member member associate
Figure 9.14: Reporting rate to the Police, by relation with offender
9.4 Reporting to the Police by self-assessed

seriousness of crime – important factor
affecting the decision to report
What did we find?

• Generally, perception about the seriousness of an incident significantly affects the level of
reporting to the Police.
• Overall, if people perceive that the incident was a crime, they are significantly more likely
than the national average to report it to the Police. Conversely, when people believe that
the incident is “just something that happened”, they report it to the Police significantly less
often.
121
50.00%
45.00% 40.04%
38.14% 36.86% 38.17%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00% 27.17%
25.00% 20.97% 20.26%
18.92%
20.00%
15.00%
9.76%
10.00% 6.02%
5.00%
0.00%
Not 1 and 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very
serious at Serious
all
Perceived level of seriousness
Figure 9.15: Reporting rate to the Police, by perception of incident’s seriousness
35.00% 33.05%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
9.23%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Viewed as a crime Viewed as not a crime
Figure 9.16: Reporting rate to the Police, by perception of incident’s criminality
122
10 Family violence victims’
experiences
The NZCVS has a modular design. It is made up of a core module that includes crime and
victimisation questions that will be repeated every year to form a consistent time series, and
a revolving in-depth module that will change annually. The revolving module is designed to
collect more detailed information about particular aspects of victimisation or types of crime
and to learn about victims’ experiences related to the module topic.22 After extensive
consultation with stakeholders, we chose family violence as a priority topic for the revolving
module in 2018.
This section includes responses on the in-depth module. It reflects the experiences of family
violence victims and analyses their awareness of support organisations, the effectiveness of
formal and informal support of victims, the reasons for not applying for support, and the types
of support that victims would like to receive.
10.1 Awareness of support organisations is

very high
What did we find?

• A significant majority (more than 90%) of family violence victims are aware of support
organisations.
• The most known support organisations are Women’s Refuge, Victim Support and
Citizens Advice Bureaus.
• Only one in six family violence victims are aware of the Victims of Crime Information Line.
22 Details of the design and methodology are provided in the NZCVS methodology report:
fin.pdf
123
160,000
140,000 133,666
113,912 116,895
120,000
100,000
73,489 75,110
80,000 67,985
60,000
40,000 29,093
20,000
0
Victim Women's Rape Crisis Citizens Lifeline Family Victims of
Support Refuge Advice Aotearoa Violence Crime
Bereau Website or Information
Helpline Line
Figure 10.1: Number of victims aware of family violence services, by organisation
90.00%
80.00% 76.64%
70.00% 65.31% 67.02%
60.00%
50.00% 42.14% 43.07%
38.98%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00% 16.68%
10.00%
0.00%
Victim Women's Rape Crisis Citizens Lifeline Family Victims of
Support Refuge Advice Aotearoa Violence Crime
Bureau Website or Information
Helpline Line
Figure 10.2: Proportion of victims aware of family violence helplines, by organisation
10.2 Seeking formal support – only a small

proportion
What did we find?

• Only a small proportion of those aware of the support organisations actually contacted
them. Even well-known support organisations were contacted by only 10–12% of victims.
• Significantly more family violence victims are seeking help in their families than in
organisations providing formal support.
124
80,000
70,000 67,128
60,000
50,000
39,099
40,000
30,000
18,571
20,000 13,537 13,312
8,772 6,742 8,467 8,714
10,000
0
Figure 10.3: Number of victims who contacted family violence organisations or family for help
45.00% 39.79%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
23.15%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00% 11.99% 10.18% 11.10%
10.00% 7.62%
4.04% 5.07% 5.24%
5.00%
0.00%
Figure 10.4: Proportion of victims who contacted support organisations vs. those asking their
family for help
10.3 Seeking informal support – much higher

proportion
What did we find?

• The vast majority (94%) of those seeking help from their family/whānau received help.
• The type of help that victims were most often looking for was somebody to talk to.
However, a significant proportion of victims also received more specific help.
125
70,000 62,965
60,000 55,140
50,000
40,000
30,000 24,106
19,829 20,575
20,000 14,245 16,542
10,000 6,863
0
Received Someone to How to keep Other advice Financial Help with Help with Other help
help talk to safe help transport children or
dependants
Type of help
Figure 10.5: Number of victims that got help from family/whānau, by type of help they received
Note: Other help here and in the next figure includes shelter/alternative accommodation, talking to the
offender and other unspecified help.
100.00% 93.97%
87.57%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00% 38.28%
40.00% 31.49% 32.68%
22.62% 26.27%
30.00%
20.00% 10.90%
10.00%
0.00%
Figure 10.6: Proportion of victims that got help from family/whānau, by type of help they
received
126
80.00%
70.00% 66.74%
58.14%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00% 36.65% 36.21%
30.26%
30.00% 23.03%
16.82%
20.00% 12.20%
10.00%
0.00%
Figure 10.7: Types of support that victims of family violence received from support
organisations
10.4 Reasons for not applying for formal

support – many perceive family violence
as a private matter
What did we find?

• The reasons most often given for not contacting support organisations are “Did not need
help” (30%), “Wanted to handle it myself” (22%) and “Private matter” (17%).
• Seven percent did not know where to go and 14% did not mention any reason for not
contacting support.
• Among those who decided not to seek help from their family/whānau, 31% did it because
they felt they did not need help, 21% because they wanted to handle it themselves and
17% because it was a “private matter”.
127
See more details
45,000 41,198
40,000
35,000 30,775
Number of victims
29,871
30,000
25,000 22,951
18,987
20,000
15,000 10,517
9,173
10,000
5,000
0
Don't know Private Fear no one Didn't need Wanted to No reason Other
who to matter would help help handle it
ask/where to myself
go
Reason for not asking for help
Figure 10.8: Reasons why victims did not ask for help from a support service
35.00%
30.45%
30.00%
25.00% 22.08% 22.74%
20.00% 16.96%
14.03%
15.00%
10.00% 6.78% 7.77%
5.00%
0.00%
Figure 10.9: Proportion of victims who did not ask for help from a support service, by reason
128
35.00%
31.30%
30.00%
25.00%
21.03%
19.12%
20.00% 16.65% 17.52%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Private matter Did not need help Wanted to handle it No reason Other
myself
Figure 10.10: Proportion of victims who did not ask for advice from whānau, by reason
Note: “Other” category in this case aggregates “No one to ask”, “Fear”, “Embarrassed”, “No one will
help”, “Thought it is normal” and “Other unspecified”. These categories were aggregated due to a
large margin of error.
129
Appendix A: Summary of
findings
The extent and nature of crime
• A significant majority of adults23 (71%) experienced no crime over the last 12 months.24
• Approximately 1,777,000 offences were identified over the last 12 months, where
personal offences make up the majority (68% of total offences).
• On average, there were 32 household offences per 100 households and 30 personal
offences per 100 adults.
• The three most common offences were:
– burglary offences (17 per 100 households)
– harassment and threatening behaviour offences (8 per 100 adults)
– fraud and deception offences (7 per 100 adults).
• About 355,000 households experienced one or more household offences, and 575,000
adults experienced one or more personal offences.
Who experiences crime
Sex, gender and sexual orientation

• Males (29%) and females (29%) were equally likely to be victims of crime over the last 12
months.
• The proportion of personal offence victims is the same for males and females (rounded
15%). However, the number of personal offence incidents per 100 adults is about 20%
higher for females.
• The proportion of gay and lesbian victims of crime is almost 40% higher than that of
heterosexual or straight victims. However, the difference between the proportion of gay
and lesbian victims of crime and the national average is still not statistically significant
due to a small sample size.
• The proportion of bisexual victims of crime is almost 70% higher than that of heterosexual
or straight victims. It is a statistically significant difference from the national average.
23 For the purposes of this survey, adults are identified as people aged 15 years and above.
24 From the date of the interview.
130
Age
• People aged 65 and over were less likely to be victims of crime (18%).
• People aged 20–29 were more likely to be victims of crime (40%).
• The same trend was found for personal offences as a standalone group.
• On average, over the last 12 months, there were 91 offences per 100 adults aged 20–29
and only 28 offences per 100 adults aged 65 and over.
• Differences between prevalence rates of other age groups and the national average are
not statistically significant.
Ethnicity
• Overall, Māori (37%) were more likely to be victims of crime than the national average
(29%).
• On average, over the last 12 months, Māori experienced 91 offences per 100 Māori
adults.
• Chinese people (19%) were less likely to be victims of crime than the national average.
• For personal offences, Māori were more likely to be victims of crime than the national
average, while Asian people were less likely to be victims of personal offences.
• Differences between prevalence rates of other ethnic groups and the national average
are not statistically significant.
Partnership status
• The groups most likely to be victimised include those who were never married or in a civil
union and those partnered but not legally registered. This finding relates both to all
offences and to personal offences taken separately.
• The groups least likely to be victimised include widowed or surviving partners (all
offences); partnered and legally registered (personal offences); and married/civil union/de
facto (personal offences).
• The difference between other groups and the national average is not statistically
significant.
Life satisfaction level

• We found a strong inverse relationship between life satisfaction and crime prevalence
rates both for all victims and for victims of personal crime.
• Those with a lower level of life satisfaction (rates from 0 to 7 on a 10-point scale for
overall victimisation and rates from 0 to 6 for personal offences) have significantly higher
• Those with a very high level of life satisfaction (rate 10 on the 10-point scale) have
national average.
131
• In general, a higher level of life satisfaction is associated with lower prevalence and
incidence rates of victimisation overall and for personal offences. Note: The high level of
association does not necessarily prove a causal link.
Perception of safety
• We found a strong relationship between expressed perception of safety and crime
prevalence rates for all victims, victims of personal crime and victims of household crime.
• Those perceiving a lower level of safety (rates from 0 to 6 on a 10-point scale for overall
victimisation and personal offences, and rates from 0 to 7 for household offences) have
significantly higher prevalence and incidence rates of victimisation compared to the
national average.
• Those perceiving a very high level of safety (rate 10 on the 10-point scale for overall and
personal offences, and rates 9 and 10 for household offences) have significantly lower
• In general, a higher level of perceived safety is associated with lower prevalence and
incidence rates of victimisation overall, for personal offences and for household offences.
Note: The high level of association does not necessarily prove a causal link.
Disability and psychological distress

• Overall, neither disabled nor non-disabled people were more or less likely to be victims of
crime. This relates both to overall victimisation and to personal and household offences
taken separately.
• Moderate and high levels of psychological distress are both associated with significantly
higher prevalence and incidence rates of victimisation than the national average. This
relates both to overall victimisation and to personal and household offences taken
separately. Note: The high level of association does not necessarily prove a causal link.
Geographical factors
• People living in three major urban centres had no statistically significant difference in
offence prevalence compared with the national average (29%). The proportions of
residents who experienced criminal offences for these regions are:
– Auckland – 29%
– Wellington – 33%
– Canterbury – 29%.
• There was also no statistically significant difference between offence prevalence for
personal crime.
• People in the South Island (except Canterbury) are less likely to experience household
• Overall, those living in rural areas are less likely to experience criminal offences than the
national average. The same is true for household crime taken separately.
132
Household composition
• People living in a one parent with child(ren) household are more likely to be victimised
than the national average. The same observation relates to personal and household
crime taken separately.
• People living in a couple-only household are less likely to be victimised than the national
average. The same observation relates to household crime taken separately.
• Those living in larger households (five or more people) are more likely to experience
household crime than the national average. The same relates to three-person
households.
• Generally (with minor exceptions) the number of children in the household is associated
with the prevalence of household crime.
• People living in houses rented from government are more likely to experience household
• No statistically significant relations were found between household size or ownership
status and personal offences.
Economic factors
• Households with very high income (more than $150,000) are more likely to be victimised
overall than the national average. This also relates to personal offences taken separately.
victimisation of people or households with different levels of income.
• People with very limited or no ability to afford purchasing a non-essential $300 item are
more likely than the national average to be victimised overall or experience personal or
• People who cannot afford an unexpected $500 of extra spending within a month without
borrowing money are more likely than the national average to be victimised overall or
• Retired people are less likely than the national average to be victimised overall or
• Students who are not employed are more likely than the national average to be victimised
overall or experience personal or household offences taken separately.
• Except for the above observation, there are no statistically significant differences from the
national average in victimisation of employed and not employed people.
Deprivation index
• Although higher deprivation is generally associated with higher victimisation, no
statistically significant difference in victimisation was found both for overall crime and
personal crime.
• For household crime, households located in the most deprived areas (deciles 9 and 10,
quintile 5) are more likely to experience crime than the national average, while
133
households located in the least deprived areas (deciles 1 and 2, quintile 1) are less likely
to experience crime than the national average.
Types of offence
Interpersonal violence
• Almost 300,000 adults experienced interpersonal violence over the last 12 months.
• These victims were victimised more than 747,000 times.
• Nineteen personal violence incidents happened for every 100 adults.
• More than one quarter of incidents related to sexual assaults, and almost a third related
to other assaults and robberies.
Family violence
• Almost 80,000 adults experienced family violence over the last 12 months.
• Over the last 12 months victims experienced more than 190,000 incidents of family
violence.
• More than 30,000 adults were victimised by partners, more than 16,000 by ex-partners,
and approximately 40,000 by other family members. Note: For some incidents more than
one offender may be involved.
• The proportion of female victims of family violence (71%) more than twice exceeds that of
male victims (29%).
• More than 40% of all victims are between 15 and 29 years old.
• The number of family violence incidents per 100 among Māori is twice as high as among
New Zealand Europeans.
Intimate partner violence (IPV)

• Almost 45,000 adults were victimised by their intimate partners over the last 12 months.
More than 30,000 adults were victimised by current partners and more than 16,000 by
ex-partners. Note: For some incidents more than one offender may be involved.
• Seventy-seven percent of victims are females.
• Almost 40% of victims are between 15 and 29 years old. However, females between 40
and 49 years old experience more violent incidents per 100 adults.
• Māori experienced almost three times more IPV incidents per 100 adults than New
Zealand Europeans.
• The proportion of Māori who experienced current-partner violence is twice as high as the
national average.
• The proportion of adults who experienced current-partner violence in the North Island is
50% higher than in the South Island.
134
Psychological violence
• More than 100,000 adults (3.6%) experienced psychological violence over the last 12
months.
• The most frequent type of psychological violence is stopping someone from contacting
family or friends, while the least frequent is preventing access to healthcare.
• Females are the victims of psychological violence slightly more often than males.
• Māori and those aged 15–29 are almost twice more likely than the national average to
experience psychological violence.
• Almost 70,000 adults (2.35%) were stopped from contacting their family or friends over
the last 12 months.
• Sixty percent of those stopped from contacting their family or friends are females.
• Those aged 15–29 and 40–49 were about 50% more likely than the national average to
be stopped from contacting their family or friends.
• Māori were about 80% more likely than the national average to be stopped from
contacting their family or friends.
• There was no notable difference between geographical regions in adults being stopped
from contacting family or friends.
• More than 40,000 adults (1.5%) were followed or tracked over the last 12 months.
• Sixty-nine percent of those followed or tracked are females.
• Māori and those aged 15–29 were twice more likely than the national average to be
followed or tracked.
• More than 35,000 adults experienced controlled access to phone, internet or transport
• Sixty percent of those who experienced controlled access to phone, internet or transport
are females.
• Māori were more than twice more likely than the national average to experience
• Those aged 15–29 were 60% more likely than the national average to experience
• There was no notable difference between geographical regions in controlling access to
phone, internet or transport.
• Approximately 30,000 adults were stopped from doing paid work over the last 12 months
of their lives. No significant difference was found between males and females.
• Approximately 20,000 adults (less than 1%) were stopped from doing paid work over the
last 12 months.
• Wellingtonians were four times less likely than the national average to be pressed into
paid work.
135
Family violence including psychological violence
• More than 160,000 adults experienced physical or psychological family violence over the
last 12 months.
• Females experienced physical and psychological family violence almost 40% more often
than males.
• Almost 40% of the victims of physical and psychological family violence are between 15
and 29 years old.
• New Zealand Europeans experience less physical or psychological family violence
compared to Māori (70% less likely) and Pacific people (44% less likely).
• No significant difference in physical or psychological family violence was found between
Intimate Partner Violence including psychological violence

• More than 130,000 adults experienced physical or psychological IPV over the last 12
months.
• Females experienced physical and psychological IPV 36% more often than males.
• The age groups 15–29 and 40–49 years old have a higher proportion of victimised people
than other age groups.
• The proportion of Māori who experienced physical or psychological IPV is 75% higher
than that of New Zealand Europeans.
• No significant difference in physical or psychological IPV was found between
Sexual violence
• Almost 200,000 sexual assault incidents happened to almost 90,000 adults over the last
12 months.
• Females made up 71% of the victims and suffered from 80% of sexual assault incidents.
• The number of sexual assault incidents per 100 females is almost four times higher than
per 100 males.
• Two out of three sexually assaulted people are between 15 and 29 years old.
• No significant difference was found between Māori and New Zealand European victims.
Non-violent personal crime

• Almost 400,000 people (about 7.5% of adults) experienced one or more incidents of fraud
or cybercrime over the last 12 months.
• More than 200,000 adults were victims of one or more fraud incidents, and more than
100,000 were victims of one or more cybercrime incidents.
136
• No statistically significant difference in victimisation was found between females and
males, between different age groups, between different ethnic groups (except for Asian
people, who were victimised less), and between different geographical regions.
• The proportion of victims with a moderate or high level of psychological distress is
significantly higher than the national average.
• There is a clear negative trend between the prevalence rate of fraud and cybercrime and
the level of life satisfaction. A similar negative trend was found between the proportion of
fraud and cybercrime victims and the feeling of safety.
• For people with annual personal income between $30,000 and $100,000, a higher
income is associated with a higher proportion of victimisation.
• People with very high household income ($150,000 and more) have a significantly higher
prevalence rate.
Property crime
• Approximately 577,000 property crime incidents happened over the last 12 months.
• Approximately 355,000 households (20% of all New Zealand households) experienced
one or more property crime incidents over the last 12 months.
• There were approximately 32 property crime incidents per every 100 households.
• New Zealand households experienced 73,000 theft and damage incidents (almost 6
incidents per 100 households), more than 100,000 vehicle offences (6.6 per 100
households) and 215,000 burglaries (17.5 per 100 households).
• The proportion of victimised households was 4% for theft and damage offences, 5.7% for
vehicle offences and over 12% for burglaries.
Theft and damage

• Approximately 73,000 households (about 4% of all households) experienced one or more
incidents of theft and damage over the last 12 months.
• No statistically significant difference between geographical regions was found for theft
and damage incidents, although Wellington had the highest prevalence rate, while the
South Island (excluding Canterbury) and Auckland had the lowest.
between different types of urban areas. However, rural areas had a significantly lower
prevalence rate.
• A clear relation was found between the theft and damage prevalence rates and
had lower prevalence rates than households with lower levels of perceived safety.25
• No clear relation was found between the proportion of households that experienced theft
and damage incidents and household income.
25We assumed that the feeling of safety of a person interviewed in the survey represents the overall
feeling of safety for the household.
137
• Households inhabited by sole parents with children experienced a significantly higher
proportion of theft and damage compared to national average.
• The theft and damage prevalence rate for rented households owned by government is
higher than for other household types, but the difference is not statistically significant.
for both households with different numbers of inhabitants and households with different
numbers of children.
Vehicle offences
• Approximately 100,000 households (about 6.6% of all households) experienced one or
more vehicle offences over the last 12 months.
• No statistically significant difference between geographical regions was found for vehicle
offences, although Auckland and Wellington had the highest prevalence rate, while the
South Island (excluding Canterbury) and Waikato had the lowest.
• No statistically significant difference in the vehicle offence prevalence rate was found
between different types of urban areas and rural settlements, although major and large
urban areas had a higher prevalence rate.
• A strong relation was found between the vehicle offence prevalence rates and
had lower prevalence rates than households with lower levels of perceived safety.
• Except for the lowest and the highest household income categories, we found a clear
relation between the proportion of households that experienced vehicle offence incidents
• Households with no children have a lower vehicle offence prevalence rate than the
national average, although not statistically significant.
• Generally, households inhabited by one or two people have a lower vehicle offence
prevalence rate compared with households inhabited by three or more people.
• No statistically significant difference in the vehicle offence prevalence rate was found for
households with different types of ownership, although it was higher in privately rented
households.
Burglaries
• Approximately 215,000 households (about 12%) experienced one or more incidents of
burglary over the last 12 months. There were 17.5 burglaries per 100 households.
• The proportion of households burgled in the South Island (except Canterbury) was
significantly lower than the national average. No other regions showed a statistically
significant difference, although Waikato had the highest prevalence rate.
• No statistically significant difference in the burglary prevalence rate was found between
different types of urban areas; however, the rate in rural settlements was significantly
lower than the national average.
138
• A strong relation was found between burglary prevalence rates and inhabitants’ feeling of
safety. Generally, households with higher levels of perceived safety had lower prevalence
rates than households with lower levels of perceived safety.
• No relation was found between the proportion of households that experienced burglaries
• The burglary prevalence rate was significantly higher than the national average for
households inhabited by either one parent with child(ren) or by one parent with child(ren)
and other person(s).
• The burglary prevalence rate was significantly lower than the national average for
households inhabited by a couple without children.
• Generally, the burglary prevalence rate increases with the increase of children in the
household.
• In rented households owned by government, the burglary prevalence rate is significantly
higher than the national average.
Lifetime Intimate Partner Violence

• More than half a million people (16% of adults) experienced one or more incidents of IPV
at some point during their lives.
• Females (21%) were more likely than males (10%) to have experienced one or more
incidents of IPV at some point during their lives.
• Victims experienced almost equal proportions of deliberately used force or violence
(13%) and threats to use force or violence (12%).
• Māori are more likely to be victims of IPV than the national average, while Asian people
are less likely.
• Geographically, the highest proportions of people who experienced IPV at some point
during their lifetime were found in the Tasman and Northland areas, although the
difference is not statistically significant.
• The above findings do not change when considering deliberately used force and threat to
use force separately.
Lifetime sexual violence

• More than 900,000 people (23% of adults) experienced one or more incidents of sexual
violence at some point during their lives.
• Females (34%) were almost three times more likely than males (12%) to have
experienced one or more incidents of sexual violence at some point during their lives.
• Māori are more likely to be victims of lifetime sexual violence than the national average,
while Asian people (including Chinese and Indian) are less likely.
• Geographically, only one region (Wellington) has a significantly higher proportion of
people who experienced sexual violence during their lifetime.
• Most of these findings do not change while considering forced intercourse and non-
consensual sexual touching separately.
139
Distribution of crime
• Approximately 11% of adults experienced more than one crime incident over the last 12
months.
• Thirty percent of victims of household offences and 31% of victims of personal crime
were victimised more than once within 12 months.
• Thirty-seven percent of victims of interpersonal violence were victimised more than once
within 12 months; 15% were victimised five or more times.
• These 15% were victims of more than half of all interpersonal violence incidents.
• Four percent of victims of household offences and 10% of victims of personal crime were
victimised five or more times within 12 months.
• Almost half (47%) of all crime incidents were experienced by only 4% of adults.
• Three of every four family violence incidents and four of every five IPV incidents were
experienced by repeatedly victimised people.
• The proportion of repeatedly victimised people is comparatively lower for fraud and
cybercrime (15% of victims), theft and property damage (18% of victims), and vehicle
offences (11% of victims). For property crime, the highest proportion of repeat
victimisation was found for burglaries (23% of victims).
Crimes driven by discrimination

• Overall, about 20% of all incidents are perceived to happen because of the offender’s
attitude towards the victim’s race/ethnicity, sex, age, sexuality, religion or disability.
• A much higher proportion of personal offences (26%) were perceived as driven by
discrimination compared with household offences (6%).
• Attitude towards the sex of the victim was perceived as the most frequent offence driver
(14% of all incidents and 19% of personal offences).
• More than one third of violent interpersonal offences were perceived as driven by
discrimination. Attitude towards the sex of the victim (30%) was the major perceived
driver.
• Four out of five sexual offences were perceived as driven by discrimination. Attitude
towards the sex of the victim (70%) was the major perceived driver.
• One in four intimate partner violence incidents were perceived as driven by
discrimination. Again, attitude towards the sex of the victim was the major perceived
driver.
Selected drivers of family violence

• Argument is the most often perceived reason for all family violence incidents (44%). It is
followed by jealousy (33% for all family violence incidents and 40% for IPV violence).
• Two out of five family violence incidents happened when an offender was under the
influence of alcohol and/or drugs. Alcohol was involved in one of every three incidents,
while drugs were involved in one of every four incidents.
140
• Victims were under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs in 12% of all family violence
incidents. This proportion increases to 17% for IPV violence.
Consequences of crime
• This will be reported in a topical report later this year.
Reporting crime
• Less than a quarter (23%) of all crime was reported to the Police over the last 12 months.
• This proportion is twice as high for household offences (34%) compared to personal
offences (17%).
• Theft of/unlawful takes/converts of motor vehicle is the offence most commonly reported
to the Police over the last 12 months (82%). Also, theft of/from motor vehicles as well as
vehicle offences as a group were reported more often than the national average of 23%.
• Burglaries (36%) were also reported more often than the national average.
• Fraud/deception and cybercrime are the offences least commonly reported to the Police
(7%).
• No statistically significant difference was found for reporting family violence (27%).
• No statistically significant difference was found between reporting other types of offences
and the national average. Note: The reporting rate for sexual offences was suppressed
due to the low level of accuracy. Sexual assaults were included in the assault and
robbery offence type (reporting rate 18%).
• No significant difference was found between reporting to the Police by male and female
victims.
• Gay, lesbian or bisexual victims are less likely to report to the Police than the national
average.
• Students who are not employed are less likely to report to the Police than the national
average.
• There is no clear trend in reporting to the Police by age group. The lowest level (below
20%) was found for younger people (aged 15–19 and 20–29) and in older people (aged
60–64). The highest level (31%) was found for people aged 30–39.
• Generally, people in more deprived areas are more likely to report to the Police. The
difference, however, is not statistically significant.
• Although not statistically significant, the following differences in reporting to the Police
were found:
– Separated or divorced people were more likely than others to report to the Police.
– Households with children were more likely to report to the Police than households
without children.
– People with higher levels of life satisfaction were slightly more likely to report to the
Police.
141
– People with higher levels of perceived safety were slightly less likely to report to the
Police.
• There is no significant difference in reporting to the Police by ethnicity, location, family
status, disability status, level of psychological distress and level of financial pressure.
• People were more likely reporting to the Police when offenders were intimate partners of
victims and less likely when offenders were other family members. The difference,
however, is not statistically significant.
• Generally, people’s perception about the seriousness of an incident significantly affects
the level of reporting to the Police.
• Overall, if people perceive that the incident was a crime, they are significantly more likely
than the national average to report it to the Police. Conversely, when people believe that
the incident is “just something that happened” they report it to the Police significantly less
often.
Family violence victims’ experiences

• A significant majority (more than 90%) of family violence victims are aware of support
organisations.
• The most known support organisations are Women’s Refuge, Victim Support and
Citizens Advice Bureaus.
• Only one in six family violence victims are aware of the Victims of Crime Information Line.
• Only a small proportion of those aware of the support organisations actually contacted
them. Even well-known support organisations were contacted by only 10–12% of victims.
• Significantly more family violence victims are seeking help from other family members
than from organisations providing formal support.
• The vast majority (94%) of those seeking help from their family/whānau received help.
• The type of help that victims were most often looking for was somebody to talk to.
However, a significant proportion of victims also received more specific help.
• The reasons most often given for not contacting support organisations were “Did not
need help” (30%), “Wanted to handle it myself” (22%) and “Private matter” (17%).
• Seven percent did not know where to go, and 14% did not mention any reason for not
contacting support.
• Among those who decided not to seek help from their family/whānau, 31% did it because
they felt they did not need help, 21% because they wanted to handle it themselves and
17% because it was a “private matter”.
142
Appendix B: Brief survey
methodology
Below is an overview of the key methodological aspects of the NZCVS. More details about
how the NZCVS was conducted in 2018 can be found in the NZCVS methodology report.26
Table A2.1: Key features of the NZCVS methodology
Key feature Description
Overview Nationwide, face-to-face random probability survey, with one

respondent selected per household using multistage stratified
cluster sampling methods.
Target population Total usually resident, non-institutionalised, civilian population of

New Zealand aged 15 and over.
Sampled areas North Island, South Island and Waiheke Island.
Dwellings included Permanent, private dwellings.
Sample composition Two samples were drawn as part of the NZCVS: a general or
“main sample” and a Māori booster sample that aimed to
increase sample size for Māori.
Sample size Main sample: 7,574
Māori booster sample: 3,858
Total sample: 11,432
Response rates Main sample: 81%
Māori booster sample: 80%
Total sample: 81%
Interviewing period 1 March 2018 to 7 October 2018
Average interview length 21 minutes and 33 seconds
Recall period 12 months preceding the date of the interview 27
Coding crimes/offences In the NZCVS, questions were asked about different things
(incidents) that might have happened to the respondent or their
household. These incidents were then coded by legal experts to
determine whether or not the incident was a crime, and what
type of offence (or offences) occurred.
26 See the methodology report online at

fin.pdf
27 While most questions use the recall period 12 months preceding the date of the interview, there
were some that referred to a different period (eg, the in-depth module questions on lifetime prevalence
of sexual assault and offences by a partner).
143
Important: The NZCVS does not directly ask survey
participants about crimes that happened to them. This is
because people don’t always:
• view some things that happen as crimes
• know what are legally considered crimes and what aren’t.
Weighting Two types of weighting were applied: household weights and

person weights.
Imputation Missing income data were imputed using the nearest neighbour
hot deck algorithm. Missing victim forms were imputed from the
distribution of offence codes associated with the scenario that
generated the incident.
Survey structure and questionnaire

The NZCVS consists of a core module that includes crime and victimisation questions that
repeat every year, and additional in-depth modules on different topical subjects that change
from year to year. A family violence in-depth module was selected for 2018, the first time that
the NZCVS was conducted. The survey design was developed after extended consultations
with key stakeholders.
Depending on the sensitivity of the questions, the answers may be collected either through
computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI), where interviewers enter respondents’
answers into a laptop, or through computer-assisted self-interviewing (CASI), where
respondents are handed the laptop and can enter their own responses. CASI is used for
highly sensitive questions and CAPI for less sensitive ones.
The following table provides an outline of the questionnaire sections and the topics covered
in each section.
Table A2.2: Topics covered in the NZCVS questionnaire
Section Questions Interviewing

mode
Initial demographics • sex CAPI

• age
• partnership status
• marital status
• life satisfaction/satisfaction with safety
CAPI victim screener • household and personal offences screener CAPI

questions questions (excludes inter-personal violence
(including sexual violence), harassment and
threatening behaviour)
CASI victim screener • inter-personal violence (includes sexual CASI

questions violence), harassment and threatening
behaviour
144
Family/whānau in-depth • controlling partner behaviours CASI
module screener
questions
Lifetime prevalence • lifetime experience of sexual assault/IPV CASI
General victim form • same/series of offences CAPI for

questions incidents
• date of offence
relating to CAPI
• incident description screeners and
• location of offence CASI for
incidents
• contact with the offender relating to CASI
• existence of Protection, Restraining, or Police screeners
Safety Orders
• offender’s attitude towards victim’s race,
sexuality, age, sex, religion and disability
• cost of crime
• insurance
• time off work
• reporting to Police
• injury and weapon use
• perceptions of seriousness of incident
Family/whānau violence • offender affected by alcohol/drugs CAPI for

victim form questions incidents
• victim affected by alcohol/drugs
relating to CAPI
• incident triggers screeners and
• type of injury CASI for
incidents
• severity of injury relating to CASI
• medical attention screeners
• emotional reactions
• impact of incident on victim
• presence of children
Family/whānau violence • support service awareness CASI

in-depth module
• contact with support services
• help/advice received from support services and
usefulness
• reasons for not seeking help from support
services
• help/advice received from family/whānau,
friends and neighbours and usefulness
• reasons for not seeking help from
family/whānau, friends and neighbours
• unmet need for help/advice relating to
family/whānau violence incidents
145
Main demographics • gender identity CAPI (with the
exception of
• sexual identity
gender and
• income sexual identity
• financial stress and income,
which are
• household composition administered
• ethnicity CASI)
• functional difficulties
• psychological distress
• employment status
• housing and tenure
Exit and re-contact • re-contact for audit CAPI

questions
• future research consent
• data linking
• interviewer observations
• respondent burden assessment
146
Ministry of Justice
Tāhū o te Ture
justice.govt.nz
info@justice.govt.nz
0800 COURTS
0800 268 787
National Office
Justice Centre | 19 Aitken St
DX SX10088 | Wellington | New Zealand
148

NZ Crime and Victim Survey Final Report 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NZ Crime and Victim Survey Final Report 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Key findings

Cycle 1 (March - September 2018)

Crown copyright © 2019

The NZCVS reporting framework is presented below.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Topline Methodology Topline Methodology Topline Methodology

Topical reports Topical reports Topical reports

Figure 1: NZCVS reporting framework

Approximately 1,777,000 offences were identified over the

On average, there were 32 household offences per 100

About 355,000 households experienced one or more

People aged 65 and over (18%) were less likely to be victims

Māori (37%) were more likely to be victims of crime than the

Chinese people (19%) were less likely to be victims of crime

A higher level of life satisfaction is associated with lower

A higher level of perceived safety is associated with lower

Neither disabled nor non-disabled people were more or less

Moderate and high levels of psychological distress are both

People living in three major urban areas had no statistically

Higher area deprivation is associated with higher

People with a high level of financial hardship are more likely

Interpersonal Almost 300,000 adults experienced interpersonal violence page 58

These victims were victimised more than 747,000 times.

Nineteen personal violence incidents happened for every 100

More than one quarter of incidents related to sexual assaults,

The proportion of female victims of family violence (71%)

More than 40% of all victims are between 15 and 29 years

The number of family violence incidents per 100 adults among

More than 30,000 adults were victimised by partners, more

Psychological More than 100,000 adults (3.6%) experienced psychological page 66

The most frequent type of psychological violence is stopping

Māori and those aged between 15 and 29 years old are

Females made up 71% of the victims and suffered from 80%

Every two of three sexually assaulted people are between 15

Females (21%) were more likely than males (10%) to have

More than 900,000 people (23% of adults) experienced one or

Females (34%) were almost three times more likely than

Māori are more likely to be victims of lifetime sexual violence

Non-violent Almost 400,000 people (about 7.5% of adults) experienced page 86

More than 200,000 adults were victims of one or more fraud

Property crime Approximately 577,000 property crime incidents happened page 90

Approximately 355,000 households (20% of all New Zealand

There were approximately 32 property crime incidents per

New Zealand households experienced 73,000 theft and

Thirty-seven percent of victims of interpersonal violence were

Four percent of victims of household offences and 10% of

More than one third of violent interpersonal offences were

About one in three incidents of current-partner violence is

Theft of/unlawful takes/converts of motor vehicle is the

Burglaries (36%) are also reported more often than the

Fraud/deception and cybercrime are the offences least

People’s perception about the seriousness of an incident

The reasons most often given for not contacting support

The NZCVS is a nationwide, face-to-face, annual, random-sample survey asking New

1.1 Survey objectives

1.2 Survey scope

In/out of scope Description

Not covered in the • manslaughter and murder

1.3 Key terms and definitions

Table 1.2: Key terms and definitions

Key terms Definitions

Crime A general description of an act or omission that constitutes an offence and is

Adults Refers to people aged 15 or over.

Incidence An estimated total number of offences.

Theft (from motor vehicle)  33