Australian Bureau of Statistics

Rate the ABS website
ABS Home > Statistics > By Release Date
ABS @ Facebook ABS @ Twitter ABS RSS ABS Email notification service
4524.0 - In Focus: Crime and Justice Statistics, July 2012  
Previous ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 25/07/2012   
   Page tools: Print Print Page Print all pages in this productPrint All RSS Feed RSS Bookmark and Share Search this Product  
Contents >> Exploring relationships between crime victimisation and social wellbeing >> Socio-Demographic Characteristics - Household Composition

On this page:
Household Composition
Generalised trust
Trust in the police
Ability to have a say in the community
Ability to raise emergency money
Length of time in current home
Frequency of contact with friends or family
Whether had attended a community event
Ability to get support in times of crisis
Conclusion

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

Household composition is another socio-demographic variable that may potentially mediate the link between experiences of crime victimisation and social wellbeing outcomes. This analysis examined five selected household types (footnote 1): couples with children, couples with no children, one parent families, group households and lone person households. Households with more than one family and other types of one family households were not included in the analysis due to high relative standard errors (attributable to the low occurrence of these household types).

Of all the socio-demographic variables, the greatest variability of social wellbeing indicators was found when comparing the household composition of victims of the selected crimes, with eight indicators differing significantly across household types. These were:

  • generalised trust,
  • trust in the police,
  • ability to have a say in the community,
  • ability to raise emergency money,
  • length of time in current dwelling,
  • frequency of contact with friends or family,
  • whether had attended a community event, and
  • ability to get support in times of crisis.

Overall, victims of actual or attempted break-in and/or physical or threatened violence in couple families (with or without children) tended to have better wellbeing outcomes than victims in one parent families and lone person households. This may be due to the availability of close adult support and connection in couple households as compared to one parent families and lone person households.

Generalised trust

Victims of actual or attempted break-in and/or physical or threatened violence in one parent families and lone person households (33.4% and 37.9%) were less likely to agree that people in general could be trusted than victims in couple households both with and without children (49.1% and 54%). The general population followed a similar trend; however, a smaller proportion of victims of the selected crimes in one parent families and lone person households agreed that people could be trusted than persons that had not experienced the selected crimes (45.8% and 54.5%).

17. PROPORTION OF PEOPLE WHO AGREE THAT IN GENERAL PEOPLE CAN BE TRUSTED by
WHETHER A VICTIM OF SELECTED CRIMES and HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION


Trust in the police

Victims of actual or attempted break-in and/or physical or threatened violence in one parent families were less likely to agree that the police can be trusted (44.0%) than victims in couple families both with and without children (58.9% and 60.8% respectively). Victims of the selected crimes in couple families without children were also more likely to agree that the police can be trusted than victims in lone person households (47.6%). In the general population, people in lone person households were less likely to agree that the police could be trusted than people in couple family households and people in group households. However, people in one parent families were only less likely to agree that the police could be trusted than people in couple families with children. When comparing victims of the selected crimes to persons that did not experience a selected crime across the different household types, victims were less likely to agree that police could be trusted in couple families with children (58.9% and 69.2% respectively), one parent families (44.0% and 67.2% respectively) and lone person households (47.6% and 57.3% respectively).

19. PROPORTION OF PEOPLE WHO AGREED THAT POLICE COULD BE TRUSTED by
WHETHER A VICTIM OF SELECTED CRIMES and HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION


Ability to have a say in the community

Victims of actual or attempted break-in and/or physical or threatened violence in couple families with children (44.1%) were less likely than victims in couple families without children (56.2%) and one parent families (60.8%) to feel they had a say in the community only a little or none of the time. This was different to the findings for the general population, where only one parent households differed significantly from the other household types. Victims of the selected crimes were more likely than persons that did not experience the selected crimes to feel they are able to have a say only a little or none of the time in couple families without children (56.2% and 41.1%) and one parent families (60.8% and 49.4%).

20. PROPORTION OF PEOPLE WHO DO NOT FEEL ABLE TO HAVE A SAY IN THE COMMUNITY by
WHETHER A VICTIM OF SELECTED CRIMES and HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION


Ability to raise emergency money

Victims of actual or attempted break-in and/or physical or threatened violence in couple families both with and without children were more likely to live in a household that could raise money in an emergency (78.9% and 88.2% respectively) than victims in one parent families (55.3%), group households (56.7%), and lone person households (65.9%). There was a similar pattern in the findings for the general population, however victims were less likely than persons not experiencing the selected crimes to be able to raise emergency money in couple families with children (78.9% and 88.5%), one parent families (55.3% and 69.1%) and lone person households (65.9% and 84.2%).

21. PROPORTION OF PEOPLE WHO WERE IN A HOUSEHOLD ABLE TO RAISE $2,000 IF NEEDED by
WHETHER A VICTIM OF SELECTED CRIMES and HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION


Length of time in current dwelling

Victims of actual or attempted break-in and/or physical or threatened violence in group households were more likely to have lived in their current dwelling for one year or less (55.2%) than victims in couple families both with and without children (16.3% and 26.0% respectively), one parent families (32.6%) and lone person households (19.3%). This followed the trend in the general population, however victims of the selected crimes were still more likely than persons that were not victims to have lived in their current dwelling for less than one year in couple families without children (26.0% and 13.7%), one parent families (32.6% and 13.9%) and lone person households (19.3% and 10.4%).

22. PROPORTION OF PEOPLE WHO HAD SPENT LESS THAN ONE YEAR IN THEIR CURRENT
HOME by WHETHER A VICTIM OF SELECTED CRIMES and HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION


Frequency of contact with friends or family

Victims of actual or attempted break-in and/or physical or threatened violence in one parent families (72.8%) were more likely to have contact with family and close friends every day, than victims in couple families both with and without children (56.1% and 52.7% respectively) and lone person households (48.8%). This is consistent with the trend in the general population, however victims of the selected crimes were more likely to have contact with friends or family every day than persons that did not experience the selected crimes in couple families without children (52.7% and 41.9%) and one parent families (72.8% and 52.1%).

23. PROPORTION OF PEOPLE WHO HAD CONTACT EVERY DAY WITH FAMILY AND CLOSE FRIENDS
by WHETHER A VICTIM OF SELECTED CRIMES and HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION


Whether had attended a community event

Victims of actual or attempted break-in and/or physical or threatened violence in couple families both with and without children (79.2% and 74.8%) were more likely to have attended a community event in the six months prior to interview than victims in lone person households (57.1%) and one parent families (60.2%). Victims of the selected crimes in group households (75.6%) were also more likely to have attended a community event than victims in lone person households (57.1%). While the general population followed a similar pattern, victims of the selected crimes were more likely than persons that did not experience the selected crimes to have attended a community event in couple families both with children (79.2% and 70.2%) and without children (74.8% and 61.7%).

24. PROPORTION OF PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED A COMMUNITY EVENT IN THE PREVIOUS
SIX MONTHS by WHETHER A VICTIM OF SELECTED CRIMES and HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION


Ability to get support in times of crisis

Victims of actual or attempted break-in and/or physical or threatened violence in lone person households (89.8%) were less likely than victims in couple households with children (95.4%) to be able to get support in times of crisis. This followed the general population trend and there were no statistically significant differences between persons who experienced a selected crime and persons that did not experience a selected crime in any of the household composition categories.

CONCLUSION

Generally, victims of actual or attempted break-in and/or physical or threatened violence in couple families (with or without children) tended to have better wellbeing outcomes than victims in one parent families and lone person households. Often patterns for the victims of the selected crimes followed the trend in the general population, there were still differences between victims and persons not experiencing the selected crimes, with victims of selected crimes having poorer social wellbeing outcomes.

FOOTNOTES

1. A selection of household composition categories are based on various family and household compositions. Categories presented are:
  • Couple family without children - a household consisting of a couple with no other related or unrelated persons usually resident. Households which also have other related or unrelated residents are not included.
  • Couple family with children - a household consisting of a couple and at least one child usually resident in the household. Households which also have other related or unrelated residents are not included.
  • One parent family - a household consisting of a lone parent and at least one child usually resident in the household. Households which also have other related or unrelated usual residents are not included.
  • Lone person household - a household consisting of a person living alone
  • Group household - a household consisting of two or more unrelated adults. Back

Previous PageNext Page

Bookmark and Share. Opens in a new window


Commonwealth of Australia 2014

Unless otherwise noted, content on this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Australia Licence together with any terms, conditions and exclusions as set out in the website Copyright notice. For permission to do anything beyond the scope of this licence and copyright terms contact us.