Who is most at risk?

This research paper analyses data from the 2007 National Crime and Victimisation Survey to identify characteristics and factors that influence the likelihood of experiencing different types of crime in South Africa. Using regression modelling, the author examines demographic, geographic, socio-economic, security, and environmental variables to determine their impact on housebreaking, property theft, theft from vehicles, robbery, and assault.

• In the 12 months preceding the 2007 survey, 20 per cent of respondents experienced some type of crime, either personally or as a member of their household. Property crime was the most common, experienced by 81 per cent of victims, compared to 23 per cent who experienced violent crime.
• For housebreaking, the highest risk was associated with Coloured respondents, those living in KwaZulu-Natal, larger households, and those in rural areas under traditional authority. Conversely, White respondents, those in the Free State, and smaller households were least at risk.
• Property theft was most prevalent among Africans, men, 16 to 25 year olds, widows, and those living in Gauteng and urban areas. Indians, women, and respondents over 65 were found to be least at risk.
• Theft from vehicles showed a strong correlation with race, with Indian and White respondents significantly more likely to be victimised than Africans. This may be linked to higher car ownership rates among these groups.
• Robbery risk was highest for Africans, men, respondents over 65, single respondents, and those living in the Western Cape and urban areas. White respondents, women, and those in Mpumalanga were least at risk.
• Assault victimisation was most common among White respondents, men, 16 to 25 year olds, divorced or separated respondents, and those in the Northern Cape and urban areas. Coloured respondents, women, and those in the Free State were least at risk.
• The presence of security-oriented organisations—such as security companies, neighbourhood watches, street committees, or vigilante groups—consistently reduced the likelihood of victimisation across all five crime types studied.
• Police visibility and the adoption of target hardening measures (such as home security or self-defence) showed inconsistent or counter-intuitive effects on victimisation levels, suggesting they may not be strong deterrents or that their presence correlates with high-crime areas.
• Community cohesion generally reduces the likelihood of victimisation, particularly for housebreaking and theft from vehicles, as it makes it more difficult for criminals to operate unnoticed.
• The regression models demonstrated poor overall explanatory power, with the strongest model (theft from vehicles) explaining only 27 per cent of the variation and the weakest (housebreaking) explaining less than 10 per cent. This suggests that most South Africans face a high baseline risk regardless of individual characteristics.

APA

Pharoah, R. (2009). Who is most at risk? Institute for Security Studies. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/Paper182.pdf

Chicago

Pharoah, Robyn. Who is most at risk? Institute for Security Studies, 2009. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/Paper182.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Pharoah |first1=Robyn |title=Who is most at risk? |publisher=Institute for Security Studies |date=April 2009 |url=https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/Paper182.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{pharoah2009who, author = {Pharoah, Robyn}, title = {{Who is most at risk?}}, institution = {Institute for Security Studies}, year = {2009}, month = apr, url = {https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/Paper182.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }