Hate crime, cyber security and the experience of crime among children: Findings from the 2010/11 British Crime Survey Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11
Source: data.gov.uk (2014-03-04)

This supplementary volume explores topics from the 2010/11 British Crime Survey and provides analysis of the extent of and perceptions towards hate crime, use of the internet and cyber security and experimental statistics on the experience of crime among children aged 10 to 15.

Supplemen
Hate crime, cyber security 
and the experience of crime 
among children: Findings 
from the 2010/11 British 
Crime Survey:  
Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 
2010/11 
Kevin Smith (Ed.), Deborah Lader, Jacqueline Hoare and Ivy 
Lau   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
March 2012                                                                  06/12 
 
 
 
Home Office Statistical Bulletin 
Statistical Bulletins are prepared by 
staff in Home Office Statistics under 
the National Statistics Code of 
Practice and can be downloaded 
from both the UK Statistics Authority 
website and the Home Office 
website:  
http://www.statistics.gov.uk  
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-
research 
© Crown Copyright 2012  
You may re-use this information (not 
including logos) free of charge in 
any format or medium, under the 
terms of the Open Government 
Licence. To view this licence, visit  
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/o
pen-government-licence/  
or write to the Information Policy 
Team, The National Archives, Kew, 
London, TW9 4DU or e-mail:  
xxx@xxx.xx 
ISSN 1759-7005 
ISBN 978 1 84987 728 2 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2

Hate crime, cyber security and the 
experience of crime among children: 
Findings from the 2010/11 British 
Crime Survey 
Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 
Kevin Smith (Ed.), Deborah Lader, Jacqueline Hoare and Ivy Lau   
ISSN 1759-7005 
ISBN 978 1 84987 728-2 
March 2012
3

Acknowledgements 
This publication and the accompanying web tables have been prepared by staff in the Crime Statistics 
Programme, which is part of the Home Office Statistics Unit of Home Office Science. The editor and 
authors are grateful for the support received from: Maya Bhudia, Andrew Britton, Richard Cheeseman, 
John Flatley, Jennifer Parfrement-Hopkins, Phil Hall, Jenny Innes, Rachel Murphy, Sarah Osborne 
and Tim Pateman. Special thanks are due to Irene Ogunbor who coordinated the production of the 
volume. 
 
The editor also thanks David Blunt, the Home Office Chief Statistician and Head of Profession for 
Statistics for his support and guidance during the preparation of this report. Thanks also to colleagues 
who commented on a draft report during quality assurance of this bulletin and to colleagues in the 
Communications Development Section who assisted in preparing the report. 
 
We would also like to thank staff involved in the work on the British Crime Survey (BCS) at TNS-
BMRB, the interviewers working on the BCS and members of the public who kindly agreed to take part 
in the survey. 
 
Further information 
 
Copies of other Home Office publications are available from the Home Office Science Internet 
pages: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/research-statistics/ 
The dates of forthcoming publications are pre-announced and can be found via the UK National 
Statistics Publication Hub: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/index.html 
For further information about the British Crime Survey and police recorded crime statistics, please 
email xxx@xxx.xx or write to:  
Home Office Statistics, 5th Floor, Peel Building, 2 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DF 
 
Home Office Responsible Statistician 
David Blunt, Chief Statistician and Head of Profession for Statistics 
Contact via xxx@xxx.xx 
The United Kingdom Statistics Authority has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in 
accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with 
the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. Designation can be broadly interpreted to mean that the 
statistics: meet identified user needs; are well explained and readily accessible; are produced 
according to sound methods; and are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest. 
Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics it is a statutory requirement that the 
Code of Practice shall continue to be observed. 
 
This statistical bulletin is produced to the highest professional standards and is free from political 
interference. It has been produced by statisticians working in the Home Office Statistics Unit in 
accordance with the Home Office’s Statement of Compliance with the Code of Practice for Official 
Statistics, which covers our policy on revisions and other matters. The Home Office Statistics Unit 
works under the direct line management of the Home Office Chief Statistician, who reports to the 
National Statistician with respect to all professional statistical matters. From April 2012 publication 
of Crime Statistics bulletins will transfer to the Office for National Statistics. 
This publication should be read in conjunction with the User Guide to Home Office Crime Statistics, 
a useful reference guide with explanatory notes regarding the issues and classifications which are 
key to the production and presentation of the crime statistics: 
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-
research/user-guide-crime-statistics/ 
4

Contents 
Page 
Introduction 
 ......................................................................................................................................  7 
Conventions used in figures and tables  ...........................................................................................  8 
List of figures  ......................................................................................................................................  9 
List of tables  ....................................................................................................................................  10 
 
Chapter 1 
The extent of and perceptions towards hate crime ...............................................  13 
Deborah Lader 
1.1 Summary ...............................................................................................................  13 
1.2 Introduction ...........................................................................................................  14 
1.3 Extent of hate crime ..............................................................................................  17 
1.4 Repeat victimisation ..............................................................................................  19 
1.5 Reporting hate crime ............................................................................................  20 
1.6 Victim satisfaction with the police .........................................................................  20 
1.7 Effects of hate crime .............................................................................................  22 
1.8 Worry about hate crime and perceptions of the likelihood of victimisation ...........  23 
1.9 Age and gender-motivated hate crime .................................................................  25 
1.10 Other sources of hate crime data .......................................................................  25 
 
Chapter 2 
Use of the internet and cyber security ...................................................................  41 
Jacqueline Hoare 
2.1 Summary ...............................................................................................................  41 
2.2 Introduction ...........................................................................................................  42 
2.3 Levels of internet use ............................................................................................  42 
2.4 What the internet is used for .................................................................................  43 
2.5 Worry about security of personal details ..............................................................  45 
5

Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime England and Wales 2010/2011 
2.6 Protecting personal details ...................................................................................  46 
2.7 Perceived barriers to internet use .........................................................................  48 
2.8 Negative experiences while using the internet .....................................................  50 
 
Chapter 3 
Experimental statistics on the experience of crime among children aged           
10 to 15 .......................................................................................................................  65 
Ivy Lau and Jacqueline Hoare 
3.1 Summary ...............................................................................................................  65 
3.2 Introduction ...........................................................................................................  66 
3.3 The nature of violence ..........................................................................................  67 
3.4 The nature of theft ................................................................................................  70 
3.5 Variation in victimisation rates among children ....................................................  72 
 
Bibliography  ....................................................................................................................................  83 
 
6

Introduction 
This bulletin is the third and final in a series of supplementary volumes that accompany the main 
annual Home Office Statistical Bulletin, ‘Crime in England and Wales 2010/11’ (Chaplin et al., 2011). 
These supplementary volumes report on additional analysis not included in the main annual 
publication.  
This bulletin covers three topic areas. These are: 
The extent of and perceptions towards hate crime 
This chapter contains analysis of figures from the 2009/10 and 2010/11 British Crime Surveys, 
including extent and reporting of hate crime, its effects on victims and victim satisfaction with the 
police. It also looks at a range of public perception measures relating to hate crime. Questions were 
asked of adults aged 16 or over in England and Wales. 
Use of the internet and cyber security 
This chapter contains information from the 2010/11 British Crime Survey on levels of internet use, 
concerns people may have about using the internet, and any measures taken to protect personal 
details when using the internet. Variations by age and sex are highlighted throughout the chapter. 
Questions were asked of adults aged 16 or over in England and Wales. 
Experimental statistics on the experience of crime among children aged 10 to 15 
This chapter is based on data collected from 10 to 15 year olds who took part in the 2010/11 British 
Crime Survey. Questions were asked of children in England and Wales who had experienced a crime 
about the circumstances of the incident, any details on the offender(s) and their views of the incident. 
Experimental statistics is a designation for statistics still in a development phase.  
 
7

Conventions used in figures and tables 
Table abbreviations 
‘0’ 
indicates no response in that particular category or less than 0.5% (this does not apply when 
percentages are presented to one decimal point). 
‘n/a’ indicates that the BCS question was not applicable or not asked in that particular year. 
‘-’ 
indicates that the BCS data are not reported because the unweighted base is less than 50. 
‘**’ 
indicates for BCS that the change is statistically significant at the five per cent level. Where an 
apparent change over time is not statistically significant this is noted in the text. 
Unweighted base 
All BCS percentages and rates presented in the tables are based on data weighted to compensate for 
differential non response. Tables show the unweighted base which represents the number of 
people/households interviewed in the specified group. 
Percentages 
Row or column percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. 
Most BCS tables present cell percentages where the figures refer to the percentage of 
people/households who have the attribute being discussed and the complementary percentage, to add 
to 100%, is not shown. 
A percentage may be quoted in the text for a single category that is identifiable in the tables only by 
summing two or more component percentages. In order to avoid rounding errors, the percentage has 
been recalculated for the single category and therefore may differ by one percentage point from the 
sum of the percentages derived from the tables. 
Year-labels on BCS figures and tables 
Year-labels on BCS figures and tables identify the BCS year of interview. Respondents’ experience of 
crime relates to the 12 full months prior to interview (i.e. a moving reference period).  
‘No answers’ (missing values) 
All BCS analysis excludes don’t know/refusals unless otherwise specified. 
Numbers of BCS incidents 
Estimates are rounded to the nearest 10,000. 
 
 
 
8

 
 
List of figures 
Chapter 1 
The extent of and perceptions towards hate crime ...............................................  13 
 
Figure 1.1 
Victim satisfaction with the police, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS ..................................  21 
Figure 1.2 
Emotional impact of hate crime incident, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS ........................  22 
Figure 1.3 
Perceptions of crime by ethnic group, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS .............................  24 
 
Chapter 2 
Use of the internet and cyber security ...................................................................  41 
 
Figure 2.1 
Types of activities that the internet is used for among internet users aged 16 
and over, 2010/11 BCS ..............................................................................................  44 
Figure 2.2 
Variation by age in use of activities among internet users aged 16 and over, 
2010/11 BCS ...............................................................................................................  44 
Figure 2.3 
Proportion of internet users aged 16 and over taking measures to protect 
personal details online, 2010/11 BCS.........................................................................  47 
Figure 2.4 
Proportion of internet users aged 16 and over who experienced a computer 
virus in the last 12 months by age, sex and internet usage, 2010/11 BCS ................  51 
 
Chapter 3 
Experimental statistics on the experience of crime among children aged           
10 to 15 .......................................................................................................................  65 
Figure 3.1 
Proportion of violent incidents experienced by children and adults by timing of 
incident, 2010/11 BCS ................................................................................................  68 
Figure 3.2 
Proportion of violent incidents experienced by children and adults by 
relationship to the offender, 2010/11 BCS ..................................................................  69 
Figure 3.3 
Variation in violence victimisation rate among children aged 10 to 15 by 
household income, 2010/11 BCS ...............................................................................  74 
 
9

List of tables 
Chapter 1 
The extent of and perceptions towards hate crime ...............................................  13 
Table 1a 
Percentage of incidents that were identified as hate crime by type of incident  .........  18 
Table 1.01 
Number of incidents of hate crime and all BCS crime, by monitored strand  .............  27 
Table 1.02 
Incidence rate of hate crime and all BCS crime, by monitored strand .......................  27 
Table 1.03 
Proportion of adults and households who were victims of hate crime and all BCS 
crime, by monitored strand  ........................................................................................  28 
Table 1.04 
Proportion of adults who were victims of hate crime and all BCS crime, by personal 
characteristics  ............................................................................................................  29 
Table 1.05 
Proportion of adults and households who were victims of hate crime and all BCS 
crime, by household and area characteristics  ...........................................................  30 
Table 1.06 
Proportion of adults who were victims of racially-motivated hate crime, by ethnic  
group  ..........................................................................................................................  31 
Table 1.07 
Proportion of adults who were victims of religion-motivated hate crime, by ethnic group 
and religion .................................................................................................................  32 
Table 1.08 
Proportion of adults who were victims of sexual-orientation-motivated hate crime, by 
age and sex  ...............................................................................................................  32 
Table 1.09 
Proportion of adults who were victims of disability-motivated hate crime, by 
employment status and presence of long-standing illness or disability ......................  33 
Table 1.10 
Number of times victims were victimised in previous year .........................................  33 
Table 1.11 
Proportion of BCS crime incidents reported to the police ...........................................  34 
Table 1.12 
Reasons for not reporting crime incident to the police ...............................................  34 
Table 1.13 
Satisfaction with police handling of crime incidents  ...................................................  35 
Table 1.14 
Emotional impact of crime incident  ............................................................................  35 
Table 1.15 
Perceptions of racially-motivated hate crime, by ethnic group  ..................................  36 
Table 1.16 
Age- and gender-motivated hate crime   ....................................................................  37 
Table 1.17 
Proportion of adults who were victims of age-motivated hate crime, by age and       
sex ..............................................................................................................................  38 
Table 1.18 
Proportion of adults who were victims of gender-motivated hate crime, by age and  
sex   ............................................................................................................................  39 
 
 
10

List of tables 
 
 
Chapter 2 
Use of the internet and cyber security ...................................................................  41 
Table 2a 
Negative experiences in the last year among internet users aged 16 and over ........  51 
Table 2.01 
Proportion of adults using the internet in the last year, by age and sex .....................  54 
Table 2.02 
Frequency of internet use among adults who used the internet in the last year, by age 
and sex .......................................................................................................................  55 
Table 2.03 
Internet activities among adults who used the internet in the last year, by age, sex and 
internet usage .............................................................................................................  56 
Table 2.04 
Proportion of adults who had used the internet in the last year for each activity who 
were worried about the security of personal details entered online for that activity ...  57 
Table 2.05 
Proportion of adults who had used the internet in the last year for each activity who 
were worried about the security of personal details entered online for that activity, by 
age, sex and internet usage .......................................................................................  58 
Table 2.06 
Measures taken by adults who used the internet in the last year to protect personal 
details online, by age, sex and internet usage ...........................................................  59 
Table 2.07a 
Reasons for not using the internet for buying goods or services among adults who 
used the internet in the last year, by age, sex and internet usage .............................  60 
Table 2.07b 
Reasons for not using the internet for online banking or managing finances among 
adults who used the internet in the last year, by age, sex and internet usage ...........  61 
Table 2.07c 
Reasons for not using the internet for online government services among adults who 
used the internet in the last year, by age, sex and internet usage .............................  62 
Table 2.08 
Negative experiences in the last year among internet users, by age, sex and internet 
usage ..........................................................................................................................  63 
 
Chapter 3 
Experimental statistics on the experience of crime among children aged  
10 to 15 .......................................................................................................................  65 
Table 3.01 
Experimental statistics: Where incidents experienced by children aged 10 to 15 took 
place ...........................................................................................................................  76 
Table 3.02 
Experimental statistics: Timing of when incidents experienced by children aged 10 to 
15 took place ...............................................................................................................  76 
Table 3.03 
Experimental statistics: Offender characteristics in incidents experienced by children 
aged 10 to 15 ..............................................................................................................  77 
Table 3.04 
Experimental statistics: What injuries were sustained in violent incidents experienced 
by children aged 10 to 15 ...........................................................................................  78 
Table 3.05 
Experimental statistics: What weapons were used in violent incidents experienced by 
children aged 10 to 15 ................................................................................................  78 
11

Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/2011 
 
 
Table 3.06 
Experimental statistics: Perceptions of incidents experienced by children aged 10 to 
15 ................................................................................................................................  79 
Table 3.07 
Experimental statistics: Who incidents experienced by children aged 10 to 15 were 
reported to ...................................................................................................................  79 
Table 3.08 
Experimental statistics: What items were stolen in thefts experienced by children aged 
10 to 15 .......................................................................................................................  80 
Table 3.09 
Experimental statistics: Proportion of children aged 10 to 15 who experienced 
victimisation in the last year, by personal characteristics ...........................................  81 
Table 3.10 
Experimental statistics: Proportion of children aged 10 to 15 who experienced 
victimisation in the last year, by household and area characteristics .........................  82 
 
12

 
 
1 The extent of and perceptions towards hate  
crime 
Deborah Lader 
1.1 
SUMMARY 
This chapter presents findings from the 2009/10 and 2010/11 British Crime Survey (BCS). Data from 
the two survey years have been combined to provide more robust estimates of hate crime. Hate crime 
is any crime which is perceived as having been motivated (entirely or partially) by a hostility or 
prejudice to a personal characteristic or perceived personal characteristic, such as ethnicity or religion. 
 The 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS showed that 0.5 per cent of adults were victims of hate crime1 in 
the 12 months prior to interview. A similar percentage were victims of personal hate crime and 
household hate crime (0.2%). In comparison, 22 per cent of adults were victims of at least one 
BCS crime overall. 
 The monitored strand most commonly perceived by the victim as an offender’s motivation for 
committing a crime was the victim’s race (accounting for an estimated 136,000 incidents on 
average per year).  
 Hate crime was more likely to be repeatedly experienced for household crime offences than for 
personal crime offences; 37 per cent of victims of household hate crime had been victimised 
more than once, compared with 19 per cent of victims of personal hate crime. This difference is 
larger than that found in the BCS overall (29% of victims of BCS household crime were repeat 
victims, compared with 21% of victims of BCS personal crime). 
 The police were more likely to come to know about hate crime than BCS crime overall; 49 per 
cent of incidents of hate crime came to the attention of the police compared with 39 per cent of 
incidents of BCS crime overall. 
 Fifty-three per cent of hate crime victims were satisfied with the police handling of the hate 
crime incident (33% were very satisfied and 21% were fairly satisfied) and 45 per cent were not 
satisfied. Victims of hate crime were less satisfied with this police contact than victims of BCS 
crime overall: 53 per cent and 69 per cent respectively were satisfied (very or fairly). 
 In only 45 per cent of incidents of hate crime, victims thought the police took the matter as 
seriously as they should, compared with 65 per cent of incidents of BCS crime overall. 
 Victims of hate crime were less likely to think the police had treated them fairly or with respect, 
compared with victims of BCS crime overall. For example, in 63 per cent of hate crime incidents 
victims thought the police treated them fairly, compared with 79 per cent of incidents of BCS 
crime overall. Similarly, in 76 per cent of incidents of hate crime, victims thought the police 
treated them with respect, compared with 89 per cent of incidents of BCS crime overall.  
 Victims of hate crime were more likely than victims of BCS crime overall to say they were 
emotionally affected by the incident (92% and 86% respectively). 
                                                 
1 Monitored hate crime covers five ‘strands’: disability; race; religion/faith; sexual orientation; and gender-identity. The BCS asks 
about the first 4 of these. Questions on gender identity were added to the BCS in 2011/12. See Section 1.2 for further 
discussion of hate strands. 
13

Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 
 
1.2 INTRODUCTION 
This is the first Home Office Statistics publication to produce information on hate crime, although 
breakdowns of overall crime and individual crime types have been shown by different characteristics 
(age, sex, ethnicity, etc.) in previous publications (Chaplin et al., 2011, Botherby et al., 20112). 
Challenge it, Report it, Stop it: The Government’s Plan to Tackle Hate Crime3 sets out the challenges 
faced in tackling hate crime. It brings together activity by a wide range of Government Departments – 
working with local agencies and voluntary sector organisations, as well as with its Independent 
Advisory Group on Hate Crime – to meet three key objectives to: prevent hate crime happening in the 
first place; increase reporting and victims’ access to support; and improve the operational response to 
hate crimes.  
In 2007, the police, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Prison Service (now the National Offender 
Management Service) and other agencies that make up the criminal justice system agreed a common 
definition of ‘hate crime’ and five ‘strands’ that would be monitored centrally:  
‘Hate crime is defined as any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to 
be motivated by a hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.’ 
The five monitored strands are: 
 disability; 
 gender-identity; 
 race; 
 religion/faith; and  
 sexual orientation.4 
These characteristics are referred to as equality strands. Primarily, this was to ensure a consistent 
working definition to allow accurate recording and monitoring. Crimes based on hostility to age, 
gender, or appearance, for example, can also be hate crimes, although they are not centrally 
monitored. 
Hate crime can take many forms including: 
 physical attacks such as assault, grievous bodily harm and murder, damage to property, 
offensive graffiti and arson;  
 threat of attack including offensive letters, abusive or obscene telephone calls, groups hanging 
around to intimidate, and unfounded, malicious complaints; and 
 verbal abuse, insults or harassment − taunting, offensive leaflets and posters, abusive gestures, 
dumping of rubbish outside homes or through letterboxes, and bullying at school or in the 
workplace.  
                                                 
2 Botcherby, et al. (2011) conducted an analysis of a combined 2007/08, 2008/09 and 2009/10 BCS dataset to look at hate 
crime incidents in England and Wales for the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The research paper looked at 
different equality groups’ expectations about being insulted and their experience of intimidation, threats, violence and crime. 
It also analysed the experience and reporting of hate crime. 
3 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/crime/hate-crime-action-plan/ 
4 http://cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/hate_crime/index.html 
14

The extent of and perceptions towards hate crime 
 
Whether a crime or incident is hate-related has a subjective element as it relies on an individual’s 
perceptions and reporting of the incident and so what is included or excluded may vary between 
individuals.  
The police have been recording reported hate crimes since 1 April 2008 for the five monitored strands 
listed above. Figures (covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland for 2009) were first published by 
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in 2010, and figures for 2010 were published in 
September 2011.5 Further details can be found in Section 1.10. 
Measuring hate crime on the British Crime Survey  
The British Crime Survey (BCS) is a face-to-face victimisation survey in which people resident in 
households in England and Wales are asked about their experiences of crime in the 12 months prior 
to interview.6 Due to the low volume of hate crime offences the figures are too unreliable to report for a 
single year of the BCS. Data from two survey years (2009/10 and 2010/11) have therefore been 
combined to give more robust estimates by increasing the number of incidents available for analysis. 
Hence for the combined 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS, the analysis includes incidents experienced by 
respondents between April 2008 and February 2011. It should be noted that figures reported in this 
chapter are 12-month averages of the estimates from the two survey years and so are comparable 
with 12-month BCS estimates presented elsewhere in this and other Home Office Statistics bulletins. 
Given this longer reference period, there are limitations to how findings can be generalised to the 
population as a whole, so the findings should be used as a guide to the level of hate crime. 
The BCS question on whether an incident was motivated by race was first introduced in 1988, and has 
been kept as a separate question since then. BCS information on racially-motivated hate crime has 
been previously published in the Ministry of Justice’s publication on Race and the Criminal Justice 
System.7 
Religiously-motivated hate crime used to be asked about as a separate question (in the 2005/06 and 
2006/07 BCS) but was merged into the main BCS question when further hate crime questions 
referring to sexual orientation, age and disability were introduced in 2007/08. In 2009/10, gender was 
added as a motivation, and transgender or gender identity was added as a motivation to the 2011/12 
survey; hence results are not yet available. Details of the questions are in Box 1.1 overleaf. 
Police recorded crime provides good coverage of well-reported crimes committed against the public 
and enable police force level analysis of hate crime. The BCS crime estimates are higher than the 
number of crimes recorded by the police as the survey captures offences that are not reported to or 
recorded by the police. Together the BCS and police recorded crime provide a more comprehensive 
picture than could be obtained from either series alone. 
                                                 
5 http://www.acpo.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/ACPO-publishes-hate-crime-data-for-2010-111.aspx 
6 See Section 2.4 of the User Guide for details of reference periods. 
7 Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System available at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-
and-data//mojstats/stats-race-cjs-2010.pdf. 
15

Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 
 
Box 1.1 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS questions (Victimisation module) 
The following question was asked of all respondents who mentioned an incident in the screening 
module: 
Do you think the incident was RACIALLY motivated? 
 
Yes 
 
No 
 
Don’t Know 
 
Asked of all respondents who responded ‘Don’t know’ above: 
 
Was there anything about the incident that made you think it might have been RACIALLY 
motivated?  
 
Yes 
 
No 
 
The following question was asked of all respondents who mentioned an incident in the screening 
module: 
Looking at the things on this card do you think the incident was motivated by the offender’s 
attitude towards any of these factors?  
(Respondents were asked to choose all options from a card they were shown): 
 
 Your religion or religious beliefs 
 
 Your sexuality or sexual orientation 
 
 Your age 
 
 Your gender 
 
 Any disability you have 
 
 Don’t Know 
 
 None of these 
 
Asked of all respondents who responded ‘Don’t know’ above: 
 
Was there anything about the incident that made you think it MIGHT have been motivated by 
any of these factors?  
(Respondents were asked to choose all options from a card they were shown): 
 
 Your religion or religious beliefs 
 
 Your sexuality or sexual orientation 
 
 Your age 
 
 Your gender 
 
 Any disability you have 
 
 None of these 
 
Limitations of the BCS questions 
The BCS does not ask about hate crime directly as the concept is not well understood by the public 
and is likely to lead to under-reporting. Instead, victims are asked about their perception of the 
offender’s motivation for the incident which is an indirect measure as it represents the victim’s 
perceptions of the offender’s motivation for the crime. This may result in some over-reporting since it is 
possible that some crimes considered here as hate crimes may actually be more a result of the 
victim’s vulnerability to crime, for example, distraction burglary, or an assumption on the victim’s behalf 
that the crime was motivated by the offender’s attitude. Conversely, a victim might be unaware that 
they were targeted due to a personal characteristic covered by the hate crime strands.  
The BCS may over- or under-represent people who are more susceptible to hate crime. For example, 
people with a disability might find it more difficult to take part in the survey if their disability impacts on 
16

The extent of and perceptions towards hate crime 
 
their ability to communicate in particular. Conversely, response rates to the survey might be higher 
among victims than non-victims as the topic seems more relevant to them.  
Moreover, there may also be other characteristics underlying those covered by the equality strands 
which mean that the victim is more at risk of particular crime types. For example, findings from the 
BCS have consistently shown that young people aged 16 to 24 are more likely to be victims of crime 
and it is known that particular Black and Minority Ethnic groups have a lower age profile than that for 
the general population in England and Wales.  
It should also be noted that although the BCS asks whether or not the victim perceived the incident to 
be motivated by an equality strand (for example, his or her disability status), it is possible in the cases 
of household crimes that it was someone else in the household that has the characteristic.  
1.3 
EXTENT OF HATE CRIME 
According to the 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS, there were around 260,000 incidents of hate crime a 
year, compared with around 9,561,000 incidents of crime overall in the BCS8 (Table 1.01). 
Of the monitored strands asked about in the 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS (race, religion, sexual 
orientation and disability), the strand most commonly perceived as an offender’s motivation for 
committing a crime was the offender’s attitude to the victim’s race (around 136,000 incidents on 
average a year). The equality strand least commonly perceived as an offender’s motivation for 
committing a crime was the victim’s religion (Table 1.01). 
Incidents relating to the offender’s attitude towards the victim’s age and gender, which are not 
monitored strands, are shown in Section 1.9. 
The BCS provides estimates of the levels of personal and household crimes experienced by adults in 
England and Wales. Personal crimes relate to all crimes against the individual and only relate to the 
respondent’s own personal experience (not that of other people in the household). Household crimes 
are considered to be all property-related crimes and respondents are asked whether anyone currently 
residing in the household has experienced any incidents within the reference period.9  
The 2009/10 and 2010/11 combined BCS shows there were around 151,000 incidents of personal 
hate crime and 109,000 incidents of household hate crime a year, compared with around 3,700,000 
incidents of personal crime and 5,861,000 incidents of household crime a year overall in the BCS 
(Table 1.01). 
Three per cent of crime incidents overall in the BCS (4% of BCS incidents of personal crime and 2% of 
BCS incidents of household crime) were perceived to be hate crime incidents. The proportion of 
incidents that were perceived to be hate crime varied by crime type from one per cent or fewer of 
household theft incidents to ten per cent of robbery incidents (Table 1a). 
                                                 
8 The 9,561,000 incidents of crime overall in the BCS is the average of the 9,503,000 and 9,618,000 incidents reported in the 
2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS. 
9 See Section 2.5 of the User Guide for a discussion of measures of BCS crime. 
17

Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 
 
Table 1a 
Percentage of incidents that were identified as hate crime, by type of incident 
Percentages
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Type of incident
Unweighted 
base 1
PERSONAL CRIME
Assault with minor injury or no injury
6
1,603
                    
Wounding
6
608
                        
Robbery
10
350
                        
Theft from person
1
876
                        
Other theft of personal property
1
1,579
                    
ALL PERSONAL CRIME
4
5,016
                    
HOUSEHOLD CRIME
Vandalism
3
6,145
                    
Burglary
3
2,002
                    
Vehicle-related theft
0
3,651
                    
Bicycle theft
1
1,538
                    
Other household theft
1
3,722
                    
ALL HOUSEHOLD CRIME
2
17,058
                  
ALL BCS CRIME
3
22,074
                  
% of incidents that were 
perceived as hate crime
 
1. Base is all BCS crime incidents. 
According to the 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS there were an estimated:  
 thirty-four incidents per 10,000 adults of personal hate crime (compared with 827 incidents per 
10,000 adults of BCS personal crime overall); and 
 forty-seven household hate crime incidents per 10,000 households (compared with 2,510 
incidents per 10,000 households of BCS household crime overall; Table 1.02). 
The combined 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS estimates that 0.5 per cent of adults were victims of hate 
crime in the 12 months prior to interview. A similar percentage were victims of personal hate crime 
(0.2%) and household hate crime (0.2%). Overall, 21.5 per cent of adults were victims of BCS crime 
(Table 1.03).  
Analysis of victimisation by personal and household characteristics showed that for personal hate 
crime (as with BCS crime overall, Chaplin et al., 2011), the risk of being a victim varied by socio-
demographic characteristics. The risk of being a victim of personal hate crime was highest, for 
example, among (Table 1.04): 
 people aged 16 to 24 (0.6% experienced personal hate crime compared with, for example, 
fewer than 0.05% of those aged 75 and over); 
 people in ethnic groups other than White (0.8% compared with 0.2% of White adults);  
 those whose marital status was single (0.6% compared with 0.1% of married adults); 
18

The extent of and perceptions towards hate crime 
 
 the unemployed (0.8% compared with 0.2% of adults in employment);   
 those with a long-standing illness or disability that limits their daily activities (0.4% compared 
with 0.2% of those with no long-standing illness or disability); or  
 those who visit night clubs at least once a week (1.0% compared with 0.2% of those who did not 
visit nightclubs at all in the last month).  
It should be noted that differences in victimisation rates between ethnic groups may be at least partly 
attributable to factors other than ethnicity. Previous research (Jansson, 2006; Salisbury and Upson, 
2004) has shown that people with a Mixed ethnic background are most at risk of crime. However, 
multivariate analyses identified that, for the key crime types, ethnicity was not independently 
associated with the risk of victimisation (Jansson et al., 2007). The proportion of young people in the 
Mixed ethnic group was, for example, found to be large in comparison to other ethnic groups; and 
young people are at a higher risk of victimisation (Flatley et al., 2010). There are also inter-
relationships between other personal characteristics. 
The risk of being a victim of household hate crime was highest among, for example, people who 
(Table 1.05):   
 lived in flats or maisonettes (0.4% experienced household hate crime compared with, for 
example, 0.1% of those living in a detached house);  
 lived in a household with a total income of less than £10,000 (0.5% compared with 0.1% among 
those who lived in households with a total income of £50,000 or more); 
 lived in a ‘multicultural’ area (0.6% compared with 0.1% of those who lived in a ‘countryside’ 
area); or 
 lived in an ‘urban’ area (0.3% compared with 0.1% of those who lived in ‘rural’ areas). 
Tables 1.06 to 1.09 show the prevalence of hate crime for the separate equality strands by key 
personal characteristics. For example, the prevalence of racially-motivated crime is shown by ethnic 
group and the prevalence of disability-motivated hate crime is shown by long-term illness or disability. 
It can be seen that respondents with the personal characteristic they report as being a factor that they 
perceived motivated the incident were more likely to be at risk of being a victim of hate crime. For 
example, 0.2 per cent of adults who said they had a long-standing illness or disability that limited their 
daily activities said they were victims of disability motivated hate crime, compared with fewer than 0.05 
per cent of respondents who had no long-standing illness or disability.  
1.4 
REPEAT VICTIMISATION 
Repeat victimisation10 is defined here as being a victim of the same type of crime more than once in 
the last year.11 Levels of repeat victimisation account for differences between BCS estimates of 
incidence rates (see Table 1.02) and victimisation rates (see Table 1.03). For instance, high levels of 
repeat victimisation will be demonstrated by lower victimisation rates when compared with 
corresponding incidence rates as is found with domestic violence and vandalism (see for example, 
Chaplin et al., 2011). 
                                                 
10 See Section 2.5 of the User Guide for a discussion of repeat victimisation. 
11 Where incidents of a similar nature that are probably carried out by the same perpetrator(s) have occurred, BCS estimates 
only include the first five incidents in this ‘series’ of victimisations, see Section 2.5 of the User Guide. 
19

Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 
 
Nearly one-third (31%) of the victims of hate crime were victimised more than once in the previous 
year and 18 per cent were victimised three or more times. This is similar to the extent of repeat 
victimisation for BCS crime overall (33% had been victimised more than once). 
BCS figures have consistently shown that levels of repeat victimisation vary by offence type (Chaplin 
et al., 2011). One reason for this may be that victims are able to take more preventative measures 
against repeat victimisation for some crime types, such as theft from the person. It also reflects the 
different nature of offences.  
It can be seen that hate crime was more likely to be repeatedly experienced for household crime 
offences than for personal crime offences; 37 per cent of victims of household hate crime had been 
victimised more than once in the previous year, compared with 19 per cent of victims of personal hate 
crime. This difference is larger than that found in the BCS overall (29% of victims of BCS household 
crime were repeat victims, compared with 21% of victims of BCS personal crime; Table 1.10). 
1.5 
REPORTING HATE CRIME 
The BCS asks people who experienced crimes in the past year whether the police came to know 
about the incident, that is, whether they reported it or the police came to know about it in another way 
(for example, they arrived at the scene). A ‘reporting rate’ is calculated by dividing the number of BCS 
incidents that victims state the police came to know about by the total number of BCS incidents. 
Based on the 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS, the police were more likely to come to know about hate 
crime than BCS crime overall; 49 per cent of incidents of hate crime came to the attention of the police 
compared with 39 per cent of incidents of BCS crime overall (Table 1.11). 
Although there was little difference in the likelihood of victims of personal hate crime reporting such 
offences to the police compared with all BCS personal crime (42% and 39% respectively), hate crime 
victims were more likely to report household crimes (59% compared with 40% for all BCS household 
crime). This difference could be due to the types and seriousness of offence recorded as hate crime. 
The 2010/11 BCS (Chaplin et al., 2011) showed that thefts of vehicles were most likely to be reported 
and incidents of burglary were also well reported. 
Victims of crime who did not report incidents to the police were asked why they did not do so. The 
most frequently mentioned reason for not reporting hate crime incidents was that victims perceived 
them to be too trivial, there was no loss, or they believed that the police would or could not do much 
about them (55% of hate crime incidents that were not reported). The second most frequently 
mentioned reason was that it was a private matter or the victims chose to deal with it themselves (19% 
of unreported hate crimes). 
Victims of hate crime were less likely than victims of BCS crime overall to say that the incident was too 
trivial to report to the police (55% compared with 73%). Conversely, they were more likely to give an 
answer from one of the less common categories grouped as ‘other’, for example something that 
happened as part of their job or someone else reported it (Table 1.12). 
1.6 
VICTIM SATISFACTION WITH THE POLICE 
BCS respondents who were victims of crime and had contact with the police in the last 12 months 
were asked how satisfied they were with the way the police handled the matter. Based on the 
combined 2009/10 and 2010/11 surveys, in 53 per cent of incidents hate crime victims were satisfied 
with the way that the police handled the matter – in 33 per cent of incidents hate crime victims were 
very satisfied and in 21 per cent they were fairly satisfied with the way that the police handled the 
matter - and 45 per cent were not satisfied with the handling. Victims of hate crime were less satisfied 
with the way the police handled the matter than victims of BCS crime overall: in 53 per cent and 69 per 
cent of incidents respectively victims were satisfied (very or fairly) with the way the police handled the 
matter (Figure 1.1 and Table 1.13). 
20

The extent of and perceptions towards hate crime 
 
33
37
21
32
22
16
23
14
2
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
All hate crime
All BCS crime
Percentage satisfied with police handling of incident
Too early to say
Very dissatisfied
A bit dissatisfied
Fairly satisfied
Very satisfied
Figure 1.1 Victim satisfaction with the police, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In only 45 per cent of incidents of hate crime, victims thought the police took the matter as seriously as 
they should, compared with 65 per cent of incidents of BCS crime overall.  
Victims of hate crime were less likely to think the police had treated them fairly or with respect, 
compared with victims of BCS crime overall. For example, in 63 per cent of hate crime incidents 
victims thought the police treated them fairly, compared with 79 per cent of incidents of BCS crime 
overall. Similarly, in 76 per cent of incidents of hate crime, victims thought the police treated them with 
respect, compared with 89 per cent of incidents of BCS crime overall (Table 1.13). 
21

Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 
 
1.7 
EFFECTS OF HATE CRIME 
As part of the follow-up questions on their crime experience, victims were asked if they had an 
emotional reaction after the incident and, if so, how much they were affected and in which ways. There 
is evidence that perceiving that you have been targeted because of who you are has a greater impact 
on one’s wellbeing than being the victim of a non-hate crime (Iganski, 2001 and 2008). 
Table 1.14 shows that victims of hate crime were more likely than victims of BCS crime overall to say 
they were emotionally affected by the incident (92% and 86% respectively) and more likely to be ‘very 
much’ affected (38% and 17% respectively). 
Of those who said they were emotionally affected, victims of hate crimes gave the same types of 
emotions experienced by victims of BCS crime overall but (with the exception of annoyance) were 
more likely to mention each of them. In particular, 39 per cent of hate crime victims mentioned fear 
and 23 per cent mentioned anxiety, compared with 14 per cent and six per cent respectively of victims 
of BCS crime overall (Table 1.14). 
Figure 1.2 Emotional impact of hate crime incident, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS 
67
50
40
35
39
23
13
17
20
3
60
60
28
15
14
6
9
8
6
3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Percentage experiencing:
Emotional response experienced
All hate crime
All BCS crime
 
 
22

The extent of and perceptions towards hate crime 
 
Box 1.2 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS questions (Perceptions of crime module) 
The following question was asked of all respondents: 
(How much of a problem is …) people being attacked or harassed because of their 
skin colour, ethnic origin or religion? 
 
A very big problem 
 
A fairly big problem 
 
Not a very big problem 
 
Not a problem at all 
The following questions were asked of a randomly selected one-quarter of respondents: 
(How worried are you about) .....being subject to a physical attack because of your 
skin colour, ethnic origin or religion? 
 
Very worried 
 
Fairly worried 
 
Not very worried 
 
Not at all worried 
 
And now, thinking about all types of crime, in general how worried are you about 
being a victim of crime? 
 
Very worried 
 
Fairly worried 
 
Not very worried 
 
Not at all worried 
 
Do you think you are likely to be physically attacked or assaulted in the next year 
because of your skin colour, ethnic origin or religion? 
 
Yes 
 
No 
 
Do you think you are likely to be harassed or intimidated in the next year because of 
your skin colour, ethnic origin or religion? 
 
Yes 
 
No 
1.8  
WORRY ABOUT HATE CRIME AND PERCEPTIONS OF THE LIKELIHOOD   
OF VICTIMISATION   
The BCS provides estimates on a range of public perception measures relating to crime. The 
questions are shown in Box 1.2.12 
The BCS asks respondents about their perceived likelihood of being a victim of crime in the next 12 
months. Overall, three per cent of adults thought they were ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ likely to be harassed 
because of their skin colour, ethnic origin or religion and two per cent said they were ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ 
likely to be attacked for these reasons. Adults from ethnic groups other than White were more likely 
than White adults to say they were ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ likely to be harassed (15% compared with 1% of 
White respondents) or attacked (10% compared with 1% of White respondents; Table 1.15). 
There is a disparity between perceived likelihood and actual prevalence of crime. For example, ten per 
cent of respondents from Black and Minority Ethnic groups13 thought that they were ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ 
likely to be attacked because of their skin colour, ethnic origin or religion in the next 12 months, 
                                                 
12 See Section 6.2 of the User Guide for details of measures of likelihood of victimisation. 
13 In the tables Black and Minority Ethnic groups are referred to as ‘Non-White’. 
23

Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 
 
compared with 0.7 per cent who reported having been a victim of racially motivated personal hate 
crime in the year before interview (Tables 1.15 and 1.06). This disparity is also found for other crime 
types, for example, burglary (14% of respondents thought that they were ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ likely to be a 
victim of burglary in the next 12 months, compared with 2% who reported having been a victim of 
burglary in the year before interview; Table 1.15, prevalence of burglary data not shown). 
The BCS asks respondents how worried they are about being a victim of different types of crime. 
Overall, five per cent of adults were ‘very’ worried about being subject to a physical attack because of 
their skin colour, ethnic origin or religion, and, unsurprisingly, as with the other perception questions, 
this was much higher among adults from Black and Minority Ethnic backgrounds than among White 
adults (16% and 3% respectively; Table 1.15). 
Six per cent of adults thought there was a ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ big problem in their area with people being 
attacked or harassed because of their skin colour, ethnic origin or religion. Adults from ethnic groups 
other than White were three times more likely to say there was a ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ big problem in their 
area than White adults (16% compared with 5% of White adults). 
Figure 1.3 Perceptions of crime by ethnic group, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS 
1
1
3
6
5
10
15
16
18
16
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
'Very' or 'fairly' likely to be attacked because of skin 
colour/ethnic origin/ religion
'Very' or 'fairly' likely to be harassed because of skin 
colour/ethnic origin/ religion
'Very' worried about being attacked because of skin 
colour/ethnic origin/ religion
'Very' worried about being a victim of any crime
'Fairly big' or 'very big' problem in their area with 
racially motivated hate crime
Percentage
Ethnic group other than White
White
24

The extent of and perceptions towards hate crime 
 
1.9 AGE AND GENDER-MOTIVATED HATE CRIME 
The BCS also collects information on incidents that respondents perceive to be motivated by the 
offender’s attitude towards the victim’s age or gender. Estimates of age-motivated hate crime in 
particular should be treated with caution, as it is possible, for example, that older victims who may be 
targeted for their age-related vulnerability, are answering that the incident was motivated by the 
offender’s attitude towards their age rather than this vulnerability.  
Table 1.16 outlines the number of incidents for which victims said that they thought the offender was 
motivated by attitude to their age or gender for the combined survey years 2009/10 and 2010/11. The 
number of incidents is the average per year over the two survey years. 
In total, there were around 143,000 incidents of age-motivated hate crime a year, and around 0.3 per 
cent of people perceived they were victims of an age-motivated hate crime (Table 1.16) 
There were around 120,000 incidents of gender-motivated hate crime a year, and around 0.2 per cent 
of adults were victims of a gender-motivated hate crime.  
Table 1.17 shows the prevalence of age-motivated hate crime by age and sex. The youngest and 
oldest age groups were more likely to say they thought they had been a victim of age-motivated hate 
crime than other age groups (0.7% of those aged 16−24 and 0.6% of those aged 75 and over were 
victims of age-motivated hate crimes compared with 0.3% of those aged 65−74). This suggests that 
some people may have misunderstood or misheard the question and mistakenly be reporting an 
incident as age-motivated. 
Women were more likely than men to say they were victims of gender-motivated hate crime (0.3% and 
0.1% respectively; Table 1.18).  
1.10 OTHER SOURCES OF HATE CRIME DATA 
ACPO/Police data 
The police have been recording reported hate crimes since 1 April 2008 for the five monitored strands 
of hate crime. Figures (covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland for 2009) were first published by 
the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in 2010, and figures for 2010 were published in 
September 201114. In 2011/12 the hate crime data collection was made part of the Home Office 
Annual Data Requirement15. 
Between January and December 201016, the police recorded 48,127 crimes in England, Wales and 
Northern Ireland where the victim, or any other person, perceived the criminal offence to be motivated 
by hostility based on a person’s race, religious belief, sexual orientation, disability or where the victim 
was perceived to be transgender.  
Of these: 
 39,311 were racist crimes; 
 2,007 were religious (faith) hate crimes; 
 4,883 were based on sexual orientation; 
                                                 
14 http://www.acpo.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/ACPO-publishes-hate-crime-data-for-2010-111.aspx 
15 The Annual Data Requirement (ADR) is a list of all requests made to all police forces in England and Wales under the Home 
Secretary's statutory powers. 
16 Data published per calendar year. 
25

Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 
 
 357 targeted transgender people; and 
 1,569 targeted people with disabilities. 
As expected, BCS hate crime estimates are higher than the number of hate crimes recorded by the 
police as the survey captures offences that are not reported to or recorded by the police. 
Crown Prosecution Service data 
In 2008, the CPS began publishing an annual report on Hate Crime in England and Wales. The most 
recent publication ‘Hate crime and crimes against older people report 2010−2011’ presents 
information on CPS performance in prosecuting racist and religious hate crime, transphobic and 
homophobic crime, and disability hate crime.17 
The Life Opportunities Survey  
In December 2011, the Office for Disability Issues published the Life Opportunities Survey Wave One 
results 2009/1118 based on a total of 31,161 interviews with adults aged 16 and over, across 19,951 
households.  
The survey found that two per cent of all adults interviewed had been a victim of hate crime in the past 
12 months. This is higher than the BCS estimate of 0.5 per cent, partly because it includes age and 
gender-motivated hate crime but partly due to the different question wording. 
Those who reported being a victim of hate crime were asked to select all motivations for the crime that 
applied to them from the following: age, sex, a health condition, illness or impairment, a disability, 
ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or none of these reasons. The most common motivation reported 
for all adults who experienced hate crime was ethnicity (37%) followed by sexual orientation (11%). It 
is important to note, however, that 34 per cent of adults with a mental or physical impairment and 30 
per cent of adults without a mental or physical impairment gave the answer ‘none of these reasons’ to 
the question on motivation of hate crime and, thus, felt they were the victim of a hate crime motivated 
by factors not covered by the questionnaire. 
                                                 
17 http:/www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/cps_hate_crime_report_2011.pdf 
18 Office for Disability Issues (2011) Life Opportunities Survey: Wave One results, 2009/11. Available at:  
 
http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/los/los_wave_one_200911.pdf. 
26

Numbers (000s)1
Personal crime
Household crime
All crime
  Race
84
52
136
                        
  Religion
21
19
39
                          
  Sexual orientation
31
18
50
                          
  Disability
29
35
65
                          
Total hate crime2
151
109
260
                        
Total BCS crime
3,700
                     
5,861
                     
9,561
                     
Unweighted base
91,313
                  
91,338
                  
91,313
                  
Table 1.02 Incidence rate of hate crime and all BCS crime, by monitored strand
Personal crime
Household crime
  Race
19
22
  Religion
5
8
  Sexual orientation
7
8
  Disability
7
15
Total hate crime2
34
47
Total BCS crime
827
                        
2,510
                     
Unweighted base
91,313
                  
91,338
                  
Number of incidents (000s):
1. The numbers are derived by multiplying incidence rates by the population estimates for England and Wales, and are 
averaged over the two survey years. For  more information see Section 2 of the User Guide.
2. Totals for hate crime might not be equal to the sum of incidents in the related equality strands as the victim may 
have said the crime was motivated by more than one strand. Excludes gender identity as questions on this strand were 
not included until 2011/12.
Monitored strand of hate crime
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Table 1.01 Number of incidents of hate crime and all BCS crime, by monitored strand
Rates per 10,000 adults/households:
Monitored strand of hate crime
England and Wales, adults aged 16 
and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Rates1 per 10,000 adults/households
1.  Rates for personal crime are quoted per 10,000 adults. Rates for household crime are 
quoted per 10,000 households.The numbers are averaged over the two survey years.
2. Totals for hate crime might not be equal to the sum of incidents in the related equality strands 
as the victim may have said the crime was motivated by more than one strand. Excludes gender 
identity as questions on this strand were not included until 2011/12.
27

Percentages1
Personal crime
Household crime
All crime3
  Race
0.2
0.1
0.3
  Religion
0.0
0.0
0.1
  Sexual orientation
0.0
0.0
0.1
  Disability
0.0
0.1
0.1
Total hate crime2
0.2
0.2
0.5
Total BCS crime 
5.8
16.3
21.5
Unweighted base
91,313
                     
91,338
                     
91,313
                     
Table 1.03 Proportion of adults and households who were victims of hate crime and all BCS crime, by 
monitored strand
3. This percentage is calculated treating a household crime as a personal crime. It is the estimated percentage of adults who 
have been a victim of at least one personal crime or have been resident in a household that was a victim of at least one 
household crime.
1. Percentages for personal crime are based on adults. Percentages for household crime are based on households.
Percentage of adults/households victims once or more:
2. Totals for hate crime might not be equal to the sum of incidents in the related equality strands as the victim may have said 
the crime was motivated by more than one strand. Excludes gender identity as questions on this strand were not included 
until 2011/12.
Monitored strand of hate crime
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
28

Percentages
Personal hate 
crime1 
All hate crime1,2
All BCS personal 
crime
All BCS crime
Unweighted base
ALL ADULTS
0.2
0.5
5.8
21.5
91,313
                    
16-24
0.6
0.9
13.9
31.8
7,551
                      
25-34
0.3
0.5
7.7
27.3
12,462
                    
35-44
0.3
0.6
5.3
24.5
15,983
                    
45-54
0.2
0.5
4.2
21.9
15,117
                    
55-64
0.1
0.4
3.0
16.6
15,766
                    
65-74
0.0
0.2
2.2
11.1
12,898
                    
75+
0.0
0.2
1.6
7.7
11,536
                    
Men
0.3
0.6
6.5
22.7
41,155
                    
16-24
1.0
1.3
16.5
33.8
3,513
                      
25-34
0.4
0.5
8.5
28.5
5,407
                      
35-44
0.3
0.6
5.7
25.5
7,138
                      
45-54
0.1
0.5
4.5
21.9
7,097
                      
55-64
0.2
0.4
3.2
17.6
7,436
                      
65-74
0.1
0.2
1.8
11.7
5,962
                      
75+
0.0
0.1
0.9
7.5
4,602
                      
Women
0.2
0.4
5.1
20.4
50,158
                    
16-24
0.2
0.3
11.2
29.8
4,038
                      
25-34
0.2
0.5
6.8
26.1
7,055
                      
35-44
0.2
0.5
4.9
23.5
8,845
                      
45-54
0.2
0.4
4.0
22.0
8,020
                      
55-64
0.1
0.4
2.9
15.7
8,330
                      
65-74
0.0
0.1
2.5
10.4
6,936
                      
75+
0.1
0.2
2.1
7.8
6,934
                      
Ethnic group
White 
0.2
0.3
5.7
21.3
84,217
                    
Non-White 
0.8
1.7
6.6
23.3
6,942
                      
 Mixed 
0.9
1.7
10.0
29.6
666
                         
 Asian or Asian British 
1.0
2.1
5.6
23.6
3,158
                      
 Black or Black British 
0.4
1.1
6.9
21.4
1,883
                      
 Chinese or other
0.5
1.3
7.9
22.0
1,235
                      
Religion
Christian
0.2
0.3
4.3
19.8
69,854
                    
Buddhist
1.3
1.5
5.1
25.8
408
                         
Hindu
0.8
1.8
4.3
21.2
897
                         
Muslim
1.0
2.1
5.6
23.1
2,167
                      
Other
0.6
1.3
7.3
27.0
1,142
                      
No religion
0.3
0.4
7.4
27.1
16,596
                    
Marital status 
Married 
0.1
0.3
3.3
18.7
42,711
                    
Cohabiting 
0.1
0.4
6.2
26.6
8,133
                      
Single 
0.6
0.9
11.6
28.1
18,900
                    
Separated 
0.3
0.5
7.7
24.5
2,975
                      
Divorced 
0.3
0.7
5.9
21.4
8,305
                      
Widowed
0.1
0.3
2.7
9.8
10,260
                    
Respondent's employment status  
In employment 
0.2
0.4
6.3
24.1
49,530
                    
Unemployed 
0.8
1.1
11.2
28.8
2,837
                      
Economically inactive 
0.2
0.5
4.4
16.5
38,717
                    
 Student  
0.6
0.8
13.6
30.5
2,230
                      
 Looking after family/home  
0.1
0.4
4.0
22.0
4,774
                      
 Long-term/temporarily sick/ill  
0.7
2.0
6.3
24.9
4,019
                      
 Retired  
0.1
0.2
2.0
10.2
26,385
                    
 Other inactive  
0.7
1.1
6.3
23.2
1,309
                      
Respondent's occupation  
Managerial and professional occupations
0.2
0.4
5.4
21.8
30,212
                    
Intermediate occupations 
0.2
0.4
4.8
20.0
18,610
                    
Routine and manual occupations
0.2
0.4
5.1
20.5
34,850
                    
Never worked and long-term unemployed 
0.5
1.2
5.8
18.8
3,363
                      
Full-time students
0.6
0.8
14.0
30.9
3,506
                      
Not classified  
0.6
1.2
5.7
20.6
772
                         
 
Highest qualification  
Degree or diploma 
0.3
0.4
6.1
23.3
29,744
                    
Apprenticeship or A/AS level
0.3
0.4
7.3
24.3
15,473
                    
O level/GCSE
0.3
0.6
6.8
23.8
17,601
                    
Other  
0.3
0.5
4.2
16.8
3,987
                      
None  
0.2
0.5
3.5
15.4
24,300
                    
 
Long-standing illness or disability  
Long-standing illness or disability 
0.3
0.7
5.4
20.0
26,508
                    
 Limits activities  
0.4
0.9
5.2
19.3
18,931
                    
 Does not limit activities  
0.3
0.4
5.7
21.6
7,566
                      
No long-standing illness or disability  
0.2
0.4
5.9
22.0
64,644
                    
Hours out of home on an average weekday  
Less than 3 hours  
0.2
0.4
3.2
15.0
27,421
                    
3 hours less than 7 hours  
0.2
0.5
5.6
21.2
24,994
                    
7 hours or longer  
0.3
0.5
7.3
25.1
38,717
                    
Number of evening visits to bar in last month  
None  
0.2
0.6
4.1
18.4
47,190
                    
Less than once a week  
0.2
0.3
6.0
23.1
25,685
                    
Once a week or more often  
0.3
0.4
9.1
26.4
18,426
                    
Number of visits to a nightclub in last month 
None  
0.2
0.4
4.7
19.9
83,362
                    
Less than once a week  
0.4
0.7
12.4
31.2
6,477
                      
Once a week or more often  
1.0
1.0
19.2
39.7
1,466
                      
1. Excludes gender identity as questions on this strand were not included until 2011/12.
3. See Section 7.3 of the User Guide for definitions of personal characteristics.
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
2. This percentage is calculated treating a household crime as a personal crime. It is the estimated percentage of adults who have been a victim of at least one personal 
crime or have been resident in a household that was a victim of at least one household crime.
Percentage of adults/households victims once or more:
Table 1.04 Proportion of adults who were victims of hate crime and all BCS crime, by personal characteristics
29

Percentages
Personal hate 
crime1 
Household hate 
crime1
All hate crime1,2 All BCS personal 
crime
All BCS 
household crime
All BCS crime
 Unweighted 
base 
ALL HOUSEHOLDS
0.2
0.2
0.5
5.8
16.3
21.5
91,313
               
Structure of household  
Single adult & child(ren)  
0.2
0.3
0.6
9.0
24.3
30.1
4,710
                 
Adults & child(ren)  
0.3
0.3
0.5
6.0
21.6
25.8
19,597
               
Adult(s) & no children  
0.2
0.2
0.5
5.6
14.3
19.5
67,006
               
Total household income  
Less than £10,000  
0.5
0.5
1.0
6.3
14.5
19.8
12,877
               
£10,000 less than £20,000  
0.3
0.4
0.7
5.0
14.8
19.2
18,038
               
£20,000 less than £30,000  
0.2
0.1
0.3
5.2
17.6
21.8
12,533
               
£30,000 less than £40,000  
0.2
0.2
0.3
5.0
17.8
21.6
9,305
                 
£40,000 less than £50,000  
0.2
0.1
0.3
6.1
19.2
23.9
6,200
                 
£50,000 or more  
0.1
0.1
0.2
6.3
20.7
25.9
12,410
               
No income stated or not enough 
information provided  
0.2
0.3
0.5
6.2
13.7
20.0
19,847
               
Tenure  
Owners  
0.2
0.2
0.3
4.4
15.4
19.7
62,059
               
Social renters  
0.4
0.6
1.0
7.1
17.4
23.4
15,211
               
Private renters  
0.4
0.2
0.5
9.5
18.6
26.1
13,715
               
Accommodation type  
Houses  
0.2
0.2
0.4
5.5
16.5
21.4
77,886
               
 Detached  
0.1
0.1
0.2
4.0
13.1
17.0
23,974
               
 Semi-detached  
0.2
0.2
0.4
5.4
15.6
20.7
29,063
               
 Terraced  
0.4
0.3
0.7
6.8
20.3
26.0
24,849
               
Flats/maisonettes  
0.4
0.4
0.7
8.2
15.7
22.7
11,680
               
Other accommodation  
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.7
5.1
4.6
255
                    
Output Area Classification
Blue collar communities  
0.2
0.3
0.5
6.2
18.8
23.9
15,412
               
City living  
0.3
0.3
0.5
8.4
18.0
25.7
4,256
                 
Countryside  
0.1
0.1
0.2
4.1
10.7
14.7
14,000
               
Prospering suburbs  
0.1
0.1
0.2
4.4
12.9
17.3
21,793
               
Constrained by circumstances  
0.3
0.3
0.6
5.9
17.2
23.0
9,200
                 
Typical traits  
0.2
0.2
0.4
5.5
18.6
23.7
18,868
               
Multicultural  
0.6
0.6
1.2
8.7
19.5
26.2
7,784
                 
Area type  
Urban  
0.3
0.3
0.6
6.2
17.5
23.1
68,006
               
Rural  
0.1
0.1
0.2
4.1
11.6
15.5
23,307
               
Level of physical disorder  
High  
0.6
0.7
1.3
6.8
23.1
27.9
4,605
                 
Not high  
0.2
0.2
0.4
5.7
15.9
21.1
85,539
               
English Indices of Deprivation (Employment)  
20% most deprived output areas  
0.4
0.5
0.8
6.6
18.9
24.3
15,930
               
Other output areas  
0.2
0.2
0.5
5.8
16.4
21.8
50,463
               
20% least deprived output areas  
0.2
0.1
0.3
5.3
14.0
19.0
17,160
               
1. Excludes gender identity as questions on this strand were not included until 2011/12.
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Table 1.05 Proportion of adults and households who were victims of hate crime and all BCS crime, by household and area characteristics
Percentage of adults/households victims once or more:
2. This percentage is calculated treating a household crime as a personal crime. It is the estimated percentage of adults who have been a victim of at least one personal crime or have been 
resident in a household that was a victim of at least one household crime.
3. See Sections 7.1 and 7.2 of the User Guide for definitions of area and household characteristics.
30

Percentages
Personal racially-
motivated hate crime
All racially-motivated 
hate crime1
Unweighted base
ALL ADULTS
0.2
0.3
91,313
                      
Ethnic group
White 
0.1
0.1
84,217
                      
Non-White 
0.7
1.4
6,942
                        
 Mixed 
0.7
1.1
666
                           
 Asian or Asian British 
0.9
1.8
3,158
                        
 Black or Black British 
0.4
0.9
1,883
                        
 Chinese or other
0.4
1.1
1,235
                        
% victims once or more:
Table 1.06 Proportion of adults who were victims of racially-motivated hate crime, by ethnic group
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
1. This percentage is calculated treating a household crime as a personal crime. It is the estimated percentage of 
adults who have been a victim of at least one personal crime or have been resident in a household that was a victim of 
at least one household crime.
31

Percentages
Personal religion-
motivated hate crime
All religion-motivated 
hate crime1
Unweighted base
ALL ADULTS
0.0
0.1
91,313
                          
Ethnic group
White 
0.0
0.0
84,217
                          
Non-White 
0.2
0.5
6,942
                            
 Mixed 
0.1
0.1
666
                               
 Asian or Asian British 
0.4
0.8
3,158
                            
 Black or Black British 
0.0
0.2
1,883
                            
 Chinese or other
0.0
0.1
1,235
                            
Religion
Christian
0.0
0.0
69,854
                          
Buddhist
0.0
0.0
408
                               
Hindu
0.0
0.5
897
                               
Muslim
0.5
0.8
2,167
                            
Other
0.1
0.7
1,142
                            
No religion
0.0
0.0
16,596
                          
Percentages
Personal sexual-
orientation-motivated 
hate crime
All sexual orientation-
motivated-hate crime1
Unweighted base
ALL ADULTS
0.0
0.1
91,313
                          
16-24
0.1
0.2
7,551
                            
25-34
0.0
0.0
12,462
                          
35-44
0.1
0.1
15,983
                          
45-54
0.0
0.1
15,117
                          
55-64
0.0
0.1
15,766
                          
65-74
0.0
0.0
12,898
                          
75+
0.0
0.0
11,536
                          
Men
0.1
0.1
41,155
                          
Women
0.0
0.1
50,158
                          
Table 1.07 Proportion of adults who were victims of religion-motivated hate crime, by ethnic group and 
religion
Table 1.08 Proportion of adults who were victims of sexual-orientation-motivated hate crime, by age 
and sex
% victims once or more
1. This percentage is calculated treating a household crime as a personal crime. It is the estimated percentage of adults 
who have been a victim of at least one personal crime or have been resident in a household that was a victim of at least one 
household crime.
% victims once or more:
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
1. This percentage is calculated treating a household crime as a personal crime. It is the estimated percentage of adults 
who have been a victim of at least one personal crime or have been resident in a household that was a victim of at least one 
household crime.
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
32

Percentages
Personal disability-
motivated hate crime
All disability-motivated 
hate crime1
Unweighted base
ALL ADULTS
0.0
0.1
91,313
                       
Respondent's employment status  
In employment 
0.0
0.0
49,530
                       
Unemployed 
0.1
0.1
2,837
                         
Economically inactive 
0.1
0.2
38,717
                       
 Student  
0.1
0.1
2,230
                         
 Looking after family/home  
0.0
0.1
4,774
                         
 Long-term/temporarily sick/ill  
0.5
1.3
4,019
                         
 Retired  
0.0
0.1
26,385
                       
 Other inactive  
0.2
0.3
1,309
                         
 
Long-standing illness or disability  
Long-standing illness or disability 
0.1
0.4
26,508
                       
 Limits activities  
0.2
0.5
18,931
                       
 Does not limit activities  
0.0
0.1
7,566
                         
No long-standing illness or disability  
0.0
0.0
64,644
                       
Percentages
Once
Twice
Three or more
Unweighted 
base 1
Personal hate crime2
81
8
11
185
All BCS personal crime 
79
12
10
4,505
                  
Household hate crime2
63
15
22
207
All BCS household crime 
71
18
12
14,385
                
All hate crime2
69
13
18
379
All BCS crime 
67
18
14
17,522
                
1. Base is victims of specified offences.
2. Excludes gender identity as questions on this strand were not included until 2011/12.
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
% victims once or more
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Table 1.09 Proportion of adults who were victims of disability-motivated hate crime, by employment status and 
presence of long-standing illness or disability
1. This percentage is calculated treating a household crime as a personal crime. It is the estimated percentage of adults who have been a 
victim of at least one personal crime or have been resident in a household that was a victim of at least one household crime.
Table 1.10 Number of times victims were victimised in previous year
33

Percentages
Incident reported to police
Unweighted base 2
Personal hate crime3
42
195
All BCS personal crime 
39
5,138
                                       
Household hate crime3
59
237
All BCS household crime 
40
17,784
                                     
All hate crime3
49
432
All BCS crime 
39
22,922
                                     
2. Base is crime incidents.
3. Excludes gender identity as questions on this strand were not included until 2011/12.
Percentages
All hate crime1
All BCS crime
55
73
Private/dealt with ourselves  
19
15
Inconvenient to report  
6
6
Reported to other authorities  
4
5
Common occurrence  
9
3
Fear of reprisal  
5
2
7
2
Other3  
21
6
195
                                          
12,912
                                     
1. Excludes gender identity as questions on this strand were not included until 2011/12.
4. Base is crime incidents not reported to police.
5. Figures may add to more than 100 as more than one reason could be given.
1. Incidents that were reported to the police also includes those incidents that the police came to know about in 
another way, e.g. they arrived at the scene.
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Table 1.11 Proportion of BCS crime incidents reported to the police1
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
2. The answer categories 'Too trivial/not worth reporting', 'No loss/damage', 'Police would not have been 
bothered/interested', 'Police could not do anything' and 'Attempt at offence was unsuccessful' are merged due to 
the similarity in their definition, for example: a respondent who thinks the incident was too trivial may code the 
incident as ‘too trivial, no loss’ or ‘the police would not be interested’ as these two codes may be understood as 
meaning the same.
3. This category includes: something that happens as part of job; partly my/friend's/relative's fault; offender not 
responsible for actions; thought someone else had reported incident/similar incidents; tried to report but was not 
able to contact the police/police not interested; other.
Dislike or fear of the police/previous 
bad experience with the police or 
courts 
Table 1.12 Reasons for not reporting crime incident to the police
Trivial/no loss/police would not/could 
not do anything2  
Unweighted base 4
34

Percentages
All hate crime1
All BCS crime
Victim satisfaction 
Very satisfied
33
37
Fairly satisfied
21
32
A bit dissatisfied
22
16
Very dissatisfied
23
14
Too early to say
2
1
% saying police took matter as seriously as they should
45
65
Police treated victim fairly
Yes
63
79
Not entirely
21
13
Not at all
15
8
Police treated victim with respect
Yes
76
89
Not entirely
14
7
Not at all
10
4
Unweighted base 2
223
8,863
                          
1. Excludes gender identity as questions on this strand were not included until 2011/12.
2. Base is crime incidents that were reported to police.
Percentages
All hate crime1
All BCS crime
Respondent was emotionally affected
92
86
Very much
38
17
Quite a lot
31
26
Just a little
23
43
Respondent was not emotionally affected
8
14
Unweighted base
420
22,065
                        
Type of emotional response experienced2
Anger
67
60
Annoyance
50
60
Shock
40
28
Loss of confidence or feeling vulnerable
35
15
Fear
39
14
Anxiety or panic attacks
23
6
Crying/tears
13
9
Difficulty sleeping
17
8
Depression
20
6
Other
3
3
Unweighted base
383
19,028
                        
1. Excludes gender identity as questions on this strand were not included until 2011/12.
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Table 1.13 Satisfaction with police handling of crime incidents
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Table 1.14 Emotional impact of crime incident
2. Figures add to more than 100 as more than one response possible.
35

Percentages
White
All Non-
White 
 Mixed 
 Asian or 
Asian British 
 Black or 
Black British 
 Chinese or 
other
All adults
Perceived likelihood of being victim of racially-motivated crime
'Very' or 'fairly' likely to be attacked because of 
skin colour/ethnic origin/religion
1
10
4
12
9
9
2
'Very' or 'fairly' likely to be harassed because of 
skin colour/ethnic origin/religion
1
15
13
17
12
11
3
'Very' or 'fairly' likely to be burgled 
13
25
19
29
20
20
14
Worry about of being victim of crime
'Very' worried about being attacked because of 
skin colour/ethnic origin/religion
3
16
14
16
16
13
5
'Very' worried about being a victim of any crime
6
18
21
18
18
16
7
Unweighted base 1
20,745
         
1,638
           
143
              
777
              
436
              
282
              
22,402
          
Problem of racially-motivated crime
in their area with racially-motivated hate crime
5
16
16
18
14
14
6
Unweighted base
82,870
         
6,840
           
655
              
3,133
           
1,842
           
1,210
           
89,851
          
1. Questions on worry about crime and the likelihood of attack and harrassment were only asked of one-quarter of the BCS sample. 
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 
Table 1.15 Perceptions of racially-motivated hate crime, by ethnic group
36

England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Personal crime
Household crime
All crime
Age-motivated hate crime
Incidents of hate crime (numbers, 000s)1
95
48
143
Incidence rates per 10,000 adults/households2
21
21
*
Percentage victims once or more3
0.2
0.1
0.3
Gender-motivated hate crime
Incidents of hate crime (numbers, 000s)1
90
30
120
Incidence rates per 10,000 adults/households2
20
13
*
Percentage victims once or more3
0.2
0.1
0.2
Unweighted base
91,313
                  
91,338
                  
91,313
                  
1. The numbers are derived by multiplying incidence rates by the population estimates for England and Wales, and are averaged 
over the two survey years.
2. Rates for personal crime are quoted per 10,000 adults. Rates for household crime are quoted per 10,000 households. 
3. Percentages for personal crime are based on adults. Percentages for household crime are based on households.
Table 1.16 Age- and gender-motivated hate crime 
*  It is not possible to construct a rate for all BCS crime because rates for household offences are based on rates per household, and 
those for personal offences on rates per adult, and the two cannot be combined.
37

Percentages
Personal age-
motivated hate 
crime
All age-motivated 
hate crime1
Unweighted base
ALL ADULTS
0.2
0.3
91,313
                    
16-24
0.6
0.7
7,551
                      
25-34
0.1
0.2
12,462
                    
35-44
0.1
0.1
15,983
                    
45-54
0.0
0.1
15,117
                    
55-64
0.1
0.2
15,766
                    
65-74
0.2
0.3
12,898
                    
75+
0.3
0.6
11,536
                    
Men
0.2
0.3
41,155
                    
16-24
0.9
1.0
3,513
                      
25-34
0.1
0.2
5,407
                      
35-44
0.0
0.1
7,138
                      
45-54
0.0
0.1
7,097
                      
55-64
0.1
0.2
7,436
                      
65-74
0.1
0.3
5,962
                      
75+
0.2
0.4
4,602
                      
Women
0.2
0.3
50,158
                    
16-24
0.4
0.5
4,038
                      
25-34
0.0
0.1
7,055
                      
35-44
0.1
0.1
8,845
                      
45-54
0.0
0.1
8,020
                      
55-64
0.1
0.2
8,330
                      
65-74
0.2
0.3
6,936
                      
75+
0.4
0.7
6,934
                      
% victims once or more:
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Table 1.17 Proportion of adults who were victims of age-motivated hate crime, by age 
and sex
1. This percentage is calculated treating a household crime as a personal crime. It is the estimated 
percentage of adults who have been a victim of at least one personal crime or have been resident in a 
household that was a victim of at least one household crime.
38

Percentages
Personal gender-
motivated hate 
crime
All gender-motivated 
hate crime1
Unweighted base
ALL ADULTS
0.2
0.2
91,313
                    
16-24
0.3
0.4
7,551
                      
25-34
0.3
0.4
12,462
                    
35-44
0.2
0.2
15,983
                    
45-54
0.0
0.1
15,117
                    
55-64
0.0
0.1
15,766
                    
65-74
0.0
0.0
12,898
                    
75+
0.0
0.0
11,536
                    
Men
0.1
0.1
41,155
                    
16-24
0.1
0.1
3,513
                      
25-34
0.2
0.2
5,407
                      
35-44
0.1
0.1
7,138
                      
45-54
0.0
0.1
7,097
                      
55-64
0.0
0.1
7,436
                      
65-74
0.0
0.0
5,962
                      
75+
0.0
0.0
4,602
                      
Women
0.2
0.3
50,158
                    
16-24
0.6
0.7
4,038
                      
25-34
0.5
0.7
7,055
                      
35-44
0.2
0.3
8,845
                      
45-54
0.1
0.2
8,020
                      
55-64
0.1
0.2
8,330
                      
65-74
0.0
0.1
6,936
                      
75+
0.1
0.1
6,934
                      
% victims once or more:
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2009/10 and 2010/11 BCS
Table 1.18 Proportion of adults who were victims of gender-motivated hate crime by age 
and sex
1. This percentage is calculated treating a household crime as a personal crime. It is the estimated 
percentage of adults who have been a victim of at least one personal crime or have been resident in a 
household that was a victim of at least one household crime.
39

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
40

 
 
2 
Use of the internet and cyber security 
Jacqueline Hoare 
2.1 
SUMMARY 
This chapter contains information from the 2010/11 British Crime Survey (BCS) on levels of internet 
use, concerns people may have about using the internet, and any measures taken to protect personal 
details when using the internet. Questions were asked of adults aged 16 or over in England and 
Wales. Headline findings are summarised below and interesting variations by age and sex are 
highlighted throughout the chapter. 
Internet usage 
According to the 2010/11 BCS, 78 per cent of adults had used the internet in the last year; men were 
more likely than women to have done so (81% and 75% respectively). Levels of usage decreased with 
increasing age, from 98 per cent of 16 to 24 year olds to 19 per cent of those aged 75 or older. 
Among adults who had used the internet in the last year, the most commonly reported use was for 
emailing, instant messaging or visiting chat rooms (83% of internet users). Around three-quarters 
(77%) said they used the internet for buying goods or services online and 73 per cent to browse for 
news or homework. Half (50%) of adults said they used the internet for online government services. 
Protection of personal details 
Among adults who said they had used the internet for any of the three online activities of interest 
(buying goods or services, online banking or managing finances and online government services), 
level of worry about the security of the personal details entered online varied as follows: 
 Of adults who said they used the internet for buying goods or services, 44 per cent said they 
were worried and just over a third of adults (37%) who reported using the internet for banking or 
managing finances were worried. 
 Around a quarter of adults (26%) who said they had used the internet for government services 
were worried about their personal details being secure online, the lowest among users of each 
of these internet services. 
The most commonly mentioned actions taken by adults to protect their personal details online were: 
having up-to-date security software installed on home computer (67%), using only well-known, popular 
or trusted sites (67%), and using secure sites (such as indicated by a closed padlock, 61%). 
Perceived barriers to use 
The main reason given by adults who said they had not used the internet for each of the three online 
activities of interest (buying goods or services, online banking or managing finances and online 
government services) was that there was no need to (36%, 33% and 53% respectively). 
Concern about personal details being insecure was given as a reason that had stopped people using 
the internet most commonly for online banking or managing finances (34%), then for buying goods or 
services (26%) and then for accessing online government services (10%).  
Concern about losing money or having money stolen was given as a reason by 16 per cent of adults in 
relation to stopping them accessing online banking or managing finances, then for buying goods or 
services (12%) and less commonly for online government services (3%). 
41

Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 
 
2.2 
INTRODUCTION 
In November 2011 the Government published the UK Cyber Security Strategy1 which focuses on all 
risks relating to internet use. By 2015, the Government’s aspiration is that the measures outlined in the 
strategy will mean the UK is in a position where law enforcement is tackling cyber criminals, citizens 
know what to do to protect themselves, effective cyber security is seen as a positive for UK business, 
a thriving cyber security sector has been established, public services online are secure and resilient, 
and the threats to national infrastructure and national security have been confronted. 
Since 2008/09, the British Crime Survey (BCS) has asked adults about their internet use and from 
2010/11 it has also asked about perceived barriers to using the internet for any of three online 
activities of interest (buying goods or services, online banking or managing finances and online 
government services) and worry about the security of personal details when using the internet. 
Questions were also asked about any negative online experiences (such as a computer virus or loss 
of money) and measures taken to protect personal details when using the internet, relating to the 
‘citizens know what to do to protect themselves’ element of the UK Cyber Security Strategy. 
Details of the questions asked in 2010/11 are shown in Boxes 2.1 to 2.5 of this chapter. Further 
question development has taken place for the 2012/13 survey to add an additional focus on different 
ways of accessing the internet and on understanding why people take the measures they do to keep 
safe online (see Box 2.6; these data will be available from summer 2013). 
The figures published here are based on the questions relating to internet use that were first asked in 
the 2010/11 BCS. As data from only one year are presented, it is not possible to make comparisons 
with earlier survey years. 
2.3 
LEVELS OF INTERNET USE 
According to the 2010/11 BCS, 78 per cent of adults had used the internet (at home or elsewhere) in 
the 12 months prior to interview.2 Men were more likely than women to have done so (81% and 75% 
respectively; Table 2.01). 
As would be expected, levels of internet use decreased with increasing age, from 98 per cent of 16 to 
24 year olds to 19 per cent of those aged 75 or older. Levels of use were similar for men and women 
in each age group between the ages of 16 to 64 (for example, 95% of men aged 25 to 34 and 94% of 
women aged 25 to 34). In the older age groups, however, men were significantly more likely to have 
used the internet in the last year than women: 
 Just over half (53%) of men aged 65 to 74 had used the internet in the last year, higher than the 
two in five women in the 65 to 74 age group (39%). 
 Men aged 75 or older were twice as likely as women in the same age range to have used the 
internet in the last year (27% and 13% respectively). 
It is these differences in levels of internet use among those aged 65 or over that explain the overall 
difference that can be seen in internet usage between men (81%) and women (75%). 
                                                 
1 http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/cyber-security-strategy 
2 This figure corresponds closely with the 77 per cent of the UK population who had used the internet in the three months prior 
to a 2010 interview according to the National Statistics Omnibus survey (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/rdit2/internet-access-
--households-and-individuals/2010/index.html). 
42

Use of the internet and cyber security 
 
Frequency of internet use 
Of the 78 per cent of adults who accessed the internet in the last year, nine in ten had used the 
internet more than once a week (91%) with around eight in ten (78%) having used it every day or 
almost every day (Table 2.02). This equates to around 71 per cent of all adults aged 16 or over having 
used the internet more than once a week in the last year and around 61 per cent having used it every 
day or almost every day (data not shown). 
Among internet users, men (79%) were more likely than women (76%) to have used the internet on a 
daily or almost daily basis. As shown previously for usage overall, this difference can be largely 
explained by the disparity in frequency of usage among the older age groups, for example: 
 Sixty-two per cent of men aged 75 or over who used the internet in the last year used it every 
day or almost every day, significantly higher than the 43 per cent of women in the same age 
group. 
2.4 
WHAT THE INTERNET IS USED FOR 
Adults who had used the internet in the last year were asked what types of activities they had used the 
internet for, from a limited choice shown to them on a card (see Box 2.1). Only two per cent of adults 
said they did not use the internet for any of these activities. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The most commonly reported use was for emailing, instant messaging or visiting chat rooms (83% of 
internet users). Around three-quarters (77%) said they used the internet for buying goods or services 
online (this includes internet shopping and music/film downloads) and 73 per cent to browse for news 
or homework. Half (50%) of adults said they used the internet for online government services (such as 
tax returns, activities relating to the DVLA, or benefits; Figure 2.1 and Table 2.03). 
Among those that only used the internet for one activity (9%) it was most likely to be browsing for 
news or homework (31%) and least likely to be using online government services (1%; data not 
shown). 
For most types of internet use (buying goods or services, browsing for news or homework, online 
banking or managing finances, online government services) the peak in levels of use (generally for 25 
to 34 year olds) was followed by decreases with increasing age. For example (Figure 2.2): 
 Seventy-two per cent of 25 to 34 year olds who used the internet in the last year had done so 
for online banking, falling to 38 per cent of those aged 75 or over. 
Box 2.1 2010/11 BCS question (internet use module) 
Respondents who said they had used the internet in the year prior to interview were asked:  
Which, if any, of the following things do you use the internet for? (Respondents were asked 
to choose all options that applied from a card they were shown): 
 Online banking or managing finances (e.g. paying credit cards) 
 Buying goods or services (internet shopping, inc music/film downloads) 
 Online government services (e.g. tax returns, DVLA, benefits) 
 Social networking (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Bebo, MySpace) or blogging 
 Email, instant messaging, chat rooms 
 Browsing for news or homework (e.g. BBC, CNN, Wikipedia) 
 None of these 
43

Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 
 
Figure 2.1  Types of activities that the internet is used for1 among internet users aged 16 and 
over, 2010/11 BCS 
50
57
58
73
77
83
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Online 
government 
services
Social    
networking
Online banking 
or managing 
finances
Browsing for 
news or 
homework
Buying goods or 
services 
Email, instant 
messaging, 
chatrooms
Percentage saying used the internet for this activity
 
1. Not all internet activities are shown here as adults were given a choice of responses from a card (see Box 2.1). 
Figure 2.2  Variation by age in use of activities among internet users aged 16 and over, 2010/11 
BCS 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
16-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+
Percentage saying used the internet for this activity
Email, instant messaging, chat rooms
Online banking or managing finances
Social networking
 
44

Use of the internet and cyber security 
 
However, among adults who used the internet for emailing, instant messaging or visiting chat rooms 
(83% of internet users) the decline for older adults was less evident. There was a peak in levels of use 
for those aged 25 to 34 (87%), falling only to 81 per cent of those aged 75 or over. 
Again, the pattern of use by age was different for adults using the internet for social networking (57% 
of internet users). This type of internet activity was most common for adults aged 16 to 24 (89%) 
compared with all other types of activity (e.g. 78% for emailing or instant messaging) and compared 
with all older age groups: 
 There was a sharp decline in the proportion of adults who used the internet for social 
networking from those aged 16 to 24 (89%) to those aged 75 or over (12%). 
The analysis that follows focuses on the three key activities which are now part of the UK Cyber 
Security Strategy: buying goods or services, online banking or managing finances and online 
government services. 
Buying goods or services online was the most common (77%) of the three online activities of interest. 
Similar proportions of men and women used the internet for buying goods or services (78% and 76% 
respectively) and this activity was most likely to be done by internet-using adults aged 25 to 44 (25 to 
34: 83%; 35 to 44: 82%). 
Online banking or managing finances was an activity reported by 58 per cent of internet users. 
However, there was some variation by age and sex. Men (61%) were more likely to use the internet 
for banking or managing finances than women (55%). 
As previously described, adults aged 25 to 34 (72%) were the most likely to use online banking or 
financial management compared with all other age groups, falling with increasing age to 38 per cent of 
those aged 75 or over. This finding by age holds true for each sex:  
 There were statistically significantly higher proportions of men aged 25 to 34 and women aged 
25 to 34 (74% and 69% respectively) who had used the internet for online banking compared 
with all other age groups within sex. 
Half of internet-using adults (50%) accessed government services online (such as for tax returns); 
men were more likely to do so than women (55% compared with 45%). The youngest (16 to 24 year 
olds; 29%) and oldest (75 or over; 36%) age groups were least likely to use online government 
services with levels of use being generally similar among adults aged between 25 and 64 years old. 
2.5 
WORRY ABOUT SECURITY OF PERSONAL DETAILS 
Adults who said they had used the internet for any of the three online activities of interest (buying 
goods or services, online banking or managing finances and online government services) were asked 
a follow-up question after each to gauge their level of worry about the security of personal details 
entered online (see Box 2.2 and Table 2.04). 
 Of adults who said they used the internet for buying goods or services, 44 per cent said they 
were worried about the security of the personal details they had entered online (7% were ‘very’ 
worried and the remaining 37% were ‘fairly’ worried). 
 Just over a third of adults (37%) who reported using the internet for banking or managing 
finances were worried about the security of their personal details when doing so; only seven per 
cent were ‘very’ worried. 
 Around a quarter of adults (26%) who said they had used the internet for government services 
were worried about their personal details being secure online, the lowest among users of each 
of these internet services. 
45

Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
While not directly comparable, levels of worry about the security of personal details entered online 
appeared higher than for estimates of worry about other crime types from the BCS, for example, ten 
per cent of adults were worried about being a victim of burglary (Chaplin et al., 2011). However, levels 
of worry were lower than worry about being a victim of plastic card fraud (53% of plastic card owners, 
Moon et al., 2010). 
However, it is worth noting that overall between a half and three-quarters of internet users were not 
worried about the security of their personal details entered online when using the internet for the 
specified activities; that is, 56 per cent of adults who had used the internet for buying goods or 
services, 63 per cent who used online banking and 74 per cent who had used online government 
services. 
There were some variations in levels of worry when considering personal characteristics, although 
fewer differences than found elsewhere in this chapter. Among those who had used the internet for 
buying goods or services, women were more likely than men to be worried about the security of their 
personal details online (46% and 42% respectively; Table 2.05). 
It was clear that among adults who had used the internet to buy goods or services, those aged 16 to 
24 were the least likely to be worried about the security of their personal details entered online (32%, 
compared with 51% of 45 to 54 year olds for example). While 16 to 24 year olds were not the highest 
online consumers of goods or services, seven in ten (71%) internet users said they did use the 
internet to buy goods or services. Of those that did, two-thirds (68%) were not worried about the 
security of personal details online. 
2.6 
PROTECTING PERSONAL DETAILS 
Adults who had used the internet in the last year were asked whether or not they had taken certain 
measures to protect personal details online (see Box 2.3). 
Nearly everyone who used the internet reported that they had adopted at least one of the measures 
asked about. Only three per cent said they did nothing to protect their personal details as they were 
not worried about security. 
Box 2.2 2010/11 BCS question (internet use module) 
For respondents who said they had used the internet for online banking or managing finances, for 
buying goods or services or for online government services:  
When you use the internet for [this activity] how worried are you about the security of the 
personal details you have entered online? By personal details I mean details such as your 
name, bank account or credit card number, username or password. (Respondents were 
asked to choose all options that applied from a card they were shown): 
 Very worried 
 Fairly worried 
 Not very worried 
 Not at all worried 
46

Use of the internet and cyber security 
 
Of the actions asked about, the most commonly mentioned were (Figure 2.3 and Table 2.06): 
 Two-thirds of adults who had used the internet in the last year (67%) reported that they had up-
to-date security software installed on a home computer.3 
 Two-thirds (67%) said they only used well-known or popular or trusted sites. 
 Three in five (61%) said they looked for secure sites (such as a closed padlock system). 
Figure 2.3  Proportion of internet users aged 16 and over taking measures to protect personal 
details online, 2010/11 BCS 
67
67
61
39
30
27
25
15
12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Installed up-to-date        
security software on       
home computer
Only use well-known/     
popular/trusted sites
Look for secure sites
Always keep copy of      
web page/order 
form/correspondence
Only order from          
companies that are       
based in UK
Do not put personal     
details online
Only use credit cards   
(not debit/charge cards)
Only use sites that are   
professionally designed
Only buy from new      
sites recommended by   
established companies
Percentage 
 
There were no statistically significant differences between men and women in the proportion who took 
the three most common actions, although there were some differences by age: 
 Adults aged 75 or over were less likely to report having up-to-date security software installed 
than all younger age groups (53% compared with 67% of those aged 65 to 74 for example). 
 People in the oldest age group were also least likely to have said they only used well-known or 
popular or trusted sites (52% compared with, for example, 66% of those aged 16 to 24). 
 Adults aged 75 or over (45%) were generally less likely to look for secure sites than most 
younger age groups (for example, 65% of 45 to 54 year olds); however, the youngest adults 
aged 16 to 24 (54%) were generally less likely than older groups to look for secure sites (for 
example, 64% of 25 to 34 year olds). 
                                                 
3 Respondents were not asked specifically whether they had a home computer hence some of the 33 per cent who did not say 
they had security software installed may be accounted for by those that did not have a home computer and therefore could 
not have security software installed. 
47

Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Adults who used the internet most frequently were more likely to carry out the three most common 
actions: 
 Compared with adults who had used the internet once a week or less, adults who had used the 
internet more than once a week were twice as likely to have installed up-to-date security 
software on a home computer (35% and 70% respectively) and to have looked for secure sites 
(32% and 64% respectively).4 
 Adults who had used the internet more than once a week were also more likely to have said 
they only used well-known or popular or trusted sites (69%) compared with those using the 
internet less frequently (41%). 
Around a quarter (27%) of adults who had used the internet in the last year said they did not put 
personal details online as a precautionary measure; those aged 55 or over were most likely to do this 
(for example, 42% of those aged 75 or over). 
2.7 
PERCEIVED BARRIERS TO INTERNET USE 
Adults who said they had not used the internet for each of the three online activities of interest (buying 
goods or services, online banking or managing finances and online government services) were asked 
a follow-up question to see if there was anything that had stopped them doing so (see Box 2.4).  
The main reason given by adults for not using the internet for these activities was that there was no 
need to (Tables 2.07a to 2.07c): 
 Around a third of internet-using adults said there was no need to use the internet for buying 
goods or services (36%) or for online banking or financial management (33%). 
                                                 
4 Frequency of internet use was shown to be associated with experience of a computer virus in the last year (see Section 2.7); 
hence figures presented here show that frequent users were more likely to both have security software installed and also to 
have experienced a computer virus. However, it is not possible to say anything about the quality of the software installed or 
whether the software was installed before or after the computer virus was experienced. 
Box 2.3 2010/11 BCS question (internet use module) 
Respondents who said they had used the internet in the year prior to interview were asked:  
Which of these things do you do to protect your personal details when using the internet? 
(Respondents were asked to choose all options that applied from a card they were shown): 
 Only use well-known/popular/trusted sites 
 Look for a secure site (closed padlock system/encrypted transaction/message that tells me 
site is secure) 
 Always keep copy of web page/completed order form/email correspondence 
 Only use credit cards (not debit or charge cards) 
 Only order from companies which appear to be based in the UK 
 Only buy from new sites which are recommended by other established companies 
 Only use sites which look like they have been professionally designed 
 Installed up-to-date security on home computer 
 Do not put personal details online 
 Other 
 Nothing – not worried about security 
48

Use of the internet and cyber security 
 
 Just over half of adults (53%) reported that there was no need to use online government 
services. 
This reason was generally given as a response irrespective of age and sex; however, young people 
aged 16 to 24 were more likely than any other age group to say there was no need to use the internet 
for online banking or managing finances (52%, compared with 34% of 25 to 34 year olds, for example) 
or for online government services (64%, compared with 54% of those aged 25 to 34, for example). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Concern about personal details being insecure was given as a reason that had stopped people using 
the internet most commonly for online banking or managing finances (34%), then for buying goods or 
services (26%) and then for accessing online government services (10%). 
Concern about losing money or having money stolen was a reason given by 16 per cent of adults in 
relation to stopping them accessing online banking or managing finances (the third most common 
reason for this activity), then for buying goods or services (12%) and less commonly for online 
government services (3%). 
The proportion of internet users who were concerned about losing money or having money stolen was 
lower in relation to each of the three activities than concern about personal details being insecure; this 
is interesting because the loss of personal details is often associated with subsequent loss of money. 
Also, it may reflect that the financial loss tends to be borne by the financial institution (rather than 
victims) when money is taken from a bank account or credit card. 
For each of the three activities it was clear that those in the youngest age group were least likely to 
give the reasons of being concerned about personal details being insecure or losing/having money 
stolen as barriers to internet usage compared with most of the older age groups. For example: 
 Concern about personal details being insecure was given as a reason for not using the internet 
for buying goods or services by 11 per cent of 16 to 24 year olds, significantly lower than all 
older age groups (for example, 36% of those aged 75 or over). 
 Internet users aged 75 or over were five times as likely (25%) as those aged 16 to 24 (5%) to 
report that concern about losing money or having money stolen was a reason for not using 
online banking or managing finances. 
Box 2.4 2010/11 BCS question (internet use module) 
The following question was asked of respondents who said they had not used the internet for online 
banking or managing finances, for buying goods or services or for online government services: 
In the last 12 months is there anything that has stopped you using the Internet for [this 
activity]? (Respondents were asked to respond without any prompts from the interviewer): 
 Lack of interest 
 No need 
 Lack of confidence/skills 
 No computer or access 
 Cannot afford it 
 Feel too old 
 Concern about my personal details being insecure 
 Concern about losing money/having money stolen 
49

Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 
 
 Three per cent of those aged 16 to 24 who had used the internet in the last year but not for 
online government services reported that concern about personal details being insecure was a 
reason for not doing so, lower than the 20 per cent of adults aged 75 or over who gave the 
same reason. 
Part of the UK Cyber Security Strategy includes ‘The need for everyone to have the ability – in terms 
of skills, technology, confidence and opportunity – to access cyberspace’. Figures from the 2010/11 
BCS showed that (Tables 2.07a to 2.07c): 
 Lack of confidence or skills was reported as a reason stopping them using the internet for 
buying goods or services by five per cent of internet-using adults who did not use the internet 
for this activity. The equivalent figures for online banking or managing finances and online 
government services were seven and four per cent respectively. 
 Among internet users who did not use the internet for each of the three activities, only very low 
proportions gave no computer or access to a computer as a reason stopping them from 
accessing goods or services, banking or financial management or government services online 
(2%, 1% and 1% respectively). 
Although still a low proportion, women were more likely than men to say that lack of confidence or 
skills was a reason stopping them from using online banking or managing finances (8% and 6% 
respectively) or online government services (5% and 3% respectively).  
Adults aged 16 to 34 who had not used the internet for buying goods or services were least likely to 
say that lack of confidence or skills was a reason stopping them using the internet for this activity (16 
to 24 year olds: 1%; 25 to 34 year olds: 2%; compared with 13% of adults aged 65 to 74 for example). 
Although there were some patterns in the data that suggested variation on barriers to internet use by 
age, these were not all statistically significant. This may in part be due to the small numbers of people 
responding to these questions when broken down by age group; small numbers will affect the tests of 
significance hence any real differences may not be detected. 
2.8 
NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES WHILE USING THE INTERNET 
Adults who had used the internet in the last year were asked whether or not they had experienced 
certain types of negative behaviours or actions as a result of using the internet (see Box 2.5). This 
question is an indicator but not a measure of cyber-enabled crimes as the experiences asked about 
may or may not have been criminal. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Box 2.5 2010/11 BCS question (internet use module) 
Respondents who said they had used the internet in the year prior to interview were asked:  
In the last 12 months, have you personally experienced any of the things mentioned on this 
card while using the internet? (Respondents were asked to choose all options that applied 
from a card they were shown): 
 A computer virus 
 Loss of money 
 Unauthorised access to/use of personal data (e.g. email account, bank account) 
 Upsetting images/illegal images 
 Abusive/ threatening behaviour 
 None of these 
50

Use of the internet and cyber security 
 
Three in five adults (61%) said that they had not experienced any of these negative behaviours or 
actions; of those asked about, the most commonly cited was a computer virus which had been 
experienced by a third of internet-using adults (33%) in the last year. Six per cent of adults reported 
that someone had unauthorised access to or had used their personal data (for example, their email or 
bank account) and three per cent said they had lost money while using the internet (Tables 2a and 
2.08). 
Table 2a 
Negative experiences in the last year among internet users aged 16 and over 
Percentages
All internet users
33
6
4
3
2
61
8,383
Unweighted 
base 1
England and Wales, internet users aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS 
A computer virus
Unauthorised 
access to/use 
of personal data
Upsetting/ 
illegal images
Loss of money
Abusive/ 
threatening 
behaviour
None of these
 
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about internet use who said they had used the 
internet in the last year. 
Focusing on the most common experience, there were clear differences in likelihood of experiencing a 
computer virus in the last year: this had been experienced by more men (38%) than women (29%) and 
by those in the youngest age group more than all other age groups (43% of 16 to 24 year olds 
compared with, for example, 34% of 25 to 34 year olds; Figure 2.4). In particular, young men aged 16 
to 24 were the most likely to have experienced a computer virus in the last year (48%, higher than all 
other ages of men and also women). 
Figure 2.4  Proportion of internet users aged 16 and over who experienced a computer virus in 
the last 12 months by age, sex and internet usage, 2010/11 BCS 
33
38
29
35
17
43
34
34
35
26
18
17
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Percentage experiencing a computer virus in 
the last 12 months
 
51

Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 
 
Unsurprisingly, frequency of internet use was associated with experience of a computer virus in the 
last year. Adults who used the internet more than once a week were twice as likely to have had a 
computer virus as those using the internet once a week or less (35% and 17% respectively).5 
                                                 
5 Further analysis of these data suggests that the relationship between frequency of use and experience of a computer virus 
holds true irrespective of age. 
52

Use of the internet and cyber security 
 
 
 Box 2.6 2012/13 BCS questions about internet use 
The module of questions reported on in this chapter continues to be asked in the 2011/12 BCS. 
Amendments have been made for the 2012/13 survey to include the following questions: 
Respondents who said they had used the internet in the year prior to interview will be asked:  
Which of these have you used in the last 12 months to access the internet? (Respondents 
will be asked to choose all options that apply from a card they are shown): 
 Desktop computer (at home or work) 
 Laptop (at home or work) 
 Laptop (away from home or work) 
 Mobile phone or smartphone 
 Handheld computer (e.g. iPad, tablet, palmtop) 
 Games consol 
 Digital TV 
 Other 
The following question is an amended version of a question reported on in this chapter. It asks 
respondents more generally about keeping safe online (rather than focusing solely on protecting 
personal details): 
Which of these things do you do to keep yourself safe online, including protecting your 
personal details on the internet? (Respondents will be asked to choose all options that 
apply from a card they are shown): 
 Only use well-known/popular/trusted sites 
 Look for a secure site (closed padlock system/https://website address) 
 Do not use public wi-fi/insecure wi-fi 
 Password protect own internet network (broadband, wi-fi) 
 Password protect device used to access the internet (laptop, computer, phone) 
 Have up-to-date security software on home computer 
 Only use credit cards (not debit or charge cards) 
 Do not put personal details online 
 Other 
 Nothing – not worried about security 
The following question will be asked of respondents who said they took any precautions at the 
previous question: 
What are the main reasons, if any, that you take this/these precautions to keep yourself safe 
online? (Respondents will be asked to choose all options that apply from a card they are 
shown): 
 Advice from family/friend/someone else 
 Advertising by/advice from government 
 Advice from police/crime prevention officer 
 Media reports in newspapers/on TV/in other media 
 Have had computer virus in the past 
 Have lost money online in the past 
 Have had personal details accessed without permission in the past 
 Have received upsetting/illegal images in the past 
 Have experienced abusive/threatening behaviour via the internet in the past 
 Generally aware about risks of using the internet 
 Other reason 
 No particular reason 
53

Percentages
England and Wales, adults aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS 
Unweighted 
base 1
ALL ADULTS
78
11,666
16-24
98
983
25-34
95
1,580
35-44
92
2,034
45-54
85
1,975
55-64
72
2,000
65-74
46
1,666
75+
19
1,428
Men
81
5,217
16-24
98
433
25-34
95
696
35-44
93
932
45-54
86
916
55-64
74
920
65-74
53
758
75+
27
562
Women
75
6,449
16-24
98
550
25-34
94
884
35-44
92
1,102
45-54
84
1,059
55-64
71
1,080
65-74
39
908
75+
13
866
Table 2.01  Proportion of adults using the internet in the last year, by age 
and sex
2. See Section 7.3 of the User Guide for definitions of personal characteristics.
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about 
internet use.
54

Percentages
Every 
day/almost 
every day
Two or three 
times a week
Once a week
Less than 
once a week
ALL INTERNET USERS
91
78
14
9
5
4
8,382
16-24
94
84
11
6
3
2
953
25-34
94
84
9
6
3
3
1,498
35-44
93
80
13
7
4
3
1,889
45-54
90
75
14
10
6
5
1,659
55-64
86
68
18
14
6
8
1,393
65-74
84
63
21
16
7
9
735
75+
80
54
26
20
10
10
255
Men
92
79
13
8
4
4
3,891
16-24
94
83
11
6
4
2
426
25-34
95
86
9
5
2
3
662
35-44
94
82
12
6
4
2
867
45-54
91
77
14
9
5
4
767
55-64
87
70
17
13
6
7
646
65-74
88
68
20
12
5
7
384
75+
82
62
20
18
11
7
139
Women
90
76
14
10
5
5
4,491
16-24
95
85
10
5
3
2
527
25-34
93
83
10
7
5
2
836
35-44
93
79
14
7
4
3
1,022
45-54
89
74
15
11
6
5
892
55-64
84
65
19
16
6
9
747
65-74
78
57
22
22
10
11
351
75+
76
43
34
24
10
14
116
2. See Section 7.3 of the User Guide for definitions of personal characteristics.
More than 
once a week
Once a week 
or less often
Table 2.02 Frequency of internet use among adults who used the internet in the last year, by age and sex
Unweighted 
base 1
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about internet use who said they had used the internet in the last year.
England and Wales, internet users aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS 
55

Percentages
ALL INTERNET USERS
83
77
73
58
57
50
2
8,383
16-24
78
71
70
48
89
29
1
953
25-34
87
83
77
72
76
56
1
1,498
35-44
84
82
79
64
62
58
1
1,890
45-54
82
78
76
57
41
56
2
1,659
55-64
81
72
68
50
25
53
3
1,393
65-74
84
68
63
49
15
49
4
735
75+
81
59
64
38
12
36
5
255
Men
83
78
77
61
55
55
2
3,891
16-24
79
71
75
49
87
32
2
426
25-34
87
84
80
74
74
61
1
662
35-44
84
82
82
67
60
62
1
867
45-54
81
80
80
60
40
62
2
767
55-64
81
73
70
54
22
58
3
646
65-74
84
70
67
54
16
59
5
384
75+
78
65
66
45
12
41
5
139
Women
83
76
70
55
58
45
2
4,492
16-24
78
70
65
48
90
25
0
527
25-34
87
82
74
69
78
52
0
836
35-44
83
83
76
61
64
54
1
1,023
45-54
82
76
72
54
41
50
2
892
55-64
81
72
66
46
28
48
4
747
65-74
84
66
58
42
14
36
3
351
75+
85
51
61
29
11
28
5
116
Internet usage
More than once a week
87
80
77
62
60
54
1
7,542
Once a week or less often
38
39
38
18
22
14
12
840
Buying goods 
or services 
Email, instant 
messaging, 
chat rooms
England and Wales, internet users aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS 
2. See Section 7.3 of the User Guide for definitions of personal characteristics.
Table 2.03 Internet activities among adults who used the internet in the last year, by age, sex and internet usage
Unweighted 
base 1
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about internet use who said they had used the internet in the last year.
None of these
Social 
networking
Online banking 
or managing 
finances
Browsing for 
news or 
homework
Online 
government 
services
56

Percentages
England and Wales, internet users aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS 
Buying goods or services 
Online banking or 
managing finances
Online government 
services
Worried
44
37
26
Very worried
7
7
5
Fairly worried
37
30
21
Not worried
56
63
74
Not very worried
44
46
52
Not at all worried
12
17
23
Unweighted base 1
6,414
4,807
4,308
Table 2.04  Proportion of adults who had used the internet in the last year for each activity who 
were worried about the security of personal details entered online for that activity
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about internet use who said they had used 
the internet in the last year and for each of these activities.
57

Percentages
Buying goods or 
services 
Unweighted 
base 1
Online banking or 
managing 
finances
Unweighted 
base 1
Online 
government 
services
Unweighted 
base 1
ALL INTERNET USERS
44
6,414
37
4,807
26
4,308
16-24
32
671
31
459
22
268
25-34
43
1,244
35
1,055
21
852
35-44
44
1,548
35
1,209
26
1,103
45-54
51
1,292
42
949
29
920
55-64
50
1,020
45
694
31
738
65-74
48
496
40
347
26
341
75+
47
143
28
94
20
86
Men
42
3,013
36
2,349
25
2,219
16-24
28
300
31
203
21
133
25-34
42
561
37
490
23
416
35-44
41
705
33
578
25
540
45-54
51
612
40
473
26
475
55-64
47
477
39
349
29
386
65-74
46
271
42
195
24
215
75+
47
87
31
61
27
54
Women
46
3,401
38
2,458
27
2,089
16-24
36
371
30
256
23
135
25-34
43
683
33
565
19
436
35-44
47
843
37
631
27
563
45-54
52
680
44
476
32
445
55-64
53
543
51
345
34
352
65-74
50
225
38
152
29
126
75+
46
56
21
33
6
32
Internet usage
More than once a week
44
6,075
37
4,646
26
4,171
Once a week or less often
52
339
38
161
30
137
England and Wales, internet users aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS 
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about internet use who said they had used the internet in the last year and for 
each of these activities.
2. See Section 7.3 of the User Guide for definitions of personal characteristics.
Table 2.05 Proportion of adults who had used the internet in the last year for each activity who were worried about the security of 
personal details entered online for that activity, by age, sex and internet usage
Percentage saying they were 'very' or 'fairly' worried
58

Percentages
ALL INTERNET USERS
67
67
61
39
30
27
25
15
12
1
3
8,382
16-24
61
66
54
24
26
25
6
18
14
1
5
953
25-34
66
66
64
40
28
23
21
18
13
2
3
1,497
35-44
69
71
67
45
32
24
29
15
13
1
3
1,890
45-54
69
68
65
45
30
26
33
13
12
2
3
1,659
55-64
68
63
58
44
33
35
38
12
10
2
2
1,393
65-74
67
62
53
38
38
35
35
14
10
1
3
735
75+
53
52
45
29
34
42
31
12
9
1
4
255
Men
68
66
61
37
30
26
26
17
13
2
4
3,890
16-24
61
65
57
24
26
22
8
20
15
1
7
426
25-34
66
65
63
39
28
22
20
20
14
2
3
661
35-44
72
70
65
41
29
25
30
16
13
2
4
867
45-54
70
66
66
40
31
26
34
14
12
2
3
767
55-64
70
61
58
40
32
32
35
14
12
2
2
646
65-74
71
66
56
41
41
36
36
16
10
0
3
384
75+
54
53
47
30
35
41
32
15
9
2
2
139
Women
65
67
61
42
30
28
25
14
12
1
3
4,492
16-24
62
67
50
25
25
29
5
17
12
1
2
527
25-34
66
67
65
41
28
23
21
15
13
1
4
836
35-44
67
71
69
49
34
23
28
14
13
1
3
1,023
45-54
68
69
64
49
30
26
32
12
12
1
3
892
55-64
66
65
59
47
34
37
41
11
8
1
2
747
65-74
63
58
49
34
35
35
33
11
10
1
3
351
75+
51
51
44
29
32
44
29
8
9
0
6
116
Internet usage
More than once a week
70
69
64
42
32
26
27
16
13
1
3
7,541
Once a week or less often
35
41
32
13
12
39
12
6
7
3
11
840
Do not put 
personal details 
online
Only order from 
companies that 
are based in UK
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about internet use who said they had used the internet in the last year.
2. See Section 7.3 of the User Guide for definitions of personal characteristics.
Some other 
security 
measure
Only use sites 
that are 
professionally 
designed
Only buy from 
new sites 
recommended 
by established 
companies
Table 2.06 Measures taken by adults who used the internet in the last year to protect personal details online, by age, sex and internet usage
England and Wales, internet users aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS 
Only use well-
known/ popular/ 
trusted sites
Look for secure 
sites
Always keep 
copy of web 
page/order form/ 
correspondence
Only use credit 
cards (not 
debit/charge 
cards)
Nothing - not 
worried about 
security
Unweighted 
base 1
Installed up-to-
date security 
software on 
home computer
59

Percentages
ALL INTERNET USERS
36
26
14
12
5
2
1
1
20
1,966
16-24
45
11
13
7
1
1
2
0
29
282
25-34
45
23
14
9
2
1
1
0
20
252
35-44
35
29
12
8
4
2
2
0
19
342
45-54
31
29
16
14
7
2
1
0
17
366
55-64
27
34
15
20
8
2
1
3
18
373
65-74
29
37
13
17
13
2
0
1
11
239
75+
30
36
16
15
11
3
1
3
13
112
Men
38
25
14
10
4
2
1
0
22
877
16-24
43
8
14
2
1
0
0
0
36
126
25-34
52
23
11
8
1
0
1
0
17
100
35-44
34
29
13
6
3
3
1
0
20
162
45-54
33
29
17
12
6
1
0
0
19
155
55-64
35
29
15
17
5
3
1
0
21
169
65-74
27
40
12
19
13
2
0
0
10
113
75+
27
44
15
13
7
4
1
3
9
52
Women
34
26
14
14
6
1
2
1
18
1,089
16-24
46
13
12
12
1
2
4
0
23
156
25-34
38
23
17
11
3
2
2
0
23
152
35-44
37
29
11
9
6
1
3
0
17
180
45-54
30
29
16
15
9
2
1
0
16
211
55-64
18
39
15
23
11
1
1
5
15
204
65-74
30
33
14
15
13
2
0
2
13
126
75+
32
28
18
16
14
3
0
2
16
60
Internet usage
More than once a week
37
28
12
13
4
1
1
1
20
1,465
Once a week or less often
34
19
21
9
10
3
1
1
19
500
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about internet use who said they had used the internet in the last year but not for buying goods or services.
2. See Section 7.3 of the User Guide for definitions of personal characteristics.
Feel too old
Concern about 
personal 
details being 
insecure
Concern about 
losing 
money/having 
money stolen
None of these
Unweighted 
base 1
Table 2.07a Reasons for not using the internet for buying goods or services among adults who used the internet in the last year, by age, sex and internet usage
England and Wales, internet users aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS 
Lack of 
interest
No need
Lack of 
confidence/ 
skills
No computer 
or access to 
computer
Cannot afford 
it
60

Percentages
ALL ADULTS
34
33
16
11
7
1
0
0
18
3,574
16-24
11
52
5
9
3
1
0
0
26
494
25-34
32
34
16
12
5
2
0
0
21
442
35-44
37
27
17
12
7
1
0
1
17
681
45-54
41
26
20
12
8
2
0
0
16
709
55-64
43
27
23
11
9
1
2
0
14
699
65-74
47
26
21
10
10
1
1
0
11
388
75+
51
25
25
12
11
2
3
0
6
161
Men
33
34
16
12
6
1
0
0
19
1,542
16-24
10
50
4
13
0
1
0
0
30
223
25-34
31
36
16
11
7
2
0
1
20
172
35-44
38
29
17
12
7
2
0
1
16
289
45-54
41
27
20
11
7
1
0
0
16
294
55-64
40
30
22
12
8
2
1
0
13
297
65-74
52
24
24
14
8
1
0
0
11
189
75+
50
22
25
12
7
2
3
1
7
78
Women
34
33
16
10
8
1
1
0
18
2,032
16-24
13
55
6
5
5
1
0
1
22
271
25-34
34
33
17
13
4
2
0
0
21
270
35-44
37
26
17
12
8
1
0
1
18
392
45-54
42
26
20
12
9
3
0
0
16
415
55-64
45
25
23
9
10
1
2
0
16
402
65-74
43
28
18
7
13
1
2
0
11
199
75+
51
27
24
12
15
1
3
0
5
83
Internet usage
More than once a week
35
33
17
9
6
1
0
0
18
2,894
Once a week or less often
29
34
13
18
11
4
1
1
17
679
No need
Lack of 
confidence/ 
skills
Unweighted 
base 1
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about internet use who said they had used the internet in the last year but not for online banking or managing finances.
2. See Section 7.3 of the User Guide for definitions of personal characteristics.
Concern about 
losing 
money/having 
money stolen
None of these
Cannot afford 
it
Table 2.07b Reasons for not using the internet for online banking or managing finances among adults who used the internet in the last year, by age, sex and internet usage
Feel too old
Concern about 
personal 
details being 
insecure
Lack of 
interest
No computer 
or access to 
computer
England and Wales, internet users aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS 
61

Percentages
ALL ADULTS
53
10
10
4
3
1
0
0
23
4,071
16-24
64
3
7
2
1
1
0
0
26
683
25-34
54
8
12
2
2
2
0
0
25
645
35-44
51
14
8
4
3
1
1
0
24
787
45-54
47
14
13
7
3
1
0
0
22
739
55-64
48
16
11
7
4
1
0
1
22
654
65-74
44
14
12
10
5
2
0
1
20
394
75+
44
20
7
10
4
2
1
3
19
169
Men
53
11
11
3
2
2
0
0
23
1,671
16-24
63
2
9
0
1
1
0
0
26
292
25-34
56
7
13
2
2
3
0
0
22
246
35-44
53
14
9
4
2
2
1
0
21
327
45-54
46
17
13
6
3
1
0
0
21
292
55-64
48
17
12
5
4
1
0
0
22
260
65-74
37
18
13
9
4
2
0
1
22
169
75+
47
20
7
3
3
2
1
4
20
85
Women
53
10
9
5
3
1
0
0
24
2,400
16-24
64
3
6
3
2
1
0
0
25
391
25-34
53
10
10
1
2
1
0
0
27
399
35-44
49
13
8
4
4
1
0
0
26
460
45-54
49
12
12
7
3
2
0
0
22
447
55-64
48
14
11
9
5
1
0
3
22
394
65-74
50
11
11
11
5
2
0
1
18
225
75+
41
20
7
18
4
1
0
2
18
84
Internet usage
More than once a week
55
10
9
4
3
1
0
0
24
3,368
Once a week or less often
46
11
15
8
3
3
0
1
21
702
2. See Section 7.3 of the User Guide for definitions of personal characteristics.
Table 2.07c Reasons for not using the internet for online government services among adults who used the internet in the last year, by age, sex and internet usage
No computer 
or access to 
computer
Cannot afford 
it
Feel too old
Concern about 
personal 
details being 
insecure
Concern about 
losing 
money/having 
money stolen
None of these
Unweighted 
base 1
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about internet use who said they had used the internet in the last year but not for online government services.
England and Wales, internet users aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS 
Lack of 
interest
No need
Lack of 
confidence/ 
skills
62

Percentages
ALL INTERNET USERS
33
6
4
3
2
61
8,383
16-24
43
6
5
3
6
50
953
25-34
34
6
3
5
2
60
1,498
35-44
34
7
5
4
2
60
1,890
45-54
35
7
6
3
1
59
1,659
55-64
26
4
3
2
1
69
1,393
65-74
18
2
1
2
0
78
735
75+
17
2
3
2
0
82
255
Men
38
6
4
4
2
57
3,891
16-24
48
7
5
4
5
45
426
25-34
38
6
4
5
2
57
662
35-44
39
7
5
5
1
56
867
45-54
39
7
7
3
1
54
767
55-64
32
5
2
2
1
63
646
65-74
20
3
2
3
0
76
384
75+
22
3
3
3
1
77
139
Women
29
5
4
3
2
65
4,492
16-24
38
6
4
2
6
55
527
25-34
29
7
3
4
2
64
836
35-44
29
6
5
3
2
65
1,023
45-54
30
6
4
3
0
64
892
55-64
21
4
3
2
1
75
747
65-74
16
1
1
1
1
81
351
75+
10
0
2
1
0
89
116
Internet usage
More than once a week
35
6
4
3
2
59
7,542
Once a week or less often
17
2
2
1
1
79
840
Table 2.08 Negative experiences in the last year among internet users, by age, sex and internet usage
England and Wales, internet users aged 16 and over, 2010/11 BCS 
A computer virus
Loss of money
Abusive/ 
threatening 
behaviour
None of these
2. See Section 7.3 of the User Guide for definitions of personal characteristics.
Unauthorised 
access to/use of 
personal data
Upsetting/ illegal 
images
Unweighted 
base 1
1. Base is the quarter-sample of the 2010/11 BCS who were asked questions about internet use who said they had used the internet in the last year.
63

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
64

 
 
3  Experimental statistics on the experience 
of crime among children aged 10 to 15 
Ivy Lau and Jacqueline Hoare 
3.1 SUMMARY 
This chapter is based on data collected from 10 to 15 year olds who took part in the 2010/11 British 
Crime Survey (BCS). Questions were asked of children in England and Wales who had experienced a 
crime about the circumstances of the incident, any details on the offender(s) and their views of the 
incident. 
The nature of violence 
Any differences between the nature of violent incidents experienced by children and adults have been 
highlighted here, although these naturally reflect the differing lifestyles of children and adults. 
 The majority of violent incidents experienced by children took place in or around school (56%) 
whereas for adults most incidents took place on the street (30%).  
 The vast majority of violent incidents experienced by children took place on a weekday (89%) 
and during daylight (88%) in contrast with adults who tended to experience violent incidents 
during the evening or at night (67%). 
 Violent incidents experienced by children were more likely to involve an offender that was well 
known to the victim (56%) than incidents experienced by adults (34%).  
 Around three-fifths of violent incidents among children involved a single offender (61%), and 
one-fifth (22%) involved four or more offenders, a similar distribution to adult incidents (66% and 
19% respectively). 
The nature of theft 
 Around half (46%) of incidents of theft experienced by children occurred in or around school. 
 Similar to violent incidents, thefts experienced by children were most likely to have occurred 
during a weekday (85%) and to have taken place during daylight hours (86%). 
 Incidents of theft were more likely to be perpetrated by a friend than for violent incidents (22% 
and 7% respectively). 
 Items most likely to be stolen included mobile phones (24% of incidents) and bicycles (21%). 
Variation in violence victimisation rates among children 
 Boys were around twice as likely as girls to have been a victim of violence (9.5% and 4.1% 
respectively).  
 Children with a long-standing illness or disability were more likely to have experienced a violent 
incident compared with children without an illness or disability (15.0% and 6.1% respectively).  
 Children who had been bullied in the last 12 months had a much higher violence victimisation 
rate (20.8%) than those who had not been bullied (3.3%), not unexpectedly as children 
perceived that three in five violent incidents (62%) were part of a series of bullying. 
65

Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 
 
 
3.2 INTRODUCTION 
This chapter is based on data collected from 10 to 15 year olds who took part in the 2010/11 British 
Crime Survey (BCS). Around 3,850 children took part in the survey after being randomly selected from 
within households already taking part in the main survey. 
All children who were interviewed were asked questions about their experience of crime (details of the 
questions are published via the Economic and Social Data Service1). This chapter reports on the 
circumstances of violence and theft incidents experienced by 10-to-15-year-old children in the 12 
months prior to interview. Victims of such incidents were asked a series of questions relating to their 
experience including information about the circumstances of the incident, any details on the 
offender(s) and the child’s view of the nature of the incident.  
Estimates of victimisation for 10 to 15 year olds from the 2010/11 BCS have previously been 
published as experimental statistics (Chaplin et al., 2011). The information included in this publication 
provides a more detailed picture of children’s experiences of victimisation and thus a greater 
understanding of the nature of these crimes. The figures presented are restricted to those included in 
the more focused method of counting crime against children (the ‘Preferred measure’).2 This takes into 
account factors identified as important in determining the severity of an incident and thus includes 
incidents where: 
 the offender3 was not known (e.g. stranger, tradesman, pupil from another school); or 
 the offender3 was known, but aged 16 or over and not a family member (e.g. neighbour, older 
friend, teacher); or 
 the offender3 was known and either a family member or aged under 16 (e.g. parent, sibling, 
school-friend) and there was visible injury or theft or damage involving a ‘high value’ item; or 
 a weapon4 was involved. 
The analysis presented in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 about the nature of violence and the nature of theft is 
based on incidents rather than victims (who may have experienced more than one incident). These 
data are being published for the first time. In contrast, information presented in section 3.5 on the 
variation in victimisation rates5 among children is victim-based data (a victim may experience more 
than one incident of crime, but would only be included once). See Section 4 of the British Crime 
Survey Dataset User Guide1 (Children aged 10 to 15) for more information on victim- and incident-
based analysis.  
Data on the nature of crimes experienced by adults aged 16 or over from the BCS are published 
annually.6 Where possible, comparisons are made here to highlight how similar or different 
victimisation experiences are for adults and children. Due to the small size of the sample, it is not 
possible to break down incidents of theft experienced by children into smaller offence groups (theft 
from the person, for example). Hence it is not possible to compare the nature of theft experienced by 
children with previously published data on the experience of adult respondents due to the different  
 
                                                 
1 http://www.esds.ac.uk/findingData/snDescription.asp?sn=6937 
2 For more details see Appendix 1 of Chaplin et al. (2011). 
3 If there was more than one offender, the incident was included if just one of the offenders matched this criterion. 
4 A ‘weapon’ constitutes any item that was considered to be a weapon by the victim; this includes knives, sticks, stones and 
bottles. 
5 See Section 2.5 of the User Guide for more information. 
6 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/research-statistics/crime/crime-statistics/bcs-supplementary-tabs/ 
66

Experimental statistics on the experience of crime among children aged 10 to 15 
 
presentation of data. Nor is it possible to examine the nature of vandalism incidents due to the small 
size of the sample.7 
Any differences in BCS estimates from the 10-to-15-year-old survey that are described in this chapter 
are statistically significant at the five per cent level (see Section 8 of the User Guide to Home Office 
Crime Statistics). Considerably fewer individuals are sampled for the 10-to-15-year-old survey than for 
the adult survey and therefore estimates based on the 10-to-15-year-old survey have a larger margin 
of error. This means that, compared with the adult survey, differences between estimates must be 
larger before we can be confident that they are statistically significant. 
Victimisation estimates from BCS interviews with 10 to 15 year olds have been designated as 
experimental statistics, that is, as new Official Statistics undergoing evaluation and published to 
involve users and stakeholders in their development as a means to build in quality at an early stage. 
As such, the statistics are subject to further refinement and review. Hence, figures have not yet been 
considered for accreditation as National Statistics but this chapter has been produced in compliance 
with the Official Statistics Code of Practice.8 
3.3 THE NATURE OF VIOLENCE 
According to the 2010/11 BCS, there were an estimated 576,000 incidents of violence experienced by 
children aged 10 to 15 in the last 12 months (Chaplin et al., 2011). Violence as measured by the BCS 
includes the offence types of wounding, robbery, assault with minor injury and assault with injury (see 
Section 5.1 of the User Guide for more details). 
Figures presented in this section on violent incidents experienced by children have been compared 
with the nature of violent incidents experienced by adults9 to highlight any variations, although 
naturally these reflect the differing lifestyles of children and adults. 
The circumstances of violence 
Experimental statistics from the 2010/11 BCS showed that the majority of all violent incidents 
experienced by children aged 10 to 15 took place in or around school (56%), with 36 per cent outside 
the school building10 and 19 per cent inside the school building (Table 3.01). 
Sixteen per cent of incidents occurred around the home11 and a further 13 per cent at a park, common 
or open space.  
Obviously, this differs from the nature of violent incidents experienced by adults where most incidents 
took place on the street (30%) or around the home (26%), and only eight per cent took place around 
work.12 This reflects the different lifestyles of children and adults. 
Around nine in ten violent incidents experienced by children took place on a weekday (89%). Three-
quarters of incidents (76%) took place during the daytime on a weekday with 13 per cent taking place 
on a weekday evening (Figure 3.1 and Table 3.02). This contrasts with the experiences of adults 
where around half (55%) of incidents occurred during the week (Figure 3.1). 
While the majority (88%) of violent incidents experienced by 10 to 15 year olds took place during 
daylight, the majority of incidents experienced by adults (67%) took place during the evening or at 
night. 
                                                 
7 It would require a large expansion of the sample at substantial cost to provide this more detailed breakdown of theft categories 
or to present the data on the nature of criminal damage. 
8 http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/assessment/code-of-practice/index.html 
9 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/nature-violent-crime 
10 This comprises playground, street or car park. 
11 This comprises home, garage, shed, car park or nearby street. 
12 Includes work premises, whether inside/outside or work garage/car parks. 
67

Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 
 
 
Figure 3.1 Proportion of violent incidents experienced by children and adults by timing of 
incident, 2010/11 BCS 
89
11
55
45
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Weekday
Weekend
Weekday
Weekend
Children aged 10 to 15
Adults aged 16 or over
Percentage
 
Offenders involved in violence 
Given the nature of violent offences, victims of violence are more likely to be able to say something 
about the offender than for other types of crime (see Box 3.1). This was the case for 93 per cent of 
violent incidents that children experienced, a lower proportion than for adults (99%).  
Around three-fifths of violent incidents among children involved a single offender (61%), and one-fifth 
(22%) involved four or more offenders (Table 3.03). This was a similar distribution to adult incidents 
(66% and 19% respectively). 
The majority of violent incidents were carried out by someone in the victim‟s age group: in three-
quarters of incidents (76%) the offender13 was thought to be aged 10 to 15 by the victim and the 
majority (68%) were perpetrated by pupil(s) at school. 
Box 3.1 Victim’s knowledge of offender(s) 
BCS 10-to-15-year-old respondents were asked whether they have any information about the 
offender(s) for any incidents they had experienced in the 12 months prior to interview. Thus, where the 
offender-victim relationship or any other information about the offender is stated, the proportion is 
based on those incidents where the respondent has some knowledge of the offender – this is referred 
to in the text as “able to say something” about the offender(s). 
                                                 
13 In this chapter „the offender‟ relates to the one offender in an incident where there was one single offender, but in cases 
where there was more than one offender, „the offender‟ relates to at least one of the perpetrators. 
68

Experimental statistics on the experience of crime among children aged 10 to 15 
 
Most violent incidents experienced by children involved male offender(s) (76%), a similar level to that 
reported by adult victims of violence (79%).  
In the majority of violent incidents experienced by children the offender was known to the respondent 
(Figure 3.2). 
 In around half of violent incidents (56%) the offender was known well to the victim. 
 In 30 per cent of violent incidents the victim knew the offender by sight or to speak to. 
 In 15 per cent of incidents of violence the child victim stated that the offender was a stranger. 
This differs from the nature of violent incidents experienced by adults, where the offender was most 
commonly a stranger (46%) and in around a third of incidents the offender was well known to the 
victim (34%; Figure 3.2).14 
Figure 3.2 Proportion of violent incidents experienced by children and adults by relationship 
to the offender, 2010/11 BCS 
15
30
56
46
20
34
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Stranger
Known by sight 
or to speak to 
Known well
Stranger
Known by sight 
or to speak to 
Known well
Children aged 10 to 15
Adults aged 16 or over
Percentage
 
Injuries and weapons 
Four in five violent incidents experienced by children aged 10 to 15 resulted in some form of injury 
(81%), the majority being minor bruising or black eyes (59%). One in ten violent incidents resulted in 
the victim requiring some form of medical attention (12%; Table 3.04).  
                                                 
14 For adults, the offender-victim relationship is classified as 'strangers' if the victim did not know and had never seen the 
offender(s) before (as for children) but also if the victim did not have any information about the offender(s). This has little 
effect on the proportions as in 99 per cent of violent incidents the adult victim was able to say something about the offender. 
69

Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 
 
 
In just over a half (55%) of violent incidents experienced by adults physical injury was sustained; and a 
third of incidents resulted in minor bruising or black eyes. This may be a reflection of the differences 
between children and adults, where adults do not tend to engage in low-level assaults on their peers. 
Just under a quarter of violent incidents experienced by 10 to 15 year olds involved the use of a 
weapon15 (23%), which was a similar proportion to violent incidents experienced by adults (20%). In 
violent incidents among children which involved a weapon, the most common weapon involved was a 
stick, club or hitting instrument (41%). One-quarter of such incidents involved the use of stones, bricks 
or concrete and one in nine (11%) involved a knife, screwdriver or stabbing instrument (Table 3.05). 
Caution should be used when interpreting these estimates of the type of weapon used in violent 
incidents experienced by children as they are based on a low number of cases. For more information 
on the type of injury sustained by children from the BCS 10-to-15s survey; see Chapter 3 of ‘Crime in 
England and Wales 2010/11’ (Chaplin et al., 2011). 
Perceptions of violence 
Experimental statistics from the 2010/11 BCS showed that 70 per cent of violent incidents experienced 
by children aged 10 to 15 were not perceived to be a crime by the victim; with 37 per cent perceiving 
the incident to be ‘wrong, but not a crime’ and 33 per cent perceiving it as ‘just something that 
happens’ (Table 3.06).  
Children perceived that three in five violent incidents (62%) that took place were part of a series of 
bullying. For more information on the experience of bullying from the BCS children’s survey see 
Chapter 3 in ‘Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2009/10’ (Hoare et al., 2011). 
Reporting of violence 
Overall, the police came to know about 14 per cent of all violent incidents against 10 to 15 year olds. 
This is lower than the equivalent figure for adults (41%), which is to be expected considering some of 
the violence that children experience would likely not be reported to the police and may be dealt with 
by another authority figure, such as a teacher or parent. Indeed, the majority of violent incidents that 
occurred in or around school were reported by children to a teacher (85%; Table 3.07). 
3.4 THE NATURE OF THEFT 
According to the 2010/11 BCS, there were an estimated 275,000 incidents of theft experienced by 
children aged 10 to 15 in the last 12 months (Chaplin et al., 2011). 
Estimates of thefts experienced by children on the BCS are based on (see Section 5.2 of the User 
Guide for more details): 
 Personal thefts: including theft from the person (snatch theft, stealth theft and attempts) and 
other theft of personal property (for example, theft of items the respondent was not carrying or 
holding at the time of incident). 
 Household thefts: including theft from inside and outside a dwelling and theft of bicycles where 
the property stolen or damaged belonged solely to the child respondent.16 
The nature of overall thefts from the 2010/11 BCS 10-to-15s survey is presented here; the separate 
theft offences are not reported due to low prevalence in some categories. As previously noted (see 
                                                 
15 A ‘weapon’ constitutes any item that was considered to be a weapon by the victim (whether adult or child); this includes 
knives, sticks, stones and bottles. 
16 This broadens the scope of personal victimisation but may also result in an overlap in theft offences reported on the adult 
survey; the extent to which this happens will be evaluated in the future. 
70

Experimental statistics on the experience of crime among children aged 10 to 15 
 
Section 3.2), it is not possible to make comparisons with the nature of theft experienced by adults. 
Instead, comparisons are made with the nature of violence experienced by children. 
The circumstances of thefts 
Experimental statistics from the 2010/11 BCS showed that 46 per cent of theft incidents experienced 
by children occurred in or around school, a lower proportion than for violent incidents (56%). However, 
thefts were more likely to occur inside a school building than violent incidents (34% compared with 
19%). Incidents of theft were also more likely to occur in or around the home (27%) compared with 
violent incidents (16%; Table 3.01). 
Similar to violent incidents, incidents of theft experienced by 10 to 15 year olds were most likely to 
have occurred during a weekday (85% of theft incidents similar to 89% of violent incidents) and to 
have taken place during daylight hours (86% and 88% respectively; Table 3.02).  
Offenders involved in thefts 
As expected, compared with violent incidents, victims of theft were much less likely to be able to say 
something about the perpetrator of the incident (for example, because some thefts were of unattended 
items). The following analysis therefore relates only to the 44 per cent of incidents where the child was 
able to say something about the offender (see Box 3.1 and Table 3.03). 
Two-thirds (65%) of theft incidents experienced by children aged 10 to 15 involved a single offender, 
which was a similar proportion to that for violent incidents (61%). However, incidents of theft were less 
likely to involve four or more offenders compared with incidents of violence (9% and 22% 
respectively). 
In 80 per cent of incidents of theft where the victim was able to say something about the offender, the 
offender was perceived to be aged 10 to 15, a similar proportion to that for violent incidents (76%). 
Again this suggests that the majority of offences are carried out by perpetrators in the victim‟s age 
group. 
In 17 per cent of incidents of theft the offender was a stranger, which was similar to violent incidents 
(16%). However, there was a lower proportion of theft incidents where the offender was known well 
(44%) compared with violent incidents (56%). 
The victim‟s relationship to the offender in incidents of theft generally differed to those in violent 
incidents. For example, of the incidents where the victim was able to say something about the 
offender: 
 Incidents of theft were less likely to be perpetrated by a pupil from the victim‟s own school 
compared with incidents of violence (54% and 68% respectively). 
 Incidents of theft were more likely to be perpetrated by a friend than for violent incidents (22% 
and 7% respectively). 
Items stolen  
Four in five (79%) incidents of theft (including attempted thefts) experienced by children resulted in an 
item being stolen. Items most commonly stolen were (Table 3.08):  
 a mobile phone (24% of incidents);  
 a bicycle or bicycle parts (21%); 
71

Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 
 
 
 cash (16%); and  
 clothing (12%). 
Perceptions of thefts 
Incidents of theft experienced by children aged 10 to 15 were perceived in a different way to violent 
incidents, for example (Table 3.06): 
 Incidents of thefts were more likely to be perceived as a crime compared with violent incidents 
(55% and 30% respectively). 
 Theft incidents were much less likely to be perceived as part of a series of bullying compared 
with violent incidents (13% compared with 62%). 
Reporting of thefts 
Despite incidents of theft being more likely to be perceived by children as a crime compared with 
violent incidents, the reporting rates were similar for the two types of offences (Table 3.07): 
 Police came to know about 13 per cent of theft incidents experienced by 10 to 15 year olds, 
similar to the 14 per cent of violent incidents reported to the police. 
 Eighty-four per cent of theft incidents that occurred in or around school were reported to a 
teacher as were 85 per cent of violent incidents. 
3.5 VARIATION IN VICTIMISATION RATES AMONG CHILDREN 
Headline victimisation rates17 for violence, theft and vandalism for 10 to 15 year olds from the 2010/11 
BCS have previously been published as experimental statistics (Chaplin et al., 2011). Evidence from 
the main BCS has repeatedly shown that victimisation rates among adults vary depending on the 
characteristics of victims (see, for example, Flatley et al., 2010); hence similar analysis has now been 
carried out on the data collected from children. 
This section focuses on the variation in victimisation rates according to personal, household and area 
characteristics18 (see Tables 3.09 and 3.10). However, some of these demographic characteristics 
may be inter-related so caution is needed in the interpretation of the effect of these different 
characteristics when viewed in isolation. 
In general, caution should also be used when interpreting estimates that are based on a low number 
of cases. This is notably true for certain characteristics associated with children in this sample, such 
as having been bullied or living in a flat or in an area of high physical disorder. It should also be noted 
that tests of statistical significance are related to sample size; it may be that some apparently large 
differences shown in the tables are not statistically significant and could be due to sampling variation. 
Only statistically significant differences are highlighted in the text. 
 
 
 
                                                 
17 See Section 2.5 of the User Guide for more information about victimisation (prevalence) rates on the BCS. 
18 See Section 7 of the User Guide for more details of these characteristics. 
72

Experimental statistics on the experience of crime among children aged 10 to 15 
 
Overall, there was little variation in theft or damage victimisation rates among children according to 
associated personal, household or area characteristics (although levels of bike theft were higher for 
boys (1.8%) than for girls (0.6%)). Hence the following commentary considers only variations in 
violence and overall crime victimisation rates among children.19 
Violence victimisation among children 
According to the 2010/11 BCS, 6.9 per cent of children aged 10 to 15 had experienced a violent crime 
in the last 12 months (Chaplin et al., 2011 and Tables 3.9 and 3.10). Boys were around twice as likely 
as girls to have been a victim of violence (9.5% and 4.1% respectively). This was also true looking at 
grouped ages (Table 3.09): 
 Boys aged 10 to 12 (9.6%) and also boys aged 13 to 15 (9.4%) were each more likely to have 
been victims of violence than both girls aged 10 to 12 (4.8%) and girls aged 13 to 15 (3.5%). 
Around 3.1 per cent of adults had experienced a violent crime in the last year (Chaplin et al., 2011). 
Similar to the gender difference noted among children, men were twice as likely to be a victim of 
violent crime as women (4.1% and 2.2% respectively).20 
The pattern by age was less clear, however, as ten year olds had the highest victimisation rate 
(11.6%) compared with all other ages (for example, 5.7% of 11 year olds) but there were no 
statistically significant differences between any of the other ages. Considering other personal 
characteristics of children, experimental statistics from the 2010/11 BCS showed that: 
 Children with a long-standing illness or disability were more than twice as likely to have 
experienced a violent incident compared with children without an illness or disability (15.0% and 
6.1% respectively). 
 Children who had been bullied in the last 12 months had a much higher violence victimisation 
rate (20.8%) than those who had not been bullied (3.3%). This is not unexpected as violence 
can often form part of the bullying experience. As discussed in Section 3.3, 62 per cent of 
violent incidents were perceived to be part of a series of bullying. 
There was also variation in violence victimisation among children according to some household 
characteristics (Table 3.10): 
 Children who lived in a household with one adult were more likely to have experienced a violent 
incident in the last year (9.4%) compared with children who lived in a household with more than 
one adult (6.2%). 
 Children who lived in social-rented property had the highest violence victimisation rate (11.6%) 
compared with 6.6 per cent of children in private-rented accommodation and 5.2 per cent of 
those in owner-occupied accommodation. 
 Children who lived in households with an income of less than £20,000 were more likely to have 
been a victim of violence (less than £10,000: 12.5%, from £10,000 to less than £20,000: 10.6%) 
compared with children who lived in households with all higher incomes (for example, £50,000 
or more: 5.4%; Figure 3.3). 
                                                 
19 Figures presented here are based on the more focused method of counting crime against children (the Preferred measure) 
which takes into account factors identified as important in determining the severity of an incident but will still include 
incidents of a serious nature even if they took place at school. 
20 See http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/  for 
estimates on the proportion of adults who were victims of violence by offence type and personal characteristics in Table 1 of 
the „Demographic tables – Crime in England and Wales 2010/11‟. 
73

Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 
 
 
Figure 3.3 Variation in violence victimisation rate among children aged 10 to 15 by household 
income, 2010/11 BCS 
12.5
10.6
6.5
4.4
4.9
5.4
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
Less than 
£10,000
£10,000 less 
than £20,000
£20,000 less 
than £30,000
£30,000 less 
than £40,000
£40,000 less 
than £50,000
£50,000 or more
Percentage
 
As with adults,21 violence victimisation rates were higher in more deprived areas. Children living in an 
area of high physical disorder were around twice as likely to have been a victim of violence as those 
living in an area that did not have a high level of disorder (12.5% and 6.5% respectively). Similarly, 
children living in the most deprived output areas according to the crime deprivation index (9.7%) were 
around twice as likely to have experienced violence in the last year as those living in the least 
deprived output areas (5.0%). 
The level of violence victimisation among 10 to 15 year olds was similar in urban and rural areas 
(6.9% and 6.7% respectively). This distribution is different to that of adults; adults living in an urban 
area were more likely to be a victim of a violent offence than those living in a rural area (3.4% 
compared with 2.0%).21 
Overall victimisation among children 
For children, most of the variation seen in being a victim of any crime is due to the variation in violence 
victimisation, as the smaller degree of variation in theft and damage victimisation rates only has a 
minor effect. 
Experimental statistics from the 2010/11 BCS showed that 11.7 per cent of children aged 10 to 15 had 
experienced a crime in the last 12 months (Chaplin et al., 2011 and Tables 3.09 and 3.10). This figure 
encompasses the 11.4 per cent of children who experienced a crime against the person (that is, an 
offence of violence or theft) and 0.4 per cent who had experienced a crime against personal property 
(that is, criminal damage, Tables 3.09 and 3.10). 
                                                 
21 See http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/  for 
estimates on the proportion of adults who were victims of violence by offence type and personal characteristics in Table 2 of 
the „Demographic tables – Crime in England and Wales 2010/11‟. 
74

Experimental statistics on the experience of crime among children aged 10 to 15 
 
Boys were more likely than girls to have been a victim of any BCS crime (14.6% and 8.6% 
respectively). There was no variation by age so this held true when looking at grouped ages (Table 
3.09): 
 Boys aged 10 to 12 (14.5%) and also boys aged 13 to 15 (14.7%) were each more likely to 
have been victims of crime than girls aged 10 to 12 and girls aged 13 to 15 (both 8.6%). 
As shown for violence victimisation, rates of overall victimisation were considerably higher among 
children with a long-standing illness or disability and those who had been bullied in the last year: 
 Children with a long-standing illness or disability were more likely to have been a victim of crime 
compared with children without an illness or disability (18.8% and 11.0% respectively). 
 Children who had been bullied in the last 12 months had a much higher victimisation rate 
(28.7%) than those who had not been bullied (6.7%).22 
There were similar patterns for crime victimisation overall as shown for violence victimisation when 
looking at household characteristics (Table 3.10): 
 Children who lived in a household with one adult were more likely to have experienced a crime 
in the last year (16.0%) compared with children who lived in a household with more than one 
adult (10.5%). 
 Children who lived in social-rented property had the highest victimisation rate (17.4%, compared 
with 12.0% of children in private-rented accommodation and 9.4% in owner-occupied 
accommodation). 
 Children who lived in households with lower incomes were the most likely to have been a victim 
of crime (for example, less than £10,000: 18.1%, compared with £50,000 or more: 9.3%). 
Again, as for violence, there was a similarity in children‟s victimisation rates in urban and rural areas 
(11.6% and 11.8% respectively). There was also a clear pattern in levels of victimisation according to 
the crime deprivation index:  
 Children living in the most deprived areas (according to the crime deprivation index) were most 
likely to have been a victim of crime (15.1%), higher than the 12.0 per cent of children in the 60 
per cent of areas between the most and least deprived areas. These figures were both higher 
than the 8.6 per cent of children living in the least deprived areas (according to the crime 
deprivation index). 
 
                                                 
22 This has already been shown for violence, but holds true for theft as well: 11.3 per cent of children who had been bullied in 
the last month had been victims of theft, higher than the 3.7 per cent of children who had not been bullied. 
75

Percentages
England and Wales, children aged 10–15, 2010/11 BCS
All violence1
All thefts1
In or around school
56
46
Inside school building
19
34
Outside school building (playground/street/car park)
36
12
In or around home/housing estate
16
27
Park/common/open space
13
7
Other public location (incl transport)
9
9
Elsewhere
6
10
Unweighted base
426
312
Percentages
England and Wales, children aged 10–15, 2010/11 BCS
All violence1
All thefts1
Weekday
89
85
Weekday daytime
76
75
Weekday evening
13
10
Weekend2
11
15
Unweighted base
419
296
Daylight
88
86
Dark
6
12
Dawn/dusk
6
2
Unweighted base
425
297
Term time
88
82
School holidays
12
18
Unweighted base
404
298
2. Weekend includes Friday night.
Table 3.01  Experimental statistics: Where incidents experienced by children aged 10 to 15 took place
Table 3.02  Experimental statistics: Timing of when incidents experienced by children aged 10 to 15 took place
1. 'All violence' includes the offence types of wounding, robbery, assault with minor injury and assault with injury. 'All thefts' includes 
theft from the person and other theft of personal property but also theft from inside and outside a dwelling and theft of bicycles where 
the property stolen or damaged belonged solely to the child respondent. See Section 5 of the User Guide for more information on crime 
types.
1. 'All violence' includes the offence types of wounding, robbery, assault with minor injury and assault with injury. 'All thefts' includes 
theft from the person and other theft of personal property but also theft from inside and outside a dwelling and theft of bicycles where 
the property stolen or damaged belonged solely to the child respondent. See Section 5 of the User Guide for more information on crime 
types.
76

Percentages
England and Wales, children aged 10–15, 2010/11 BCS
All violence1
All thefts1
Able to say something about offender(s)
93
44
Unweighted base
424
309
Number of offender(s)
One
61
65
Two
11
22
Three
6
5
Four or more
22
9
Sex of offender(s)
Male(s)
76
76
Female(s)
16
19
Both
8
5
Age of offender(s)2
Aged under 10
10
5
Aged 10 to 15
76
80
Aged 16 to 19
12
15
Aged 20 or older
4
4
Relationship to victim3
Stranger
15
17
Known by sight or to speak to 
30
39
Known well
56
44
Unweighted base (victim was able to say something 
about the offender)
395
119
Pupil at your school
                                         68 
                                         54 
Young people from local area 
                                         16 
                                         10 
Friend (incl boy/girlfriend)
                                           7 
                                         22 
Other relationship
                                         12 
                                         18 
Unweighted base (victim was able to say something 
about an offender who was 'known')
321
98
Table 3.03  Experimental statistics: Offender characteristics in incidents experienced by children aged 10 
to 15
1. 'All violence' includes the offence types of wounding, robbery, assault with minor injury and assault with injury. 'All thefts' 
includes theft from the person and other theft of personal property but also theft from inside and outside a dwelling and theft of 
bicycles where the property stolen or damaged belonged solely to the child respondent. See Section 5 of the User Guide for 
more information on crime types.
2. Figures add to more than 100 as more than one offender could be involved.
3. Where there was more than one offender a priority order was applied to the data so that ‘Known well’ would take precedence 
over 'Known by sight or to speak to' which would in turn take precedence over 'Stranger'.  For example if there were two 
offenders, one ‘Known well’  and the other a ‘Stranger’  this would be categorised as ‘Known well’. 
77

Percentages
England and Wales, children aged 10–15, 2010/11 BCS
All violence1
Sustained an injury
                                                                                           81 
Received some form of medical attention
                                                                                           12 
Unweighted base
                                                                                         414 
Type of injury
Minor bruise/black eye
                                                                                           59 
Scratches
                                                                                           31 
Marks on skin
                                                                                           19 
Severe bruising
                                                                                           14 
Cuts
                                                                                           10 
Serious injury2
                                                                                             7 
Hurt but no marks on skin
                                                                                             5 
Some other injury
                                                                                             2 
Unweighted base
                                                                                         294 
Percentages
England and Wales, children aged 10–15, 2010/11 BCS
All violence1
Weapon used
23
Unweighted base
403
Stick/club/hitting implement
41
Stones/brick/concrete
25
Knife/screwdriver/stabbing implement
11
Something else
33
Unweighted base
106
1. 'All violence' includes the offence types of wounding, robbery, assault with minor injury and assault with injury. See 
Section 5 of the User Guide for more information on crime types.
Table 3.05  Experimental statistics: What weapons were used in violent incidents experienced by 
children aged 10 to 15
Table 3.04  Experimental statistics: What injuries were sustained in violent incidents experienced by 
children aged 10 to 15
2. Serious injury includes: facial/head injuries, broken nose, concussion, broken bones.
1. 'All violence' includes the offence types of wounding, robbery, assault with minor injury and assault with injury. See 
Section 5 of the User Guide for more information on crime types.
78

Percentages
England and Wales, children aged 10–15, 2010/11 BCS
All violence1
All thefts1
Incident perceived as a crime
30
55
Incident not perceived as a crime
70
45
Incident perceived to be wrong, but not a crime
37
24
Incident perceived to be just something that 
happens
33
21
Unweighted base
412
307
Incident perceived as part of a series of bullying
62
13
Unweighted base
403
306
Percentages
England and Wales, children aged 10–15, 2010/11 BCS
All violence1
All thefts1
Whether police came to know about the incident
14
13
Unweighted base
423
308
Reported to at school
Teacher
85
84
Friend
17
27
Someone else at school (incl prefect)
15
18
Unweighted base (only includes incidents that 
occurred at school)
138
106
Table 3.06  Experimental statistics: Perceptions of incidents experienced by children aged 10 to 15
Table 3.07  Experimental statistics: Who incidents experienced by children aged 10 to 15 were reported to
1. 'All violence' includes the offence types of wounding, robbery, assault with minor injury and assault with injury. 'All thefts' includes 
theft from the person and other theft of personal property but also theft from inside and outside a dwelling and theft of bicycles 
where the property stolen or damaged belonged solely to the child respondent. See Section 5 of the User Guide for more 
information on crime types.
1. 'All violence' includes the offence types of wounding, robbery, assault with minor injury and assault with injury. 'All thefts' includes 
theft from the person and other theft of personal property but also theft from inside and outside a dwelling and theft of bicycles 
where the property stolen or damaged belonged solely to the child respondent. See Section 5 of the User Guide for more 
information on crime types.
79

Percentages
England and Wales, children aged 10–15, 2010/11 BCS
All thefts1
Any item was stolen2
79
Unweighted base
312
Type of item stolen
Mobile phone
24
Bicycle or bicycle parts
21
Cash/foreign currency
16
Clothing
12
Electrical items 
7
Bag/handbag/shopping bag
7
Sports equipment
5
Toys
4
Stationery/books
4
Jewellery/watches
3
Cards/purse
2
Other items
12
Unweighted base
247
2. Proportion is based on all thefts, including attempted thefts where no items were stolen.
Table 3.08  Experimental statistics: What items were stolen in thefts experienced by children 
aged 10 to 15
1. 'All thefts' includes theft from the person and other theft of personal property but also theft from inside and 
outside a dwelling and theft of bicycles where the property stolen or damaged belonged solely to the child 
respondent. See Section 5 of the User Guide for more information on crime types.
80

Percentages
England and Wales, children aged 10–15, 2010/11 BCS
All violence1
All thefts1
Violence with 
injury
Violence 
without injury
Theft from 
the person
Other theft of 
personal 
property
Theft from 
the dwelling/ 
outside the 
dwelling
Bike theft
ALL CHILDREN AGED 10–15
6.9
5.1
2.1
5.4
0.7
3.1
0.5
1.2
11.4
0.4
11.7
           3,849 
Age
10–12
7.3
5.6
2.0
5.1
0.5
2.9
0.6
1.2
11.4
0.6
11.6
           1,823 
10
11.6
9.4
2.5
4.0
0.0
2.5
0.6
0.8
14.6
1.2
15.0
              532 
11
5.7
4.3
1.9
5.6
0.9
3.2
0.5
1.3
10.4
0.6
10.7
              640 
12
5.0
3.6
1.8
5.5
0.5
3.0
0.5
1.5
9.5
0.1
9.6
              651 
13–15
6.5
4.6
2.2
5.7
0.8
3.3
0.5
1.2
11.5
0.2
11.7
           2,026 
13
7.1
4.9
2.6
4.3
0.5
3.0
0.5
0.4
11.1
0.6
11.4
              685 
14
6.1
4.1
2.2
6.3
1.1
3.3
0.2
1.7
11.2
0.0
11.2
              646 
15
6.3
4.7
1.7
6.6
1.0
3.6
0.7
1.6
12.3
0.1
12.3
              695 
Boys
9.5
6.9
3.1
6.0
0.8
2.9
0.5
1.8
14.2
0.7
14.6
           1,974 
10–12
9.6
7.2
3.0
6.1
0.8
3.0
0.6
1.9
14.1
0.9
14.5
              933 
13–15
9.4
6.7
3.1
5.8
0.7
2.9
0.4
1.8
14.4
0.5
14.7
           1,041 
Girls
4.1
3.1
1.1
4.8
0.6
3.3
0.5
0.6
8.5
0.1
8.6
           1,875 
10–12
4.8
3.9
1.0
3.9
0.2
2.8
0.5
0.6
8.4
0.3
8.6
              890 
13–15
3.5
2.4
1.2
5.6
0.9
3.7
0.5
0.6
8.6
0.0
8.6
              985 
Ethnic group
White 
7.1
5.0
2.4
5.4
0.6
3.1
0.6
1.2
11.6
0.5
11.8
           3,343 
Ethnic group other than White
6.0
5.4
0.6
5.5
1.1
3.2
0.0
1.2
10.9
0.2
10.9
              498 
School year2
Year 5
11.5
9.1
2.6
4.1
0.0
2.8
0.3
1.0
14.8
1.1
15.6
              272 
Year 6
8.6
7.2
2.1
5.5
0.5
2.8
1.1
1.5
13.0
1.0
13.2
              548 
Year 7
4.5
3.6
1.0
5.3
0.6
3.2
0.3
1.2
8.5
0.4
8.8
              642 
Year 8
7.2
5.0
2.5
4.3
0.5
2.4
0.4
0.9
10.8
0.0
10.8
              659 
Year 9
6.3
3.9
2.7
5.3
1.1
2.9
0.3
1.0
11.2
0.6
11.5
              673 
Year 10
5.6
3.9
2.0
6.1
0.9
3.6
0.2
1.5
10.8
0.0
10.8
              687 
Year 11
6.8
5.6
1.2
7.8
1.0
4.4
1.3
1.4
13.8
0.1
13.9
              347 
Long-standing illness or disability 
Long-standing illness or disability 
15.0
11.6
3.8
4.9
0.8
2.6
0.6
1.0
18.5
0.4
18.8
              335 
No long-standing illness or disability 
6.1
4.4
2.0
5.4
0.6
3.2
0.5
1.2
10.8
0.4
11.0
           3,506 
Experience of bullying3
Bullied in last 12 months
20.8
16.7
6.3
11.3
2.3
7.7
0.2
1.3
28.7
0.2
28.7
              229 
Not bullied in last 12 months
3.3
2.4
0.9
3.7
0.2
1.9
0.3
1.3
6.6
0.1
6.7
              971 
1. 'All violence' includes the offence types of wounding, robbery, assault with minor injury and assault with injury. 'All thefts' includes theft from the person and other theft of personal property but also theft from inside and outside a dwelling and theft of bicycles where the 
property stolen or damaged belonged solely to the child respondent. 'Crime against the person' comprises all violence and thefts. See Section 5 of the User Guide for more information on crime types.
Table 3.09  Experimental statistics: Proportion of children aged 10 to 15 who experienced victimisation in the last year, by personal characteristics
4. See Section 7.3 of the User Guide for definitions of personal characteristics.
Unweighted 
base
3. Question asked in the self-completion module of a third of the sample.
Crime against 
the person1
Crime against 
personal 
property
All crime 
experienced by 
children aged 10–15
2. As the BCS includes 10 to 15 year olds, Year 5 represents only pupils aged 10 and Year 11 only pupils aged 15.
81

Percentages
England and Wales, children aged 10–15, 2010/11 BCS
All violence1
All thefts1
Violence with 
injury
Violence 
without injury
Theft from 
the person
Other theft of 
personal 
property
Theft from the 
dwelling/ outside 
the dwelling
Bike theft
ALL CHILDREN AGED 10–15
6.9
5.1
2.1
5.4
0.7
3.1
0.5
1.2
11.4
0.4
11.7
           3,849 
Structure of household
Single adult & child(ren)
9.4
7.0
2.8
7.1
0.9
4.2
0.6
1.7
15.6
0.7
16.0
              726 
Adults & child(ren)
6.2
4.6
1.9
5.0
0.6
2.8
0.5
1.1
10.4
0.3
10.5
           3,123 
Total household income
Less than £10,000
12.5
10.6
2.5
6.9
1.9
1.8
0.9
2.5
17.8
0.3
18.1
              329 
£10,000 less than £20,000
10.6
8.1
3.2
6.3
0.6
4.5
0.2
1.1
15.8
0.9
16.1
              695 
£20,000 less than £30,000
6.5
5.0
1.8
6.3
0.7
3.4
0.5
1.7
11.7
0.6
11.9
              547 
£30,000 less than £40,000
4.4
2.6
2.0
5.3
0.7
2.8
0.5
1.8
9.1
0.0
9.1
              474 
£40,000 less than £50,000
4.9
3.5
1.8
4.4
0.8
3.2
0.0
0.3
8.9
0.8
9.7
              377 
£50,000 or more
5.4
3.3
2.3
4.5
0.3
3.1
0.6
0.8
9.3
0.0
9.3
              778 
No income stated or not enough information provided 
4.5
3.5
1.0
4.5
0.5
2.3
0.9
0.9
8.5
0.3
8.6
              648 
Tenure
Owners
5.2
3.6
1.7
4.6
0.5
2.8
0.5
0.9
9.2
0.3
9.4
           2,464 
Social renters
11.6
8.7
3.4
7.1
0.9
3.6
0.7
2.1
17.2
0.6
17.4
              790 
Private renters
6.6
5.5
1.6
6.1
1.1
3.4
0.4
1.1
11.7
0.7
12.0
              588 
Accommodation type 
Houses
6.8
5.0
2.0
5.4
0.7
3.0
0.5
1.2
11.4
0.4
11.6
           3,603 
Detached
5.4
3.4
2.0
3.7
0.3
2.7
0.2
0.6
8.6
0.1
8.6
           1,079 
Semi-detached
7.4
5.4
2.4
5.7
0.8
3.1
0.5
1.3
12.5
0.5
12.9
           1,406 
Terraced
7.2
5.9
1.6
6.3
0.9
3.1
0.8
1.6
12.3
0.4
12.5
           1,118 
Flats/maisonettes
9.3
6.6
3.9
5.8
0.5
4.5
0.5
0.8
13.5
1.0
13.5
              186 
Output area classification
Blue collar communities
10.7
8.0
3.2
4.8
0.6
2.4
0.8
1.2
14.3
0.5
14.6
              771 
City living
5.0
4.5
0.6
7.1
1.2
3.9
0.9
1.1
10.1
2.0
10.1
                92 
Countryside
5.1
3.9
1.2
5.4
0.7
4.2
0.2
0.3
9.7
0.8
10.4
              569 
Prospering suburbs
4.7
3.0
2.0
4.9
0.4
3.1
0.3
1.4
9.4
0.3
9.6
              964 
Constrained by circumstances
9.9
6.2
4.5
8.1
0.7
4.5
1.3
1.8
16.5
0.6
16.5
              301 
Typical traits
7.4
5.8
1.7
5.1
0.6
2.6
0.7
1.4
11.4
0.3
11.4
              767 
Multicultural
4.3
3.6
1.0
5.5
1.3
2.9
0.0
1.3
9.6
0.1
9.6
              385 
Area type
Urban
6.9
5.1
2.1
5.3
0.6
2.9
0.5
1.3
11.4
0.4
11.6
           2,888 
Rural
6.7
4.9
2.2
5.9
0.9
3.7
0.5
0.8
11.6
0.5
11.8
              961 
Level of physical disorder
High
12.5
7.5
6.6
6.4
1.5
3.9
0.0
1.4
17.3
0.0
17.3
              215 
Not high
6.5
4.9
1.8
5.3
0.6
3.1
0.6
1.2
11.1
0.5
11.3
           3,581 
English Indices of Deprivation (Employment)
20% most deprived output areas
8.6
6.1
3.0
5.9
1.0
2.8
0.3
1.9
13.7
0.2
13.9
              685 
Other output areas
6.7
5.2
1.8
5.2
0.6
3.2
0.6
1.0
11.1
0.6
11.4
           2,134 
20% least deprived output areas
6.1
4.0
2.3
5.5
0.9
3.4
0.3
1.1
11.0
0.0
11.0
              748 
English Indices of Deprivation (Crime)
20% most deprived output areas
9.7
6.8
3.3
6.0
0.4
3.2
0.3
2.1
14.8
0.6
15.1
              612 
Other output areas
6.8
5.3
1.8
5.8
0.9
3.0
0.6
1.3
11.7
0.4
12.0
           2,077 
20% least deprived output areas
5.0
3.2
2.1
4.0
0.4
3.4
0.1
0.1
8.6
0.2
8.6
              878 
All crime 
experienced by 
children aged 
10–15
Table 3.10  Experimental statistics: Proportion of children aged 10 to 15 who experienced victimisation in the last year, by household and area characteristics
2. See Sections 7.1 and 7.2 of the User Guide for definitions of area and household characteristics.
Unweighted 
base
Crime against 
the person1
Crime against 
personal 
property
1. 'All violence' includes the offence types of wounding, robbery, assault with minor injury and assault with injury. 'All thefts' includes theft from the person and other theft of personal property but also theft from inside and outside a dwelling and theft of bicycles where the property stolen or 
damaged belonged solely to the child respondent. 'Crime against the person' comprises all violence and thefts. See Section 5 of the User Guide for more information on crime types.
82

Bibliography 
Botcherby, S., Glen, F., Iganski, P., Jochelson, K. and Lagou, S. (2011) Equality Groups’ 
Perceptions and Experience of Crime 
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/research/bp4.pdf 
Chaplin, R., Flatley, J. and Smith, K. (Eds.) (2011) Crime in England and Wales 2010/11: 
Findings from the British Crime Survey and police recorded crime. Home Office Statistical 
Bulletin 10/11. London: Home Office. 
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-
statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/ 
Flatley, J., Kershaw, C., Smith, K., Chaplin, R. and Moon, D. (Eds.) (2010) Crime in 
England and Wales 2009/10: Findings from the British Crime Survey and police recorded 
crime. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 12/10. London: Home Office. 
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-
statistics/crime-research/hosb1210/ 
Garcia, L., McDevitt, J., Gu, J. and Balboni, J. (1999) Psychological and Behavioural 
Effects of Bias and Non-Bias Motivated Assault, Final Report. National Criminal Justice 
Reference Service, December 1999, pp. 53–55, 87 and 94–95.  
Hoare, J., Parfrement-Hopkins, J., Britton, A., Hall, P., Scribbins, M. (Ed.) and Flatley, J. 
(Ed.) (2011) Children’s experience and attitudes towards the police, personal safety and 
public spaces: Findings from the 2009/10 British Crime Survey interviews with children aged 
10 to 15. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 08/11. London: Home Office. 
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-
statistics/crime-research/hosb0811/?view=Standard&pubID=889889 
Home Office (2010) User Guide to Home Office Crime Statistics. London: Home Office. 
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-
statistics/crime-research/user-guide-crime-statistics/?view=Standard&pubID=866666 
Iganski, P. (2001) Hate Crimes Hurt More. American Behavioral Scientist 45 (4). pp. 626–38. 
Iganski, P. (2008) Hate Crime and the City. Bristol: Policy Press. 
Jansson, K. (2006) Black and Minority Ethnic groups’ experiences and perceptions of crime, 
racially motivated crime and the police: findings from the 2004/05 British Crime Survey. Home 
Office Online Report 25/06. London: Home Office. 
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/p
dfs06/rdsolr2506.pdf 
Jansson, K., Budd, S., Lovbakke, J., Moley, S. and Thorpe, K. (2007) Attitudes, 
perceptions and risks of crime: Supplementary Volume 1 to Crime in England and Wales 
2006/07. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 19/07. London: Home Office. 
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07
/hosb1907.pdf 
Moon, D. (Ed.), Flatley, J. (Ed.), Hoare, J., Green, B. and Murphy, R. (2010) Acquisitive 
crime and plastic card fraud: Findings from the 2008/09 British Crime Survey. Home Office 
Statistical Bulletin 08/10. London: Home Office. 
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10
/hosb0810.pdf 
 
83

Supplementary Volume 3 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/2011 
Salisbury, H., and Upson, A. (2004) Ethnicity, victimisation and worry about crime: findings 
from the 2001/02 and 2002/03 British Crime Surveys. Home Office Research Findings 237. 
London: Home Office. 
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/p
dfs04/r237.pdf 
Copies of Home Office publications are available from the Home Office Science internet 
pages: http://homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/research-statistics/ 
84