Link to full PDF report

Executive summary

This report presents further results from the 2006 New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey (NZCASS) to look at the experiences of sole-parent households as victims of crime. It is the Ministry of Justice’s contribution to a cross-departmental research programme into sole parenthood in New Zealand, which the Ministry of Social Development has been funded to lead. The main focus of the report is on aspects of victimisation risk among sole-parent households compared with other households with children (the nearest comparator group). It also draws together other results from NZCASS to look at how the two family groups compared as regards to:

• their concern about crime
• the coverage of and membership in Neighbourhood Support
• awareness of agencies that can support victims.

Those who took part in NZCASS were interviewed in the first half of 2006. They comprised a nationally representative random sample of 4229 people aged 15 and over in private households in New Zealand. An additional Māori booster sample of 1187 was included to improve the reliability of findings for Māori. One person per household was interviewed.

NZCASS identified 517 respondents in sole-parent households. Of these, we estimated that 426 were sole parents, and 91 were the children of sole parents. Sole-parent households are compared with other households with children, which comprise couples with children and extended families/whanāu. We differentiated between those likely to be parents and children in other households with children, although it was difficult to judge this precisely.

The overall programme of research into sole-parent households is focusing on protective and resilience factors to help understand what can enable sole-parent households to achieve positive outcomes. In the NZCASS context, protective factors were taken as being those associated with sole-parent households not experiencing any victimisation. Resilience factors were taken as those that may assist sole-parent households that have been victimised to avoid being victimised again. We found it difficult to investigate protective and resilience factors with regard to victimisation in a thorough way because of survey constraints.

Features of sole-parent households in NZCASS

NZCASS results are much in line with other sources in showing sole-parent households to be more disadvantaged compared to other households with children.

NZCASS showed that sole-parent households were:

• more likely to have a female head
• younger in age profile
• more often Māori
• more likely to live in rented accommodation
• more likely to live in the two most deprived quintiles (fifths) of the country (as measured by the NZ Deprivation Index [NZDep])
• more often unemployed and/or on benefits, of lower socio-economic status as measured by the NZ Socio-economic Index (NZSEI), and more likely to be having difficulty managing on their income.

Victimisation risks in sole-parent households

Sole-parent households were disproportionately at risk of most types of victimisation in 2005, as has been reported before (Mayhew and Reilly, 2007a). Some of the earlier analyses were modified for this report, notably to look more specifically at those who were parents in soleparent households. This made relatively little difference to previous patterns of risk, however.

In looking at risks, we focused mainly on all victimisations, all household offences, and all personal offences. Household offences comprise burglary, thefts of household property, vandalism to household property, and vehicle crime. Personal offences cover confrontational crime (mainly assaults and threats) and thefts of and damage to personal property.

Differences in risks for sole-parent households and other households with children were assessed on the basis of prevalence risks and incidence risks. Prevalence risks show the percentage of households or adults victimised once or more. Incidence risks measure the number of victimisations per 100 people, taking into account that some people are victimised more than once.

• The proportion of those in sole-parent households who had experienced victimisation once or more in 2005 was 60%, as against 41% in other households with children. (These are prevalence risks.)
• On incidence risks, the gap between sole-parent households and other households with children was accentuated. This signifies that, when victimised, those in sole-parent households were victimised more often on average. The average number of victimisations among those victimised in sole-parent households was 4.1, as against 2.8 among victims in other households with children.
• On both prevalence and incidence risks, the gap between sole-parent households and other households with children was slightly wider for personal offences than it was for household offences.

The unevenness of victimisation

The unevenness of victimisation risk for New Zealanders is illustrated, for one, by the fact that some groups – sole-parent households being an example – are more often victimised. Another illustration is that the probability of being victimised more than once is not equally spread. The consequence of this is that a small number of victims experience the majority of victimisations.

We compared the distribution of victimisation among sole-parent households and other households with children.

• In 2005, 29% of sole-parent households were victimised three times or more, as against 13% of other households with children. (This is consistent with the difference in the number of victimisations per victim in the two family groups.)
• Offences against the 29% of more highly-victimised respondents in sole-parent households accounted for 83% of all the offences against sole-parent households measured in the survey.

Explaining why sole-parent households are at greater risk

Many sole-parent households fall into social groups that are at higher risk of victimisation – for instance, non-Europeans, those with a younger household structure, those who live in more deprived areas, and those in rented accommodation. A key question, then, is to what extent sole parentage per se influences risk, rather than the fact that sole-parent households more often fall into high-risk groups.

This report did not investigate this question (for which multivariate analysis is needed) since Reilly and Mayhew (2009) have already done so. That report indicated that sole-parent status per se was generally unimportant in explaining the higher risks among sole-parent households. Rather, these were explained by the coincidence of sole-parent status and a nexus of risk-related factors. A similar conclusion is also drawn from a large number of analyses based on victimisation surveys carried out in other Westernised countries.

The types of sole-parent households most at risk

Sole-parent households that were victims and those who were not

Of all those in sole-parent households, 60% were victims and 40% were non-victims. We compared the personal and social characteristics of the two groups. The differences between them are generally consistent with the differences between victims and non-victims across the NZCASS sample as a whole. Findings were that:

• proportionately more of the victims were in the bottom half of the NZSEI scale than non-victims
• those victimised were more likely to live in rented accommodation supplied by a local authority or Housing New Zealand Corporation (referred to here as social renters)
• fewer victims were ‘managing quite well’ on their income than non-victims
• proportionately fewer victims than non-victims lived in the smallest (minor urban and rural) areas, but more victims than non-victims lived in the South Island.

Victims in sole-parent households and victims in other households with children

We next compared victims in sole-parent households with victims in other households with children. Higher overall victimisation risks held for most subgroups of sole-parent households compared to their counterparts in other households with children. Bearing this in mind, though, we examined whether some subgroups of sole-parent households were particularly more often victimised. We calculated how far the difference in prevalence risks between particular subgroups of sole-parent households and other households with children varied from the overall difference in risks between the two family groups as a whole. Subgroups of note were taken as those where the risk differential between sole-parent households and other households with children was 15% or more greater than the average overall prevalence victimisation risk differential for the two family groups as a whole. We did a similar analysis looking at risks of personal offences for parents only in sole-parent households compared with parents in other households with children. (These are called sole parents and other parents hereon.).

In a similar vein, we looked at subgroups for which risk differentials between sole-parent households (and sole parents) and other households with children (and other parents) were 15% or more lower than the average overall prevalence victimisation risk differential for the two family groups as a whole.

Table A Subgroups of sole-parent households (SPH) with more and less
elevated risks compared to other households with children (OHWC)

 Notes:
Groups marked with a in Column A are those for which the percentage risk differential is 15% or more higher or lower than the average differential – which is 1.4 – between overall risks for sole-parent households and other households with children.
Only those groups are shown where the differences in risks for the subgroups within the two family types are statistically significant.
Groups marked with a in Column B are those for which the percentage risk differential is 15% or more higher, or lower than the average differential – which is 2.1 – between risks of personal offences for sole parents and other parents in households with children.
Subcategories that are marked [] were in the same direction of risk, but estimates did not meet the ±15% threshold or provided statistically unstable results because of high relative standard errors on one or both of the estimates.
Subcategories that are marked – were statistically unstable because of very high relative standard errors.

Table A summarises the results. A  indicates the subgroups that met the ±15% threshold. Subgroups in Columns A and B that are marked [] were the same direction of risk, but either did not meet the ±15% threshold, or provided statistically unstable results because of high relative standard errors on one or both of the estimates.

Types of sole-parent households and sole parents at particularly elevated risk

The types of sole-parent households that had particularly elevated risks relative to their counterparts in other households with children included, for instance, Pacific sole-parent households and those in the South Island. The fact that sole-parent households that were social renters had more elevated risks may be because the social rented properties in which they live are different from the social rented properties in which other households with children live, in terms of area for instance – though we cannot be sure. The result for those engaged in home duties may be related to very low income, but it may also be due to the particular circumstances of the very small number of respondents in sole-parent households who fell into this category.

Types of sole-parent households and sole parents at less elevated risk

The subgroups of sole-parent households in Table A at less elevated risk were those for whom, while risks were still higher, the risk difference compared to other households with children was narrower than the difference between the two family groups as a whole. What is difficult to say is whether this means that some groups of sole-parent households are better placed in victimisation risk terms than others, or that some groups of other households with children are worse placed.

In any event, the narrower gap in risk between sole-parent households and other households with children suggests, for instance, that:

• for those in the most deprived quintile of New Zealand, the burden of victimisation also hits hard for other households with children – a finding consistent with international research, which has shown that risks come with the territory in the most socially deprived areas
• all parents who are unemployed and/or on benefits face higher risks of victimisation from personal offences, whatever the family formation
• sole-parent households living in Auckland may be more economically heterogeneous and thus less susceptible on average to the higher risks of victimisation characteristic of the more socially deprived
• both Māori sole parents and Māori parents in other family types are at more pronounced risk of all personal offences.

Lower- and higher-frequency victims

In looking at victims in sole-parent households and other households with children, we also made a distinction between lower-frequency victims (i.e. those who had been victimised once or twice) and higher-frequency victims (i.e. those who had been victimised more often than this). This was to see whether there was anything that indicated resilience to higher-frequency victimisation.

Among sole-parent households overall, 29% experienced higher-frequency victimisation. The subgroups who experienced this less often than was the case overall were:

• those aged 40–59
• those who were in paid employment or self-employed
• those in the smallest minor urban and rural areas.

The picture was roughly similar for other households with children, indicating that resilience factors work across the board.

Concern about crime

NZCASS collected information on the level and nature of people’s concern about crime. We looked at what sole-parent households said.

• On a range of measures, sole-parent households tended to be more concerned about crime. However, the differences were often not marked in comparison to other households with children, and sometimes disappeared when age and gender were controlled for. Moreover, where differences emerged, they are likely to be explained by the fact that sole-parent households are overrepresented in the groups who are most concerned about crime in general (e.g. younger people, those living in areas of high social disorder.).
• Victims in sole-parent households tended to be more concerned about crime than non-victims – although this echoes the general tendency for victims to be more concerned. If anything, victims in other households with children were more concerned than victims in sole-parent households. It may be that crime as a source of concern to victims in sole-parent households competes more with other pressures on their daily lives, though NZCASS cannot confirm this.
• We could draw no conclusions from the results as to how concern about crime might provide protection against victimisation, or resilience to heavy victimisation.

Neighbourhood Support

There were three main findings with respect to Neighbourhood Support (NS).

• Fewer sole-parent households lived in an area covered by NS (16%) than did other households with children (22%), but this is likely to be explained by the fact that sole-parent households were more often in housing situations typified by lower NS coverage.
• Fewer sole-parent households that had been victimised said there was a NS scheme operating in their area than non-victims. This is likely to reflect the fact that NS schemes take less firm hold in neighbourhoods characterised by higher levels of victimisation.
• Of those who knew they lived in an area covered by NS, 36% of those in sole-parent households said they were members, as against 50% of other households with children. Again, though, this will reflect the fact that sole-parent households were overrepresented in groups for which membership rates were low, even when there was scheme coverage.

Awareness of victim support agencies

All respondents in NZCASS were asked which community agencies (other than the Police) they were aware of that can help victims of crime.

• More of those in sole-parent households (66%) were able to mention one or more community agencies available to help victims than in other households with children (62%). However, when analysis was restricted to women aged 29–59 only (who were the best informed in general), the difference disappeared.
• More of those in sole-parent households mentioned Women’s Refuge as a source of help for victims than those in other households with children.
  

Reactions to victimisation

We assessed various aspects of victims’ responses to what happened to them. However, for technical reasons, it is difficult to say whether these reactions provide protection against further victimisation, or increase resilience to it. All offences were analysed together as the mix of offences described by victims in sole-parent households and other households with children was largely similar. Separate analysis, though, was done for interpersonal offences described in the three Self-Completion components of the questionnaire (i.e. partner violence, violence by people well known to the victim, and sexual victimisation).

• Victims in sole-parent households were more likely to rate what happened to them as serious: 42% gave a seriousness score which we judged to indicate high seriousness, compared to 32% of victims in other households with children. The same pattern emerged for interpersonal offences.
• There was little difference between victims in sole-parent households and those in other households with children in the proportion of offences that were thought to be ‘a crime’, but slightly fewer victims in sole-parent households felt the offence was ‘just something that happens’.
• Consistent with the fact that victims in sole-parent households more often judged what happened to them to be ‘most serious’, more of them (63%) said they were affected ‘very much’ or ‘quite a lot’ than did victims in other households with children (49%). The same picture emerged when analysis was restricted to women only. The main reaction among victims in both family groups was anger/annoyance.
• The proportion of offences reported to the Police by victims in sole-parent households (36%) was not statistically different from that reported by victims in other households with children (29%). But more interpersonal offences were reported by those in sole-parent households, and this may well be because they were judged more seriously.
• More victims in sole-parent households (82%) mentioned to someone what had happened than victims in other households with children (79%). The same pattern was evident for interpersonal offences.
• Only a minority of victims said there was assistance or advice that they would have liked but did not receive; the figures were statistically indistinguishable between victims in soleparent households (15%) and those in other households with children (13%). There was little difference in the type of help wanted. The proportion of all victims in sole-parent households who would have appreciated financial assistance was 4%.

Some implications of the results

Policy implications

In considering the policy implications of the results, we argue that although sole parentage per se is not the main driver of high victimisation risks, this should not obscure the fact that many sole-parent households have inherent disadvantages associated with high risk. Their collective experience, then, is worse. While they merit attention because of this, we nonetheless argue that over-attention to sole-parent households would not make the best use of criminal justice resources. Crime prevention and victim service initiatives targeted at more socially and economically deprived areas as a whole are likely to be more worthwhile. Such initiatives will encompass the high risk groups most likely to be represented there, including sole-parent households.

Protective and resilience factors

We address what was learned about protective and resilience factors in relation to victimisation risks, but draw attention to the limitations imposed by the survey. They essentially arise from the cross-sectional nature of NZCASS, which means that it is not possible to look at experiences outside the limited recall window that the survey takes. There are also difficulties in identifying the sequencing of different episodes of victimisation, which makes it hard to say whether any one type of reaction to victimisation (which may be pertinent to resilience) came before or after another one.

The results on victimisation risks for sole-parent households and other households with children indicate which personal and social factors are associated with being victimised over a one-year period (2005). By the same token, the results show the factors that are associated with not being victimised. In the broadest sense, these might be seen as protective factors.

The general thrust of the results was that what protects sole-parent households from victimisation is largely the same as what protects other households with children. For instance: fewer of those aged over 49 years in both sole-parent households and other households with children were victims than respondents younger than this; fewer Europeans in both family groups were victims; fewer of those in employment were victims. The same applies to those of higher NZSEI status and those who owned their properties.

Chapter 4 identified some subgroups in sole-parent households for whom the gap in risks compared to their counterparts in other households with children was less pronounced. What is difficult to say is whether this means that some groups of sole-parent households are better placed in victimisation risk terms than others, or that some groups of other households with children are worse placed. This said, there were some significant findings.

• For those in the most deprived quintile of New Zealand, the burden of victimisation hits hard for other households with children as well as sole-parent households.
• In a similar vein, parents who are unemployed and/or on benefits face higher risks of victimisation from personal offences, whatever the family formation.
• The gap in risks between sole-parent households and other households with children was rather narrower in Auckland than elsewhere. This may signify that sole-parent households in Auckland are more economically heterogeneous, rather than that Auckland ‘protects’ soleparent households.
• In terms of being less protected, sole-parent households in the South Island stand out insofar as the gap between them and other households with children was widest. As overall risks for the NZCASS sample as a whole did not differ widely by region, the high risks for sole-parent households seem unlikely to be explained by disparities in terms of general policing or social welfare provision, for instance. Rather, they may be due to possible distinctive features of disadvantage among sole-parent households in the South Island, or perhaps to the fact that other households with children in the South Island are comparatively more advantaged.

Factors related to resilience to victimisation could only be inferred from differences between those victimised more and less frequently. Not a great deal was revealed. The subgroups who experienced higher-frequency victimisation less often were:

• those aged 40–59
• those who were in paid employment or self-employed
• those living in the smallest minor urban and rural areas.

These were factors that also provided protection from victimisation. Resilience from further victimisation, then, seems to mirror protection from initial victimisation in these results.

Future research on sole parentage and victimisation

It is now well established that sole-parent households are at higher risk of victimisation. Future sweeps of NZCASS will be able to continue to document the risks that sole-parent households face. However, they will strain to track whether victimisation risks are increasing or decreasing. Statistical constraints will be an issue; possible changes in the social and demographic composition of sole-parent households affecting risk levels will be another.

We see it as unlikely that NZCASS could do a great deal more in elucidating protective and resilience factors. As said, any protective factors identified are likely to be those which are associated with lower victimisation risks across the board. Unravelling resilience to victimisation is constrained by the cross-sectional nature of NZCASS, and the fact that the recall period is limited makes it impossible to assess how longer-term experiences may (or may not) affect behaviour.

In principle, sole-parent households could be oversampled in a future sweep of NZCASS to allow finer-grained analysis. However, other groups of victims are likely to demand attention too – so sole-parent households will be just one group in the queue. Given the findings to date that their experiences reflect a nexus of factors to do with social disadvantage rather than sole-parent status per se, there would seem no clear case for singling them out, in our view.

Other research approaches could be considered. In terms of resilience, qualitative case studies might help, although there are some limitations. One is that small sample case studies lack generalisability. Another is that victimisation is multifaceted, and possible resilience will depend on a number of factors – critically the nature of what happened. A third limitation is that, to understand resilience, victims would need to be tracked over time.

With these difficulties in mind, however, qualitative case studies of victimised sole-parent households might be helpful in seeing, for instance, whether they took action after victimisation, what action this was, and whether or not it was successful. To maximise value here, it would be useful to see whether the reactions of sole-parent households differed from those of other households with children.

Full report