The majority of households were found to have more than one of the home security measures asked about1. As shown in Figure 3.3, three-quarters (75%) of households had at least ‘basic security’, including 61 per cent of households that had ‘enhanced security’ (see above for definitions of different security levels). Table 3.1, which is presented later in this section, gives an indication of the proportions of households with each individual security measure that also have further security measures in place.
Just under one-quarter (22%) of households had some ‘less than basic security’ and a small minority (2%) of households had none of the security measures asked about.
 
Level of security measures at the time of the the interview, 2012/13 CSEW
The 2012/13 CSEW showed the likelihood of having at least ‘basic security’ (double locks or deadlocks and window locks) varied by characteristics of the Household Reference Person2 (HRP) and by other key household and area features. A full breakdown of home security devices and levels of home security by household and area characteristics is presented in Appendix Table 3.01 (448 Kb Excel sheet).
 
For example:Around half (49%) of households with a student as the HRP had at least ‘basic security’, compared with 80% of households where the HRP was retired and three-quarters (76%) of households with an HRP who was employed. Likewise, households with younger HRPs (aged between 16 and 34) were less likely to have at least ‘basic security’ than households where the HRP was older, Figure 3.4.
 
Figure 3.4: Level of security measures by age of Household Reference Person, 2012/13 CSEW
Renters were less likely to have at least ‘basic security’ than owner-occupiers. Around six-in-ten households that rented (62% of those privately renting and 64% renting from a social landlord) had at least ‘basic security’ compared with around eight-in-ten (83%) owner-occupiers.60% of households living in flats or maisonettes had at least ‘basic security’, compared with around 78% of households living in houses.Households in the most deprived 20% of areas (according to the English indices of multiple deprivation) were less likely to have at least ‘basic security’ (71%) compared with those in less deprived areas (77%).Households in rural areas were less likely to have at least ‘basic security’ (73%) than those resident in urban areas (76%), perhaps because rural areas are generally perceived to be lower crime areas.
 
The 2012/13 CSEW showed that the risk of becoming a victim of burglary also varied by key household and area characteristics (as reported in the Overview section). For many of these characteristics, the groups that were less likely to have security (for example, those living in rented accommodation or in the most deprived areas) were also the groups more likely to be burgled. However, the relationship is complex and many of the various characteristics will be closely associated.
The 2012/13 CSEW showed the likelihood of having at least ‘basic security’ (double locks or deadlocks and window locks) varied by characteristics of the Household Reference Person2 (HRP) and by other key household and area features. A full breakdown of home security devices and levels of home security by household and area characteristics is presented in Appendix Table 3.01 (448 Kb Excel sheet).
 
For example:Around half (49%) of households with a student as the HRP had at least ‘basic security’, compared with 80% of households where the HRP was retired and three-quarters (76%) of households with an HRP who was employed. Likewise, households with younger HRPs (aged between 16 and 34) were less likely to have at least ‘basic security’ than households where the HRP was older, Figure 3.4.