|
Chapter 9
TYPES OF PROTECTION USED FOR THE HOME
Key findings
- In Durban, those most at risk of crime often had the least protection.
- A significant proportion of people surveyed (21%) had no protection for their homes at all.
- White (and wealthier) residents were much more likely to use physical security measures than African and coloured residents.
- Burglar alarms were used in more than a quarter of all white, coloured and Asian homes, compared to only 5% of African homes.
- 62% of whites and 64% of Asians had door locks compared with only 3% of Africans.
- 63% of whites and 46% of Asians had high fences or walls compared to only 1% of Africans.
- Most whites (80%) and Asians (60%) said they felt safer as a result of using these forms of protection. Coloured and African residents, however, were less positive. These trends probably reflect the fact that whites and Asians were more at risk of property crime (which these security measures could possibly prevent). Coloureds and Africans, in comparison, were more at risk of violent crime.
|
The results showed that a wide variety of measures were taken by respondents. Nevertheless, protecting dwellings through physical means was not always a priority for victims of crime or for the general public in Durban. It is possible that people expect the government and the criminal justice system to ensure their safety and that of their property. However, the government cannot be expected to carry the full burden of ensuring safety. Respondents were thus asked what measures they used to secure their homes. The survey allowed for a multiple response of fifteen different types of protection.
Types of physical security measures
The types of measures used varied according to affordability, the type of dwelling, and the types of crimes that occurred. In Durban, those most at risk of crime often had the least protection. These conclusions are borne out by the following survey results.
A significant proportion of people surveyed (21%) had no protection for their homes at all (table 8). This applied to 36% of Africans compared with 1% of whites in Durban. Fear of crime in the city was high (see chapter 11). Given this, it is likely that the widespread lack of protection was not due to a lack of faith or interest in utilising protective measures, but rather reflected a lack of resources necessary for protecting persons and property.
Table 8: Types of protection measures used, by race
|
African |
White |
Asian |
Coloured
|
Total |
|
% |
% |
% |
% |
% |
| Burglar bars |
6 |
75 |
15 |
0 |
35 |
| Dog |
18 |
56 |
44 |
18 |
31 |
| Fence/wall |
1 |
63 |
46 |
6 |
30 |
| Door locks |
3 |
62 |
64 |
3 |
29 |
| No protection |
36 |
1 |
3 |
27 |
21 |
| Burglar alarms |
5 |
40 |
25 |
27 |
17 |
| Gun |
11 |
38 |
11 |
18 |
16 |
| Axe/panga/club |
9 |
11 |
16 |
0 |
11 |
| Intercom |
3 |
30 |
4 |
3 |
7 |
| Neighbourhood watch |
5 |
23 |
4 |
0 |
7 |
| Traditional methods |
12 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
| Armed response |
2 |
24 |
4 |
0 |
6 |
| Security guards |
3 |
10 |
6 |
0 |
5 |
| Razor wire/bottles |
3 |
16 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
In general, white respondents utilised a broad range of protective measures. For African and coloured respondents, in comparison, protective measures, when utilised, were not as numerous and typically restricted to inexpensive provisions.
The most common form of protection for Africans was a dog (18%), although Africans were less likely to own a dog than were Asians and whites. Physical (and more costly) security measures like walls, locks and burglar bars were more common among Asian and white residents: 62% of whites and 64% of Asians had door locks compared to 3% of Africans, and 63% of whites and 46% of Asians had high fences or walls compared to 1% of Africans.
In total, 5% of all respondents had security guards and 6% had an armed response service. In comparison, 24% of whites had access to these services. Burglar alarms were used in more than a quarter of all white, coloured and Asian homes, compared to only 5% of African homes.
Of all respondents, 16% said they had guns. White residents were much more likely than others to use a gun for protection with 38% reported having a gun. Given that self-reporting on weapon ownership is usually undercounted in opinion surveys, these figures can be considered as high. In a similar survey in Cape Town, in comparison, only 10% of respondents said they owned a gun.19
Neighbourhood watch schemes were more common among white residents. Traditional methods of protection like street committees and self-defence groups were favoured by Africans.
Impact of these measures on feelings of safety
Those who had some form of protection were asked if they felt safer as a result. Most whites (80%) and Asians (60%) said they felt safer, but coloured and African residents were less positive. More than 70% of coloureds said they felt no change as a result of taking these precautions.
This may reflect the fact that different people experienced different types of crime — some of which are unlikely to be prevented through the security measures discussed here. White people, for example, mainly experienced property crimes on which these ‘target-hardening’ measures can have an impact. Africans, however, were most at risk of violent crime. Since many violent offences occurred in the home or at places of entertainment between people who knew one another, physical security measures would do little to make these victims feel safer.
|
|
|