Burglaries

A sense of personal and community safety is essential to a high quality of life. Financial, physical, and psychological effects of crime reduce levels of trust within a society and therefore have an impact on social cohesion. Breakdown in social cohesion is thus measured most directly by assessing levels of crime.

The Conference Board ranking analyzes statistics on crime against people (homicide and assault rates), and against property (burglary rates). Both forms of crime can have a major impact on the well-being of victims and on the wider society.

Other costs include the provision of law enforcement and correctional services. According to Statistics Canada, federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments in Canada, for example, spent more than $12 billion on policing, courts, legal aid, prosecutions, and adult corrections in 2002–2003.¹ Reducing crime would free up funds for other areas that could enhance prosperity and competitiveness, such as education and skills training, the environment, or advancements in innovation and technology.

The Conference Board uses burglary data from the United Nation’s periodic surveys of crime trends.² The data show that Canada has a lower burglary rate than that of nine of its peer countries. In 2006, the most recent year of data available, Canada had 682 burglaries per 100,000 people. This was nine times the rate of the best-ranked country, Norway. Canada earns a “B” grade and ranks 8^th out of 17 peer countries. Australia is the worst performer on this indicator, with 1,580 recorded burglaries per 100,000 people.

Until 2006, Canada recorded a higher burglary rate than the United States. Canada’s crime rate has been dropping at a faster pace than the U.S. rate. Statistics Canada reports that virtually all non-violent crimes (such as burglary, theft, and fraud) have been declining in number.³ 

Canada’s burglary rate has been declining steadily since 1991. Between 1991 and 2006, the burglary rate fell by 56 per cent—from 1,546 burglaries per 100,000 population to 682.

Perceptions of crime levels in Canadian communities are better today than they were in 1994. A 2007 poll by Ipsos-Reid found that fewer Canadians now “perceive an increase in the level of crime in the last five years.” Less than half of the respondents perceived “great” or “moderate” increases in crime in their communities in the last five years, compared to seven in ten Canadians in 1994.⁴

Use the pull-down menu to compare the change in Canada’s burglary rate with that of its peers.

Although Japan has seen an increase in its burglary rates in recent years, its rate is still low enough to maintain the “A” grade earned consistently over the past three decades. Australia, which also experienced a higher number of burglaries in recent years, dropped from a “C” grade in the 1980s to a “D” in the 1990s and 2000s. Canada improved its relative grade from a “C” in the 1990s to a “B” in the 2000s. The Netherlands, however, recorded the most improvement—moving from a “D” grade in the 1980s to a “B” in the 2000s. According to Statistics Netherlands, crimes against property, including theft and burglary, decreased by 20 per cent between 2002 and 2007, yet the number of violent crimes, including assaults, increased annually over the same time period.5

Although many still believe that “cracking down on crime” is the best way to protect communities, a recent Conference Board report found that other forms of crime prevention produce better results. In particular, approaches that address the root causes of crime are proving to be the most successful. An analysis of successful programs in Canada, the U.S., and the U.K. yielded the following recommendations:

• Begin with an understanding of the community and its problems.
• Develop programs and policies to deal with these problems in their community context, and focus on crime reduction.
• Learn from and build on successful prevention programs developed elsewhere.
• Stay focused—prevention programs will not succeed without a great deal of effort.
• Secure commitment from senior government officials.
• Provide adequate resources.
• Ensure cooperation and coordination among organizations targeting crime reduction.
• Take a comprehensive approach to prevention and develop multi-faceted strategies.

Learn more about crime reduction programs:

Making Communities Safer: Lessons Learned Combatting Auto Theft in Winnipeg, Ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada, 2008.

¹ Statistics Canada, “Crime and Justice,” Canada Year Book 2007. Website content. (cited September 12, 2009).

² United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, United Nations Surveys on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, [online, cited August 31, 2009].

³ Mia Dauvergne, Crime Statistics in Canada, 2007, Catalogue no. 85-002-X, Vol. 28, No. 7 (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2008) [online, cited August 31, 2009].

⁴ Ipsos News Center, “Canadians Perceive Crime Increases to Be Less Acute in Their Communities,” June 11, 2007, [online, cited August 31, 2009].

⁵ Statistics Netherlands, Crime Rate Reduction most Substantial in Large Municipalities, Voorberg, January 23, 2007, [online, cited August 31, 2009].

See discussions on other indicators
Jobless Youth	Confidence in Parliament
Disabled Income	Homicides
Elderly Poverty	Burglaries
Child Poverty	Assaults
Working-age Poverty	Life Satisfaction
Income Inequality	Acceptance of Diversity
Intergenerational Income Mobility	Social Isolation
Gender Income Gap	Suicides
Voter Turnout