Eurostat Grant Agreement No 38400

Eurostat Grant Agreement no 38400.2005.002-2006.052 with HEUNI For action entitled ”Crime and Victimisation Surveys”

Intermediary report

21.2.2007

1 INTRODUCTION

The task of the project was stated in the document concerning the open call for proposals on crime and victimisation surveys as follows: “This project is concerned with surveys in the European Union on crime and victimisation. The task is to examine the characteristics of these surveys in each of the Member States. A database should be provided, containing all the available information, and proposals to be made for a model which could be adopted at European level.”

The project started in September 2006, and a progress report was expected in the end of February 2007. The project lasts for 12 months. This paper describes the action during the first six months of the project. Specific documents concerning the project are attached in the appendices.

The action has followed the time table presented in the contract. The timetable was also presented in the task force meeting on Statistics on crime, criminal justice and victimisation, in Luxembourg, on 18th October 2006. Kauko Aromaa and Markku Heiskanen participated in the meeting. The presentation of the project is in Appendix A.

Table 1. Timetable for the European Crime Victim Survey plan

Activity 2006 2007 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Contract signed X Information exchange X X X X X X X X X UNECE-UNODC survey analysis X X X X HEUNI survey X X X Intermediate report X Country meetings X X X X Questionnaire design X X X X X Fiedwork instructions / methodology X X X X Report writing X X X X X X X X X Final report X

Information of the progress of the project has been sent in the end of November-December 2006 to the contact person in Eurostat, Mr. Geoffrey Thomas, by email. In the end of January 2007 the progress was discussed in the meeting in London in which Mr. Thomas participated.

In this report we describe five topics: 1) the European results of the UNECE-UNODC survey that was sent to countries to study how crime victimisation surveys are conducted in each country, 2)

2 the results of a short HEUNI survey, in which some additional information about the possibilities and possible problems in each country were asked. 3) reports of two field visits: we have visited the statistical authorities (the organisation responsible for victimisation surveys and crime statistics) in the UK and in the Czech Republic. 4) sampling issues:preliminary ideas on sampling are discussed. 5) questionnaire: some first ideas of the survey questionnaire are presented. Detailed information on the topics is provided in the Appendices.

UNECE-UNODC SURVEY ANALYSIS

One of the tasks of the project was to produce a report of the survey that the UNECE and the UNODC had sent to the UNECE Member Countries. The report is in Appendix B. The questionnaire of the project is in Appendix C.

The aim of the report is to give an overview of how crime victimisation surveys are conducted in the EU Member States, in the candidate countries and in the EFTA Countries. Of the 32 countries included, 25 returned the questionnaire. Thus the survey does not provide a full description of the situation in the Member States, but the data should be seen as a sample of victimisation surveys of the countries studied.

From other sources, we know that the International Crime Victims Survey (the ICVS and the EU- ICS) have been conducted in most of the countries scrutinised here (excluding Cyprus). Some countries have participated in all five sweeps of the survey (1989-2005), but many have only participated in the most recent one of 2005. The 2005 survey was completed mostly without using the expertise of national researchers. Nevertheless, if the ICVS has been in many countries their first crime victimisation survey, and if comparability over time is required, the screening questions of the new European Crime Victims Survey should be similar to those used in the ICVS. Exact comparability may, however, become difficult because the contents of the new survey is not very likely to be exactly similar to the ICVS.

The UNECE-UNODC survey revealed that many kinds of crime victimisation data have been collected in the countries studied. Most of the victimisation surveys have been cross-sectional studies, conducted by telephone or face-to-face interviews. The main objectives of the surveys have been to measure victimisation (40 % of surveys), fear of crime (37 %), hidden criminality/reporting to the police (31 %), and attitudes towards the police and the criminal justice system (28 %). The

3 items in the victimisation screening questions in different surveys are also quite similar, consisting of certain types of property crimes (vehicles, burglaries, thefts) and violence (robbery, assault, sexual violence).

Some additional variables were coded to the dataset. E.g. the variable "responsibility of the survey" identified the institute/authority mainly in charge of the victimisation survey. The idea of the variable was to find out whether statistical offices, other administrative institutions (such as ministries), universities or research institutes were the main actors on the field. In one-half of the countries the statistical office has had responsibility for general victimisation surveys and for multi- purpose surveys with a victimisation module. The statistical offices were not responsible for the ICVS. It seems that the expertise in victimisation surveys is dispersed across many different kinds of organisations.

Participation in victimisation surveys is generally voluntary for the respondent. Four countries reported having mandatory surveys. Concerning the new victimisations survey, voluntariness seems to be the choice.

THE HEUNI SURVEY

A separate survey was sent by e-mail to the contact persons of the Eurostat crime statistics network. All countries in which a contact person was found (in one country no contact person was available at the time of the survey) replied to the HEUNI survey.

The purpose of the survey was to collect additional information about some topics studied in the UNECE-UNODC survey. The topics dealt with a) whether the statistical authorities had an interviewer organisation of their own; b) the services of own or outside interviewer organisations used (different interviewing modes) in the country; and c) whether the statistical authority had a survey laboratory for testing the survey questionnaires. Furthermore, we asked about the role of the statistical authority in publishing the crime statistics in the country. Next, we asked for the names of the institutions having significant expertise on topics related to victimisation surveys in the country. Finally, we asked about problems in collecting internationally comparable victimisation data, and the possibilities for using alternative techniques for probability sampling. The questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix E, and the report is in Appendix D.

4 66 per cent of the statistical authorities had an interviewer organisation of their own. The number of the interviewers varies between 50 and 2500 persons, but in most countries the number of the interviewers in the organisation was less than 500. In some countries, the workload of the interviewer organisation may be high. The remaining statistical authorities resorted to external organisations in their surveys. In four countries both in-house and external interviewer organisations were used.

The interviewer organisations have experience of face-to-face interviews, but also telephone interviews are used. Computer assisted interviewing methods are used by most offices. 18 statistical authorities reported having a survey laboratory. The survey laboratory is a unit that tests survey questionnaires and fieldwork arrangements. In the responses, also other kinds of work may be included in the services (e.g. sampling and estimation). The laboratory services may be needed in the future for testing the details of the new victimisation survey in the country.

Nearly one-half of the statistical authorities reported that part of the relevant crime-related statistics in their country is produced by other organisations. Such organisations were the Ministry of the Interior (police statistics) and the Ministry of Justice (prison statistics). Over one-half of the statistical authorities reported that some other institute/institution has significant expertise in the country on topics related to victimisation surveys. Seven respondents (19 %) did not, however, know whether some other institute/institution has expertise concerning victimisation surveys. One- half of the statistical authorities had collected victimisation survey data, but the survey had often been a multi-purpose survey (8 had collected a complete special victimisation survey data).

We also asked on the questionnaire for the opinion of the respondents as to possible problems they have encountered in collecting internationally comparable victimisation data. Nine respondents out of 31 (29 %) mentioned insufficient knowledge of the victimisation topic. Five respondents had the opinion that difficulties in comparability and conflicting results may become a problem. None of the respondents were of the opinion that the decision makers do not have a need for comparative statistics.

COUNTRY MEETINGS

One part of the project is to get acquainted with the statistical authorities in four European countries to exchange information on the concrete situation, possibilities and opinions about crime

5 victimisation surveys. A representative to the team finalising the questionnaire will be chosen from each of these countries.

The research team has met in the winter of 2007 with two statistical authorities: the British Crime Survey research team in the Home Office of the U.K., and the statistical authorities of the Czech Republic (representatives from the Statistical Office of the Czech Republic (CZSO), the Police presidium, the Ministry of Justice and the Institute of Criminology and Social Prevention).

The travel report of the Home Office meeting is attached (Appendix G). The British Crime Survey (BCS) had its 25-year anniversary last year, and it has been running as a continuous survey since the year 2002. Continuous means that the sample of the survey has been divided into sub-samples interviewed each month. Nine researchers are working with the BCS in the Home Office. This means also an extensive cumulative knowledge concerning the survey process, e.g. the screening questions have been tested in over 300,000 interviews that have been completed in the 14 sweeps of the survey.

The BCS questions have been used in many victimisation surveys, e.g. the International Crime Victims Survey has used similar screeners. Some of the methodological choices, such as using the face-to-face interviewing method, have not been very popular, probably because of the costs of personal interviews. Data quality is the main argument for face-to-face interviews. The telephone interview is as a communicative situation different from the face-to-face situation. In face-to-face interview the exchange of information between the interviewer and the respondent has more channels; visual cues, showcards, explanations etc. can be used to be sure that the responses received are reliable. Also the response rate has been high in the BCS; a high response rate is indispensable for high quality.

The meeting with the statistical authorities in the Czech Republic differed from the British one, because most experience in victimisation surveys in the Czech Republic comes from the two ICVS sweeps reported by the Institute of Criminology and Social Prevention. Common with the BCS was that the 2006 victimisation survey in the Czech Republic was also a face-to-face survey (in 2000, the survey was made by telephone), and the national experts were of the firm opinion that, due to the rapidly increasing number of mobile telephones in the Czech Republic, the face-to-face mode should be applied in victimisation surveys.

6 Different from many other countries, the police crime reports contain in the Czech Republic information concerning the victim. This information could be used for validation of the survey findings on police-reported victimisations.

The visit to the Czech Republic demonstrated the importance of getting acquainted with different national crime recording systems; e.g. offences in this country are counted as property crimes only if their value exceeds 5,000 korunas (180 euros). This means that the victimisation to property crimes may be defined differently by the Czech population, as compared to citizens in countries without such value limits, because they know that smaller thefts are not "crimes".

Small countries may have different opinions of the optimal sample size in the country. The representatives of the Czech Republic thought that comparative results could be reached by a relatively small sample size, such as 3,000 interviews. In the UK, the large sample size is based on the need of the local police districts to have information relevant to crime prevention from their own working area.

In the Czech Republic, the CZSO has a local interviewer organisation of 200 interviewers. The interviewers are for the moment occupied with ongoing surveys, and it seems that the CZSO is not willing to increase the workload of the interviewers (and also the response burden of the population) with new surveys, such as the victimisation survey.

The reference period for victimisation was also discussed in the Czech Republic. Incidents from one full calendar year are probably easier to be recalled than incidents from the last 12 months preceding the interview, because in the latter case the reference period is divided somewhat artificially over two calendar years. But restricting to a one year reference period leads to low victimisation prevalences (total 15-20 % of the population), while a five-year reference period will, according to empirical experience, give approximately three times higher prevalences.

In the Czech Republic we also found the need for valid metadata for guiding the work in the countries.

The remaining two country meetings (Germany and Italy) will de done during the spring of 2007. Each of the four countries studied are asked to name a contact person, who will be informed of the

7 progress of the project. The country representatives will be asked to participate in a meeting in the summer of 2007, in which the questionnaire and the fieldwork recommendations will be finalised.

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

The questionnaire drafting is based on existing victimisation surveys. Common to these population surveys is the use of victimisation screening questions. In screening questions, certain information concerning victimisation is provided: - the reference period (from 12 months to adult lifetime) - the target of crime (household, individual) - the criminal act (car theft – burglary – assault – sexual violence etc.) - information of the perpetrator (unknown – known – partner etc.) - additional information concerning the incident (e.g. place of occurrence).

A good survey question is short, simple, easy to understand and easy to answer. Some of the screening questions in the ICVS include detailed and long instructions.

The contents of certain property crimes may be easily defined; e.g. theft of a car while some forms of violence and threats may be difficult to define in a survey question.

We have so far studied the following surveys • the International crime victims survey (ICVS & EU-ICS) • the British crime survey • the National safety survey in Sweden • the National safety survey in Finland • the General social survey / victimisation module; Canada • Violence against women surveys (national surveys: Canada & Finland; IVAWS) • the EUMC pilot victim survey

Of these, only the British crime survey is a face-to-face survey. The others are conducted by telephone (The Finnish VAW-survey by mail).

8 The victimisation surveys differ more from each other when other safety issues are described. Concern or fear of victimisation is a topic included in most surveys. However, the specific questions concerning the fear differ in different surveys. Others are different precautionary measures taken to prevent victimisation, attitudes to the police and the judicial system, punitive attitudes and certain behavioural issues that are attached to victimisation (such as routine activities, social variables).

The final structure of the planned questionnaire is not decided yet. The First draft of different sections included in the survey is as follows:

A) RESPONDENT AND HOUSEHOLD BACKGROUND VARIABLES 1 B) FEELING SAFE AND WORRIES ABOUT CRIMES C) SCREENING QUESTIONS D) VICTIMISATION FORMS E) PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES F) ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, PUNITIVE ATTITUDES G) BACKGROUND VARIABLES 2 H) ADD1: VIOLENCE IN COUPLE RELATIONS I) ADD2: POLICE QUESTIONS N) ADD3-ADDN: TO BE DISCUSSED

Of sections A) – C) preliminary question sets are presented in Appendix J (slides 25-36).

VIEWS ON SAMPLING AND OTHER SURVEY METHODS

A careful specification of survey targets and a questionnaire is naturally the first key issue in order to conduct a valid survey, but the survey data collection and the data cleaning have to be successful as well. The European Crime Victims Survey (ECVS) should follow the best practices of multinational population surveys in order to provide the opportunity for comparative survey outputs. For this purpose, it is necessary to develop certain rules and instructions which should be followed in each participating country. Output harmonisation could be considered to be reasonable for this kind of survey. This means, naturally, that many aspects of the survey should be commonly accepted. This section discusses these questions on a preliminary basis, from a survey

9 methodological point of view. The focus is on such questions that should be discussed and agreed upon at an early stage. Hence, we do not consider in detail such questions as: - data editing and imputation - meta data (e.g. variable names and labels, IT questions) - para data (data on survey process, e.g. missingness measures, interviewers, interviewing) - survey data cleaning on the whole - dissemination of micro and macro data - data analysis including cross-country comparisons. These issues will be discussed in the final report.

Target population

A core question that should be commonly agreed upon is the target population of the ECVS. This was quite thoroughly discussed in Prague. Following views were presented, and based on these and other aspects, the decision on the ECVS target population should be made: - All persons 15 years old and older should be included (without an upper limit). - People living in the country and in private households should be included. - Minority groups unable to understand an official language of the country could be excluded; but it is not clear what could be such a minority group, and the issue should be discussed further. - Homeless people are difficult to reach and hence may need to be excluded. - People living on a temporary basis or for an unknown time in the country will be problematic and may need to be excluded from the ECVS. Such people are not included in a population register either, if such a register is used to draw the sample for a standard survey. - Another problem are citizens who are working or otherwise staying for a long time outside of the country. The number of such people is increasing. It is thus not clear whether they can be included in the survey so that the results are reliable. - People living in institutions (e.g. hospitals, old people's homes, care houses, prisons) may not be possible to include in the standard survey, but it is possible to organise another survey, perhaps with a different (shorter) questionnaire for these groups. Such a survey would be cheaper to organise. This issue was also discussed concerning persons younger than 15 years old. These youngsters can be surveyed in schools.

10 Sampling design

The sampling design should be based on the best practices of each country, but a general rule is naturally to follow the principles of probability sampling. This means, among other issues, that quota sampling with substitutions is not a valid technique, and that each person of the target population should have a sample inclusion probability higher than 0. The best practices may vary from one country to another, in particular according to the following aspects: - Which type of frame (frames) is available (register vs. register, areal data with aggregate statistics, areal data with local ‘registers’) - How many stages could be an optimum (one, two, three)? - Would stratification be a rational way to improve the quality? This was discussed in the meeting in Prague, but more information is needed of special groups that should be reached with a higher probability (i.e. groups that are experiencing crime more frequently). - Is a cluster as a primary sampling unit a cheaper way to collect data as it is applied in population surveys in many countries? - How to succeed ideally in the final sample selection step to draw a probability sample? In the case of face-to-face interviewing, it is easier but not guaranteed without a register or a list of sampling units. Telephone interviewing is more difficult for many reasons including the fact that many people have several telephone numbers. - How well could non-response and ineligibility be anticipated in sampling design, in general and in different sub-populations? - What would be the optimal effective sample size? This includes the points above and results in 50- 150 per cent higher gross sample sizes. The minimum effective sample size for each country should be decided, but each country could exceed this as much as they wish. It is possible and even recommendable to oversample strata with higher expected unit non-response. But how to create an optimum stratification is not clear. - Another interesting question is whether it is possible to exploit regional crime rates in the sample allocation? This could be useful to evaluate in a small-scale sub-project.

11 APPENDICES

A The presentation on 18 October 2006 in the task force meeting Statistics on crime, criminal justice and victimisation, Luxembourg

B Victimisation surveys in European countries, based on the database of the UNECE-UNODC questionnaire on victim surveys

C The UNECE-UNODC questionnaire

D The HEUNI survey report

E The HEUNI survey questionnaire

F The Agenda of the country meeting on 31 January – 1 February 2007, Home Office, London

G The report of the meeting in London

H The Agenda of the country meeting on 15-16 February 2007, Statistical Institute, Prague

I The report of the country meeting in Prague

J The HEUNI presentation in Prague 15-16 February 2007