/ EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL JUSTICE, FREEDOM AND SECURITY
Directorate F : Security
Unit F2 : Organised Crime

INDICATORS TO BE PRODUCED USING THE DATA COLLECTED THROUGH THE EU SECURITY SURVEY

Draft Report

Based on the questionnaire send to the Expert Group on Policy Needs for Statistics on Crime and Criminal Justice

Task force meeting on victimisation, 29-30 April 2010
QUESTIONS ON THE EUROPEAN SECURITY SURVEY (ESS)

Seventeen pilot exercises have been carried out to translate and test a module on crime victimisation. These pilot exercises are currently being evaluated for Eurostat by a team of experts from the universities of Tilburg (Intervict) and Lausanne. An intermediate evaluation was available for the meeting of the working group of Eurostat in February 2010. A synthesis of this report can be found in our CIRCA site under the directory "EU Security Survey". Based on the comments provided by the Member States that participated in the pilot exercise, the team of experts proposed some changes on the structure and the content of the questionnaire. The current, revised EU Security Survey Questionnaire has the following parts:

Interviewer introduction

  1. Personal and household information
  2. Worries about crime
  3. Victimisation screening questions
  4. Victimisation forms
  5. Attitudes to law enforcement and security precautions
  6. Additional personal and household information

1ST QUESTION:The table below contains the types of crime covered in the screening questions. Considering the amount of work that has gone into the design of a well-balanced questionnaire and the advanced stage of fieldwork preparations, it seems unadvisable to radically alter this core part of the questionnaire. Nevertheless, it is important to have your views on the choice of key indicators that they will be developed based on the collected data. Please give a rating of the policy relevance of each of the crime types according to your priorities by ticking off the appropriate categories.

Crime Types / Indispensable / Important / Optional
Theft of car
Theft from car
Car vandalism
Motorcycle / moped theft
Bicycle theft
Burglary
Attempted burglary
Household vandalism
Robbery
Theft of personal property
Sexual offences by strangers
Sexual offences by intimates
Assaults by strangers
Assaults by intimates
Threats by strangers
Threats by intimates
Consumer fraud (product and service)
Card / on-line banking fraud
Identity fraud
Bribery

Are there any other types of crime that you would consider indispensible for an ESS which are not included in the current list? Please specify.

2nd QUESTION:Eurostat's Working group has asked the Commission and the Expert Group on Policy Needs to define and prioritise the indicators that will be calculated and published based on the data collected during the survey. A draft list of the indicators we propose is given below. Please characterise each of the indicators as "indispensable", "important", "optional" or "redundant" by ticking the appropriate box. Note that Eurostat will make available the complete set of data for further scientific analysis after the publication of the agreed key indicators.

1.Response rate per MemberState and mode (s) of data collection (i.e. interview method: CAPI, CATI etc)

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

2. Total percentage of victims of any common crime in the course of last year overall and per MS (disaggregated by gender and three age groups), excluding consumer fraud and bribery

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

3. Percentage of households/persons victimized in the course of last year by each of the crime categories listed in the questionnaire, overall and per MS. The crime categories are:

Theft of car; Theft from car; Car damage; Theft of motor cycle, scooter, moped; Bicycle theft; Home burglary; Other burglaries; Property damage; Robbery; Theft; Sexual offences and/or assaults; Bribery; Consumer fraud (product and service); Computer fraud (phishing, computer security and identity fraud)

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

4.Percentage of households/persons victimized in the course of last year by the following grouped crimecategories overall and per MS

Burglary or attempted burglary

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

Contact crimes (robbery and/or sexual offences and/or threats/ assaults), disaggregated by gender and three age groups

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

Violence by intimates, disaggregated by gender and three age groups

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

Other theft (vehicle -related theft, other personal theft)

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

Car-related crimes (car theft, theft from car)

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

Vandalism (car vandalism, household vandalism)

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

Total fraud (consumer fraud, Internet fraud, credit card fraud, identity theft)

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

Bribery

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

5.Scores on composite index of worry about crime, overall and per MS (based on key items identified in the questionnaire)

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

6.Percentage of respondents worrying about burglary per MS

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

7. Percentage of respondents worrying about terrorism overall and per MS

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

8. Percentage of respondents worrying about risks of family members to be assaulted overall and per MS

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

9. Percentage of respondents exposed to drug-related crimes in the last 12 months, overall and per MS

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

10.Percentage of households with burglar alarm, overall and per MS,

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

11.Percentage of respondents owning weapons for their safety over all and per MS

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

12. Percentage of households with special door locks, overall and per MS

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

13. Percentage of respondents taking courses on self-defence for their safety overall and per MS (disaggregated by gender and age group)

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

14.Percentage of respondents that prefer to go out in a group after dark overall and per MS (disaggregated by gender and three age groups)

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

15.Satisfaction with police performance overall and per MS

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

16. Satisfaction with the courts overall and per MS

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

17.Scores on index victim satisfaction with police services (based on indicators like reporting rate in selected crimes, reception -follow up information, overall satisfaction)

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

18. Percentage victims of serious crimes who have received services from specialised support agency overall and per MS

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

19. Public attitudes towards punishment ( % respondents opting for imprisonment for recidivist burglar) overall and per MS

Indispensable / Important / Optional / Redundant

Any suggestions for other key indicators base on items in questionnaire:

Are there any other indicators or types of disaggregation that you would consider indispensible for a report on the ESS, which are not included in the above list? Please specify.

(To answer this question you may need to consult the document "Victimisation survey-lessons learned from pilots" which is uploaded on our CIRCA site in the folder EU Security Survey)

3rd QUESTION: In November 2009, the European Statistical System Committee approved the development of a specific legal basis, including financial provisions for the European Security Survey. The legal basis consists of two regulations. The proposed text for the regulations and details on the procedures are given in the document "victimisation survey-future developments". Please read the draft proposal and answer to the following questions:

Do you agree with Eurostat's initiative to propose a legal basis for the survey?

Do you have any comments on the articles of the proposed regulation? Does the regulation cover all the necessary issues?

4th QUESTION: In the same document the time schedule proposed for the implementation of the survey is as follows:

–Data collection: second semester 2013

–Deadline for the transmission of the databy the Member States to Eurostat 31 October 2014

–Dissemination of the data by the end of March 2015.

Do you agree with the above time table? What would you consider as "reasonable time" between the completion of fieldwork and the dissemination of the data?

REPLIES TO THE OPEN QUESTIONS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Comments on Question 1

  • Stalking to be included in the list of crime types
  • Data on attempted burglary should not be collected separately.
  • The types of crime covered have to take into consideration the number of households covered by the survey and the basic victimisation rate for the crimes.Therefore some crime types as i.e. sexual assault could lead to insignificant (invalid or non-reliable) data.
  • Identity fraud seams to be a crime type that is not well defined, and should be omitted.
  • The crime type bribery should described as “solicitation of bribes and extortion” because respondents are not victims “bribery” in a nearer sense.
  • Samples will probably be too small to be able to make any valid rate of prevalence of violence/threats by type of offender.
  • Burglary is a not well define term, since it may refer to both domestic theft and other types of aggravated thefts.In addition, in some countries houses are to be considered as such even if they are used as second houses.
  • Theft of personal property is too generic: pick pocketing and bag snatching are indispensable , but thefts not involving any form of contact between offender and victim (e.g.: theft of unattended personal property) are less important
  • Threats by strangers: this category is too large to be properly understood by respondents, especially due to cultural patterns and typical behaviour in each MS.
  • Bribery: in defining the questions referring to this kind of crime pattern, we should take account of the fact that the victim of bribery is mostly aware of the illicit conduct he/she is involved in.
  • The questionnaire should include drug-related crimes considering that people who live in an area affected by the activities of drug peddlers or presence of drug addicts could feel unsafe or worried as a result of social and urban degradation.
  • It is suggested that domestic violence per se is included comprising physical, sexual and psychological violence between partners, ex-partners, parents of common descendant in first degree and to a person particularly undefended, due to age, deficiency, disease, pregnancy or economic dependency living in the household.
  • Violence needs to be split up into more policy-relevant subcategories such as street violence, partner violence, workplace violence, … It is such issues that our decision-makers are likely to want to know. However because a needs assessment was never made in the first place, at least some of the most obvious faults should be corrected. The current questionnaire design is unable to capture such issues: the details of the “most recent” violence incident are not the solution since the most recent event in a broad violence category will be unable to provide estimates for different violence subcategories.
  • It is suggested that the term "intimate" be replaced by “family member” as “intimate” can be interpreted in different legal systems in Europe as being too narrow (i.e. meaning only the couple living together) and not as encompassing all situations that may exist in a family .
  • What about sexual offences by known person – not intimate, nor stranger

Comments on Question 2

Key indicators based on the existing questionnaire

Indispensable:

-Percentage of respondents who were victims of the same crime more than once

-Percentage of victims who reported to the police, by type of crime

-Percentage of respondents victimized by crimes involving weapons (knives, firearms)

-Percentage of victims who suffered physical injury

-Victim-offender relationship

-Basic demographic characteristics of the respondents

The following indicators would also be indispensible:

  1. satisfaction with the performance of the prosecution
  2. percentage of victims who did not report to the police or other agencies the crime they had fallen victim of
  3. five typical reasons why victims as specified in suggested indicator above omitted to report crime (e.g.: bagatelle crime (petty offence), fear, shame, intimate offender or offender of close acquaintance, former negative experience with police or law enforcement)
  4. percentage of respondents owing security and/or self defence items other than firearms/weapons (e.g.: knife, sprays, sticks, etc.)
  5. We suggest to ask for an evaluation of the damage suffered by the crime victim.
  6. Seriousness of incident is useful for analysis
  7. Question 19 – public attitudes towards alternative penalties should also be considered.
  8. Question 19 – why only recidivist burglary is chosen as a model example for punishment by imprisonment? Sex offences should also be evaluated as an indicator and compared to burglary as this will prompt the respondents to compare between these groups of crimes and their punishment and give probably a more statistically interesting answer.
  9. The reaction of the police is questioned in the survey (Q 33, Q 56) Could a more positive approach be included? Now it seems as only problems are mentioned, but what if a victim is content with the response?
  10. Could general questions be included with regard to the criminal justice system? E.g. was their case processed and are they satisfied with the responses? (now it is limited to the police, but for policy matters, the response of the justice system would also be of interest).

Other indispensible indicators, which are not currently included in the list

  • Do the three age groups, by which certain clusters of respondents are going to be disaggregated, cover the age group of juveniles in respect on both offenders and victims?
  • What is the potential difference between vehicle-related theft and theft from car. Is it only the type of the vehicle, i.e. car equals to personal vehicle, and the notion of vehicle covers all other vehicle categories.
  • The 2000 ICVS included a question on the seriousness of the offence (see Q119). This has been left out in the ESS. However, this is a very important dimension as it shows another rank between MS than prevalence does. We would therefore strongly suggest that this question is included in the ESS.
  • This survey should include the data concerning the crimes reported to law enforcement agencies.
  • In some Member States there may be several categories of specialized services for victims (For example at the level of the police, at the court level and victim aid at the regional level). When one asks questions with regard to the support victims have received, this will therefore be hard to analyze and to know what service the victim is talking about.
  • Types of disaggregation based on living quarters in towns and based on economic capacity of victims.
  • The indicators of the size and density of the population in a given town should also be evaluated and compared – fear of crime increases in densely populated big town agglomerations.

Comments on Question 3 regarding the articles of the proposed legislation

  • Further clarification is needed concerning the reference population for the survey.
  • The regulation refers to persons of age 16 and above. This may cause the objection of parents and/or guardians due to the sensitivity of some questions. Perhaps it would be better to consider the population of age 18 and above.
  • The sample size is not mentioned in the regulation
  • The time frame is too long
  • Fieldwork should be done early 2012
  • In setting up an integrated System of European Social Surveys, the results achieved with the 2013 survey should be exploited at the most in order to take advantage of the work done.
  • MSs need to have access to the data concerning their country immediately, not in 2015
  • The original proposal contained a separate section on sexual violence. Although we agree that this might be difficult to be administered, it would nevertheless be interesting to have some more information on this topic, since this category of offences is often not too well documented in general surveys.

General comments

There is nothing about sample size – this is very important

Sample design (country or city sample)

Basic assumption:

Minimum and maximum of respondent age

- Technique of interview (CATI, CAPI. …).If CATI – which one? : mobile, stationary

Every offence should to have definition

Time table to long

Draft of questionnaire should be presented for discussion

------

It is highly questionable that the samples of surveys are composed with persons selected among those who have a landline number. These samples can not be considered representative because today in all countries a significant proportion of the population has no landline and especially because the people most vulnerable to being victims of abuses, violences and crimes have no landline (belonging to the weaker are poor, marginal, or immigrant irregular). Moreover even the non-resident students do not have a landline!

The questionnaire surveys must be in multiple languages and administered by interviewers of different mother tongues

Victimization surveys should provide a sample of qualitative interviews face-to-face questions not closed (the results of this part of the investigation should be compared with the survey via telephone).

------

There are two important objectives of an EU-wide survey on victimisation and safety:
1. To collect data on crime types where there is an interest to the MS to compare levels of crime and victimisation - to possibly form part of a bench-marking exercise
2. To collect data on crime types with a true cross-border dimension - where the collection of data and the subsequent analysis is hampered by national borders - as for example cybercrime in its different forms (n.b. that cyberspace is an arena for many traditional crime types such as theft, harassment, fraud etc., but that it therefore is of interest to collect information on by what means, or in what context, a crime has been committed).

This must be reflected in the draft victimisation survey.

Furthermore, on a general level, the draft survey could benefit from a thorough assessment of every question, to include only those that have the possibility to contribute to the fulfilment of these two objectives.