Das Kriminalistische Institut des BKA ist zertifiziert nach DIN EN ISO 9001:2008 (TÜV Nord CERT,...

Das Kriminalistische Institut des BKA ist zertifiziert nach DIN EN ISO 9001:2008 (TÜV Nord CERT, Zertifikat-Registrier-Nr. 44 100 081125)

TF Meeting on Victimisation Survey in Luxemburg 14.-15.02.2012

Results of the EU-SASU Manual Subgroup 3

„Attitude to law enforcement, security precautions and feelings of safety / worries about crime”

Nathalie Guzy, M.A

Luxemburg, 14.02.2012

14.02.20122 Task Force on Victimisation – Subgroup 3 on EU-SASU Manual

Participants and work-coordination

Subgroup 3: Participants and work-coordination

Members:- Slovak Republik - Lithuania- Sweden - Bulgaria- Hungary - Germany

Work process within the subgroup:

Two rounds of internal proposals Several discussion-rounds Discussion of proposals of some Task Force Members Final proposals for amendment based on majority decision

( some opinions and country-proposals could not be considered)


Final proposals for amendment & discussion-process

OVERALL CHANGES & PROPOSALSOVERALL CHANGES & PROPOSALS

(1) In every question the answer categories „refuse to say“ and „don‘t know“ are included and coded in the same way [(-1); (-2)]

(2) DK is write out „Don‘t know“

(3) „The question to obtain variable XXX should be formlated as follows“

(4) Linguistic corrections

(5) Clarification for the whole questionnaire needed:

H Mentioning the answer categories already in the question is not necessary in self-administered survey mode

H Missing categories should not be read out



I. FEELING SAFE AND WORRIES ABOUT CRIMEI. FEELING SAFE AND WORRIES ABOUT CRIME

SAFFELNIGHT: Feeling safe out alone at night

(1) As the concept of „in your area“ is too unspecific, an explanation of area should be included (in the question-wording as well as in the manual definition):

„With area we mean your local area within a 15-minute walk from the place where you live.“

(2) The introduction for SAFELNIGHT is reformulated to an introduction for the whole section FEELING SAFE AND WORRIES ABOUT CRME



(3) As …

H we are interested in actual feelings (not imaginated feelings)

H it is importent to know whether/for what reasons people don‘t go after dark

H the original question-wording seems to produce mode-effects

…the sub-question "how safe would you feel" (in case people don’t leave home) should be replaced:

H in case of self-administered surveys by the answer categories:

"I don't go out after dark mainly for fear of becoming a victim of crime"

"I don't go out after dark for other reasons"

H in case of interviewer-administered survey by the question:

“Is the main reason why you don’t leave home after dark fear of crime or is there some other reason?”



Also discussed (but dismissed):

Add „normally“ to the question: „How safe do you normally feel walking alone in your area after dark?“

Change „after dark“ to „at night“?



SAFFELPHIAT: Worried about being physically attacked

(1) Besides some linguistic changes: No proposals for amendment

Discussed but dismissed:

„people you do not know“ = „anyone who is neither a familiy member nor a close acquaintance“?



SAFFELTERR: Worried about terrorism

(1) With a view to provide better understanding, the scope of this question should be pointed out:

„How worried are you about becoming personally a victim of a terrorist attack…?“

Also discussed:

Is an explanation of „terrorist attack“ needed?

Whether the territorial frame of this question should be tightened (e.g. to „in your area“ or „city“)



LIKHOOBURG: Likelihood of burglary

(1) Analogue to the burglary-screener, this question should only:

H … refer to primary homes (however: depending on further results of SG 1/2)

H … refer to successful burglaries

What would you say are the chances that over the next twelve month someone will break into your primary home to steal something?



II. ATTITUDES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SECURITY II. ATTITUDES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SECURITY PRECAUTIONSPRECAUTIONS

ATTDRUG: Exposure to drug problems

(1) Analogue to SAFELNIGHT: Inclusion of an explanation of „in your area“

H However: In an interviewer-administered survey an explanation within the question seems only necessary for the first two questions]

(2) Specification that exposure to alcohol-use is excludedH Reason: Alcohol is very widespread and do not constitute a hard indicator

for environmental degradation and antisocial behaviour

(3) Don‘t know / do not rembember

Also discussed: New answer category: every day / from time to time / rarely / never



ALARMOWN: Burglar alarm ownership

(1) Analogue to LIKEHOODBURG: Reference to primary residence

(2) With a view to avoid interruptions, an additional explanation about the sensitivity is included; furthermore the option is given to point out the possibility of item refusel

Also discussed: Deletion of this question and combination with DOORLOC

(Special doors and locks)



DOORLOC: Special doors or locks

(1) Analogue to previous questions:

- Reference to primary residence

- Insertion of an explanation about the question-sensitivity & possibility of item-refuse

Also discussed:

Deletion of this question and combination with ALARMOWN (Burglar alarm ownership)



AVONIGHT: Avoidance behaviour at night

(1) Analogue to previous questions: H Insertion of an explanation of „area“

H Reformulations for people who don‘t go out after dark

H Insertion of an explanation about the question-sensitivity & possibility of item-refuse

(2) With the aim to place all dimensions of security feeling together (to avoid „context effects“) this question is moved after SAFFELNIGHT

(3) To provide better understanding: „for reasons of safety“ = „for fear of becoming a victim of crime“

(4) As the reference period „the last time you went out“ might be too restrictive: Changing the reference period to the last twelve month?



GUNOWN: Gun ownership

(1) Analogue to previous questions: Insertion of an explanation about the question-sensitivity & possibility of item-refuse

(2) As the Memberstates differ regarding their legal systems (gun possession is illegal in some countries), an explanation is included, that this question could be necessary to be adapted (the same for GUNOWNWHY)

Also discussed:

Exclusion of air rifles

Reference to guns which are working



GUNOWNWHY: Reasons for owning a gun

(1) Analogue to previous questions:H Insertion of an explanation about the question-sensitivity & item-

refuse

H Reference to the option of adapting this question

(2) Concretion/harmonisation of the answer categories:H Category 5: „I‘m working fo the armed forces or the police

H Category 7. „For other reasons, e.g. because it was a gift“

(3) Insertion of an explanation about the question-background

H “As the level of gun possession can differ greatly due to country-specific reasons/habits (e.g. because hunting is very common), this question collects information about the special reasons for owning a gun. In this way, cases in which gun possession is due to concerns about crime can be identified.”



POLPER: Police performance

(1) To harmonise the question and answer categories, „neither good nor bad job“ should also be mentioned in the question

(2) Regional scope of this question: Harmonisation with COURPER? („in your area/city“ versus „in your country“)

Also discussed:

Insertion of a reference period

Whether the formulation „all the things the police are expected to do“ is sufficient (reference to crime-related issues?)

Category „I can‘t assess“



COURPER: Courts performance

(1) To harmonise the question and answer categories, „neither good nor bad job“ should also be mentioned in the question

(2) Regional scope of this question? Harmonisation with POLPER? (in your area/city versus in your country“)

(3) Clarification that this variable refers only to the performance of the courts in terms of criminal law agenda (in the manual as well as in the question-wording)

Also discussed: Insertion of a reference period Whether a formulation „all the things courts are expected to do“

is sufficient (Is a reference to crime-related issues necessary?) Category „I can‘t assess“



PUNITIT: Punitiveness

(1) As the current answer categories are not exhaustive, following answer categories should be included:

H “Disciplinary measures set by courts (e.g. making amends)”

H “Dismissal without any sanctions”

(2) Including an explanation, that (against the background of the national legal systems) this question might be necessary to be adapted

(3) Insertion of “Background information”

(4) Changing “TV” to “new TV” to increase comparability by providing a clearer picture of the stolen good (ICVS: “Colour TV”)



Also discussed:

Deletion of this question

Randomising the answer categories in order to avoid „context effects“

Changing the stolen good from a TV to money


Open Issues / Discussion

(1) POLPER/CORPER: Police performance / Courts performance

What should be the scope of these questions? Should CORPER and POLPER be harmonised (e.g. "in your area/city“)?

(2) AVONIGHT: Avoidance behaviour at night

As the reference period „the last time you went out“ might be too restrictive: Changing the reference period to the last twelve month?

(3) Scope of LIKHOOBURG: Likelihood of burglary

Only sucessfull burglaries? Or Attempted & sucessfull?

??????


Thank you very

much for

your attention !!!

Das Kriminalistische Institut des BKA ist zertifiziert nach DIN EN ISO 9001:2008 (TÜV Nord CERT,...

Documents

Transcript of Das Kriminalistische Institut des BKA ist zertifiziert nach DIN EN ISO 9001:2008 (TÜV Nord CERT,...