1 / 21

TF Meeting on Victimisation Survey in Luxemburg 14.-15.02.2012

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. Participants and work-coordination.

wrodriquez
Télécharger la présentation

TF Meeting on Victimisation Survey in Luxemburg 14.-15.02.2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. 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) Task Force on Victimisation – Subgroup 3 on EU-SASU Manual

  3. Final proposals for amendment & discussion-process OVERALL CHANGES & PROPOSALS • In every question the answer categories „refuse to say“ and „don‘t know“ are included and coded in the same way [(-1); (-2)] • DK is write out  „Don‘t know“ • „The question to obtain variable XXX should be formlated as follows“ • Linguistic corrections • Clarification for the whole questionnaire needed: • Mentioning the answer categories already in the question is not necessary in self-administered survey mode • Missing categories should not be read out Task Force on Victimisation – Subgroup 3 on EU-SASU Manual

  4. Final proposals for amendment & discussion-process I. 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 Task Force on Victimisation – Subgroup 3 on EU-SASU Manual

  5. Final proposals for amendment & discussion-process (3) As … • we are interested in actual feelings (not imaginated feelings) • it is importent to know whether/for what reasons people don‘t go after dark • 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: • 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" • 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?” Task Force on Victimisation – Subgroup 3 on EU-SASU Manual

  6. Final proposals for amendment & discussion-process 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“? Task Force on Victimisation – Subgroup 3 on EU-SASU Manual

  7. Final proposals for amendment & discussion-process 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“? Task Force on Victimisation – Subgroup 3 on EU-SASU Manual

  8. Final proposals for amendment & discussion-process 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“) Task Force on Victimisation – Subgroup 3 on EU-SASU Manual

  9. Final proposals for amendment & discussion-process LIKHOOBURG: Likelihood of burglary • Analogue to the burglary-screener, this question should only: • … refer to primary homes (however: depending on further results of SG 1/2) • … 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? Task Force on Victimisation – Subgroup 3 on EU-SASU Manual

  10. Final proposals for amendment & discussion-process II. ATTITUDES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SECURITY PRECAUTIONS ATTDRUG: Exposure to drug problems (1) Analogue to SAFELNIGHT: Inclusion of an explanation of „in your area“ • 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 excluded • 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 Task Force on Victimisation – Subgroup 3 on EU-SASU Manual

  11. Final proposals for amendment & discussion-process ALARMOWN: Burglar alarm ownership • 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) Task Force on Victimisation – Subgroup 3 on EU-SASU Manual

  12. Final proposals for amendment & discussion-process DOORLOC: Special doors or locks • 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) Task Force on Victimisation – Subgroup 3 on EU-SASU Manual

  13. Final proposals for amendment & discussion-process AVONIGHT: Avoidance behaviour at night • Analogue to previous questions: • Insertion of an explanation of „area“ • Reformulations for people who don‘t go out after dark • Insertion of an explanation about the question-sensitivity & possibility of item-refuse • With the aim to place all dimensions of security feeling together (to avoid „context effects“) this question is moved after SAFFELNIGHT • To provide better understanding: „for reasons of safety“ = „for fear of becoming a victim of crime“ • As the reference period „the last time you went out“ might be too restrictive: Changing the reference period to the last twelve month? Task Force on Victimisation – Subgroup 3 on EU-SASU Manual

  14. Final proposals for amendment & discussion-process GUNOWN: Gun ownership • Analogue to previous questions: Insertion of an explanation about the question-sensitivity & possibility of item-refuse • 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 Task Force on Victimisation – Subgroup 3 on EU-SASU Manual

  15. Final proposals for amendment & discussion-process GUNOWNWHY: Reasons for owning a gun • Analogue to previous questions: • Insertion of an explanation about the question-sensitivity & item-refuse • Reference to the option of adapting this question • Concretion/harmonisation of the answer categories: • Category 5: „I‘m working fo the armed forces or the police • Category 7. „For other reasons, e.g. because it was a gift“ • Insertion of an explanation about the question-background • “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.” Task Force on Victimisation – Subgroup 3 on EU-SASU Manual

  16. Final proposals for amendment & discussion-process POLPER: Police performance • To harmonise the question and answer categories, „neither good nor bad job“ should also be mentioned in the question • 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“ Task Force on Victimisation – Subgroup 3 on EU-SASU Manual

  17. Final proposals for amendment & discussion-process COURPER: Courts performance • To harmonise the question and answer categories, „neither good nor bad job“ should also be mentioned in the question • Regional scope of this question? Harmonisation with POLPER? (in your area/city versus in your country“) • 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“ Task Force on Victimisation – Subgroup 3 on EU-SASU Manual

  18. Final proposals for amendment & discussion-process PUNITIT: Punitiveness • As the current answer categories are not exhaustive, following answer categories should be included: • “Disciplinary measures set by courts (e.g. making amends)” • “Dismissal without any sanctions” • Including an explanation, that (against the background of the national legal systems) this question might be necessary to be adapted • Insertion of “Background information” • Changing “TV” to “new TV” to increase comparability by providing a clearer picture of the stolen good (ICVS: “Colour TV”) Task Force on Victimisation – Subgroup 3 on EU-SASU Manual

  19. Final proposals for amendment & discussion-process 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 Task Force on Victimisation – Subgroup 3 on EU-SASU Manual

  20. Open Issues / Discussion • 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? ??? Task Force on Victimisation – Subgroup 3 on EU-SASU Manual

  21. Thank you very much for your attention !!! Task Force on Victimisation – Subgroup 3 on EU-SASU Manual

More Related