Transcript PAT MAYHEW DEVELOPMENT OF MONITORING INSTRUMENTS FOR JUDICIAL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT INSTITUTIONS IN THE WESTERN BALKANS PHASE 3 – POLICE TRAINING Montenegro, 15th – 16th November.

PAT MAYHEW
DEVELOPMENT OF MONITORING
INSTRUMENTS FOR JUDICIAL AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT INSTITUTIONS IN THE
WESTERN BALKANS
PHASE 3 – POLICE TRAINING
Montenegro, 15th – 16th November 2010
With funding from the
European Union
DEVELOPMENT OF MONITORING INSTRUMENTS FOR
JUDICIAL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT INSTITUTIONS IN
THE WESTERN BALKANS 2009-2011
Phase three – Training
SESSION 1
WELCOME & INTRODUCTION
• Introductions
• Where this training fits into the CARDS Project
• How the sessions are organised
MY BACKGROUND
• Retired freelance consultant
• Previously Director of Crime and Justice Research Centre, Victoria
University of Wellington, New Zealand
• Consultant Criminologist, Autralian Institute of Criminology
• Research Fellow, National Institute of Justice, USA
• Most of career – UK Home Office Research, Development and Statistics
Directorate
 Managed and did research
 Ran the British Crime Survey
 Responsible for statistics on police-recorded crime
 And other police figures - e.g. detections, arrests, police manpower
 International comparative work
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ACHIEVE IN THE TRAINING
•
To understand the skills and needs of participants
•
To share my 30+ years experience of crime and justice statistics
•
To prepare for the next CARDS visit
For anyone who would like to keep in contact…
[email protected]
INTRODUCTIONS FROM PARTICIPANTS
• Name, organisation, position
• What you would like to achieve from the training
• Any other useful information
• Any comments on the proposed agenda
THE CARDS PROJECT
• Objective: to strengthen justice and Home Affairs statistics in
Western Balkans
– To improve response to crime and corruption by bringing
national statistics towards compliance with international
standards and EU acquis
• This CARDS Project funded by the EU under the CARDS
programme with additional funds from Germany
• Started in 2009, ends in 2011
• Three phases
7 countries / territories
Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, FYROM, Kosovo (under
UNSCR 1244), Montenegro, Serbia
THE THREE PHASES: PHASE 1 (RESEARCH)
• Setting out relevant international standards
• Getting picture of strengths & weaknesses of data collection
systems
• Identifying gaps and needs of statistical systems
It involved:
 Desktop research
 7 research missions
Main output:
 Technical Assessment Reports for 7 countries / territories
PHASE 2 (GUIDELINES)
• To identify common data collection challenges
• To discuss and adopt specific draft programme guidelines
• To agree a set of regional indicators
• To prioritise training needs and adopt outlines of training
programmes
It involved:
 Preparation of draft Programme Guidelines
 Feedback from project countries / territories
 Discussion and adoption at First Regional Workshop
Main output:
 Programme Guidelines adopted
PHASE 3 (TRAINING) – CURRENT STAGE
• To design and deliver targeted training activities
• To improve national capacities to record and report crimerelated statistics in line with international standards
• To identify areas for further work and improvements
It involves:
 Training carried out by international experts together with
national focal points and national counterparts
 Training delivered to police, prosecution, courts, and
institutions in areas of migration / asylum / visa
FIRST REGIONAL WORKSHOP (SKOPJE, MAY 2010)
Goals
• To present the technical assessment reports
• To identify common data collection challenges
• To adopt specific draft guidelines
• To prioritise training needs
• To adopt outlines of the training program
• To agree on a set of regional indicators
CONCLUSIONS: SOME CHALLENGES FOR CCJ
STATISTICAL SYSTEMS IN WESTERN BALKANS
Those relevant to the police
• Need better computerised systems to record data
• Defining clear written counting rules to record crime incidents
• Training all responsible staff with regard to implementation
• Enhancing statistical analysis of the data collected
• Improving public dissemination of the data collected
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PROGRAMME
GUIDELINES
Recommendation
Session
#2
3
More information on offenders and
victims
# 4, 10, 29-31 Better collection of information to suit
statistical analysis and international
standards and requirements
2, 3, 4, 5
# 7, 8
Counting rules for offences and suspects
3
#9
More information in published outputs
5
# 47
A possible victimisation survey
6
SESSION 2
VALID DATA AND INTERNATIONAL
REPORTS OF POLICE DATA
• The need for valid data and common standards
• Three main international compilations of police figures
THE NEED FOR VALID POLICE STATISTICS
• Collecting police statistics is expensive
The money is wasted unless the figures are
•
•
•
valid
informative
properly analysed
• Good police statistics
 Allow the police to account for themselves to Parliament,
the public and the media – showing what the police are
doing
 Enable the police to see what is happening with crime in
their own country - you need to know ‘the facts’
 Show how each area is doing
THE NEED FOR VALID POLICE STATISTICS (2)
BUT good police statistics
• Need to be given to managers
 In a routine manner
 In a way managers can understand
• Need to be comparable within your own jurisdiction
 across different areas
 and over time
 ideally, also need to be comparable with other
jurisdictions
IMPORTANCE OF INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE DATA
• Shows governments where they need to concentrate efforts
• Can show local populations where they are doing well, and
not so well
• Can show where statistics infrastructure needs development
(including publication)
ROLES PLAYED BY INTERNATIONAL GROUPS
The main roles are:
1.
Giving guidelines for collecting criminal justice statistics
 Especially common standards
2.
Giving training in the presentation and use of the statistics
3.
Organising the collection of the statistics
 From appropriate contact(s) in different countries
 Which are then collated by a central authority
4.
Publishing comparative statistics on various aspects of crime
and justice
COMMON STANDARDS FOR POLICE STATISTICS
• Work developing fast within the UN and the EU
 Guidance manuals from the UN and EU (massive!)
• But there are considerable difficulties in reaching comparability
because of:
 Different legal frameworks and definitions of offences
 Different policing and prosecutorial arrangements
 Differing capacities in criminal justice agencies
 Different operational requirements that the statistics serve
 Different counting rules (Session 3)
INTERNATIONAL REPORTS
•
Not very long-standing
•
All come with substantial caveats
•
World Health Organisation – covers violence (probably least
comparable)
Three main ones are:
1.
United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operation
of the Criminal Justice System (UN – CTS)
2.
European Sourcebook
3.
Eurostat: Statistics in Focus – Crime and Criminal Justice
UNITED NATIONS
•
Latest edition 2010 (covering data
from 1996 – 2006)
•
Data available
•
Montenegro has provided data but
it may not be consistent with UN
definitions
•
Covers more than police-recorded
crime - e.g., CJS personnel and
prisoner numbers
•
Data requirements have been
simplified over time
http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Crimestatistics/International_Statistics_on_Crime_and_Justice.pdf
EUROPEAN SOURCEBOOK
•
Latest edition 2010
•
About three previous editions
•
Data available
•
Montenegro has not provided data
•
Much work done on improving and
documenting comparability
http://www.europeansourcebook.org/ob285_full.pdf
EUROSTAT
•
Latest edition 2009
•
Modelled on Sourcebook
•
Limited commentary, but good notes
•
Seven crime types
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
Total crime
Homicide
Violent crime
Robbery
Domestic burglary
Theft of motor vehicle
Drug trafficking
Montenegro has provided data except
for burglary, though definitions may
not match
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-09-036/EN/KS-SF-09036-EN.PDF
SESSION 3
PARTICULAR ISSUES FROM THE
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Present consistency in recording crime data in
Montenegro
• Are there any written rules?
 Considerations for written rules
 Resource and training implications
• Particular information on supects and victims
PRESENT CONSISTENCY OF CRIME RECORDING IN
MONTENEGRO
DISCUSSION
INFORMATION FROM TRAINEES
COUNTING RULES IN POLICE STATISTICS
Written counting rules to regulate the way in which data are recorded
for police statistics is recommended.
There is some ‘best practice’ guidance
What we know is that
1. Some countries have written rules; some do not
• In the WB, only Croatia, Serbia and FYROM have written rules
2. There are NO CONSISTENT counting rules across the Western Balkans,
or across other countries
WHAT ARE THE MAIN COUNTING RULES?
1. When data are recorded for crime statistics
a. Input statistics - data are included when crime incident is
reported to police
b. Intermediate statistics - some point between input and the
output
c. Output statistics - when police have completed the
investigation
• The application of the principal offence rule
• The recording of multiple offences
• The recording of offences committed by more than one person
WHEN ARE DATA COLLECTED
When are data collected for recorded statistics?
Albania
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Croatia
Output
Some places input; some places intermediate
Output
Kosovo under UNSCR 1244
Intermediate
Montenegro
Intermediate
Serbia
TFYR of Macedonia
Output
Intermediate
The main thing is to know is that if there are input statistics, the
crime count is higher
When data are recorded across European countries - 1999-2007
Source: European Sourcebook and CARDS’ TARs
European countries:
The majority of
European countries
has input statistics
Nine out of thirty-six
countries use output
statistics
Twelve record
intermediate statistics
Western Balkans:
the majority of WBs
presents intermediate
statistics, Albania,
Croatia and Serbia
present output
statistics.
THE PRINCIPLE OFFENCE RULE (POR)
International guidelines suggest it may be appropriate to apply a POR
when counting and reporting offences
Written counting rules should say whether a POR rule is applied or not
• In the Western Balkans, only Albania applies a POR
• In other Western countries, about half apply a POR, and half do not
The main thing is to know is that if there is no POR, the crime count is higher
Ideally,the POR should be consistent across agencies – police, prosecutors,
courts
• BUT changing to a POR will reduce the crime count, and cause a ‘break’
in the crime statistics series
THE PRINCIPLE OFFENCE RULE - EXAMPLE
Assault
Criminal damage
Offences
Offences
POR
No POR




1
2
Application of the Principal Offence Rule - 1999-2007
Source: European Sourcebook and CARDS’ TARs
European countries:
About half apply a
POR, and half do not
Western Balkans:
only Albania applies
the POR.
MULTIPLE OFFENCES
What happens when a victim reports more than one offence at
the same time? For example, different incidents of domestic
violence...
• In all the Western Balkans, the rules are that all offences
are counted, with the exception of Albania
The important thing is for the rules to be understood and
consistently applied
Recording of multiple offences (serial offending) - 1999-2007
Source: European Sourcebook and CARDS’ TARs
European countries:
the majority records
multiple offences as
two or more offences
Western Balkans
situation: the majority
of WBs records
multiple offences as
two ore more
offences. Only Albania
records them as one
offence.
33
MULTIPLE OFFENDERS / SUSPECTS
If there is more than one offender involved in an offence, six of the
Western Balkans countries count one offence
In Kosovo under UNSCR 1244, the number of offences = the number of
offenders
The main thing to know is that if serial offending is recorded as two or
more offences, the crime count is higher
But In terms of suspects, it is reasonable to count two
Recording of multiple offenders (suspects) - 1999-2007
Source: European Sourcebook and CARDS’ TARs
European countries:
Most count only one
offence when more
than one person
commit it.
Western Balkans
situation: All the WBs
record one offence
except Kosovo under
UNSCR 1244 who
records them as two
or more offences.
OTHER COUNTING RULES ISSUES
DOC. N. 6: HOME OFFICE COUNTING RULES IS USEFUL
Some issues are:
 Whether to record a crime, misdemeanour, or incident at all?
 ‘No crime-ing’ after recording
 ‘Evidenced-based’ recording or ‘prima facie’ recording (i.e.
taking the victim’s word)
 Crimes per victim or per episode?– e.g. shoplifting in several
shops
 Classification and re-classification
WHAT IS CURRENTLY MOST OFTEN DONE MAY BE THE BEST
STARTING POINT FOR FORMALISING WRITTEN RULES
RESOURCE AND TRAINING IMPLICATIONS
 Who would take the lead in formulating written rules?
 How would prosecutors be involved?
 What learning opportunities would personnel be given?
 What testing mechanisms would be put in place?
 How would the written rules be revised?
DISCUSSION
VICTIM OFFENDER RELATIONSHIPS
• Victim-offender relationships
 Relevant to Recommendations # 2
 Relevant to Pilot Data Collection Exercise
VICTIM-OFFENDER RELATIONSHIPS
See Handout # 2
INTERNATIONAL CRIME VICTIMISATION SURVEY
1
Spouse, partner (at the time)
2
Ex-spouse, ex-partner (at the time)
3
Boyfriend (at the time)
4
Ex-boyfriend (at the time)
5
Relative
6
Close friend
7
Someone he/she works/worked with
8
None of these
9
Refuses to say
VICTIM-OFFENDER RELATIONSHIPS
See Handout # 2
UN MANUAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SYSTEM OF CRRIMINAL JUSTICE
STATISTICS (pp. 55 AND 60)
Spouse
Ex-spouse
Parent
Child
Other family
Friend
Business relation
Acquaintance
Stranger
Other
Issue of ‘partners’
Issue of step-parents
What is a ‘child’
How extended is the ‘family’
Boy-friend / girl-friend?
Seen before but don’t know?
The issue is whether known or not
VICTIM-OFFENDER RELATIONSHIPS
The primary interest is in:
• People known to each other >>> not known to each other
 Important for ‘stranger violence’
• People who are (or were) partners (‘partner violence’)
 Violence by ex-partners seen as important as violence by
current partners
• People who are in a domestic relationship ranging wider than
partners (‘domestic violence’)
There are several possible classification
VICTIM-OFFENDER RELATIONSHIPS – OTHER ISSUES
• Relationship can only be recorded if there is a relationship offences
• Relationships when there is more than one victim?
• Relationships when there is more than one offender?
• Whose account of the relationship does one take – the offender or
the victim’s?
DISCUSSION
ETHNICITY AND CITIZENSHIP
• Ethnicity and citizenship
 Recommendation # 2
 Relevant to Pilot Data Collection Exercise
• Recommendation #2 asks for citizenship to be collected for suspects
and victims
• Pilot Data Collection Exercise asks for citizenship and ethnicity to be
collected for suspects and victims
• Citizenship is a data field in the police recording form for suspects?
 How well is this completed?
• Would there be problems with recording ethnicity?
DISCUSSION
RECIDIVISM OF OFFENDERS (1)
• Recidivism of offenders
 Relevant to Pilot Data Collection Exercise
See Handout # 4 (Pilot Data Collection Exercise)
• It is unusual to report on offender recidivism in publications on ‘crime
statistics’
 More often reported in relation to prosecution or courts statistics
• There are some problems
 What is a recidivist? What counts?
• Anyone previously arrested?
• Only those previously sanctioned? But what about police
warnings and cautions?
RECIDIVISM OF OFFENDERS (2)
See Handout # 4
• The Pilot Data Collection Exercise seems problematic
 Asks for “recidivists of the same offence”. What is the same
offence?
 What if the suspect is recidivist of the same offence AND another
offence? The totals won’t add up.
DISCUSSION
SESSION 4
THE PILOT DATA COLLECTION EXERCISE
• Suggested Regional Crime Indicators
• The Pilot Data Collection Exercise
SUGGESTED REGIONAL CRIME INDICATORS
See Handout # 3
The following offence types are considered core crimes to be covered in 12th UN
Survey by the end of 2010:
Intentional Homicide
Violent Crime
Assault
Sexual Violence
Rape
Robbery
Offences in red are
NOT being covered
in the Pilot Data
Collection Exercise
Property Crime
Theft
Motor Vehicle Theft
Burglary
Domestic Burglary/Housebreaking
Drug Possession/Use
Drug Trafficking
Kidnapping for Ransom
OFFENCES FOR THE PILOT DATA COLLECTION EXERCISE
Which of these is going to cause problems? How far are the definitions
in footnotes in Handout # 4 the same?
Data Collection Exercise
All offences
Completed Intentional Homicide
Violent crime
Assault
Sexual violence
Rape
Robbery
Drug Trafficking
Drug use /possession
Migrants smuggling
Trafficking in persons
Total corruption offences
Passive bribery
COMPLETED INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE
The intentional killing of a person
INCLUDING
– Murder
– Manslaughter
– Euthanasia
– Infanticide
EXCLUDING
– Attempted homicide
– Causing death by dangerous driving
– Abortion
– help with suicide
VIOLENCE AGAINST THE PERSON
INCLUDES
EXCLUDES
Assault
• Physical attack resulting • Indecent sexual assault
in serious bodily injury
• Threats and
slapping/punching
• Assault leading to death
Rape
• Sexual intercourse
without valid consent
• Offences against
children
Other sexual • Offences against
violence
children
Robbery
•Stealing with force or
threat of force
•Muggings
•Pick-pocketing
•Extortion
•Blackmail
DRUG TRAFFICKING
Illegal drug operations which are not solely in
connection with personal use
INCLUDES
– Possession
– Cultivation
– Production
– Supplying
– Transportation
– Importing
– Exporting
– Financing etc.
OTHER INFORMATION FOR THE PILOT DATA
COLLECTION EXERCISE (1)
See Handout # 4
No. of CRIMES recorded by the
police
Recorded by the police (some crimes
are not reported by victims)
By offence type
No. of persons recorded by the
police as SUSPECTS
First stage of ‘attrition’ calculation. In
the current system = ‘suspects’
By offence type
By age
By sex
By citizenship
By ethnicity
Not currently collected in Montenegro
By whether recidivist or not
Feasible? Not currently collected?
OTHER INFORMATION FOR THE PILOT DATA
COLLECTION EXERCISE (2)
Currently, Montenegro collects only name and address of the
victim
See Handout # 4
No. of VICTIMS recorded
Issue of counting number of victims
By offence type
By age
By sex
By citizenship
By ethnicity
Offender-Victim Relationship
By offence type
Problematic for some crimes?
Not currently collected?
CRIME DATA COLLECTION FORM (1)
UN Manual (page 55) shows a suggested form, although it does not
include all the items wanted for the Pilot Data Collection Exercise
A summary is below – see also Doc N.9 (page 55)
Incident information
Name of force
Location
Incident number
Type of offence
reported
Sate of incident
Date reported
Incident clearance
status
Date cleared
No. offenders
No. of offenders
No. of victims
Target of incident
Weapon present
Location of incident
Property stolen
CRIME DATA COLLECTION FORM (2)
Based on UN Manual (page 55) – see Doc N.9
Victim information
No. *
Name
Age
Sex
Citizenship
Ethnicity
Level of injury
Relation to victim
Offender information
No. *
Name
Age
Sex
Citizenship
Ethnicity
Recidivism
Charges
There may be more than one offender and more than one victim
SESSION 5 PUBLICATION OF RESULTS, ANALYSIS
AND INTERPRETATION
• Two examples of national reports
• Overview of the current reports in Montenegro
• Type and amount of analysis and interpretation
NATIONAL REPORTS
•
Massive variety of styles
•
Usually annual
•
Sometimes with other criminal justice system information;
sometimes not
•
Sometimes with special topics; sometimes not
•
USA – ‘Index’ crimes only
•
Nearly all publically available
•
Now also usually available on the web
•
Data sometimes downloadable
ENGLAND & WALES
•
Publication has changed over time
•
Now covers British Crime Survey (BCS)
and police figures
•
Produce additional reports - e.g.,
homicide
•
Also quarterly bulletins
•
Publication tightly controlled by Office
of National Statistics rules
ENGLAND & WALES (2)
Latest publication covers:
 Extent of and trends in crime
 Violent and sexual crimes
 Acquisitive and other property crime
 Publications perceptions
 Detection of crime
 Geographic patterns of crime
Most chapters draw on police figures and British Crime Survey
Discontinuance in police figures
 Major changes in offence coverage in 1998
 e.g., minor assaults
 Also changes in police recording practices
 e.g., counting by victims
NEW ZEALAND
GOOD POINTS
•
Straightforward
•
Show detection (resolution) figures
•
Monthly online figures
BAD POINTS
•
Both fiscal and calendar year
publications – too much
•
Little commentary (need to read Police
Annual Report as well)
•
Nothing about victims
•
Nothing about offenders
NEW ZEALAND (2)
•
Review of statistics in 2009 (last review in 1982)
–
•
e.g. recommendation to record victim-offender relationship
Another discontinuance in the figures
 Major change in computer systems
 New system meant fewer offences were ‘lost’
 New police recording rules
 Bought some area more into line with the areas with the
most ‘generous’ recording
CURRENT REPORTS IN MONTENEGRO
• What are they?
• My understanding
Published In English
Monthly Report of the Work of the Criminal
Police
Annual Report of the Police
DISCUSSION
?
No?
Online
?
THE CURRENT PUBLICATIONS: GOOD AND BAD
How are the current ‘publications’ received?
 What tables are most needed, used and liked?
 What are the main problems in compiling them?
 How could these problems be resolved?
DISCUSSION
ENGLISH PUBLICATION? USER REQUIREMENTS?
How feasible is publication in English?
Do current publications matching different user requirements?
How much information is already there to service the Regional
Indicators and the Pilot Data Collection Exercise?
DISCUSSION
ANALYSIS
Doc N. 9: UN Manual – Chapter VI, Annex B & F – some guidelines
Analysis: some principles
• People like some degree of consistency
• Longer-term figures are useful (not just this year / last year)
• Graphical material is good, but keep it simple
• Per capita rates are useful for:
 different areas (crimes / population)
 different population groups (offenders x ethnicity /
population x ethnicity)
PER CAPITA RATES (1)
District 1
District 2
District 1
District 2
District 1
District 2
No. offences
5,000
3,000
Population
100,000
40,000
Rate per 1,000 pop.
50
75
< most offences
< smaller population
< Highest rate
PER CAPITA RATES (2)
Citizenship 1
Citizenship 2
Citizenship 1
Citizenship 2
Citizenship 1
Citizenship 2
No. offenders
1,000
500
Population
50,000
10,000
Rate per 1,000 pop.
20
50
< most offenders
< smaller group
< Highest rate
INTERPRETATION (1)
Analysis should normally be limited to
• presentation and technical interpretation of the data.
While users often want interpretive analysis of .. policy implications …a
bureau of criminal justice statistics may
• jeopardise its credibility and perceived objectivity by performing
this type of analysis. ….
Policy analysis and data interpretation may be more appropriately done
by subject-matter specialists under the guidance of statistical experts.
UN Manual, page 33
INTERPRETATION (2)
• Most official reports just present the facts
 Avoiding – e.g. – “large increase” / “small increase”
• But ‘odd’ results may need explaining
 they are often due to technical factors
• Important to explain discontinuances in the data
 It may be an analysis task to ‘splice’ the data, or rework it
SESSION 6 VICTIMISATION SURVEYS
• The purposes of victimisation surveys
• Strengths and weaknesses
• Three international comparative exercises
 International Crime Victimisation Survey (ICVS)
 ICVS-11
 Eurostat survey in 2013
 Western Balkans Corruption Survey
VICTIMISATION SURVEYS (1)
• Developed since 1970s (USA, Netherlands, Scandinavia)
• Many countries now have their own ‘bespoke’ surveys
 which have run for many years
 providing an independent measure of trends in crime
• These bespoke surveys are not very comparable
e.g., Differences in offence coverage
Counting rules!
• Some international surveys (later)
VICTIMISATION SURVEYS (2)
• Focus on individuals and their direct experience of crime
 Whether or nor reported to the police
 Thus providing an independent measure of crime
• Good for describing the nature of everyday experience of victimisation
• Can show which types of people are most at risk (by collecting sociodemographic information
• Use sample survey methodology – mainly to get representative samples
• Household surveys most common, but there are also
 Surveys of businesses
• Generally take up other crime-related topics – e.g., fear of crime,
security precautions, attitudes to the police
VICTIMISATION SURVEYS (3)
• Sometimes focus on particular groups
e.g., women, ethnic minorities
• Sometimes focus on particular types of crime
e.g., domestic violence, sexual victimisation
• Usually measure victimisation over the last year (but sometimes
longer)
• Many countries have their own ‘bespoke’ surveys
 Which have run for many years – providing independent
measure of trends in crime
• These bespoke surveys are not very comparable
e.g., Differences in offence coverage
Counting rules!
VICTIMISATION SURVEYS (LIMITATIONS)
• Can’t cover all crimes
 murder (obviously)
 Fraud
 victimisation of children difficult
• Non-response can be high
 Are non-responders different?
• Do respondents remember everything? Minor offences likely to be
forgotten
• Do respondents tell interviewers everything? (Domestic violence)
• Sampling error
 Problematic for more uncommon crimes (e.g., robbery)
VICTIMISATION SURVEYS (METHODS)
• Face-to-face interviews were ‘gold standard’ – but expensive
• Computer technology - made a big difference
 CAPI – Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing
 CATI – Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing
 Cheap, but limits interview length
 Increasing mobile phone ownership posing a problem
 CASI – Computer Assisted Self Interviewing
 Good for sensitive subjects
• Postal questionnaires uncommon
 Cheap but poor response
• Internet surveys in development – Computer Assister Web Interviewing
(CAWI)
 But will need lots of testing
INTERNATIONAL VICTIMISATION SURVEYS
• Set up because independent surveys not comparable
 Meant to use identical questionnaires
 And same analysis methods
• A few international business surveys
• Some international surveys on violence against women
 but some lack of comparability – e.g. World Health
Organisation
THE MAIN ONES
International Crime Victimisation Survey (ICVS)
Five sweeps - 1989, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004/5
Tirana (Albania) ‘96; Zagreb (Croatia) ‘96, 2000; Skopje ’86 Belgrade (Yugosl.) ‘96
2004/5 ICVS – two different threads
EU-ICVS
15 member states
ICVS outside EU
15 countries
All told, 30 countries + 33 city surveys
None of the Western Balkan countries
ICVS-II – 2 rounds
Mainly testing (including CAWI)
2008
4 countries
2010
6 countries
SURVEYS TO BE COMPLETED
Eurostat 2013
All member states
Questionnaire piloted tested in 17 countries
Questionnaire now revised (see Handout # 5) but not agreed
UNODC CORRUPTION SURVEYS IN WESTERN BALKANS
Has short victimisation survey module (see Handout # 7)
Mainly National Statistical Offices
A private contractor in Montenegro (PRISM) has carried out
the fieldwork but no results as yet
THE QUESTIONNAIRES & METHODOLOGY
• Some similarities in the questionnaires, but even small changes
make a difference
• Small changes in methodology can also upset comparability.
• Western Balkans victimisation results (in corruption survey)
may not be comparable with other surveys
 Because of smaller number of prompts
 Violent victimisation especially problematic
• Eurostat 2013 survey will have different prompts for violence
Handout # 5 = 2013 Eurostat questionnaire
Handout # 6 = ICVS-II questionnaire
Handout # 7 = W. Balkans Corruption Survey – victimisation questions
SESSION 7 ROUND–UP AND FUTURE PLANS
Summary of previous sessions
Does anything need more attention for future training?
Future plans – short and long term goals
SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM GOALS
What are the goals?
Which are longer-term?
Which are shorter-term?
Decisions
Who takes them forward?
What are the deadlines?
Are resources needed?
PAT MAYHEW
DEVELOPMENT OF MONITORING
INSTRUMENTS FOR JUDICIAL AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT INSTITUTIONS IN THE
WESTERN BALKANS
PHASE 3 – POLICE TRAINING
Montenegro, 15th – 16th November 2010
With funding from the
European Union
DEVELOPMENT OF MONITORING INSTRUMENTS FOR
JUDICIAL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT INSTITUTIONS IN
THE WESTERN BALKANS 2009-2011
Phase three – Training