The case for survey-based comparative measures of crime

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

The author argues that statistics of police-recorded crimes have limited utility for cross-country analyses of crime, due to varying legal definitions, reporting patterns and recording practices. In his view stand alone national victimisation surveys, with their varying methodologies and questionnaires, cannot reliably be used for cross-national comparisons either. This is especially true for older versions of such surveys, modelled after the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) of the USA, which try to mimic their country’s official statistics of police-recorded crimes. Victimisation surveys in the European tradition use less legalistic definitions of the public’s experiences of crime and are therefore more conducive to international standardisation. When such surveys are standardised to cover the common ground of crime in multiple jurisdictions, as is the case in the International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS), they can provide comparable data on the level and trends of crime of individual nations at relatively modest costs. In addition, such surveys can provide comparative data on crime reporting by victims, satisfaction with responses from police and other agencies, as well as on public attitudes toward safety and criminal justice. In the discussion, the author argues for an expedient execution of the planned EU Safety Survey in the European Union (EUSASU) and further work on the standardisation of victimisation surveys across the world by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)437-456
Number of pages19
JournalEuropean Journal of Criminology
VolumeVol 12
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2015

Fingerprint

offense
victimization
police
official statistics
recording
jurisdiction
UNO
EU
justice
statistics
drug
questionnaire
methodology
trend
costs
experience

Keywords

  • police statistics of crime, victimisation survey, comparative criminology, victimisation rate, reporting rate, EU victims directive, victim satisfaction, victim support

Cite this

@article{ee970190ba634f68812b9554473f209e,
title = "The case for survey-based comparative measures of crime",
abstract = "The author argues that statistics of police-recorded crimes have limited utility for cross-country analyses of crime, due to varying legal definitions, reporting patterns and recording practices. In his view stand alone national victimisation surveys, with their varying methodologies and questionnaires, cannot reliably be used for cross-national comparisons either. This is especially true for older versions of such surveys, modelled after the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) of the USA, which try to mimic their country’s official statistics of police-recorded crimes. Victimisation surveys in the European tradition use less legalistic definitions of the public’s experiences of crime and are therefore more conducive to international standardisation. When such surveys are standardised to cover the common ground of crime in multiple jurisdictions, as is the case in the International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS), they can provide comparable data on the level and trends of crime of individual nations at relatively modest costs. In addition, such surveys can provide comparative data on crime reporting by victims, satisfaction with responses from police and other agencies, as well as on public attitudes toward safety and criminal justice. In the discussion, the author argues for an expedient execution of the planned EU Safety Survey in the European Union (EUSASU) and further work on the standardisation of victimisation surveys across the world by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).",
keywords = "police statistics of crime, victimisation survey, comparative criminology, victimisation rate, reporting rate, EU victims directive, victim satisfaction, victim support",
author = "{van Dijk}, Jan",
year = "2015",
month = "7",
language = "English",
volume = "Vol 12",
pages = "437--456",
journal = "European Journal of Criminology",
issn = "1477-3708",
publisher = "Sage Publications Ltd",
number = "4",

}

The case for survey-based comparative measures of crime. / van Dijk, Jan.

In: European Journal of Criminology, Vol. Vol 12, No. 4, 07.2015, p. 437-456.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The case for survey-based comparative measures of crime

AU - van Dijk, Jan

PY - 2015/7

Y1 - 2015/7

N2 - The author argues that statistics of police-recorded crimes have limited utility for cross-country analyses of crime, due to varying legal definitions, reporting patterns and recording practices. In his view stand alone national victimisation surveys, with their varying methodologies and questionnaires, cannot reliably be used for cross-national comparisons either. This is especially true for older versions of such surveys, modelled after the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) of the USA, which try to mimic their country’s official statistics of police-recorded crimes. Victimisation surveys in the European tradition use less legalistic definitions of the public’s experiences of crime and are therefore more conducive to international standardisation. When such surveys are standardised to cover the common ground of crime in multiple jurisdictions, as is the case in the International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS), they can provide comparable data on the level and trends of crime of individual nations at relatively modest costs. In addition, such surveys can provide comparative data on crime reporting by victims, satisfaction with responses from police and other agencies, as well as on public attitudes toward safety and criminal justice. In the discussion, the author argues for an expedient execution of the planned EU Safety Survey in the European Union (EUSASU) and further work on the standardisation of victimisation surveys across the world by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

AB - The author argues that statistics of police-recorded crimes have limited utility for cross-country analyses of crime, due to varying legal definitions, reporting patterns and recording practices. In his view stand alone national victimisation surveys, with their varying methodologies and questionnaires, cannot reliably be used for cross-national comparisons either. This is especially true for older versions of such surveys, modelled after the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) of the USA, which try to mimic their country’s official statistics of police-recorded crimes. Victimisation surveys in the European tradition use less legalistic definitions of the public’s experiences of crime and are therefore more conducive to international standardisation. When such surveys are standardised to cover the common ground of crime in multiple jurisdictions, as is the case in the International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS), they can provide comparable data on the level and trends of crime of individual nations at relatively modest costs. In addition, such surveys can provide comparative data on crime reporting by victims, satisfaction with responses from police and other agencies, as well as on public attitudes toward safety and criminal justice. In the discussion, the author argues for an expedient execution of the planned EU Safety Survey in the European Union (EUSASU) and further work on the standardisation of victimisation surveys across the world by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

KW - police statistics of crime, victimisation survey, comparative criminology, victimisation rate, reporting rate, EU victims directive, victim satisfaction, victim support

M3 - Article

VL - Vol 12

SP - 437

EP - 456

JO - European Journal of Criminology

JF - European Journal of Criminology

SN - 1477-3708

IS - 4

ER -