By Roselle P. Jansen , Stijn Ruiter and Ronald van Steden

Objectives There is a rich body of research on how and why victims report crime to police, but little is known about the crime reporting process itself. This paper explores the relationship between victim satisfaction with the police after reporting crime and the various reporting channels victims used, as well as the subsequent police response. Methods We capitalize on a large-scale nationwide survey among victims in the Netherlands (N=25,760). Using linear regression, we test how victim satisfaction with the police relates to the reporting channel used, follow-up contact by the police, and action taken by the police while controlling for type of crime, its impact on victims, their needs and their sociodemographic characteristics. Results The model explains 38% of the variance in victim satisfaction. The crime reporting channel and subsequent police response to crime reports show largest effects. When victims had in-person conversations with the police, the police reported back to them, and took further action, victims were most satisfied. Conclusions This study shows the importance of how police operate during and after victims report a crime for their satisfaction with police. The results suggest that police may be able to positively affect victim satisfaction by taking relatively simple measures. More research is needed to test this hypothesis using (quasi)experimental designs

Crime Science (2024) 13:30

By Georgina Heydon, Nicola Henry, Rachel Loney-Howes and Sophie Hind

Anonymous reporting tools for sexual assault contribute to gathering intelligence, reducing crime, increasing reporting and supporting survivors. This article examines victim-survivors’ knowledge of and experiences using alternative reporting options, drawing on data collected from a broader study of alternative reporting options for sexual assault. Focus groups with victim-survivors and interviews with support service staff reveal that survivors and support staff are unclear about how authorities use data from alternative reporting tools but can identify preferred designs for a form. Victim-survivors in particular strongly support having an alternative reporting option available.

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 678. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2023. 17p.

By Sara Bianca Taverriti

Irregular migrants face particular challenges in interacting with law enforcement authorities to report a crime, as they fear detection and deportation. This fear, together with their generally precarious situation, makes them particularly vulnerable to crime. This report aims to explain the existing legislation, policy and practices impacting on migrants’ ability to access the Criminal Justice System in Italy, as either victims or witnesses, without running the risk of self-incrimination or deportation. In particular, the report focuses on ‘firewall’ practices – that is, measures that encourage reporting of crime by migrants with irregular status by neutralising the risk and the fear of deportation and expulsion as a consequence of reporting crime. This report is intended to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of these measures, in order to assess their effectiveness in facilitating safe reporting of crime by irregular migrants. Finally, the report will consider the potential of policy reforms in the area of safe reporting, including by considering the potential for implementation in Italy of local measures known as ‘sanctuary policies’. This research contributes to a project on safe reporting of crime for victims and witnesses with irregular migration status in Europe and the United States undertaken by the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS) at the University of Oxford.1 As well as Italy, this project examines the United States, Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium. The ultimate aim of the project is to promote learning of best practices and knowledge-exchange on this topic between countries. It also aims to evaluate the legal and political replicability of ‘firewall’ policies across different countries, and in particular the legal replicability of US experiences (for example, that of ‘sanctuary cities’) in European contexts.

Bristol, UK: COMPAS, Global Exchange on Migration and Diversity, 2019. 46p.