By Gena K. Dufour, Charlene Y. Senn, and Nicole K. Jeffrey

Accurate measurement of sexual violence (SV) victimization is important for informing research, policy, and service provision. Measures such as the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) that use behaviorally specific language and a specified reference period (e.g., since age 14, over the past 12 months) are considered best practice and have substantially improved SV estimates given that so few incidents are reported to police. However, to date, we know little about whether estimates are affected by respondents’ reporting of incidents that occurred outside of the specified reference period (i.e., reference period errors). The current study explored the extent, nature, and impact on incidence estimates of reference period errors in two large, diverse samples of post-secondary students. Secondary analysis was conducted of data gathered using a follow-up date question after the Sexual Experiences Survey–Short Form Victimization. Between 8% and 68% of rape and attempted rape victims made reference period errors, with the highest proportion of errors occurring in the survey with the shortest reference period (1 month). These errors caused minor to moderate changes in time period-specific incidence estimates (i.e., excluding respondents with errors reduced estimates by up to 7%). Although including a date question does not guarantee that all time period-related errors will be identified, it can improve the accuracy of SV estimates, which is crucial for informing policy and prevention. Researchers measuring SV within specific reference periods should consider collecting dates of reported incidents as best practice.

Ontario, Canada: Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2023. 26p.

By Roderic Broadhurst, Brigitte Bouhours, and John Bacon-Shone

Between 2003 and 2009, the International Violence Against Women Survey (IVAWS) has been conducted in 12 developed and developing countries. The IVAWS is a comprehensive instrument that measures women’s experiences of physical and sexual violence by men, including intimate partners, victims’ help-seeking behaviour and the response of.... was conducted in Hong Kong and, for this reason, no trends in violence over time are available; however, because the IVAWS uses standardised questions and data collection methods, results can be compared with those of the other countries that participated in the survey. The report shows rates of victimisation for seven types of physical..... who the perpetrator was, particularly whether it was an intimate partner, a relative, a friend or acquaintance, or a stranger. Women who had recent incident, such as whether they had reported the assault to the police or victim support services. Drawing on socio-demographic and behavioual information on both respondents and their partners, the report examines the predictors of violent victimisation by partners and non-partners.

Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong; Canberra: Australian National University, 2012. 110p.

By Dr. Christoph Birkel, Daniel Church, Dina Hummelsheim-Doss, Nathalie Leitgöb-Guzy, and Dietrich Oberwittler.

As megatrends, globalisation and digitisation are bringing about rapid changes, including in Germany. They are opening up a range of new opportunities, not only in the fields of economics, science and culture, but also in the way we access information, communicate with each other and participate in political and societal decision-making processes. But these new opportunities are being undermined by a highly uneven distribution of the benefits of globalisation and digitisation. This is a worrying development, since the resulting inequalities not only increase the risk of transnational conflicts, struggles over resource allocation and mass migration, but also threaten civil peace and social cohesion in the societies affected by these developments. The direct and indirect repercussions caused by such tensions are being felt across Germany as well, for instance in the form of an ongoing terrorist threat on our continent, an increasingly harsh political discourse, political radicalisation and forms of politically motivated crime, as well as through the ways in which organised crime and criminal clan structures are challenging the rule of law. These developments are fuelling a feeling of insecurity, which in the wake of digitisation is being amplified by the fact that, on the one hand, access to information is becoming easier, faster and more comprehensive, while, on the other hand, the authenticity of that very information is becoming increasingly difficult to validate. Free and unrestricted access to knowledge and information is a precious good, as it promotes informational participation for broad segments of society and increases transparency and democratic control. At the same time, however, it is also becoming easier to disseminate inaccurate information on a large scale, or even launch targeted disinformation campaigns or manipulate public opinion in a time in which the need for reliable sources is greater than ever. This is especially true for safety, where “fake news” can have a momentous impact in a very short space of time. Although representative studies and surveys have shown the current level of safety in Germany to be relatively high, various surveys have indicated that the German public often perceives the risks to be higher. This is why representative victimisation surveys and other tools are indispensable. They make visible the gap between perception and fear, on the one hand, and statistics and scientific findings, on the other. This knowledge can help us to design targeted information campaigns to dispel such perceived threats and feelings of insecurity. Representative victimisation surveys can also help us to identify actual increases in crime rates, introduce appropriate countermeasures and update official crime figures by shedding light on the dark figure of unreported or hidden crime. In addition, knowing the reasons why victims report, or choose not to report, an offence they have experienced will also allow us to improve criminal prosecution approaches in the future. Enriched by comprehensive insights into crime-relevant factors, victimisation surveys have the potential to deliver the crucial insights needed to successfully address the safety-related challenges of the present. Following up on the first German Victimisation Survey (Deutscher Viktimisierungssurvey, DVS) undertaken in 2012, the 2017 survey provides us with fresh sets of data to assess the development of crime and crime-related attitudes in Germany. Based on a nationwide, representative sample of the German population aged 16 and over, the 2017 survey not only yields insights regarding the current security situation and perceived safety across the population, it also allows us to draw conclusions by looking at the developments and changes since 2012.

Wiesbaden: Bundeskriminalamt - BKA, 2019. 127p.

By J.J.M. van Dijk, P. Mayhew, and M. Killias.

The international victimization survey reported here measured experience of crïme and a number of other crime-related issues in a large number of European and non-European countries. It used tightly standardized methods as regards the sampling procedure, method of interview, questions asked, and analysis of the data. By asking respondents directly about a range of offences that they had experienced over a given time period, the survey provides a measure of the level of crime in different countrïes that is independent of the conventional one of offences recorded by the police. The police measure has well-known limitations for comparative purposes as it is based only on those crimes which are reported to the police by victims, and which are recorded by the police. The value of the survey is that it: - enables individual countries to see how they are faring in comparison with others in relation to crime levels; - provîdes some rough picture of the extent to which survey-measured crime in different countries matches the picture from figures of offences recorded by the police; - provides some basis for explaining major differences in crime experience in terms, for instance, of socio-demographic variables; - allows some examination of the types of people most at risk of victimization for different types of crime, and whether these vaiy across the jurisdictions in the survey; and, finally, - provides information on responses to crime in different countries, such as opinions about the police, appropriate sentences, fear of crime, and the use of various crime prevention measures. These survey results should not be seen as giving a definitive picture of crime, and responses to it in different countries. The samples of respondents interviewed in each country were relatively small, only those with a telephone at home were interviewed, and response rates were not always high. The significance of these factors is taken up in more detail in the final chapter, but the fact remains that the comparable information provided by the international suivey is unique.

Deventer; Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers 1990. 191p.

By P. Mayhew, and J.J.M. van Dijk.

The International Crime Victimisation Survey (ICVS) is the most far-reaching programme of fully standardised sample surveys looking at householders' experience of crime in different countries. The first ICVS took place in 1989, the second in 1992, and the third in 1996. Surveys have been carried out in over 50 countries since 1989, including a large number of city surveys in developing countries and countries in transition. This report deals with eleven industrialised countries which took part in the third sweep. The reason for setting up the ICVS was the inadequacy of other measures of crime across country. Figures of offences recorded by the police are problematic due to differences in the way the police define, record and count crime. And since most crimes the police know about are reported by victims, police figures can differ simply because of differences in reporting behaviour. It is also difficult to make comparisons of independently organised crime surveys, as these differ in design and coverage. For the countries covered in this report, interviews were mainly conducted by telephone (with samples selected through variants of random digit dialling). There is no reason to think results are biased because of the telephone mode. Response rates varied hut we show that there is no overriding evidence that this affects the count of victimisation. Samples were usually of 1,000 or 2,000 people which means there is a fairly wide sampling error on the ICVS estimates. The surveys cannot, then, give precise estimates of crime in different countries. But they are a unique source of information and give good comparative information. The results in this report relate mainly to respondents' experience of crime in 1995, the year prior to the 1996 survey. Those interviewed were asked about crimes they had experienced, whether or not reported to the police.

The Hague: WODC, 1997. 116p.

By Jan van Dijk John van Kesteren Paul Smit.

The International Crime Victims Survey became operational in 1989. The main object was to seek advancement in international comparative criminological research, beyond the constraints of officially recorded crime data. The next sweeps of the ICVS surveys took place in 1992, 1996 and 2000. With its fifth sweep in 2005 the initiative has developed into a truly unique global project. Over a time span of fifteen years more than 300,000 people were interviewed about their experiences with victimisation and related subjects in 78 different countries. This report describes the 2004 – 2005 sweep of surveys in 30 countries and 33 capital or main cities and compares results with those of earlier sweeps. A large portion of the latest data in this report comes from the European Survey on Crime and Safety (EU ICS), organised by a consortium lead by Gallup Europe, co-financed by the European Commission’s Directorate General for Research and Technology Development. The ICVS is the most comprehensive instrument developed yet to monitor and study volume crimes, perception of crime and attitudes towards the criminal justice system in a comparative, international perspective. The data are from surveys amongst the general public and therefore not influenced by political or ideological agendas of governments of individual countries. Standardisation of questionnaires used and other aspects of data collection assure that data can, within confidence margins, be reliably compared across countries. Independent reviews have attested to the comparability of ICVS results (e.g. Lynch, 2006). The ICVS started in 1989 in 14 industrialised countries. City surveys were also piloted in Warsaw, Poland and Surabaya, Indonesia. Already in the second sweep coverage was enlarged by including several countries in Eastern Central Europe. Fieldwork in some of these countries was funded by the Ministry for Development Aid of the Netherlands. For these countries the project played a part in the process of modernising criminal justice systems after Western European models. Many of those countries have now become part of the European Union. Where most industrialised countries have a long tradition of publishing statistics on police-recorded crime, in many developing countries crime data are either fragmented, of poor quality or not available to the public. Crime victim surveys in these countries, although restricted to the capital or main cities, is often the only available source of statistical information on crime and victimisation. Internationally comparable crime victim surveys not only serve policy purposes but make data available that can be used by researchers interested in crime in a comparative context, including in developing countries from different regions of the world.

The Hague: WODC; Boom Juridische uitgevers: 2007. 292p.