1 / 16

ICVS IN SLOVENIA

ICVS IN SLOVENIA. Tatjana Škrbec. Content of presentation. Short history Crime victim survey 2001 within SORS Methodology and content of questionnaire Organisation of survey Sampling method, weighting, precision of estimates Dissemination

marlin
Download Presentation

ICVS IN SLOVENIA

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. ICVS IN SLOVENIA Tatjana Škrbec

  2. Content of presentation • Short history • Crime victim survey 2001 within SORS • Methodology and content of questionnaire • Organisation of survey • Sampling method, weighting, precision of estimates • Dissemination • Main conclusions after ICVS 2001; plans for future • Advantages and disadvantages of carrying out ICVS within statistical office-s • Conclusions

  3. SHORT HISTORY ICVS was carried out three times inSlovenia • Within Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law: • In 1992 (net sample size: 1000 households) • In 1997 (net sample size: 2053 households; 1033 for Ljubljana; 1020 for other parts of Slovenia • Within SORS: • In 2001 included in National programe of statistical surveys

  4. CVS 2001 WITHIN SORSMETHODOLOGY AND CONTENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE • In line with ICVS questionnaire and methodology and with standard rules for carrying out household sample surveys • Only minor changes were implemented in Slovene version of questionnaire • The questions about the opinion on possibility to prevent crime were added • The questions about corruption were kept • The order of some questions was changed • The possible answers within the block of demographic questions were harmonised with other surveys – but still in line with ICVS demands

  5. ICVS 2001 WITHIN SORSORGANISATION OF THE SURVEY • Preparatory work during year 2000 and beginning of year 2001 • Team of people involved in ICVS within SORS was appointed • Methodological and technical instructions for interweavers were prepared • 18 interweavers (yust female) were chosen and trained • Sample for pilot and main survey was prepared • Instructions and programmes for processing and tabulations of data were prepared

  6. ICVS 2001 WITHIN SORSORGANISATION OF THE SURVEY Pilot survey in November 2000 • 300 telephone numbers/households were chosen in the sample • Two versions of questionnaire were tested

  7. ICVS 2001 WITHIN SORSORGANISATION OF THE SURVEY • Main survey – from 22 January until 22 March • Advance letter, together with presentation of the survey was sent to the chosen households • Method used for the survey was computer assisted telephone intervewing (CATI) • Respondents, older than 16 years was selected within household members according to the “last birthday” method • Gross sample size for the survey was 6000 thelephone numbers/households (responce rate at the and was 66,8%) • Documentation was finished after the end of the survey for all phases of work

  8. ICVS 2001 WITHIN SORSSAMPLING METHOD • Sample frame – directory of private telephone subscribers • The sample was stratified, systematic and random • Strata were defined with statistical regions (12 regions) and type of settlement within the region (6 types) – in each stratum we sampled independently • The number of units in each stratum was proportional to the share of people aged 16 years or more living in certain type of settlement in certain region • The city of Ljubljana was over sampled to ensure comparability with the data from 1992 and 1997

  9. ICVS 2001 WITHIN SORSWEIGHTING OF THE SURVEY DATA • Basic weighting according to the household size was done • Additional weighting (calibration) was used for adjustment of the control variables (sex, age, level of education, household size, statistical region and type of settlement)to the known population structure

  10. ICVS 2001 WITHIN SORSPRECISION OF ESTIMATES – INFORMATION FOR DATA USERS • For some target variables – with the Sudaan 7.0 softwere • For other published data – with the help of the model • Error criteria • Estimates with the coefficient of variation under 0,10 were published without limitations • Estimates with the coefficient of variation between 0,10 and 0,15 were published in single parentheses • Estimates with the coefficient of variation between 0,15 and 0,30 were published in double parentheses • Estimates with the coefficient of variation over 0,30 were not published, but each one is substituted by a dot

  11. ICVS 2001 WITHIN SORSDISSEMINATION OF DATA The results of the survey were presented: • In bi-lingual (Slovenene-English) publications of SORS • Rapid reports (September 2001) • Results of surveys – together with the data from criminal justice statistics (March 2002) • At the press conference (september 2001) • Deindividualised micro data were transsmited to the Archive of sociological data (fre acces for researchers, students) • Micro data were also sent to Unicri (October 2001)

  12. ICVS 2001 WITHIN SORSMAIN CONCLUSIONS • The sample size was too small to allow more in-depth analysis of data at a sufficient level of reliability; • Computer assisted telephone interviewing was provenas a good method for this type of survey – this is an advantage because it is also the chiepest method;

  13. ICVS 2001 WITHIN SORSPLANS FOR FUTURE • Preparatory work for nw CVS is planned to start in the year 2005 • Sample size will be extended

  14. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CARRYING OUT ICVS WITHIN STATISTICAL OFFICE/S Advantages: • Regular financial sources • Technology and know-how already avalilable • Standard rules for accepted for carrying out household sample surveys must be followed (sufficient sample size; sampling, weighting methods, information about quality of data, documentation)

  15. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CARRYING OUT ICVS WITHIN STATISTICAL OFFICE/S Disadvantages: • Big organisation system – planning and preparatory work must start months before the field work starts; • Limited resources – the priority of crime statistics in comparison with some other fields of statistics is rather low;

  16. CONCLUSIONS • Internationaly harmonised household/population crime wictims surveys – easiest method for reaching international comparability of data in the field of crime statistics; • Priorities on the field of crime statistics within national Statistical Office/s in line with future priorities of EU – Eurostat in this field of statistics;

More Related