response-to-consultation-on-changes-to-csew

 Option B: Reduce 2017/18 CSEW sample size by 1,800 households  Option C: Remove additional questions from CSEW to reduce survey to core questions required to produce quarterly crime e

Response to the ONS consultation

on changes to the Crime Survey for

England and Wales

10 October 2017

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) is a face-to-face victimisation survey in which people resident in households in England and Wales are asked about their experiences of a range

of crimes in the 12 months prior to the interview Respondents to the survey are also asked about their attitudes towards different crime-related issues, such as the police and the criminal justice system and perceptions of crime and anti-social behaviour

In the context of public sector financial constraints, the future level of funding for the CSEW has been reduced with effect from October 2017 Therefore a range of options were identified to

reduce the cost of the CSEW in 2017/18 and future years The consultation was run to seek user feedback on the impact of the potential options and inform how best to maintain the quality and usefulness of the survey data while making the required savings

The proposal set out for consultation was:

1 The removal of the following questions from the CSEW questionnaire from October 2017

 All questions in the ‘Performance of the Criminal Justice System’ module, excepting those related to the performance of the police

 All questions in the ‘Experiences of the Criminal Justice System’ module

 All questions in the ‘Attitudes to the Criminal Justice System’ module

 Questions relating to victims’ experiences of the court system and use of victim services from the ‘Victimisation’ module

2 The implementation of one of the following four options:

 Option A: Reduce CSEW response rate to 69% from October 2017

 Option B: Reduce 2017/18 CSEW sample size by 1,800 households

 Option C: Remove additional questions from CSEW to reduce survey to core questions required to produce quarterly crime estimates

 Option D: Reduce target CSEW response rate to 71% from October 2017 and reduce 2017/18 CSEW sample size by 600 households

Summary of responses

We received a total of 123 responses to the consultation from academics, police forces and police and crime commissioners, local or regional government organisations, other government

departments, charities and voluntary organisations We would like to thank all respondents for taking the time to respond to the consultation A list of responding organisations can be found in the annex

Preferred cost saving options

Overall, a majority of respondents (40%) selected Option D – reducing the response rate to 71% and the sample size by 600 - as the best option of those available for achieving the required cost savings There was an approximately equal level of support for Option B (reduced sample size only) and Option A (reduced response rate only) at 24% and 21% respectively Option C (removal

of additional questions) was the least preferred option with only 11% of respondents suggesting this approach

Figure 1: Respondents’ preferred CSEW cost-saving option

A small number of respondents did not select any of the proposed options Of these, three were strongly opposed to the implementation of any of the proposed cost saving measures, while a further two indicated that they had no preference between the options In addition, two respondents who selected Option A or B identified Option D as their secondary preference

It should be noted that several respondents commented that they had made their selection based

on it being the “least harmful” of the options available rather than an approach they would endorse

in other circumstances

Responses to the consultation included feedback on the pros and cons on the four approaches identified as summarised in the sections below:

Option A – Reduction in response rate (to 69%)

Comments in favour of this approach included:

 “Minimally reducing call back does not significantly reduce accuracy”

 “69% is still a good response rate and sample size should be preserved”

Comments against this approach included:

 “The worst option is that of reduction of the response rate This should not be considered without a thorough analysis of which respondents require repeated visits to respond.”

 “You are unable to guarantee a response rate Therefore lowering efforts may not simply result in a one-to-one relationship and the response rate may fall well below 69%.”

Option B – Reduction in sample size (by 1,800)

Comments in favour of this approach included:

 “The sample size for the CSEW is large; a reduction of the sample size would not have a major impact on its reliability.”

 “I think reducing sample size is probably most sensible as all you impact are confidence intervals, and these can be calculated and taken into account.”

Comments against this approach included:

 “A high sample is necessary to get any usable data on rarer offences”

 “Reducing the sample size by 5% presumably has a relatively minimal effect at the national level - but given that only 650 people locally are currently surveyed we would be nervous about reductions in sample size at Force level and the potential impact on the reliability of the findings as a result.”

Option C – Removing additional questions

Comments in favour of this approach included:

 “To remain a world leading survey, the CSEW requires adequate sample size and a

representative sample.”

 “The best option is to remove questions from the crime survey However the list of

questions to be removed is problematic”

Comments against this approach included:

 “Option C would remove a valuable source of data about trends in relation to drug use - which cannot be found elsewhere.”

 “the removal of questions would be the most damaging option for the research community”

Option D – Reduction in response rate (71%) and sample size (600)

Comments in favour of this approach included:

 “Reducing sample size and response rates seem the more suitable ways to cost-save.”

 “Option D would protect the wider crime-related questions in the survey, offering the best range of data for users It also minimises the changes to the target response rate and sample size by distributing impact across the two factors.”

Comments against this approach included:

 “reducing both response rate to 71% and sample size by 600 (Option D) reduce the quality

of the survey and its capture of the most vulnerable sections of the population who are most subject to victimisation, and especially repeat victimisation.”

A large proportion of the feedback provided on options A and B also proved applicable to Option D

as the ‘compromise’ option between the two approaches

Removal of questions on the Criminal Justice System

The consultation on changes to the CSEW put forward the proposal for the removal of questions related to the performance of, experiences of and attitudes to the criminal justice system as well as victims’ experiences of the court system and use of victim services These questions were

previously sponsored by the Ministry of Justice

A large number of responses were received that raised concerns regarding the removal of

questions related to victims’ experiences of the court system and use of victim services In

particular, 34 respondents (28%) specifically identified the removal of the questions on restorative justice from the 'Victimisation' module as a major concern

Some comments received from respondents in relation to this issue included:

 “The CSEW is currently the ONLY measure of [restorative justice] use nationally, and the loss of this data would be particularly detrimental to [restorative justice] services in the UK (and ultimately to the victims we serve).”

 “I think it is making an unacceptable statement to remove those [questions] relating to victims - obviously victims are no longer a priority for the government.”

 “The removal of questions relating to victims’ experience of the criminal justice system will have an impact on our ability to understand the victim’s journey, to make improvements for victims and for PCCs and victim services to target their resources effectively.”

Outcome

After considering the consultation responses received and the key issues and impacts identified,

we have used the information gathered to inform our final decisions about cost savings The necessary reductions will be achieved through changes to the survey’s sample size, response rate and questionnaire content which seeks to minimise the impact on users In particular we will:

 Reduce CSEW sample size for the 2017/18 survey year by 600 households and reduce the survey response rate to 71% from October 2017 (Option D)

 Remove the three modules of questions asked of respondents about the performance of, their experiences of and their attitudes to the criminal justice system from October 2017

 Retain questions related to victims’ experiences of the court system and use of victim services included in the ‘Victimisation’ module of the CSEW that were previously proposed for removal

Getting in Touch

If you have any queries or comments about the consultation process, please email Simeon Bowen

at ons.communications@ons.gsi.gov.uk or call 0845 601 3034

You can also write to us at the following address:

Consultation Coordinator,

Room 1.101

Office for National Statistics,

Government Buildings,

Cardiff Road,

Newport,

South Wales,

NP10 8XG

For further information on ONS consultations, please visit

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/statistics/consultationsandsurveys

Follow us:

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn YouTube Storify

Accessibility

All material relating to this consultation can be provided in braille, large print or audio formats on request British Sign Language interpreters can also be requested for any supporting events

Annex A: Organisations which responded

This list includes all organisations which responded to the consultation Independent respondents have not been separately identified

Association of Youth Offending Managers (AYM)

Bangor University

Bristol Drugs Project

Build in Belief

Cambridgeshire PCC and Constabulary (joint response)

Cardiff University

Centre for Justice Innovation

CFE Research

Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs

CIFAS, Ravelin, Age UK (joint response)

CLEAR Cannabis Law Reform

College of Policing

Community of Restorative Researchers

Criminal Justice Alliance

Crisis

Cumbria Office of Police and Crime Commissioner

Decomplicate Ltd

Department of Health

Devon County Council

DrugWise

Essex County Council

Essex Police and Crime Commissioners office and Essex Police

Gloucestershire County Council

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS)

Home Office

Hounslow Youth Offending Service

International Institute for Restorative Practices

Khulisa

Knowsley MBC

Lambeth Mediation Service

Lancashire Constabulary

Lancashire Police

Lancaster University

Leeds Beckett University

LGBT Foundation

Lincolnshire OPCC

Liverpool John Moores University

Local Authority

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM)

Mentor UK

Ministry of Justice (Analytical Services Directorate)

NHS Digital

North East Hampshire Domestic Abuse Forum

Northamptonshire Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner

Northamptonshire Youth Offending Service

Northumbria Police

Northumbria University

Office for the Police & Crime Commissioner for Devon & Cornwall & Isles of Scilly

Office for the Victims' Commissioner

Office of the PCC for Suffolk

Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner for Derbyshire

Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner for South Yorkshire

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Dorset

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Essex

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Humberside

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for South Yorkshire

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Wiltshire and Swindon

Police and Crime Commissioner for Wiltshire and Swindon

Police and Crime Commissioner West Midlands/West Midlands Police

Police and Crime Commissioner, West Mercia

Police and Crime Commissioner's Office (Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton) Police Foundation

Presbyterian Church of Wales

Prison Reform Trust

Public Health England

Quantitative & Spatial Criminology Research Group, School of Social Sciences, Nottingham Trent University

Re-Solv

Restorative Justice Council

Restorative Solutions CIC

Revolving Doors Agency

Safe Lives

Salus

South London and Maudsley NHS trust

South Wales Police and Crime Commissioner

St Mungo's

Surrey University

The British Society of Criminology (BSC)

The Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC)

The Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW)

The Restorative Hub (Office of the Police, Crime and Victim's Commissioner for County Durham & Darlington)

The University of Manchester & the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs

UK Data Service

Ulster University

University College London

University of Bath

University of Essex

University of Gloucestershire

University of Hertfordshire

University of Leeds

University of Leeds (Quantitative Criminology Group)

University of Oxford

University of Sheffield

University of Warwick and University of Oxford

Violence and Society UNESCO Centre, Lancaster University

Voice Restorative Northamptonshire

Warwickshire County Council

Warwickshire Police and Crime Commissioner

Welsh Government - Community Safety Statistics

West Sussex County Council

West Yorkshire OPCC

West Yorkshire Police

Why Me? - Victims for Restorative Justice

Yorkshire Mediation