Archives

Implications of changing domestic abuse measurement on the Crime Survey for England & Wales

    The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is making a major decision this month on the future of Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) Domestic abuse measurement and monitoring.

    Last year, ONS ran an experiment where half of the CSEW sample got the domestic abuse module used since 2005, and the other half got a new module that is not comparable with the previous one. ONS intend to move over entirely to the new module in the next data collection (2025/26).

    Loss of the existing module has major implications: it is world-leading, uses globally comparable items, and with trend data going back to 2005. Without consistently administered core items from that module, it will no longer be possible to:

    • Produce long-term trends over time in domestic abuse for England and Wales.
    • Group a decade of survey years together to have enough cases to robustly examine domestic abuse in particular regions, minoritised groups, and by other protected characteristics for many years. This is essential for understanding inequalities in violence and subsequent service contact, and whether these are changing.

    The new module is problematic for many reasons:

    • Is not a standardised measure, has undergone little validation or psychometric testing, and is not comparable with anything used previously or in any other country or study.  
    • It separates data collection between former and current partner based on relationship status at the time of the interview, not at the time of abuse. This distinction creates confusion for interpretation of analysis and may be misinterpreted. The distinction is also problematic for classification of casual and other relationship types.
    • The overhaul of the module was intended to align measurement with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 definition, but it appears that domestic abuse as recognised by that Act cannot be identified by this module.

    We urgently recommend that before losing this world-leading time series and relying on an untested, not comparable, and flawed new approach to DA measurement in England and Wales, that ONS:

    1. Pause: continue the split-sample data collection for one more year.
    2. Test the new approach: fully compare data collected using the new and old modules data so the validity and utility of the new measures can be evaluated appropriately, and its impact on inequalities assessed.
    3. Publish these results publicly: and fully consult once stakeholders understand all the implications of having data collected in each way before the decision to roll out new data collection is finalised.
    4. With this information, then compare all options: such as maintaining some of the existing questions alongside adding new coercive control items. This straightforward approach would ensure the utility of the survey for national trends (in both England and Wales) and analysis of inequalities and minoritised groups, while also improving the measurement of coercive control.

    We urge others who feel similarly to contact ONS at CrimeStatistics@ons.gov.uk  or contact us at VISION_Management_Team@city.ac.uk if you would like to discuss.

    Note that ONS is planning a raft of further changes with similar implications for trends and analysis of minoritised groups, including:

    • Removal of the sexual victimisation module from next data collection (2025/26), with redevelopment at some future date.
    • Removal and redevelopment of the nature of partner abuse questions, which cover DA survivors service use and police contact and are essential to understanding whether some groups are underserved by services.

    These will further undermine continuity of data for trends and the ability to analyse minoritised groups or by protected characteristics.

    For researchers interested in combining CSEW waves to enable robust analysis of inequalities by protected characteristics and for minoritised groups, VISION researcher Niels Blom has published syntax: https://vision.city.ac.uk/news/new-possibilities-created-by-crime-survey-wave-integration/.

    Photo from Adobe Photo Stock subscription

    Calling all crime analysts: Share your experiences of using text data in analysis

      Are you a crime analyst or researcher? If so VISION would really like to hear about your experiences of using text data in your analysis.

      We developed a short survey that will take approximately 5 minutes to complete. Qualtrics Survey | Crime Analyst Survey

      This survey is designed to explore your experiences working with free-text data. Your feedback will enable us to evaluate the need for software designed to assist analysts working with large amounts of free text data.

      Participation is voluntary and all responses will be anonymous. Information will be confidential and will not be shared with any other parties, and will be deleted once it is no longer needed.

      The deadline to provide feedback using the link above is 30 June 2024.

      Illustration from licensed Adobe Stock library

      Multiple perpetrator violent events and variation in victims’ needs  

        Dr Elouise Davies

        As an early career researcher in Criminology, I am interested in violent crime, domestic violence and threats to kill. Specifically, my research has focused on the measurement and outcomes of violence and how the harms of violence differ for different types of victims.  

        In Comparing Single Perpetrator and Multiple Perpetrator Violent Events in the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) I look at the complex structure of violent events reported by CSEW participants. My aim was to compare the needs of victims of violence perpetrated by groups, with the needs of victims of violence perpetrated by a single offender.  

        Victimisation surveys are the gold standard in measuring crime (Tilley and Tseloni 2016). They supplement police data. While police data can only capture crimes that are reported to the police, the CSEW captures up to 50% more by also including those events not reported to the police (ONS, 2020). We can use this to understand which types of crime and which victims are not appearing in police data.  

        My analyses of CSEW data have revealed that victims of multiple perpetrator violent events more often report their experiences to the police than victims of single perpetrator violent events. They were also more likely to receive medical attention and treatment at hospital after the violent incident and were also more likely to have contact with victims’ services.   

        These findings highlight how victims of violent events with one perpetrator may well be underrepresented in records drawn from police, health, and specialist services. It is important that research based on such data sources are aware of this issue in coverage.  

        Further research is needed to investigate why some victims do not access services and how access to services can be improved for those who are currently underrepresented. 

        For further information, please contact Elouise at e.davies4@lancaster.ac.uk

        References

        Tilley, N., & Tseloni, A. (2016). Choosing and Using Statistical Sources in Criminology: What Can the Crime Survey for England and Wales Tell Us? Legal Information Management, 16(2), 78-90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1472669616000219   

        Office for National Statistics (2020) The nature of violent crime in England and Wales: Year ending March 2020. London: ONS. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/thenatureofviolentcrimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2020   

        Photo by pikselstock / Shutterstock.com

        New possibilities created by crime survey wave integration

          Dr Niels Blom

          The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) and its predecessor, the British Crime Survey (BCS), are widely used by both academics and government to assess the level of crime and its impact on society. While the survey has run since 1982, combining the multiple years of the survey can be complex and mistakes are easily made. As a researcher in criminology who frequently uses the CSEW and its predecessor,  I have produced detailed Stata code to combine data from multiple survey years to support other researchers who also analyse the CSEW in Stata (or would like to start). I worked with the UK Data Service (UKDS) and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to share the code and develop guidance for its use.

          With this code, you can specify what you need, namely, which years of the Crime Survey you want to merge and if you want the adolescent and young adult panels, the bolt-on datasets that provide uncapped codes, and/or if you want to use the ethnic minority booster samples. As a result, the code can be easily tailored for each researcher’s needs.

          By combining multiple survey sweeps, analysts can examine temporal trends. A combined file also enables analysts to look at low prevalence offences, population groups, or consequences, that do not have a high enough frequency in a single year.  

          Two examples are given below on how this integrated dataset provides new and exciting opportunities.  

          The code can be downloaded via this link: https://reshare.ukdataservice.ac.uk/856494/

          Example 1:  Revealing gender and age differences in trends in experiencing violence

          We used our integrated crime survey dataset to examine temporal trends in different types of violence, and whether these varied by gender and age.

          After a rise in violent crime in the 1980s, there was a decade of steady decline followed by a decade of stability (blue line, Figure 1a). However, for other crimes, which can also be considered violent, the patterns observed are different. After a short period of decline in the 1990s, sexual violence against women remained relatively stable until around 2010 when it began to increase, reaching the 20 years high by 2020. Additionally, there has been a sharp rise in threats reported by women in the last 5 years of data, making threats almost as prevalent as at its peak in the late 1990s.

          The trends in violent crime for men follow a broadly similar pattern as for women, but at a higher rate. Unlike women, however, men did not experience an increase in threats in the more recent period.

          Figure 1. Prevalence of violence by type of violence and gender, 1982 to 2020  

          a) Proportion of women experiencing violence by type of violence

           b) Proportion of men experiencing violence by type of violence

          Source: Authors’ analysis using CSEW/BCS data from 1982 to 2019/2020.

          Notes: Weighted proportions. Violent crime includes the following offences: Serious wounding, other wounding, common assault, attempted assault, serious wounding with sexual motive, other wounding with sexual motive. Sexual violence includes the following offences: rape, attempted rape and indecent assault. Due to low frequencies, sexual violence is not reported here for men.

          Figure 2 reveals that there has been major change in the age profile of victims over the past 40 years. 16- to 19-year-olds were almost 3 times as likely to become a victim of violence as people aged 30 to 39 in the mid-1990s. But violence against this group has declined rapidly since then: while they continue to be the group that is most likely to be victim of violence with 7.2% annual victimization in 2020, this used to be over 28% in the mid-1990s. While risk of violence has declined for all the ages under 40, the shift has been the largest for the younger groups.

          Relatively few people over 50 become victims of violence compared to younger age groups in each time period. However, closer inspection reveals there is a significant increase in the risks of violence among the older age groups (60-69 and 70 and older) since the late 1990s, and particularly since 2015.

          Overall, the age profile of victims has shifted massively over the decades, there is now much less variation in rates between age groups.

          Figure 2 Prevalence of violence (including violent crime, threats, robberies, and sexual violence) by age group, 1982 to 2020.

          Source: Authors’ analysis using CSEW/BCS data from 1982 to 2019/2020.

          Example 2: Investigating smaller groups: Differences in wellbeing impact between intimate partner perpetrators

          Our integrated crime survey dataset allows for the study of minority groups that are relatively small or forms of violence that are not often reported.

          For example, only by combining twenty years of the crime survey (2001 to 2020) do we have sufficient sample size to study the impact physical intimate partner violence has on wellbeing and health, and how it differs between various types of intimate partner perpetrator.

          Firstly, it is important to note that physical violence by any type of intimate partner has a higher risk of high emotional impact (Figure 3a) and a higher risk of injury (Figure 3b) than violence by other types of perpetrators.

          Figure 3a below shows that the emotional impact reported by female victims is higher when the violence was committed by a current or former spouse/partner compared to if it was done by a current or former boy/girlfriend. Women were more likely to say they were ‘very much’ affected by the violence when it was committed by a current or former spouse/partner. It could be that the proximity of spousal relationships, which are often cohabitating, and their average longer duration account for some of the greater report impact. However, in contrast to emotional impact, figure 3b (below) shows that women are more likely to get an injury(ies) by violence by current spouses than by former spouses.

          Overall, this study highlighted that physical violence by an intimate partner has a more severe wellbeing and health impact than violence by others, but also the need to differentiate intimate partner violence and abuse by not only the type of violence/abuse but also the type of intimate partner.

          Figure 3 Estimated emotional wellbeing and risk of injuries for women following physical intimate partner violence, differences between intimate partner perpetrators.

          a) Respondent’s reported emotional impact (showing the highest category).

          b) Respondent’s reported physical health impact (showing the risk of injury)

          Source: Authors’ analysis using CSEW/BCS data from 2001 to 2019/2020.

          Notes: Respondent’s self-assessed emotional impact measured in four categories: not impacted, little impact, quite a lot, very much impacted. Respondent’s self-assessed risk of injuries is measured in three categories: no force was used, force was used but no injury was sustained, force was used that led to an injury. Figures are based on average marginal effects following ordered logit models controlling for key (socio)demographics. Significance was tested in additional models.

          What the merger code does and doesn’t do

          The Stata code enables users to merge the raw CSEW/BCS datasets. Consequently, at the moment, this code does not harmonize variables that change (slightly) over different years. Considering the measurement of many variables changes over the years, the users of this combined file need to make their own decisions on what operationalisations work best for their research and for the years they use.

          Most of the time new variable names are used when a new measurement is used. However, for a few variables, different measurements seem to be used in different years, but they have the same variable name (for instance for household income variables such as tothhin2). In the current code, these variables are treated as being the same. Therefore, users need to carefully check the variables that they use for the relevant years.

          Next, this code does not work in the secure researcher environment as provided by UKDS or ONS because the datasets in these environments have different names and the structure of the folders is different.

          Overall, the merger code will save researchers precious time in combining the surveys that they want to use. As we have shown here, combining survey sweeps can benefit the study of trends in victimisation. The code can also be used for studying groups or crimes that are too rare to study using only a single sweep, therefore, this code may provide an incentive for studying marginalised groups and specific crimes, contributing to new insights into victimisation.

          Citation for merged code

          Blom, Niels (2023). Code for Merging Waves of the Crime Survey of England and Wales and the British Crime Survey, 1982-2020. [Data Collection]. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Service. 10.5255/UKDA-SN-856494

          Examples in this blog are from

          Blom, N., Obolenskaya, P., Phoenix, J., and Pullerits M. (2023, September 11-13). Differentiating intimate partner violence by perpetrator relationship type. Types of crimes committed and consequences for victims’ health and wellbeing by different types of intimate partner perpetrators [Conference Presentation]. European Conference on Domestic Violence, Reykjavik, Iceland.

          Obolenskaya, P. & Blom, N. (2023, September 6-9). The rise, fall and stall of violence in England and Wales: how have risks of violence changed for different groups? [Conference Presentation]. EuroCrim 23rd Annual Conference of the European Society of Criminology, Florence, Italy.

          Data reference

          Office for National Statistics. Crime Survey for England and Wales, 2001-2002 to 2019-2020 and British Crime Survey 1982 to 2001 [data collections]. UK Data Service SN: 8812, 8608, 8464, 8321, 8140, 7889, 7619, 7422, 7252, 6937, 6627, 6367, 6066, 5755, 5543, 5347, 5324, 5059, 4787.

          For further information, please contact Niels at niels.blom@city.ac.uk

          Photo by Andre Lichtenberg