Why repeat victimisation has been hidden
The level and nature of repeat victimisation have tended to be hidden and there
are a number of reasons for this. These are still relevant as they concern recording
systems and the day-to-day working practices of crime reduction agencies. Although
the following example concerns how repeat victimisation has been difficult for the
police to identify, it is likely that the same issues will apply to other agencies.
In the recording of crime by the police, several factors have contributed to the
under-estimation of its prevalence:
Under reporting – it is well known that people do not report
all the incidents they suffer. Successive British Crime Surveys have also established
that some crime is reported to the police but remains unrecorded. Official data are
particularly likely to under-estimate the extent of repeat victimisation, as the following
example demonstrates.
|
What is the chance of a burglary appearing in police records?
If a household has one burglary, it has a 70% chance of appearing as a recorded
burglary in police records;
If a household has two burglaries, there is a 49% chance that both will appear
in police records;
If a household has three burglaries, there is a 34% chance that all three will
be recorded (3% of people suffering three burglaries will have no burglaries recorded,
19% will have one burglary recorded and 44% will have two burglaries)
|
Computer systems – in the past police crime recording systems
did not readily identify repeat victims.
Working practices – police shift systems and unit boundaries
mean that different officers are likely to deal with the same victim thus reducing
the likelihood of links being made between incidents.
Issues for Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnerships to Consider
The experience of the police in identifying repeat victimisation has highlighted
the difficulty of gaining an accurate picture of repeat victimisation. Questions
to consider include:
How can you tell whether the level of reported incidents represents the true
level experienced by the community? It is well known, for example, that in cases
of domestic violence, racial crime or school bullying that reported incidents represents
only a small proportion of the actual experience of victims.
Is there a system for recording incidents that is capable of identifying the
same victim or location experiencing a range of incidents. Many systems give each
event a unique reference number rather than giving this to the person
or place. This means that a series of events against the same victim cannot
be readily identified.
How do working practices within agencies help or hinder the identification
of repeats? Aside from computer systems, are there other opportunities, for example,
briefing meetings, for sharing information?
How well do working practices and recording systems across agencies
help or hinder the identification of repeat victims. A woman repeatedly beaten by
her partner may have contact with her general practitioner, the local Accident and
Emergency Department, the Housing Department, Social Services, Victim Support, the
local women’s support organisation and the police. She may have reported different
incidents to each of them. All these agencies are likely to have different ways of
recording this information. Is there a way to link these events?
|
