Detailed Comments on the Questions in Sections A-F and Section Q

ANNEX3

Detailed comments on the questions in Sections A-F and Section Q.

In this section are reviewed questions and suggestions arising from the expert seminar and the cognitive interviewing regarding the structure of the questionnaire module and localisation aspects. A separate report section in Latvian has been produced on the suggestions for improvement of the Latvian and Russian versions based on the comparison of English, Latvian and Russian versions of the questionnaire.

Section A

A2 / For a person and even for an interviewer it is difficult to estimate, whether it is a city town centre (1), or other area of the town (2), or a suburb (3). Even if addresses are acquired, it would still require elaborate coding of the place according to the administrative territorial classification (ATVK).
Question: How the difference should be made – by person’s own estimate, and is it needed at all? How to distinguish between “Other densely populated area” and “Rural or sparsely populated area”?

Section B

B1 / A season has a clear impact on the answer. As in B1 there is no time limit, it is difficult for respondents to answer. In winter, people have no options, it is dark every morning and every morning when they are leaving for work and coming back home, while in summer it is light and it is not necessary to walk.
Question: Should people answer on the yearly average (which will be difficult to estimate) or about the last months when the situation is more or less stable?
B2 / Question: Should answers be read aloud or coded by the interviewer? The results of the measurement might differ by the approach chosen.
B3, B6 / The scale is not even on both the positive and negative pole.
Suggestion: To change the 3rd answer from “a bit unsafe” to “fairly unsafe”.
B5 / Suggestion: As answers are on the frequency of the occurrence, the question also should be changed from “Have you avoided…” to “How often have you avoided…”
B8, B10, B12, B14, B16 / The scale is not even on both the positive and negative pole.
Suggestion: To change the 2nd answer from “fairly worried” to “rather worried”, 3rd answer from “not very worried” to “rather not worried”.
B9, B11, B13 / It is difficult for respondents to distinguish the difference between these questions from the previous ones, for example, between B8 and B9. Besides, the scale was not clear as well.
Suggestion: 1) To skip these questions, as the intensity of worries is measured by B8, B10, B12, B14, or, 2) if it is not possible, then to change the scale to the one like in B5 (very often/ rather often. rather seldom/ very seldom).
B10, B11 / Question: 1) Does the question refer only to the respondents’ private car or the cars of other household members are also included (if the respondent does not have a car of his own). 2) Are the company cars of private use also included? (see C9 in the original questionnaire)
B12, B13, B16 / Question: Do the questions refer only to the period of time while being in the home country? If the person lived for a while or travelled abroad, is this period of time included?
B14, B15 / Question: Are the family members residing in the home country or those studying and working abroad included?

Section C

Whole section / The time period of last 5 years is rather long, and the respondent might have changed the household during the period.
Question: Which household should the respondent describe, when answering the questions in Section C?
Suggestion: Due to data processing and data analysis issues, we suggest to ask about the situation of the current household during the last 5 years (even if the respondent has not been living there for so long), to ensure the compatibility with the household characteristics (A9-A11)
C1, C2 / Suggestion: Company cars (as in C9) should be included.
Suggestion: Agricultural machines (tractors and other) should be included, as they are also important, especially in the countryside.
C2 / Suggestion: “Number of cars” should be changed to “number of vehicles” (see C1 in the original questionnaire, it is not only about cars, but also about vans and trucks).
C2, C4, C6 / Suggestion: “..for most of the time” for the sake of clarity should, following C1, be changed to “..for most of the time during the last 5 years”.
C9 / The question is only about cars and vans; C1 is also about vans, trucks and cars.
Suggestion: “Trucks” should be included in the question, as in C1.
Suggestion: A remark for interviewers and respondents should be added that cars stolen from the locked home garage are not included and will be recorded in C34.
C12 / The question is only about cars and vans, question C1 is also about vans, trucks and cars. Suggestion: “Trucks” should be included as in C1.
C11, C13 / Suggestion: Following C1 and suggestions for C9, “Number of car thefts” should be changed to ”Number of vehicle thefts”
C14 – C23 / Question: Are only cars included, or also vans and trucks? Are company cars included?
Suggestion: If yes, it should be specified, because it is not clear for respondents. If no, it should be specified as well, as these questions are asked to everyone, who has a car, van or truck in private use, including company cars (see C1). Thus, if a person does not have a car (but has a van or a truck), these questions should not be asked and this should be specified.
Suggestion: As for C1, C2, C9 (see comments), agricultural machines (tractors and other) should be included, as they are also important, especially in the countryside
C19 – C23, C44 – C48 / Comment: C19 includes only damage done to the car (or other vehicle specified in C1) while someone is trying to break into it, and C44 refers to any other damage done to the property except vehicles, therefore damage done to a vehicle (cutting the tires for a car or a bicycle, or a motorcycle, broken window, scratches etc) – vandalism without a motive to break in – is not registered.
Suggestion: Either to skip the part of question in C19 “...trying to break in”, thus allowing to register also damage without the purpose to break in, or to skip the part of question in C44 “Excluding vehicles...” thus allowing also to register damage done to different types of vehicles without any purpose to break in. The second option, modifying C44 would be an option preferred by the experts.
C49 / From the legal point of view, robbery involves using violence, therefore the question should be reformulated as follows “by using force or threatening you” => “by using violence or threatening to use violence against you”
C34 / Question: C34 refers to “cellars and garages connected with home”, but in towns and smaller settlements in Latvia the garage is often a separate locked building within a walking or even driving distance from home. It can be owned by the respondent or rented from a cooperative. Should a theft of a car or something from the car in such a garage be considered as burglary? And if not, how should it be treated in the survey?

Section D

General / Section C involves questions on victimisation both of the respondent and the respondent’s household members, therefore there might be a situation when something has been stolen to the respondents’ parents/ children/ spouse, and to many questions in Section D (D3-D35) it might be difficult for the respondent to answer, if he or she has not been personally involved in the issue (like what items were stolen (D10), what was the exact value of the goods stolen (D15), if anything was got back (D16), why the respondent’s household member did or did not contact police, etc.), therefore an answer „Don’t know” should be added.
When referring to car theft, theft from a car, or car damage (D1 – D2c,D3, D5, D8 –D34), see notes on C14-C23 (about company cars, vans, trucks, etc).
D1 / Comment: There are two questions asked in one: 1) if any of the incidents was done under the same circumstances, and 2) if any of the incidents was done by the same people. The measurement is therefore useless, because with the existing answer scale we cannot measure both.
Suggestion: Either to ask only about the circumstances (as it is a broader concept and includes also the persons), or to divide it in two separate questions – one on the circumstances and the other on the persons, so that both these things could be measured properly.
D2a, D2b, D2c / Is the month important? It was difficult for respondents to remember it. In most cases, they were guessing at it.
Suggestion: Ask only about the year and only about the most recent incident.
R1, R3, R4, R7, R9, R14 / Suggestion: Answer “Don’t know” should be added.
R7 / Suggestion: To change the “… influence of alcohol and drugs” => “influence of alcohol and intoxicating substances”, as the later is more inclusive
R8 / Suggestion: To add an answer “Refuse to answer”
R10 / Suggestion: “...did they use” change to “…did they use or threatened to use”, as in R9 the respondent is asked about both.
Question: Should the answers be read aloud for the respondent, or the spontaneous answers should be later coded by the interviewer?
Suggestion: Answers 5-7 would be difficult to distinguish between for people, who are not familiar with weapons, so we suggest to integrate answers 5-8 and name them “gun (hand gun, shut gun, rifle, air gun, etc.)”.
Suggestion: “Gas (tear gas, nerve gas)” should be also added to the list of answers.
R11 / Suggestion: From the legal point of view, the question should be reformulated as follows “use force or violence” => “use violence”
Suggestion: R11 and Q9 both refer to types of violence, and answers in those questions are very similar, but not the same. If there is no particular reason for the difference, we suggest to use the same list and wording in both questions. We suggest to use the list of answers from Q9 in R11.
R12 / Question: Should the answers be read aloud?
R16 / Comment: In legal documents physical injuries are classified in three major groups: serious, moderate and slight bodily injuries.
Suggestion: To make another measurement scale of injuries according to this division with some examples in each of them.
R17 / Question: Should visit to a doctor include also calling the ambulance (respondent did not go anywhere, but called the emergency medical services)? If yes, the question should be reformulated respectively, and the ambulance should be included in the answer list.
R19 / Comment: The answer list is mixing short-term and long-term consequences. It is also not clear for the respondent, on which time period after the incident he/she should answer. In some cases they answer, that during the incident they had anger or shock, but not afterwards, so which answer should we take into account?
Suggestion: To divide the consequences into short-term and long- term (two questions), or to indicate the period of time (during incident, within a week after the incident etc.).
Suggestion: Options “none of those” and “don’t know”, and “don’t remember” should be included.
D3 / Comment: As not only inhabitants of cities will be surveyed, the 3rd answer should be complemented from “Elsewhere in your city or local area” to “Elsewhere in your city or in your local area”, thus emphasizing that for the city dwellers it is elsewhere in the city, for the inhabitants of the villages and smaller settlements – local area.
Question: 3.7. If the second home that has been broken in, is located in the countryside only 15 km from the respondent’s home in a town, what should be the instruction for the interviewer? Should it be coded as “Near your own home” (because 15 km is rather close) or “Elsewhere in your city or local area” (because of the same reason), or “Elsewhere in the country” (because it is another municipality)?
D4 / Question: Should the answers be read aloud or the interviewer should code the spontaneous answers given by the respondent?
D5 / Question: Does a locked and guarded parking lot can be referred to as the 5th answer: “Yes, in some other locked place”. If yes, in what cases? If in most cases, the answer should be changed to “Yes, in some other locked or guarded place”. This is important, as different kinds of guarded parking lots are a quite popular option.
D9, D10 / Question: Why do these questions not refer to a theft of a car, motorcycle, scooter, moped and bicycle? It is not known, who in the household was the owner of the item (measured by D9, except the 7th answer), as all the other questions on thefts were asked both about the respondent and his/her household members, and it might be that along with the vehicle some other important belongings have been stolen (D10), and these items are not registered anywhere.
D10, D12
and other with the same list of answers / The list of items should be complemented with other items of household technique (like a refrigerator, washing machine, iron etc.). The 55th answer should be complemented with the item “cattle”, which might be important in the countryside. Two answers: computer and camera – are coded with the same code 25 in the questionnaire.
D11a / Shouldn’t it include also “car damage” (if the respondent has answered in C39-C43), that the car has been damaged, and “other damage” (positive answers to C44-C48)?
D14 / As the question is asked on all the vehicles that might be stolen in the incident, it should be asked also of in D10 the 7th answer “Other vehicles” is mentioned by the respondent, in addition to 1, 2 and 5.
D16 / Comment: The question is not clear and difficult to understand. It was interpreted in the cognitive interviews as “What was the approximate value of the stolen property you managed to get back?”
Questions: 1) Would it be possible to explain, what exactly is the indicator measured with the question? 2) If we have interpreted it in the right way - are only items included, or money replacement for the stolen goods and caused damage? 3) If the damaged items and replacement of the damage in money are included, should the question refer also to car damage and damage to other property?
D16, D18 / Suggestion: It should be complemented with answers: “Don’t know” or “Don’t remember”.
D19 / Suggestion: In the case of robbery, the respondent is asked about his/ her experiences, therefore he/she should know, if the police was informed (in Latvia it can only be done by a personal submission), therefore it could be reasonable to shorten the question from “As far as you know, did the police come to know about the incident?” to “Was the police informed about the incident?”.
D20 / Question: Should the answers be read aloud or the interviewer should code the spontaneous answers given by the respondent?
Question: Could the 20th answer “Belongs to my job” be clarified? As for now, it can be interpreted in several ways: 1) the respondent has been on the work duty during the occurrence of the incident, and therefore did not inform the police, fearing trouble at work, or 2) the property damaged or stolen belongs to the work place, or 3) the situation when the personal or household property is stolen or damaged could be a result of fulfilling work duties. Which one is the right interpretation?
D22 / Suggestion: In Latvia, the police are not issuing any personal documents (passport, birth certificate, drivers’ licence), so the 11th answer “Official documents that police gives were stolen (e.g. passport)” should be changed to “Personal documents were stolen (e.g., passport, birth certificate, drivers’ licence)”.
D23 / Comment: In Latvia, the police are not obliged to provide any written document or a crime number of the incident. However, after submission of information on the incident the police are obliged to provide (send) a written answer on the consideration of the submission, whether the criminal process has been initiated or not. Therefore in Latvia D23 has been reformulated as follows: “Did the police send you a written answer on the consideration of the submission after you had reported on the incident?”
D24 / Suggestion: An answer “Don’t know” should be added.
D25 / Question: Should the respondent answer even if he/she was not the person, whose property was stolen or damaged and the one communicating to the police (it could as well have been a person in the respondent’s household)? And whose level of satisfaction should be reported – the respondent’s or the person’s, contacting with the police? (D21 presumes that the contact can be made by 4 different categories of informants.)
Suggestion: It could be possible to ask D25 to the respondent (D21=1).
Suggestion: The scale should be changed – in order both poles of the scale would be equally represented, the 3rd answer should be changed “A bit dissatisfied”=> “Fairly dissatisfied”.
Suggestion: Instead of the overall satisfaction with the police work, more than one element of interaction with the police could be evaluated (support and empathy, communication skills, attitude towards the evidence, etc.).
D26-D32 / Comment: Not asked in Latvia, as there are so such agencies.
D34, D35 / Comment: Measurement of negative changes in the quality of life in long term requires more elaborate indicators than just a yes/no question, and subjective estimate of their extensiveness. Both the quality of life and consequences of being a victim in a criminal offence are multidimensional, they involve different aspects, and with such simple measurements, it is not possible to cover their scope. Results from these questions might be of a very limited use.
Suggestion: The questions should either be dropped or elaborated further on the scale used in D34 (from “yes/no” to “certainly yes/ rather yes/ rather no/ certainly no”).

Section E

In Section E, the same considerations on time limits for the questions (E2-E5, E21-E24, E31-E35, E46-E47, E51-E52) refer.
E1 / Comment: Respondents in the cognitive interviews referred to a variety of experiences they felt cheated; some of them were rather minor and occurring quite frequently, therefore it was difficult for respondents to provide an exact number of the incidents.
Question: Are cheating incidents (like in the market or in shops when one purchase is priced twice, or the price on the shelf is not the same is in the price charged etc.) included in the consumer fraud section? If yes, should the questions of the number of fraud incidents be asked only about the last 12 months?
E8 / Question: Should the answers be read or given spontaneously by the respondents and coded later by the interviewer?
Question: Can misleading information on the characteristics of the good purchased be referred to the 3rd answer: “Did you get a worse quality of the good you were purchasing”?
E9 / Suggestion: “Market” could also be used as an answer alternative.
E11, E28 / Question: Does compensation presuppose an additional payment or does it include also the refund of money for the unsuccessful purchase?
E12, E29 / Suggestion: “Other” could be included, as in cases of minor cheating issues, for example, in a supermarket, the manager could be informed.
E20 / Question: One of the respondents mentioned poor supply and even breaches in the supply of communal services (water, heating) as cheating, because the respondent still had to pay a full price for the service that the respondent had not received. Can communal services be included in the section?
E26 / Question: Should the answers be read or given spontaneously by the respondents and coded later by the interviewer?
E30, E35 / Comment: Bribery legally refers mainly exclusively to the government officials or officials in local administration, which are asked about in E1. However, in E35, specifying the official having been involved, the 7th and the 8th answers refer to a medical doctor or other medical staff and university professors or teachers, which are not officials. Therefore even though they are among professional groups that are the main subject under suspicion of being engagrd into the practice of asking for or accepting illegal payments, they cannot be included for legal reasons, because they do not belong to the group of government and local administration officials. If one of the aims is to compare the survey results to the official statistics, the legal aspects have to be taken into account.
If some groups of non-officials (like teachers, doctors) are to be involved, the question might be formulated in another way, not measuring bribery but the use of it and accusing the authority in bad faith, which can be attributed also to other groups, but only in the case of causing a severe damage to the victim. However, it is usually difficult to prove, as very often payments and other “gifts of gratitude” are willingly offered by the people to doctors etc., as some of the cognitive interviews revealed. Another legal aspect in this situation for doctors and professors is breaking the laws on declaring income and paying taxes as well as breaking the professional code, but this is not relevant to the bribery anymore.
Suggestion: To commit to the strict limits of the reference group set in E1, and to ask questions E30-E38 only about the government and local administration officials, using as examples a police officer, a judge or an inspector.
Suggestion: To supplement the E35 answer list with “local government officials”, as the list includes only central government administration officials (and medical staff and professors, which should be removed from the answer list).
E40 / Suggestion: The ownership of a home computer relates more to E60 - E67, therefore the question should be moved to the respective subsection of computer security.
E53, E54, E63, E67 / Question: Should the answers be read or given spontaneously by the respondents and coded later by the interviewer?
E54 / Suggestion: “Copies of personal documents” could be added as one of the answers to the list.
E63, E67 / Suggestion: “To none of the above mentioned” should be added to the answer list.

Section F