Scottish Crime and Justice Survey 2016/17: main findings
This report details the main findings from the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey conducted 2016-2017.
Footnotes
1. McCaig, E and Leven, T (2003) Fundamental review of the Scottish Crime Survey, Edinburgh, Scottish Executive
2. i.e. this is generally how many people were asked the question for the results being discussed.
3. GSS (2014) Communicating Uncertainty and Change: Guidance for official statistics producers- https://gss.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Communicating-uncertainty-and-change-v1.pdf
4. Please see the Introduction for definitions of best, upper and lower estimates.
5. The increase in confidence interval shown by the greater difference between the lower and upper estimates in 2016/17 is due to a reduction in the target survey sample size in 2016/17.
6. Annex table A1.2 provides best estimates of the number of incidents of crime for each SCJS sweep since 2008/09.
7. Please see the Introduction for definitions of best, upper and lower estimates.
8. Confidence Intervals around other survey results can be derived using the data tables and users statistical testing tool available on the SCJS website: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Crime-Justice/Datasets/SCJS
9. Please see Annex table A1.6 for relevant results and the SCJS supporting data tables for additional breakdowns.
10. i.e. the proportion of adults experiencing at least one crime over the year.
11. Crime estimates are rounded to the nearest 1,000 crimes.
12. Details on the specific crimes within the violence group are outlined in the ' Overview of crime' chapter.
13. The increase in confidence interval shown by the greater difference between the lower and upper estimates in 2016/17 is due to reduction in the target survey sample size in 2016/17. Please see the Introduction for definitions of best, upper and lower estimates.
14. Annex table A1.2 provides best estimates of the number of incidents of violent crime for each SCJS sweep since 2008/09.
15. For instance, 144 respondents in 2016/17.
16. Please see Introduction for definitions of best, upper and lower estimates.
17. Confidence Intervals around other survey results can be derived using the data tables and users statistical testing tool available on the SCJS website: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Crime-Justice/Datasets/SCJS
18. These results should be used with caution – the robbery estimate has a relative standard error of greater than 20%. Further information is provided in the Introduction.
19. Included within overall assault estimates.
20. It should be noted that can often be challenging to identify changes for rarer events, as outlined in the Introduction.
21. Additional breakdowns are provided in Annex table A1.7 and the SCJS supporting data tables, for example age within gender, disability status and tenure.
22. Please see Annex table A1.7 for relevant results. The SCJS supporting data tables provide further breakdowns.
23. i.e. two or more experiences of violent crime.
24. As outlined in the Introduction.
25. For the purposes of analysis, 'private space' includes the respondent's home, immediately outside their home (includes gardens, driveways, sheds and the street) and the homes of friends and relatives. The definition of outside the victim's home may mean that some of these crimes could be viewed as taking part in a public setting instead – although it is not possible to separate those cases. 'Public space' refers to incidents taking place elsewhere.
26. I.e. excluding those who said don't know or refused to give a time.
27. Weekends were defined as 6pm on Friday to Sunday midnight.
28. This has fallen from 98% in 2014/15.
29. Additional results are available in the supporting data tables. The analysis presented is based on a relatively small number of incidents (n=140). As such, results have relatively large margins of error around them meaning that they should be interpreted with caution.
30. It is important to note that individual incidents may have involved offenders from different age groups. For instance, a proportion of the 32% of cases involving offenders aged 16-24 may have also involved perpetrators from other age groups.
31. These findings are based only on incidents where the respondent could say something about the offender(s). This is an updated analytical approach to focus only on incidents where victims could provide information about the perpetrator(s) – 87% of incidents in 2016/17. Findings from 2008/09 and 2014/15 have been reproduced on this updated basis, so may differ from results published in previous SCJS reports (which were based on all violent crime incidents – regardless of whether respondents could provide info about the perpetrator).
32. Incidents where someone saw or heard what was going on.
33. Other injuries were collected as open text responses and includes things like bite marks, sore hands and scraped knuckles which could not be coded under existing categories.
34. Crime estimates are rounded to the nearest 1,000 crimes.
35. Details on the specific crimes included within the property crime group are outlined in the ' Overview of crime' chapter.
36. The increase in confidence interval shown by the greater difference between the lower and upper estimates in 2016/17 is due to a reduction in the target survey sample size in 2016/17. Please see Introduction for definitions of best, upper and lower estimates.
37. Annex table A1.2 provides best estimates of the number of incidents of property crime for each SCJS sweep since 2008/09.
38. Please see Introduction for definitions of best, upper and lower estimates.
39. Confidence Intervals around other survey results can be derived using the data tables and users statistical testing tool available on the SCJS website: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Crime-Justice/Datasets/SCJS
40. Using unrounded estimates to measure change shows a difference of 1.4 percentage points.
41. Further details on the categories of property crime are provided in the Introduction and the 2016/17 Technical Report.
42. Results broken down by demographic and area characteristics are provided in Annex table A1.8. The SCJS supporting data tables, for example tenure, disability status and age within gender.
43. Please see Annex tables for relevant results and the SCJS supporting data tables for additional breakdowns.
44. i.e. two or more experiences of property crime; or separately two or more experiences of violent crime.
45. Unrounded estimates sum to 11.5%.
46. i.e. the proportion of adults experiencing at least one property crime over the year.
47. Immediately outside the respondent's home includes gardens, sheds, driveways and the street outside the respondents home.
48. I.e. excluding those who said don't know or refused to give a time.
49. Weekends were defined as 6pm on Friday to Sunday midnight.
50. Where a similarly low proportion of respondents were able to tell us about offenders involved in property crimes. Further information on the SCJS in previous years is available in the Technical Report, whilst results from previous years are accessible on the SCJS website.
51. I.e. incidents where someone saw or heard what was happening or had contact with the offender.
52. This subset should not be used to assess the overall level of crime in Scotland.
53. Chapters 9 and 12 of the SCJS 2016/17 Technical Report provide more information about the crime groups used in this report, including the comparable crime subset.
54. Results in the 2014 analytical paper showed consistent results using different methods to make comparisons over time.
55. Annex B provides an overview of the main differences to bear in mind when making comparisons between the two sources.
56. The smaller SCJS sample of around 6,000 in 2016/17 compared to around 12,000 in 2014/15 means a larger range of uncertainty around the 2016/17 point estimate for all comparable crime in 2016/17, as shown by the larger divergence between lower and upper estimates in Figure 5.1.
57. Comparable acquisitive crime is rarer than vandalism and violent crime (estimates of acquisitive crime are based on 84 incidents in the 2016/17 SCJS sample, compared to 156 violent crime incidents and 263 vandalism incidents). Consequently, there is greater uncertainty around the SCJS estimate of acquisitive crime and less power to identify significant changes over time.
58. Further information on SCJS violent crime is provided in the ' Focus on violent crime' chapter.
59. Violent crime estimates are based on a relatively small number of respondents who disclosed experiences of 156 violent crimes in 2016/17.
60. A comparison of the two methods highlights a lag effect, suggesting that using the second method, the difference between recorded crime and SCJS crime estimated to be reported to the police is likely to be less than that derived from using the first method presented here.
61. The data tables in this chapter focus on changes since 2008/09 and 2014/15, however the annex tables A1.14 to A1.19 present key results on policing from each SCJS sweep since 2008/09.
62. A regional variable (North, East and West) will be included in the dataset available through the UK Data Services for further analysis to enable analysis at lower geographies using the 2016/17 data.
63. This question (QRATPOL) was first included in the 2012/13 SCJS.
64. Only measures where a statistically significant difference amongst comparator groups was detected are shown in the figure.
65. These results are also available for further breakdowns, such as tenure, for each SCJS sweep since 2008/09 in supplementary data tables.
66. When the question was first asked.
67. The criminal justice system was defined to respondents:
68. Results from each sweep of the SCJS are available in data tables, whilst questionnaire documentation available online also outlines the specific questions asked in each sweep.
69. The 'reduced' category combines those saying the crime rate is a 'little less' and a 'lot less'.
70. The question is only asked of adults who have lived in their local area for two or more years at the time of interview (n=4,830).
71. Opinions on the national crime rate were first recorded by the SCJS in 2009/10.
72. Since the SCJS has operated in its current format since 2008/09.
74. Full time series results are shown in Annex tables A1.12.
75. Findings in relation to fraud are also discussed in the later section ' Cyber-crime in Scotland'.
76. Estimates in this figure are shown to one decimal place to facilitate a comparison between prevalence rate (generally shown to one decimal place) and perceived likelihood of being a victim (generally shown to round number).
77. Crime in England and Wales, Year ending September 2016.
78. Variable name: QFORH.
79. Variable name: QAINSUL2. Base: 2016/17 1,430. 2014/15: 5,750. 2008/09: 4,000.
80. Variable name: QATHME2. Base: 2016/17: 190. 2014/15: 470.
81. In 2014/15 'texts/emails' and 'in writing via the internet' were two separate categories. Statistical significance tested for change using the 2016/17 finding and the combined 2014/15 data for these two categories (14%).
82. Variable names: QFSSELL and QFSWHR. Base: Fake and smuggled goods offered (1,390). It is not possible to look at the location of where other types of goods were offered due to base sizes.
83. Section 2 of the 2016/17 SCJS questionnaire.
84. Valid crimes are incidents which occurred in Scotland, during the reference period and concern crimes that are within the scope of the SCJS. Any incident that does meet any of these criteria is invalid.
85. Variable names: CARDVIC2 and IDTHEF3. Base: 2016/17 (5,570). 2014/15 (11,470), 2008/09 (3,980).
86. This question existed before introduction of fraud module in October 2015 and was removed from the survey in October 2017.
87. Overview of fraud and computer misuse statistics for England and Wales: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/overviewoffraudandcomputermisusestatisticsforenglandandwales/2018-01-25
88. Variable name: QWORR. Base: 2016/17 (5,570), 2014/15 (11,470), 2008/09 (16,000)
89. Where criminals obtain personal information e.g. name, date of birth, address without consent in order to steal a person's identity, they often use these details to take out bank accounts, credit cards, loans etc.
90. Variable name: QHAPP. Base: 2016/17 (5,570), 2014/15 (11,470), 2008/09 (16,000).
92. Computer viruses and unauthorised access to personal information, including hacking.
93. Crime in England and Wales, Year ending March 2017, https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/crimeinenglandandwalesyearendingmarch2017
Additional tables on fraud and computer misuse. Published as experimental statistics.
94. Some other means includes writing and electronic communications.
95. The SCJS also collects details about experiences of stalking and harassment through a self-completion module. Further details on plans and timescales to publish those results are provided on the SCJS website in the information on the future SCJS reporting structure.
96. Further details on the insight the 2016/17 SCJS is able to shed on the relationship between the internet and crime and safety are outlined in Section 8.1.
97. More in-depth analysis about the extent and nature of violent incidents in 2016/17 is provided in the ' Focus on violence' chapter, whilst an overview of verbal and physical abuse encountered in the workplace by public facing workers in 2016/17 is also provided in a bespoke section.
98. Whilst this figure has fallen from 69% in 2014/15, changes in some response options and the addition of new options in 2016/17 mean that results are not directly comparable across sweeps.
99. 95% and over for all possible motivating factors.
100. The 2016/17 SCJS found just 33 respondents who had experienced physical abuse at work, but 193 respondents who had experienced verbal abuse at work (while dealing with the public). These are sufficient to present results on verbal abuse, but not, for example, to break down results by type of employment.
101. Above questions only asked of households who own one or more vehicles.
Contact
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback