1. The ICVS (International Crime and Victimization Survey)
Dick Meuldijk,
Head of the Netherlands victimization shared service organization

2. History ICVS
ICVS initiated well over 20 years ago, in 1987, by European criminologists with expertise in national crime surveys;
Five sweeps until now: 1989, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2005;
Set up to produce estimates of victimization that can be used for international comparison and grew to be the world’s premier programme of standardised surveys looking at householder’s experience of ‘common crime’ in different countries;
In 2005 the ICVS was broadened to all EU countries; financed by the EC; results are available on the web and also published in a book. Some important lessons were learnt: central coordination is essential. Operator bias, mode bias and seasonal bias has to be minimized

3. Involvement of Nicis Institute
Present director of the WODC, Prof. dr. F. Leeuw, is the methodological advisor for the Dutch Victimization survey and a partner within the IGRD.
He invited Nicis Institute and the Dutch Shared Service organisation based at Nicis Institute, to sketch (together with the WODC) a proposal for the ICVS, based on the Dutch approach.
The proposal was drafted and presented to the IGRD secretariat and later to the IGRD conference in Washington.
After discussions at a meeting of the IGRD in Edinburgh in September, a final proposal was drafted.

4. The proposal for the 2009 ICVS
A centralized methodology and a detailed mandatory manual;
a uniform questionnaire for the first sweep, in next sweeps a modular questionnaire (adaptable to countries needs) will be offered;
the survey is partly based on CATI (RDD, random digit dialing) and partly on internet / paper (and address-based registers);
Nicis Institute arranges a contract with an international active private partner for the field work through an EU tender procedure;
Nicis Institute is responsible for all coordination, organization, data management and reporting of the final results;

5. Developments I
A demand for a substantial EU contribution, which was granted under the Prevention of and fight against crime 2009 programme;
Net response demand of 4,000 per country of which
2500 by CAWI and (by request) PAPI
1500 by CATI, RDD
Available budget maximum € per country
The EU tender procedure resulted in offers from only two companies TNS and GfK;

6. Developments II
The two offers did not meet the technical (GfK) and financial (TNS) criteria:
The costs for sending invitation letters and a paper questionnaire were underestimated
one of the private companies offered the use of large scale panels to avoid problems with stratification, low response rates and postage cost;
These findings were presented at the Stockholm IGRD meeting;
The Stockholm meeting decided to continue the IGRD with adapted technical specifications.

7. Consequences of the Stockholm decision
A new EU tender procedure is needed because of legal demands;
Start in 2009 is no longer possible because of this time consuming procedure, start is now foreseen in spring 2010;
The number of modes is reduced, the paper questionnaire is left out;
(Limited) Use of panels allowed.
Adapted specifications: net responses per country of which
2.000 through CAWI
1.000 minimum by random sample (address- or person based)
1.000 maximum through a large scale panel
2.000 through CATI (Random Digit Dialing)

8. Problems after second tender procedure
One potential contractor did not tender because of price limitations
The only contractor left did not meet the specifications (Only panel in stead of mixed panel and random sample approach)
As a consequence the tender failed.
Under Dutch law a further procedure is possible under which negotiations with potential contractors are possible to reach an agreement.
Nicis, in consultation with IGRD secretariat, first created a level playing field and then invited TNS to GfK to reconsider their offer/participate in the consultation procedure
Adapted specs
2000 CATI, large scale panel based
1000 CAWI large scale panel based
3 countries (Netherlands excluded) register based CAWI to a number possible within the financial limitations

9. Final phase Both offers (Intomart GfK and TNS Nipo) are comparable
TNS met the demands and was selected
GfK decided to bring this decision to court
Legal representatives agreed with mediation because IGRD was not accepting any further delay
At the moment, TNS and GfK are negotiating some kind of division of workload.
As soon as they reach agreement the ICVS 2010 starts
Final results are foreseen shortly after summer 2010

10. Facts for 2010 ICVS
Participating countries: Sweden, Germany, Denmark, United Kingdom, Canada and the Netherlands;
EU contribution under the Prevention of and fight against crime 2009 programme
Net response of 4,000, of which
2,000 via CATI
1,000 CAWI through panels;
Extra work that can be done within budget (3*500 CAWI)
€70,000 for fieldwork per country
Fixed questionnaire to be translated into relevant languages;
Fieldwork to commence March 2010;

11. Panel data
New element of the ICVS, introduced for cost-effective reasons;
For a maximum of 1,000 of the CAWI response the use of panels is accepted;
Some advantages of panels
High response rates;
Samples can be made demographically representative on multiple variables from data on hand;
Much respondent and household information is already available on file (saves time and space on surveys);
Issues, potential disadvantage: self-selection involved in agreeing to participate in a panel (representativeness).

12. Opportunities
The ICVS offers a solid solution to countries and/or criminology academics to compare victimization between countries;
The mixed-mode approach, if usable in other countries, is attractive. The survey can be carried out in a short period of time and CAWI costs are low;
The ICVS 2010 is a pilot scheme, as it tests the use of panel data combined with CATI and CAWI. Others can draw lessons from this project;
The methodology and questionnaire can be used easily (and if necessary adapted) by other countries in the future;
The methodology and questionnaire offer the future possibility to broaden the extent of the ICVS to a full national victimization survey in stead of a comparative survey;
In NL kost een CAW enquete ca € 5, een PAPI interview ca € 30, een CATI interview ca € 25. Een CAPI interview daarentegen > € 90 per interview

13. Threats
The ICVS 2010 is a pilot scheme, as it tests the use of panel data combined with CATI and CAWI. This has not been done before;
If on an international level, it is decided to create other victimization surveys, the advantages of this survey vanish;
Without strict coordination and centralized quality control a large-scale project like the ICVS will not be manageable.

14. Timeline 2010 ICVS February 2010: negotiations TNS and GfK
March: start fieldwork (or temporary injunction)
End of May: last week of surveying
June: analysis and reports
September (tbc): final conference

15. Contact details Dick Meuldijk, Nicis Institute  meuldijk@nicis.nl;
Marije Breukelman, Nicis Institute  
Dutch Victimization Monitor:
Literature on the previous ICVS (2004/2005):