The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER FOUR: RESPONSE RATES

4.1 One of the aims of the evaluation was to collect and analyse data on response rates to the victim statement scheme among those offered the opportunity to make a statement. This chapter of the report examines overall response rates, compares response rates over time and addresses the issue of whether or not response rates varied according to factors such as gender, offence category or age.

4.2 This analysis is based on all statement packs sent out from the commencement of the pilot victim statement scheme on 25 November 2003 until the end of October 2005. The victim statement scheme actually concluded on 24 November 2005, but these last 3 weeks have been left out of the analysis. The reason for this is that the last batch of electronic data was transferred to the researchers in the first week of December 2005 and is unlikely to include all the statements submitted by victims who received their statement packs in November 2005. ³³ Including these last 3 weeks of the scheme could have distorted the analysis.

RESPONSE RATES SINCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PILOTS

4.3 Table 4.1 below shows the response rates to the pilot victim statement schemes since the commencement of the pilots on 25 November 2003 to the end of October 2005. As Table 4.1 shows, during this period 4993 statement packs were sent out and the response rate across the 3 courts was 14.9%. There was very little variation in response rates between courts. The response rate for Ayr was 15%; for Kilmarnock was 14.1% and for Edinburgh was 15.5%.

Table 4.1: Overall response rates

4.4 While the overall response rate of 14.9% is lower than the response rate to the equivalent scheme in England and Wales, which was 30%, the figures are not directly comparable. The range of offences included within the English scheme was more serious, ³⁴ and the higher response rate is likely to be due predominantly to this, ³⁵ rather than to any differences in the way in which the schemes were administered.

RESPONSE RATES OVER TIME

4.5 Table 4.2 examines response rates to the victim statement scheme over time. In order to enable comparisons to be drawn, the 2 year period of the operation of the pilots is divided into 8 approximately equal sub-periods.

Table 4.2: Response rates over time (%)

4.6 There is no real pattern to the figures displayed in Table 4.2. Although response rates varied between time periods, there was neither an upward nor a downward trend in response rates over the 2 years of the operation of the pilots. ³⁶

4.7 As Table 4.2 also shows, there was considerable variation in response rates between courts within the same time period. This is almost certainly due simply to the profile of offences in each court during the period in question and, in particular, the prominence of relatively serious offences, as it was apparent from an early stage of the pilot schemes that the primary factor affecting response rates was offence seriousness. ³⁷

4.8 This is demonstrated by a closer examination of the figures in Table 4.2 itself. For example, in period 2, the response rate in Kilmarnock (at 19%) was considerably higher than that of the other courts (11% in Ayr and 15% in Edinburgh). This is almost certainly entirely due to the profile of offences in Kilmarnock during that period. Using the Edinburgh charge codes, 75% of cases in which statement packs were sent out in Kilmarnock were cases involving violence; 5.3% were sexual offence cases; and only 15% were cases of theft by housebreaking. The comparable figures for Ayr during this period were 70% (violence); 2.7% (sexual offences); and 23% (theft by housebreaking). There were also 2 murder cases and 2 cases of abduction in Kilmarnock during this period (there were none in Ayr), ³⁸ with statements being made in all 4 of these.

4.9 Likewise, during period 3, the response rate in Ayr (24.7%) was abnormally high compared to the other 2 courts. Once again, however, this is almost certainly because relatively serious offences were over-represented in Ayr during this period. Using the Edinburgh charge codes, 95% of cases in which a statement pack was sent out in Ayr in period 3 were offences involving violence, whereas the comparable figures for Kilmarnock and Edinburgh were 84% and 85% respectively. Using the more detailed charge codes supplied with the electronic data, 49% of cases in which a statement pack was sent out in Ayr were aggravated assaults, compared to only 25% in Kilmarnock. In a small court such as Ayr, where only 81 statement packs were sent out during period 3, the effect of even a small number of relatively serious offences in the offence profile is likely disproportionately to affect response rates in this way.

4.10 As a final example, in period 6 the response rate in Ayr was 22.6%, compared to 10.8% in Kilmarnock and 14.7% in Edinburgh. Based on the Edinburgh charge codes, 95% of cases in which a statement pack was sent out in Ayr during this period were offences involving violence. This compares to 84% in Kilmarnock and 81% in Edinburgh. Again, using the more detailed charge codes supplied with the electronic data, 37% of cases in which a statement pack was sent out in Ayr were aggravated assaults, compared to 30% in Kilmarnock; 52% were non-aggravated assaults in Ayr compared to 42% in Kilmarnock; and 4% were theft by housebreaking in Ayr compared to 15% in Kilmarnock. ³⁹

RESPONSE RATES BY DRAFT OF LETTER

4.11 On 6 July 2004, a revised letter to eligible individuals came into operation in all of the pilot sites. ⁴⁰ The revisions were intended to simplify and improve the user-friendliness of the letter. Table 4.3 displays response rates before and after the revised letter came into operation.

Table 4.3: Response rates by draft of letter sent

4.12 As Table 4.3 shows, across the 3 courts, the revised letter had very little impact on response rates, with there being a very slight decrease (from 15.1% to 14.8%) since the new letter came into operation. ⁴¹

4.13 Table 4.3 does mask some differences between courts. As Table 4.4 below shows, in Ayr and Edinburgh, response rates actually increased very slightly after the new letter came into operation, whereas in Kilmarnock they fell by just over 3 percentage points. This suggests that the changes in response rates are unlikely to be due to the letter itself and are far more likely to be due to factors such as the profile of offences at each pilot site during the 2 periods in question. For example, the low response rate figure for draft 1 of the letter in Edinburgh is likely to be due in part to the fact that, in the early stages of the pilot scheme in Edinburgh, very few statement packs were sent out in solemn cases. ⁴² As response rates are related to offence seriousness, ⁴³ a lower response rate during this period was only to be expected.

Table 4.4: Response rates by draft of letter and court

RESPONSE RATES BY OFFENCE CATEGORY, GENDER AND AGE

4.14 As well as reporting on response rates to the pilot scheme as a whole, a further aim of the evaluation was to determine whether particular categories of individual in terms of age, sex or offence type were more or less likely to submit a victim statement. The following tables address this aim.

4.15 Before examining the results, it is necessary to note that the analysis that follows is an imperfect one, as the researchers do not hold complete information on all individuals who were offered the opportunity to make a victim statement. First, no data on age, gender or offence category is available for those individuals who opted out of the research by returning the reply slip before the revised letter came into operation on 6 July 2004. ⁴⁴ Second, no detailed information on the nature of the (alleged) offence is available for the majority of the Edinburgh sample. ⁴⁴ Third, the number of cases in which information is available on the age of the eligible individual (especially in the Edinburgh sample and in the pre-electronic data transfer Ayr and Kilmarnock samples) is restricted mainly to those individuals who returned reply slips. While noting these limitations, the researchers believe that the findings presented here remain valid.

4.16 The tables that follow, then, have been drawn up on the basis of the sample of individuals on whom the researchers hold the relevant information and should be read with this caveat in mind. Nonetheless, they do provide at least an indication of general trends and patterns in terms of the types of individuals who were more or less likely to make a statement.

4.17 Table 4.5 breaks down response rates by offence category. The offence categories are those used by VIA in Edinburgh (the data from Ayr and Kilmarnock has been re-classified to fit into the Edinburgh categories for the purposes of this analysis).

Table 4.5: Response rates by offence category (1)

4.18 As Table 4.5 shows, response rates were highest among those individuals who had been victims of sexual offences, with 38% of this category of individuals choosing to make a victim statement. Among victims of non-sexual offences of violence, the response rate was 15% and among victims of theft by housebreaking, it was slightly lower at 14%. The lowest response rate was among those who had been victims of racially aggravated offences, with only 12% choosing to make a victim statement. ⁵⁰

4.19 Table 4.6 also examines response rates according to the nature of the offence, but it is based on the 2832 individuals on whom the researchers hold more detailed offence information.

4.20 Essentially what is clear from Table 4.6 is that response rates varied according to offence seriousness. The more serious the offence, the more likely an eligible individual was to make a victim statement. The highest response rates were found in relation to death by dangerous driving (60%); murder (also 60%); sexual offences (46% for rape and 51% for other sexual offences); abduction (50%); and attempted murder (40%). Response rates were higher for aggravated assault (21%) than for assault without any aggravating factor (17%). Response rates were also higher for robbery (24%) than for theft by housebreaking (14%). It is only possible to identify general trends here: the seriousness of an offence as perceived by a victim will be crucial and this may vary from case to case in a way that is not possible to identify from this data.

Table 4.6: Response rates by offence category (2)

Key to statutory abbreviations:PSA = Police (Scotland) Act 1967; CLCSA = Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995; RTA = Road Traffic Act 1988.

4.21 The lowest response rates ⁵⁵ (4%) were found among victims of offences under s41 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, essentially assault on a police officer. This might be thought to indicate that police officers are less likely than civilians to make a victim statement. It is more likely, however, to reflect the fact that when an assault on a police officer is particularly serious, and especially where it involves physical violence, this is more likely to be prosecuted as assault (or aggravated assault) under the common law. ⁵⁶ Thus this finding is likely simply to reflect the general trend that response rates increase with offence seriousness, rather than indicating that police officers are less likely to make victim statements.

4.22 Relatively low response rates (6%) were also found in relation to racially aggravated harassment offences under s50A of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995. Once again, the most likely reason for this is that incidents charged as racially aggravated harassment are less serious than the others which are within the scope of the victim statement scheme, as almost all of the other offences necessarily involve physical attacks or/and property loss/damage.

4.23 Support for this conclusion is provided by Scottish Executive funded research undertaken into racially aggravated offences (Clark and Moody, 2002). In the study, only 3% of cases prosecuted as racially aggravated harassment under s50A of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 were on indictment rather than summary complaint (and all were sheriff & jury; there were none in the High Court) (Clark and Moody, 2002, Table 1). By contrast, the Ayr/Kilmarnock data before electronic data transfer started ⁵⁷ suggests that 18% of victim statement cases were prosecutions on indictment. ⁵⁸ That seems a fairly clear indication that the 'average' s50A case is much less serious than the 'average' victim statement case overall, and so a (significantly) lower response rate is only to be expected given that uptake increases with offence seriousness. Further support for this conclusion was gained from discussions with procurators fiscal at the pilot sites, which also suggested that almost all s50A cases are prosecuted under summary procedure.

4.24 Table 4.7 examines response rates according to whether the eligible individual was male or female (for the 2702 individuals for whom this information is available). As Table 4.7 shows, the gender of an individual did not appear to have any substantial impact on their likelihood of submitting a victim statement, with response rates among male and female victims being 23% and 21% respectively. It should be noted that the relatively high overall response rate in Table 4.7 (22%) reflects the fact that statement makers were over-represented in this sample, because the researchers were more likely to hold details of the gender of individuals who made a statement than those who did not (because in the Edinburgh sample and the pre-electronic data transfer Ayr and Kilmarnock samples most information on gender came from victims who returned one or both of a victim statement or reply slip). This does not in any way affect the validity of the findings in terms of the general patterns displayed in the table. The same point can be made in relation to Table 4.8, but here too the general patterns displayed are still valid.

Table 4.7: Response rates by gender

4.25 Table 4.8 examines the issue of whether or not response rates differed according to the age of the eligible individual (for the 2731 individuals for whom this information is available).

4.26 It is difficult to discern any clear pattern in Table 4.8. Victims aged under 21 were, by some way, the least likely to make a statement, with only 18% of those aged under 18 ⁵⁹ and only 17% of those aged between 18-21 submitting a statement. Response rates were higher among individuals aged 22-49, but were highest in the 50-59 age category and second highest in the "60 plus" category, so there does appear to be something of a trend for response rates to increase with age.

Table 4.8: Response rates by age

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF RESPONSE RATES

4.27 In summary, over the 2 year period in which the pilot victim statement scheme operated, 14.9% of eligible individuals took the opportunity to make a victim statement. This is lower than the response rate to the equivalent scheme in England and Wales, which was 30%, but the figures are not directly comparable. The range of offences included within the English scheme is more serious, ⁶² and the higher response rate is likely to be due primarily to this.

4.28 The most notable factor affecting whether or not a victim statement was made was the seriousness of the offence in question. Victims of sexual offences were also particularly likely to make a victim statement. Response rates did not differ between male and female victims, but there was a trend (of sorts) for response rates to increase with age.

4.29 Over the course of the 2 years in which the pilot victim statement scheme operated, there was little difference in response rates between the pilot sites (15% in Ayr; 14.1% in Kilmarnock; and 15.5% in Edinburgh). There was some variation in response rates between the sites when the figures were broken down into quarterly time periods, but this can be explained by the offence profile in the court and time period in question, rather than by any difference in the administration of the scheme between the pilot sites.

« Previous | Contents | Next »