Over the past 30 years, countries across the world have begun conducting victim surveys to fill the gaps left by official crime statistics.6 By asking representative samples of the public about the types of crimes they have experienced over a particular period, a more accurate picture of the levels and categories of crime can be compiled than that provided by the police. However, the value of victim surveys goes beyond simply compiling better statistics about incidents of crime. These surveys collect information from the perspective of the public rather than the police and courts, which means experiences of crime and violence are not limited by the legal definitions of these acts.7

The surveys also canvass the views of the public and crime victims about their experiences with the police and legal system, which enables better evaluation of these agencies. In addition, by determining which crime types are perceived to be the most serious and occur most frequently, survey material facilitates the prioritisation of preventive measures by the police and other agencies. Further, by shifting the focus of the inquiry from the offender (traditionally the preoccupation of the criminal justice system) to the victims of crime, these surveys can provide information which enables victims themselves to take preventive action against further victimisation.

In South Africa, several national public opinion surveys about crime have been conducted, primarily by the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) over a period of more than two decades.8 Some of these tended to focus on attitudes towards safety and the fear of crime rather than the actual extent of victimisation. Those surveys which did measure crime levels were conducted as part of broader public opinion assessments rather than as focused crime surveys. One exception is the national crime survey conducted by the Nedcor Project in 1995,9 which measured crime levels and perceptions of safety.

Johannesburg, given its high crime levels, has been the focus of several studies. Three victimisation surveys have been carried out in the city. The primary aim of the first two surveys, conducted in 1993 and 1995 as part of the International Crime Victim Survey (ICVS), was to provide internationally comparative crime data.10 This ongoing exercise involves more than 50 countries and is co-ordinated by an international working group composed of representatives of the Ministry of Justice of the Netherlands, the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) and the British Home Office.

The third victimisation survey (on which this report is based) was administered in July 1997 by the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) as the initial part of a process to design a Safer Cities strategy for the Greater Johannesburg Metropolitan Council. While based on similar questionnaires, direct comparisons between the data sets of the ICVS surveys and the ISS study in Johannesburg need to be conducted with caution given their methodological differences. The ICVS surveys were administered to people in their households, while the ISS carried out a street survey, sampling the views of people in various public places across the Johannesburg metropolitan area. Despite this difference, as well as expectations that a street survey would deliver abnormally high victimisation levels, results in terms of the incidence of crime do not differ dramatically.

While victim surveys provide rich information to complement that collected by official criminal justice agencies, there are limitations regarding the type of data collected and its application. Victims' responses to the surveys are affected by their ability to recall events and when they happened, their reluctance to discuss their experiences, particularly in the case of sexual crimes and domestic violence, and their failure to recognise that some incidents are relevant to the survey. These factors are likely to result in an undercount of crime and suggest that, to some extent, surveys measure public perceptions of crime as expressed to the interviewers, rather than actual experiences.11

Variations in how incidents are understood by respondents, particularly where the sample is not homogeneous, may also affect the consistency and comparability of data. If victims have had contact with the criminal justice system, their interpretation of incidents for the survey may be confused by the official definitions used. For example, the difference between burglary and robbery, particularly if the victim was present when the burglary occurred, may not be immediately apparent. Problems of definition and interpretation especially affect the documentation of sexual incidents.

These limitations apply particularly to cross-country comparisons and have been documented by the working group co-ordinating the International Crime Victim Survey. Variable response rates to the survey in different countries have been described, as have sensitivities to questions about firearm ownership and sexual crimes in certain cultural settings.12 Nevertheless, according to ICVS findings, the definitions, perceptions and normative judgements about conventional crimes are fairly universal and do not prevent reliable comparison.13

In the case of sexual incidents, the quality and quantity of information reported to victim surveys is generally likely to be limited. Apart from problems of definition, victims are often reluctant to discuss these issues on a once-off basis with strangers. Similarly, crimes committed against children are poorly covered, largely because parental consent and supervision are required when surveying children. Specialised surveys have been conducted in recent years to cover the experiences of these and other less sensitive groups, such as tourists and business.

In developing countries like South Africa, the application of crime survey data faces difficulties: police crime statistics are often regarded with scepticism and lack detail, and thus, expectations of victim surveys are high. In attempting to meet these expectations, questionnaires may become too long, adding to the interview time and thus potentially reducing the accuracy of the data.

Of more concern though, is that the public, policy-makers and criminal justice officials given the paucity of useful crime information often expect victim surveys to provide answers on how crime can be controlled and prevented. This is not the case: apart from identifying crime trends, victim surveys indicate broad areas for further debate, investigation and intervention. Bearing these difficulties in mind, the methodology of the Johannesburg survey, in the context of financial and time constraints, required careful consideration.