Instruments for Promotion and Assurance of Public Integrity

“The instruments” for supporting the strategies and programmes of public integrity represent a part of a general public integrity framework, comprising also the issue of ethics and public integrity, the legal framework, training and obviously the best practices used successfully by the public organisations. The current paper comprises the instruments concerning the integrity of civil service or institutional organisations, as well as their audit. The paper represents the fourth section of the book: “Public integrity: Theories and Practical Instruments,” published recently by NISPAcee. The first chapter of the paper refers on a large extent to the civil servants’ career, meritocracy, motivation of the civil servants as well as to Whistleblower. The second chapter is dedicated to the instruments concerning the institutional organisations, risk areas for corruption, indicators and transparency, blacklisting. In the third chapter, the audit instruments are aimed at the governmental mechanisms, comprising the method of audit of taxes, public contracts, electronic data etc. The theoretical approaches are accompanied by relevant examples from different state

Is Being 'Soft on Crime' the Solution to Rising Crime Rates? Evidence from Germany

Based on a theoretical framework on informal, custodial and non-custodial sentencing, the paper provides econometric tests on the effectiveness of police, public prosecution and courts. Using a unique dataset covering German states for the period 1977- 2001, a comprehensive system of criminal prosecution indicators is derived and subsequently related to the incidence of six major offence categories using panel-econometrics. Empirical evidence suggests that the criminal policy of diversion failed as increasing shares of dismissals by prosecutors and judges enhance crime rates in Germany. Crime is significantly deterred by higher clearance and conviction rates, while the effects of indicators representing type (fine, probation, imprisonment) and severity (length of prison sentence, amount of fine) of punishment are often small and insignificant

The German Victimization Survey - Cumulation 2012-2017

The German Victimization Survey is a dark field survey conducted on behalf of the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) with the aim of collecting comprehensive information on the topics of fear of crime, victim experiences and reporting behaviour in the Federal Republic of Germany. Other focal points of the survey were fraud offences with EC and credit cards or on the Internet as well as crime-related attitudes. The study, designed as a cross-sectional survey, was first conducted in 2012 and repeated in 2017 with a slightly modified survey instrument. A representative sample of the German population aged 16 and over was interviewed in computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI). In both surveys, the interviews were conducted in German, Turkish and Russian. The cumulative dataset presented here contains the complete data of both surveys and thus enables the measurement of changes between 2012 and 2017. Topics: 1. Number of household members aged 16 and over (fixed-network sample/total sample); household size; household type; age; age group; life satisfaction, trust; self-assessment of health status; general personal trust; institutional trust (federal government, courts, police, political parties, Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA), public prosecutor´s office). 2. Crime-related attitudes: Contact with police in the last 12 months; reason for police contact (reporting a crime, stopped on the street, questioned as a witness, accident, as a suspect, professional contact, given information or advice to get help or advice, other reason); satisfaction with treatment by police at last contact; reasons for dissatisfaction with last police contact (e.g. did not come quickly enough, not helpful enough or not at all, prejudice, etc.). ); reputation of the police among people in the personal environment (image); negative experiences with the police in the last 12 months in the personal environment; assessment of the work of the local police in fighting crime; equal treatment of rich and poor people by the local police when reporting a crime; frequency of disproportionate violence by the local police; assessment of one´s own economic situation; concerns about the deterioration of one´s own standard of living; agreement with the statement: enough people in the personal environment who take me as I am. Additional questions on justice: frequency of fair and impartial decisions by the courts; equal treatment of rich and poor people in court; frequency of wrong decisions by courts (guilty people not convicted, innocent people convicted); contact with a court in the last five years about a criminal case; time of last contact with a court about a criminal case; own role in last participation in a criminal case; satisfaction with the outcome of the case. 3. Attitudes towards punishment: Importance of different purposes in imposing punishment (deterring offenders from committing further crimes, helping offenders to lead a crime-free life, making offenders pay for their crime, making offenders pay for the harm they have done, increasing the public´s awareness of the law, protecting society from offenders); Vignette experiment: attitudes towards punishment based on different case studies for different offences (bodily harm, theft, damage to property, fraud, robbery) with regard to appropriate response options of the state, custodial sentence with or without probation, duration of custodial sentence in years/months and most appropriate conditions. 4. Attitudes towards immigration: immigration good or bad for the German economy, cultural life in Germany undermined or enriched by immigrants; Germany made a better or worse place to live by immigrants. 5. Media use: average weekly use of (internet) TV, (internet) radio, internet edition of a newspaper, printed newspaper, internet (excluding TV, radio, newspaper use); interest in different types of TV programmes (news, political magazines, other magazines, reports, documentaries, TV shows, quiz programmes, sports programmes, crime films, feature films, entertainment series, comedy programmes); reasons for TV consumption. 6. Social psychological perspectives and attitudes: Attitudes towards life and the future based on various statements (how my life turns out depends on myself, what one achieves in life is primarily a matter of fate or luck, success has to be worked hard for, when I encounter difficulties in life I often doubt my abilities, more important than all the efforts are the skills one brings, I have little control over the things that happen in my life, I only deal with tasks that are solvable, I like life to be even, I like surprises to come unexpectedly, I feel more comfortable when I know what is coming). 7. General and vocational education: highest school-leaving qualification or school-leaving qualification aspired to; highest vocational training qualification; main occupation (employment status); extent of employment. 8. Neighbourhood: size of the place of residence (municipality or city); living together in the neighbourhood (people help each other, you can trust the people in the neighbourhood, people here have no respect for law and order); Image of the neighbourhood; frequency of personal interaction with people from the neighbourhood in the last 6 months (doing something together, borrowing food, tools or something else, talking about personal matters); Disorder/Incivilities: disturbing situations in the neighbourhood (unkempt front gardens or public green spaces, demolished or dirty bus stops, mailboxes, etc.), litter such as paper or drink cans lying around, groups of young people standing around or sitting around, arguments or fights in public); frequency of these situations in one´s own neighbourhood; satisfaction with the immediate living environment; going out in the evening (frequency). 9. Internet use: use of the Internet or e-mail for private purposes; feeling of safety when using the Internet: frequency of Internet use; online banking; reasons why no online banking; shopping on the Internet; reasons why no shopping on the Internet; use of social media on the Internet; reasons why no use of social media. 10. Fear of crime: feeling safe at night in the neighbourhood; being worried by different situations (being beaten or hurt, having their home broken into, being attacked and robbed, being sexually harassed, being the victim of a terrorist attack); how much this worry affects their quality of life; how worried they are about being beaten or sexually harassed by someone in their family; how worried they are about being beaten or sexually harassed by someone in their family. fear of crime in the last seven days; worried about personal safety, safety of family members, burglary or damage to house or flat, theft of a car, theft of a car, theft of a car. (e.g. mobile phone); level of anxiety in this situation; location of incident (home, someone else´s house, workplace, school, university, public place or transport, other location); fear of crime at work or in the field; public place or transport with very many/very few people or neither; alone or accompanied during incident; frequency of incidents of this type. 11. Fear of crime specific to crime: likelihood of various incidents occurring in the next 12 months (being beaten or injured, having your home broken into, being attacked and robbed, being sexually assaulted, being the victim of a terrorist attack); behaviour to protect against crime (avoiding certain streets, places, parks, avoiding people who seem threatening, taking detours, avoiding walking alone in the dark). 12. Possession of vehicles and payment cards: privately owned or used vehicles (bicycle, moped, moped, scooter, motorbike, car, van or other motorised vehicle) and payment cards (credit card, EC card or Girocard, bank card) in the last five years. 13. Victimisations: Experience of crime in the last five years: Residential burglary (theft); attempted residential burglary (theft); vehicle theft (bicycle, moped, moped, scooter, motorbike, car, van, other vehicle); goods or services fraud; payment card abuse; victimisation on the Internet through malware (viruses, Trojans, etc.); phishing, forged payment cards (credit card, debit card, bank customer card, etc.). ); phishing, fake e-mail, pharming, fake website); attempted or actual robbery; victim of other theft without violence (personal theft); victim of assault with weapon (tear gas, pepper spray, knife, gun, other); victim of assault without weapons: hitting, kicking, choking, burns, other assault). Questions on crimes experienced in the last 12 months: Follow-up questions on single incident (incidence) - only one victimisation Residential burglary(theft): Residential burglary(theft) in the last 12 months or earlier; frequency of residential burglaries in the last 12 months; incident happened in Germany; frequency of incidents in Germany; federal state; open mention to city or town recorded; use of physical force or threat of force; identical to incident in which something was taken away by force or threat of force; theft in this incident, theft insurance for one of the stolen items; police were informed about said incident; In the case of multiple victimisations, the above follow-up questions on state, etc. were asked for up to five individual incidents. Additional questions - only for the last (or only) victimisation: police were informed about the incident by the respondent, partner(s), family member(s), friend(s), other person(s), or police were on the scene; how were the police informed; report filed; person who filed report; document signed with police; reasons why incident was not reported to the police (e.g. Crime not serious, cleared up by family, reported to another office, not insured, would not have helped, fear of police, fear of retaliation); reasons for reporting (stolen property received back, because of insurance, crimes should always be reported, punishment of offender, serious crime so it would not happen again, because of loss of official documents); satisfaction with police in handling incident; reasons for dissatisfaction with police (e.g. e.g. did too little or worked too slowly, was not interested, did not keep me informed, etc.); replacement value at the last burglary (in euros); how bad was this incident for the respondent. Corresponding questions on other offences for which victimisation was affirmed: attempted housebreaking, bicycle theft, motorbike theft, motor vehicle theft (deviations: Stolen motor vehicle recovered), consumer fraud (in relation to goods, services or both, on the internet, by e-mail, other, with credit or giro card, payment card was stolen), payment card misuse (with credit, giro or bank customer card, with card payment or online banking, payment card was stolen), malware (offence identical to the incident mentioned at the beginning with regard to phishing resp. Pharming), Phishing (credit institution has informed the police), Pharming (credit institution has informed the police), Personal theft. Follow-up questions on single incident (incidence) - only one victimisation Residential burglary(theft): Residential burglary(theft) in the last 12 months or earlier; frequency of residential burglaries in the last 12 months; incident happened in Germany; frequency of incidents in Germany; federal state; open mention to city or town recorded; use of physical force or threat of force; identical to incident in which something was taken away by force or threat of force; theft in this incident, theft insurance for one of the stolen items; police were informed about said incident; Robbery: robbery or attempted robbery in the last 12 months or earlier; frequency of robbery in the last 12 months; incident paused in Germany; frequency of incidents in Germany; federal state; open mention to city or town recorded; location (own home, public, in a building); type of building (e.g. bank branch); incident occurred during work; something was stolen; theft insurance for one of the stolen items; police were informed; media report on the incident; wish for media report; rather good or rather bad that it was reported in media; reporting in newspapers (also online editions), on (internet) television, on (internet) radio, in other medium); reporting only on the incident or also on the respondent personally; assessment of reporting on own person as fair or unfair; hate crime: Reason for victim selection (victim´s religion, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, disability, skin colour, origin, age, political world view, social status, other reason (open naming)). Additional questions - only for the last (or only) victimisation: police were informed about the incident by the respondent, partner, family member, friend, other person, or police were on the scene; how were the police informed; report filed; person who filed report; document signed at the police station; reasons why the incident was not reported to the police (e.g. (e.g. crime not serious, cleared up by family, reported to another authority, not insured, would not have helped, fear of police, fear of retaliation); reasons for reporting (to get compensation from offender or insurance, crime should always be reported, punishment of offender, serious crime so that it does not happen again, because of loss of official documents); satisfaction with police in dealing with incident; reasons for dissatisfaction with police (e.g. did too little or did not do enough); reasons for dissatisfaction with police (e.g. did too little or did too little); reasons for dissatisfaction with police (e.g. did too little or did too little); reasons for dissatisfaction with police (e.g. did too little or did too little). (e.g. did too little or worked too slowly, was not interested, did not keep me informed, etc.); replacement value of stolen items (in euros); number of perpetrators involved in the last robbery; interviewee was able to see the perpetrator or one or more perpetrators; familiarity of the perpetrator(s) (at least one perpetrator related, at least one perpetrator from acquaintances or friends, at least one perpetrator known by sight, all perpetrators unknown); perpetrator was armed or at least one of the perpetrators had a weapon. at least one of the perpetrators had a weapon; type of weapon (firearm, knife, other sharp object, blunt object, other weapon or object); weapon was used (also only threat); respondent suffered injuries in the last robbery; medical care for the injuries suffered; how bad was the last incident for the respondent. Assault: in the last 12 months or earlier; frequency of assault in the last 12 months; incident happened in Germany; frequency of incidents in Germany; federal state; open mention to city or town recorded; location; number of perpetrators; type of assault (was beaten, choked, burned, sprayed with irritant gas, stabbed with knife or similar, injured with firearm or other weapon, etc.). injured, injured with firearm or other weapon, other assault); perpetrator/at least one of the perpetrators also had a weapon; police were informed; media report on the incident; wish for media report; rather good or rather bad that it was reported in media; reporting in newspapers (also online editions), on (internet) television, on (internet) radio, in other medium); reporting only on the incident or also on the respondent personally; assessment of reporting on own person as fair or unfair; hate crime: Reason for victim selection (victim´s religion, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, disability, skin colour, origin, age, political world view, social status, other reason (open naming)). Additional questions - only for the last (or only) victimisation: police were informed about the incident by the respondent, partner, family member, friend, other person, or police were on the scene; how were the police informed; report filed; person who filed report; document signed with police; reasons why incident was not reported to police (e.g. offence not serious, resolved by family, reported to another agency, insured, would not have helped, fear of police, fear of retaliation) reasons for reporting (to get compensation from the perpetrator or the insurance company, crimes should always be reported, punishment of the perpetrator, serious crime so that it does not happen again, because of loss of official documents); satisfaction with the police in dealing with the incident; reasons for dissatisfaction with the police (e.g. did too little or worked too slowly, was not interested, did not keep me informed, etc.); respondent was able to see the perpetrator or one or more of the perpetrators; familiarity of perpetrator(s) (one was spouse or former spouse, partner, at least one perpetrator related, at least one perpetrator known from acquaintances or friends, at least one perpetrator known by sight, all perpetrators unknown); injuries sustained in last assault; medical care for injuries sustained; how bad was the last incident for the respondent. Demography: sex; highest level of education (recoded); educational attainment: ISCED-97); employment status; marital status; steady partner; living with partner; number of children in the household up to and including 15 years or 16 and 17 years in the household; change in number of persons in the household in the last 5 years; citizenship; other citizenship; second citizenship; citizenship non-German; country of birth; year of immigration; country of birth of mother and father; year of immigration of father and mother; all grandparents born in the FRG, GDR or former German eastern territories; at least one grandparent born in Turkey or the former Soviet Union; migration background; first/second generation migration background; own migration experience; migration experience of father, mother, parents; religious denomination; net household income; federal state; equipment telecommunications media and accessibility: Number of landline telephone numbers in the household; accessibility (yesterday, the day before yesterday, 3 days ago); accessibility via other telephone (mobile or landline) landline); accessibility via other telephone (yesterday, the day before, 3 days ago); number of active mobile phone numbers of other household members (at least 16 years old). Additionally coded was: Participation: survey wave; participation in modules (Module 1 Wave 1: Fear of Crime (only collected in 2012), Module 1 Wave 1: Media Use (only collected in 2012), Module 1: Social Psychological Perspectives and Attitudes, Module 2: Crime-Related Attitudes, Module 3: Disorder/ Incivilities, Module 4: Feeling of Safety with Internet Use and Model 5: Crime-Specific Fear of Crime; participation justice questions (not included in Wave 1 (2012); vignette set 2012; vignette set 2017. Sample identifier: sample (basic sample, boost sample, onomastic sample); flag variable for states for boost cases; identifier onomastic cases; flag variable for (potential) onomastic sample (only for 2012); fixed or mobile phone sample; main study or conversion study. Weights: selection probabilities (Wave 1 only, e.g. base sample/boost sample case number normalised persons/households, onomastic sample persons/households; design weights, extrapolation factors; stratification of sample for complex-sample design weighting; auxiliary variables. Paradata: Postcode (or parts thereof) available or missing information; Interview language (onomastics sample); Baseline and top-up: language of final outcome contact; Interview language, summarised; Interview identifier; Interview start allowed; Interview date (day, month, year); Interview start (hour, minute); Total interview duration in seconds. Interview identifier; sex of interviewer; age groups of interviewer; duration of interviewer staff membership in years; number of realised interviews per interviewer. Derived variables on victimisation, prevalences (12-month prevalences, 5-year prevalences) and reporting rate.Der Deutsche Viktimisierungssurvey ist eine im Auftrag des Bundeskriminalamts (BKA) durchgeführte Dunkelfelderhebung mit dem Ziel umfassende Informationen über die Themen Kriminalitätsfurcht, Opfererfahrungen und Anzeigeverhalten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zu sammeln. Weitere Schwerpunkte der Erhebung waren Betrugsdelikte mit EC- und Kreditkarte oder im Internet sowie kriminalitätsbezogene Einstellungen. Die als Querschnitterhebung konzipierte Studie wurde erstmals 2012 durchgeführt und 2017 mit einem leicht modifizierten Erhebungsinstrument wiederholt. In computerunterstützten Telefoninterviews (CATI) wurde jeweils eine repräsentative Stichprobe der bundesdeutschen Bevölkerung ab 16 Jahren befragt. Dabei wurden die Interviews in beiden Erhebungen in den Sprachen Deutsch, Türkisch und Russisch durchgeführt. Der hier vorliegende kumulierte Datensatz enthält die vollständigen Daten der beiden Erhebungen und ermöglicht so die Messung von Veränderungen zwischen 2012 und 2017. Themen: 1. Anzahl der Haushaltsmitglieder ab 16 Jahren (Festnetzstichprobe/ Gesamtstichprobe); Haushaltsgröße; Haushaltstyp; Alter; Altersgruppe; Lebenszufriedenheit, Vertrauen; Selbsteinschätzung des Gesundheitszustands; allgemeines Personenvertrauen; Institutionenvertrauen (Bundesregierung, Gerichte, Polizei, Politische Parteien, Bundeskriminalamt (BKA), Staatsanwaltschaft). 2. Kriminalitätsbezogene Einstellungen: Kontakt mit der Polizei in den letzten 12 Monaten; Anlass für den Polizeikontakt (Anzeigen einer Straftat, auf der Straße angehalten, als Zeuge befragt, Unfall, als Verdächtiger, beruflicher Kontakt, Informationen oder Hinweise gegeben, um Hilfe oder Rat zu bekommen, anderer Anlass); Zufriedenheit mit der Behandlung durch die Polizei beim letzten Kontakt;

Auslaenderkriminalitaet in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Bundeskriminalamt Wiesbaden, KI 11 / FIZ - Fachinformationszzentrum Karlsruhe / TIB - Technische InformationsbibliothekSIGLEDEGerman

Wirtschaftskriminalitaet Arbeitstagung des Bundeskriminalamtes Wiesbaden vom 18.-21.10.1983

Bibliothek Weltwirtschaft Kiel C125,150 / FIZ - Fachinformationszzentrum Karlsruhe / TIB - Technische InformationsbibliothekSIGLEDEGerman

Organisierte Kriminalitaet Vortraege und Diskussionen bei der Arbeitstagung des Bundeskriminalamts vom 19. bis 22. November 1996

Im Mittelpunkt der Tagung standen fuenf Themenkomplexe: (1) Organisierte Kriminalitaet als Herausforderung der nationalen und internationalen Rechts- und Kriminalpolitik; (2) Strategien zur Bekaempfung der Organisierten Kriminalitaet aus international vergleichender Perspektive; (3) Oekonomische Implikationen der Organisierten Kriminalitaet als neue Herausforderung fuer Kriminalistik und Kriminologie; (4) Praeventionsmoeglichkeiten gegen Organisierte Kriminalitaet. Die einzelnen Themen werden anhand von Beispielen aus der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, den Niederlanden und den USA sowie aus der Perspektive von Europol und Interpol behandelt. (ICE2)Available from UuStB Koeln(38)-970106633 / FIZ - Fachinformationszzentrum Karlsruhe / TIB - Technische InformationsbibliothekSIGLEDEGerman