Please be aware of the following revisions and corrections within the SCJS:
SCJS 2017/18 Main Findings Report
An updated version of the 2017-18 SCJS Main Report, which supersedes the original, was published in July 2019. The latest version updates an error in Chapter 3 (PDF page 48). Originally, the report stated that “the proportion of cases involving offenders aged 40 and over had increased from 12% in 2008/09” to 23% in 2017/18. This 2008/09 figure should have been 18%, however, which meant that the apparent increase was not statistically significant. All figures for 2017/18 remained unchanged.
SCJS 2014/15 Technical Report
An updated version of the 2014-15 SCJS Technical Report, which supersedes the original, was published in March 2017. The latest version updates the fieldwork outcomes tables 3.1 and 3.2 with the corrected number and proportion of cases assigned to specific non-response and ineligible categories. This does not affect the overall response rate. The tables in Annex 11 have also been updated, with corrected design factors (the original tables contained design effects, the square of the design factors).
SCJS 2014/15 Main Findings excel tables
The 2014/15 Main Findings Excel dataset tables were republished on 7 July 2016. The formula bar in the new tables now provides results to three decimal places, rather than two decimal places, enhancing the ability for users to conduct statistical significance testing using the SCJS 2014-15 Statistical Testing Tool.
SJCS 2012/13 Partner Abuse Report
The 2012/13 SCJS Partner Abuse Report included analysis on who victims tell about their abuse (section 4.2) and on reporting to the police (section 4.3). Each of these sections was split into two parts. These two parts were described as being based on the most recent incident and based on any other incident. The part noted as being based on the most recent incident is correct and includes all respondents, however the parts based ‘any other incident’ included the 213 respondents who experienced one of more incidents of partner abuse in the last 12 months (and excluded 21 respondents who refused to answer or said they didn’t know how many times they experienced partner abuse in the last 12 month). The 2014/15 SCJS Partner Abuse Report presents results based only on the most recent incident and includes all respondents.
Please note that the pdf version of the SCJS Main Findings Report has been updated and now can be printed in its entirety.
Please note that the one of the points in the main findings section of Chapter 5 of the 2012-13 SCJS report has been changed to “Nearly one-in-four violent crimes (23%) went unreported to the police because the victim “dealt with the matter themselves” and 14% of violent crimes were unreported because the incident was considered a personal or family matter.” from “Nearly one-in-ten violent crimes (9%) went unreported to the police because the victim “dealt with the matter themselves” and 14% of violent crimes were unreported because the incident was considered a personal or family matter.” This change has been made to both the HTML and pdf versions originally released on the 7 March 2014.
SCJS Drug Use Reports : 2008/09 to 2012/13
During the quality assurance process in advance of publication of the SCJS 2014/15 Drug Use report in June 2016, a small number of relatively minor errors were found in previous iterations of the report. These involve
the classification of amphetamines in the 2012/13 report and published data tables;
some minor inaccuracies in the values in annex data tables in the 2012/13 report for amphetamines, crack, cannabis, anabolic steroids and tranquilisers;
description of the base sizes for the analysis of the experiences of those using drugs in some instances in the 2010/11 and 2012/13 reports; and
the placement of crystal meth within annex data tables in each report since 2008/09;
The 2014/15 SCJS Drug Use report corrects each of these points and should be used for time series data on SCJS Drug Use. Further details are available here.
SCJS Design Factors for 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11
A change in sample structure in the 2012/13 SCJS highlighted an error in the calculation of design factors that were presented in Annex A4 and Table A4.1 of the 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11 SCJS surveys.
In summary, while the 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11 surveys do present accurate complex standard errors and confidence intervals, the calculation of the survey design factor (a measure of the survey efficiency) did not take account of survey weighting correctly. More information on this is highlighted in Annex A4 of the 2012/13 SCJS report, and also summarised here with more details of the design factor change.
The ‘generic’ 1.5 design factor that our additional calculations has derived has been used to update Table A4.1 for the 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11 surveys.