International Journal on Criminology Volume 1, Number 1, Fall 2013 | Page 68
Competition Between Those Involved in Public Debate on Crime Statistics
The CESDIP, producing statistics positioning themselves outwith official statistics,
did not react in public debate regarding contents of productions from the ONDRP, what
would have been allowed, in particular, for questioning their appropriateness for
principles of the code of good practice of European statistics. It chose to discredit the
ONDRP, in theory as it does not belong to the “scientific world” However, such criticism
appears off subject regarding producers of official statistics aiming, not as a scientific
label, but as “public statistics”.
For every researcher, the most relevant means for expressing needs and eventually its
grievances regarding public statistics consists of addressing the CNIS, the national
council of statistical information. In doing so, it does not position itself in a situation of
competition but as a user of statistics distributed by official producers.
Thus, on the June 15, 2011, before the commission “Public services and services to
the public” of the CNIS 29 , in a short speech, Philippe Robert provided comment which
might appear as a first element of interpretation of the reaction of the CESDIP of what it
perceived as competition in the field of victimization studies.
Philippe Robert criticized the ONDRP without specifically naming it, for having
given in to the “temptation of constantly starting afresh, in order to have the satisfaction
of showing that they are the experts. ”
For the CESDIP, the date at which it is presented into public debate as the first
national victimization study is a major issue as it determines the status and the eventual
reputation of its team of researchers in this field.
The initiative of the annual victimization studies “Cadre de vie et sécurité” starting in
2007, this date seems to enter into competition in public debate with “the initial study in
the middle of the 1980s” (Miceli, Névanen, Robert, and Zauberman 2009).
Forgetting to remind us that the CESDIP was a first in France in terms of
victimization studies “to have the satisfaction of showing that they are the experts. ” only
exacerbates “tensions” with the ONDRP.
In its opinion, the CNIS a major part of public statistics demonstrates itself as being
more positive regarding the study and the ONDRP in general: “the current tools for
collection presenting technical weaknesses which limit the capacities of public powers to
respond as precisely as possible to these different expectations (in terms of knowledge
regarding criminality) despite important progress carried out since the creation of the
ONDRP the positive collaboration which is involved between the head of police and
gendarmeries and the ONDRO and significant support from the annual “Cadre de vie et
sécurité” study.”
The CESDIP would undoubtedly have been less sensitive to the attention brought to
its study in the 1980s if the development of “Cadre de vie et sécurité” studies led by
INSEE and the ONDRP had not provoked a feeling of removal of the pioneer team.
In a country like France, the design of an annual national victimization study. This
was something which could only be imagined within the public statistics system. From
then on, the researchers could not have a role in the process of development as important
as statisticians from INSEE in charge of the project, with little experience on the subject
of victimization.
The project was started by an external request to the ministerial statistics service of
the national education board via a recommendation from the board of adviser of the
ONDRP renewed several times and insisted upon by its president at the ministry. It could
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
29 http://www.cnis.fr/files/content/sites/Cnis/files/Fichiers/commissions/services_publics_services_a
ux_publics/2011/compte_rendu/CR_2011_1re_COM_services_publics.PDF
67