Working Group Meeting: Statistics on Crime and Criminal Justice 15 March 2017, Luxembourg Review of 2016 joint Eurostat-UNODC data collection Solène Larue, GOPA Luxembourg Sàrl Arsela Sturc, GOPA Luxembourg Sàrl Eurostat

Presentation plan Introduction Overall response Metadata and Methodological guide Areas where there were some difficulties Conclusions

Introduction Joint Eurostat-UNODC data collection was put into operation in July 2014 Two key aims: to reduce the burden to improve the quality of the official statistics on crime The year 2016 was the third time with a joint questionnaire

Introduction

Overall response 2016 questionnaire: covered 37 jurisdictions / 41 297 data items six years 2010-2015 More than half of the data requested was transmitted to Eurostat. Variation by the category of data.  

Number of data items required Overall response Data category Number of data items required 2015 EU Member States All Jurisdictions Data for 2010-2015 Data for 2015 Police 132 50% 51% 54% Personnel 3 85% 84% 86% 87% Intentional homicide 7 81% 76% 80% Specified offences 11 93% 92% Formal contact 18 69% 71% 73% Intentional homicide victims 59 36% 38% 42% Intentional homicide perpetrators 27 32% 33% 37% Rape and sexual assault 70% 72% Prosecution 16 68% 60% 65% 62% Courts 49 61% 63% 64% 31 66% Cases processed 49% 53% 57% Prisons 30 Capacity and staff 8 Persons held 22 UNODC modules 70 30% 34% Prisons module 34 55% Victimization survey module 36 12% 16% 10% 15% All categories 297 Specified offences: Assault, sexual violence, rape, robbery, kidnapping, theft, motor vehicle theft, burglary, drug trafficking

Metadata and Methodological guide Methodological guide for users Only additional references were added Quality report For 2015 data collection is now available Extent of missing metadata Uncertain counting rules, coverage that were reported different from last year

Difficulties Use of eDAMIS : Coordination of national data sent files by email used incorrect file names Coordination of national data Incomplete or missing data

Conclusion Members of the Working Group are invited to comment on: The extent to which the missing information referred to metadata by country could be improved. The consistency in metadata Any other suggestion from MB for further improvements

Thank you for your attention !