1. 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

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

3. 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

4. Introduction

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

6. Number of data items required
Overall response
Data category
Number of data items required
2015
EU Member States
All Jurisdictions
Data for
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

7. 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

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

9. 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

10. Thank you for your attention !