1. Working Group Meeting: Statistics on Crime and Criminal Justice 10 March 2016, Luxembourg
Review of 2015 joint Eurostat-UNODC data collection Solène Larue, GOPA Luxembourg Sàrl Anissa Amjahad, GOPA Luxembourg Sàrl
Eurostat

2. Presentation plan
Introduction
Overall response
Additional documentation
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 2015 was the second time with a joint questionnaire

4. Introduction

5. Overall response 2015 questionnaire:
covered 40 jurisdictions / 41
292 data items
six years
Around 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
EU Member States
All Jurisdictions
Data for
Data for
Police
132
49%
52%
50%
51%
Personnel 3
83%
82%
80%
Intentional homicide offences 9
75%
78%
Other specified offences 13
88%
89%
86%
85%
Formal contact 18
69%
72%
68%
70%
Intentional homicide victims
(intimate partner/family member) 6
48%
47%
Other intentional homicide victims 53
33%
35%
36%
Intentional homicide perpetrators 23
32%
37%
31%
Rape and sexual assault additional data 7
64%
63%
71%
Other specified offences: Assault, sexual violence, rape, robbery, kidnapping, theft, motor vehicle theft, burglary, drug trafficking

7. Number of data items required
Overall response
Data category
Number of data items required
EU Member States
All Jurisdictions
Data for
Data for
Prosecution 16
65%
56%
64%
Courts 46
61%
60%
59%
58%
Personnel 28
57%
55%
Cases processed 18
66%
63%
62%
Prisons 29
71%
69%
70%
68%
Capacity and staff 9
Persons held 20
78%
73%
76%
UNODC modules 69
30%
35%
27%
31%
Prisons module 34
49%
52%
46%
50%
Victimization survey module 35
11%
18% 9%
13%
All categories
292
51%

8.  Extent of missing metadata
Additional documentation
Annex 2 : Metadata
 Extent of missing metadata
Annex 3 : Methodological guide
Quality report 

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

10. Conclusion Members of the Working Group are invited to comment on:
the extent to which the completion rates referred to in Section 2 could be improved;
the possibility of providing the missing data referred to in Section 3;
the draft reference metadata in Annex 2; and
the draft table of contents of the methodological guide.
Thanks ! Any questions ?