ernesto.savona@unicatt.it transcrime.unitn.it

1. EUSTOC - Developing an EU STatistical Apparatus for measuring Organised Crime, assessing its risk and evaluating organised crime policies A Study financed by the European Commission – DG JHA under the 2003 AGIS Programme A presentation by ERNESTO U. SAVONA and BARBARA VETTORI for the meeting of the Task Force “Statistics on crime, victimisation and criminal justice” Luxembourg, 2-3 March 2006 ernesto.savona@unicatt.it http://www.transcrime.unitn.it

2. FUNDING AND PARTNERS Funding and partners • 2003 AGIS Programme of the European Commission • Leader: • TRANSCRIME, Joint Research Centre on Transnational Crime - Università di Trento/Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (Italy) • Partners: • THE APPLIED CRIMINOLOGY GROUP - University of Huddersfield (The United Kingdom) • the CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE (France) • and EUROPOL as ‘Associate Support Member’ • ICJS Co-Director

3. AIM OF THE PROJECT To analyse the state of the art of existing data sources on OC set up at international, regional and national (within the EU) levels in terms of who collects statistics on OC, what kind of data are collected and how these are collected (data collection criteria) . This in order to evidence common points (symmetries) and divergences (asymmetries) in the collection of these data. Aim and objectives of the Project

4. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT • to analyse and compare international data sources on OC, in order to identify the points they have in common (symmetries) and their divergences (asymmetries) • to analyse and compare regional data sources on OC, in order to identify the points they have in common (symmetries) and their divergences (asymmetries) • to analyse and compare national data sources on OC in the EU MSs, in order to identify the points they have in common (symmetries) and their divergences (asymmetries) Aim and objectives of the Project

5. WHY MAP AND COMPARE EXISTING DATA SOURCES ON OC? • produces an in depth knowledge of the contents and mechanisms used for the collection of data on the phenomenon • with regards to the EU framework, this is the necessary background knowledge for the development of comparable statistics on OC at an EU level, and therefore of a coherent EU statistical apparatus in this field • this would in turn promote a better knowledge of the phenomenon and the development of fine-tuned policy and practical measures to combat it Why map and compare existing data sources on OC?

6. FINDINGS - NATIONAL (MS) DATA SOURCES ON ORGANISED CRIME The national systems were compared on the basis of: • key features of the OC data collection system • variables on OC collected • main organisations collecting data on OC and their relationship to bodies bringing together the data collated by each collecting organisation • quality of the procedures for collecting data on OC • dissemination of data on OC Findings

7. A) Comparing the key features of OC data collection systems in the 15 EU MS • OC definition(s) used to collect data in the MSs: not fully harmonised yet • OC data collection system typologies in the MSs: most countries have offence-based systems, but there are also offender-based and mixed systems • relation between ordinary crime data sources/OC data sources: only in 8 out of the 15 MSs are there specific data sources for OC or at least specific sections for it within ordinary crime data sources • time of collection of the data on OC: significant differences among the MSs Findings

8. B) Comparing the variables on OC collected in the 15 EU MSs • variables on organised criminal groups and members collected in the 15 MS: most variables are common to most MSs, but different modalities and data collection techniques • variables on organised criminal groups and members collected in the 15 MSs: a limited number of MSs collect data on variables crucial to understand the level of penetration and corruption of the legal economy by OC and its financial basis • variables on organised criminal activities: lack of a predetermined set of variables common to all MSs Findings

9. C) Comparing the main organisations collecting data on OC in the 15 EU MSs and their relationship with coordination bodies • collecting organisations and coordination bodies: police forces, at local/regional and central level • other collecting organisations: business entities collect a variety of data, but do not share them with the public sector • level of cooperation with coordination bodies by collecting organisations: good in most MSs • tools and media employed by coordination bodies to bring together data on OC collected by collecting organisations: a variety of tools and media • time intervals at which the transmission of data on OC to coordination body/ies takes place: continuous data transmission in the majority of the MSs • feedback from coordination bodies to collecting organisations: a good practice that occurs in the majority of the MSs Findings

10. D) Comparing the quality of the procedures for collecting data on OC in the 15 EU MSs • usefulness and reliability of OC data: good in the majority of the MSs • consistency of OC data: good in the majority of the MSs • national and EU comparability of OC data: national comparability is almost always possible, EU comparability is more problematic • timeliness of updating of OC data: annual in most MSs • consequences of acquittal of OC suspects after criminal proceedings on the OC database: most MSs retain the information for a given period of time Findings

11. E) Comparing the dissemination of data on OC in the 15 EU MSs • degree of dissemination of data on OC in the 15 EU MSs: in most MSs only some collected data are disseminated, and not always according to the level of breakdown followed by the collecting organisations • production of an annual report on OC in the 15 EU MSs: all but one MSs do this • beneficiaries of dissemination of data on OC in the 15 EU MSs: normally restricted circulation • media used for disseminating data on OC in the 15 EU MSs: a variety of media, including electronic means • quality of the disseminated materials on OC in the 15 EU MSs: good in terms of layout, insufficient in terms of the availability of metadata Findings

12. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION (1) • promote the adoption of Enfopol 35 as an operational definition for the collection of data on OC, as well as its uniform interpretation • invite MSs with offence-based systems to adopt a offender-based system, whether exclusively or cumulatively • invite MSs to set up specific data sources for OC or at least specific sections for it within ordinary crime data sources • invite MSs to use common modalities to measure the same variable on OC groups/members and promote the harmonisation of data collection techniques to the widest possible extent Recommendations

13. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2) • invite MSs to collect information on those variables on OC groups/members crucial to understand the financial basis of OC and its level of penetration and corruption of the legal economy • invite MSs to collect information on at least one set of common variables related to OC activities • invite MSs to integrate national police data sources on OC and those managed by other public agencies • invite MSs to integrate public and private data sources on OC • invite MSs to systematically require coordination bodies to provide collecting organisations with feedback • invite the EU Commission to take advice from a standing expert group on the measurement of OC Recommendations

14. EUSTOC - Developing an EU STatistical Apparatus for measuring Organised Crime, assessing its risk and evaluating organised crime policies A Study financed by the European Commission – DG JHA under the 2003 AGIS Programme A presentation by ERNESTO U. SAVONA and BARBARA VETTORI for the meeting of the Task Force “Statistics on crime, victimisation and criminal justice” Luxembourg, 2-3 March 2006 ernesto.savona@unicatt.it http://www.transcrime.unitn.it