MODERNIZING
CRIME STATISTICS

Report 2–New Systems for Measuring Crime

Panel on Modernizing the Nation’s Crime Statistics

Janet L. Lauritsen and Daniel L. Cork, Editors

Committee on National Statistics
Committee on Law and Justice

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

A Consensus Study Report of

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

The project that is the subject of this report was supported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, via a grant from the National Science Foundation (No. SES-1024012) that permits a consortium of federal agencies to support the work of the Committee on National Statistics. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-47261-6
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-47261-X
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25035

Additional copies of this publication are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2018 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Modernizing Crime Statistics—Report 2: New Systems for Measuring Crime. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25035.

PANEL ON MODERNIZING THE NATION’S CRIME STATISTICS

JANET L. LAURITSEN,^* (Chair), Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri–St. Louis

DANIEL B. BIBEL, Crime Reporting Unit, Massachusetts State Police, Maynard (retired)

JONATHAN P. CAULKINS, Heinz College of Information Systems and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University

KIM ENGLISH, Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety

ROBERT M. GOERGE, Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago

NOLA M. JOYCE, Philadelphia Police Department (retired)

DAVID MCDOWALL, Violence Research Group, University at Albany, State University of New York

JENNIFER H. MADANS, National Center for Health Statistics

MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Department of Criminology, Law, and Justice, University of Illinois at Chicago (emeritus) and Criminal Justice Research Center, Ohio State University

MICHAEL C. MILLER, Coral Gables Police Department, Florida

JAMES J. NOLAN, III, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, West Virginia University

AMY O’HARA, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, Stanford University

JOHN V. PEPPER, Department of Economics, University of Virginia

ALEX R. PIQUERO, School of Economic, Political, and Policy Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas

JEFFREY L. SEDGWICK,^† Justice Research and Statistics Association, Washington, DC

JAMES P. LYNCH, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland (Consultant to the panel)

PAUL K. WORMELI, Wormeli Consulting, LLC, Ashburn, Virginia (Consultant to the panel and liaison from Committee on Law and Justice)

DANIEL L. CORK, Study Director

SETH HAUSER, Senior Program Officer (February–October 2015)

EDWARD SPAR, Senior Program Officer (through September 2014)

MICHAEL SIRI, Program Associate

JORDYN WHITE, Program Officer

___________________

^* Served as member of the panel from formation through December 8, 2014.

^† Served as chair of the panel from formation through December 8, 2014, following appointment as executive director of the Justice Research and Statistics Association.

COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL STATISTICS 2018

ROBERT M. GROVES (Chair), Office of the Provost, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, and Department of Sociology, Georgetown University

FRANCINE BLAU, Department of Economics, Cornell University

MARY ELLEN BOCK, Department of Statistics, Purdue University

ANNE C. CASE, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University

MICHAEL CHERNEW, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School

JANET CURRIE, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University

DONALD A. DILLMAN, Department of Sociology, Washington State University

CONSTANTINE GATSONIS, Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University

JAMES S. HOUSE, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

THOMAS L. MESENBOURG, Retired; formerly, U.S. Census Bureau

SARAH M. NUSSER, Department of Statistics, Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology, Iowa State University

COLM A. O’MUIRCHEARTAIGH, Harris School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago, and NORC at the University of Chicago

JEROME P. REITER, Department of Statistical Science, Duke University

ROBERTO RIGOBON, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

JUDITH A. SELTZER, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles

EDWARD H. SHORTLIFFE, Columbia University and Arizona State University

BRIAN HARRIS-KOJETIN, Director

CONSTANCE F. CITRO, Senior Scholar

COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE 2018

ROBERT D. CRUTCHFIELD (Chair), Department of Sociology, University of Washington (emeritus)

SALLY S. SIMPSON (Vice-chair), Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland

PREETI CHAUHAN, John Jay College of Criminal Justice

KIMBERLÉ W. CRENSHAW, School of Law, University of California, Los Angeles

JOHN J. DONOHUE III, Stanford Law School, Stanford University

MARK S. JOHNSON, Department of Community and Family Medicine, Howard University

MARK A.R. KLEIMAN, Marron Institute of Urban Management, New York University

JAMES P. LYNCH, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland

KAREN MATHIS, Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, University of Denver

DANIEL S. NAGIN, H. John Heinz III College of Public Policy and Information Systems, Carnegie Mellon University

ANNE MORRISON PIEHL, Department of Economics and Program in Criminal Justice, Rutgers University

STEVEN RAPHAEL, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley

LAURIE O. ROBINSON, Department of Criminology, Law, and Society, George Mason University

CYNTHIA RUDIN, Departments of Computer Science and Electrical and Computer Engineering and Prediction Analysis Lab, Duke University

SUSAN B. SORENSON, School of Social Policy and Practice, University of Pennsylvania

LINDA A. TEPLIN, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University

HEATHER ANN THOMPSON, Department of History, University of Michigan

BRUCE WESTERN, Department of Sociology, Harvard University

KATHI GRASSO, Director

This page intentionally left blank.

Acknowledgments

THE PANEL ON MODERNIZING THE NATION’S CRIME STATISTICS is pleased to submit this second and final report on modernizing the collection of data on crime in the United States. Of necessity, because most of the data gathering for this final report took place during preparation of our first report, these acknowledgments are virtually identical to those in Report 1. We trust that it will be understood that the repetition is not meant to diminish our appreciation of the time and talent of all those who have contributed to the panel’s work.

Both of our sponsoring agencies—the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)—committed considerable resources and attention to our study, for which we are greatly appreciative. Former BJS director William Sabol, deputy director Gerard Ramker, and deputy and acting director Jeri Mulrow provided constant support; we owe much to senior statistical advisor Allen Beck for his discussions of his participation with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) expert work group on crime classification; and we thank the other BJS staff who gave unyieldingly of their time, including Howard Snyder, Michael Planty, and Erica Smith. At FBI/CJIS, Amy Blasher provided valuable assistance and liaison to our panel as Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program manager, Crime Statistics Management unit chief, and UCR Modernization manager; Samuel Berhanu provided updates to the panel after succeeding Blasher as Crime Statistics Management unit chief. Michelle Klimt was instrumental in the creation of this project during her time as chief of the CJIS Law Enforcement Support Section, and John Derbas has continued to provide assistance. We have also benefited from extensive interaction with statisticians James Noonan and Cynthia Barnett-Ryan, from the engagement of Randall Thysse in our work, and from a discussion with executive assistant director for the Science and Technology Branch Amy Hess

during her tenure in that position. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget provided the essential encouragement for BJS and FBI to jointly sponsor this review; we are particularly grateful to Rochelle Martinez and the Statistical and Science Policy Office.

The production of a modern classification of crime, in Report 1, is arguably the major product and weightiest conceptual lift of this project. In the development of our proposed classification—from which stems the discussion in this second report—we remain greatly indebted to the work of a UNODC expert work group established to draft an International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes. Angela Me, chief of the UNODC’s Research and Trend Analysis Branch, traveled to speak to our panel in person at our second meeting, and Michael Jandl (research officer in the Statistics and Survey Division) graciously stepped in on short notice to give a brief overview of the UNODC work by teleconference at our first meeting. We note that the UNODC work group is continuing to work out the methodological and implementation issues of the kind we address in this report and look forward to continued cooperation, and have appreciated the opportunity to discuss the work at conferences on international crime, justice, and governance statistics.

With continued appreciation, we refer readers to Appendix B of Report 1—the detailed list of participant stakeholders from our panel’s data-gathering meetings. We again thank all the speakers and participants who enriched our discussions with their wide-ranging perspectives (and shared interest in high-quality crime and justice data), and look forward to continued collaboration in implementation stages.

At the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Michael Siri provided expert and always considerate assistance in managing the logistics of this very active study panel. For a little more than 6 critical months in 2015, the panel had the invaluable assistance of Seth Hauser, who took to a short-term assignment as senior program officer with gusto and deftly constructed the agenda for two of our panel meetings. Program officer Jordyn White assisted with our proceedings. Daniel Cork served as study director for this project and deserves special recognition. His skills for incorporating large amounts of technical and organizational data on crime statistics with insights from data users, providers, and panel members were inimitable and invaluable to the writing of this report.

This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.

We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Thomas Abt, Harvard Law School; John J. Donohue III, Stanford Law School; John Jackson, Patrol Region 3, Houston Police, Houston, TX; Angela Me, Research and Trend Analysis Branch, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime; Peter Reuter, School of Public Policy and Department of Criminology, University of Maryland, College Park; John Roman, NORC at the University of Chicago; and Max Schlueter, The Crime Research Group, Montpelier, VT.

Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Alfred Blumstein, H. John Heinz III College of Public Policy and Information Systems, Carnegie Mellon University, and Philip J. Cook, Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.

Janet L. Lauritsen, Chair
Panel on Modernizing the Nation’s Crime Statistics

This page intentionally left blank.

Contents

Summary

1 Introduction

1.1 The Panel and Its Charge

1.2 Redefining Crime

1.3 Limitations of This Study

1.4 Structure of This Report

2 “Traditional” and “New” Crime: Structuring a Modern Crime Statistics Enterprise

2.1 Matching New Classification to Current Practice

2.2 Contours of a Modern National Crime Statistics Infrastructure

2.2.1 Measuring Crime, Not “Enumerating” It

2.2.2 Putting Crime in Context, Alternative Metrics for Crime, and the Harms Imposed by Crime

2.2.3 New Systems for New and Traditional Crimes

2.2.4 Using the Crime Classification as Blueprint

3 Coordination and Governance of Modern National Crime Statistics

3.1 Taking Ownership of Crime Statistics: Defining Coordination and Governance Functions

3.1.1 Ideal Coordination and Governance Roles

3.1.2 Who Should Coordinate and Govern, and How?

3.2 Recasting Crime Data Collection as a Federal-State Cooperative Program

3.2.1 Observations from State Crime Reporting Laws and Regulations

3.2.2 Examples of Federal-State Cooperative Programs in the Statistical System

3.2.3 State Statistical Analysis Centers (SACs)

3.3 Data Reporting and Dissemination

3.4 Remaining Implementation and Methodology Issues

3.5 Conclusion

References

Appendixes

A Charge to the Panel

B Historical Themes in the Development of U.S. National Crime Statistics

B.1 Early Days: Crime Statistics as Tool for Discovery

B.2 Push for More Detail, Almost From the Start

B.3 Recurring Assumption: The Depth of In-House Local Law Enforcement Data

B.4 Ossification of Concepts, Divergence of Crime Statistics from Their Use, and the 1958 Program Review

B.5 Emergence of the National Crime Victimization Survey

B.6 The Blueprint and the Development of the National Incident-Based Reporting System

B.7 The Status Quo: “New” Crimes in “Old” Structures

B.8 National Crime Statistics Exchange, Sunsetting the Summary Counts, and the Path Ahead

C Coverage of Classification in Current National Crime Statistics

C.1 Correspondence of Offense Categories to Current Crime Statistics

C.2 Correspondence of Suggested Attributes to Currently Collected Data Elements

C.2.1 Incident-Level Attributes

C.2.2 Per-Offense Attributes, General

C.2.3 Per-Offense Attributes, Victim/Offender Relationship

C.2.4 Victim Attributes

C.2.5 Offender Attributes

D Remaining Methodology and Implementation Issues for Modern Crime Statistics

D.1 Avoiding the NIBRS Development Pitfalls

D.2 Ensuring Data Quality

D.3 Putting Crime in Context and Enabling Effective Comparisons

D.4 Businesses and Organizations as Actors in Crime Statistics

E Excerpted State Legal Requirements for Crime Reporting

F Cautionary Tales from International Experience: Police-Report Crime Statistics in the United Kingdom

G Biographical Sketches of Panel Members and Staff

This page intentionally left blank.

List of Figures, Tables, and Boxes

FIGURE

2.1 Sequence of events in the criminal justice system.

TABLE

2.1 Summary, Match Between Panel’s Proposed Classification and National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

BOXES

S.1 “Traditional” and “New” Crime Types, In Proposed Classification

1.1 Component Forms and Data Collections in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program

3.1 Principles and Practices for a Federal Statistical Agency

3.2 Current Legal and Regulatory Mandates for the Collection of National Crime Statistics

B.1 Recommendations of Commissioned Expert Panel Review of Uniform Crime Reporting Program, 1958

B.2 Recommendations of the Uniform Crime Reporting Study Task Force, 1984

B.3 “Benefits of Participation” in the National Incident-Based Reporting System, 1992

C.1 Circumstances of Homicide Coded in Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR)

C.2 Counts and Summary Statistics Required by Monthly Supplement to Return A, Uniform Crime Reporting Program

C.3 Central Definitions in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Statute

D.1 Framework for Measuring Crime and Public Safety proposed by the Crime Indicators Working Group

E.1 State Uniform Crime Reporting Programs by Incident-Based Reporting and National Crime Statistics Exchange (NCS-X) Funding Status

E.2 California Uniform Crime Reporting Requirements as Amended by OpenJustice Data Act of 2016

This page intentionally left blank.

This page intentionally left blank.