Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs Modernizing Crime Statistics Report 2: New Systems for Measuring Crime Panel on Modernizing the Nationâs 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
PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs 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, Oï¬ce 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, ï¬ndings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reï¬ect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-xxxxx-x International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-xxxxx-x Digital Object Identiï¬er: 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 StatisticsâReport 2: New Systems for Measuring Crime. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25035.
PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the studyâs statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include ï¬ndings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committeeâs deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit nationalacademies.org/whatwedo.
PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs PANEL ON MODERNIZING THE NATIONâS CRIME STATISTICS Janet L. Lauritsen,* (Chair), Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of MissouriâSt. 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 OâHara, 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,â 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 Oï¬cer (FebruaryâOctober 2015) Edward Spar, Senior Program Oï¬cer (through September 2014) Michael Siri, Program Associate Jordyn White, Program Oï¬cer * Servedas member of the panel from formation through December 8, 2014. â Served as chair of the panel from formation through December 8, 2014, following appointment as executive director of the Justice Research and Statistics Association. v
PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL STATISTICS 2018 Robert M. Groves (Chair), Oï¬ce 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 Aï¬airs, Princeton University Michael Chernew, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School Janet Currie, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Aï¬airs, 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. OâMuircheartaigh, 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 vi
PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs 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 KimberlÃ© 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 vii
PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs
PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs Acknowledgments he Panel on Modernizing the Nationâs Crime Statistics is pleased T to submit this second and ï¬nal report on modernizing the collection of data on crime in the United States. Of necessity, because most of the data gathering for this ï¬nal report took place during preparation of our ï¬rst 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 panelâs work. Both of our sponsoring agenciesâthe Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)âcommitted 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 Oï¬ce on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) expert work group on crime classiï¬cation; and we thank the other BJS staï¬ 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 beneï¬ted 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 ix
PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS during her tenure in that position. The U.S. Oï¬ce 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 Oï¬ce. The production of a modern classiï¬cation of crime, in Report 1, is arguably the major product and weightiest conceptual lift of this project. In the development of our proposed classiï¬cationâfrom which stems the discussion in this second reportâwe remain greatly indebted to the work of a UNODC expert work group established to draft an International Classiï¬cation of Crime for Statistical Purposes. Angela Me, chief of the UNODCâs Research and Trend Analysis Branch, traveled to speak to our panel in person at our second meeting, and Michael Jandl (research oï¬cer 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 ï¬rst 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 1â the detailed list of participant stakeholders from our panelâs 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 oï¬cer with gusto and deftly constructed the agenda for two of our panel meetings. Program oï¬cer 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 conï¬dential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi 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 Oï¬ce 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 recommen- dations of this report nor did they see the ï¬nal 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 ï¬nal content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. Janet L. Lauritsen, Chair Panel on Modernizing the Nationâs Crime Statistics
PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs
PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs Contents Summary 1 1 Introduction 15 1.1 The Panel and Its Charge 16 1.2 Redeï¬ning Crime 18 1.3 Limitations of This Study 19 1.4 Structure of This Report 23 2 âTraditionalâ and âNewâ Crime: Structuring a Modern Crime Statistics Enterprise 25 2.1 Matching New Classiï¬cation to Current Practice 25 2.2 Contours of a Modern National Crime Statistics Infrastructure 30 2.2.1 Measuring Crime, Not âEnumeratingâ It 30 2.2.2 Putting Crime in Context, Alternative Metrics for Crime, and the Harms Imposed by Crime 35 2.2.3 New Systems for New and Traditional Crimes 39 2.2.4 Using the Crime Classiï¬cation as Blueprint 46 3 Coordination and Governance of Modern National Crime Statistics 49 3.1 Taking Ownership of Crime Statistics: Deï¬ning Coordination and Governance Functions 50 3.1.1 Ideal Coordination and Governance Roles 52 3.1.2 Who Should Coordinate and Govern, and How? 54 3.2 Recasting Crime Data Collection as a Federal-State Cooperative Program 61 xiii
PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs xiv CONTENTS 3.2.1 Observations from State Crime Reporting Laws and Regulations 63 3.2.2 Examples of Federal-State Cooperative Programs in the Statistical System 65 3.2.3 State Statistical Analysis Centers (SACs) 68 3.3 Data Reporting and Dissemination 68 3.4 Remaining Implementation and Methodology Issues 70 3.5 Conclusion 70 References 73 Appendixes 83 A Charge to the Panel 85 B Historical Themes in the Development of U.S. National Crime Statistics 89 B.1 Early Days: Crime Statistics as Tool for Discovery 90 B.2 Push for More Detail, Almost From the Start 92 B.3 Recurring Assumption: The Depth of In-House Local Law Enforcement Data 93 B.4 Ossiï¬cation of Concepts, Divergence of Crime Statistics from Their Use, and the 1958 Program Review 94 B.5 Emergence of the National Crime Victimization Survey 101 B.6 The Blueprint and the Development of the National Incident-Based Reporting System 102 B.7 The Status Quo: âNewâ Crimes in âOldâ Structures 107 B.8 National Crime Statistics Exchange, Sunsetting the Summary Counts, and the Path Ahead 108 C Coverage of Classiï¬cation in Current National Crime Statistics 111 C.1 Correspondence of Oï¬ense Categories to Current Crime Statistics 112 C.2 Correspondence of Suggested Attributes to Currently Collected Data Elements 144 C.2.1 Incident-Level Attributes 145 C.2.2 Per-Oï¬ense Attributes, General 148 C.2.3 Per-Oï¬ense Attributes, Victim/Oï¬ender Relationship 152 C.2.4 Victim Attributes 154 C.2.5 Oï¬ender Attributes 156 D Remaining Methodology and Implementation Issues for Modern Crime Statistics 159
PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs CONTENTS xv D.1 Avoiding the NIBRS Development Pitfalls 160 D.2 Ensuring Data Quality 170 D.3 Putting Crime in Context and Enabling Eï¬ective Comparisons 175 D.4 Businesses and Organizations as Actors in Crime Statistics 178 E Excerpted State Legal Requirements for Crime Reporting 183 F Cautionary Tales from International Experience: Police-Report Crime Statistics in the United Kingdom 243 G Biographical Sketches of Panel Members and Staï¬ 249
PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs
PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs List of Figures, Tables, and Boxes FIGURES 2.1 Sequence of events in the criminal justice system. 36 TABLES 2.1 Summary, Match Between Panelâs Proposed Classiï¬cation and National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) 27 BOXES S.1 âTraditionalâ and âNewâ Crime Types, In Proposed Classiï¬cation 5 1.1 Component Forms and Data Collections in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program 21 3.1 Principles and Practices for a Federal Statistical Agency 55 3.2 Current Legal and Regulatory Mandates for the Collection of National Crime Statistics 57 B.1 Recommendations of Commissioned Expert Panel Review of Uniform Crime Reporting Program, 1958 98 B.2 Recommendations of the Uniform Crime Reporting Study Task Force, 1984 103 B.3 âBeneï¬ts of Participationâ in the National Incident-Based Reporting System, 1992 106 C.1 Circumstances of Homicide Coded in Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) 114 xvii
PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs xviii LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND BOXES C.2 Counts and Summary Statistics Required by Monthly Supplement to Return A, Uniform Crime Reporting Program 123 C.3 Central Deï¬nitions in the Racketeer Inï¬uenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Statute 139 D.1 Framework for Measuring Crime and Public Safety proposed by the Crime Indicators Working Group 176 E.1 State Uniform Crime Reporting Programs by Incident-Based Reporting and National Crime Statistics Exchange (NCS-X) Funding Status 185 E.2 California Uniform Crime Reporting Requirements as Amended by OpenJustice Data Act of 2016 191
PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs
PREPUBLICATION COPY Uncorrected Proofs