Criminal Justice & Security: Measuring Crime Statistics

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

Crime statistics are used as a basis for evidence-based strategies of combating crime and reducing victimization (Lauritsen & Cork, 2017; Wormeli, 2018). The knowledge of related social indicators can help the criminal justice system or advocates outside of it, for example, in developing public policies or legislation. This work is dedicated to the analysis of four databases that report crime statistics. They will be discussed and compared, and the benefits and challenges of combining their data will be considered.

Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)

The first database to consider is the UCR system, which has been in place since 1929 (FBI, 2018). It was instituted because the US recognized the importance of collecting crime statistics. It has grown in terms of the number of law enforcement agencies that it collects data from, which has been expanded to over 18,000. Also, UCR has increased the number of topics that are of interest to it. For instance, since 1937, UCR has been gathering information about the assaults against law enforcement officers. Regarding its methodology, UCR had been using a rather outdated method of aggregated data collection, but since 1989, a National Incident-Based Reporting System was instituted. UCR publications are annual, but there are also special reports dedicated to particular topics.

UCR Advantages and Disadvantages

The primary advantages of UCR are its age and scope; it is a very large program, which incorporates several minor ones, and it has had 90 years to try out different approaches to its task and improve itself. As a national system that is overseen by a governmental structure, UCR also has a notable amount of resources and can engage large numbers of contributors. However, UCR only collects national data, which fits its purpose but can also be considered a limitation. A more significant issue is that the source of data, which is law enforcement reports, implies that UCR cannot find out anything about non-reported crimes. Moreover, since not all agencies are enrolled in this voluntary program or use its best methods, UCR might not succeed in collecting all-encompassing information about crime in the US (Wormeli, 2018).

National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

NIBRS is meant to become a solution to this problem. NIBRS is a part of UCR; it has been in place since 1989, and its aim is to ensure the collection of detailed crime reports from law enforcement agencies (FBI, 2018). For this task, NIBRS offers standardized procedures for voluntarily enrolled agencies, instructing them to submit all the pertinent information related to 58 elements. Since 2013, the database has its publication, but the FBI (2018) has been using its data for reporting since the year of its implementation.

NIBRS Advantages and Disadvantages

NIBRS has the experience and resources of UCR; it was implemented because UCR recognized the limitations of the previously existing method of aggregate reporting (Strom & Smith, 2017). Instead, NIBRS is a very detailed, incident-based system, which keeps improving (Ansari & He, 2017). Furthermore, it focuses on standardization, which facilitates the analysis of the data (FBI, 2018). However, NIBRS also inherits the issues of UCR, including its focus on reported crime in the US and the limited engagement of law enforcement agencies. For NIBRS, the latter limitation is even more significant; even though the FBI (2018) encourages NIBRS adoption, local issues, including funding concerns, may slow down the process (Strom & Smith, 2017).

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

NCVS is rather different from the previous two databases. In fact, it is relatively unique in its focus on victimization rather than crime (Strom & Smith, 2017). NCVS is maintained by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2018), and it is an annual interview-based survey that collects information about victimization related to nonfatal personal crime, as well as property crimes, that the respondents experienced. The sample is calculated to be representative of the US, and the data categories include the details of crimes, as well as their consequences, and demographics of the victim and alleged perpetrator.

NCVS Advantages and Disadvantages

NCVS’s unique focus is a key advantage, and due to it, this database can supply information about non-reported crimes (Ansari & He, 2017; Strom & Smith, 2017). The Bureau of Justice Statistics (2018) explains the details of its methodology, which is continuously revised and improved, and highlights the fact that the sample is calculated to be representative of the US. Still, NCVS is limited by its focus on the national victimization data, and its methodology has some natural limitations as well, especially the exclusion of people who do not live in households (for example, the homeless or prison population).

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)

UNODC (2019) is not a database, but research is one of its key activities, and the organization releases publications with criminal statistics annually. There are also special reports, and UNODC (2019) highlights the importance of developing crime-reporting methodologies by publishing articles on it. UNODC (2019) covers diverse topics; it singles out violent crime and drug-related information, and it also details the data on corruption and the administration of justice.

UNODC Advantages and Disadvantages

The primary advantage of UNODC is that it is global and focuses on multiple topics. Furthermore, UNODC’s (2019) attention to methodology is a commendable advantage. Finally, UNODC (2019) highlights its alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals, which provide it with measurable objectives. The disadvantages of UNODC (2019) are mostly the challenges that it faces, including the difficulty of ensuring the cooperation of the worldwide net of contributors and the limitations of individual methodologies that it uses.

Comparisons

Thus, the following comparisons of the databases can be made. First, their aims, methodologies, and topics are rather different. UCR is a comprehensive database which is meant to collect national police-reported data on crime. NIBRS is a part of UCR, and it has similar goals with the primary aim of collecting detailed incident-based data and facilitating the process for law enforcement agencies. NCVS focuses on victimization; it uses a victim interview-based survey. UNODC is an extremely comprehensive program that uses diverse sources and methodologies. Thus, there are significant differences in the goals that the databases attempt to accomplish and their approaches to doing it.

From the perspective of their scope and size, the databases are relatively similar. Only UNODC is supranational; the rest of them are nation-wide and government-operated. This fact implies that the databases should have a relatively significant reach, as well as resources, even though concerns about funding have been raised (Wormeli, 2018). In connection, the challenges of the databases seem to be common.

Thus, there is the problem of engagement, which is true for UCR, NIBRS, UNODC. The fact that NCVS mentions non-response suggests a similar obstacle. Furthermore, all databases have methodology-based limitations; UCR and NIBRS cannot detect non-reported crime, and NCVS cannot learn about the homeless. UNODC (2019) is researching the fact that statistical methods are associated with difficulties and limitations that need to be managed. Finally, every database is somehow restricted in its scope; only UNODC (2019) is global, for example.

The databases have certain similar benefits, including their attention to defining their methodology and terms, as well as the focus on standardization and self-improvement. FBI (2018) works to promote UCR and NIBRS, and UNODC (2019) generally supports similar efforts and attempts to involve more contributors. However, the databases also have individual benefits. Thus, NCVS can collect some information on non-reported crimes (Ansari & He, 2017), but UCR and NIBRS are based on police reports, which are also very valuable (Strom & Smith, 2017). In turn, UNODC (2019) is a very comprehensive effort; unlike the rest of the discussed databases, it is global.

Combining Databases

Given that the presented benefits are complementary, the combination of databases can result in a database with more sources of information and diverse methodologies, which would be a positive outcome. According to Strom and Smith (2017) and Wormeli (2018), the cooperation between UCR/NIBRS and NCVS would be a logical development in national crime statistics reporting. Indeed, a combination of UCR/NIBRS and NCVS would include both reported and non-reported crime, as well as household- and non-household-dwelling victims’ information.

There are some challenges to the process. The methodologies employed by the two databases are different, which can make the pooling of data from them difficult but, as pointed out by Wormeli (2010), not impossible. Furthermore, the cooperation of the responsible organizations is necessary, and the process requires funding. As demonstrated by the UNODC (2019), cooperation is difficult but possible, and it might facilitate the pooling of resources. The outcome of such cooperation would be an improved approach to measuring and, therefore, understanding crime and victimization, which, as stated by the FBI (2018), is a key to enhanced criminal system strategies.

Conclusion

To summarize, the presented databases illustrate the fact that crime statistics reporting can use diverse methodologies and is associated with multiple challenges, especially those related to their limited scope and difficulties in engagement. Due to their unique advantages and complementary features, the combination of databases would be a challenge, but it would result in improved methodologies, reduced limitations, more detailed crime and victimization statistics, and their improved understanding. UNODC (2019) is an example of the feasibility of this endeavor, and since the outcome is better-informed strategies for victimization prevention, the challenge is worth addressing.

References

Ansari, S., & He, N. (2017). Explaining the UCR-NCVS convergence: A time series analysis. Asian Journal of Criminology, 12(1), 39-62. Web.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2018). Data Collection: National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Web.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2018). About the UCR program. Web.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2019). NIBRS user manual. Web.

Lauritsen, J., & Cork, D. (2017). Expanding our understanding of crime. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(4), 1075-1098. Web.

Strom, K., & Smith, E. (2017). The future of crime data. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(4), 1027-1048. Web.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2019). Research. Web.

Wormeli, P. (2018). Criminal justice statistics: An evolution. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(2), 483-496. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!