Compare and Contrast the Two Primary Crime Data Sources Used in the United States

Crime Data Sources in the United States

The collection of crime data in the United States is carried out through different approaches including Uniform Crime Reports and the National Incident-Based Reporting System, which also act as the two primary sources of crime data for crime reporting. The data obtained from these sources are used for research and documentation of crime status at the county, state, and national levels. Notably, the National Incident-Based Reporting System emerged as an advancement of the conventional summary of Uniform Crime Reports that were used to track crime in the country. In addition, the Congress uses data from these sources together with those from the National Crime Victimization Survey to guide policy decisions and create suitable responses to crime. While the use of these sources helps in dealing with crime in the United States, they have some similarities and differences between them with regards to methodological processes and implications.

Uniform Crime Reports (UCR):

Uniform Crime Reports were introduced in the late 1920s as the initial national, standardized measure of crime incidence (James & Council, 2008). This approach was initially regarded as a means of measuring the effectiveness of local law enforcement to offer enforcement through data that could help in fighting crime. Since its introduction UCR developed to an extent that it was widely used by academics and governmental officials for various purposes like policy, planning, and research. In addition to increased use, Uniform Crime Reports are the most commonly cited crime statistics across the country. However, in the recent past, there have been numerous efforts to assess UCR data quality through comprehensive methods developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. These efforts have been accompanied by initiatives to transition from these reports to NIBRS.

Lynch & Jarvis (2008), state that UCR program is largely an administrative range of police records (p.71). As a result, this program incorporates seven unique data collections, which are based on police records in local and state police agencies that are provided directly or via state programs to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. These distinct data collections in UCR are characterized by aggregate reporting at the jurisdiction level. This helps each police agency report to be incorporated into eligible incidents to the state and eventually to the FBI program. While involvement in the UCR program is mainly voluntary, nearly 38 states have enacted laws that require the local police agencies to provide mandatory reports that are sent to the state or UCR program. However, the quality of involvement and participation in these programs is voluntary and does not necessarily contribute to any sanctions in case of failure to provide the reports based on the mandatory reporting laws. In essence, the UCR program is not dependent on a sample since it tries to gather crime data from state and local police departments.

As the first source of crime data in the United States, the Uniform Crime Reports system helped in enhancing the existing system of collecting and publishing official crime statistics and response to criminal offenses. Before the introduction of this system, data collection by local law enforcement departments was invalid and characterized by limited reliability. While the UCR system enhanced reliability of collecting and publishing crime data, it sacrificed validity. Some of the major components it improved include data-collection forms, standardized descriptions, and data-collection measures (Skogan, 1975, p.19).

National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS):

The introduction of the National Incident-Based Reporting System was fueled by the realization that data collected and transmitted through Uniform Crime Reports remained significantly unchanged since these reports were established in 1929. As a result, there was consensus on the need to update UCR to offer more comprehensive data to meet the demands of law enforcement in the modern society. The Federal Bureau of Investigations then contracted for a phased review of UCR program through the Bureau of Justice Statistics. These efforts culminated in the development of National Incident-Based Reporting System that was based on recommendations on how to improve UCR.

Based on these recommendations, NIBRS was developed as a system that enables law enforcement agencies to use an incident-based method for reporting crime and arrests (James & Council, 2008). Secondly, this system was established to include or implement a quality assurance program since it is a national UCR program. Finally, the system enables some law enforcement agencies to provide incident-based data for all notable crimes and offenses while others provide a more restricted series of incident-based data for some crimes.

Similarities between UCR and NIBRS:

As previously mentioned, Uniform Crime Reports and the National Incident-Based Reporting System have certain similarities, which contribute to their use as the primary sources of crime data in the United States. Some of the major similarities between the two crime data sources include & #8230;

Differentiation of Crime:

Similar to Uniform Crime Reports, the National Incident-Based Reporting System differentiates crime against persons and crimes against property. UCR reporting and NIBRS reporting classify or distinguish crimes against persons and crimes against property in the same way i.e. through a score. The process of distinguishing between these types of crimes is carried out when law enforcement agencies are separating time and place rule. The separation is geared towards determining whether a group of misdemeanors should be reported as individual incidents or they should be reported as one incident involving multiple crimes. The law enforcement agencies providing these reports also score one crime for every offense against community in an incident. The similarity in separation of crimes between the two systems is fueled by the application and relevance of separation of time and place rule when categorizing and scoring crimes under UCR and NIBRS programs.

Use of Crime Data:

The second similarity between the two systems is attributed to the use of crime data or statistics in these reports. Since they are the two primary sources of crime data in the United States, data from UCR and NIBRS is used by the Congress for various law enforcement purposes. Some of the most common ways the Congress uses statistics or data from these reports include informing policy decisions and creating suitable responses to criminal activities or offenses. The Congress also uses crime statistics or data from UCR and NIBRS programs when expressing the need for more community policing officers and creating formula distributions for some grant programs.

Actually, data collected from the two sources is used for research and documentation of crime status at county, state, and national levels of government (Haas et. al., 2012). The use of UCR and NIBRS crime data or statistics has contributed to the development and enhancement of policy in various means. For instance, these reports were used in creation of the Community Oriented Policing Services to enable law enforcement officers to get involved in community policing through offering grants for hiring, re-hiring, and redeploying.

Data Issues:

According to Haas et al. (2012), crime reporting through UCR and NIBRS is voluntary and vulnerable to issues of data quality, probable non-compliance, and missing data. These crime data or statistics issues are brought by the ever-expanding complexity of criminal activities. They emerge because of reliable information and results can only be obtained through accuracy and completeness, which not necessarily guaranteed through UCR and NIBRS reports. For instance, data reporting without consideration of data quality and projections for missing values is not the best possible representation of the crime reporting process.

These issues on quality, missing data, and non-compliance are also attributed to the fact that both systems provide reports based on reported crimes. They do not consider and include non-reported crimes that take place within the country, which implies that they do not give a complete picture of the occurrence of crime in the United States. Since non-reported crimes are more than reported ones, the two approaches are not accurate representation of criminal offenses. Notably, this is considered as the major disadvantage of UCR and NIBRS because it makes it difficult for the approaches to represent America to its entirety.

While UCR program has acted a major source of data for a long period of time, questions regarding the accuracy of the reports have emerged despite the long consideration of the methods as authoritative (Lynch & Jarvis, 2008, p.69). The questions and concerns regarding the accuracy of data in Uniform Crime Reports have risen because of the extent of missing data in the series. These questions have also been fueled by the increased appearance of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which has been used in comparison with UCR to determine the most accurate method.

In attempts to promote the accuracy of crime data from UCR program, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has adopted extensive methods that are used to assess the quality of UCR data based on outlier detection. However, these methods are not accurate, timely, or easy to administer by state programs because they always use statistics from regions incorporating several states instead of an individual state. The difficulties in administering these programs and using the crime data from UCR increases concerns and questions on the accuracy of data provided by these reports. Similarly, the National Incident-Based Reporting System has attracted huge concerns on data accuracy. While NIBRS does not involve the application of similar methods to aggregate crime count totals using its data, the data from this method has been criticized for being non-representative and incomplete. Therefore, both UCR and NIBRS have significant data quality and accuracy issues in measuring and dealing with crime.

Rules in Classifying and Scoring of Offenses:

There are some similar rules that are applied in both UCR and NIBRS with regards to the classification and scoring of offenses when reporting. Even though NIBRS has extended its definition of the hotel rule, this rule is applied in both methods of crime reporting. The second rule applied in both systems when classifying and scoring offenses is the separation of time and place rule. In both systems, law enforcement agencies use the rule to determine whether a combination of certain offenses should be reported as individual incidents. The rule is also used to clarify whether the group of offenses should be reported as a single incident in cases where multiple crimes took place.

Differences between UCR and NIBRS:

While Uniform Crime Reports and the National Incident-Based Reporting System have similarities in terms of methodological procedures and implications, these systems have huge differences between them. Some of the major differences between these methods include & #8230;

Data Aggregation:

Police departments that participate in the UCR program are required to categorize and score reported crimes through translating offenses titles that are used in local and state criminal codes into the standardized definitions of UCR (James & Council, 2008). The standardized definitions in Uniform Crime Reports are classified into Part I and Part II offenses. During scoring and classification of UCR data, the statistics must reflect criminal counts rather than the decisions of a prosecutor and court findings. Scoring of crimes in UCR program involves differentiating between crimes against persons and crimes against property. The local police agency tallies the number of known crimes for every Part I crime and arrest data for Part I and Part II crimes, and present the aggregate counts every month to the FBI.

In contrast, the NIBRS does not involve the use of Part I and Part II crime classifications in the UCR since it is geared towards being a by-product of local incident-based reporting systems. Under this system, crimes are classified as being either Group A or Group B. crimes with Group A containing 22 crime categories for 46 different offenses and Group B. consist 11 different crimes. For all Group A crimes, police departments are required to provide incident reports that contain crime data from six sections. On the contrary, Group B. crimes require police agencies to provide only arrest reports that are made up of statistics from arrestee data section only (James & Council, 2008).

While UCR involves data aggregation, NIBRS does not aggregate crime data since data for every crime is handed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in a separate report. Under this system, the participating police department collects data on 53 various data elements. Some of the major elements that these agencies should collect data on include the offense, offender, victim, arrestee, and any property involved in the incident.

Classifying and Scoring of Offenses:

UCR and NIBRS also differ in the classification and scoring of crimes though both systems have to classify and score crimes. One of the major differences in the classification and scoring of crime is the inclusion of the crime against society category in the National Incident-Based Reporting System. Similar to UCR, NIBRS classifies crime into crime against persons and crimes against property. However, the system includes a third category i.e. crimes against society, which is not included in Uniform Crime Reports. This category includes several offenses like gambling, prostitution, drug or narcotics, and pornography or obscene materials. Under NIBRS, the report police department should score one offense for every crime against society in a criminal incident.

Secondly, unlike UCR, NIBRS does not use the hierarchy rule to categorize and score crimes since police departments can submit reports for all crimes that took place in a criminal incident. Moreover, the Federal Bureau of Investigation expanded the definition of hotel rule in NIBRS to make it different from the definition under UCR. In this case, the definition of the hotel rule under NIBRS is applicable to rental storage buildings or facilities. Consequently, the system permits police agencies to report the number of premises entered.

Effectiveness:

UCR and NIBRS have significant differences in terms of their effectiveness when being used as primary sources of crime data. Since its inception, UCR program has been used as a major crime data source while its scope expanded over the years. As the first national, standardized system of measuring the occurrence of crime, UCR program help law enforcement agencies in fighting crime because it provided them with data that can be used for that purpose (James & Council, 2008). The effectiveness of UCR in fighting crime has not only been demonstrated in its help in fighting crime but also shown in its extensive use by academics and government officials for various purposes like policy, planning, and research.

Given the increase in complexity of criminal incidents, the effectiveness of UCR program in fighting crime has decreased significantly. The decrease in effectiveness has contributed to the emergence of several concerns and questions regarding the use of this source of crime data in the United States. Furthermore, the need for a more comprehensive version of this system has emerged in order to enhance law enforcements' efforts in dealing with offenses. The major factor that has made UCR to be largely ineffective in dealing with crime is the fact that it only considers criminal incidents that have been reported. As a result, the system does not consider numerous criminal incidents that do take place and are not reported for various reasons. Since they account for a significant portion of criminal activities, the consideration of reported crimes only contributes to increased ineffectiveness of the program. The other factor that contributes to the slight ineffectiveness of the program is the fact that some states do not have the requirements of mandated participation. This implies that the missing crime data hinders the effectiveness of the program by failing to accurately represent the country in its entirety.

On the contrary, the National Incident-Based Report System is more effective than UCR since it was introduced as a more detailed version of the latter. However, the full potential of this system is yet to be realized because of assumptions that its crime data is intrinsically biased (Addington, 2008, p.32). The natural bias of crime data from NIBRS is attributed to the system's lack of national coverage and over-representation of police departments that serve small populations. Nonetheless, the evaluation of the extent of non-response and bias in generating crime projections is yet to be carried out.

The improved effectiveness of NIBRS as compared to UCR is because NIBRS data is to act as the result of local incident-based reporting systems. Through these systems, local and state police departments can create their own programs that suit their specific needs and use those data to get involved in the national system. However, the data used to participate in NIBRS must comply with the requirements or specifications of the Federal Bureau Investigation. The ability of local and state police departments to develop systems that meet their needs enables them to add extra data elements or values.

Methodological Procedures:

UCR differs from NIBRS in terms of methodological procedures, especially the degree of detail in reporting, which is the biggest difference between the two systems. UCR can largely be regarded as a summary reporting system since police departments tally and aggregate the number of occurrences of crime across all categories of offenses before providing monthly summary reports to the FBI. The summary reporting system does not require combining arrests and outstanding clearances back to past submitted incident reports ("Data Collection Guidelines," 2000). As previously mentioned, the monthly summary reports under UCR are either provided directly to the FBI or indirectly via the state UCR systems.

However, NIBRS reporting involves collection of comprehensive data on individual crime incidents and arrests and provide them in separate reports. When providing these reports, police departments are required to use prescribed data components and values to define every arrest and incident. Unlike UCR, the National Incident-Based Reporting System involves incident-based reporting. Moreover, arrests and exceptional clearances associated with the previously submitted Group A incident reports are provided as updates to the past reports.

Notably, NIBRS uses mandatory and optional data elements through which data must be entered into elements of mandatory data in reports that are provided to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In cases where such data is not entered in submitted reports, the reports are rejected by FBI's computer systems on grounds that they contain error. When using local incident-based reporting systems, police departments may include extra data elements and data values to meet the specific local and state needs. However, these agencies should provide reports that are aligned to the necessary guidelines to the national NIBRS program to meet reporting purposes ("Data Collection Guidelines," 2000).