Congress utilizes statistics from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) to advise policy decisions and establish suitable reactions to crime. Those kinds of crime statistics have been utilized to define policy in numerous ways. For instance, the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) intervention was established in the 103 rd Congress to offer local and state police donations to assist them in hiring, rehiring, and redeploying police officers to participate in public policing. Congress quoted the UCR crime data when enunciating the necessity for more public policing officials. Along with shaping policy, Congress has utilized crime statistics to create formula distributions for particular grant interventions. For instance, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant initiative formula applies UCR statistics to allot national finances to local and state governments for criminal justice initiatives. Due to the significance of crime statistics in both allotting national finances and shaping policy, it is imperative to comprehend how individual program gathers statistics and the limitations of the information. The current paper seeks to compare and contrast NIBRS and the UCR concerning their development, the procedures each program applies to gather crime statistics, classification, and scoring of data, advantages, and the limitations of the statistics gathered by each program.
Development of the UCR and the NIBRS
The UCR was developed in 1929 to represent the earliest federal, standardized measurement of the crime incidence (Stogner, 2015). The system was initially formed as a method to gauge the success of local police to offer police statistics that would be utilized to assist in combatting crime. UCR statistics are currently employed widely by government officials and academics for planning, policy, and research purposes, and the information is extensively quoted in the press. Furthermore, UCR offers some of the most widely quoted crime data in the U.S.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The statistics gathered and distributed by the UCR stayed mostly unchanged over time, that is, from the establishment of the UCR during the year 1929. Beginning in the 1970s, agreement increased inside the police community that the UCR system required to be improved to offer more detailed statistics to satisfy the requirements of police into the twenty-first century (James, 2008). The FBI, via the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), in reaction, constricted for a segmented review of the UCR system, which concluded with proposals on how it can be upgraded (Friedman, Grawert & Cullen, 2017). The review’s concluding report, Blueprint for the Future of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, was published in 1985. The report summarized 3 areas in which the UCR would be improved to satisfy the future requirements of police. The research suggested that police force agencies utilize an incident-oriented system for reporting arrests and crimes. The study also proposed that certain police units submit merely a more narrow range of incident-established statistics for some offenses (that is, limited participation), whereas other police force departments submit incident-based statistics for all their identified all arrests and crimes (that is,,, full participation). It also suggested that the federal UCR system execute a quality assurance intervention.
Based on the proposals defined in the Blueprint for the Future of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, the FBI established strategies and design stipulations for what could in the future become the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) (Pattavina, Carkin & Tracy, 2017). The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) was chosen by the FBI to carry out a pilot study of the freshly established NIBRS rules and design stipulations. The SLED modified its prevailing incident-centered UCR system to satisfy NIBRS riders, and it enlisted the help of 9 local police departments in the state to take part in the pilot study that started on March 1 and ended on September 30, 1987 (Stogner, 2015). The pilot study yielded additional improvement to NIBRS’s specifications and guidelines.
The FBI introduced the NIBRS to police at a countrywide UCR session in March 1988. The seminar provided the FBI with a chance to get a response about the NIBRS from the police community. On the word of the FBI, seminar attendees tremendously supported the application of the NIBRS countrywide (Addington, 2019). Attendees approved three general proposals. First is that there would be the development of a novel, incident-centered nationwide crime reporting system. The second is suggestions that the FBI oversees the initiative. The third is that a recommended policy panel made up of police executives be created to assist in directing and implementing the novel program. The police community refuted the Blueprint for the future of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program’s suggestion to have both limited and full participating police departments and sanctioned employment of the whole version of the NIBRS nationally (Lantz & Wenger, 2019).
Comparing NIBRS to the UCR
UCR statistics
Under UCR, the FBI gathers statistics on the sum of crimes identified by police, the characteristics and number of individuals captured, and the sum of “clearances” for eight dissimilar crimes, jointly known as Part I crimes. These crimes include non-negligent manslaughter and murder, arson, robbery, forcible rape, burglary, aggravated assault, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. The FBI gathers statistics on the sum of arrests made for twenty-one other crimes called Part II crimes (James, 2008). These crimes include other assaults, fraud, counterfeiting and forgery, vandalism, embezzlement, gambling, possessing or carrying weapons, commercialized vice, and prostitution, possessing, receiving, or buying stolen property, sex crimes, drunkenness, driving under the influence, drug abuse violations, liquor laws, crimes against the children and family, vagrancy, disorderly behavior, runaways (minors) loitering and curfew laws suspicion an all other offenses. The UCR denotes a summary system, implying that crime statistics submitted by local police departments to the FBI reveal the aggregate sum of known Part I crimes (Friedman, Grawert & Cullen, 2017). Similarly, UCR arrest statistics reveal the aggregate number of individuals detained by reporting police departments. Arrest statistics submitted by local police units to the UCR initiative similarly offer statistics on the primary characteristics— race, sex, and age —of individuals arrested. Since the UCR denotes a summary approach, there lacks a way of determining if a certain crime was cleared through capture or if the arrest was made under a given crime.
NIBRS statistics
In the UCR system, local police departments count the sum of identified crimes for every Part I crime, also, arrest statistics for Part II and Part I crimes, and submit to the FBI total tallies on a once-a-month basis (Friedman, Grawert & Cullen, 2017). On the other hand, in the NIBRS system, statistics are not totaled; instead, statistics for every criminal event are submitted in a separate report to the FBI. For every criminal event, participating police unit gathers statistics on fifty-three dissimilar data components, counting statistics on the offender, the offense, the victim, the arrestee, in addition to any asset involved in the crime. These components are pooled into six dissimilar information sections. The NIBRS system enables information on numerous victims, offenders, and crimes to be gathered for every criminal event (Lantz & Wenger, 2019). Furthermore, unlike the UCR’s Part II and Part I crime classifications, the NIBR crimes are classified as Group A or Group B crimes. Group B covers eleven different crimes, while Group A covers 46 different crimes categorized into twenty-two crime classifications (Addington, 2019).
Categorizing and Scoring UCR Statistics
All police departments partaking in the UCR program should score and classify reported offenses. Classifying crimes is the procedure of interpreting crime titles utilized in state and local criminal codes into the typical UCR descriptions for Part II and Part I crimes (Stogner, 2015). On the other hand, scoring crimes is the counting of the number of crimes once they have been categorized. The FBI retells local and state police departments that they should score and classify crimes based on records for complaints calls for service and investigations. Consistent with the FBI, UCR statistics should mirror crime totals and not judge a prosecuting attorney or the results of a law court, jury, or coroner. Standardization in the scoring and classification of crimes across jurisdictions is crucial for upholding the reliability of UCR statistics (James, 2008). Generally, reporting police departments score and classify attempted offenses as if they were accomplished. For instance, attempting to steal a car will be scored and classified as car theft. The sole exemption to this regulation involves attempted murder, which is scored and classified as aggravated assault.
The FBI has established three rules—the hotel, hierarchy, and separation of place and time rules—that local police units should apply when scoring and classifying crimes (Stogner, 2015). The hierarchy rule asserts that when numerous Part I crimes take place in one criminal event, simply the most severe crime is counted and reported to the FBI. For instance, when a criminal rapes and later killed prey, the reporting police department will score merely the killing. Nevertheless, there are exemptions to the hierarchy guideline, as it does not relate to events of arson that are constantly counted and testified to the FBI, even when additional Part I offenses are committed in the event (Friedman, Grawert & Cullen, 2017). An additional exemption entails car theft. When a car is stolen and the contents of the car amount to a larceny-theft, merely the car theft is counted and testified to the FBI, although larceny-theft is ranked on the upper part of the hierarchy of Part I crimes. The last exemption entails defensible killing. In events of justified murder, two crimes are counted and reported to the FBI: the felonious crime linked to the criminal and the justified homicide that is reported as non-negligent manslaughter or unfounded murder.
The hotel regulation applies solely to burglary crimes. In circumstances in which numerous house units under one overseer are burglarized, and the crimes are more probable to be testified to the law enforcement by the overseer instead of the individual tenants, the burglaries are counted as a single offense (Stogner, 2015). This rule normally applies to burglaries of lodging houses, motels, hotels, or other places in which the key purpose is the housing of a transient. The guideline will not apply in cases in which numerous units that were rented or leased to occupants were burglarized, for example, offices or apartments in a business structure. For instance, in case six hotel rooms were burglarized, it will be counted as a single burglary; nonetheless, if six apartments were burglarized, it will be counted as six burglaries.
The rule of separation of place and time applies in cases where the same criminal commits numerous crimes over a short period in dissimilar places. In these kinds of cases, the reporting department handles the crimes as separate happenings and scores and classifies them accordingly. The “same place and time” implies that the time break between the crimes and the distance between the places in which they happened is negligible (James, 2008). Nonetheless, the place and time rule doesn’t apply in cases in which crimes, even when they are committed at dissimilar places and times, are a portion of ongoing criminal activity done by the same offender, and the study considers the activity to amount to one criminal deal.
When scoring crimes, the UCR initiative differentiates between offenses against property and offenses against people. For offenses against individuals, a single crime is scored for each prey in the criminal event. For offenses against property, a single crime is a score for each separate attempt or operation within a criminal event, except for car theft, where case one crime is scored for every stolen car and one crime for every attempt to steal a car in a criminal event (Stogner, 2015). In cases in which numerous Part I crimes are committed against numerous sufferers in the same criminal event, the hierarchy guideline is employed first, and then offenses are counted based on if they were offenses against property or offenses against people.
Scoring and Classifying NIBRS Statistics
Just as the UCR system, police units partaking in the NIBRS program need to score and classify crimes. Nonetheless, the NIBRS does not utilize the hierarchy law since police departments may report every crime that happened in a criminal event (Lantz & Wenger, 2019). The FBI extended the hotel regulation definition under NIBRS to apply to rental storage facilities (that is, self-storage and mini-storage structures). For instance, eight storage units burglarized within a single self-storage structure will be scored as a single burglary crime. Nevertheless, NIBRS statistics reporting enables police departments to report the number of premises that were entered. The separation of place and time rule is still applicable when classifying and scoring offenses under the NIBRS (James, 2008). Furthermore, just as the UCR system, the NIBRS similarly differentiates between offenses against property and offenses against people. Offenses against property and offenses against people’s property are counted similarly in NIBRS as they are counted in UCR. Nevertheless, since NIBRS Group A crimes include those that may not be categorized as offenses against people or categorized as offenses against property, the NIBRS incorporates an additional scoring group—crimes against society (Friedman, Grawert & Cullen, 2017). In the NIBRS system, offenses against society are gambling crimes, drug crimes, prostitution crimes, and pornography materials.
Advantages of the NIBRS
Due to the expanded quantity of statistics gathered in the NIBRS program, the NIBRS system has numerous advantages compared with the UCR (Addington, 2019). One of the NIBRS benefits is that information gathering is not limited to a narrow sum of crime classifications (that is, Part I crimes). Secondly, crime definitions of NIBRS may meet national, local, and state reporting requirements. Thirdly, particulars on specific crime events (offender, offense, property, victim, and arrest) may be gathered and analyzed. Fourthly, clearances and arrests may be connected to individual crimes and events. Sixthly, distinctions may be made between completed and attempted offences. Seventhly, relationships may be formed between variables for investigating interconnections between offender, offense, property, victim, and arrestee. Eighthly, in-depth offense analyses may be made across and within police jurisdictions. Lastly, tactical and strategic crime evaluations may be made at the regional and local levels.
Limitations of NIBRS and UCR Data
One of the limitations of these data sources is that there is limited crime data. As aforementioned, the UCR gathers crime statistics on a narrow number of offenses, i.e., Part I crimes, implying that crime statistics are obtainable merely for a few of total crimes committed within the U.S. Crime statistics are not obtainable for Part II offenses, which be likely to be committed at a bigger rate than Part I offenses (Strom & Smith, 2017). The UCR doesn’t gather information on offenses generally covered by the press, for instance, child pornography, bribery, or kidnapping. Neither the NIBRS nor the UCR gathers statistics on illegal environmental pollution, price-fixing, and political offenses (James, 2008). Furthermore, the NIBRS and the UCR most probable undercount occupational and corporate offenses.
Another limitation is that there are unreported offenses. As aforementioned, both the NIBRS and the UCR gather statistics on the sum of crimes identified by police yearly. Nevertheless, not every crime that takes place is recognized by law enforcement. In certain cases, or witnesses to or the victim of an offense may not report the event to law enforcement. Research shows that most offenses become identified by law enforcement simply when they are reported by either the citizens or victims who saw it (Stogner, 2015). In case offenses are not testified to police, both NIBRS and the UCR will undercount the real number of crime which happened.
What is more, evidence reveals that UCR statistics can be influenced by the reporting processes of local police. In certain instances, police officers, typically due to political pressures to reduce the crime levels, may influence crime reports to lower the number of reported crime cases. In other cases, the number of reported crimes may result from how diligently local police observe the FBI’s descriptions for offenses under the NIBRS or the UCR system (James, 2008). For instance, in case a local police department fails to observe NIBRS or UCR definitions closely, the department may categorize the trespass as a burglary or an assault against a female as a tried rape.
Another limitation is that there are missing statistics. National law does not oblige local police departments to submit crime statistics to the UCR. Even though partaking in the UCR initiative has been beyond ninety percent since the 1970s, not every police agency in the U.S. submit UCR statistics to the FBI (Stogner, 2015). Similarly, police departments are not obliged to submit a whole year of UCR statistics to the FBI. In certain cases, a local police department will submit merely a small number of months’ worth of statistics. In other cases, a local police unit will submit crime statistics but won’t submit some other statistics (for example, the supplementary homicide report statistics.
Lastly, when a police department fails to report UCR statistics to the FBI for the whole year, the FBI employs imputation methods to approximate the police unit’s amount of reported offenses for the whole year. The method varies depending on the sum of months for which offense statistics were reported (Targonski, 2016). The imputation techniques utilized by the FBI to approximate crime rate in jurisdictions that have not been reported for the whole year or non-reporting jurisdictions make dubious assumptions. It tacitly assumes that the rate of crime for non-reported months is identical to the reported months. When the crime levels in the months for which statistics were not recounted are different from the levels in the months for which statistics were conveyed, then the imputation method might either underestimate or overestimate the area’s yearly crime levels.
Conclusion
Crime statistics gathered through the UCR, and the NIBRS are utilized by Congress to update policy decisions and allot national criminal justice financing to states. Therefore, it is vital to comprehend how these programs collect and report crime statistics, as well as the limitations related to the statistics. The UCR is the initial program to develop a federal, uniform measurement of the crime rate. The NIBRS was established by the FBI to react to the police community’s opinion that the UCR required to be improved to offer more detailed information to satisfy the requirements of police into the twenty-first century.
References
Addington, L. A. (2019). NIBRS as the new normal: What fully incident-based crime data mean for researchers. In Handbook on Crime and Deviance (pp. 21-33). Springer, Cham.
Friedman, M., Grawert, A. C., & Cullen, J. (2017). Crime Trends, 1990-2016 (pp. 1-27). New York, NY: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.
James, N. (2008, January). How crime in the United States is measured. Library of Congress Washington DC congressional research service.
Lantz, B., & Wenger, M. R. (2019). Analyzing the NIBRS data: the impact of the number of records used per segment. American journal of criminal justice , 1-31.
Pattavina, A., Carkin, D. M., & Tracy, P. E. (2017). Assessing the representativeness of NIBRS arrest data. Crime & Delinquency , 63 (12), 1626-1652.
Stogner, J. M. (2015). Uniform Crime Reports. The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment , 1-5.
Strom, K. J., & Smith, E. L. (2017). The future of crime data: The case for the National Incident ‐ Based Reporting System (NIBRS) as a primary data source for policy evaluation and crime analysis. Criminology & Public Policy , 16 (4), 1027-1048.
Targonski, J. R. (2016). Comparison of Imputation Methodologies in the Offenses-Known Uniform Crime Reports.
