Crime statistics are vital for understanding and addressing criminal behavior and trends. Some of the largest and most reliable sources of U.S. crime data include the uniform crime report (UCR), which compiles official data on crime reported to law enforcement agencies across the United States, providing insights into reported crimes and arrests. Complementing the ucr is the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which provides detailed information on each crime incident, offering a more comprehensive view of crime patterns. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which gathers data on personal and household victimization through surveys and interviews, including individual experiences with criminal activities as well as crimes that may not be reported to police officials, thereby offering a broader perspective. Additionally, self-report crime surveys collect data by directly questioning individuals about their involvement in illicit activities, often uncovering unreported crimes and shedding light on underrepresented demographics. Together, these sources provide multifaceted insights into the complex landscape of crime, crucial for researchers, policymakers, and law enforcement agencies, enabling informed decision-making and targeted interventions aimed at fostering safer communities.

Crime research methods encompass a diverse range of approaches employed to understand and address specific aspects of criminal behavior and its impact. General methods pertaining to social research include quantitative research, which involves collecting and analyzing numerical data to identify patterns and correlations, as well as qualitative research, which focuses on understanding the underlying meanings and motivations behind criminal behavior through in-depth interviews, observations, and case studies. Additionally, experimental research methods involve manipulating certain variables to assess their impact on criminal behavior, while observational research involves observing and recording criminal activities in natural settings. These varied research methods contribute to a comprehensive understanding of crime, informing evidence-based policies and interventions to mitigate criminal behavior and bolster public safety.

Uniform Crime Report (UCR)

In 1930, with the assistance of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Congress passed legislation authorizing the Attorney General and the federal bureau of investigation (FBI) to develop a program to monitor and quantify crime rates across the U.S. (An Act Establishing Division of Identification and Information, 1930). This program, known as the uniform crime report (UCR) (Stogner, 2015), collects data from local and state police departments who voluntarily provide the fbi with information on reported crimes and arrests for specific offenses. For the next 90 years, the ucr became the most readily available source of national crime data.

By the 21st century, the majority of police agencies, covering 98% of the U.S. population, provided data to the FBI (FBI, 2014). To organize this massive amount of data, the UCR separates crime data into two primary groups: Part I offenses and Part II offenses. The UCR collects reported crime data on 10 Part I offenses, which are seen as more serious criminal offenses and include criminal homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, human trafficking for commercial sex acts, and human trafficking for involuntary servitude. Part II offenses are considered less serious and include only arrest data rather than reported data. Part II offenses consist of 20 less serious crimes, such as vandalism, gambling, simple assault, and vagrancy.

The UCR presents data in three primary ways. First, it provides raw numbers of arrests or reported crimes. For example, in 2019, there were approximately 16,425 murders reported nationwide (FBI, 2020a). Second, the UCR presents crime rates using per capita of a rate per 100,000 people. Simply stated, this is achieved by dividing the numerical value by the total population and subsequently multiplying the result by 100,000. To illustrate, let’s revisit the previous example of 16,425 estimated murders in the U.S. in 2019. By dividing this figure by the estimated total U.S. population of 328 million, then multiplying it by 100,000 (16,425 / 328,000,000 X 100,000), we ascertain that the 2019 per-capita murder rate in the U.S. was approximately 5.0 murders per 100,000 people. Third, the UCR supplies a year-to-year comparison with information regarding changes in crime rates from previous years. For example, there was a 0.2% decrease in the U.S. murder rate from 2018 to 2019 (FBI, 2020a).

Drawbacks of the Uniform Crime Report

One drawback of the UCR data is its reliance on reported crimes, which means that only incidents reported to the police are included. As discussed in the previous chapter, not all criminal activities are brought to the attention of law enforcement, resulting in underrepresentation of the total number of criminal acts (Levitt, 1998). Additionally, the voluntary nature of police department participation in the UCR program poses another challenge. When a department chooses not to share crime data with the FBI, crime rates for that jurisdiction are estimated by comparing them with those in nearby jurisdictions of similar size. Furthermore, even when departments do participate and provide data voluntarily, variations in laws, policies, and procedures regarding the collection and recording of crime can lead to discrepancies. The fact that some departments may report certain criminal behaviors that others do not further complicates the accuracy and reliability of the collected UCR data.

One significant challenge with UCR data is the hierarchy rule, which establishes a ranking of offenses based on their severity. Under this rule, murder ranks higher than aggravated assault, which in turn ranks higher than larceny (FBI, 2015). According to this rule, if multiple offenses occur in a single criminal incident, only the most serious offense is counted. For instance, if a murder takes place during a burglary, only the murder would be recorded in the UCR data because it ranks higher in the hierarchy. This presents a notable issue as it results in fewer crimes being recorded than actually occur, providing an inaccurate understanding of the full scope of criminal activity. Additionally, it can create the impression that more serious crimes constitute a larger proportion of criminal activity than they do in reality.

Another drawback of the UCR is that it does not distinguish between attempted and completed Part I offenses. This means that if an individual is stopped before completing a Part I offense and the action is reported, it is recorded as a completed crime in the UCR database. This can lead to an overestimation of the actual number of Part I offenses occurring.

Over the years, numerous modifications have been made to the UCR, including the addition of information concerning incidents involving police officers being killed or assaulted, as well as data on hate crimes. While these changes have generally been beneficial, changes in definitions have sometimes been problematic, as they can cause shifts in recorded statistics and lead to misconceptions when comparing statistics from before and after the definition change.

For instance, one of the more controversial issues with the UCR was the definition used for rape between 1929 and 2012. Prior to 2013, the definition of forcable rape used in UCR data was “the carnal knowledge of a female focibly and against her will” (FBI, 2017, p. 3). This definition meant that only females were included in rape statistics, and only rapes involving force or the threat of force were recorded. As shown in Figure 2.7 below, changing the definition of rape in 2013 to include men and omitting the use-of-force standard significantly altered the number of rapes recorded in the UCR.

National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

In 1982, the bureau of justice statistics (BJS) along with the FBI conducted a study to determine the feasible and benefits of adapting a more comprehensive national crime data collection system (Poggio et al., 1985). The results of the study indicated a significant need to improve the data-gathering process to include more detailed information in several areas including weapon use, gang violence, and crimes against children (Strom & Smith, 2017). In 1989, the national incident-based reporting system (NIBRS) was introduced (FBI, 2018). However, it was not until 2021 that the nibrs became the mandated national standard for law enforcement agencies reporting crime data to the FBI (BJS, 2022a).

The nibrs differs from the original UCR data collection practices in several key ways. First, UCR only used aggregate data, which does not include specifics of each crime. In contrast, the NIBRS incorporates disaggregated data, providing demographic information about the offender and victim, the relationship between the victim and offender, details on the context of offense characteristics, and incident-level data (Loftin & McDowall, 2010). Secondly, the NIBRS does not adhere to the hierarchy rule and can include up to ten offenses per incident. Additionally, the NIBRS encompasses a broader range of crime offenses. For example, while the UCR included only 10 Part I offenses, the NIBRS includes 49 Group A offenses, encompassing high-level crimes such as murder, assault, and arson, as well as ten Group B offenses, which cover low-level crimes such as public drunkenness, curfew violations, and writing faulty checks.

Weaknesses of the National Incident-Based Reporting System

While the data provided by the NIBRS is superior to the traditional UCR data, it has a number of weaknesses. One prevailing issue is the failure of police departments to report their data to the NIBRS. For instance, in 2022, only 77% of U.S. police agencies submitted data to the NIBRS (FBI National Press Office, 2023). Although an additional 16.6% of departments report UCR data during that same year, the doj and FBI must devise crime estimates for all jurisdictions that fail to submit their data to the NIBRS. These approximations hinder the overall strength and accuracy of the statistics produced by NIBRS, which could be improved if more police agencies reported their crime data to the NIBRS. Lastly, while the NIBRS data is much more robust than the original UCR data, it still fails to capture unreported crimes. This limitation makes it difficult to accurately compare crime rates across cities, counties, and states. For example, if citizens lack trust in the police or believe the police will be unable to solve the crime, they might be less inclined to report crimes. Similarly, if a police department is understaffed or focused only on serious crimes, it might fail to report all crimes it deems unsolvable or insignificant.

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

Crime victimization surveys are a valuable tool for capturing some unreported crimes or "dark figures." Presently, the nation’s primary victimization survey is the national crime victimization survey (NCVS). Commencing in 1973 through a joint effort of the law enforcement assistance administration (LEAA) and the U.S. Census Bureau, the ncvs has been conducted annually (Eckroth, 2023). Despite the disbandment of leaa in 1979, the bjs continued the yearly administration of the survey.

The NCVS collects a plethora of victimization data through interviews and surveys of individuals aged 12 years and older (Morgan & Smith, 2023). One of the most beneficial aspects of the NCVS is its ability to capture dark figures by measuring unreported crimes. This is invaluable for understanding the extent of underreported crimes and the reasons why victims may choose not to report crimes to the police. Additionally, the data collected by the NCVS provides crucial information about the nature of the crime, the victim, the relationship between the victim and offender, and the consequences of victimization.

More specifically, the NCVS collects highly detailed demographic information from victims, including age, income, race, ethnicity, gender, and geographical location. This information plays a pivotal role in identifying patterns and disparities in victimization rates, enabling tailored prevention and intervention efforts for underrepresented populations. Moreover, due to its annual administration, the NCVS facilitates longitudinal analysis. These analyses enable researchers, law enforcement agencies, and policymakers to identify changes in crime patterns over time, leading to more effectively adjusted crime prevention strategies.

Shortcomings of the National Crime Victimization Survey

Like any research and data collection method, the NCVS has its limitations. One such shortcoming is its exclusion of certain populations, including children younger than 12, homeless individuals, and those living in institutional settings such as nursing homes and correctional facilities. As a result, the data from the NCVS underrepresents these groups and fails to provide a comprehensive understanding of all cross-sections of society. Another limitation is its predominant focus on personal and property crimes, often neglecting other types of crime such as white-collar crime, organized crime, and cyber crimes.

Another challenge with the NCVS, akin to all interview and survey data collection methods, is the potential variation in the interpretation of victimization definitions among respondents and interviewers. This variability can result in inconsistencies in both reporting and classification of victimization incidents. Furthermore, some respondents may encounter difficulties accurately recalling details about their victimization experiences, including the timing, nature, and circumstances of the crime.

Self-Report Surveys

Another method of monitoring crime is through the use of self-report surveys. Unlike crime data collected through police reports or victimization surveys, self-report crime surveys directly inquire about individuals’ participation in illegal activities, irrespective of whether or not the activity was reported to the police. These surveys are particularly effective in uncovering data on victimless crimes, where there may not be a direct victim, such as illicit drug use. Typically, these surveys are administered anonymously to large groups of individuals, often in school, community, or household settings.

One of the largest self-report crime surveys is the monitoring the future (MTF) national survey. Administered annually by the University of Michigan Survey Research Center since 1975 (Monitoring the Future, n.d.), the original mtf survey was distributed to approximately 16,000 senior high school students in 133 public and private high schools. Since 1991, the MTF survey has expanded to include 8th, 10th, and 12th graders, totaling around 50,000 students and 420 public and private schools yearly. Additionally, a subset of participants receives yearly follow-up surveys throughout secondary school, college, and adulthood. This longitudinal approach allows researchers to gain insight into how perceptions of crime and drug use evolve over the lifespan.

Limitations of Self-Report Crime Surveys

Self-report crime surveys, such as the MTF, offer valuable insights into “dark figures” and juvenile perspectives on crime and drug use. However, these surveys also have limitations. Firstly, despite being anonymous, participants may still feel ashamed or fearful of providing truthful information. Additionally, individuals may exaggerate their criminal behavior or forget important details of these acts. Furthermore, like any survey, misinterpretation of the questions may lead participants to provide inaccurate information.

Attributions

1. Figure 2.7: Alterations to Rape Definitions and Their Impact on Statistics: 2000-2016 by Federal Bureau of Investigation in the Public Domain; U.S. government works created by a federal government employee as part of their official duties are in the public domain.
2. Figure 2.8: data-analysis-icon by Oscar de Lama is released under CC BY NC 2.0