NIBRS does require changes in the way data is collected and recorded.  In many cases, the switch from the summary system to NIBRS reporting would necessitate the purchase of new police record management system software and new hardware on which to run it.  But there is nothing collected in NIBRS that a progressive police agency doesn’t already gather - or shouldn’t be gathering right now.  In fact, in Massachusetts right now, 193 local police departments (and 4 campus police agencies) report their crime data to the state using the NIBRS format, and represent over one-half  of all full-time police agencies in the Commonwealth.  These agencies serve a total population of over 3 million,  and range in size from two of the largest cities in the state to some of the smallest agencies with full-time police officers.  As nearly 70% of Massachusetts police agencies currently possess in-house records management systems capable of reporting NIBRS, the jump to participate in the system should not be a monumental task.

Although it would be ‘nice’ to be able to say that 100% of all police departments in the state report crime stats to us, I believe we can survive fairly well with data reported by agencies which cover 98.7% of the population. (We should also realize that the crime rate for these smallest departments is much lower than that of the larger agencies.  As such, the total crime volume which the state is ‘missing’ due to these agencies non-reporting is much less than the 1.3% of the population which they serve).

A further issue has been raised about the accuracy of the data.  Anyone who has received a bill for services not rendered, or had the wrong price scanned in when they went grocery shopping knows that any data collection system can have errors in it.  As citizens and as consumers, we must be aware and vigilant to catch these mistakes.  Anyone who works in a police agency must do the same.  There must be an appreciation for the power and utility of data before any sort of statistics can be derived from them.   Unfortunately, in many police departments, the gathering of crime statistics is seen as a process totally separated from the collection of useful crime data.  But crime statistics, if they are to be meaningful to anyone, must be the result of a comprehensive information management system that is used by the organization.

This means that all levels of the organization must be users of the data and must have ‘bought in’ to the power of data.  Another way to look at this issue is that the interest in collecting quality data must come from the top down - the chief and the command staff must want to get quality data, in order to understand the environment around them and to be able to respond to it appropriately - and it must come from the bottom up - the line officers who go out to respond to calls for service must have the knowledge that what data they collect (or fail to collect) will have an impact on them in performance reviews, in the support they provide to the next shift, and in the critical work they do in assuring the public’s safety.  If the only person working hard to classify crime so as to generate crime statistics is the crime analyst, then that police department is probably doing something wrong.

A final issue in Ms Piehl’s piece concerned the ability or lack of ability to compare crime data reported by different agencies.  This is an important point, and one that the FBI has mentioned prominently in each annual issue of “Crime in the United States”

The reader is, therefore, cautioned against comparing statistical data of individual reporting units from cities, counties, states, or colleges and universities solely on the basis of their population coverage or student enrollment. [Crime in the United States, various.  Italics in original]

There are any number of factors which make cross-jurisdictional comparisons difficult.  Some police agencies may have a contentious relationship with the citizenry, who may therefore be hesitant about reporting crimes to them.  Some cities may have large immigrant populations who do not trust the police.  Some police may produce written reports only on the most serious of offenses, encouraging citizens to handle minor crimes in civil court.  Any one of these factors could influence the amount and volume of crime data collected by the police.

However, the one factor which should not influence the quality or quantity of crime data reported by that agency is their submission of UCR data, whether in the form of summary statistics or NIBRS data.  The FBI has provided a standardized format for the submission of crime data which any police department can use.  It has standard definitions for the counting of incidents and offenses and it provides nationally standardized definitions for offenses.  In the summary system that Ms Piehl talks about, these definitions and standards have not changed significantly in the last 30 years.  It is not, in essence, a ‘moving target’ that is constantly changing.  The NIBRS system, although much younger than the summary UCR program, is providing valuable information that has informed many decisions right now.

Can the present system of crime statistics be used for regional, state-wide, or national analysis?  One trivial answer is that it already is, no matter what its flaws might be.  And it is true that some police agencies have been accused of fudging numbers, ‘booting’ cases, and otherwise not reporting a ‘true picture’ of crime in their jurisdiction. Although none of us can guarantee the accuracy of all crime data, each of us has an important role to play in ensuring that the data we collect and disseminate is as good as it can be.  I’m glad there are professionals like Ms Piehl who do put the time and effort in to ensure quality data. As we work on the state and national level to move from summary crime reporting to incident-based, I believe that more police professionals will realize the utility of a comprehensive crime reporting system.