Criminology: Uniform Crime Reports and the National Incident-Based Reporting System - Essay Example

Criminology Introduction The United s Government is responsible for offering information on crimes to its citizens. When reporting crime data to the FBI in United States, most of the law enforcement departments use the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the National Incident-Based Reporting System. Uniform Crime Reports are official reports published by Federal Bureau of Investigation and give statistics on felony in United States. UCR is a countrywide programe that integrates more than 17, 000 cities, universities and colleges, states, federal agencies and counties who report any information on crimes brought to their attention. As a result, the Federal Bureau of Investigation doers not collect information on itself (Robinson, 1966). Rather, it relies on the other law enforcement agencies to report the crimes that are brought to their attention. According to a census that was carried out by the Bureau of census in 2002 revealed that 93 percent of the population that submitted the reports was the law enforcement authorities while 89% of the populace came from the metropolitan areas, with 90 percent being in the rural counties (Wolfang, 1963). From the time when Uniform Crime Report was established in 2003, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has offered sporadic evaluations of the type of and nature crime in United States. This program’s main aim was to produce a dependable group of unlawful statistics for use in police force management, management and operation. This has made it be one of the nation’s principal social indicators. The Uniform Crime Reports assist the American public to search for information on variation in crime rates. In addition, criminologists, sociologists, criminal justice students, legislators and municipal planners use information in the Uniform Crime Reports to carryout different researches and planning responsibilities (Wolfang, 1963). National Incident-Based Reporting System is an event-oriented coverage structure employed by the law enforcement agencies in United States to collect information on crimes. It is designed to collect information on any single crime scene that occurs. State, local and federal agencies produce these reports from their information systems. Data is obtained and captured from every crime occurrence and recorded in Group ‘A’ crime group. The crimes in the Group ‘A’ category are 46 offences classified into 22 crime classes. Certain details about the offences are collected and documented in the NIBRS system. Moreover, there are 11 crimes recorded in Group ‘B’ with just the apprehension details (FBI, 1992). NIBRS aims to augment the quality, timeliness, and quantity of felony information gathered by law enforcement authorities, and to enhance the method employed in collecting, auditing, analyzing, and issuing the gathered information. NIBRS is capable of breaking down and combining offences data into specific information even when the data collected is large. South Dakota was the only state in United States that used the NIBRS system in 2001. Reporting of crimes to the NIBRS is voluntary. Some of the law enforcement agencies use the web-based NIBRS while others have a private vendor for their records management systems and buy a NIBRS element. The latter agencies then export their crime data and send it as an email attachment into the web-based NIBRS system (FBI, 2000). This paper compares and contracts the methodological procedures of Uniform Crime Reports and National Incident-Based Reporting System and explores benefits and disadvantages of each of them. Similarities The Uniform Crime Reports program has developed to engross the reports recorded in the NIBRS. Both NIBRS and UCR total the criminal felonies bases using their own specific definitions and terminology to differentiate criminal offences. Neither of the methods of classification employed by UCR nor NIBRS is based on the state or federal definitions. Each of these programs has tried to restructure their terminology concerning the criminal acts. Despite the updates, these programs still have some degree of deviation in their definitions when compared to federal and state definitions (FBI, 2000). Both Uniform Crime Reports program and National Incident-Based Reporting System gather information on the victim and wrongdoer. The UCR and NIBRS gather information about people arrested, such as age, gender, and race. The UCR and NIBRS provide extensive data on crimes committed by numerous subgroups based on the offender’s attributes. For instance, they present data separately on offenses committed by juveniles and adults. They also present data separately for males and females and for distinct ethnic and racial groups (FBI, 2000). However, the individuals arrested do not equal the people who have committed the crimes. This is because an individual offender may be arrested for numerous crimes. In addition not all the crimes that occur in United States are recorded in the UCR and the NIBRS. It is only the most serious offences that are recorded in these programs. Both UCR and the NIBRS programs provide uniform, nationwide information on crime and delinquency. The FBI ensures that law enforcement agencies across the nation use consistent definitions and procedures for reporting crimes as parts of UCR and NIBRS programs (Wolfang, 1963). The uniformity combined with the nationwide scope of the programs, allows researchers to compare crime statistics across jurisdictions and examine the nature and extend of crime for the nation as a whole. Since the two programs have been in existence for many years, researchers are able to explore trends in crime rates over time. Differences i. Incident based Reports of NIBRS versus Summary Reports of UCR Since UCR program was instituted in 1930, it has employed the reporting agency as the basic unit of count. The most underlying difference between the Uniform Crime Reports and the National Incident-Based Reporting System is entrenched in the ellipsis ‘incident-based reporting’. It is well understood that the Uniform Crime Reports program is summary-based, which allows disaggregation to the reporting agency level. This implies that the analytic potential of the Uniform Crime Reports program summary data is restricted top the totals reported by each agency taking part. Number of Part I crimes and the total arrests for Part II offences are the renowned Uniform Crime Reports program summary measures. Additional summary counts are present for assets and items recovered and the weapons used in the different offences. Finally, summary counts of arrests are collected and categorized by the race, age and sex of the offenders (FBI, 2000). Many social scientists can identify this as units of evaluations. Pragmatic sentiments about social occurrence must match up with the units from which data was obtained. In this regard, Uniform Crime Reports program data can be used to compare accounted crime rates and levels across the nation, but cannot use the state-level information to compare crime rates and levels in counties, cities and smaller units. Procedures based on disaggregate units of evaluation can be fused into more collective units, but the process is irreversible (FBI, 2000). In NIBRS, law implementation authorities gather information concerning individual felony occurrences and apprehensions and put them forward in different accounts through prearranged facts values to delineate the offenses and the arrests made. This makes NIBRS be an incident-based reporting program. Incident reports are put forward for Group ‘A’ crimes. Group ‘A’ occurrence accounts consist of six sections and 53 facts constituents. The segments include the “administrative, offense, property, victim, offender and arrestee segments”. Administrative segment consist of “ORI number, incident number, and Incident date and hour”. Offense segment consists of “ORI number, incident number, UCR offense code, offense attempted, offender(s) suspected of using, bias motivation, location type, number of premises entered, and the method of Entry”. Property Segment consists of “ORI number, incident number, and type of property loss, and property description, value of Property, date recovered, and number of Stolen Motor Vehicles” (Wolfang, 1963). Victim Segment consists of “ORI number, incident number, victim number, victim connected to UCR offense code, type of victim, age of victim, sex, race, ethnicity, resident status, aggravated assault circumstances, and additional justifiable homicide circumstances, type of Injury, and offender number(s) to be related”. Offender segment consists of “ORI number, incident number, offender number, age of offender, sex of offender, and race.” Arrestee segment consists of “ORI number, incident number, arrestee number, arrest number, arrest date, the type of arrest, multiple arrestee segments indicator, UCR arrest offense code, and arrestee was armed with, age of arrestee, sex, race of arrestee, ethnicity, and resident status” (Robinson, 1963). Unlike the Uniform Crime Reports program which is a “Summary Reporting System”, in the NIBRS, apprehensions and incomparable permissions concerning Group ‘A’ occurrence accounts are put forward as tidings to those reports (FBI, 1992).. In the Group ‘B’ Arrest account of the NIBRS, crimes are documented only when it entails an arrest. Group ‘B’ does not involve the occurrence information but employs information constituents that depict the person under arrest and the situation of the apprehension. ii. Offense Reporting The Uniform Crime Reports differ from NIBRS in the offenses they report. In the UCR, the data is gathered on criminal occurrences engrossing “murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson” (FBI, 2000). In addition, information is collected on people arrested for the crimes indicated. On the other hand, there are 2 classes of felonies accounted in the NIBRS. These two are “Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’”. In NIBRS, it is imperative to identify the group of a felony since the offenses have to be submitted in either “Group ‘A’ incident reports or the Group ‘B’ incident reports”. Group A crimes include “arson, assault, bribery, burglary, counterfeiting, destruction of property, drug and narcotic offenses, embezzlement, fraud offences, Blackmail, gambling, homicide, kidnapping, theft, motor vehicle theft, pornography, prostitution, robbery, forcible sex, sex offences such as incest and statutory rape, and weapon law violations” (FBI, 1998). iii. Variety of Incident Types The Uniform Crime Reports system data include numbers of offenses reported to police for only eight offense types. These eight include murder, aggravated assault, burglary, arson, larceny, and non-negligent manslaughter. On the other hand, The NIBRS is arranged into two wide groups of offenses which include “Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’”. In this regard, the crime classification in the NIBRS is more disaggregated than those in the Uniform Crime Report system. With the huge variety of crimes, NIBRS data have the propensity to serve the needs of the researchers and the analysts by identifying more harmonized crime categories (Wolfang, 1963). iv. Hierarchy Rule In the Uniform Crime Reports program, the authenticity of the numerous crimes perpetrated in the course of an occurrence generated an insufficient decision rule in record keeping. The reporting agencies employ the hierarchy rule to separate the most severe crime events when many offenses have been committed (Robinson, 1966). Therefore, an incident that engrossed both a household burglary and theft of the family car would only count the burglary. However, this would result to undercounting car automobile theft. In the UCR, only the crimes with the highest Crime Index hierarchy are reported. However, in the NIBRS, the basic count is the incident, and each event can engross numerous offences. According to the FBI, an incident entails the place, time and the offenders of the crime. The NIBRS defines an incident as crime or crimes perpetrated by one wrongdoer or a many wrongdoers acting together. In the NIBRS, a single event may include as many as 10 offences (FBI, 2000). Needless to say, a unlimited number of offenses can be included in an incident. In this regard, the household burglary and the automobile theft would count as different offences in one incident. v. Incident Details As noted by the previous paragraph, the NIBRS record structure is hierarchical, allowing for numerous records within an incident for offenses, victims, property, arrestees and offenders. This data that is categorized into the different segments is helpful to many researchers. For instance, environmental criminologists can identify the data on the time of occurrence and the location where the incident took place. This is useful for crime analysis. The type of victim in segment four allows for an evaluation on offenses targeting people and business entities, which is a considerable advantage over Uniform Crime Report data that combine business entities and individual targets of theft and burglary (Samaha, 2006). Other NIBRS data replicate policy interest in certain and comparatively new crime types. The crime segment includes autonomous codes for suspected alcohol or drug involvement in felonies. These data are to be coded “to indicate whether any of the offenders in the incident were suspected of consuming alcohol or using drugs or narcotics during or shortly before the incident” (FBI, 1998). A code is engrossed to ensign incidents when computer equipment was employed in some degree to perpetrate the crime. vi. Offence definitions In the Uniform Crime Reports, the definitions for the crimes employed in the program are described in the “Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook”. These descriptions are employed in categorizing crimes under this system. However, in the NIBRS, some of the meanings of the “Crime Index offenses” had to be modified. For instance, the meaning of “Forcible Rape” in Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook is “the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”NIBRS’ description of it is the “carnal knowledge of a person, forcibly and or against that person’s will; or not forcibly or against the person’s will where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his or her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity”. Additionally, the NIBRS has modified many other definitions which had been delineated for the purposes of the Uniform Crime Report program. The modified definitions include the “Sexual Assault with an object, Forcible Fondling, and Forcible Sodomy” (Samaha, 2006). In addition, the definition of burglary differs between the two systems. The UCR describes it as the “unlawful entry or attempted entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft”. On the other hand, NIBRS describes it as “the entry or attempted entry of a residence by a person who had no right to be there” (Maxfield, 1999). vii. Specificity in Collecting data The Uniform Crime Report system gathers most of its offenses data inform of classes such as age, race, and property value classes, it is incapable of breaking down the data outcome into certain subdivisions (Samaha, 2006). Alternatively, NIBRS gathers the particulars of felony occurrences, allowing better particularity in accounting. For instance, divisions can be produced in offenses against people, government, religious organizations, financial institutions, and business entities; felonies engrossing numerous weapons (FBI, 2000). Additionally, since NIBRS gathers particulars on the values of goods stolen and recovered items, there can be monetary breakdown of the items stolen and recovered. viii. Scoring Category ‘Crimes Against Society’ In the Uniform Crime Report program there are two types of scoring categories which include the “Crimes Against Persons” and the “Crimes Against Property”. The Crimes Against Persons includes “aggravated assault, Forcible rape and Murder”. The Crimes Against Property include the robbery, theft and burglary where one crime is counted for each of the different incidents (FBI, 1992). In the NIBRS, there has been additional scoring category to include offenses such as gambling offense, drug and narcotics offenses, pornography or obscene material and prostitution offenses. These additional scoring categories are neither Crimes Against Person nor are they Crimes Against Property. However, these crimes are against the society since they symbolize society’s proscriptions on taking part in particular types of activities (Maxfield, 1999). Therefore, the NIBRS has an additional scoring category where one offence is counted for each crime against the society. ix. Distinguishing between Completed and Attempted crimes In the Uniform Crime Report, there is no distinction on how to account whether most of the offenses perpetrated were attempted or completed. Therefore, the Uniform Crime Report program reports all the offenses as though they were completed. However, this is exceptional of efforts to perpetrate aggressive rape and beating to kill and effort to kill. This is because they are aggravated assault (Samaha, 2006). In NIBRS, the offenses recorded are either reported as either competed or attempted. In the data element 7, the crimes are either designated as A for attempted or C for completed. Nonetheless, attempted murder and assault to murder is regarded as “aggravated assault” (FBI, 1998). x. Connection among “offenses, property, victims, offenders, and Arrestees” The Uniform Crime Report system offers restricted potentiality to compare the information gathered. For instance, it is only in murders where data on “age, race and sex” of wrongdoers can be compared with “age, race and sex” of the victims (Robinson, 1966). The NIBRS system uses both purposely veiled (explicit) and non-veiled but linked by good value of propinquity (implied) associations. The explicit associations are employed in linking crimes, property, offenders, victims, and the people arrested to the crime and to link the casualty to the offenses perpetrated against them. One of the notable implied associations is between the wrongdoers and the casualties in an offense. All the wrongdoers have an implied association to all the victims (Samaha, 2006). This is because all the wrongdoers must have taken part in the execution of the offenses in the incident. Both the explicit and implied associations offer the potentiality to produce reports that replicate a huge number of associations among the information gathered. xi. Objective These two programs were designed for different reasons and aims. The UCR was designed to offer a dependable group of unlawful statistics for use in police force management and operation (Robinson, 1966). On the other hand, the NIBRS was developed to augment the quality, timeliness, and quantity of felony information gathered by law enforcement agencies, and to enhance the method employed in collecting, auditing, analyzing, and issuing the gathered information (FBI, 1998). xii. Establishment The Uniform Crime Reports Program was established by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1930. It publishes its records annually. Since its establishment, it has become a significant source of information to many people. It consists of four parts; “the law enforcement officers killed and Assaulted, hate crime statistics, cargo theft reporting program and the traditional Summary Reporting System” (Robinson, 1966). On the other hand, the National Incident-Based Reporting System was established in late 1920’s to collect and gather information on crimes only. It was instituted by the “International Association of Chiefs of Police” and began under the legal power of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Since then, it has grown into a broad function of reporting crimes (FBI, 1998). xiii. Victim and offender Association Data In the Uniform Crime Report System, the association of the sufferer and the wrongdoer is reported for only the murders. For instance, it is reported that the victim was the wife, husband, employee, or the employer to the wrongdoer (Samaha, 2006). In NIBRS, the relationship between the offender and the victim is stated so long as the offense was a crime against person. However, victim-to-offender relationship is indicated in a robbery offense since one of its constituents is an assault. In this regard, the NIBRS offers an extended “victim-to-offender relationship” information than the UCR (Wolfang, 1963). xiv. Circumstance Reporting The Uniform Crime Report system gathers circumstance data for only homicides while NIRBS collects circumstance data on aggravated assaults in addition to homicides. This makes NIBRS have an increased circumstance reporting than UCR. Additionally, in the NIBRS, more than one circumstance codes for an exacerbated assault or murder can be entered (Samaha, 2006). xv. Hotel Rule In the Uniform Crime Reports program, the “Hotel Rule” is employed to diminish the load or accounting for theft of impermanent lodges. The “Hotel Rule” is located in the “Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook” and states “If a number of dwelling units under a single manager are stolen and the offenses are most likely to be reported to the police by the manager rather than the individual tenants, the burglary should be scored as one offense” (FBI, 2000). In NIBRS, the “Hotel Rule” has been expatiated to engross leasing storage equipments. Under the expanded Hotel Rule in NIBRS, the number of suites, units, rooms, and storeroom sections burglarized are to be described to identify the number of items that were stolen (Samaha, 2006). xvi. Magnetic Media capitulation for involvement In the Uniform Crime Reports, direct capitulations are forwarded to the FBI and local agencies using manual forms and magnetic tapes. On the other hand, all the agencies that put forward information unswervingly to the FBI through the NIRBS must employ “magnetic tapes” or “computer disks” (FBI, 2000). xvii. Calculation of Crime rates UCT and NIBRS calculate property crime rates differently using different bases. Property crime entails theft, burglary, and motor vehicle theft. The Uniform Crime Report system rates for the property crimes are calculated as the” number of crimes per 100, 000 people”, while NIBRS computes its “property crime rates per household i.e. the number of offenses per 1000 households”. As a result, households may not increase at a similar pace with population annually and the tendency information for the rates of property crimes for the two systems cannot be compared (Samaha, 2006). xviii. Constructing Situation-Based Crime Measures Aggregating the crime codes assist researchers construct standards the replicate the situational context of incidents, not just their constitutional classifications. In the NIBRS, FBI coding requirements for crimes are based in legal differentiations and classes that can blot out significant disparities among felonies (Maxfield, 1999). However, policy analysts and researchers can utilize the assortment of NIBRS fields to find out about diverse crime situations implanted in legislative classes. For Instance, an aggravated assault can engross seven casual associates in a pub scuffle, a stray bullet wound inflicted on a bystander, or a married heterosexual couple. Each of these situations is an assault but takes place in different circumstances and presents different policy problems. Combining such information from distinct NIBRS records makes it possible for crime analysts and scholars to evaluate differently alcohol-linked aggression in public places, domestic aggression, and validating aggression from gang or drug activity. Distinct types of property crimes can also be delineated. Burglaries that take place during daytime in residential areas where numerous properties are reported missing are distinct from burglaries that take place at night and properties are stolen from business entities (FBI, 1998). Apprehending the types of offenses delineated by their situational circumstances is imperative in getting the most out of community policing, problem solving, and other changing courses of crime control. The thorough and comprehensive record arrangement of NIBRS provides incredible potential for evaluation to hold up ground-breaking criminal justice policy. Conclusion Both these systems used to gauge and calculate crime have similarities as well as differences. In addition, advantages and disadvantages exist amongst each other. Since each of the programs have different definitions and distinct reporting systems, these were considerably used to give the distinctions between the two. The NIBRS cannot replace UCR, but rather serve as an additional method to collect data on criminal activities in United States. When used in conjunction, they offer an adequate tool for researchers and analysts. References Federal Bureau of Investigation (1992). National Incident-Based Reporting System, Vol. 2. Data Submission Speci®cations, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC. Federal Bureau of Investigation (1998). National Incident-Based Reporting System, Vol. 1. Data Collection Guidelines,U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Washington,DC. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2000). National Incident-Based Reporting System. U.S Department of Justice. Robinson, S. M. (1966). A critical View of the Uniform Crime Reports. Journal of Michigan Law Review, 64(6), 1031-1054. Samaha, J. (2006). Criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Wolfgang, M. E. (1963). Uniform Crime Reports: A critical Appraisal. Journal of The University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 111(6), 708-738. Maxfield, M. G. (1999). The National Incident-Based Reporting System: Research and Policy Applications. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15(2), 119-149. Read More