I have two questions. The first one is just about the nature of the data we're talking about, the second is more of a prompt for further thought and analysis.
1) How are clearances dated? For example, if a murder occurred in 1996 and was solved in 1998, is that a 1998 clearance or a 1996 clearance? I would expect it to be 1996 but I can imagine it getting displaced. There's also an argument that both dates should be tracked (and potentially further dates tracked, see below), but that leads to a dataset that's difficult to visualize.
2) What happens to clearance data when we start trying to account for incorrect conclusions to cases? For example, was a disappearance or dead body correctly identified as a murder victim? If so, was the case solved correctly? How do we filter out, say, the Shaurn Thomases, Willy Veasys, Pamela Laniers, and Joey Watkinses in the data, and what happens when we do?
Clearances are assigned to the year the case was cleared and not to when the homicide occurred. Thus the denominator (homicides this year) and the numerator (cases cleared) don’t match up. There have been times when it appears an LEA attempts to juice clearance rates by exceptionally clearing old cases. An “exceptional clearance” is when the agency has identified a likely perpetrator but states he or she can’t be arrested (deceased, fled country, etc.) Exceptional clearances should be rare, but some agencies rely on them more than others to appear like they are solving cases.
Are federal dollars sent to most, if not all, police departments in the US and if so, why aren’t crime statistics reporting requirements attached to each contract?
Hi Jeff: I love your "look under the hood" reference to crime statistics.
Homicides seem to fall into two categories, easy and hard to solve. The hard to solve category is probably hampered by a lack of cooperation from witnesses and those with knowledge of the crime.
Looking under the hood, the question becomes why? There are several examples as to cities providing the personnel and resources needed to clear an increasing number of homicides and shootings. So why doesn't this happen in every city?
Is it resources? Is it a lack of cops? Is it police-community relations? Something's going on here that probably correlates with the dramatic drop in overall arrests over decades.
This is something that NIJ needs to take on because there has to reasons why. Data is only as good as the context we bring to the discussion and the context is missing. Your analogy of wait times in New Orleans possibly having an impact on crime reporting is one example.
Is it a matter of an exhaustive crime scene analysis? With huge fingerprint and DNA databases, you would think we would be solving more, not fewer homicides.
This is something the USDOJ needs to make a priority through a quick response analysis yet that seems to never happen. Why?
It seems the data correlates with the rise of gang violence in the 1980’s. Those cases are notoriously difficult to solve. Then you add the recent rise of activist prosecutors and it gets even worse...
I have two questions. The first one is just about the nature of the data we're talking about, the second is more of a prompt for further thought and analysis.
1) How are clearances dated? For example, if a murder occurred in 1996 and was solved in 1998, is that a 1998 clearance or a 1996 clearance? I would expect it to be 1996 but I can imagine it getting displaced. There's also an argument that both dates should be tracked (and potentially further dates tracked, see below), but that leads to a dataset that's difficult to visualize.
2) What happens to clearance data when we start trying to account for incorrect conclusions to cases? For example, was a disappearance or dead body correctly identified as a murder victim? If so, was the case solved correctly? How do we filter out, say, the Shaurn Thomases, Willy Veasys, Pamela Laniers, and Joey Watkinses in the data, and what happens when we do?
Clearances are assigned to the year the case was cleared and not to when the homicide occurred. Thus the denominator (homicides this year) and the numerator (cases cleared) don’t match up. There have been times when it appears an LEA attempts to juice clearance rates by exceptionally clearing old cases. An “exceptional clearance” is when the agency has identified a likely perpetrator but states he or she can’t be arrested (deceased, fled country, etc.) Exceptional clearances should be rare, but some agencies rely on them more than others to appear like they are solving cases.
Are federal dollars sent to most, if not all, police departments in the US and if so, why aren’t crime statistics reporting requirements attached to each contract?
Hi Jeff: I love your "look under the hood" reference to crime statistics.
Homicides seem to fall into two categories, easy and hard to solve. The hard to solve category is probably hampered by a lack of cooperation from witnesses and those with knowledge of the crime.
Looking under the hood, the question becomes why? There are several examples as to cities providing the personnel and resources needed to clear an increasing number of homicides and shootings. So why doesn't this happen in every city?
Is it resources? Is it a lack of cops? Is it police-community relations? Something's going on here that probably correlates with the dramatic drop in overall arrests over decades.
This is something that NIJ needs to take on because there has to reasons why. Data is only as good as the context we bring to the discussion and the context is missing. Your analogy of wait times in New Orleans possibly having an impact on crime reporting is one example.
Is it a matter of an exhaustive crime scene analysis? With huge fingerprint and DNA databases, you would think we would be solving more, not fewer homicides.
This is something the USDOJ needs to make a priority through a quick response analysis yet that seems to never happen. Why?
Best, Len.
“There are several examples as to cities providing the personnel and resources needed to clear an increasing number of homicides and shootings.”
Let me stop you right there. Homicides are decreasing. But, yes, police budgets keep increasing.
It seems the data correlates with the rise of gang violence in the 1980’s. Those cases are notoriously difficult to solve. Then you add the recent rise of activist prosecutors and it gets even worse...