Do the issues with national crime data call into question any of our narratives around the rapid increase in violent crime in the 1960s into the 70s? That narrative feels pretty indisputable, but I'm curious how we account for the increase in reporting/flaws in data with what we know about rates of violent crime in that era.
They certainly call into question just how precise those figures are, but I don't think it changes the narratives. Crime was much lower in the 60s even if the FBI's estimates for those timeframes are quite wrong.
I do wonder if it accounts for some of the much higher clearance rates we see back then though.
I was a cop from 92 to 94 in a very small (college) agency. We were early adopters of NIBRS, but still had to report under UCR. It was interesting to see how the sausage was made, as it were.
Is there a solution to poor reporting? Can/should it be mandated, with penalties for failure?
Jeff might correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a few states mandate it, somehow. Maine comes to mind.
It seems like the carrot of incentives would work better than the stick of punishment, though, since fining struggling depts that need more resources might be counterproductive.
If you're interested, I made a page to compare the number of homicides reported to the FBI vs the number of homicide deaths reported to the CDC. Unlike crime data, there is a national mandate to submit a death certificate to the CDC, so fewer murders are missed in that reporting system.
Good point. I suggested a year ago when he wrote about this that maybe the feds do something like they did with highway funds and the drinking age. "Raise your drinking age to 21 or lose your highway funds."
Maybe "Reach 80% compliance in two years or lose your 1033 equipment," or something like that.
I compared the number of deaths from homicide that were reported to the FBI with those reported to the CDC, and it's interesting that Mississippi and Illinois show up as the worst, here, too:
Do the issues with national crime data call into question any of our narratives around the rapid increase in violent crime in the 1960s into the 70s? That narrative feels pretty indisputable, but I'm curious how we account for the increase in reporting/flaws in data with what we know about rates of violent crime in that era.
They certainly call into question just how precise those figures are, but I don't think it changes the narratives. Crime was much lower in the 60s even if the FBI's estimates for those timeframes are quite wrong.
I do wonder if it accounts for some of the much higher clearance rates we see back then though.
I was a cop from 92 to 94 in a very small (college) agency. We were early adopters of NIBRS, but still had to report under UCR. It was interesting to see how the sausage was made, as it were.
Is there a solution to poor reporting? Can/should it be mandated, with penalties for failure?
Jeff might correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a few states mandate it, somehow. Maine comes to mind.
It seems like the carrot of incentives would work better than the stick of punishment, though, since fining struggling depts that need more resources might be counterproductive.
If you're interested, I made a page to compare the number of homicides reported to the FBI vs the number of homicide deaths reported to the CDC. Unlike crime data, there is a national mandate to submit a death certificate to the CDC, so fewer murders are missed in that reporting system.
https://theusaindata.pythonanywhere.com/underreported_murders
Good point. I suggested a year ago when he wrote about this that maybe the feds do something like they did with highway funds and the drinking age. "Raise your drinking age to 21 or lose your highway funds."
Maybe "Reach 80% compliance in two years or lose your 1033 equipment," or something like that.
I compared the number of deaths from homicide that were reported to the FBI with those reported to the CDC, and it's interesting that Mississippi and Illinois show up as the worst, here, too:
https://theusaindata.pythonanywhere.com/underreported_murders