Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Debra J. Piehl's avatar

Thanks, Jeff - This is an interesting and valuable way to look at things. I think the quality of NIBRS reporting is at least equally if not more important than quality. Increased reporting of poor quality data does not get us anywhere. At a local level, the analysis of quality NIBRS data, including location types, property, victim-offender relationships, etc., provides critical support toward the identification of patterns. What I find, however, is that many agencies are not even aware of these fields and make use of them. Many do not even get that far. Most often the majority of thefts are classified as 23H, all other larceny, but if analysis is done on location types and property types, a good percentage of these should be shoplifting. This does nothing to support strategic operations. There are further issues with burglaries and larcenies, simple and aggravated assaults, robberies, etc. Average-sized, local agencies need to be given much more incentive to report NIBRS accurately and perhaps vendors need to be called to task to better serve agencies. I could go on and on, but you get my point. Thanks for the thoughtful commentary and I will soon do what I can to support your efforts. Thanks. Deb Piehl

Expand full comment
Brian Jones's avatar

Is NIBRs data the same data that some departments upload to cityprotect.com?

I've been using that data for some analysis, but it has challenges. Aside from the spotty coverage, there are some holes in the data. For example, the Santa Clara County Sheriffs department provides block-level addresses for each incident, but not the city. If you want to get incidents by city, you have to do a reverse geocoding lookup, which is prone to error.

Is there a better way to get the data straight from the FBI?

Thanks!

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts