Skip to main content
Book cover

Handbook on Crime and Deviance pp 23–42Cite as

Studying the Crime Problem with NIBRS Data: Current Uses and Future Trends

Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)

Since 1930, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) through its national Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) has collected mainly aggregate counts of crime from state and local law enforcement agencies. This focus limits the official crime data available for analysis and policy making because, with the exception of homicides, characteristics of specific incidents are unknown. Information such as crime location, use of weapons, type of property stolen as well as victim and offender demographics provides a more complete picture of crime and crime patterns. Such details enable assessment of both current policies aimed to reduce crime and posited theories generated to explain it. Prompted by more sophisticated studies and understandings of crime as well as improved technological capabilities to capture and transmit incident information, the FBI instituted fundamental changes in the late 1980 s for how the UCR would collect crime data (FBI, 2004). Currently the UCR is in the midst of undergoing this substantial conversion from its traditional summary-based system (the summary reporting system) to its new incident-based one, the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS).

Keywords

  • Hate Crime
  • Uniform Crime Reporting
  • Crime Data
  • National Crime Victimization Survey
  • Criminal Incident

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-0245-0_2
  • Chapter length: 20 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-1-4419-0245-0
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The UCR collects incident-level homicide data through its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR). The current format of the SHR dates back to 1976 (Barnett-Ryan, 2007).

  2. 2.

    The other data components include Supplement to Return A; Age, Sex, and Race of Persons Arrested; Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR); Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA); Hate Crime Data Collection; Monthly Report of Arson Offenses Known Law Enforcement; and Law Enforcement Employees Report. Readers interested in more information on each of these components are directed to Barnett-Ryan (2007) for a comprehensive discussion.

  3. 3.

    The two exceptions in the summary reporting system are attempted rape and attempted murder. Unlike attempted rapes, attempted murders are not distinctly identified but rather are included in the overall count of aggravated assaults.

  4. 4.

    An additional 10 data elements are required if an arrest is made (FBI, 2000).

  5. 5.

    If the incident date is unknown, the date reported to police must be provided (FBI, 1992). An example of such a situation would be a burglary that occurred while the homeowner was out of town for several days. The incident date would be recorded as the date the owner reported the burglary to the police. The incident report (and public-use data it generates) distinguishes between incident and report date (FBI, 1992).

  6. 6.

    The Justice Research and Statistics Association’s Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Data Resource Center maintains a list of states that collect additional incident-level details for crimes involving domestic violence or sexual assault (http://www.jrsa.org/dvsa-drc/state-summaries.shtml).

  7. 7.

    In addition to the 30 NIBRS-certified states, agencies from 4 states and the District of Columbia are individually certified to submit NIBRS data (JRSA, n.d. a). In the District of Columbia, only the Metro Transit Police report to NIBRS data. One reason for this situation is the fact that a few states do not have state-level UCR programs (Maltz, 1999). In these cases and under special circumstances, the FBI certifies individual agencies (BJS, 1997).

  8. 8.

    The count of articles is based on a search of publications cited in Criminal Justice Abstracts through 2007. In addition to academic articles, 13 government reports were published during this time. Not included in this count are reports the FBI publishes that utilize NIBRS data. These reports originally were included in the FBI’s annual UCR publication: Crime in the United States. Since 2007, these studies have been published as stand-alone reports (FBI, 2007).

  9. 9.

    This change in attitude also is facilitated by the growing number of states and law enforcement agencies that submit their UCR data in NIBRS format. In the 1990 s, many criminologists saw NIBRS as a fad and were skeptical as to whether this new data collection effort would succeed in replacing the summary reporting system.

  10. 10.

    One limitation with using LEMAS and NIBRS is the fact that LEMAS oversamples law enforcement agencies serving the largest communities. As discussed previously, these agencies are less likely to participate in NIBRS than ones serving smaller communities.

  11. 11.

    The number of cases collected by NIBRS raises another issue, but one that has been largely ignored and yet to be addressed. This issue is how best to analyze very large samples. For example, a given year of NIBRS data can generate hundreds of thousands of aggravated assaults. Because of the asymptotic properties of many statistical procedures commonly used by criminologists, most relationships in NIBRS analyses tend to be statistically significant. This analytical issue has yet to be tackled, but will need to be addressed as these data are used more frequently.

References

  • Addington, L. A. (2004). The effect of NIBRS reporting on item missing data in murder cases. Homicide Studies, 8, 1–21.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Addington, L. A. (2006). Using NIBRS murder data to evaluate clearance predictors: A research note. Homicide Studies, 10, 140–152.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Addington, L. A. (2007a). Using NIBRS to study methodological sources of divergence between the UCR and NCVS. In J. P. Lynch & L. A. Addington (Eds.), Understanding crime statistics: Revisiting the divergence of the NCVS and the UCR (pp. 225–250). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Addington, L. A. (2007b). Hot vs. cold cases: Examining time to clearance for homicides using NIBRS data. Justice Research and Policy, 9, 87–112.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Addington, L. A. (2008). Assessing the extent of nonresponse bias on NIBRS estimates of violent crime. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24, 32–49.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Addington, L. A., & Rennison, C. M. (2008). Co-occurring rape: Do additional crimes affect how victims and police respond to rape? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24, 205–226.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett-Ryan, C. (2007). Introduction to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. In J. P. Lynch & L. A. Addington (Eds.), Understanding crime statistics: Revisiting the divergence of the NCVS and the UCR (pp. 55–89). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett-Ryan, C., & Swanson, G. (2008). The role of state programs in NIBRS data quality: A case study of two states. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24, 18–31.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bibel, D. (2000). Statewide crime analysis and mapping: An on-going project. Crime Mapping News, 2, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biderman, A. D., & Lynch, J. P. (1991). Understanding crime incidence statistics: Why the UCR diverges from the NCS. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Justice Statistics (1994). Demonstrating the operational utility of incident-based data for local crime analysis: Reporting systems in Tacoma, WA and New Bedford, MA. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1997). Implementing the National Incident-Based Reporting System: A project status report. Retrieved December 18, 2002, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/inibrs.pdf.

  • Burek, M. W. (2006). AFDC to TANF: The effects of welfare reform on instrumental and expressive crimes. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 241–256.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chilton, R. (2004). Regional variations in lethal and nonlethal assaults. Homicide Studies, 8, 40–56.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chilton, R., & Jarvis, J. (1999). Using the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) to test estimates of arrestee and offender characteristics. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 207–224.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chilton, R., & Regoeczi, W. C. (2007). Impact of employment, family structure, and income on NIBRS offense, victim, offender, and arrest rates. Justice Research and Policy, 9, 9–30.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, L. D., & Kraus, J. F. (2004). Predicting fatal assault among the elderly using the National Incident-Based Reporting System crime data. Homicide Studies, 8, 71–95.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, C. S., & Zelenock, T. J. (1999). NIBRS data available for secondary analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 239–248.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Eitle, D. (2005). The influence of mandatory arrest policies, police organizational characteristics, and situational variables on the probability of arrest in domestic violence cases. Crime & Delinquency, 51, 573–597.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Eitle, D., Stolzenberg, L., & D’Alessio, S. J. (2005). Police organizational factors, the racial composition of police, and the probability of arrest. Justice Quarterly, 22, 30–57.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1992). Uniform crime reporting handbook, National Incident-Based Reporting System edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2000). National Incident-Based Reporting System: Vol. 1. Data collection guidelines. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Available from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/nibrs/manuals/v1all.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2004). Uniform crime reporting handbook. Available online at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/handbook/ucrhandbook04.pdf.

  • Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2007). Crime in the United States. Available online at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/index.html.

  • Federal Bureau of Investigation. (n.d.). National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS): General information. Retrieved May 25, 2008 from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/faqs.htm.

  • Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. (2000). Juvenile victims of property crime. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Available at http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/jjbul2000_12_2/contents.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, S. M., Jarvis, J. P., Jefferis, E., & Turley, E. (2007). Gun availability and crime in West Virginia: An examination of NIBRS data. Justice Research and Policy, 9, 139–160.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Justice Research and Statistics Association. (n.d. a). Status of NIBRS in the States. Retrieved April 8, 2008, from the IBR Resource Center at http://www.jrsa.org/ibrrc/background-status/nibrs_states.shtml.

  • Justice Research and Statistics Association. (n.d. b). 50 largest NIBRS agencies. Retrieved April 8, 2008, from the IBR Resource Center at http://www.jrsa.org/ibrrc/index.html.

  • Koons-Witt, B. A., & Schram, P. J. (2003). The prevalence and nature of violent offending by females. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 361–371.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lauritsen, J. L., & Schaum, R. J. (2005). Crime and victimization in the three largest metropolitan areas, 1980–98. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv3lma98.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, J. P., & Addington, L. A. (2007). Conclusion. In J. P. Lynch & L. A. Addington (Eds.), Understanding crime statistics: Revisiting the divergence of the NCVS and the UCR (pp. 297–334). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maltz, M. D. (1999). Bridging gaps in police crime data: A discussion paper from the BJS Fellows Program. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxfield, M. G., & Maltz, M. D. (1999). Editors’ introduction: Special issue on the National Incident-Based Reporting System. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 115–118.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Messner, S. F., McHugh, S., & Felson, R. B. (2004). Distinctive characteristics of assaults motivated by bias. Criminology, 42, 585–618.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (2007). Law enforcement agency identifiers crosswalk, 2005 [Codebook]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2008). Easy access to NIBRS: Victims of domestic violence, 2005. Retrieved May 25, 2008 from http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezanibrsdv/.

  • Pattavina, A., Buzawa, E., Hirschel, D., & Faggiani, D. (2007). Policy, place and perpetrators: Using NIBRS to explain arrest practices in intimate partner violence. Justice Research and Policy, 9, 31–52.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pattavina, A., Hirschel, D., & Buzawa, E. (2007). A comparison of the police responses to heterosexual versus same-sex intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 13, 374–394.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Poggio, E. C., Kennedy, S. D., Chaiken, J. M., & Carlson, K. E. (1985). Blueprint for the future of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program: Final report of the UCR study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reaves, B. A. (1993). Using NIBRS data to analyze violent crime. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, A. (2007). Predictors of homicide clearance by arrest: An event history analysis of NIBRS incidents. Homicide Studies, 11, 82–93.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, L. M., & Zgoba, K. (2006). Sex crimes against children: Legislation, prevention and investigation. Crime Prevention Studies, 19, 65–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, H. N. (1994). The criminal victimization of young children. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, H. N. (1999). The overrepresentation of juvenile crime proportions in robbery clearance statistics. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 151–161.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Stolzenberg, L., Eitle, D., & D’Alessio, S. J. (2006). Race, economic inequality, and violent crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 303–316.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Strom, K. J. (1999). State use of incident-based crime statistics. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/suibcs98.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (2002). Tennessee Incident Based Reporting System resource guide. Retrieved on May 19, 2008 at http://www.tbi.state.tn.us/Info%20Systems%20Div/TIBRS_unit/resource%20guide.pdf.

  • U.S. Department of Justice (2006). Law enforcement management and administrative statistics (LEMAS): 2003 sample survey of law enforcement agencies [Codebook]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandriver, D. M. (2006). Female sex offenders: A comparison of solo offenders and co-offenders. Violence and Victims, 21, 339–354.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. S., Clifford Wittekind, J. E., Huff-Corzine, L., Corzine, J., Petee, T. A., & Jarvis, J. P. (2004). Violent encounters: A criminal event analysis of lethal and nonlethal outcomes. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 20, 348–368.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. American University, Washington, DC, USA

    Lynn A. Addington

Authors
  1. Lynn A. Addington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, Washington Ave. 1400, Albany, 12222, USA

    Marvin D. Krohn

  2. School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, Washington Ave. 1400, Albany, 12222, U.S.A.

    Alan J. Lizotte

  3. School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, Washington Ave. 1400, Albany, 12222, U.S.A.

    Gina Penly Hall

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Addington, L.A. (2009). Studying the Crime Problem with NIBRS Data: Current Uses and Future Trends. In: Krohn, M., Lizotte, A., Hall, G. (eds) Handbook on Crime and Deviance. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0245-0_2

Download citation