The Effect of NIBRS Reporting on Item Missing Data in Murder Cases

Abstract

The Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) is undergoing a large-scale conversion from the traditional summary system and its Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). One goal in designing NIBRS was to improve the quality of crime data. Little is known about the actual effect of the substantial changes in data collection instituted by NIBRS. Gaining this understanding is important for homicide researchers, as more states and law enforcement agencies replace the SHR with NIBRS data collection. This article measures data quality in terms of itemmissing data and compares the amount of missing murder characteristics in NIBRS with the SHR. The findings obtained are inconsistent. Depending on the characteristic, missing data in NIBRS decreased, increased, or remained relatively unchanged. These results reveal that despite the changes in NIBRS, the UCR continues to struggle with capturing information known to police and collecting particular incident details such as victim-offender relationship and circumstance.

Keywords

homicide incident-based crime data measurement police

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Addington, L. A. , Loftin, C. ,& McDowall, D. (2001). The quality of NIBRS murder data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, GA.

Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bureau of Justice Statistics . (1997a). 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

Bureau of Justice Statistics . (1997b). National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) implementation program. Retrieved October 10, 2002, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/nibrs.htm%23about

Bureau of Justice Statistics . (2000). Effects of NIBRS on crime statistics. Retrieved December 18, 2002, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/enibrscs.pdf

Decker, S. H. (1991). Victim offender relationships in homicide: Developing an empirical typology. In S. H. Decker , C. Kohfeld , R. Rosenfeld , & J. Sprague (Eds.), The St. Louis Homicide Project: Local responses to a national problem. St. Louis: University of Missouri.

Federal Bureau of Investigation . (1984). Uniform crime reporting handbook. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Federal Bureau of Investigation . (1992a). National Incident-Based Reporting System. Volume 2: Data submission specifications. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Available from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/nibrs/manuals/v2all.pdf

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

10.

Federal Bureau of Investigation . (1999). National Incident-Based Reporting System. Volume 4: Error message manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Available from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/nibrs/manuals/v4all.pdf

11.

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

12.

Federal Bureau of Investigation . (2001). National Incident-Based Reporting System, 1999 [Data file]. Compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. Available from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD

13.

Fox, J. A. (2001). Uniform Crime Reports [United States]: Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-1999 [Data file]. Boston: Northeastern University, College of Criminal Justice [Producer]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [Distributor]. Available from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD

14.

Loftin, C. (1986). The validity of robbery-murder classifications in Baltimore. Violence and Victims, 1, 191-204.

15.

Lohr, S. L. (1999). Sampling: Design and analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.

16.

Major, V. L. , & Propheter, S. K. (2000). National Incident-Based Reporting System 1999. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation.

17.

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

18.

Maxfield, M. G. (1999). The National Incident-Based Reporting System: Research and policy applications. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 119-149.

19.

Messner, S. F. , Deane, G. ,& Beaulieu, M. (2002). Alog-multiplicative association model for allowing homicides with unknown victim-offender relationships. Criminology, 40, 457-479.

20.

Pampel, F. C. ,& Williams, K. R. (2000). Intimacy and homicide: Compensating for missing data in the SHR. Criminology, 38, 661-680.

21.

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.

22.

Riedel, M. (1993). Stranger violence: A theoretical inquiry. New York: Garland Publishing.

23.

Riedel, M. (1999). Sources of homicide data. In M. D. Smith & M. A. Zahn (Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social research (pp. 75-95). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24.

Williams, K. R. , & Flewelling, R. L. (1987). Family, acquaintance, and stranger homicide: Alternate procedures for rate calculations. Criminology, 25, 543-560.