Compare and Contrast of UCR and NIBRS

Published: 2020-05-25 18:41:04
2828 words
10 pages
printer Print
essay essay

Category: Criminology

Type of paper: Essay

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Hey! We can write a custom essay for you.

All possible types of assignments. Written by academics

GET MY ESSAY
Comparison and Contrast of UCR and NIBRS
The Uniform Crime Reports ( UCR ) is a countrywide analysis plan that jurisprudence enforcement bureaus use to describe offense that occurs in their legal powers. The plan was developed with the end of making a beginning for dependable, comparable information for jurisprudence enforcement disposal, operations, and direction ( SpotCrime, 2012 ) . The National Incident Based Reporting System ( NIBRS ) was subsequently created as an extra tool for jurisprudence enforcement bureaus through which they collect and report offense informations to the FBI. NIBRS was created out of a demand to describe more elaborate information that would run into the turning demands of jurisprudence enforcement bureaus.
UCR
In the 1920s, an organisation of constabulary heads throughout the state the realized a demand for national offense statistics warehouse. They formed the Committee on UCR to develop a system of offense statistics. After analyzing province Torahs and codifications and doing an rating on describing methods in usage, the commission completed a program for describing offense information that became the footing of UCR. The program included standardised discourtesy definitions for 7 offense categorizations known as Part I crimes in order to mensurate fluctuations in the volume and rate of offense. Program Godheads besides instituted the Hierarchy Rule as the chief coverage process for what is now known as the Summary Reporting System of the UCR Program ( FBI, 2009 ) .
The 7 Part I offense categorizations include violent offenses of homicide, physical colza, robbery, aggravated assault, and belongings offenses, such as burglary and car larceny. Arson was subsequently added as an 8th Part I offense class in 1979 by congressional authorization ( FBI, 2009 ) .
By January 1930, over 400 metropoliss stand foring about 20 million persons across 43 provinces participated in the UCR plan. That same twelvemonth, Congress enacted Title 28 of the US codification authorising the lawyer general to garner informations on condemnable activity. The lawyer general designated the FBI to function as the national clearinghouse for any offense informations collected. Every twelvemonth since, informations based on unvarying categorizations and processs for describing condemnable discourtesies and apprehensions have been obtained from jurisprudence enforcement bureaus ( FBI, 2009 ) .
The Criminal Justice Information Systems Committees of the IACP and the National Sheriffs’ Association ( NSA ) provide critical links between jurisprudence enforcement bureaus and the FBI in the inadvertence of the UCR plan. Both encourage bureaus throughout the state to to the full take part in the UCR plan. Both IACP and NSA serve in consultative capacities refering UCR’s operations.
In 1988, an consultative policy board was established to supply extra input for UCR. This board operated until 1993 when it was combined with the National Crime Information Center ( NCIC ) advisory policy board to organize a individual policy board to turn to all issues sing the FBI’s condemnable justness information services. The current policy board ensures go oning accent on all UCR-related issues. In add-on, the Association of State Uniform Crime Reporting Programs provides support on UCR issues within single province jurisprudence enforcement sections and promotes involvement in the UCR plan engagement. These organisation Foster widespread and responsible usage of offense statistics and impart farther aid to data subscribers as needed ( FBI, 2009 ) .
The information collected by the UCR plan remained virtually unchanged ; nevertheless, by the 1980s, a wide demand developed for UCR information. Acknowledging the demand for improved offense informations, jurisprudence enforcement bureaus requested a survey to overhaul the aging UCR plan. The FBI agreed with the demand for an updated plan and provided support for the new plan by developing a comprehensive redesign program. The first two stages of the redesign attempt, with counsel from the FBI, the Bureau of Justice Statistics ( BJS ) , the IACP, and the NSA, culminated with the release of a comprehensive study ( FBI, 2009 ) .
The Blueprint for the Future of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program was released in May 1985. It outlined three countries of sweetening to help the UCR Program in run intoing future information demands and ends. First, bureaus would necessitate to utilize an incident-based system to describe discourtesies and apprehensions. Second, the plan would roll up informations on two degrees ( limited and full engagement ) , and 3rd, UCR would present a quality confidence plan.
In early 1986, the FBI began phase III of the UCR redesign attempt guided by the recommendations set Forth in the Blueprint for the Future of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Contractors developed new guidelines and system specifications, while the FBI studied assorted province systems to choose an experimental site to implement the redesigned plan. The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division ( SLED ) was choosing for proving the plan. It involved the cooperation of nine local jurisprudence enforcement bureaus. The pilot presentation ran from March1-September 30, 1987 and resulted in farther alterations to guidelines and specification of the plan ( FBI, 2009 ) .
In March 1988, the FBI conducted a national UCR conference to show the updated system to jurisprudence enforcement and promote feedback on its acceptableness. Attendants to the conference passed three recommendations:

There should be established a new, incident-based national offense coverage system ;
The FBI should pull off the new plan ; and,
An APB composed of jurisprudence enforcement decision makers formed to help in directing and implementing the new plan ( FBI, 2009 ) .

Attendants besides recommended that the nidation of national incident-based coverage proceed at a gait commensurate with the resources and restrictions of lending jurisprudence enforcement bureaus.
UCR has been updated to spread out race classs from four to five to include Native Hawaiian. The ethnicity classs changed from Latino to Hispanic or Latina Origin ad from Non-Hispanic to Not of Hispanic or Latino Origin ( FBI, 2009 ) .
Structure and Content
UCR illustrates a countrywide position of offense based on the entry of statistics by jurisprudence enforcement bureaus from the metropolis to the province degree. UCR information is dichotomized into two categories—crimes known to the constabulary and apprehensions. Crimes known to the constabulary include all those events either reported to or observed by jurisprudence enforcement in Part I offenses every bit good as extra classs which are considered less serious offenses ( Inciardi, 1978 ) .
UCR Problems and Shortcomings
A 1978 survey illustrated that studies gathered from UCR informations had multiple jobs. The FBI studies, specifically, were described as uncomplete and structurally biased, ensuing in the creative activity and continuity of many myths about offenses in the US. The information had besides been misused and misinterpreted. Because of this, inaccurate and deformed representations of offense were being offered to professional audiences and public dictums on the offense problem” had minimum footing in fact ( Inciardi, 1978 ) .
UCR offers a wealth of information on offense happenings from which utile penetrations on offense statistics in the US can be made. However, UCR suffers from restrictions which are non accounted for in actual manners in which many observers report the informations. Additionally, UCR tabular matters are published in such a manner that they conceal much of their overall public-service corporation ( Inciardi, 1978 ) .
Opinions vary about the range of jobs associated with UCR informations. Many research workers now believe that reported offense informations is contaminated by measurement mistake from differences in constabulary section coverage patterns across legal powers, technological progresss in offense recording, and alterations in offense coverage by victims over clip. If the size of a constabulary force affects the willingness of victims to describe offense or the department’s leaning to enter victim offense studies, UCR informations will minimize the true effectivity in jurisprudence enforcement cut downing offense ( Levitt, 1998 ) .
Basically, UCR provides drumhead informations that does non let analysis beyond simple tabular matters based on race, location, and age. The information on apprehensions and some limited victim information can non be decently utilized to find the figure of alone persons who have been arrested within a twelvemonth. Rather, discourtesy informations for each twelvemonth is estimated because non all jurisprudence enforcement bureaus provide informations for complete coverage periods. The estimations are figured by utilizing the known discourtesy informations of similar sections within a province and delegating the same sum of offense volumes to non-reporting sections with losing information ( US Department of Health and Human Services, 2006 ) .
NIBRS
NIBRS represents a redesign of the UCR. Since the original UCR plan collects about no information on the features of victims of offense, NIBRS overcomes that restriction by roll uping victim information in add-on to offense, offender, belongings, and arrest information. This represents a major alteration in offense coverage ( Chilton & A ; Jarvis, 1999 ) .
Since the constitution of UCR, the volume, diverseness, and complexness of offense increased while the UCR plan remained virtually unchanged. The jurisprudence enforcement community recognized the demand to turn to the turning challenge and called for a thorough survey of the UCR plan with the aim for the plan to run into jurisprudence enforcement’s needs in the 21st century. NIBRS was the ultimate consequence of the survey ( FBI, 2006 ) . The end of the redesign was to overhaul offense information by roll uping informations presently maintained in jurisprudence enforcement records, while besides keeping the unity of UCR ( US Department of Health and Human Services, 2006 ) . In order to carry through its intent, NIBRS adopted the undermentioned missions:

To heighten the overall quality of condemnable statistics while besides increasing the seasonableness of informations submitted by jurisprudence enforcement bureaus ; and
To better the methods used for roll uping, analysing, and printing the collected information ( FBI, 2006 ) .

Law enforcement engagement is NIBRS is non compulsory. When an bureau is ready to take part in the plan, that bureau will go certified and subject its informations per the demands of the plan.
Group A incident studies for NIBRS are made up of 6 sections and 53 informations elements. Such Group A offenses include:
Arson
Assault discourtesies
Bribery
Burglary/breaking and come ining
Counterfeiting/forgery
Destruction/vandalism of belongings
Drug/narcotic discourtesies
Embezzlement
Extortion/blackmail
Fraud discourtesies
Gambling discourtesies
Homicide discourtesies
Kidnapping/abduction
Larceny/theft
Motor vehicle larceny
Pornography/obscene stuff
Prostitution discourtesies
Robbery
Sexual activity discourtesies, physical & amp ; non-forcible
Stolen belongings
Weapon jurisprudence misdemeanors
Group B offenses include all discourtesies that are non included in Group A, except for traffic discourtesies. Group B discourtesies are categorized into 11 groups, such as bad cheques, loitering, and trespass ( FBI, 2006 ) .
Engagement
Full engagement in the plan requires that a jurisprudence enforcement bureau have the informations processing resources need to run into the program’s demands. Engagement in the plan does non do any load on officers when fixing standard apprehension or incident studies since most of the informations required for NIBRS is already entered into those studies. However, since information contained within NIBRS is more in-depth than UCR, increased informations entry is potentially involved ( DOJ, 2000 ) .
NIBRS information is generated as a consequence of local and province incident-based coverage ( IBR ) systems. Local and province bureaus can plan its IBR system to accommodate their departmental demands, such as planing a different file construction than that used by UCR, and besides include extra informations elements. When it is clip to describe the information to UCR, the local or province bureaus must pull out from its IBR system merely the information required by NIBRS and subject it in the proper format ( DOJ, 2000 ) .
Before a section can straight subject information to NIBRS and to the FBI, the section must show its ability to run into the coverage demands by subjecting trial media to the FBI. If the section, nevertheless, is take parting indirectly—such as through the state’s UCR program—it is the state’s duty to guarantee that the local section can carry through the particular information demands ( DOJ, 2000 ) .
If a local section or bureau is unable meet all the demands of offense-reporting for full engagement, the section may hold limited engagement. Under limited engagement, elaborate incident coverage is reduced to merely 8 classs. Other discourtesies are merely reported when apprehensions occur. All staying engagement demands must still be met. A local bureau with a province UCR plan can take part in NIBRS through the sate UCR plan. Should that province non hold a measure uping IBR system, UCR plan will potentially let the local section to subject informations straight to the FBI if it meets minimal population demands and has an IBR system that meets NIBRS criterions ( DOJ, 2000 ) . A local bureau without a province UCR plan can take part straight if it has an IBR system that meets NIBRS demands. The figure of bureaus allowed to take part straight is limited to FBI resources ( DOJ, 2000 ) .
NIBRS engagement is non compulsory. When an bureau is ready to take part and is certified, the bureau or section will go on to subject informations following the traditional UCR guidelines. Transitioning from old to new systems takes considerable clip. Because of that, the national UCR plan continues to roll up and print traditional UCR information by roll uping information in the old format from bureaus non take parting in NIBRS ( DOJ, 2000 ) .
NIBRS and UCR Compared
NIBRS uses an incident-based coverage system. This is the primary difference between NIBRS and UCR—the grade of item in describing. Traditional coverage under UCR involves bureaus matching the figure of Part I offenses, every bit good as information for both Part I and Part II offenses. That information is collected and submitted monthly to the FBI or indirectly through province UCR plans ( FBI, 2006 ) .
The UCR plan is best described as merely a drumhead coverage tool. The types of informations summarized include the figure of discourtesies, clearances, types and values of cured belongings, and the basic demographics of those arrested. Expanded informations on homicides are collected through the Supplementary Homicide Reports. UCR does non necessitate apprehensions or clearances to be tied to antecedently submitted incident studies ( FBI, 2006 ) .
Under NIBRS, jurisprudence enforcement sections collect elaborate information on offense incidents and apprehensions. The information is submitted in separate studies utilizing specific informations elements and values to depict each incident and apprehension. While UCR is summary-based, NIBRS is incident-based.
Because of its construction, NIBRS provides greater item in describing. UCR collects its offense information in the signifier of classs, such as age and belongings. UCR provides small item for interrupting down the information into specific classs. NIBRS provides for greater item in offense coverage. For illustration, the information can be subcategorized into offenses against persons, spiritual organisations, or concerns ; offenses committed against occupants or non-presidents ; and offenses affecting different types of arms or hurts. Since NIBRS collects the sum of stolen and recovered belongings, pecuniary value dislocations can be provided.
In the UCR plan, offense coverage is governed by the hierarchy regulation. If more than one offense was committed by the same person or a group of persons and the clip and infinite intervals dividing the multiple offenses were important, so the offense highest in the Crime Index hierarchy is the lone 1 reported. In multiple offense incidents the lower the listed, less serious Part I discourtesies are non reported to the plan ( FBI, 2006 ) .
The hierarchy regulation is non used under NIBRS. In the event that multiple offenses were committed by the same single or group of persons and the clip dividing the offenses is important, every offense is reported as an discourtesy within the same incident. Law enforcement must take due diligence to place all of the discourtesies involved in an incident. For illustration, a colza instance might besides affect the offenses of motor vehicle larceny and snatch, all of which would be reported. Each discourtesy should be reported as a separate, distinguishable offense, instead than merely portion of another discourtesy ( FBI, 2006 ) .
Decision
While both UCR and NIBRS have similar maps, their difference comes in the information they gather. UCR is a drumhead coverage system with less elaborate informations. NIBRS, nevertheless, collects more in-depth informations and provides greater penetrations into offense statistics.
Mentions

Chilton, R. , & A ; Jarvis, J. ( 1999 ) . Victims and Wrongdoers in Two Crime Statisticss Plans: A Comparison of the National Incident-Based Reporting System ( NIBRS ) and the National Crime Victimization Survey ( NCVS ) .Journal of Quantitative Criminology.
DOJ. ( 2000 ) .National Incident-Based Reporting System Volume 1: Datas Collection Guidelines.Clarksburg.
FBI. ( 2006 ) .National Incident-Based Reporting System.Retrieved from FBI: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/nibrs/nibrs_dcguide.pdf
FBI. ( 2009 ) .Summary of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Retrieved June 11, 2014, from FBI: hypertext transfer protocol: //www2.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2009/aboutucr.html
Inciardi, J. ( 1978, November ) . The Uniform Crime Reports: Some Considerations on Their Shortcomings and Utility.Public Data Use, 6( 6 ) .
Levitt, S. D. ( 1998 ) . The Relationship Between Crime Reporting and Police: Deductions for the Use of Uniform Crime Reports.Journal of Quantitative Criminology.
SpotCrime. ( 2012, March ) .The Difference Between UCR and NIBRS. Retrieved March 10, 2014, from SpotCrime: hypertext transfer protocol: //blog.spotcrime.com/2012/03/difference-between-ucr-and-nibrs.html
US Department of Health and Human Services. ( 2006 ) .Uniform Crime Reports. Retrieved June 10, 2014, from HHS.gov: hypertext transfer protocol: //aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/06/catalog-ai-an-na/ucr.htm

Warning! This essay is not original. Get 100% unique essay within 45 seconds!

GET UNIQUE ESSAY

We can write your paper just for 11.99$

i want to copy...

This essay has been submitted by a student and contain not unique content

People also read