Improving crime data to support
the Nation’s ability to monitor,
respond to, and prevent crime
ASUCRP Conference
May 2014
Howard Snyder, PhD.
Bureau of Justice Statistics
NCS-X – National Crime Statistics Exchange
Effort to generate nationally-representative, incident-based
data on crimes reported to law enforcement agencies
 Leverages existing infrastructure of the FBI’s National
Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)
 Seeks to expand participation in NIBRS by combining data
from existing NIBRS agencies with data from a scientific
sample of 400 additional agencies
Goal is to provide timely and accurate detailed national
measures of crime from state and local police agencies
 Will generate crime statistics that go beyond Part I crime
categories
2
NCS-X Partners
BJS is spearheading
NCS-X, in close
coordination with the
FBI and support from
other DOJ agencies
NCS-X Partner Agencies
 Diverse set of
partner
organizations
responsible for
developing
implementation
plans
3
Benefits of improving national data
on reported crime
ASUCRP Conference
May 2014
Amy Blasher
Federal Bureau of Investigation
FBI, UCR Program and NCS-X
In June of 2013, the FBI’s CJIS Division Assistant
Director and the BJS Acting Director signed a joint
statement in support of the National Crime Statistics
Exchange (NCS-X).
 FBI and BJS, both components of the Department of
Justice, “…share statutory responsibility for developing
national estimates of crime known to law enforcement
and the characteristics of criminal incidents.”
The FBI CJIS Division supports the NCS-X goal of
improving incident-based crime reporting by recruiting
an additional 400 law enforcement agencies to report
to NIBRS.
5
Status of NIBRS reporting in the states
UCR Program NIBRS Participation
(Program Counts)
NIBRS Program Status
14
15
100% NIBRS
90-99.99% NIBRS
80-89.99% NIBRS
3
12
2
1 0
4
70-79.99% NIBRS
60-69.99% NIBRS
50-59.99% NIBRS
Data Collection
Agency
Format
Count
NIBRS
6,316
Summary (Electronic)
8,790
Summary (Paper)
1,269
Total
16,375
Total NIBRS
38.6%
0.10-39.99% NIBRS
0% NIBRS
6
Increasing NIBRS reporting in <100% reporting states
States fall into one of three categories related to
NIBRS reporting in states that are not 100% NIBRS
Category 1:
Some agencies report NIBRS data to the state UCR
program
 These are considered “hybrid” states – where they submit both
NIBRS and Summary formats depending on the collection
program;
 This can impact FBI UCR Program business rules
management – requiring separate rule sets for states with
different data formats being submitted.
7
Increasing NIBRS reporting in <100% reporting states
Category 2:
The state has a state UCR program, but no agencies
report NIBRS to the state.
 2 states have 1 or more agencies that report NIBRS directly to
the FBI (but not to the state).
 4 of these states have expressed interest or are currently in the
process of moving to 100% NIBRS
Category 3:
The state has no state UCR program.
8
NCS-X Initiative implementation
The FBI is working with BJS and other NCS-X partner
agencies to implement NCS-X
 Participating in efforts to recruit sample law
enforcement agencies;
 Engaging with state and local police departments
about converting to NIBRS compliant reporting;
 Encouraging state CJIS Systems Officers to play a
key role in establishing NIBRS as the law
enforcement standard for crime statistics.
9
NCS-X program update and
status of implementation efforts
ASUCRP Conference
May 2014
Erica Smith
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Status of NCS-X Initiative
Phase I Initiative activities include:
 reaching out to stakeholders and existing state
incident-based reporting programs to gain their
insight and support;
 recruiting a sample of 400 law enforcement
agencies for participation;
 identifying barriers and developing incentives
and resources that will encourage candidate
agencies to participate in NCS-X; and
 developing cost and feasibility guidelines for
implementation.
11
NCS-X Phase 1 activities
Phase I Initiative activities include:
 reaching out to stakeholders and existing
state incident-based reporting programs to
gain their insight and support;
 recruiting a sample of 400 law enforcement
agencies for participation;
 identifying barriers and developing incentives
and resources that will encourage candidate
agencies to participate in NCS-X; and
 developing cost and feasibility guidelines for
implementation.
12
Stakeholder engagement
Interviews conducted with UCR Coordinators in
every state
 Understand the organization of each state’s UCR/NIBRS
program;
 Gather key information about how incident-based data
are:
 collected from local law enforcement agencies;
 processed by the state UCR program; and
 transmitted to the FBI.
Key findings from interviews:
 Limited analysis at the state level using IBR data
 Some summary only states have begun an IBR initiative
 State statutes with “teeth” encourage reporting
13
Stakeholder engagement
Engaged with RMS service providers to learn about
the complexities and costs of adding NIBRS
reporting to their products
 Information from RMS vendors that account for over 4,000
installed systems in law enforcement
Key findings:
 There are 31 states in which interviewed companies
claimed to provide NIBRS reporting capabilities.
 Lack of standardization in IBR data elements across states
is a challenge for the RMS service providers.
14
Stakeholder engagement
Development and implementation of NCS-X
Marketing Plan
 Stakeholder engagement opportunities
 Showcasing strengths and uses of IBR and NIBRS
participation across stakeholder audiences




Law enforcement
Victim service organizations
Federal, state, and local government agencies
Policy makers
 Developing reports and analytic tools useful to
various stakeholder groups
15
NCS-X Phase 1 activities
Phase I Initiative activities include:
 reaching out to stakeholders and existing state
incident-based reporting programs to gain their
insight and support;
 recruiting a sample of 400 law enforcement
agencies for participation;
 identifying barriers and developing incentives
and resources that will encourage candidate
agencies to participate in NCS-X; and
 developing cost and feasibility guidelines for
implementation.
16
Selecting NCS-X sample agencies
Sample consists of 400 main agencies and
300+ reserve (substitute) agencies:
 Stratified random sample;
 Grouped into 12 strata by agency type and number
of sworn officers;
 Agencies were randomly selected within each
stratum;
 Tribal agencies represented in separate stratum;
 72 largest agencies selected with certainty.
17
NCS-X Sample Selection
Stratum 1: Current NIBRS participants
Strata 2 through 12 consist of nonNIBRS agencies:
2. 750 officers or more;
3. State, 1-749 officers;
4. State or Municipality, 0 officers;
5. County or Township, 36-749 officers;
6. County or Township, 0-35 officers;
7. Municipality, 181-749 officers;
8. Municipality, 61-180 officers;
9. Municipality, 16-60 officers;
10. Municipality, 1-15 officers;
11. Remainder non-Tribal agencies;
12. Tribal.
Existing
NIBRS reporting
agencies
6,000+
Agencies
selected in
NCS-X sample and
enrolled in NIBRS
400
Nationally representative
crime statistics using
the NIBRS dataset
18
Surveys to sample agencies
Surveys were sent to NCS-X sample agencies
 Includes questions about current RMS technology in
use by sample agencies;
 Will uncover feasibility of enhancing current systems
and/or replacing them;
 Responses will be used to help develop incentives
and resources to encourage participation.
Response rate to date:
 75% of the largest agencies (750+ sworn);
 54% of agencies in remaining strata;
 22% of Tribal agencies in stratum 12
19
NCS-X Phase 1 Activities
 Interviews with all State UCR Coordinators—
Completed
 Discussions and coordination with RMS vendors—
Completed
 Survey of the 400 NCS-X sampled agencies— In
Progress
 Agency survey fielded beginning March 2014
 Approximately 57% of agencies have completed the survey
 Development of incentives for participation— Ongoing
 Pilot testing with selected states and agencies—
Summer 2014
20
Status of NCS-X Initiative
Phase I Initiative activities include:
 reaching out to stakeholders and existing state
incident-based reporting programs to gain their
insight and support;
 recruiting a sample of 400 law enforcement agencies
for participation;
 identifying barriers and developing incentives
and resources that will encourage candidate
agencies to participate in NCS-X; and
 developing cost and feasibility guidelines for
implementation.
21
Partnering with States and Next
Steps for NCS-X
ASUCRP Conference
May 2014
Kevin J. Strom, PhD.
RTI International
Importance of States to NCS-X
 States are critical partners in collecting, processing, and
analyzing incident-based data.
 NCS-X is committed to building capacity at the state level in
support of moving sampled agencies to NIBRS.
 Currently in a feasibility and pilot testing phase where we are
able to work with selected states.
 As implementation progresses and funding is available, our
intention is to work with all states.
23
Current Outreach to States
States broadly fall into 3 categories with respect to incident-based
reporting and NIBRS -
 No current NIBRS capacity – NCS-X is developing a TA/ConOps
framework that will help guide states who are asking: “What would it
take to build NIBRS capacity in our state?”
 Limited/some NIBRS reporting – Provide support to states in
expanding IBR and in recruiting sampled agencies.
 100% NIBRS reporting – Planning to develop web-based analytical
portal that would be available to all reporting states and agencies.
Seek input from these states on tool specifications along with
recommendations and lessons learned for implementing or expanding
IBR data collection.
24
State Progress: Illinois
IL
 IL Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) is
key partner along with IL State Police.
 ICJIA recognizes that IL needs improved crime
reporting and is working to advance IBR within IL.
 In-person meetings with IL agencies including
NCS-X sampled agencies (most recently on 4/30).
 Have engaged Chicago PD through ICJIA to obtain
their participation
– Technical assessment visit in the next 2-3 weeks
to assess CPD’s capacity to report to NIBRS.
 Have also engaged DuPage County which is
constructing county-wide RMS and is interested in
participating in NIBRS.
25
State Progress: Minnesota
MN
 MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension is our
partner at the state-level.
 MN has an initiative underway to transition all
agencies to NIBRS within the next 5-7 years.
 They are in the early stages of building a state
repository for incident-based data.
 Site visit scheduled for June 10th-11th to meet
with MN BCA and NCS-X sampled agencies.
26
State Progress: North Carolina
NC
 NC Department of Justice is key partner.
 NC has initiative underway to become full
NIBRS reporting state.
 Goal is to transition to NIBRS by end of 2015.
 Combined NIBRS/N-Dex submission process – “NIBRS first” approach.
– After submission, N-DEx data is forwarded
directly to the FBI.
– NIBRS data remain in NC-DEx repository,
automated edit checks performed and sent
back to submitting agency within 2 weeks.
– Updates are made within local agency RMS,
incorporated into state repository, and then
final NIBRS data is sent to the FBI.
27
Common Barriers to Participation
 Perception of increased crime rates when converting to
NIBRS from Summary UCR.
 Perceived loss of control over incident-level crime data.
 Increased data entry burden on staff.
 No clear explanation of participation benefits or
demonstration for how data can be used at local level.
 Lack of state level mandate for IBR reporting.
 At state level, lack of infrastructure to support IBR
program.
28
Potential Incentives
 Agency-level
 Funding for RMS enhancements and other
technical needs.
 Web-based analytic platform for crime analysis.
 Support for crime analysis training.
 State-level
 TA to establish plan for state NIBRS data
collection program.
 Funding to increase state capacity for collecting,
processing, and submitting NIBRS data.
 Support for crime analysis training.
29
Goals for Pilot Study
 Understand the landscape of IBR in states and the
reporting/analysis capabilities of the sampled agencies.
 Select pilot sites who are representative of other states
or local agencies in terms of capabilities and needs.
 Implement NIBRS reporting in specific agencies and
states to validate cost estimates.
 Develop cost estimate for implementing full reporting
among NCS-X sample.
30
Outreach and Communication
 Engagement at relevant conferences & meetings
 ASUCRP
 CJIS UCR Subcommittee meetings
 IACP CJIS Committee
 IJIS National Symposium
 IACP (Oct 2014)
 Publish and disseminate articles and other
information aimed at LE community and other critical
audiences.
 E.g., Police Chief magazine
31
More Information
Howard N. Snyder, PhD
Deputy Director
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Howard.Snyder@usdoj.gov
(202) 616-8305
Erica L. Smith
Senior Statistician
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Erica.L.Smith@usdoj.gov
(202) 616-3491
Amy C. Blasher
Unit Chief/UCR Program
Manager
CJIS Division, FBI
Amy.Blasher@ic.fbi.gov
(304) 625-4830
Kevin J. Strom, PhD
NCS-X Project Director
RTI International
kstrom@rti.org
(919) 485-5729
NCS-X website: www.bjs.gov/content/ncsx.cfm
32