“A Review of Detective Division Reporting Practices” A report on the Chicago Police
Department’s Crime Classification Audit. Illinois State Police, July 1983.
This document presents detailed comments regarding the recently-released report of the Chicago Police
Department (CPD), Detective Division Reporting Practices. The CPD report describes an internal audit of
selected crime recording practices which was conducted by the department. The audit comes as a response
to criticism of those practices by others. It is because the audit was conducted in a rigorous and empirical
fashion following an explicit research design, and because the Department presented its findings “warts and
all,” that we are able to be so specific in our criticisms here. This report touches upon a number of specific
items. First it reviews the purpose of the audit–what problems were addressed, and what the audit was to
accomplish. Then it examines the procedures employed in conducting the audit and the strategic decisions
they reflected. It explores in some detail the follow-up interviews which were conducted with complainants in
selected cases, for those lie at the heart of the audit. Then we consider the process by which un-founding
decisions were “supported” or “not supported” by the auditors, and the analyses of that support which are
presented in the audit report. A major section then reviews the lessons of the recent past, examining un-
founding rates in Chicago since 1981. This section estimates the impact of un-founding upon verified
incident totals for the city. It also examines the implications of changing patterns of un-founding evident in
quarterly CPD reports to the FBI.
Department’s Crime Classification Audit. Illinois State Police, July 1983.
This document presents detailed comments regarding the recently-released report of the Chicago Police
Department (CPD), Detective Division Reporting Practices. The CPD report describes an internal audit of
selected crime recording practices which was conducted by the department. The audit comes as a response
to criticism of those practices by others. It is because the audit was conducted in a rigorous and empirical
fashion following an explicit research design, and because the Department presented its findings “warts and
all,” that we are able to be so specific in our criticisms here. This report touches upon a number of specific
items. First it reviews the purpose of the audit–what problems were addressed, and what the audit was to
accomplish. Then it examines the procedures employed in conducting the audit and the strategic decisions
they reflected. It explores in some detail the follow-up interviews which were conducted with complainants in
selected cases, for those lie at the heart of the audit. Then we consider the process by which un-founding
decisions were “supported” or “not supported” by the auditors, and the analyses of that support which are
presented in the audit report. A major section then reviews the lessons of the recent past, examining un-
founding rates in Chicago since 1981. This section estimates the impact of un-founding upon verified
incident totals for the city. It also examines the implications of changing patterns of un-founding evident in
quarterly CPD reports to the FBI.
Crime Reporting
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |