Citizen Reporting of Crime: Some National Panel Data
(Abstract)
Comparing Measures of Crime: Police and Survey Estimates
(Abstract)
Chicago Detective Division Reporting Practices
(Abstract)
Reporting Crime to Police: The Status of World Research
(Abstract)
Dimensions of the Dark Figure of Unreported Crime
(Abstract)
Crime Reporting
francaise
Home
This report analyzes the individual-level determinants of crime reporting, using data generated by
the 1973 National Crime Survey. It examines the impact of three characteristics of victimizations
upon their reporting probability: the attributes of their victims, the nature of victim-offender
relationships, and the seriousness of the offense.
. One use of the surveys has been to compare them to official statistics. Reports released by the
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration have stirred public interest by their contrast with
police figures on crime and the type summarized in the FBI’s yearly Uniform Crime Report. Such
comparisons inevitably reveal wide gaps between rates registered by the two sources. This type of
analysis has been encouraged by the government’s decision to calculate UCR-compatible figures
from citizen surveys, although this is perhaps the least useful application of the data. Survey and
police crime-measurement procedure produce different figures, but the reasons for this and its
implications require analysis. A discussion of how survey and official crime statistics differ and
why we obtain these discrepancies may clarify both their comparability and their individual
interpretation, and it may speak to their improvement in the future. There is a detailed discussion
of the crime measurement process on both the police and survey sides of the comparisons.
This document presents detailed comments on a report on the Chicago Police Department's
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.This review 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. Then we consider the process by which
unfounding 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 reviews the lessons of the
recent past, examining unfounding rates in Chicago since 1981. This section estimates the
impact of unfounding upon verifiedincident totals for the city. It also examines the implications of
changing patterns of unfounding evident in quarterly CPD reports to the FBI.
This article reviews the common lessons of larger-scale victimization surveys conducted in
nations around the world
The large pool of unrecorded crime has several consequences: it limits the deterrent capability of
the criminal justice system, it contributes to the misallocation of police resources, it renders
victims ineligible for public and private benefits, it affects insurance costs, and it helps shape the
police role in society. This report examines these problems in light of new crime-victim data
gathered in a national sample of the general population. The data suggest that, compared with
those incidents which were reported to the police, the reservoir of unreported crime contains a
disproportionate number of less serious incidents involving small financial loss, little serious
injury, and less use of weapons.