Search results

This article summarises and discusses the main findings from a recently completed Independent Review of Crime Statistics. The Review focused upon the use of crime statistics and their fitness for purpose with particular attention paid to the needs of ‘the public’. The main conclusion was that the ongoing development of crime statistics is hampered by a confusion of means (technical discussions about crime statistics that focus on their interpretation and reliability) and ends (conceptual discussions about the purposes and interests of different groups in using crime statistics).

The unreliability of statistics of crime recorded by the police has been the subject of much comment over the years. The new National Crime Recording Standard represents an attempt to overcome recording variation, provide a ‘victim focus’ and allow comparisons in forces' performance. A consequence has been a significant increase in bureaucracy and audit systems that may have only a modest effect on the reliability of the statistics.

The paper's purpose is to consider the challenges, a public sector organization faces combining both transparency and “intelligent” forms of accountability (cf. Roberts, 2009).

The authors conducted a case study of StatePol, a police service in an Australian state.

The data analysis revealed three themes. First, prior to 2013, transparency forms of accountability dominated, emphasizing crime statistics with the effect of reinforcing internal partitions and inhibiting collective action. Second, post-2013, a greater emphasis was placed on “intelligent” accountability with conversations around process and collective accountability at the operational level. Crime statistics were used less for operational-level accountability and more for attention-directing. Third, changing the emphasis from transparency to its combined use with “intelligent” accountability required strong leadership, clearly communicated strategy and middle-level managers with appropriate skills.

The authors identify a number of important factors in combining transparency and “intelligent” forms of accountability. The authors note the difficulties that fragmentation between forms of accountability and the somewhat amorphous nature of the accountability concept itself can cause. In doing so, the authors provide empirical evidence of the challenges changing from an emphasis on transparency, to combined use with an “intelligent” form of accountability.

Purpose – Statistics about the level of crime continue to attract public and political attention but are often presented in conflicting ways. In England and Wales, police-recorded crimes are no longer considered “national statistics” and, instead, the crime survey of England and Wales (CSEW) is used. However, it is not clear why partial population data (e.g., police-recorded crime) are considered less reliable or valid for measuring temporal crime trends in society than inferential statistical estimation models that are based on samples such as CSEW. This is particularly the case for approximating rare events like high-harm violence and specific harmful modus operandi (e.g., knife crime and firearms). In this chapter, the authors cross-reference victim survey and police-recorded data to determine similarities and contradictions in trends.

Methods – Using police data and CSEW estimates, the authors contrast variance and logarithmic trend lines since 1981 across a range of data categories and then triangulate the results with assault records from hospital consultations.

Findings – Change in crime rates in recent years is neither as unique nor extreme as promulgated in media coverage of crime. Moreover, analyses show conflicting narratives with a host of plausible but inconclusive depictions of the “actual” amount of crime committed in the society. The authors also conclude that neither source of data can serve as the benchmark of the other. Thus, both data systems suffer from major methodological perils, and the estimated crime means in CSEW, inferred from samples, are not necessarily more valid or accurate than police-recorded data (particularly for low-frequency and high-harm crimes). On the other hand police-recorded data are susceptible to variations in recording practices. As such, the authors propose a number of areas for further research, and a revised taxonomy of crime classifications to assist with future public interpretations of crime statistics.

Originality – There is much public and academic discourse about different sources of crime measurement yet infrequent analysis of the precise similarities and differences between the methods. This chapter offers a new perspective on long-term trends and highlights an issue of much contemporaneous concern: rising violent crime.

Studies suggest that official crime statistics are more than a measure of criminal activity. Generated by police, crime figures also reflect the behavior and concerns of police. Our case study renders evidence to this argument. A national survey of the crime recording by police was conducted in China in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The results reveal significant under‐representation of crime in the police‐produced statistics and clearly identify the police as the source of errors. Our study presents the survey and examines the findings. We explore systemic and social factors that affect the underpresentation problem and assess possible impact of the findings on the police’s action in crime recording.

Research into crime is reliant on data that is recorded and published by criminal justice agencies; data which is collected for other purposes. Considering the suitability of geocoded crime data for academic research purposes, this paper will demonstrate the difficulties faced regarding the availability, integrity and reliability of readily accessible criminal justice data.

Data from two countries – England and Germany – were considered and set in a wider European Union (EU) context. Using the data received from requests made to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in England and openly published reports and data available from Germany, the authors provide a contextual picture of the availability and operability of data recorded by these agencies. Geocoded data that enable cross-national comparisons with respect to immigration, ethnicity and crime are particularly hard to locate, and conducting research using data (such as crime data) whose “integrity” is questionable in an academic environment becomes increasingly problematic.

Analysing secondary data produced by a number of agencies are amplified due to the different methods of collection, management, retention and dissemination. It was found that even within England, the information provided by police forces varied greatly. Data in Germany were found to be more openly available and published electronically by a number of different criminal justice agencies; however, many of the issues apparent in English data regarding data integrity were also identified here.

The need for good record-keeping and information sharing practices has taken on added significance in today’s global environment. The better availability of comparable criminal justice data has the potential to provide academics with increased opportunities to develop an evidence base for policymaking.