Supplemental UCR Data Submitted by the States

While computing awards for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) program, BJS undertook an extensive analysis of the data used in the formula, in particular of the extent of missing data. That analysis revealed that some jurisdictions believed that they had reported their data to their state-level UCR program, but for some reason the data were not on the FBI's files provided to the public. The extent of missing data varied considerably by state, with the FBI files containing 90% or more of most states' estimated totals published in Crime in the U.S. However, some files for some states were as much as 80% incomplete, due to National Incident-Based Crime Reporting System (NIBRS) conversion, late reporting, and other factors. (NIBRS is being implemented as a successor to the UCR. The crime counting rules differ between the two programs and some implementing jurisdictions are unable to use the old rules that would allow submission of data comparable to those in the current UCR summary program.)

In late February 1997, the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services/Uniform Crime Reporting (CJIS/UCR) staff met with Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and BJS staff to discuss issues related to the use of UCR data in grant formula programs, including the issue of missing data. It was agreed that we should make a one-time effort to correct missing data problems that occurred before UCR-reporting agencies were aware of the potential use of UCR data in grant formula computations. This covered UCR data through 1995.

BJS identified 28 state UCR programs with less than 100% coverage on the data files. On March 11, 1997, Bennie Brewer, Chief of the FBI's CJIS Division, wrote to heads of the state UCR programs in those 28 States, inviting their review of the 1993-95 UCR data to be used in the fiscal 1997 LLEBG formula. They were asked to supplement those data.

Of the 28 letters, responses were received for 12, 3 of which were letters stating that the state had examined the data and was satisfied that we had the most complete data available. The remaining 9 responses ranged from submitting data for two or three agencies to submitting data for a dozen or more agencies on diskettes in spreadsheets, database files, and so on. As seen in the attached table, state UCR programs submitted crime data covering a range of less than 1% of their reporting agencies to 95% of them. BJS was able to successfully integrate the new data into the main formula files. Since the JABG formula also calls for the same crime data, JRSA uses the supplemental data collected by BJS. The actual data supplied by the states in the outreach program are available to those administering the JABG program so that interested persons can review any additional data included in the total violent crime data being used.

SUMMARY OF STATES THAT INITIALLY PROVIDED SUPPLEMENTAL DATA FOR JABG FORMULA COMPUTATIONS

States Submitting Data

* The number of ORIs on the FBI files was used as the denominator. That number may include defunct reporting agencies.

States Responding But No Changes Necessary

California (but revised 1995 data for Oakland telephoned in by state and entered into formula files)

Iowa (bur revised data were provided later for Cedar Rapids and entered into formula files)

North Carolina

In subsequent years, individual agencies have been permitted to submit violent crime data to JRSA for inclusion in the JABG program.  The data are available upon request.

Since several of the issues that delay agencies and states from providing crime data to the FBI persist from year to year, JRSA has made an effort to supplement the crime data with state data where necessary. This has resulted in the use of state data for states whose coverage in the national data falls below 85%. The tables below show the states for which state data are used in each year of JABG funding.