nibrs edition crime reporting in thetwenty-one other (part ii) offenses are counted only if there is...

The National Incident-Based Reporting System

When Henry Ford turned out the original Model T Ford, it revolutionized travel.From our modern vantage point, that little vehicle certainly had its limita-tions, but it got the job done more efficiently than anything that came before it.

However, place the Model T beside a new Ferrari, and it is clear how far technology hasadvanced. Similarly, the Summary system of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Programhas been very serviceable since its inception in 1929, but it pales next to the capabilities andpotential of the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS).

NIBRS (pronounced ni' • bers) is the replacement for the UCR Program’s 70-year-oldSummary system. Since its inception, the traditional UCR Program has collected statisticsfrom local and state law enforcement agencies on seven (Part I) Index crimes. (An eighthoffense, arson, was added in 1972.) The information to be reported is based on a hierarchysystem; i.e., when a criminal incident occurs, police report the most serious offense identifiedwithin the incident according to the crime hierarchy established by the UCR Program—murderbeing the most serious, followed by rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, andmotor vehicle theft. In multiple-offense incidents, e.g., a victim is robbed and then murdered,the lesser offense (robbery) is disregarded in the national crime count. (The exception is arson,which is always reported.) In the Summary system, the UCR Program collects crime detailsabout the victim, the offender, and the circumstance only for homicide cases. The types ofweapons used are gathered only for the crimes of murder, robbery, and aggravated assault.Weapons used in rape are not collected, and rapes are reported only for female victims.Twenty-one other (Part II) offenses are counted only if there is an arrest. The age, sex, andrace of persons arrested are collected for all Part I and Part II offenses.

On the other hand, NIBRS takes advantage of the phenomenal capacity of modernpolice information and data processing systems to capture a myriad of details about crimes andcriminals through incident-based reporting (IBR). IBR views a crime and all of its compo-nents as an incident. Investigating officers record pertinent facts about an incident followingsystematic procedures that organize the data into specific segments. The vehicle used tocapture these facts is a data element. Data elements, given proper data values (much likeanswers to questions), provide information about crime and link this information to victims,offenders, property, arrestees, etc.

As agencies make the transition to NIBRS, they report data to the national UCRProgram on each single incident and arrest within 22 offense categories made up of 46 specific

U.S. Department of JusticeFederal Bureau of Investigation

A Newsletter for the Criminal Justice CommunityVolume 4, No. 1 NIBRS Edition

IN THIS ISSUE:

continued on page 2 . . .

Crime Reporting in theAge of TechnologyÜ Delaware’s Long Road to

Certification

Ü Officers Experience the

NIBRS Conversion

Ü How Austin PD

Became a NIBRS Agency

Ü Three Cities Selected for

Pilot Project

Ü New York’s Strategy

Simplifies Switch to

N I B R S

Ü Working with the Local

Media: When NIBRS is the

N e w s

Ü NIBRS on the World Wide

W e b

Ü Where’s the Money?

Ü The Evolution of a State

P r o g r a m

Ü Networking Advances

N I B R S

2

crimes called Group A offenses. In addition,there are 11 Group B offenses for whichonly arrest data are collected. NIBRScaptures specific details about the event,such as the time, date, location, and circum-stance of the incident; the age, sex, and raceof the victim and offender as well asinformation about their relationship; anyinvolvement of weapons or drugs; details ofproperty loss; and whether the crime wasmotivated by bias. Computer use in theperpetration of certain crimes is alsocaptured.

The following scenario illustratesthe difference in the degree of reportingthrough the Summary system and NIBRS.

At approximately 8 p.m. on Decem-ber 23, 1999, two young males approached a28-year-old Asian female in a parkinggarage. The first man, who was black, heldthe woman at knifepoint, reached for herpurse, and demanded her jewelry. Thefemale, unwilling to cooperate with therobber, tried to hold on to her purse. A briefstruggle ensued during which the secondmale, a white man, began laughing andpulled a gun. The white male then grabbedthe woman, threw the purse at the blackmale, and said, “I’ll have her!” After the

second man raped the woman, both men fledthe scene, leaving her in the parking garage.

Under the Summary system, thenational Program would count the aboveincident as one occurrence of rape. Thevalue of the victim’s lost property would bereported separately, although the robberywould not be recorded. No other informa-tion would be collected unless there weresubsequent arrests. Under NIBRS, bycontrast, both the robbery and the rapewould be counted, and information would becollected about all of the critical elements ofthe event such as the age, sex, and race ofthe victim and any known information aboutthe offenders’ age, sex, and race as well asthe fact that the attackers were strangers.Additionally, information about the locationof the attack, the type and value of lostproperty, and the date and time the incidentoccurred would be entered into the System.

In developing NIBRS, UCRProgram managers have provided lawenforcement agencies with a standardized,electronic blueprint for storing the NIBRSdata within their individual records manage-ment systems. The NIBRS data elements,which are a part of any good data collectionsystem, form the basis for a monthly spin-off

. . . Crime Reporting in the Age of Technology

(continued from page 1)

report from the agency’s central system thatis forwarded to the FBI through the state’scentral crime data repository. The goals ofNIBRS are to enhance the quantity, quality,and timeliness of crime data collection by lawenforcement and to improve the methodologyused in compiling, analyzing, auditing, andpublishing the collected crime statistics.However, until the UCR Program receives thebulk of crime data via NIBRS, the FBI willcontinue to report crime statistics in theSummary format.

The purpose of this special editionof CJIS is to assist law enforcement person-nel in understanding the problems likely tobe encountered as well as the benefits to berealized from NIBRS implementation. Thearticles that follow have been written by lawenforcement professionals who haveparticipated in their agencies’ transitionfrom Summary to IBR, and they providevaluable insights into the various issuessurrounding NIBRS. The national Programstaff wishes to thank each of the contributingauthors for their time and expertise, whichthey shared very generously with the CJISeditorial staff.

NIBRS GROUP A OFFENSES

Offenses and arrests are reported for each occurrence within 22 offensecategories made up of 46 specific crimes called Group A offenses.

Group A offense categories:ArsonAssault OffensesBriberyBurglary/Breaking and EnteringCounterfeiting/ForgeryDestruction/Damage/ Vandalism of PropertyDrug/Narcotic OffensesEmbezzlementExtortion/BlackmailFraud Offenses

Gambling OffensesHomicide OffensesKidnaping/AbductionLarceny/Theft OffensesMotor Vehicle TheftPornography/Obscene MaterialProstitution OffensesRobberySex Offenses, ForcibleSex Offenses, NonforcibleStolen Property OffensesWeapon Law Violations

The Summary system uses the HierarchyRule based on seven Part I (Crime Index)offenses for which only the most severecrime within a particular incident isreported.

Both offenses and arrests are recordedfor Part I offenses:

MurderForcible RapeRobberyAggravated AssaultBurglaryLarceny/TheftMotor Vehicle Theft

3

Sharon Durham

Sharon Durham hasbeen with the DelawareState Police for 18years. Ms. Durham hasheld numerous positionsin the state UCR Pro-gram. Her current posi-tion is as AssistantDirector of the State Bu-reau of Identificationand UCR ProgramManager.

Delaware’s Long Road to CertificationBY SHARON DURHAM

DELAWARE STATE POLICE , STATE BUREAU OF IDENTIFICATION

I remember returning from Orange Beach, Alabama, following my first conference on the National Incident-

Based Reporting System (NIBRS) in 1988thinking that implementation of the newSystem wouldn’t be too bad and that ourUniform Crime Reporting (UCR) staff couldhandle modifications and additions requiredfor NIBRS without any problems. After all,Delaware had been collecting automated,incident-based information since the 1970s.All police agencies in the state were alreadyusing a standardized incident report, anddata entry was performed on a statewidemainframe system. Since, in essence, ouragencies were already collecting more datathan required for UCR, I assumed that onlyminor modifications would be necessary inorder to become NIBRS compliant. Boy,was I wrong! Nine years after we undertookNIBRS implementation, we are finally onthe verge of being certified and are lookingforward to that moment.

Hindsight illuminates the magni-tude of our underestimation of what neededto transpire in order to establish a NIBRS-compatible system. The first problem weencountered was a big one—funding.Initially our programming staff estimatedconversion costs at $18,000; naturally, wesubmitted a grant request to the Bureau ofJustice Statistics for that amount. Unfortu-nately, the original estimate was, to say thevery least, off the mark, and a year later wefound ourselves submitting yet anotherrequest for $80,000. However, once fundingwas acquired, we were on our way.

Because we only had to add about 15additional data elements to our current dataentry screens, that aspect of the conversionwasn’t difficult. Programmers modified theinput screens and added edit checks to the on-line input system to assure uniformity of dataentry. State Program staff modified codingand report-writing manuals and providedtraining at the state’s four input sites. Duringthis process, we were still producing theSummary UCR data tape and paper datacollection forms monthly. When the timecame to produce the first NIBRS data tape, weencountered our second major problem—programmer error. In an attempt to develop

the NIBRS tape capacity, the programmersomehow totally deleted the program thatproduced our Summary UCR tape. Needlessto say, the programmer was removed from theproject, and we had to start from scratch.

The next programmer, who stayedfor approximately 3 years, reestablished ourability to produce the statistical printoutsrequired for Summary reporting. We thendecided that, in order to concentrate onproducing the NIBRS tape, we would relysolely on paper reports for Summarysubmission and not redevelop tape capacity.We have continued to submit NIBRS testtapes to the FBI since 1991. Through theseyears of testing, we have had five differentprogrammers, a circumstance which hasmade us aware of a third problem—thelearning curve. We have discovered that aprogrammer’s learning curve for NIBRS isat least 1 year.

During this period, we encounteredyet another obstacle—the state’s decision-makers decreed that an entirely new state-wide Criminal Justice Information Systemwould be implemented; this decisionpresented problems for our NIBRS datacollection efforts. Further modification ofdata entry screens created a need for morehours of testing and training. The additionof new data elements, overall systemchanges, and personnel issues resulted in atremendous input backlog throughout thestate. Measures then had to be taken toeliminate the backlog. Among these were thedevelopment of mini input screens thatallowed us to distribute data entry to resourcesother than the state’s four input sites. Again,staff provided hours of testing and training,

and we expended funds for overtime andtemporary personnel. Through these efforts,the backlog was eliminated, and still wemanaged to send NIBRS test tapes to the FBI.

In contrast to the above-mentionedsetbacks, we received very positive supportfrom the FBI. In May 1999, staff from theFBI’s Education/Training Services Unitprovided training that proved to be extremelybeneficial. Participants included the stateProgram data entry and coding staff, program-mers, and the UCR manager. During themeetings, we were able to resolve many issuesrelating to crime classification, and theparticipants came away with a better under-standing of NIBRS. In September 1999, atour request, an FBI Quality Assurance Review(QAR) team reviewed all four input sites inthe state. The review went well; all agenciesappeared to classify crimes uniformly. Inboth instances, the FBI staff did an outstand-ing job and was great to work with. Theexperience and knowledge gained from theNIBRS training and the QAR review areinvaluable. My advice to all states andagencies is to take full advantage of both ofthese programs.

The length of time that it has takenDelaware to reach this point in NIBRScertification clearly has not been only theresult of the NIBRS certification process orrequirements. As I have stated, there havebeen other unanticipated obstacles—personnel problems, system changes,backlogs, etc.—that have hindered theprocess. Since our error rate is now at anacceptable level, and we have been ap-proved for all elements of certificationexcept statistical reasonableness, the FBIwould like to review one more tape beforethe final certification. At present, we arediligently working with our programmer tosubmit our final data tape. In spite of all ourunforseen obstacles, we anticipate NIBRScertification early in the year 2000. SinceDelaware requires all police agencies tosubmit NIBRS data to the state Program,once certified we will be submitting NIBRSdata for the entire state. Very few states inthe Nation can make that statement, andDelaware will take pride in joining the ranksof those that can.

4

Officers Experience the NIBRS Conversion

The state of Connecticut supported the National Incident-Based Reporting System(NIBRS) from its inception. In 1992, a Bureauof Justice Statistics grant enabled the state topurchase the necessary data collection soft-ware, and by the mid-1990s, several agencieswere submitting NIBRS data. Our Departmentof Public Safety continues to support localagencies by providing the financial andtechnical assistance necessary for them to

adopt NIBRS-compliant systems while upgrading their informa-tion technology.

The advantages of NIBRS over Summary reporting areextensive. Information about incidents is collected via dataelements, which are data entry fields that investigating officerscomplete by entering a brief code or selecting an option from alist. Data elements provide for more expedient data entry, andthey augment crime detail. Connecticut added two items, familyviolence and gang offenses, which now require separate forms.Officers can report family violence and gang offenses by enteringa simple YES or NO response in NIBRS. We added two dataelements that are not part of the federal NIBRS, Victim andOffender Share a Child in Common and Victim was an Ex-Live In/Ex-Common Law Spouse. Also, we track crimes against police bylisting POLICE as an option for the data element Victim Type.

Presently, over one-fourth of our reporting agencies aresubmitting NIBRS data. During the next year, three of our fivelargest cities plan to implement the program. As more of ouragencies make the transition to NIBRS, the breadth and power ofdata sharing will increase, as will the uses of our informationnetwork for crime prevention and subject apprehension. As theinformation backbone of Connecticut agencies, NIBRS will act asa common denominator, easing collaboration among urban, suburban,and rural departments. A perpetrator’s activities can be unmaskedacross jurisdictions through regional data-sharing systems.

The following brief commentaries have been contributedby police officers who understand the efforts, difficulties, andrewards of bringing a previously unknown system into theiragencies.

Organizational change is rarely quick or easy. When thechange affects many facets of a law enforcement agency such asdispatch, reporting, and patrol, as does implementation of NIBRS,the conversion is even more difficult. But when police officersexperience the benefits of the new System, they too can, in thewords of Sergeant DeCarlo of Branford Police Department (PD),become “believers.”

David Porteous is the NIBRS Coordinator and Trainer in the CrimesAnalysis Unit of the Connecticut Department of Public Safety, Divisionof State Police. Prior to joining the Department in 1994, Mr. Porteouswas managing training programs and databases at the University ofConnecticut.


In December of 1995, the Branford PD, which serves a city of 27,349 inhabitants, tasked me to implement a NIBRS-compatiblerecords management system. And so began our evolution from theUCR of the 20th century to the UCR of the 21st century—NIBRS.

Under the UCR Summary system, most incident dataappear in the report narrative and are not computer searchable.Categorizing data and placing them in tables, as occurs withNIBRS, allows the creation of relationships between NIBRS tablesand other departmental information. This relational link transformsNIBRS from a strictly crime-reporting instrument to a valuableinvestigative tool. The following exampleillustrates how the system works.

One day another PD came to us with asurveillance camera photo of a burglar. Theoriginating jurisdiction had visited other depart-ments without success. Our officer entered thesuspect’s description and some Modus Operandi(M.O.) data into our computer. Within 2 min-utes, we had a name to go with the face, whichled to solving over a dozen burglaries in fivecities. All in all, not bad for a couple of minutes’ work.

How did we do it? Within our records managementsystem, we have NIBRS tables that contain information on theLOCATION TYPE (the kinds of places a burglar usually enters)and the PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (the kinds of property aburglar usually steals). Another table houses specific data onM.O.s (a burglar’s routine methods of operation), and yet anothertable contains the PHYSICAL DESCRIPTORS of known burglarysuspects. When our officer entered the available information aboutthe burglary suspect being sought, the computer searched all thetables for related data. The combined data produced the hit. Thechanges required to become NIBRS compatible were not easy to carryout, but having this increased capability to solve crimes has madebelievers out of us.

Our next project is a regional effort to share NIBRS databetween state and municipal agencies through an informationsupersystem. As envisioned, the regional system will make localdata available to a vast network of law enforcement agencies—integrating network access into the cruisers via laptop computersand directly to plainclothes personnel with handheld computers.

NIBRS is not just about submitting required data to stateand federal agencies. NIBRS sets a foundation for data collectionthat can be built on and used well into the future, giving us power-ful new management and investigative tools for solving crimes.Being part of a technological surge that is adding efficiency toalmost every facet of our profession is sometimes overwhelmingbut always exciting. This is a good time to be a police officer.

John DeCarlo, a Sergeant with 23 years’ police experience, oversees theinformation technology effort at the Branford, Connecticut, PD. Heconfesses to being confused on a daily basis by all digital technology.

John DeCarlo

David Porteous

5

When the Groton PD decided to implement NIBRS, our first step was tocarefully consider what types of informationwe could collect that would help us improveour services to Groton City’s 9,669 residents.We then looked at other agencies withNIBRS already in place to learn about thestrengths and weaknesses of each—a taskthat aided us in selecting and purchasing asystem that met both our immediate needs

and our long-term goals. We learned that not only was itimperative to have computer-knowledgeable people, it wasequally important to place high regard on their input.

Redesigning our 30-year-old reporting system was achallenge. The new reporting form had to be user-friendly aswell as compatible with our computerized system. Whenfinished, the new incident-report forms proved easy to completeand provided more comprehensive and accurate informationthan previous forms. The new forms can be completed byofficers at the scene, in their cruisers, or at headquarters. Thedata from the forms are then entered into the in-house system byrecords personnel who ensure the data are complete, reliable,and in compliance with both department and NIBRS require-ments.

The results of our early efforts to implement NIBRS werepredictable. During the first month, as officers were learning thenew forms, patrol mileage fell by two-thirds. By month’s end, themileage was back to normal, and officers were completing the newforms as quickly as they had the old ones. Records personnelexperienced a similar learning curve. Detectives discovered thatthe new forms provided them with more specific details of crimesand better follow-up information.

The database is most widely used by detectives, followedby patrol officers. Data are accessible to anyone in the departmentthrough the in-house computer system via workstations throughoutthe station. Any information is accessible within departmentheadquarters, and limited access is possible with Mobile DataTerminals from the cars. Types of inquiries are limited only by thekind of data collected and entered into the system, e.g., M.O.information, personal traits, physical markings, and similar data tohelp track suspects.

When our department first examined NIBRS, commentslike “It cannot be done,” “too time-consuming,” “too muchtraining,” and “The guys will never do it” were common. Itwasn’t easy, but we have been NIBRS certified for 6 years now,and the entire department feels fortunate to have experiencedthe benefits.

A 21-year veteran of the Groton City PD, Officer Dale Grenstiner isassigned as systems manager for all department computer systems:Computer Assisted Dispatching, the Records Management System, theReport System, and Mobile Data Terminals.

When people are directed to relinquish a comfortable routineand learn new procedures, the response is rarely enthusiastic.

Crime hasn’t changed. Why do we have to report so much now?”was just one of the expressions of frustration I heard when officerslearned that the Danbury Police Department intended to upgrade allof its information technology systems. As a member of the teamcharged with implementing the new systems, it was part of my jobto overcome this kind of opposition. So I asked the officers, “Whenyou are dispatched to an address, wouldn’t you like to know howmany times officers had been called to that location? And, if youknew that, wouldn’t you like to know whetherprior calls had involved a landlord-tenantdispute or a domestic violence incident?Wouldn’t it be good to know if there weredrugs involved, or a gun?” This informationhas always been in the department’s records,but until NIBRS created the possibility, it couldnot be cross-referenced and linked to display apattern. And it could not be made instantlyavailable to every officer, who could use it tomake the job safer and more efficient.

With the adoption of NIBRS, Danbury’s officers on patrolwill play an even more important role in protecting our 65,774citizens because during daily patrols they will gather more detailedinformation that, when entered into the IBR system, may beimmediately linked by the computer to earlier entries concerning thesame individual, location, circumstance, etc. These relational links notonly provide patrol officers and investigators with leads to help solvecrimes but also can signal that a situation is potentially dangerous. Theinformation they capture in the performance of their day-to-day dutiesmay save the life of a brother or sister officer another day.

From the first weeks of using the new NIBRS, departmentmanagers saw eye-opening patterns of crime incidence and patrolcoverage. The ability to separate crime incidents from calls forservice and to analyze incident types (traffic stops, burglaries, etc.)that occur in each patrol area by day of the week and time of theday has made it possible to better gauge actual policing needs.

Law enforcement in the 20th century has often beenreactive, i.e., responding to problems after they arise. Thanks toprograms such as NIBRS, we have the opportunity to be much moreproactive in the 21st century. We can concentrate law enforcementresources in those areas where our data tell us problems aredeveloping.

Within the Danbury PD, I am hearing officers makeremarks such as, “You can now see trends in criminal activitywhere they were hidden before.” As our officers see the practicalapplications, their doubts about the value of NIBRS diminish.

Officer Jose Agosto, Jr., has been responsible for coordinating a completeoverhaul of the Danbury, Connecticut, PD’s information systems. Prior tojoining the department in 1996, he had 25 years’ experience installing andmanaging management information systems for a Fortune 500 company.The Danbury PD Implementation Team consists of two other members,Officer Steve Bobel and Officer Sheila Brooks.

. . . Officers Experience the NIBRS Conversion


Jose Agosto

Dale Grenstiner

6


The information that follows is as much about converting to anew information system as it is about converting to the National

Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) because in Austin,Texas, both occurred simultaneously. The Austin Police Depart-ment (APD) computerized its paper report system in the 1970s. Bythe mid-80s, changes in technology, departmental growth, and thedesire for more refined information led to the design of a databaseinformation system. The new system, designed for laptop dataentry, was operational in October 1994. However, APD had lostfunding for laptops earlier in the year. Without the necessaryequipment and with no time for training, officers were forced torevert to paper forms that incorporated the new NIBRS data require-ments. Manual entry created a backlog of thousands of paperreports.

The Situation Worsens: At that time, APD was past thepoint of no return. The old information system was inoperable andthe Summary-based Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Programwould not run against the new database. Employees searched boxesof reports awaiting data entry to complete UCR data collection for1994. Even though the arrival of laptop computers in 1995 an-swered the paper-reporting problems, it presented new challenges.Officers found data entry difficult, time-consuming, and unreliable.Despite the technological advances, backlogs continued, patrolproductive time dwindled, and ready access to information wasvirtually nonexistent.

The Long Road Back: Eventually, we were able to designnew data entry screens that simplified the process. The new screensalso provided immediate edits for mandatory fields of information.New upload programs provided for the transfer of information fromlaptops to the mainframe. In January 1995, APD began submittingelectronic incident-based reports to the national UCR Program. Ittook more than a year to meet the FBI’s standards for clean data.Since management reports had not yet been developed, the APD didnot have access to official numbers relating to the state of crime forthe entire year.

Initial Shock: Judgement Day came in February 1996when the FBI returned APD’s final crime statistics for 1995.Overall, Part I crime had increased only 5 percent, but violent crimewas 25 percent higher than 1994 figures primarily due to an astound-ing 66 percent increase in aggravated assault. The fact that arrestshad plummeted added to the misery.

APD immediately initiated a review to determine theaccuracy of the returned FBI report using other internal crimereports (not based on Summary or NIBRS standards) for compari-

BY SUE BARTON

AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT

TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS . . .How Austin PD Became a NIBRS Agency

son. A cursory review narrowed the scope. Homicide, rape,robbery, and property crime categories appeared to be valid. Amystery remained as to why our database contained a lower numberof aggravated assaults and a higher number of arrests than reportedthrough NIBRS; therefore, the data required further analysis.

Two years earlier, APD had discovered discrepancies inreporting aggravated assaults. An audit had revealed that the wayreports were coded and the way the UCR Summary softwareoperated often resulted in counting offenses rather than countingeach victim as a separate offense. APD had taken appropriate stepsto correct the problem at that time, but now we suspected that thesame error might be reoccurring. To test this theory, our program-mers created software to count the number of victims associatedwith the aggravated assault offenses. The count validated theaccuracy of the NIBRS report. APD then ran the same programagainst 1994 data and discovered that, indeed, APD hadundercounted aggravated assaults in 1994. The problem was not aresult of conversion to NIBRS, but rather incomplete reporting in1994. After comparing the true count of victims for both years, theactual increase in aggravated assaults was 15 percent rather than 66percent.

We then turned our attention to resolving the arrest issues.Again, we searched the database for raw clearance and arrest data.The exceptional clearances appeared to be accurately reported;however, the number of arrests was drastically undercounted. Wediscovered that the software logic was designed to extract the arrestdata from the identification database rather than the offense data-base. Because of this design flaw, the system was failing to countpersons arrested in other jurisdictions for APD offenses as well aspersons who were arrested but not booked (bench warrants, etc.).Also, since field release citations resided in the offense systemrather than in the identification database, they had been totallyomitted. Other problems involved arrest codes that did not agreewith offense titles and data entry errors or backlogs. APD developedsoftware checks to identify and remedy most of these problems. Anew report management system that will resolve the problems in aless work-intensive way is currently in the development stage. Allin all, APD discovered a lethal combination of process, people, andprogramming errors that contributed to arrest data being clearlyunreliable.

Return to Normal: The chaos of change has subsided.Police officers have embraced the use of laptops, and they areentering NIBRS data automatically. Even detectives are usinglaptops to take statements in the field. At least 90 percent of all

7

. . . TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS


Sue Barton

police reports are entered and reviewedwithin 24 hours; only reports that do notrequire follow-up investigation take morethan a day. This means that detectives canbegin investigations almost immediatelyrather than waiting 3 to 5 days as wascommon in the “old days” of manual entryof handwritten reports.

Perhaps the most notable improve-ment lies in the richness of informationcurrently available. For example, Austinreports more hate crimes than does any othercity in Texas, not because hate crime ismore of a problem in Austin, but becausethat information is easily recorded in thefield without having to fill out a paper form.Similarly, understanding the relationshipsbetween victims and offenders allows us tostrategically channel resources to areas suchas domestic violence where we can make thebiggest impact on reducing violent crime.

Looking Ahead: APD has spentthe last year planning the design of a newinformation management system to beimplemented in the next few years. Al-though the change will undoubtedly bringsome degree of confusion, we have greatexpectations for this system because we willbe careful not to repeat the mistakes madeduring the development of our currentsystem.

Converting to NIBRS was difficult.It was not painless; progress never is.Change is not easy, and often the rewardsare not immediate. The true value andutility of NIBRS information cannot be fullyrealized until many more agencies, especiallylarger departments, come on board.

Sue Barton, AssistantDirector, AustinPolice Department,has 29 years of citygovernment experi-ence. Ms. Barton isalso a consultant forthe National Instituteof Justice (U. S.Department ofJustice).

The Voice of ExperienceIf experience is the best teacher, the Austin Police Department (APD) is in a

unique position to offer the following words of advice for agencies contemplating achange to incident-based reporting.

n Begin the planning process by auditing your current information system and UCRProgram to detect any possible reporting discrepancies. Any errors are likely tomagnify differences in NIBRS data.

n Work backward. Design the outputs. Consider the management and operationalreports that are needed on a routine basis; then think about those special reports orrequests for information that arise infrequently, and make sure all reasonablereport needs are met. Once the local requirements are met, identify externalreporting requirements from state and federal programs such as NIBRS. Chancesare that few, if any, additional data elements will be needed.

n Collect only the information that will be used. This may sound shortsighted, butif specifications are well thought-out, you will have all the data elements youreally need. The danger in collecting huge amounts of data is that it complicatesthe system, making it less user-friendly. In actual practice, officers will zip pastsuperfluous fields anyway—if a field contains information they will not use forthe investigation, they will ignore the category. This tendency may bleed over tocritical data elements that are needed for analysis or management purposes. Donot end up with a system loaded with capacity and potential for information, butdevoid of data.

n Do not leave the development solely in the hands of programming staff. Pro-grammers know code and logic; they are not experts on departmental processes orprocedures. The employees who use the system should play a strong role indesigning the system. Before purchasing software, talk to the users to see how thedata fit their needs.

n Use laptop computers; easy, fast entry is essential. Let the computer do thework, such as replicating the offense number on each page. Design easy, pop-uphelp screens to give officers immediate access to descriptor codes.

n Use on-line edits that prompt officers to correctly enter all data fields as theyinput the data; otherwise, you will have to continually clean your data.

n Train prior to implementation. APD officers had to adjust to a new informationsystem, new NIBRS requirements, and the transition to laptop entry in the fieldsimultaneously.

n Build your system to accommodate change.

n Get all the help you can, wherever you can. APD built their information systemwithout giving much, if any, thought to purchasing software for NIBRS. Neitherdid we network with cities that were already providing incident-based reports. Donot wait until problems arise; work with your state Program and the FBI duringthe planning and implementation phase.

8

Only 4 of the Nation’s 67 major cities(those with populations over250,000) currently submit National

Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)crime statistics to the FBI. Since 80 percentof U.S. citizens reside in metropolitan areas,meaningful national crime statistics areimpossible without data from these vitaljurisdictions. In recent years, the FBI andthe Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) havebeen partners in an effort to promote NIBRSparticipation by encouraging the adoptionof automated, incident-based recordsmanagement systems. One result of thispartnership was the recent selection of threecities to receive federal grants to showcasestate-of-the-art systems that are NIBRS-compatible. Wichita, Kansas; Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina; and Chicago,Illinois, were chosen to serve as pilotagencies in a project aimed at demonstratingto the law enforcement community that aNIBRS-compatible system is feasible andthat an agency will accrue benefits once theSystem is in place.

Participation in the NIBRS projectentails an agreement from each of the pilotagencies to allow continual monitoring ofrelevant activities, tracking and recording allmilestones and pivotal events in the imple-mentation process. To broaden the scope ofthe project, representatives of seven observeragencies have been invited to meet with thepilot departments to add their perspectivesand experiences. The seven observeragencies are Austin Police Department (PD),Texas; Jefferson Parrish Sheriff’s Office(SO), Louisiana; Seattle PD, Washington;New Castle County PD, Delaware; LosAngeles County PD, California; WashingtonMetropolitan PD, District of Columbia; andHonolulu PD, Hawaii.

The FBI and BJS intend to documentand publicize experiences of the three diversepilot agencies as they develop NIBRS-compatible systems.

WICHITA

The Wichita, Kansas, Police Department, which serves a population of 335,000,

employs 626 sworn officers and logsapproximately 25,000 Uniform CrimeReporting (UCR) Part I offenses a year.In connection with its overall automationefforts, the department will modify itsexisting records management system toinclude NIBRS elements not currentlyavailable. The most significant elementslacking in the present system are relation-ship identifiers that link victim to suspectand victim to offense. The project willconsist of making alterations to the Oracledatabase, revising the data entry screens,and training officers and support staff inthe use of NIBRS reporting guidelines.Once the department is able to collect andstore all required NIBRS data, the statisticswill be verified using software provided bythe Kansas Bureau of Investigation andthen submitted electronically to the state’sCrime Data Information Center.

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG

Approximately 53,000 UCR Part I offenses are reported each year to the

Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina,Police Department, which employs 1,393police officers. The jurisdiction has apopulation of about 611,000. In 1998, thepolice department began developing anintegrated information system that includesa module for crime reporting to the stateUCR Program. While the original datafields, tables, and links were in accordancewith the incident-based reporting (IBR)standards that were in use at that time bythe state UCR Program, they were notcompatible with NIBRS. Under thisproject, the crime reporting module will beredesigned so that it will meet the NIBRSstandards currently being adopted by theNorth Carolina State Bureau of Identifica-tion. The original data fields, tables, andlinks were developed with the goal ofsupporting an increased emphasis on localproblem solving as well as providing bettersupport for case investigation. Thedepartment hopes to incorporate the

Wichita, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, and Chicago Test NIBRS


Three cities selected for Pilot Project

9

. . . Witchita, Charlotte-Mecklenburg,

and Chicago Test NIBRS


NIBRS requirements within that framework rather than as anadditional set of data fields and links.

The enhanced reporting system is more than just a matterof asking officers to file their incident reports on laptop computers.In fact, patrol officers will be conducting preliminary investigations.The technology will provide a way for them to record their findingsso that the information can be used not only to help solve individualcrimes but also to analyze problems in their districts. NIBRS willbe an important part of this process.

CHICAGO

Serving a city of nearly 3 million inhabitants, Chicago’s police force consists of 13,466 sworn officers and another 2,060administrative personnel. The department handles over 250,000UCR Part I offense reports each year. It will implement a NIBRS-compatible, automated case-reporting system that will integratewith the department’s existing Police Computer-Aided Dispatch(PCAD) and Criminal History Records Information System(CHRIS) applications. The automated case-reporting application,which will include screens that guide the officer through thepreliminary investigation process, will also pull relevant dataautomatically from the PCAD for inclusion in the incident report.

All case reports will be housed in CHRIS, which will automaticallyupdate the case report as transactions occur. Development of theautomated, integrated case-reporting application will be handled bya vendor under contract with the city of Chicago. CHRIS, however,was developed within the Chicago Police Department, and thedepartment is quite amenable to sharing with other agencies anynonproprietary software that is currently available or may bedeveloped as the project progresses.

Representatives from the three agencies will meet with BJSand FBI staff quarterly to share experiences regarding successes,problems, solutions, costs, and other relevant developments. TheFBI’s Programs Support Section will make available whatevertraining support may be needed, and the FBI and SEARCH, under aBJS grant, will offer technical assistance to all three participatingagencies. NIBRS test data will be collected, reviewed, and analyzedregularly to confirm that they are complete and that they meet testsfor statistical reasonableness. The goal of this ambitious project isto demonstrate best practices in developing and implementingsystems that 1) meet internal management and administrativeinformation needs; 2) increase capacity for crime analysis, commu-nity-based policing, and Comp-Stat-like applications; and 3) enablethe submission of data to NIBRS.

More than a decade ago, the New York State Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program identified the National

Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) as an excel-lent way to enhance crime data and increase crime reportingaccuracy. A Project Advisory Group, with broad representationfrom the state’s law enforcement community, worked with stateProgram staff to develop our New York State Incident-BasedReporting (NYSIBR) system. We developed a conversion strategythat minimized both additional workload and training investment forlocal law enforcement. The key to our successful conversion toNYSIBR was the development of a standardized coding system builton the existing New York penal law codes that allowed crossclassification of New York crimes to the traditional UCR offensesand to NIBRS.

Obviously, we wanted to make the transition as smooth aspossible. Our advisory group quickly realized that adding anotherset of crime classifications covering the state’s criminal laws wouldrepresent an additional workload for local law enforcement. How-ever, officers were already required to be conversant in the contentand structure of the state penal law, and they were familiar with itthrough its use in New York’s fingerprint-based Criminal History

New York’s Strategy Simplifies Switch to NIBRSBY JAN WHITAKER

NEW YORK DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES

Record system. The advisory group recommended building on thatexisting knowledge base and having the state Program handle allclassification conversions.

State Program IBR analysts began the process by conduct-ing detailed analyses of the criminal laws of New York State (NYS),the Summary system of UCR, and NIBRS crime category defini-tions. In some cases, the Summary-NIBRS code assignment wasfairly obvious and straightforward. However, in others, a carefulexamination of the actual statutory text was needed to permitappropriate assignment of Summary and NIBRS codes. Even so, insome cases, the full statutory text did not provide sufficient preci-sion to complete the classification. For example, NYS larcenystatutes do not adequately differentiate between pocket-picking andtheft from a coin-operated machine. To overcome this, we added avariable to NYSIBR called Larceny Type, which is required for alllarceny offenses. With this variable, coupled with the NYS penallaw classification, we were able to derive the necessary NIBRScode.

In other cases, where NYS statutory language did notexactly match the Summary-NIBRS crime categories, the advisorygroup provided guidance and a rationale for applying a “best fit” to


1 0

is the most frequently occurring reason forapparent changes in crime counts in thetransition from Summary to incident-basedreporting. The NYSIBR implementationand certification process helps departmentsbetter understand the reporting process andallays fears that crime counts will increase.

In the past year, as part of a Bureau ofJustice Statistics’ grant, state Program staffreviewed the Summary system and NYSIBRcode decisions made 10 years ago. Theyidentified the rationale for coding decisionsand documented the entire process. WhereSummary and NYSIBR codes don’t mapdirectly to one another, we are evaluatingand documenting the rationale and, in somecases, reconsidering some coding assign-ments. As we built the documentation, werefined the questions for making codeassignment decisions. This process and thedocumentation will be used in coming yearsas new laws are added by the legislature.

ConclusionStandardized classifications across the

state have been useful as departments switchfrom the Summary system to NIBRS,helping to identify and explain changes inhistoric reporting patterns. Local depart-ments appreciate the simplified trainingresulting from this standardization, and theyreport increased confidence in local data.

Jan Whitaker

Jan Whitaker is theManager of the NewYork State Incident-Based ReportingProgram for the Officeof Justice SystemsAnalysis, New YorkDivision of CriminalJustice Services; shejoined the project in theearly 1990s as aprogrammer/systemsanalyst.

. . . New York’s Strategy


Summary and NIBRS codes. Interestinglyenough, in those cases where NIBRSdefinitions confound state statute language,we found that traditional Summary defini-tions and state statute language had alsoconflicted, since Summary and NIBRS usethe same logic.

State Program analysts constructedcross classifications of all crimes in the NYSpenal law to Summary and NIBRS, and theyare contained in the state’s official CodedLaw File. NIBRS offense codes are as-signed by the state Program as the data areprocessed for transmission to the FBI.

Benefits of Standard ClassificationHaving a single, uniform set of

standard classifications for the entire stateincreases the accuracy and utility of the data.Classification errors due to ambiguousdefinitions or other causes are minimized.Each reporting agency can be assured that itsdata are consistent and comparable to thoseof all other agencies. And, the state andnational Programs benefit from this unifor-mity as well. State policy makers applaudthe ability to analyze state data using eitherNYS penal law definitions or, where cross-state comparisons may be useful, Summary-NIBRS definitions.

Significantly, too, under the newNYSIBR process, the entire task of classifi-cation is removed from the local agency.Staff no longer have to be trained in Sum-mary or NIBRS codes and how they relate tothe state penal law.

Code Standardization and Managing theSummary/NIBRS Transition

Another important benefit of thecross-classification system is that it enablesthe state Program to convert our data fromincident-based back to Summary formats.This has proven to be a key tool in under-standing the transition from the Summarysystem to NIBRS as well as allowing thestate to compare its newer data to historicUCR patterns.

In fact, Summary-NIBRS compari-son is a critical part of NYSIBR certificationreview. We compare historic UCR reportingpatterns with NYSIBR source data applying

the traditional Summary counting rules.During this review, our staff have uncoveredproblems in the old classification processsuch as the use of nonstandard SummaryUCR crime category definitions. Theseerrors generate noticeable changes in countsin the transition between the Summarysystem and NYSIBR. We also discoveredcoding errors in some of the records man-agement software used by local departments.In some cases, a specific penal law offensehad always tallied to the wrong UCRcategory due to a simple typographical error.All significant changes in crime categorycounts are documented as part of ourNYSIBR certification process so that notonly is the degree of change due to thetransition from the Summary system toNYSIBR noted by local, state, and federalanalysts, but so are the reasons for thechanges.

It has been a concern in New Yorkand elsewhere that crime counts willincrease as local law enforcement imple-ments NYSIBR. We have not found that tobe the case in NYS. Overall crime totals donot change substantially; however, countswithin categories may change and, in somecases, may change significantly.

With the ability to crosswalk betweenthe Summary system and NYSIBR within areporting agency, we have been able toclosely examine the transition and discoverthe reasons for any discontinuity. For themost part, incorrect or misapplication ofUCR offense classifications, whether due tohuman assignment or software coding errors,

Ten Largest NIBRS Agencies

Agency Population

Austin PD 559,758

Colorado Springs PD 357,741

Cincinnati PD 344,828

Aurora PD 262,464

Oakland Co. SO 256,562

Greenville Co. SO 255,854

Henrico Co. PD 245,905

Chesterfield Co. PD 245,044

Akron PD 218,044

Knox Co. SO 199,518

(Austin, TX)

(Colorado Springs, CO)

(Cincinnati, OH)

(Aurora, CO)

(Pontiac, MI)

(Greenville, SC)

(Richmond, VA)

(Chesterfield, VA)

(Akron, OH)

(Knoxville, TN)

1 1

Police shootings, use of force, high-speed pursuits, and profiling arejust some of the tough issues I must addressas chief of police. If it were not difficultenough to deal with such matters whilestriving to maintain high standards of policeconduct, morale of employees, and supportof the community, I must also deal withlocal media that often appear skeptical ofpolice. All I need to top off a week whenOfficer Smith has written a traffic citationfor the mayor’s wife is a front page newsstory about the city’s crime going up.

A police department may not wantto have a relationship with the media, but itwill have one, good or bad. Too many lawenforcement personnel see the media asintrusive, unfair, critical, and biased. Andmany members of the media believe lawenforcement officers are secretive, defen-sive, and violate an individual’s rights—hiding behind a code of silence. Obviously,such stereotypes on both sides are notconducive to building positive relationships.

However, a law enforcement agency thatfosters an adversarial relationship with themedia by attempting to deny its membersaccess to information serves neither thedepartment nor the public.

When a department converts itscrime reporting methodology from theSummary-based Uniform Crime Reporting(UCR) Program to the incident-basedNational Incident-Based Reporting System(NIBRS), the news media will undoubtedlyhave questions regarding the department’sdecision to make this transition. Mostreporters do not understand the traditionalUCR Program, the new NIBRS, or theidiosyncrasies of crime data. Simply put, bytaking the trouble to ensure that the mediaand, through them, the public understandboth of these systems and the differencesbetween them, a law enforcement agencywill minimize the misinterpretation of thedata as well as the hostility that will naturallyfollow erroneous news stories that “make thedepartment look bad.”

It is in the best interest of thedepartment to thoughtfully disseminate tothe media information that the public shouldunderstand. For example, the media canhelp the public comprehend that a risingcrime rate in some categories is not neces-sarily bad. Reporters can explain that thenumbers may indicate that officers areproactively detecting criminal activity.When a department expands its narcotics ordrug intervention units, more drug arrestscan be predicted, and drug crime may appearto increase. Conversely, disbanding druginterdiction units may make drug crimesappear statistically more favorable becausefewer arrests may be recorded.

Invest some time and effort topreempt misunderstandings. Prior to therelease of crime data collected via NIBRS,the department should arrange a pressconference to discuss the new data collec-tion system. The chief or a representativeshould explain that the additional data thatNIBRS provides will assist the departmentin the preparation of strategies to combatcriminal activity in the community. Aknowledgeable member of the staff shouldexplain the limitations of Summary report-ing and the strengths of incident-basedreporting. Great care should be taken toensure the general public and the mediaunderstand that in NIBRS each single crimeincident is collected to provide a compre-hensive view of criminal activity, while inthe Summary system only the most seriousoffense is scored by application of theHierarchy Rule. The agency head ordesignee should prepare a detailed presenta-tion that includes the impact of the conver-sion of the number on crimes reported, thetype and extent of additional information notpreviously available, and the reasons thedepartment has elected to participate inNIBRS. The media will most assuredlywant to know why crime rates seem to riseor at least deviate from those previouslyreported. Any fluctuations in crime statis-tics should be explained to reporters.


When NIBRS is the NewsBY WILLIAM M. WATSON

RILEY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, MANHATTAN, KANSAS

Working with the local media:

A Media Packet Checklist

√ Overview of NIBRS

√ Listing of Group “A” and Group “B” Offenses

√ Listing of NIBRS 53 data collection elements

√ Listing of NIBRS offense definitions and miscellaneous features

√ Outline of differences between NIBRS and the Summary system

√ General guidelines and specifications for NIBRS

√ Enhanced crime analysis reports and maps

√ Glossary of terms, including acronyms

√ Sources of more information

√ Designated contact name and telephone number

1 2

not had good relationships with the mediaand/or do not properly educate reporters maysuffer from that lack of planning as theywould in any operation. Proper planningand good communication should mitigateany negative media reports in regard to thetransition to NIBRS.

A media packet containing explana-tory materials should also be provided. (Seesidebar on page 11.) The electronic mediagenerally must present short stories thatfocus on faces and sound bites. They shouldbe supplied with short anecdotal examplesof the manner in which data are provided ineach system.

It may be that the media will notconsider the UCR-NIBRS transition news,and the department’s communication effortsmay not result in any stories. Nevertheless,plan on repeating the process again when thedata are released. Time spent enlighteningreporters about the changes in crimenumbers is well spent. If the conversion toNIBRS is construed by the media as beingveiled in secrecy, or if little or no informa-tion is provided, or the police representativeproviding the information appears less thanwell-informed about the new system, storieswritten or aired may be erroneous anddetrimental to the department. More timemay be spent clearing up the confusion thanwould have been needed to educate themedia beforehand.

Many jurisdictions that have alreadyconverted their crime reporting fromSummary to NIBRS and have educated themedia about the conversion have notexperienced significant problems with thenews reporting. Often, the chiefs havefound that reporters had not understoodUCR even though the media had beenreporting crime data for years. The conver-sion to NIBRS provided the departments anopportunity to familiarize reporters withboth systems. To mitigate problems, theseagencies not only reported statistics inNIBRS format but then converted them backto UCR standards so that reporters couldcompare current to past crime statistics.Some agencies have found that certainaspects of their past UCR reporting weresignificantly in error, thus appearing torepresent a drastic increase in crime follow-ing the transition to NIBRS. When suchproblems are discussed openly with themedia, any adverse publicity is short-lived.

With the advancement of computertechnology, law enforcement agenciesthroughout this country, whether large or

The chart above demonstrates the differences in time lags for clearances

for three types of NIBRS offenses.

. . . When NIBRS is the News


small, have the opportunity, if not theresponsibility, to gather data in respect tocriminal activity and analyze that data in aneffort to better understand crime and prepareeffective, efficient strategies to combat it.Law enforcement’s old nemesis, the media,will want to acquire the newly availabledata, analyze them, and share that informa-tion with the public. Agencies that havedeveloped and nurtured reasonable relation-ships with the media should fare well. Themedia will present knowledgeable accountsof the available data. Agencies that have

Help Us Spread the “News”There is no restriction on reproduction

of this newsletter for distribution withinthe receiving agency. In fact, the editorsencourage recipients to do so. Thenewsletter is currently distributed to over73,000 criminal justice agencies. In viewof the size of the mailing list, we areunable to add individuals to it. How-ever, since the informationpublished in CJIS isintended to assistlaw enforcementpersonnel in theperformance oftheir jobs, it isimportant that this newsletter be dissemi-nated as widely as possible.

MikeWatson

William “Mike”Watson recentlyleft his position asChief of theWichita PoliceDepartment tobecome Director ofthe Riley CountyPolice Departmentin Manhattan,Kansas.

1 3

Several Internet sites furnish lawenforcement and criminal justice agencieswith extensive information on a variety ofNational Incident-Based Reporting System(NIBRS)-related topics, including sites atthe Justice Research and Statistics Associa-tion (JRSA); the Bureau of Justice Statistics(BJS); the Association of State UniformCrime Reporting Programs (ASUCRP); andSEARCH, the National Consortium forJustice Information and Statistics.

JRSAhttp://www.jrsa.org/ibrrc

The JRSA’s Incident-BasedReporting Resource Center, established withBJS support, puts practical, analyticalinformation and tools into the hands ofanalysts who want to work with incident-based data and provides a forum where theycan exchange information and ideas. Clickon the Extracting Data from IBRS andNIBRS link for technical information.

The IBR Data in Action: ReportsUsing IBR Data link offers projects under-way at state Statistical Analysis Centers thatuse state-level incident-based data.

The JRSA site links to several otherNIBRS-related sites, including the main sitefor ASUCRP, BJS, and the NIBRS Project atthe SEARCH site. (See below.)

BJShttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/nibrs.htm

The BJS site details the history ofNIBRS and compares this incident-basedreporting system to the traditional Summaryreporting system. The site also supplies anabstract of various BJS publications aboutNIBRS and provides a link to these docu-ments. Titles include “State Use of Inci-dent-Based Crime Statistics” and “Imple-menting the National Incident-BasedReporting System: A Project Status Re-port.”

NIBRS on the World Wide WebTo assist in the development and

presentation of incident-based crime data,BJS staff created a series of standardizedincident-based tables which can be accessedthrough BJS Guidance. Twenty-one tableshells such as “Victim/Offender Relation-ship for Domestic Violence Related Arrests”and “Violent Incidents by Victim/OffenderRelationship, Type of Crime, and byPremise” were identified as measures thatcould provide policy-relevant criminalinformation. Local agencies may downloadthe shell tables onto a disk and adapt themfor their own use. The software applicationsWinZip or PKUnzip are needed to downloadthe tables.

ASUCRPhttp://www.asucrp.org/news/index.html

The ASUCRP site provides adetailed view of NIBRS data as they relateto the UCR Summary system. Highlights ofthe usefulness of NIBRS are presented alongwith suggestions for data analysis and linksto other helpful Web sites.

SEARCHhttp://www.nibrs.search.org

A variety of information is avail-able at the SEARCH site including details ofthe NIBRS Project, a collaborative effort ofvarious law enforcement agencies. The FBI,the BJS, the International Association ofChiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs’Association, the Major Cities Chiefs’Association, and the ASUCRP are workingtogether to increase agency participation inincident-based reporting.

A click on the NIBRS FederalStandards link to the FBI NIBRS Publica-tions area connects viewers to Volume 1:Data Collection Guidelines, Volume 2:Data Submission Specifications, Volume 4:Error Message Manual, and an addendum tothe volumes. Information on obtaining acomplimentary copy of a NIBRS video anda copy of the NIBRS edition of the UCRHandbook is also offered.


This sample bar chart illustrates one type of policy-relevant data

available with NIBRS.

1 4

The Law Enforcement Planninglink features various resources for lawenforcement agencies in the process ofplanning for or implementing conversion oftheir crime reporting systems from Summaryto incident-based reporting. The linkcontains information on technology, fund-ing, strategic planning, and proposal writing.Sample incident reports that collect requiredNIBRS data are available, and there is aselection that accesses an automatedmarketplace for law enforcement products.

The No-cost Assistance linkpresents important information about thetechnical assistance SEARCH provides tolaw enforcement agencies, state Summary/NIBRS programs, and software vendorsinvolved in developing NIBRS. It alsodetails the in-house and on-site assistanceSEARCH offers and explains how to applyfor technical assistance.

Effective crime-fighting efforts require cooperation among the components of thecriminal justice system: law enforcement, courts, prosecutors, public defenders,

corrections officers, and probation and parole officers. One way to foster cooperationis to enable these components to share criminal justice information across local, state,and federal information systems. Attorney General Janet Reno is strongly supportiveof criminal justice agencies obtaining federal grant money to purchase automatedcriminal justice information systems, and she encourages agencies that receivefederal funds to implement systems that are compatible with the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS).

One source of funding for records management systems is the Local LawEnforcement Block Grants (LLEBG) Program administered by the Bureau of JusticeAssistance (BJA). In fiscal year 1999, Congress appropriated $523 million for theProgram. To be eligible for an LLEBG application, a jurisdiction must report Part Idata to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.

The LLEBG Program is a formula program based on a jurisdiction’s numberof UCR Part I violent crimes reported to the FBI. The formula is computed in twostages. In the first stage, state allocations are proportionate to each state’s averageannual number of UCR Part I violent crimes compared with that for all other statesfor the three most recent available calendar years. In the second stage, local awardsare proportionate to each local jurisdiction’s average number of UCR Part I violentcrimes compared with the number reported by all other jurisdictions in the state forthe three most recent available calendar years. Note: BJA will base its awards forthe fiscal year 2000 on the UCR Part I violent crime averages using 1995, 1996,and 1997 data. More information about the LLEBG Program is available at the BJAInternet site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA.

Many major grant programs administered through the Office of JusticePrograms (OJP) authorize equipment purchases, generally including hardware andsoftware. Such programs include the Byrne Formula Grant Program, the ByrneDiscretionary Grant Program, the National Criminal History Improvement Program,and the State Identification Systems Grant Program. The Community Oriented PolicingServices (COPS) Technology Program also provides funding for the implementation ofinformation and records management systems.

Note: $10 million for NIBRS grants has been desig-nated from this fiscal year’s Crime IdentificationTechnology Act. The funding will be competitivelyawarded to 1) states that do not have a state UCRProgram that want to establish a statewide Programthat is NIBRS compatible and 2) state UCR Programsthat apply on behalf of local law enforcement agenciesthat will implement NIBRS. The grants require a tenpercent match of state/local funding.

For information about the NIBRS grantsor other funding through OJP or one of its fivebureaus, visit the OJP Internet site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov (click on “Publications” andthen “Guidelines, Solicitations, and ApplicationKits”). The BJA Clearinghouse provides additionalinformation regarding funding opportunities on theInternet at http://www.ncjrs.org (click on “LawEnforcement,” “Topics,” then “Justice Grants”). Tolearn more about funding through COPS, visit theInternet site at http://www.usdoj.gov/cops (click on“Grants, Programs & Activities”).

Where’s the Money?. . . NIBRS on the World Wide Web


The number of NIBRS agencies has slowly risen since 1991. The downward move-ment during the 1993-1995 period was the result of Alabama and Illiniois conversionproblems at the state levels. Neither of these states is currently NIBRS certified.

Information concerning Web sites andconnecting links was accurate as of presstime. However, Internet sites are continu-ally being updated and improved. Read-ers are encouraged to browse these sitesfrequently for the most up-to-date NIBRSinformation.

NOTE:

NIBRS Property Segment - Emphasis on

Property Type and Value

8Examines:

Type Property Loss/Etc. (Data Element 14)

Property Description (Data Element 15)

Value of Property (Data Element 16)

Date of Recovery (Data Element 17)

Number of Stolen Motor Vehicles (Data

Element 18)

Number of Recovered Motor Vehicles (Data

Element 19)

Suspected Drug Type (Data Element 20)

Estimated Drug Quantity (Data Element 21)

Type Drug Measurement (Data Element 22)

8Applications reenforced utilizing scenarios

8References associated with error messages

Recommended for local, state, and federal

UCR Program personnel (i.e., administra-

tors, training instructors, report analysts, coders,

data entry clerks, police officers, etc.) who are

responsible for collecting and recording NIBRS

crime data for submission to the FBI.

NIBRS Overview - Introduces Programhistory - goals and objectives of anenhanced system

8 Includes information promoting thebenefits of NIBRS

8 Compares advantages of NIBRS vsSummary reporting

8 Introduces reports, data elements,and data values

8 Emphasizes status and progressionof NIBRS throughout the country

8 Introduces NIBRS certification

Recommended for local, state, and federal UCR Program personnel

(i.e., administrators, training instructors,report analysts, programmers, etc.) whoare responsible for the collection ofstatistics for the UCR Program.

NIBRS Introduction - Emphasis on Classification

8 Defines fundamental NIBRS terminology

8 Definitions of OffensesCrimes Against PropertyCrimes Against PersonsCrimes Against Society8 Exercises include:Classifying scenariosIdentifying multiple-offense/“lesser included offenses” situationsRecognizing an incident and acting in concert situationsDistinguishing separation of time and

place

Recommended for local, state, and federal UCR

Program personnel (i.e., administrators,

training instructors, report analysts, coders, data

entry clerks, police officers, etc.) who are

responsible for collecting and recording NIBRS

crime data for submission to the FBI.

NIBRS Train-the-Trainer - Emphasis on adulteducation techniques applicable to NIBRS

8 Sharing training information

8 Discussing practical ideas to enhance existingtraining

8 Assisting with customized techniques for teachingadults

Recommended for local, state, and federalUCR Program personnel (i.e., records manage-

ment system administrators, training instructors, stateProgram managers, etc.) who are responsible fortraining for the collection and recording of NIBRScrime data.

The Education/Training Services Unit (ETSU) will assist your state training instructors in the implementation of NIBRS

training. Any training provided by ETSU is free of charge. Formore information contact: Federal Bureau of Investigation,Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, ATTN:Education/Training Services Unit, Module E-3, 1000 CusterHollow Road, Clarksburg, WV 26306; (304) 625-2821 or1-888-UCR-NIBR. Hours of business: 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. ET,Monday - Friday.

1999 NIBRS Training783 participantsrepresenting406 agencies

1 6

The third annual Tennessee Incident- Based Reporting System (TIBRS)Conference held in Gatlinburg drew 435 lawenforcement personnel in April 1999. Themagnitude of that accomplishment can onlybe appreciated by those who realize that thestate of Tennessee had no centralized stateProgram for the collection and disseminationof crime statistics as recently as 1995.Despite action by the state legislature in1980 establishing the Tennessee Bureau ofInvestigation (TBI) as the state’s centralcrime statistics collection agency, lack offunding rendered the legislation moot. Forseveral years, the FBI’s Uniform CrimeReporting (UCR) Program mailed paper datacollection forms each month to the state’s420 local agencies and typically receivedcompleted reports from about 100 of them.

Tennessee’s collection practiceshave progressed so rapidly over the past fewyears that TBI was able to meet the FBI’sstringent requirements for UCR stateProgram status in 1999. Moreover, the stateis now in compliance with the 1980 legisla-tion for the first time in nearly 20 years.

Change began in 1992 with thearrival of Mr. Larry Wallace as the newdirector of the TBI. Following an assessmentof the crime reporting situation, DirectorWallace concluded that crime in Tennesseewas not being reported accurately, if it wasreported at all. One result of this deficiencywas the loss of many federal dollars that couldhave helped to support state and local lawenforcement agencies.

The new director’s first task was toconvince the Tennessee General Assemblyand the state’s administration of the criticalneed for accurate state-wide crime statisticsand the necessity of funding the collectionprogram. Once he had gained the support ofGovernor Don Sundquist and the state’slegislators, Director Wallace worked withTBI to determine the best collection proce-dures. TBI decided that the state should goimmediately to the National Incident-BasedReporting System (NIBRS). TBI hiredadditional employees to form an implemen-tation staff and the state Statistical AnalysisCenter (SAC) was expanded to include theUCR Project. From a TBI canvass for

volunteers, a group of local law enforcementrepresentatives was formed to discussadditional fields to be included beyond themandated NIBRS elements, thus creating thebasis for TIBRS. The group decided toincorporate additional data elements neededby the state within the NIBRS software inorder to streamline the collection process forlocal agencies.

Once a course of action had been set,the most significant remaining obstacle wasprocurement of funding. That hurdle wascleared in July 1995 when TBI was awardedan Edward Byrne Memorial State and LocalLaw Enforcement Assistance Program grantunder the Criminal Justice Records Improve-ment Program to begin the implementation ofNIBRS. Including the state’s 25-percentmatching funds, $645,000 was allotted in1995. The grant funding provided for theinitial program development and the purchaseof computers for local law enforcementagencies based upon identified need. Anadditional $396,000, including the state’s 25-percent matching funds, was awarded for eachof the next 3 years.

The next task facing TBI wastraining employees at the individual agen-cies in proper data collection practices anduse of the software that had been developedin-house by TBI programmers. TBI beganan extensive training program in 1996, andby July of that year, approximately 100 lawenforcement agencies were reportingmonthly. Employees of the SAC producedoperating manuals for staff in reportingagencies, and the FBI and state staff pro-duced a guide to convert Tennessee statestatute offenses to NIBRS codes.

Participation in the Program hascontinued to increase since the first TIBRSConference in 1997 when approximately 220persons attended. At the conference, a usergroup was formed to act as a support groupand to establish a forum in which agencystaff could meet to discuss common prob-lems and successes and to exchangeinformation. Topics of discussion at TIBRSconferences include Internet security,common audit findings, implementation bylocal agencies, and grant applicationwriting. Staff from the FBI have partici-

The Evolution of a State Program

pated in all three of the TIBRS confer-ences.

In 1998, TBI initiated a State AuditProgram, in which TBI’s Crime StatisticsUnit reviews an agency’s data collectionpractices biennially. In addition, TBI staffperiodically check the reported data forreasonableness. The FBI certified the TIBRSprogram as NIBRS compliant in July 1998.In March 1999, TBI implemented a formalcertification guideline policy establishing atraining requirement of 16 hours for at leastone person at an agency annually. Currently,389 law enforcement agencies are submittingstatistics monthly, and 342 of those have metcertification requirements.

As the Program continues todevelop, TBI will provide more support forlocal agencies, such as the current develop-ment of a “Train the Trainer” concept forlarger agencies. The TBI Web page willeventually enable each agency with Internetaccess to download its own reports. In thefuture, agencies will have access to crimetotals, precalculated statistical crime rates bycity or local area, reports by offense type,arrest information, and drug incident data.

The federal grant funding forTIBRS concluded in June 1999; however,the state legislature has provided thefunding for the Program’s continued growthand development. TIBRS emergence as thesolid foundation of a strong central stateProgram in a state with a tradition ofpiecemeal statistical collection proves thepower of commitment. The partnershipbetween Tennessee’s local law enforcementagencies, their state offices, and the federalgovernment has strengthened the criminaljustice system at every level.

BY JACKIE VANDERCOOK

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Jackie Vandercook

JackieVandercookstarted hercriminal justicecareer 14 yearsago and came tothe TennesseeBureau ofInvestigation 8years ago.

1 7

When I began working for the newLouisiana Uniform Crime Reporting

(UCR) Program in 1990, I had no inkling ofthe enormous challenge that lay before me.Due to a loss of funding, Louisiana hadbeen without a formal state UCR Programsince 1980. In 1988, law enforcementofficials from the state had attended theOrange Beach, Alabama, Conference on theNational Incident-Based Reporting System(NIBRS), and they had returned home witha determination to rebuild the state’s crimereporting program from the ground up.The state submitted a grant to the Bureau ofJustice Statistics (BJS), and by the end of1990, funding was in place. The followingyear, the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Associationand the Commission on Law Enforcemententered into a joint project to rebuild theUCR state Program. My task was toreinstate centralized reporting for not onebut two programs—a Summary UCRProgram and a Louisiana Incident-BasedReporting System (LIBRS).

There were no guidelines orprocedures in place to provide direction forestablishing a state UCR Program, and myoverriding question at that time was,“Where do I begin?” Since the language inthe BJS grant specifically provided supportfor a four-person field staff, my first stepwas to interview candidates to fill thosepositions. Very quickly, the newly hiredfield staff and I learned the importance ofweekly planning meetings to discuss issuesand set goals and objectives. One of ourfirst decisions was to collect Summary UCRdata on the traditional forms and to focus ourautomation efforts on LIBRS development.

These first steps got us, literally,“on the road” to LIBRS implementation.We felt it was important to have field staffvisit our sheriffs’ offices and police depart-ments to explain LIBRS and convince theirpersonnel of its importance. This wasn’talways an easy task. Some days, our fieldstaff would come in from visits exhausted

and discouraged. Personnel in the agencieswere often quite skeptical about NIBRS,and it seemed unlikely that the agencies wevisited would embrace incident-basedreporting (IBR). But as we gained experi-ence, we learned that personal contacts wereinvaluable. The questions and commentsthat were generated in the field helped us todo our jobs better when we visited otheragencies. We began to anticipate questionsand were better prepared to answer them.

Questions regarding the conversionfrom Summary UCR to IBR were, and stillare, those most frequently asked of our fieldstaff. To agency concerns that conversionto IBR would make crime rates look higher,we responded that the state Program woulddesign a system that would produce bothSummary and NIBRS data—convertingNIBRS data to Summary data. Further-more, system checks would assure both theagency and the state Program of properconversion; i.e., the numbers generatedwould be valid and reliable whetherproduced as Summary or NIBRS statistics.

State Designed SoftwareBy late 1994, the state-designed

software was available to any local agencywanting to automate its records but lackingthe staff or funds to do so. Over 75 agen-cies are currently using the software, whichnot only allows automated management ofthe department’s functions, but also pro-vides the capability of becoming LIBRScompliant. Agencies that are LIBRScompliant are also NIBRS compliant. Webuilt the necessary structure at the statelevel to convert LIBRS data to NIBRS datafor our state submission to the FBI.

The state Program also createdtools for our field staff, enabling them toprovide agencies with sound advice regard-ing system enhancements. One tool is achecklist for quick and easy assessment oflocal systems, which also contains a recapof additions or changes necessary for

LIBRS compliance. Another is a list ofsample goals and objectives intended tofurnish agencies with an organized, meth-odical approach to LIBRS implementation,one that can be followed even in the eventof personnel turnover. The state Programsuggests that each agency have a LIBRScoordinator or liaison and a backup, so thatif turnover occurs, there are no setbacks tothe agency’s compliance efforts.

Even before formal NIBRS trainingwas available from the FBI, our stateProgram staff used NIBRS documentationas a reference and bravely ventured intodesigning our own training program. Inaddition to holding seminars in key areas ofthe state several times a year, our fieldrepresentatives travel across the state forindividual technical assistance sessions.When an agency indicates readiness to beginimplementation, we initiate a visit to reviewtheir system to make sure that all necessaryLIBRS data elements and codes are in place—an effort which saves time by resulting in amore accurate test tape. The field staff arealso available for follow-up assistance.

Statewide Training ProgramVery early in our rebuilding efforts,

the new state Program recruited a30-member LIBRS working group com-prised of sheriffs, chiefs, technical staff,dispatchers, officers, records personnel, andsupervisors through which we began tocreate an environment conducive to effec-tive collaboration. Brainstorming flowed,networking materialized, goals evolved,target dates emerged, and things began tohappen. Still in existence, this group servesas a steering committee that advises thestate Program primarily on issues regardingtechnology.

Initially, we were fortunate becauseseveral leading agencies were in the earlystages of automating or upgrading theirexisting systems, so fitting LIBRS into theirprojects required only the addition of a few

In Louisiana . . .

Personal Networking Advances NIBRSBY RACHEL CHRIST

LOUISIANA UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING

. . . continued on page 18

1 8

data elements or codes. Their sheriffs andchiefs had already made internal decisionsregarding the importance of an automatedsystem, so convincing these agencies tobecome LIBRS test agencies was not difficult.Since then, Louisiana has made muchprogress in the process of testing NIBRS withthe FBI. The last few NIBRS submissiontapes tested 96-percent error free. Our target isto be certified within the next few months.

LIBRS implementation started witha small network of people. The networkgrew stronger as time went on. Slowly, we

. . . Personal Networking Advances NIBRS


Rachel Christbegan to develop a base of knowledge andshare it. Through constant networking,cooperation between local agencies and thestate Program gradually developed. Now,we receive requests daily from localagencies wanting to know more aboutimplementing an IBR system. In ourjourney toward NIBRS certification, we,together with the agencies, have discoveredthe importance of being open-minded andflexible and sharing lessons learned alongthe way. We anticipate a great future forIBR in Louisiana.

FBI employees once covered many miles “on foot” searching files for fingerprintrecords. Today, the information is available with the click of a computer mouse.

Digital technology revolutionizesfingerprint identification.

The records shown in the National Armory (above)have been condensed to the few cabinets pictured here.

FBI Identification Division personnel searching rows offingerprint records files at the National Armory during WWII.

P hotoFinish

Ms. Christ hasbeen working withthe LouisianaUniform CrimeReporting Programfor over 9 years.She was a trainingmanager and acomputer systemliaison in privateindustry beforejoining the Program.

A Final Word

In September 1999, over 150 Identification Division retirees joined an equal number of current and former employees

at the CJIS Division complex to celebrate the Division’s 75thAnniversary. Many of the guests were surprised at the sizeand scope of the various operations of the FBI’s Division I,now renamed the Criminal Justice Information ServicesDivision. The modern facilities are, as one visitor remarked, afar cry from the old days at the Washington, D.C., Armory,which housed the Bureau’s Fingerprint Files during WWII.Impressive as they found the complex, the retired fingerprintexaminers, without exception, found the new IntegratedAutomated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) to benothing less than amazing. (See photos at left.)

When IAFIS came on-line on July 28, 1999, it spelledthe end of an era in the FBI’s fingerprint identificationprocess. While many automated fingerprint identificationtechniques had been implemented during the past two decades,the fingerprint identification process was still a labor intensivepaper-based system requiring fingerprint examiners to indi-vidually classify each fingerprint card and to retrieve masterprints from hundreds of cabinets standing adjacent in longrows. Generally, under this system criminal prints could beprocessed within 3-4 weeks. With IAFIS, the fingerprintidentification process is completely electronic. For example, aBoston police officer recently arrested a man for drinkingalcoholic beverages on a public street. The man presentedphony identification to the officer, but the Boston police sentthe man’s fingerprints electronically to IAFIS. Thirty-fourminutes later the System responded with the subject’s realname, his lengthy criminal history, and the fact that he waswanted in Alabama on an attempted murder charge. The suspectwas then extradited to Alabama to face the charge. This incidentnot only demonstrates the value of speedy fingerprint identifica-tion through the national System, but also the potential of IAFISto support cooperative law enforcement efforts between statesand, ultimately perhaps, between nations.

It may be that the successful implementation of IAFISwas the crowning achievement of the Division’s 75th anniver-sary year, but perhaps not. There is another contender for thatnomination. The FBI also completed a massive overhaul ofthe National Crime Information Center (NCIC)—the Nation’scomputerized index of criminal justice information that hasbeen a mainstay of law enforcement for over 30 years. TheNCIC upgrade also came on-line in July 1999. NCIC 2000provides law enforcement with numerous improvements in theSystem’s capabilities including the ability to link information,process images, and access new databases.

In June of 1998, the CJIS Division established anOffice of International Development to coordinate interna-tional initiatives. This office manages the NCIC InternationalVehicle File Project, which had successfully established accessto NCIC for 27 countries by the end of 1999. Participatingcountries access the NCIC Vehicle, Boat, and License PlateFiles through the INTERPOL telecommunications network.

Data generated by this projectwill be analyzed to distinguishvehicle theft routes andpatterns and generate investi-gative leads to assist in theidentification of organizedcriminal groups engaged ininternational vehicle theft.More importantly, the International Vehicle File Project may bethe first step in the development of a global network for theexchange of crime information.

Also during that blue-ribbon year, the Uniform CrimeReporting (UCR) Program completed the design phase of a 3-4 yearproject to automate the Nation’s crime data. The project willimprove services to the Program’s law enforcement data contributorsby automating many data processing functions and developing thecapability for in-depth crime analysis especially with NationalIncident-Based Reporting System data. The public will also benefitsince UCR data will be released earlier, and UCR data sets andpredefined tables will be made available via the Internet.

The National Instant Criminal Background CheckSystem (NICS), which went into operation on November 30,1998, completed over 10 million background checks throughDecember 31, 1999, to determine consumers’ eligibility topurchase firearms. Approximately 1.8 percent of all inquiriesthrough the federal system resulted in denials. A somewhatunexpected benefit of the background checks has been the identifica-tion of approximately 2,500 individuals attempting to purchase afirearm who were identified through the System as fugitives fromjustice. In such cases, not only is the firearm purchase denied,but the FBI immediately reports the address of the firearms dealerwhere the fugitive attempted the purchase to appropriate lawenforcement authorities. In many cases, this information hasresulted in the apprehension of a wanted person.

So many technological advances have produced addi-tional risks requiring more stringent security precautions. More-over, as law enforcement agencies use more efficient communica-tion mechanisms such as the Internet to transport criminal justiceinformation, there is an increasing need for maximizing computersecurity. During 1999, the CJIS Division appointed an Informa-tion Security Officer (ISO) and staff to coordinate informationsecurity efforts at all the CJIS interface agencies. The CJIS ISOwill administer the CJIS Security Policy and provide support forthe interface agencies.

In its 75-year history, the FBI’s Division I can certainlypoint to many red-letter days and singular events. Nonetheless,1999 must rank in our history as a year of extraordinary achieve-ment. I want to thank everyone, including the many fine contractemployees who worked as part of the team, for their dedicationand hard work. These new information systems will serve all ofus well, and I am confident that their shared use and managementwill continue to strengthen the partnership between local, state,federal, and international law enforcement.

David R. Loesch

1999—A Banner Year for the CJIS Division

A Report from the CJIS Division’s Assistant Director in Charge

BULK RATEPOSTAGE & FEES PAID

Federal Bureau ofInvestigation

Permit No. G-168

U.S. Department of JusticeFederal Bureau of InvestigationCriminal Justice Information Services Division

Main ComplexClarksburg, WV 26306

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300

Please check the articles you found

most helpful/interesting:Topics for articles you would like to see in

future issues of CJIS:

Please fax your comments and suggestionsto the Communications Unit at:

304-625-5394, or write to: CommunicationsUnit, Criminal Justice Information Services(CJIS) Division, Federal Bureau of Investiga-tion, Module D-3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road,Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306-0154;telephone: 304-625-4995.

This newsletter can be accessed onLEO at: www.leo.gov/lesig/cjis/cjisnews/newsmain.html.

Crime Reporting in the Age of Technology ...................... 1

Delaware’s Long Road to Certification .......................... 3

Officers Experience the NIBRS Conversion ..................... 4

How Austin PD Became a NIBRS Agency ........................ 6

Wichita,Charlotte-Mecklenburg, and Chicago Test NIBRS .. 8

New York’s Strategy Simplifies Switch to NIBRS ............... 9

When NIBRS is the News ..........................................1 1

NIBRS on the World Wide Web ...................................1 3

Where’s the Money? ...............................................1 4

NIBRS Training .....................................................1 5

The Evolution of a State Program ...............................1 6

Personal Networking Advances NIBRS .........................1 7

nibrs edition crime reporting in thetwenty-one other (part ii) offenses are counted only if there is...

Documents