Studies that use NIBRS data have inherent limitations. First, when the NIBRS data show increases in crime over a period of years, it should not be assumed that the volume of criminal incidents in the Nation actually increased. As seen in Table 1, such apparent increases from year to year may well be the result of increases in the number of law enforcement agencies (1,934 more agencies over the 5-year period) reporting their UCR data via the NIBRS format. As the percentage of agencies participating in the UCR Program via the NIBRS increases and the NIBRS data become more representative of crime nationwide, data analysts will be better equipped to identify increases and decreases in crime that are due to actual changes in crime volume rather than to reporting. Furthermore, changes in proportions between groups should not be interpreted as an actual change in the Nation’s crime characteristics. It is possible that demographics of the new reporting agencies are influencing the proportion (e.g., should the data show a sharp increase in the percentage of one particular race of offender between two years). As more law enforcement agencies report via the NIBRS, analysts will be more confident that the demographic characteristics of the data can be considered nationally representative. It is expected that, eventually, the NIBRS data, combined with other exogenous datasets, will allow researchers to evaluate the effect of crime reduction policies in reducing crime. Another potential limitation is that the agencies that submit their UCR data via the NIBRS format are not, for the most part, in large metropolitan areas. In spite of these limitations, there have been studies that suggest that the NIBRS data may be representative of the Nation’s crime (see, for example, Section V of Crime in the United States, 2002, “Bank Robbery in the United States”).
Another limitation of studies that use NIBRS data stems from the restricting level of disaggregation possible when using NIBRS location codes. For example, crimes committed at school, college, and university locations are all combined into a single NIBRS location code. Separating elementary and secondary schools from colleges is difficult, if not impossible, in the NIBRS format. The parameters available in NIBRS that might help distinguish whether an incident took place at an elementary school, secondary school, or college are not mutually exclusive to any group. For example, there are many 17 year olds in college and, conversely, many 18 year olds in high school during the same period of time; therefore, age of victim, offender, or arrestee are not variables that can identify whether the incident occurred in an elementary school, secondary school, or college. In addition, neither the victim nor the offender necessarily attends the institution where the offense occurred.
Lastly, the validity of NIBRS data has not been tested; therefore, one should be cautious in the interpretation of surprising findings, e.g., twelve 0-4 year old arrestees. (See Table 11.) However, since one purpose of this study is to show the arrestee and offender information that can be gleaned from incidents involving crime in school locations reported via the NIBRS, data such as these are included in the study.
Because of these limitations, the findings discussed in the present study cannot be generalized to the Nation as a whole. Readers are advised to be cautious in applying the results of this study to other research.
In summary, this study, over the 5-year period, found that 3.3 percent of all incidents reported via NIBRS involved school locations. The number of crime in school-related incidents was highest in October. Offense records were also most likely to include the use of personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.), while reports of the offender’s use of alcohol, computers, and/or drugs were minimal. Reported offenders of crime in schools were most likely 13-15 year old white males who the victims reportedly knew; however, there was nearly an equally large number of 16-18 year old reported offenders. More than half of the arrestees associated with crime at school locations were arrested for simple assault or drug/narcotic violations. Arrestees had similar characteristics to the reported offenders, most likely being reported as 13-15 year old white non-Hispanic males who were residents of the community of the school location where the incident was reported.
As a society, we are concerned by crime in schools and driven by the need for better data and analyses that can be used to develop protections for these institutions and the people who use their services. When more agencies use the NIBRS format to report UCR data, the data will allow for statistical estimations and tests.
Future studies using the rich NIBRS dataset may look at incident, offense, victim, and property characteristics; regional and rural/urban differences; as well as other socioeconomic and demographic considerations, such as:
Incident Characteristics
Victim Characteristics
Property Characteristics
By extracting relevant data elements from the NIBRS portion of the UCR databases, and by presenting percentages and odds ratios for characteristic differences among offenders and arrestees, this study sheds light on identifying the characteristics of offenders and arrestees of crimes at schools. Statistics presented here do not identify the factors of crime in schools. However, the study is an example of the way in which the NIBRS data can be used to explore facets of seemingly difficult problems and to generate questions and further research. This study adds to the body of research concerning crime in schools and particularly the often overlooked categories of school-related property and society crimes. One aim of school officials and law enforcement is to reduce crime in schools in general. As such, the findings presented here may be useful for those officials and policy makers at educational institutions who are seeking to develop proactive policies, an important need to effectively protect these vital societal foundations.
Appendix B: Weapon (continued) |
|||||||||
| Offense | Poison | Explosives | Fire/ Incendiary Device |
Drugs/ Narcotics |
Asphyxiation | Other | Unknown | None | |
| Simple Assault | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7,899 | 4,039 | 11,661 | |
| Aggravated Assault | 34 | 20 | 151 | 20 | 11 | 2,074 | 249 | 457 | |
| Forcible Fondling | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 273 | 267 | 1,786 | |
| Forcible Rape | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 50 | 93 | 511 | |
| Robbery | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 61 | 72 | 255 | |
| Kidnapping/Abduction | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 51 | 59 | 320 | |
| Sexual Assault With An Object |
0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 32 | 23 | 76 | |
| Forcible Sodomy | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 23 | 31 | 155 | |
| Weapon Law Violations | 6 | 537 | 85 | 9 | 1 | 1,199 | 208 | 952 | |
| Extortion/Blackmail | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 18 | 6 | 87 | |
| Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | |
| Negligent Manslaughter | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
| Justifiable Homicide | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 40 | 561 | 236 | 41 | 14 | 11,683 | 5,051 | 16,260 | |