– B –

Participants in the Panel’s Workshop-Style Meetings and Regular Sessions

B.1 PARTICIPANTS IN THE JUNE 12, 2014, WORKSHOP

The panel’s June 2014 workshop-style meeting let participants spend most of the day in breakout rooms organized roughly by local-level, state-level, and national-level interests in crime statistics and their uses. After a brief plenary session, participants in the breakout rooms worked through three topics/groups of questions in turn:

• How frequently do you use the existing nationally compiled crime data sources (the Uniform Crime Reporting [UCR] System and the National Crime Victimization Survey [NCVS]) to answer questions relevant for your day-to-day operations and for policy makers, the public, or other constituencies? What types of questions can you answer readily, and what kinds of questions are you unable to answer?
• What aspects of crime measurement—whether new, emerging, or poorly measured crime types; attributes of crime such as weapon or drug involvement; correspondence (or lack thereof) to existing criminal codes; or the like—do you view as essential to a modern system of crime statistics? How frequently, and at what level of geographic/operational resolution, must crime data be available, and at which levels would data be desirable (but not essential)? [Discussion should also concern issues

• of data quality and coverage, and how those interact with current and potential use of crime statistical series.]

• Do you use, or would it be desirable to use, systematically collected measures of phenomena that are not explicitly “crime” related but that may yield insight on the overall picture of “crime in the United States”? (These phenomena might include measures of individual or community well-being, health interview or surveillance data, or the like.) [Discussion should also consider the mechanics of data release and dissemination, and what attributes a modern set of crime statistics should have to be most useful to stakeholders.]

In each breakout room, one member of the panel served as moderator and another as reporter for the group. At the end of the day, the participants reconvened in plenary, the reporter panel members summarized discussion from their rooms, and time was provided for general discussion.

Local-Level Interests Breakout Group

• JOHN DALEY, Deputy Superintendent, Information Services Group, Boston Police Department
• COLIN DRANE, SpotCrime, Baltimore, Maryland
• STEVE EVANS, Director, Management Services, Arlington, Texas, Police Department
• TED GEST, Criminal Justice Journalists/The Crime Report
• SEAN GOODISON, Police Executive Research Forum
• RICHARD HARRIS, Research Specialist, University of Chicago Crime Lab
• MARY HOERIG, Inspector of Police, Strategic Management, Milwaukee Police Department
• RICHARD JANIKOWSKI, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Memphis (retired)
• KIMBERLY MARTIN, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice
• JAMES NOONAN, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation
• BRIAN ROOT, Quantitative Analyst, Human Rights Watch
• JENNA SAVAGE, Senior Research Coordinator, Office of Research and Development, Boston Police Department
• DANIEL WAGNER, Crime Analysis Unit, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Police Department
• Panel/Staff: Nola Joyce (moderator), Jeffrey Sedgwick (reporter), Arlene Lee, James Nolan, Amy O’Hara, Paul Wormeli

State-Level Interests Breakout Group

• CYNTHIA BARNETT-RYAN, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation

• ELIZABETH DRAKE, Senior Research Associate, Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia
• JOSHUA EXLER, Maryland StateStat, Office of the Governor
• STEPHEN HAAS, Director, Criminal Justice Statistical Analysis Center, Division of Justice and Community Services, Charleston, West Virginia
• KEN HASENEI, Commander, Technology and Information Management Command, Maryland Department of State Police
• ROBERT MCMANUS, Director, South Carolina State Statistical Analysis Center, Office of Justice Programs, South Carolina Department of Public Safety
• MARK MYRENT, Research Director, Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority
• STAN ORCHOWSKY, Research Director, Justice Research and Statistics Association
• SUSAN PARKER, Project Manager, University of Chicago Crime Lab
• THERESA SALO, Director, New York State Statistical Analysis Center, Office of Justice Research and Performance, New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services
• RONOJOY SEN, Maryland StateStat, Office of the Governor
• ERICA SMITH, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice
• JANEENA WING, Principal Research Analyst, Idaho Statistical Analysis Center, Idaho State Police
• JEFFREY ZUBACK, Director, Maryland Statistical Analysis Center, Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention
• Panel/Staff: Kim English (moderator), David McDowall (reporter), Daniel Bibel, Daniel Cork, Robert Goerge, Alex Piquero

National-Level Interests Breakout Group

• BEN ADAMS, Pew Public Safety Performance Project
• VIRGINIA BARAN, Office of Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice
• DAVID BURNHAM, Co-director, Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse Project (Syracuse University), Washington, DC
• ERINN HERBERMAN, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice
• RICHARD HERTLING, Covington and Burling LLP, Washington, DC
• ALISSA HUNTOON, Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice
• LAURA IVKOVICH, Lead Policy Analyst, Office for Victims of Crime, U.S. Department of Justice
• KRISTEN MAHONEY, Deputy Director, Policy, Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice
• KIMBERLEY MEINERT, Domestic Policy Council

• MELISSA SICKMUND, Director, National Center for Juvenile Justice, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
• Panel/Staff: Janet Lauritsen (moderator), Jim Lynch (reporter), Jonathan Caulkins, Jennifer Madans, Michael Miller, Ed Spar

B.2 PARTICIPANTS IN THE JULY 24, 2014, WORKSHOP

For the second workshop session, the panel chose to focus discussion in two ways: on a more technical level with a set of local law enforcement personnel, and along lines of specific crime types and contexts that are not well reported to local law enforcement departments (or for which there are entirely separate reporting streams) and that, accordingly, may not be well measured in police-report data. Hence, this workshop consisted of two discussion panels, with discussion and questioning from the whole audience.

Participants in the first, local law enforcement/technology-themed panel were made aware of the set of discussion questions from the June workshop (Section B.1), but were asked to comment specifically on a second bank of topic questions:

1. Does your agency report NIBRS-format data to your state or to the FBI? In either way, your thoughts on the cost/benefit trade-off are welcome: If you do report NIBRS-format data, does that detail help/“benefit” your agency? If not, what are the major barriers to sharing those data?
2. Generally, how flexible (or capable of change, from minor tweaks/maintenance to more fundamental revisions) are your agency’s records management systems?
3. Does your agency have the capacity (hardware, software, and personnel) to conduct analytical studies on crime trends and factors influencing crime rates?
4. In routine reporting or special analyses, does your agency use data from NCVS or its topic supplements? If so, how is it helpful?
5. What major changes would you like to see in national crime statistics systems (NCVS or NIBRS)? Are there gaps in reporting that should be fixed—or are there components of existing reporting structures that could be removed or streamlined? What changes in national statistical reporting protocols would make the compiled information more useful to your agency?
6. Are there any other recommendations you would make about improving our national systems of crime statistics?

Participants in the second, specific-crime-type panel were asked to comment on the same thought questions as in the June workshop (Section B.1), plus three others:

1. What is the ideal role for the NCVS, its previously fielded topic supplements, or other content that might be included in a supplement to such an “omnibus” crime survey, in measuring the crime types most relevant to you?
2. Are there specific critical weaknesses in the current systems of crime measurement for studies in your area, and are there tractable solutions to overcome them?
3. If you field your own data collections, or draw from other state/local data sources (even as a “workaround” to the nationally compiled crime data sources), what

Local Law Enforcement Systems Panel

• ANGELIQUE ABBOTT, Director, Crime, Traffic, and Intelligence Analysis, Fairfax County, Virginia, Police Department
• PATRICK BALDWIN, Director of Crime Analysis, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and Southern Nevada Counter-Terrorism Center
• JEFF GODOWN, Director, Technical Services Section, University of California, San Francisco, Police Department
• CHRIS HALEY, Program Manager, Information Services Division, San Diego Police Department
• JOHN KAPINOS, Strategic Planner, Planning and Research Bureau, Fairfax County, Virginia, Police Department
• JONATHAN LEWIN, Managing Deputy Director, Public Safety Information Technology, Chicago Police Department

Specific, Not-Well-Measured Crimes Panel

• KEITH ANDERSON, Economist, Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission
• KATHRYN CHANDLER, Sample Surveys Division and Cross-Sectional Surveys Branch, National Center for Education Statistics, with SIMONE ROBERS, Education Program, American Institutes for Research
• MICHELLE GARCIA, Stalking Resource Center, National Center for Victims of Crime
• ALLISON KISS, Executive Director, Clery Center for Security on Campus, Wayne, Pennsylvania
• MICHAEL LIEBERMAN, Washington Counsel and Director, Civil Rights Policy Planning Center, Anti-Defamation League
• ANNE MENARD, Executive Director, National Resource Center on Domestic Violence

B.3 OTHER CONTRIBUTORS TO PANEL DISCUSSIONS

In its meetings before and after the two workshop-style sessions, the panel sought additional perspectives on the general question of what “crime” should mean for purposes of data collection, from invited speakers/discussants:

• ANGELA ME, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
• HEATHER MITCHELL, Senior Group Manager, Corporate Security Business Intelligence, Target Corporation

• RICHARD ROSENFELD, Curators’ Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri–St. Louis, and Chair, National Research Council Roundtable on Crime Trends
• SALLY SIMPSON, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland
• MARIA VELLO, Executive Director, National Cyber-Forensics and Training Alliance, Pittsburgh, PA
• PETER YEAGER, Department of Sociology, Boston University

At the panel’s May and August 2015 meetings, the panel organized several discussion sessions, to draw together threads from previous meetings—on international experience in developing new crime classifications and on the challenges in converting local justice records management systems to NIBRS format, among other topics. We also arranged for a series of representatives to describe some of the alternative data resources profiled in Chapter 3. These presenters included:

• JOHN F. AWTREY, Director, Law Enforcement Policy and Support, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness)/Defense Human Resources Activity
• ED CLAUGHTON, PRI Management Group, Coral Gables, Florida
• MICHAEL DE LUCA, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, U.S. Department of the Treasury
• FIONA DOWSLEY, Chief Statistician, Crime Statistics Agency, Victoria, Australia
• CHET EPPERSON, Chief, Rockford, Illinois, Police Department
• KURT HEISLER, Office of Data Analysis, Research, and Evaluation, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
• JIM HEESCHEN, National Fire Data Center, U.S. Fire Administration, Federal Emergency Management Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
• Capt. TIM HEROFF, Services Division, Rochester, Minnesota, Police Department
• BRUCE KELLING, Chief Executive Officer, Athena Advanced Networks
• CONSTANCE KOSTELAC, Director, Wisconsin Bureau of Justice Information and Analysis
• TIM LINEHAN, Central Statistical Office, Ireland
• DAVE MULHOLLAND, Chief Executive Officer, Rylex Public Safety Consulting
• CHRISTOPHER NIELSEN, Program Manager, U.S. Postal Inspection Service
• JERRY O’FARRELL, Inspector in Charge, U.S. Postal Inspection Service
• KSHEMENDRA PAUL, Program Manager, Information Sharing Environment

• KEVIN STROM, Center for Justice, Safety, and Resilience, RTI International
• JENNIFER YOUNGBERG, Criminal Investigation Division, Environmental Protection Agency

In addition, panel members working in state and local law enforcement—Daniel Bibel, Nola Joyce, and Michael Miller—briefed the panel on the nature of the records management systems in current use in their departments. In this presentation and demonstration, Miller was joined by Sgt. KLAUS REINOSO of the Coral Gables, Florida, Police Department.

This page intentionally left blank.