– E –

Excerpted State Legal Requirements for Crime Reporting

In this appendix, we attempt to summarize the relevant legal context for crime reporting in each state. To the extent practicable, the listing for each state summarizes or quotes from state statute or other documents, covering 5–6 items:

• The opening bullet point tries to identify the most basic mandate for crime reporting—typically, the law from which the state’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program draws its base authority. (The membership listing of the Association of State Uniform Crime Reporting Programs, at http://asucrp.net, was consulted to start the listing of programs.) The maintenance of criminal history record databases or development of intrastate communication networks for law enforcement use are among the things that are typically dealt with in parallel passages of state codes; we have tried to avoid citing these (and instead focusing more on pure “crime statistics”) except in cases where the state UCR program appears to draw authority from such broader initiatives. The first bullet point in each state’s entry below also attempts to indicate whether local law enforcement agencies are legally required to transfer crime-report data with a state-level entity or whether participation is voluntary (and merely encouraged). A common structure in several states is the base appearance of voluntary contribution—stressing “cooperation” between the local agencies and the state—followed by a statement of penalties for nonreporting; we tend to classify these constructs as mandatory response.

• A second bullet point indicates whether transfer of data on criminal offenses (typically from the state level entity) is required by state law, whether it is simply encouraged (i.e., the law only obliges the state agency to “cooperate” with the national UCR program), or whether the law is apparently silent on the issue.
• A third bullet covers the status of incident-based reporting in the state—notably, whether the state maintains its own incident-based reporting system or whether it is certified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to contribute National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) format data. This bullet typically draws from four sources: (1) the “JRSA inventory” of incident-based readiness, a set of profiles assembled by the Justice Research and Statistics Association (JRSA) at http://www.jrsa.org/ibrrc/background-status/nibrs-states.html (though no date is given on the profiles and some of the information might be dated); (2) the BJS National Crime Statistics Exchange (NCS-X) project page at https://www.bjs.gov/content/ncsx.cfm, including its link to the press release detailing recipients of NCS-X grant monies (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/NCS-X16pr.cfm); (3) the state UCR program’s website or the most recent annual “crime report” published by the state for information, as appropriate; and (4) the table “Offense Type by Agency, 2015” from the FBI’s 2015 report of NIBRS data (published at https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2015), which summarizes data from “all law enforcement agencies that submitted 12 months of data to the UCR Program via NIBRS and whose data were also converted to summary data for publication in Crime in the United States, 2015” (per the associated Data Declaration for the table).
• Fourth, we indicate whether a formal, annual report of crime statistics is required by law or whether the law is apparently silent on the issue.
• An optional fifth bullet includes discussion of other key features evident from the state’s crime reporting laws—an admittedly incomplete inventory, as our search was generally constrained to “neighboring” sections of state law rather than a full scrutiny of the code where related topics might appear.
• The final bullet identifies the Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) designated by the state; the SACs receive some funding through Bureau of Justice Statistics grants and commonly serve as analysts and “interpreters” of crime and justice data for state policy makers. The SACs vary greatly in ther basic legal statute. Some are colocated with the state UCR program, others are in a different government agency, and some are either attached to academic institutions or are operated by nonprofit entities. For this entry, we used the JRSA membership list as a base.

As a convenient summary of the status of incident-based reporting in the states, Box E.1 derives from the BJS NCS-X project page and lists the state UCR programs by their eligibility status within the NCS-X program (e.g., not eligible for NCS-X funds because already fully NIBRS compliant) and type of NCS-X grant awarded (e.g., Planning, for from-scratch development of requirements, versus Implementation, for refinement or expansion of an existing incident-based recording system).

ALABAMA

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: The Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center (ACJIC), within the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, is required to “provide for a uniform crime reporting system for the periodic collection and analysis of crimes reported to any and all criminal justice agencies within the state” (Code of Ala. § 41-9-620). § 41-9-631 of the code further provides that the “Alabama uniform crime report” is to “contain the number and nature of offenses

• committed, the disposition of such offenses and such other information as the commission shall specify relating to the method, frequency, cause and prevention of crime.” § 41-9-631 makes reporting of this information mandatory for “all criminal justice agencies within the state;” submission of data by “any governmental agency” with relevant information but that is not considered a “criminal justice agency” is voluntary (§ 41-9-632), but ACJIC is obliged to include such voluntarily provided data in its statistical reports.

• Transfer to FBI/national compilation encouraged by law: § 41-9-621 directs the commission to “cooperate with other agencies of this state, the crime information agencies of other states and the uniform crime reports and national crime information center systems of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any entity designated by the federal government as the central clearinghouse for criminal justice information systems in developing and conducting an interstate, national and international system of criminal identification, records and statistics.”
• State maintains own incident-based reporting system: According to the brief history section in recent Crime in Alabama volumes (e.g., Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, 2016), ACJIC began offering a state Incident-Based Reporting System as a strictly voluntary option for agencies in the state. Said system “also provides a self-contained internal record-keeping system for the agency.” Though voluntary, ACJIC indicates that “more than 99 percent of Alabama’s law enforcement agencies submitted Incident Reports” in 2015, out of the “approximately 350 agencies [that] reported known offenses to Alabama’s UCR.” Further, ACJIC indicates that the state incident-based reporting system has undergone revision to comply with NIBRS standards:

  In 1986, ACJIC organized a 32-person UCR Committee to review the IBR report forms. This committee was made up of law enforcement personnel from small, medium and large police departments and sheriffs’ departments, computerized agencies, the FBI, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The committee reviewed and analyzed the 10-year-old forms and decided enhancements were needed. The IBR report forms were redesigned with input from Alabama’s local agencies. In 2006, these forms were redesigned to conform to the FBI’s Nation [sic] Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). The new forms became the official state forms in 2010.

  Only one agency in Alabama—the city of Hoover—is NIBRS certified and contributed NIBRS data in 2015.

• Annual crime report required by law: § 41-9-621 directs the ACJIC to “periodically publish statistics, no less frequently than annually, that do not identify persons,” adding that “such information shall accurately reflect the level and nature of crime in this state.”
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Also housed in the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency.

ALASKA

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: Alaska Stat. § 12.62.110 (2014) directs the Alaska Department of Public Safety to, among other duties, “provide a uniform crime reporting system for the periodic collection, analysis, and reporting of crimes, and compile and publish statistics and other information on the nature and extent of crime in the state.” Such “data regarding crimes committed within that agency’s jurisdiction” “shall [be submitted] at the time, in the manner, and in the form specified by the department” (§ 12.62.130). The penalty for nonreporting is that the department is directed to withhold grant funding to local agencies that do not report.
• State has no incident-based reporting system, and is listed in JRSA’s inventory as one of the states with no plan for conversion to NIBRS. However, a 2010 amendment to § 12.62.130 added the clause that, “at a minimum,” local agencies must report “each felony sex offense committed in an agency’s jurisdiction”—thus, in principle, mandating incident-level reporting of defined sex offenses as an adjunct to UCR reporting. In light of these circumstances, it is curious to note—with respect to the state’s largest city—two contrary signals:
  • The city of Anchorage has periodically conducted analyses of domestic violence incidents, mining incident-based data from the Anchorage Police Department’s records management system. The report of the city’s Fourteen Year Study of domestic violence (Municipality of Anchorage, 2006) is an extensive analysis illustrating the utility of incident-based data for understanding complex problems; simultaneously, the report bemoans the lack of comprehensive national data for comparison (citing the JRSA inventory of incident-based reporting status in stating that “only six states currently have no formalized plan to report incident-based data”—neglecting to add that Alaska is among those six).
  • The first publication of results from the parallel database on felony sex offenses (McClure, 2016:2) commends the database’s “ability to capture data elements for each reported sex offense not currently captured through the UCR program,” such as “victim and suspect demographic information, victim/suspect relationship information, weapon type, and location of the assault.” The report then makes basic use of all of these details to useful effect in the analysis, but it is obliged to begin with a footnote: “The Anchorage Police Department provides only statutory information for their reported incidents; victim, offender, location, and weapon data are not provided.”
• Annual crime report required by law: § 12.62.130 stipulates that the department issue a formal report each year “to the governor and the attorney general” covering “the number and nature of criminal offenses committed,

• the disposition of the offenses, and any other data the commissioner finds appropriate relating to the method, frequency, cause, and prevention of crime.”

• State Statistical Analysis Center: Housed at University of Alaska Anchorage Justice Center.

ARIZONA

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: Arizona law (AZ Rev Stat § 41-1750) vests authority in the state Department of Public Safety to serve as “central state repository” for criminal justice information; this includes to “collect information concerning the number and nature of offenses known to have been committed in this state and of the legal steps taken in connection with these offenses, such other information that is useful in the study of crime and in the administration of criminal justice and all other information deemed necessary to operate the statewide uniform crime reporting program and to cooperate with the federal government uniform crime reporting program.” Language passed in 1992 switched the state UCR program from voluntary response to mandatory response, with the new text of § 41-1750 continuing that the “chief officers of law enforcement agencies of this state or its political subdivisions shall provide to the department such information as necessary to operate the statewide uniform crime reporting program and to cooperate with the federal government uniform crime reporting program.”
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation encouraged by law: Though there is no direct statement obliging the department to transfer data to the national UCR program, the twice-occurring text on “cooperate with the federal government uniform crime reporting program” in § 41-1750 (capitalization in original) is certainly consistent with strongly encouraging submission.
• State is NIBRS certified, but with limited participation: Arizona does not maintain its own incident-based reporting system, but did acquire computer hardware and software to build a state-level NIBRS repository in 2003. Accordingly, it was certified by the FBI to submit NIBRS-format data even though very few agencies currently do so. The most recent state crime report indicates that only five of Arizona’s local agencies currently submit NIBRS-only data, but the report only names four—the police departments in Apache Junction, Gilbert, and Huachuca City, and the sheriff’s office of Yuma County (Arizona Department of Public Safety, 2016:24,26). The FBI’s 2015 NIBRS tabulations suggests that only Apache Junction, Gilbert, the city of Yuma, and Yuma County contributed 12 months of NIBRS data for the year. Though the Arizona state UCR program has not received NCS-

• X funding, the Mesa and Phoenix police departments were awarded NCS-X development funds in 2016.

• Annual crime report not apparently required by law, though one has been published on that cycle since the 1970s.
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Also housed in Department of Public Safety.

ARKANSAS

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: The Arkansas Crime Information Center (ACIC) was created as a separate state agency by law and authorized to construct an information system “restricted to serving the informational needs of governmental criminal justice agencies and others specifically authorized by law through a communications network connecting local, county, state, and federal authorities to a centralized state repository of information.” However, the enabling statute (AR Code § 12-12-207) also directs the center to “collect data and compile statistics on the nature and extent of crime problems in Arkansas and compile other data related to planning for and operating criminal justice agencies.” A final clause of § 12-12-207 invokes terminology authorizing ACIC to “design and administer . . . uniform crime reporting systems [to] be used by criminal justice agencies.” Pursuant to § 12-12-209, “it shall be the duty of all county sheriffs, chiefs of police, city marshals, correction officials, prosecuting attorneys, court clerks, and other state, county, and local officials and agencies so directed to furnish the Arkansas Crime Information Center all data required” for its work. A local official “who knowingly fails to comply with this subchapter” or related rule “upon conviction is guilty of a violation and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.”
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation not apparently addressed by law.
• State maintains own incident-based reporting system and is fully NIBRS compliant: According to the ACIS website (http://www.acic.org/crime-statistics), Arkansas achieved NIBRS-format reporting by all local agencies in the state in 2009. The site also contains some references to the self-styled Arkansas Incident-Based Recording System, though all the information provided on the site relates exclusively to the national NIBRS program.
• Annual crime report required by law: § 12-12-207 authorizes the ACIC to “periodically” publish statistical information on crime, but a later section (§ 12-12-217) is date-specific—“on July 31 of each year the [ACIC] shall submit an annual report to the Legislative Council.” The law requires two things of the report—that it “[show] the number of persons arrested for each criminal offense classification, comparing the state and each individual reporting agency,” and that it “include a breakdown by race of all persons arrested in each criminal offense classification.”

• Other key features: One of a few states to directly authorize audits of the crime data submitted to the state coordinator, Arkansas goes a step further by directing the director of ACIC to “appoint special information services agents.” Said agents, “after proper and sufficient security clearances and training,” are directly commissioned to monitor and audit “all records and information” at ACIC (§ 12-12-210). Arkansas is also distinctive for including in the section of state code related to crime information a passage obligating “all physicians, surgeons, hospitals, druggists,” or other service providers “that render first aid treatment to a person” to report incidences of gunshot, knife, or burn wounds. Specifically, the law requires reporting of knife or gunshot wounds that “appea[r] to have been intentionally inflicted,” burn wounds “that could reasonably be connected to criminal activity,” any “second or third degree burn to five percent [or] more of a person’s body,” or “a burn to a person’s upper respiratory tract or laryngeal edema due to the inhalation of super-heated air.” These reports are to be filed with local law enforcement or fire department authorities, and the law immunizes reporters of these wounds “from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be incurred or imposed” through disclosing the wounds (AR Code § 12-12-602).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Same entity, Arkansas Crime Information Center.

CALIFORNIA

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: California Penal Code § 13020(b) is arguably the nation’s most exhaustive statute in terms of identifying entities that are required “to report statistical data” on crime to the state Attorney General. Specifically, “it shall be the duty” to do so for:

• Transfer to FBI/national compilation required by law: “It shall be the duty of the [Department of Justice] to supply, at their request, to federal bureaus or departments engaged in the collection of national criminal statistics”

• such “data they need from this state” (Penal Code § 13010(f); this wording unchanged under the OpenJustice Data Act described below and in Box E.2).

• State has no incident-based reporting system, and was for years listed among the states with no announced intent to transition to NIBRS—but that has changed recently: Signed into law on September 21, 2016, Assembly Bill No. 2524 (the OpenJustice Data Act of 2016) builds off of the 2015 deployment of the state’s OpenJustice web portal for dissemination and visualization of crime and justice data. The act includes among its legislative findings/declarations the following:
  • “The Department of Justice is working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics to transition California from summary crime reporting to incident-based crime reporting,” and
  • “It is the intent of the Legislature that following full implementation of incident-based crime reporting, the Department of Justice work to transition to exclusively electronic crime data collection and evaluate the potential for criminal justice statistical data to be updated on the OpenJustice Web portal at a frequency greater than once per year.”

  The act amends the core of the state’s UCR law, Section 13010 of the Penal Code, to read as shown in Box E.2, substantially revising clause (g) and adding the new clause (i). The act does not commit to a timeline for NIBRS conversion but clarifies intent to move in that direction. To further the state’s work, the California state program received an NCS-X Planning grant; the Long Beach, Los Angeles, and San Diego police departments and Los Angeles County sheriff’s department have been awarded NCS-X development funds.

• Annual crime report required by law: Prior to the OpenJustice Data Act of 2016, the Attorney General was obligated to submit “an annual report containing the criminal statistics of the preceding calendar year” to the governor on or before July 1. Likewise, the prior text of Penal Code § 13010(g) required that all reports be printed in sufficient quantity that they may be sent to “all public officials” and “distribute[d] generally in channels where they will add to the public enlightenment.” The new language, in Box E.2, signals a move to more frequent and continuous reporting online.
• Other key features: In 2014, California compiled a handbook for criminal justice and related agencies, clarifying the various requirements for crime reporting in the state and the due dates for submitted data (California Department of Justice, 2014). Among the entries in the handbook—and offense types—singled out for special collection in California are:
  • Anti-reproductive-rights offenses, identified in the handbook as “crimes that are committed against reproductive health services providers, clients, assistants, for the facilities where those services are provided or at a place of worship because of the church’s beliefs regarding reproductive rights.” These data are collected under authority of Penal Code § 13777(a) and are incident- and attribute-based in nature (including location, race and gender

• • of victims and suspects, and weapon involved), and are summarized in a separate annual report.

  • Citizens’ complaints against peace officers, involving both criminal and noncriminal complaints filed by citizens against law enforcement personnel. Penal Code § 13012(e) requires that the annual report on crime in California include these data; that said, the code mandates that “the report shall not contain a reference to any individual agency but shall be by gross numbers only.”
  • Domestic violence calls for assistance, regardless of whether the calls resulted in an arrest or further action, as required by Penal Code § 13730.
  • Homicide. Akin to the Supplementary Homicide Report of the national UCR program, California requires the collection of additional demographic and contextual information on every homicide incident. Penal Code § 13014(b) requires every “state or local governmental entity” responsible for investigation of homicide to complete these reports, in parallel with usual crime reporting.
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Same entity, Criminal Justice Statistics Center in Department of Justice.

COLORADO

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: The Colorado Bureau of Investigation is tasked by CO Rev Stat § 24-33.5-412(1) to, among other duties, “operate the statewide uniform crime reporting program.” § 24-33.5-412(5) goes on to stipulate that “every law enforcement agency in this state shall furnish such information to the bureau concerning crimes, arrests, and stolen and recovered property as is necessary for uniform compilation of statewide reported crime, arrest, and recovered property statistics.” Colorado is unusual for suggesting some limited cost sharing in the same passage: “The cost to the law enforcement agency of furnishing such information shall be reimbursed out of appropriations made therefor by the general assembly; except that the general assembly shall make no such reimbursement if said cost was incurred in a fiscal year during which the Colorado crime information center was funded exclusively by state or federal funds.”
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation not directly required by law, though that is consistent with the requirement under the law (§ 24-33.5-412(5)) that obligates the bureau to adopt reporting forms and “reporting standards consistent with the development of the strategic plan for an integrated [state] criminal justice information system” that is, in turn, “consistent with applicable federal and state laws and regulations such as the national criminal justice information system standards.”

• State does not maintain incident-based reporting system but is NIBRS certified: As per the JRSA’s state profiles, Colorado was certified by the FBI to submit NIBRS data in 1997. At the time of the JRSA profile, NIBRS-reporting agencies covered 90 percent of the population of Colorado and accounted for 88 percent of the reported crime. The most recent Crime in Colorado report, for 2016, notes the number of agencies reporting data to the state (in either NIBRS or Summary format) as 244 but states only that “Colorado law enforcement agencies report incident-based statistics, which are collected and stored in the Colorado Crime Information Center (CCIC) computer located at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation” (http://crimeinco.cbi.state.co.us/cic2k16/intro.php). The FBI’s 2015 NIBRS publication suggests that 193 Colorado agencies submitted 12 months of NIBRS data for the year.
• Annual crime report not apparently referenced in law, though implied—indeed, the computer crime passage described below requires “reports at least annually concerning activities of computer crime in Colorado.”
• Other key features: The key enabling statute for the state’s UCR program, § 24-33.5-412(5), singles out offenses of “murder, sexual assault, [robbery],” or “child abuse or sexual assault on a child” for special treatment; submitted information for such offenses is required to include “the modus operandi of such crimes in order to facilitate the identification of cross-jurisdictional offenders.” § 24-33.5-412(8) authorizes the bureau to investigate computer crime violations but also to “develop and collect information with regard to computer crime in an effort to identify, charge, and prosecute criminal offenders and enterprises that unlawfully access and exploit computer systems and networks, impact functionality, and access sensitive data and shall report such information to the appropriate law enforcement organizations.”
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Housed in state Division of Criminal Justice.

CONNECTICUT

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: Connecticut’s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection is directed (CT Gen Stat § 29-1c(a)–(b)) to “establish a state-wide uniform crime reporting system,” in which “each organized police department shall participate [by] submitting [at] such times and on such forms as [prescribed], a uniform crime report concerning crimes committed within such organized police department’s jurisdiction. Such report shall contain the number and nature of offenses committed and such other information as the [Department] shall require.”
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation required by law: A distinctive feature of Connecticut’s law is that the FBI is designated as the arbiter of whether

• a local agency’s submissions are complete and correct. Per § 29-1c(c), the Department is obligated to notify the “chief elected official of the municipality” whose law enforcement agency either fails to report or provides “missing, incomplete or incorrect information”—and inform said official “of the consequences” of these problems, to include ineligibility for state or federal law enforcement grants. “For purposes of this subsection, information is missing, incomplete or incorrect if so designated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or if not submitted within sixty days of the end of the month in which such information is required to be reported.”

• State does not have its own incident-based reporting system, but is certified for NIBRS reporting: As of the JRSA inventory, 102 law enforcement agencies reported to the state UCR program, with NIBRS format representing 75 percent of the state’s population and 59 percent of the observed crime. “By the end of 2015, 85 of 104 Connecticut law enforcement agencies were reporting NIBRS data to the statewide repository,” the additional two agencies entering the Connecticut system being the Mashantucket and Mohegan Tribal Nations (Uniform Crime Reporting Program, 2016:9–10).
• Annual crime report required by law: The Department is required by law to “publish an annual report concerning the extent, fluctuation, distribution and nature of crime in Connecticut,” with “specific analysis of the nature, extent and pattern of sex crimes in the state” (§ 29-1c(e)).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Housed in state Office of Policy and Management.

DELAWARE

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: The grounding of the Delaware UCR program in state law is somewhat unclear, inasmuch as it appears to derive solely from the text at 11 DE Code § 8901(b):

  The General Assembly finds that there is a need:

  1. To designate the State Bureau of Identification [of the Delaware State Police] as the central state repository for criminal history record information;
  2. To require the rapid identification, classification and filing of fingerprints;
  3. To require the reporting of accurate, relevant and current information to the central repository by all criminal justice agencies;
  4. To insure that criminal history record information is kept accurate and current; and
  5. To prohibit the improper dissemination of such information.
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation not apparently specified by law, but done in practice.

• State maintains own incident-based reporting system and is fully NIBRS compliant: Per the JRSA profiles, nearly all Delaware agencies were certified for NIBRS in 2001, and the remainder followed in the next few years; it now lists as 100% covered by NIBRS-format, reported by 71 agencies. The methodology section of the most recent Crime in Delaware report indicates that the State Bureau of Identification Quality Control Section takes primary responsibility for working with raw data files derived from local agencies’ incident reports—recoding them for compliance with NIBRS standards. (The Dover, New Castle County, and Wilmington Police Departments are sufficiently large and resourced that they are described as performing extensive data quality routines on their own, as well). It is the state-processed data that is transmitted to the FBI (Delaware Criminal Justice Council, Statistical Analysis Center, 2016).
• Annual crime report not apparently specified by law. In practice, Delaware’s SAC (in collaboration with the State Bureau of Identification) issues an annual report that focuses on a 5-year window of data (e.g., the August 2016 report included 2011–2015 data).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Vested by law in state Criminal Justice Council.

FLORIDA

• Local law enforcement agencies not explicitly directed by law to submit crime statistics to state entity: FL Stat § 943.05(2)(c) tasks the Criminal Justice Information Program within the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) tasked to “initiate a crime information system that shall be responsible for: 1. Preparing and disseminating semiannual reports to the Governor, the Legislature, all criminal justice agencies, and, upon request, the public. Each report shall include, but not be limited to, types of crime reported, offenders, arrests, and victims. 2. Upon request, providing other states and federal criminal justice agencies with Florida crime data” Under § 943.05(2)(d), FDLE is granted rulemaking authority “to effectively and efficiently implement, administer, manage, maintain, and use the automated biometric information system and uniform offense reports and arrest reports. The rules shall be considered minimum requirements and shall not preclude a criminal justice agency from implementing its own enhancements.”
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation not apparently addressed by law.
• State does not maintain incident-based reporting system, and has long been listed among the states with no plans to transition to NIBRS. According to a history page maintained by the FDLE (www.fdle.state.fl.us/cms/FSAC/Data-History.aspx), Florida is a very rare case in which detailed

• incident-based reporting was tried and rejected in favor of summary-format reporting. The page indicates:

  In 1976, Florida was one of the first states to abandon the traditional method of collecting UCR data on a monthly basis and initiated a sophisticated offense-by-offense or incident-based reporting program. Municipal police and county sheriff’s departments reported the individual offense data known to them in the following crime categories: murder, non-traffic manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson. In addition, local law enforcement agencies reported supplemental offense information such as the number of victims, victim’s age, sex and relationship to offender, type of weapon used, the value of property stolen and recovered, circumstances surrounding homicides and other pertinent crime data.

  The transition was apparently not smooth, with 1989 being the “first full year of data under the enhanced UCR program”—and that said to be after the program endured a rough “transition year” in 1988, when several reporting agencies were unable to accommodate revised system and data format requirements. Finally, “in 1996, the Florida UCR changed its data collection method from a monthly reporting of crime incidents to a semiannual reporting of summary offense data. With the change from an incident based system to a summary based system, supplementary data such as victim information are no longer available on all offense data except homicide.” Summary-only reporting from FDLE to the national UCR program has continued through the present, though the FDLE was a recipient of a National Crime Statistics Exchange (NCS-X) grant in 2015 to develop a plan for equipping a state-level, NIBRS-certified system and program.

• Annual crime report required by law: Indeed, the construction of Florida’s law (quoted above) in § 943.05(2)(c) is unusual among states for listing reports to the governor and state officials (and, “upon request, the public”) as the principal purpose for collection of crime information.
• Other key features: Separate units set up within the FDLE, tasked with information/database development in conduct of their duties, include the Financial Crime Analysis Center (targeted at “money laundering, drug-related criminal activity, or other criminal activity involving financial transactions”; § 943.032), the Domestic Security and Counter-Terrorism Intelligence Center (§ 943.0321), and the Cybercrime Office (§ 943.0415). Domestic violence is specifically called out as a priority for crime data collection and for annual reporting (§ 943.1702).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Same entity, Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

GEORGIA

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: The Georgia Crime Information Center in the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (O.C.G.A. § 35-3-33) is obligated to “provide a uniform crime reporting system for the periodic collection, analysis, and reporting of crimes reported to and otherwise processed by any and all law enforcement agencies within the state, as defined and provided for in this article.” Participation in the UCR program is made binding by § 35-3-36 (2015): “All criminal justice agencies within the state shall submit to the center, periodically at a time and in such form as prescribed by the center, information regarding only the cases within its jurisdiction and in which it is or has been actively engaged. Such report shall be known as the ‘uniform crime report’ and shall contain crimes reported and otherwise processed during the period preceding the period of report, including the number and nature of offenses committed, the disposition of such offenses, and such other information as the center shall specify, relating to the method, frequency, cause, and prevention of crime.”
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation required by law: Under § 35-3-33, the center is required to “cooperate with other agencies of the state, the crime information agencies of other states, and the Uniform Crime Reports and National Crime Information Center systems of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in developing and conducting an interstate, national, and international system of criminal identification, records, and statistics.”
• State has no incident-based reporting system but has recently committed to NIBRS conversion: As of the JRSA profile, Georgia was listed as having “no plans” for NIBRS adoption, though one local agency (Norcross) had been certified by the FBI. However, in August 2015, the Georgia Bureau of Identification (GBI) publicly committed to converting to NIBRS ahead of the 2021 sunset of the UCR Summary Reporting system (and ideally by 2018). As described in an article for an FBI newsletter (at https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/cjis-link/going-nibrs-part-2-georgia-transition):

• Annual crime report required by law: Part of the base statute authorizing the crime reporting program (§35-3-33) requires the center to “compile statistics on the nature and extent of crime in the state and compile other data related to planning for and operating criminal justice agencies, provided that such statistics do not identify persons, and make available all such statistical

• information obtained to the Governor, the General Assembly, and any other governmental agencies whose primary responsibilities include the planning, development, or execution of crime reduction programs. Access to such information by the latter governmental agencies will be on an individual, written request basis wherein must be demonstrated a need to know, the intent of any analyses, dissemination of such analyses, and any security provisions deemed necessary by the center.”

• Other key features: Georgia law requires participating agencies to comply with periodic quality control audits (§ 35-3-36): “Upon the request of the center, local law enforcement agencies shall periodically provide for audit samples of incident reports for the preceding reporting period so that the center may help ensure agency compliance with national and state uniform crime reporting requirements.”
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Part of Georgia Criminal Justice Coordinating Council.

HAWAII

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: The Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center is established under the auspices of the state attorney general by HI Rev Stat § 846-2, and is deemed the state UCR program by § 846-2.5: Through the center, “the attorney general shall provide for the collection, recording, and compilation of data and statistics relating to crime. . . . The systems [of criminal identification and crime statistics] shall be uniform throughout the State, shall be continuous in operation, and shall be maintained as far as possible in a manner as shall be in keeping with the most approved and modern methods of identification and of the collection and compilation of the statistics.” Reporting of offense data is made mandatory by § 846-18’s provision that “the chiefs of police of the counties and state and county agencies having the power of arrest shall provide to the attorney general crime incident reports and any other information regarding crimes committed within their respective jurisdictions as necessary for the attorney general to operate a statewide crime reporting program and to cooperate with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s uniform crime reporting program. The reports and information shall be submitted to the attorney general in the manner, form, and time schedule as the attorney general may prescribe.”
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation required by law: As quoted above, it is deemed necessary for the attorney general to cooperate with the national UCR program (§ 846-18).
• State has no incident-based reporting system, but was awarded NCS-X implementation grant funding in 2016.

• Crime report required by law, albeit not on fixed schedule. To fulfill its purpose, the data center is required to “develop systems and provide the structure that support criminal justice information systems, provide statistical research and data analysis, and make public periodic reports which shall provide the public with a clear view of the criminal justice systems” (§ 846-2.5).
• Other key features: § 846-2.5 is unusually specific relative to other state codes about the funding responsibilities between state and local governments: “The several counties shall provide the necessary equipment and the compensation of the persons required to install and carry out the work of the systems of identification and statistics in their respective jurisdictions; provided that those expenses in connection with matters exclusively within the control of the State shall be borne by the State” (to the latter point, the state bears the burden for the state’s fingerprint system).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Same department, part of Hawaii Department of the Attorney General.

IDAHO

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: ID Code § 67-3003 directs the Bureau of Criminal Identification (of the Idaho State Police) to “establish a uniform crime reporting system for the periodic collection and reporting of crimes, and compile and publish statistics and other information on the nature and extent of crime in the state.” Per § 67-3006, “a law enforcement agency shall submit to the department, at the time, in the manner, and in the form prescribed by the department, data regarding crimes committed within that agency’s jurisdiction.”
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation encouraged by law: The state code hews to the construct of cooperation with other entities in outlining a general duty of the Bureau of Criminal Identification: “Cooperate with other criminal justice agencies of the state, state and federal courts, the criminal records repositories of other states, the federal bureau of investigation criminal justice information services, the national law enforcement telecommunications system, and other appropriate agencies and systems, in the operation of an effective interstate and national system of criminal identification, records and statistics” (§ 67-3003).
• State is fully NIBRS compliant: The JRSA inventory notes that Idaho was certified to report NIBRS in 1992; introductory text in the most recent Crime in Idaho report suggests that NIBRS-format collection was initiated in 1991 and has continued, by all agencies within the state, since that time (Idaho State Police, 2017:iv). Local departments in the state are offered three options for submitting their NIBRS-format data: direct online entry using a

• state law enforcement telecommunications system, submission of electronic data files from approved records management systems, or hard-copy paper form (“which is limited to agencies with less than 50 reportable incidents a month”) (Idaho State Police, 2017:iv).

• Annual crime report required by law: Reporting/publication is listed as the primary purpose of crime data collection in § 67-3003, quoted above. The reporting function is reinforced in § 67-3006, which requires that “the department shall publish an annual report, available no later than July 1 of the following year, containing the statistical information gathered under this section that relates to the number and nature of criminal offenses, arrests, and clearances, and any other data the director determines to be appropriate relating to the method, frequency, cause and prevention of crime.”
• Other key features: Idaho is one of several states that defines an offense of “malicious harassment”—essentially, bias-motivated assault or threat, or hate crimes. § 67-2915 of the state code obligates the director of the Idaho State Police to “annually submit” to the governor and state legislative leaders “a report on malicious harassment crimes,” in which “report content shall be limited to statistical data.” To facilitate this, malicious harassment reporting is required of local departments in parallel with standard UCR reporting: “All city, county and state law enforcement units shall be required to report to the director all incidences of, complaints on, and arrests for malicious harassment crimes within their respective jurisdictions. The director shall develop a standard procedure and shall prescribe and provide a standard form for complete and uniform reporting.”
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Same department (Idaho State Police), though placed in Planning, Grants, and Research Department.

ILLINOIS

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: In August 2015, Illinois Public Act 99-352 became law—a broader Police and Community Relations Improvement Act that included a new Uniform Crime Reporting Act as a section. Prior to this act (which became effective on January 1, 2016), the UCR program drew its mandate from a provision directing the Department of State Police to “investigate the origins, activities, personnel and incidents of crime and the ways and means to redress the victims of crimes, and study the impact, if any, of legislation relative to the effusion of crime and growing crime rates, and enforce the criminal laws of this State related thereto” (then, 20 ILCS 2605/2605-35). The new act retained language designating the State Police as “central repository and custodian of crime statistics for the State” (codified at 50 ILCS 709/5-10). Reporting is made mandatory of all local agencies: The State Police

• “shall have all the power necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act, including the power to demand and receive cooperation in the submission of crime statistics from all law enforcement agencies. All data and information provided to the Department under this Act must be provided in a manner and form prescribed by the Department” (50 ILCS 709/5-10).

• Transfer to FBI/national compilation not apparently addressed by law, though certainly implied (at least in part) by language quoted below obliging the State Police to require quarterly reports of arrest-related deaths “contingent upon updated federal guidelines regarding the Uniform Crime Reporting Program.”
• State currently has no incident-based reporting system, but is developing one: In the FBI’s 2015 NIBRS tabulations, as had been the case for many years, only one law enforcement in Illinois is NIBRS certified (and submitting)—the Rockford Police Department. However, numerous recent events portend change: the new UCR law, which requires attribute-intensive, incident-based data for some specific offense types (as described below); modernization of Chicago Police Department systems to facilitate the city’s Open Data Portal and the department’s CLEARMAP initiatives (and award of NCS-X pilot funding to Chicago); and award of NCS-X planning grant funds to the Illinois UCR Program.
• Annual crime report required by law: “On an annual basis, the Department shall make available compilations of crime statistics required to be reported by each law enforcement agency” (50 ILCS 709/5-10).
• Other key features: Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the construction of Illinois’s new UCR law is that it simultaneously hints at a desire for incident-based (or at least attribute-heavy) data on some specific offense types, yet is still firmly committed to coarse summary/count data on most offense types. Specifically, the act (50 ILCS 709/512) requires:

The act further obliges all law enforcement departments to “submit to the Department incident-based information on any criminal homicide” beginning July 1, 2016—akin to the national Supplementary Homicide Reports. The operative clause in this passage—designated fifth in a 6-item list—-is the one referring to index crimes. Historically, the set of index crimes has been parsed as equivalent to the national UCR’s Part I crimes (also called “index crimes,” though the index is no longer calculated nationally)—except that Illinois only undertook a major “transition” in 2010, revisiting its definitions of index crimes to comport with national UCR standards.¹ For example, the state UCR program began to disallow designations of “aggravated assault” in cases where the assault victim is of a certain type (e.g., a police officer or a pregnant woman) even though Illinois statute classifies those as “aggravating” factors (Illinois State Police, 2016:3,6). In the 2015 law, it is striking that considerable detail is required for some offense types while the mandatory information on “index” crimes remains “the number of index crime offenses committed” and count of arrests.

The new UCR act in Illinois is also specific on the penalty for nonresponse by a local agency (50 ILCS 709/5-20):

___________________

¹ Illinois also denotes violations of five specific state drug laws as index offenses, but only arrest information is collected for those crimes.

• State Statistical Analysis Center: Not colocated; independent Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.

INDIANA

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: Indiana Code § 10-13-2-4 creates a Criminal Justice Data Division within the Indiana State Police to fulfill several purposes, two of which are to “inform the public and responsible governmental officials as to the nature of the crime problem, its magnitude, and its trend over time,” and to “find out who commits crimes by age, sex, family status, income, ethnic and residential background, and other social attributes, [in order] to find the proper focus of crime prevention programs.” Accordingly, it is empowered (§ 10-13-2-5) to “prepare and distribute to all the persons and agencies the forms to be used in reporting data to the division. The forms also must provide for items of information needed by federal bureaus, agencies, or departments engaged in the development of national criminal statistics.” Local agencies and personnel, “if requested by the division,” are required to “report to the division, as and when prescribed, all data requested” (§ 10-13-2-6).
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation required by law: As quoted above, the standard forms developed by the state are meant to include any data item requested by the national crime statistics program (and this is strengthened by text to take effect in 2018, discussed below). And the division’s list of duties includes an item that obliges it to “supply data, upon request, to federal bureaus, agencies, or departments engaged in collecting and analyzing national criminal statistics” (§ 10-13-2-5).
• State has a legally set deadline for conversion to incident-based reporting: On July 1, 2018, revised text of § 10-13-2-6(a) will take hold, adding a step to the requirements of any local agency or official from whom data is requested by the state UCR program: “Report to the division all uniform crime data from the federal Uniform Crime Reporting Program using the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) format as required by the division.” In the FBI’s compilation of 2015 NIBRS data, the Indiana State Police reported 12 months of data for each of Indiana’s 92 counties, but no municipal or other law enforcement agencies in the state reported.
• Annual crime report required by law: Another change in the enabling legislation will take effect on July 1, 2018. At present, the division is required to report crime statistics to state officials twice a year; the new text in 2018 will reduce that frequency to annual reporting. A second clause in that passage authorizes the division to report to the director “at other times

• the superintendent considers necessary or the governor requests, reports on public aspects of criminal statistics in a sufficiently general distribution for public enlightenment” (§ 10-13-2-5).

• Other key features: Indiana’s crime reporting law includes a distinctive appeal for consistent technical systems within the state—and broader—in addition to consistency in content. § 10-13-2-7 reads: “As far as is practicable, the equipment methods and systems used by the criminal justice data division must be compatible with those used by similar agencies in other states and the federal government so that data necessary for interstate, national, and international criminal justice is readily available.” Indiana’s code is also unusual in that it effectively immunizes local agency personnel from personal liability if the required data submission somehow causes harm: “An official required under this chapter to furnish reports, information, or statistics to the criminal justice data division or a person employed by the official is not liable in any action arising out of having furnished the information in a manner as may be required by this chapter or the rules adopted under this chapter” (§ 10-13-2-6(b)). In terms of penalties for nonresponse by local agencies or officials, Indiana code puts forth a somewhat vague penalty: In such cases, “the director of the criminal justice planning agency may deny the public official the benefits of the [criminal justice] system until the public official complies with the rules.” However, the law is more decisive in addressing “an official who knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly makes a false return of information to the division”—that is deemed a Class A misdemeanor (§ 10-13-2-12).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Not colocated; vested in separate Indiana Criminal Justice Institute.

IOWA

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: The enabling statute for Iowa’s UCR program, administered by the Department of Public Safety, has a distinctive construction relative to other states. As per IA Code § 692.15:

• Transfer to FBI/national compilation not apparently referenced by law.

• State maintains own incident-based reporting system: Iowa’s Incident-Based Uniform Crime Reporting program has been in operation since 1991, with most reporting agencies being certified to provide NIBRS format data circa 1992 and all agencies now reporting NIBRS format.
• Annual crime report required by law: “The department shall submit statistics to the governor, the general assembly, and the division of criminal and juvenile justice planning of the department of human rights on a quarterly and yearly basis” (IA Code § 692.15).
• Other key features: Parallel authority has been added to mandatory crime reporting of at least two offenses or crime classes—inserted into the state code at assorted places but following the same basic format. § 236.9 mandates that agencies “collect and maintain information on incidents involving domestic abuse” and report the same to the Department of Public Safety; the department, in turn, is required to issue reports “provided [that] individual identifying details of the domestic abuse are deleted.” The clause also provides for the department to provide deidentified data “on individual incidents of domestic abuse to persons conducting bona fide research, including but not limited to personnel of the department of justice. The identically constructed § 692.22 requires the same data collection and reporting on the offense of stalking.
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, Iowa Department of Human Rights.

KANSAS

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: Two passages of state code define Kansas’s incident-based UCR program. KS State § 21-2501a requires that “all law enforcement agencies . . . shall maintain a permanent record of all felony and misdemeanor offenses reported or known to have been committed” within their jurisdictions; moreover, said record is to be kept “on forms approved by the attorney general” and a report on each such offense is supposed to be filed with the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (the manager of the UCR program) “within 72 hours after such offense is reported or known to have been committed.” A simpler passage at § 21-2504 evokes the authorization for the national UCR program in U.S. Code, stipulating that, “for the purpose of controlling crime and obtaining reliable statistics about crime and criminals, the attorney general may call upon and obtain from the clerks of district courts, sheriffs, police departments and county attorneys all information that said attorney general may deem necessary in ascertaining the true condition of the crime situation; and it shall be the duty of the above-mentioned officers to furnish the information so requested by the attorney general.”

• Transfer to FBI/national compilation not apparently referenced by law.
• State maintains own incident-based reporting system: The Kansas Incident-Based Reporting System was implemented in 1986 (by way of the enabling legislation described above) and was substantially revised in 1993 to be consistent with NIBRS requirements (Kansas Bureau of Investigation, 2012:5).
• Annual crime report not apparently referenced by law.
• Other key features: Parallel authority in state code (§ 22-2307) mandates that any domestic violence call result in the completion of a “standard offense report,” to be filed to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation “whether an arrest is made or not.” Kansas code is also unique because of language added to the UCR-enabling law in 2006: “It is hereby made the duty of every sheriff, police department or countywide law enforcement agency in the state to report within 30 days, on forms approved by the attorney general, any methamphetamine laboratory seizures or dump sites and any theft or attempted theft of anhydrous ammonia that occurs in such agency’s jurisdiction” (KS Stat § 21-2501a).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Separately vested in Kansas Sentencing Commission.

KENTUCKY

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: Kentucky’s UCR program derives its authority from KY Rev Stat § 16.060 and one of its stated duties assigned to the Kentucky State Police, wording that is reminiscent of the general charter in federal law given to the U.S. Department of Justice: The State Police are to “collect, classify and maintain information useful for the detection of crime and the identification, apprehension and conviction of criminals.” To this end, § 16.130 mandates that “all peace officers of the various political subdivisions of this Commonwealth shall cooperate with the department and the Commissioner.”
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation required by law: “The Commissioner shall cooperate and exchange information with any other department or agency of this Commonwealth, or with other police forces, both within and without this Commonwealth and with the federal government” (§ 16.130).
• State maintains own incident-based reporting system and is considered completely NIBRS compliant: Kentucky switched to requiring incident-based reporting on July 1, 1987. “The state has been certified for [NIBRS] reporting, which is already taking place in the majority of law enforcement agencies within Kentucky” (Kentucky State Police, 2014:2)
• Annual crime report required by law: As per § 17.153, “The annual report of the department shall contain statistics showing: (a) The number and

• type of offenses known to public authorities; (b) The personal and social characteristics of criminals and delinquents; and (c) The administrative action taken by law enforcement, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies in dealing with criminals and delinquents.” The law further directs that the report “interpret these statistics” and “and include statistics that are comparable with national criminal statistics published by federal agencies.”

• Other key features: A clause that became effective in 2006 appears to mandate separate collection of information on both elder and child abuse, as well as incidences of domestic violence, in parallel to regular UCR reporting. As per § 15A.190:

• State Statistical Analysis Center: Also vested in Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, the administrative home of the Kentucky State Police.

LOUISIANA

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: LA Rev Stat § 15:578 vests the Louisiana Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information with broad authority to “establish, maintain, and regulate a modern system of telecommunication and data processing for the efficient collection, storage, and rapid transmission of criminal history record information and relevant statistics.” However, clause D of the same section formally transfers “the functions, powers, and duties of the bureau related to the gathering and dissemination of data concerning parish prison population statistics and uniform crime reports” to the state’s separate Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Criminal Justice, the primary duty of which is to coordinate the activities of the state’s correctional systems. Under § 15:1204.3, legislative language that dates to 1991, “all law enforcement agencies, correctional agencies and institutions, district attorneys and municipal prosecutors, courts having criminal jurisdiction, or any other public agency dealing with crimes or criminals” are mandated to “install and maintain records needed for reporting crime incident and arrest information” and to report the same “to the commission as and

• when the commission prescribes.” The commission “may impose reasonable administrative sanctions as it deems appropriate” for nonresponse to UCR reporting requirements, “includ[ing] the preclusion of a subject agency’s participation in any of the grant programs operated by the commission” (§ 15:1204.5)

• Transfer to FBI/national compilation required by law: The content of the data collection instruments in the Louisiana system “shall also provide for other items of information needed by federal and state bureaus or departments engaged in the development of national and state statistics,” and it is a duty of the state UCR program to “supply data to federal bureaus or departments engaged in collecting national criminal statistics” (§ 15:1204.5B(4),(7)).
• State maintains own incident-based reporting system: The Louisiana Incident-Based Reporting System was certified by the FBI as a source for NIBRS data in 2003; it was envisioned as an eventual replacement for Summary-format reporting but made available to local agencies as a reporting option on a voluntary basis. “By December 2010, there were 40 certified LIBRS agencies in Louisiana” (Louisiana Uniform Crime Reporting Program, 2016:7); the FBI’s 2015 NIBRS compilation includes 12 months of NIBRS data from 25 Louisiana agencies. Incident-based reporting is directly written into the state’s UCR law; one of the program’s duties is “to instruct [persons] and agencies in the installation, maintenance, and use of incident-based records and in the manner of reporting to the system” (§ 15:1204.5B(5)). The state program was awarded an NCS-X Implementation grant to facilitate expansion of the system to more agency contributors.
• Annual crime report required by law: The commission is required “to present annually to the governor and members of the legislature, on or before May first, a report containing the criminal statistics of the most recently available calendar year and to present at such other times as the commission may deem wise, or [as requested by the governor or state legislative leaders], reports on special aspects of criminal statistics” (§ 15:1204.5(8)(a)).
• Other key features: Access to crime statistics data is given unusual weight in Louisiana law, put forward as the first-listed function/power of the state UCR program: “To establish, through electronic data processing and related procedures, a system by which relevant information can be collected, coordinated, analyzed, and made readily available to serve qualified agencies concerned with the administration of criminal justice located anywhere in the state. The commission shall prescribe the terms and conditions under which such agencies shall contribute or gain access to information contained in the system files” (§ 15:1204.2B(1)). Local law enforcement agencies are obligated by the law to “give the commission access to closed criminal case records for purposes of inspection,” likely for quality control/audit purposes (§ 15:1204.3) A special requirement of Louisiana law is that the annual report of crime statistics must include “a category entitled ‘gaming related

• offenses’ and shall include statistics involving violations of [various penal code provisions] in which the offender’s gaming activity is a motive for commission of the crime” (§ 15:1204.2B(8)(b)).

• State Statistical Analysis Center: Same entity, Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement.

MAINE

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: Maine’s UCR program is established within the State Bureau of Identification by 25 ME Rev Stat § 1544:

• Transfer to FBI/national compilation required by law, as quoted above.
• State is developing/testing incident-based reporting system: As of the JRSA inventory, agencies covering 23 percent of Maine’s population and 25 percent of its crime reported data in NIBRS format, and the state program was FBI certified. The state began work on a new state-wide information management system, the Maine Criminal Justice Information System, in 2015, which included an assessment of high-level requirements by the state UCR program. Later that year, “Maine identified a software vendor capable of delivering a NIBRS-compliant repository package” and has since conducted testing with “prototype police field report forms” (Maine State Police, 2016:13). Maine has been awarded an NCS-X for implementation/expansion.
• Annual crime report not apparently referenced in law.
• Other key features: Maine singles out animal cruelty as a priority crimereporting category, along with bias-motivated crimes: “The bureau shall establish a category for abuse by adults of family or household members, a category for cruelty to animals and a category for crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or ethnicity that are supplementary to its other reported information. The bureau shall prescribe the information to be submitted in the same manner

• as for all other categories of the uniform crime reports” (25 ME Rev Stat § 1544). Separate statute enacted in 1979 mandates collection of data on domestic violence incidents, or “incidents of abuse by adults of family or household members” (recodified in 1995 in 19-A ME Rev Stat § 4012).

• State Statistical Analysis Center: Muskie School of Public Service, University of Southern Maine.

MARYLAND

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: Maryland’s Secretary of Public Safety is empowered to “establish and modify systems for receiving, processing, and maintaining [reports] and records of occurrences or alleged occurrences of crime and motor vehicle accidents in the State” (MD Pub Safety Code § 2-204). There is no apparent legal mandate for local agencies to submit all crime statistics to the Department of State Police, to whom the authority is delegated—the apparently operative passage of the code stresses cooperation, that the State Police’s powers and duties “with respect to law enforcement are supplemental to and concurrent with similar powers and duties conferred by law on other law enforcement agencies of the State in their respective jurisdiction. . . . The duties imposed on the Department [shall] promote effective cooperation among law enforcement agencies [and] do not limit the powers or responsibilities of any other law enforcement agency” (§ 2-302). However, a general obligation to report crime data to the state can be inferred from § 2-307, which does explicitly direct “each local law enforcement agency and the State Fire Marshal” to provide data on bias-motivated crimes.
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation not apparently referenced by law.
• State does not maintain incident-based reporting system: The state UCR program has been awarded an NCS-X grant for NIBRS-compliant system planning purposes, and the police departments of Montgomery County and Prince George’s County have both been awarded NCS-X funds.
• Annual crime report required by law, albeit not necessarily on an annual cycle. § 2-307 assigns authority, “in general,” to the State Police to “collect, analyze, and disseminate information about the incidence of crime in the State”—but, specific to hate crimes, to “make monthly reports to the Commission on Civil Rights.” A subsequent passage (§ 2-308) obliges the State Police to “periodically publish statistics on the incidence of crime in the State” and “at least monthly [to] publish statistics about the occurrence and cause of all motor vehicle accidents in the State.”
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention.

MASSACHUSETTS

• Local law enforcement agencies not apparently explicitly mandated to submit crime statistics to state entity: The General Laws of Massachusetts are intricate, but seem to share with Maryland the unusual structure that more is defined by law with specific regard to hate crimes (and other specific offense types) than in general. Massachusetts’s UCR program is the Crime Reporting Unit of the State Police, part of the Criminal Information Section, Division of Investigative Service; the State Police department, in turn, is part of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security. The Crime Reporting Unit is—quite literally—defined in a passage of law setting out a glossary for subsequent sections: It is “a joint project of the department of state police and the department of criminal justice information services charged with the responsibility of collecting incident reports submitted by state, local and campus police departments and other law enforcement authorities and disseminating periodic reports analyzing and interpreting crime rates and trends in the commonwealth” (MA Gen L Chap. 22C § 32; lower case in original). Even specific to hate crime, the State Police are directed to promulgate regulations specifying “procedures for the solicitation and acceptance of reports regarding hate crimes which are submitted to the crime reporting unit”—consistent with purely voluntary contribution of data (MA Gen L Chap. 22C § 33).
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation not apparently referenced by law.
• State was early adopter of incident-based reporting, on voluntary basis: As per a descriptive page on the agency’s website (http://www.mass.gov/eopss/law-enforce-and-cj/crime-stats-rsrch/), Massachusetts began collecting NIBRS-format data from participating agencies in the mid-1990s, winning certification by the FBI in 1995. The JRSA inventory suggests that NIBRS-format contributors account for 86 percent of the state’s population and 82 percent of its crime; the CRU website suggests that “approximately one half of the full-time police agencies in the Commonwealth” report in NIBRS format. The reason for those figures being as far off from 100 percent as they are is because of the longstanding, traditional exception from NIBRS format reporting in Massachusetts: namely, the Boston Police Department. That said, the NCS-X initiative portends to remedy this gap, with Boston being awarded NCS-X development funds in 2016 to facilitate planning for NIBRS compliance.
• Annual crime report required by law: “Periodic reports” are required, by the definition quoted above (MA Gen L Chap. 22C § 32).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Same entity, Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, albeit housed in Office of Grants and Research.

MICHIGAN

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: Michigan’s UCR law requires (MI Comp L § 28.251, originally enacted 1968) “the police department of each city or village, any duly constituted police department of a township, and the sheriff’s department of each county” to submit a crime report “once each month” to the Department of State Police. Said report “shall cover crimes reported and otherwise processed” during the preceding month. In addition, the monthly report “shall contain the number and nature of offenses committed, the disposition of such offenses and such other information as the director of state police shall specify relating to the method, frequency, cause and prevention of crime,” subject only to the restriction that “under no circumstances shall the name of any person be reported.” § 28.253 requires the State Police to include in their compilation any information voluntarily submitted by “any governmental police agency, not falling within the description of those required to submit the monthly uniform crime report.”
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation required by law: The State Police are obliged (by § 28.252) to “prepare a statewide compilation of the statistics contained therein” and to make that compilation “available to any governmental law enforcement agency in the state, the judiciary committees of the Michigan state senate and the Michigan state house of representatives, and the federal bureau of investigation, upon request.”
• State maintains own incident-based reporting system, dubbed MICR (Michigan Incident Crime Reporting), and is fully NIBRS compliant. Many Michigan law enforcement agencies have been NIBRS certified since the late 1990s; as of 2005, the state UCR program required to all agencies to report in MICR format.
• Annual crime report required by law, specifically the passage quoted above (§ 28.252) under transfer to national program.
• Other key features: Separate provisions in the state’s UCR law require detailed data collection on domestic violence incidents and on hate crimes. With respect to the former, all police chiefs and sheriffs are obligated to report (by § 28.257):

  the following information related to domestic violence incidents:

  1. The number of assaults reported that involve an adult and a minor and the disposition of those offenses.
  2. The number of assaults reported that involve either 2 male adults or 2 female adults and the disposition of those offenses.
  3. The number of assaults reported that involve 1 male adult and 1 female adult and the disposition of those offenses.
  4. The number of crimes reported that involve an individual and his or her spouse, his or her former spouse, an individual with whom he

Hate crime reporting is mandated by § 28.257a.

• State Statistical Analysis Center: Michigan Justice Statistics Center, Michigan State University.

MINNESOTA

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: Minnesota’s UCR program is housed in the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in the Department of Public Safety. Its basis in law stems from text originally dating to 1927, in MN Stat § 299C.05:

  It shall be the duty of this division to collect, and preserve as a record of the bureau, information concerning the number and nature of offenses known to have been committed in the state, of the legal steps taken in connection therewith from the inception of the complaint to the final discharge of the defendant, and such other information as may be useful in the study of crime and the administration of justice. The information so collected and preserved shall include such data as may be requested by the United States Department of Justice, at Washington, under its national system of crime reporting. To the extent possible, the superintendent must utilize a nationally recognized system or standard approved by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to collect and preserve crime data.

  § 299C.06 makes it “the duty of all sheriffs, chiefs of police, prison wardens, superintendents of hospitals for persons with mental illnesses, reformatories and correctional schools, probation and parole officers, school attendance officers, coroners, county attorneys, court clerks, the commissioner of public safety, the commissioner of transportation, and the state fire marshal to furnish to the division statistics and information regarding the number of crimes reported and discovered.” Unless otherwise authorized, such submissions “must utilize a nationally recognized system or standard approved by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for reporting statistics and information.”

• Transfer to FBI/national compilation required by law, as specified in passages quoted above.
• State is in process of developing its own incident-based reporting system: The state of Minnesota began the process of replacing its early-1970s vintage Criminal Justice Reporting System in 2013 with the assignment of dedicated state funds, having concluded that the current system “is built on obsolete

• technology which is difficult to integrate with other systems and cannot be modified to meet changing state and federal reporting requirements.” In fall 2014, conversion to NIBRS standards was integrated into the project plans, and three local departments were named as pilot agencies in June 2015 to begin NIBRS-format submission by early 2017. In October 2016, the Minnesota program was awarded an NCS-X Implementation award, to be used to “onboard” agencies sought for inclusion in the NCS-X sample of NIBRS-format providers.

  Legislation originally enacted in 2005, codified as § 299C.40, establishes a Comprehensive Incident-Based Reporting System (CIBRS), also to be managed by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, but that system appears to be a modern repository of criminal history record information. To wit, the purposes of CIBRS spelled out in the law are all law-enforcement tactical in nature, such as to “prepare a case against a person [for] the commission of a crime]” or “conduct background investigations.”

• Annual crime report not apparently required by law.
• Other key features: Two unique features of Minnesota’s crime reporting laws include:
  • Explicit prohibition of considering suicide to be a crime: Pursuant to § 299A.76, the Commissioner of Public Safety must not “include any statistics on committing suicide or attempting suicide in any compilation of crime statistics,” nor “label as a crime statistic, any data on committing suicide or attempting suicide.” The offenses of aiding suicide (and aiding attempted suicide) are not banned.
  • Detailed study of human trafficking: § 299A.785 authorizes the UCR program to “elicit the cooperation and assistance of government agencies and nongovernmental organizations as appropriate to assist in the collection of trafficking data” (stopping well short of mandating submission of data on trafficking-related offenses). The specific information sought on trafficking offenses includes “statistics on the number of trafficking victims, including demographics, method of recruitment, and method of discovery” and “social factors that contribute to and foster trafficking, especially trafficking of women and children.” The Commissioner of Public Safety is required to compile and publish statistical data every 2 years.
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Minnesota Office of Justice Programs.

MISSISSIPPI

Among the states, Mississippi is currently the lone, major anomaly in terms of crime statistics reporting: It does not have a recognized state UCR program, and its state code appears to be completely silent on crime reporting.

News accounts have described spottiness of even Summary-format reporting; for instance, Apel (2015) observed that three of the state’s 10 largest cities—Gulfport, Southaven, and Tupelo—do not appear in FBI UCR tabulations (Gulfport and Southaven are the second and third most populous cities in the state, respectively). The reasons mentioned by two of the cities are claimed changes in reporting software—with one citing FBI changes to the national system and the other citing conversion to new software at the local level.

As of the JRSA inventory, the state program (then the Mississippi Highway Patrol) was not NIBRS certified but three local agencies were: Biloxi, Byram, and Gulfport. Only Biloxi and Gulfport appear in the FBI’s 2015 NIBRS tabulations as providing 12 months of NIBRS-format data.

Mississippi’s Statistical Analysis Center is separately created in the School of Criminal Justice, University of Southern Mississippi, by executive order.

MISSOURI

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: Missouri law (MO Rev Stat § 43.505, text originally enacted in 2001) designates the Department of Public Safety as the “central repository for the collection, maintenance, analysis and reporting of crime incident activity generated by law enforcement agencies in this state,” and this repository/UCR system is directed to be “compatible with the national uniform crime reporting system operated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” The department is obligated to “develop, operate and maintain an information system for the collection, storage, maintenance, analysis and retrieval of crime incident and arrest reports from Missouri law enforcement agencies.” All law enforcement agencies in Missouri are obligated to “submit crime incident reports” and “any other crime incident information which may be required” to the department, subject to the penalty of becoming “ineligible to receive state or federal funds which would otherwise be paid to such agency for law enforcement, safety or criminal justice purposes.” Though the legal wording is (almost) all phrased in terms of the Department of Public Safety, UCR functions are practically delegated to the Missouri Highway Patrol (within the department).
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation required by law: The state UCR program is mandated to “compile the statistical data and forward such data as required to the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the appropriate Department of Justice agency in accordance with the standards and procedures of the national system” (§ 43.505).
• State maintains own incident-based reporting system: The Missouri Incident Based Reporting System was NIBRS certified in 2005, and limited participation in the system has been achieved since that time. As of the JRSA

• inventory, 22 agencies covering 11 percent of the state’s population and 17 percent of its observed crime reported in NIBRS format; the FBI’s 2015 NIBRS tabulation includes entries for 14 local Missouri agencies reporting 12 months of NIBRS data, the largest of those being the Kansas City Police Department.

• Annual crime report required by law: The Department of Public Safety is obligated to “annually publish a report on the nature and extent of crime and submit such report to the governor and the general assembly. Such report and other statistical reports shall be made available to state and local law enforcement agencies and the general public through an electronic or manual medium” (§ 43.505).
• Other key features: § 43.545 flags domestic violence as a priority reporting topic, and is the exception to other legislative language in that it directly addresses the Highway Patrol rather than the parent Department of Public Safety. Specifically, “the state highway patrol shall include all reported incidents of domestic violence as defined [elsewhere in state law], whether or not an arrest is made, in its system of reporting for compilation in the annual crime report. [All] incidents shall be reported on forms provided by the highway patrol and in a manner prescribed by the patrol.”
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Same entity, Missouri State Highway Patrol.

MONTANA

The Montana Board of Crime Control serves both as the state’s recognized UCR program and its Statistical Analysis Center. The board’s authority regarding crime reporting is not spelled out in state law, but instead appears to derive solely from Montana Code Annotated § 44-4-301: “As designated by the governor as the state planning agency under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, the board of crime control shall perform the functions assigned to it under that act. The board shall also provide to criminal justice agencies technical assistance and supportive services that are approved by the board or assigned by the governor or legislature.”

Though “light” in terms of legal mandate, Montana was among the earliest states to establish a designated state UCR program and among the earliest adopters of NIBRS standards. The state’s own incident-based reporting system, MTIBRS, was certified as fully NIBRS-compliant in 1992. According to the Montana Board of Crime Control (2016:2), MTIBRS differs from NIBRS in three ways. First, it includes 5 data elements not included in NIBRS specifications; these “pertain to domestic abuse, gang activity, gambling, mental health, and drug task force incidents.” Second, MTIBRS “collects all combinations of offenses within an incident,” so that MTIBRS data are “exported to NIBRS with a filter that excludes lesser included offenses” for

some combinations, such as when an incident involves both an “aggravated assault” and a simple assault. NIBRS “only wants the aggravated assault but the state program will accept both offense codes.” Finally, “MTIBRS collects administrative, offense, property, victim, offender and arrestee information on all offenses,” not just NIBRS Group A offenses.

Montana Board of Crime Control (2016:11) notes that, “as of 2015, 100 Montana reporting law enforcement agencies out of 110 submitted 12 months of the MTIBRS data electronically. Four more agencies have submitted partial data for 2015. Six Montana agencies do not report data.” The FBI’s 2015 NIBRS tabulations show 12 months of contributed data from 94 Montana agencies; for NCS-X purposes, Montana is considered as complete NIBRS.

NEBRASKA

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: The state Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice retains long-standing authority (NE Code § 81-1426) to “adopt and promulgate rules and regulations for the standardized collection, development, and maintenance of statistical information, records, and reports, including, but not limited to, the Uniform Crime Report.” Further, “it shall be the duty of all public officers and agencies, the functions of which include the control, apprehension, trial, or correction of criminal offenders in the state, to provide such information, records, and reports, including, but not limited to, the Uniform Crime Report, as the commission determines relevant to its functions.”
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation not apparently referenced in law.
• State UCR program is NIBRS certified and permits reporting in either Summary or NIBRS format: As of the JRSA inventory, 116 agencies covering 39 percent of Nebraska’s population and 23 percent of its crime contributed NIBRS format; the FBI’s 2015 NIBRS report shows 70 Nebraska agencies having reported 12 months of NIBRS data. The state program has been awarded an NCS-X Implementation grant, and the Omaha Police Department was among the local departments receiving NCS-X development grants in 2016.
• Crime report required by law, though not explicitly on annual cycle. § 81-1425 tasks the commission’s executive director to “collect, develop, maintain, and analyze statistical information, records, and reports as the commission may determine relevant to its functions, including, but not limited to, the statistical information set forth in section 47-627” (described below).
• Other key features: Beginning in 2003 as part of a broad Community Corrections Act, Nebraska vested authority for creating a “uniform crime data analysis system” in the state’s Department of Community Corrections

• (§ 47-627)—creating a parallel data system focused on the state’s correctional population. This system:

  shall include, but need not be limited to, the number of offenses, arrests, charges, probation admissions, probation violations, probation discharges, participants in specialized community corrections programs, admissions to and discharges from problem-solving courts, admissions to and discharges from the Department of Correctional Services, parole reviews, parole hearings, releases on parole, parole violations, and parole discharges. The data shall be categorized by statutory crime.

  Another interesting feature of Nebraska’s crime reporting law is the structure of the penalty for nonresponse for “willful or repeated failure by any public officers and agencies [to] submit the prescribed information, records, or reports, including the Uniform Crime Report:” such nonresponse “shall subject the agency or the administrator of the agency to a civil penalty of up to one hundred dollars per day for each day of violation,” “recoverable by way of a civil suit brought against such agency or individually against the administrator.”

• State Statistical Analysis Center: Same entity, Nebraska Crime Commission.

NEVADA

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: The Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History, under the Nevada Department of Public Safety, is directed by NV Rev Stat § 179A.078 to “establish [a] Uniform Program for Reporting Crimes that is designed to collect statistical data relating to crime or delinquency of children and to facilitate the collection and analysis of statistical data relating to crime at a central location.” “Each agency of criminal justice and any other agency dealing with crime or delinquency of children” is obliged to collect and submit “reports and compilations of statistical data” required by the Department of Public Safety.
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation required by law: Per § 179A.075, the Central Repository is to tabulate the information from local agencies and “disseminate to federal agencies engaged in the collection of statistical data relating to crime information which is contained in the Central Repository.”
• State is in early planning for incident-based reporting system: Listed in the JRSA inventory as having “no plans” for NIBRS implementation, Nevada has begun taking planning steps via NCS-X funding. The state program was awarded an NCS-X Planning grant, and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department received NCS-X funding in 2016.
• Annual crime report required by law: § 179A.075 further obligates the UCR program to compile two annual reports “on or before July 1 of each year.”

• One, directed to the governor and state legislative leaders, is “a printed annual report containing the statistical data” on crime received during the preceding year; § 179A.175 requires that this report contain a section on bias-motivated crimes, those that “manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, color, religion, national origin, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.” The second report is a dedicated report “‘containing statistical data about domestic violence in this State,” addressed to specific legislative entities.

• State Statistical Analysis Center: Center for Analysis of Crime Statistics, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nevada Las Vegas.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: New Hampshire’s UCR law was substantially revised in 2016 to etch into law that which had already been achieved: full NIBRS-format reporting. The post-July 2016 language of NH Rev Stat § 106-B:14-c is concise enough to state in its entirety (capitalization in original):
  1. Law enforcement agencies operating within New Hampshire shall submit crime reports to the department of safety, division of state police, based on the specifications prescribed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Criminal Justice Information Services’ (CJIS) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. The report shall be a compilation of the number of offenses and arrests on crimes occurring within their own jurisdictions, submitted in the manner and in the form specified by the FBI’s National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). Annual statistical reports shall be made available no later than July 1 of the following year, containing the number and nature of criminal offenses, arrests, and clearances, and any other data determined to be appropriate relating to the method, frequency, cause, and prevention of crime. The department of safety shall make such reports available to the governor, the general court, and all law enforcement agencies. Upon request for such reports to the division of state police, uniform crime report (UCR) unit, the department shall provide copies of the reports to other federal and state agencies and members of the public.
  2. A law enforcement agency having no records management system with NIBRS reporting capabilities shall be provided the means to report by the division of state police.
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation required by law, as implied by the text quoted above.
• State has achieved full NIBRS compliance: The state UCR program began accepting NIBRS-format data in 1997, and most local agencies received

• NIBRS certification in the early 2000s. Norton and Delay (2012:7) indicate that “only 40 percent of communities participated in the NIBRS program” in New Hampshire in 1997; the state’s largest and second largest cities, Manchester and Nashua, only began reporting NIBRS format in 2007 and 2005, respectively. By the time of the JRSA inventory, the state was deemed to have achieved NIBRS-format reporting for all agencies in the state, and it is deemed “complete NIBRS” for NCS-X purposes.

• Annual crime report required by law, as per the 2016 law quoted above. This would be a significant change from past practice: The independent New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies issued its own “Crime in New Hampshire” report in early 2012, based on 2011 data, observing that “New Hampshire has not published a comprehensive annual crime statistics report since the one released by the New Hampshire Department of Safety in 1993” (Norton and Delay, 2012:1).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Separately vested in the Office of the Attorney General.

NEW JERSEY

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: Establishment of a UCR program is explicitly a duty of the state attorney general, though the law permits these duties to be designated to the New Jersey State Police, within the Department of Law and Public Safety headed by the attorney general (NJ Rev State § 52:17B-5.1,5.2). This delegation to the New Jersey State Police is exercised in practice. Pursuant to § 17B-5.3, localities are required to participate in the state UCR program:

• Transfer to FBI/national compilation not apparently referenced in law.
• State has no incident-based reporting system: New Jersey is listed in the JRSA inventory as “testing” NIBRS compliance, rather than “no plans.” The state program was awarded an NCS-X Planning grant to try to spur development.
• Annual crime report required by law: Per § 52:17B-5.4, the attorney general is tasked to “compile such statistics as he may deem necessary in order to present a proper classification and analysis of the volume and nature of crime

• and the administration of criminal justice within this State;” § 52:17B-5.5 sets the frequency of this report as annual.

• Other key features: The enabling law highlights gang-related crime and bias-motivated crime as two key measurement priorities. § 52:17B-5.3 requires local departments to provide quarterly “information relating to criminal street gang activities within their respective jurisdictions,” further stipulating that “a law enforcement officer who responds to an offense involving criminal street gang activity shall complete a gang related incident offense report on a form prescribed by the Superintendent of State Police” and submit that information “for inclusion in the Uniform Crime Report.” In terms of bias-motivated crime, the quarterly reports from local agencies are to include “information relating to any offense directed against a person or group, or their property, by reason of their race, color, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, or ethnicity.” An unusual characteristic of New Jersey’s specification of annual reports is the directive that “classification and analysis” of collected crime data in the state must include “a section on the per capita crime statistics for a resort municipality”—that is, accounting for both the average-across-the-year population of such communities as well as the seasonal surges of population they experience (§ 17B-5.4).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Also vested in the Department of Law and Public Safety.

NEW MEXICO

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: As per NM Stat. § 29-3-11, the New Mexico Department of Public Safety “shall develop, operate and maintain a uniform crime reporting system and shall be the central repository for the collection, storage, retrieval and analysis of crime incident and arrest reports generated by all law enforcement agencies in this state. The system shall be operational as of January 1, 2008.” All law enforcement agencies in the state are directed to “submit crime incident reports” and “any other crime incident information as may be required,” and to “use uniform crime incident reporting as provided by the department for all incidents and arrests,” though no penalty is specified.
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation required by law: The enabling statute obliges the department to “compile statistical data and forward such data as required to the federal bureau of investigation or the appropriate department of justice agency in accordance with standards and procedures of the national system” (NM Stat. § 29-3-11; capitalization original)
• State has no incident-based reporting system, but was listed in the JRSA inventory as “testing” NIBRS possibilities. Though the state UCR program

• has not received NCS-X funds, the Albuquerque Police Department did receive such funding in 2016.

• Annual crime report required by law: An annual report “on the nature and extent of crime in New Mexico” is required to be completed “in conjunction with the New Mexico sentencing commission,” and submitted to the governor and legislature annually (NM Stat. § 29-3-11).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Separately vested in Institute for Social Research, University of New Mexico.

NEW YORK

• Local law enforcement agencies not directly required to submit crime statistics to state entity: New York Executive Law § 837–4(c) directs the State Division of Criminal Justice Services to “collect and analyze statistical and other information and data with respect to the number of crimes reported or known to police officers or peace officers, the number of persons arrested for the commission of offense, the offense for which the person was arrested, the county within which the arrest was made and the accusatory instrument filed, [and] the disposition of the [accusatory instrument within the justice system].” However, that clause is nested in language that stops short of mandating such data collection; rather, it is supposed to be done “in cooperation with the state administrator of the unified court system as well as any other public or private agency” (Executive Law § 837–4).
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation encouraged by law: The Division is directed to “supply data, upon request, to federal bureaus or departments engaged in collecting national criminal statistics” (Executive Law § 837–4(d)).
• State maintains own incident-based reporting system: The New York State Incident-Based Reporting (NYSIBR) system was said, at the time of the JRSA inventory, to cover 22 percent of the state’s population and 17 percent of its crime. NYSIBR and NIBRS content do not directly align; historically, NYSIBR did not include 4 of the variables required by NIBRS, but added nearly 15 data elements not coded into NIBRS (including the level of injury and medical treatment received by the victim). Work is taking place on reconciling the differences between the systems, hence its designation in the JRSA inventory as “testing.” The New York State Police was awarded NCS-X development funds, and the state program received an NCS-X Implementation grant.
• Quarterly crime report required by law: The division is required to present “a quarterly report containing the statistics and other information” to the governor and state legislative leaders on a quarterly basis (Executive Law § 837-a-2).

• Other key features: A final clause of the basic crime reporting statute stipulates that, “where a [firearm] comes into the custody of police officers or peace officers in the course of an investigation of such crime or offense,” additional detailed information on the firearm be collected—including “the make, model type, caliber and magazine or cylinder capacity of any such firearm and whether possession of such firearm by the defendant is licensed or unlicensed and if confiscated at arrest, the style and manufacturer of any ammunition” (New York Executive Law § 837–4(c)). New York statute is also unique in flagging that information on some particular offense classes be collected by the Division of Criminal Justice Services, subject to the same “in cooperation with” the courts and other agencies clause: specifically, “environmental crimes and offenses” including violations of state environmental conservation laws, “crimes and offenses committed against employees of the city of New York responsible for enforcing certain regulations in such city,” hate crimes, and insurance fraud (Executive Law § 837–4-a, 4-b, and 4-c, and § 837-a–1, respectively).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Same entity, Division of Criminal Justice Services.

NORTH CAROLINA

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: Uniform crime reporting in North Carolina derives from a single, expressive clause in law. Since 1985, NC General Statutes § 143B-906 has held that:

  It shall be the duty of the State Bureau of Investigation to receive and collect criminal information, to assist in locating, identifying, and keeping records of criminals in this State, and from other states, and to compare, classify, compile, publish, make available and disseminate any and all such information to the sheriffs, constables, police authorities, courts or any other officials of the State requiring such criminal identification, crime statistics and other information respecting crimes local and national, and to conduct surveys and studies for the purpose of determining so far as is possible the source of any criminal conspiracy, crime wave, movement or cooperative action on the part of the criminals, reporting such conditions, and to cooperate with all officials in detecting and preventing.

  The law makes no explicit mention of a requirement to submit data to the state program, and the program is described as purely voluntary.

• Transfer to FBI/national compilation not directly specified by law.
• State maintains own incident-based reporting system: North Carolina has maintained an incident-based reporting system for decades—since 1980, according to descriptive material on the agency’s website that appears to have been adapted from an annual report circa 1999 (the site, accessible as of July 2017, is http://crimereporting.ncsbi.gov/Introduction.aspx). That website

• material suggests that 430 of 460 reporting agencies in the state used incident-based format in 1999. Both the North Carolina state UCR program and the Charlotte Police Department have received NCS-X funding.

• Annual crime report required by law: The law actually mandates a biennial report, even though it has been issued annually. Specifically, the bureau is required “to make scientific study, analysis and comparison from the information so collected and correlated with similar information gathered by federal agencies, and to provide the Governor and the General Assembly with the information so collected biennially, or more often if required by the Governor” (NC General Statutes § 143B-902).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: None, at present.

NORTH DAKOTA

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: Under North Dakota law, “criminal justice training and the collection of statistics must be conducted by the office of attorney general.” “To assist in controlling crime in the state through the use of reliable statistics relating to crimes and criminal activity, the Attorney General may obtain [from criminal justice agencies] all information the Attorney General deems necessary;” . Moreover, the law makes it “the duty of the officials to furnish the information . . . within thirty days of the request on whatever forms or in whatever manner the Attorney General may prescribe” (ND Century Code § 12-62-01.1). The operation of the UCR program in North Dakota is delegated to the Bureau of Criminal Investigation.
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation not mentioned in law.
• State maintains own incident-based reporting system: North Dakota law enforcement agencies have primarily reported incident-based format data to the state since at least 1999, with a small number of agencies reporting SRS format through the early 2000s. The state’s annual crime report for 2011, covering data collected in 2010, was the first with full incident-based participation.²
• Annual crime report not apparently specified by law (but still completed annually).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Same entity, Bureau of Criminal Investigation.

OHIO

___________________

² The archive of annual reports is accessible at https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/public-safety/crime-data/crime-reports.

• Local law enforcement agencies encouraged to submit crime statistics to state entity: Ohio made use of a lapse in its intrastate UCR program to etch incident-based crime reporting into its law. For years, some local jurisdictions continued to report SRS-format data while others switched to the Ohio Incident Based Reporting System (OIBRS). Specifically, Ohio’s original UCR Program “remained in place [from 1976 to] 1981 when its cancellation was dictated by state budget. Since that time local law enforcement agencies have returned to the old practice of submitting UCR information directly to the FBI” (Ohio Department of Public Safety, 2017:5). Cognizant of the developments that would produce NIBRS, the state set about reestablishing its UCR program in 1986; aided by a BJS grant, OIBRS began active development work in 1989. Hence, when the program was reauthorized, it was established as an incident-based–only system: The Division of Criminal Justice Services, in the Department of Public Safety, is tasked to “develop and maintain the Ohio incident-based reporting system to facilitate the sharing of information with the federal bureau of investigation and participating law enforcement agencies in Ohio” (Ohio Rev Code § 5502.62). Under the law, local contribution of data to OIBRS is, strictly speaking, voluntary; any law enforcement agency that receives either “federal criminal justice grants or state criminal justice information system general revenue funds through the division” is required by law “to participate in OIBRS” or to participate “in the uniform crime reporting program of the federal bureau of investigation” (lower case in original).
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation required by law: As conveyed in the text above, Ohio’s crime-reporting law is unusual in that participation in the national UCR program is reinforced more strongly than in the state-level program.
• State maintains own incident-based reporting system: OIBRS, as denoted in law. For NCS-X purposes, Ohio is considered to be ineligible for grant funding as it is more than 80 percent NIBRS compliant; the JRSA inventory found that 83 percent of the state’s population and 71 percent of observed crime were covered by NIBRS-format reporters.
• Annual crime report not required by law: There is no apparent mandate for an annual report on the state of crime, though the division is obligated by its authorizing law to “provide assistance, advice, and reports requested by the governor, the general assembly, or the federal bureau of investigation” (Ohio Rev Code § 5502.62).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: The same law that reestablished Ohio’s UCR program granted the Division of Criminal Justice Services with principal authority to “collect, analyze, and correlate information and data concerning the criminal justice system in the state;” it is both the state SAC and UCR program (Ohio Rev Code § 5502.62).

OKLAHOMA

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: State law authorizes the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) to establish a UCR program, and “all state, county, city and town law enforcement agencies shall submit reports to the [SBI] on forms prescribed by the Bureau.” Specifically, “the reports shall contain the number and nature of offenses committed within their respective jurisdictions, the disposition of such matters, and such other information as the Bureau may require, respecting information relating to the cause and prevention of crime, recidivism, the rehabilitation of criminals and the proper administration of criminal justice” (74 OK Stat. § 74-150.10C).
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation not apparently referenced by law.
• State maintains own incident-based reporting system, apparently referred to simply as the State Incident-Based Reporting system. The state of Oklahoma is NIBRS certified, and the JRSA inventory suggested that 28 percent of its population and 11 percent of crime was covered by NIBRS-format reporters. The state program was awarded an NCS-X Implementation grant.
• Crime report required by law: The SBI is directed to “compile such statistics as the Director may deem necessary in order to present a proper classification and analysis of the volume and nature of crime and the administration of criminal justice within this state” in a report, but there is no stated frequency (74 OK Stat. § 74-150.10D).
• Other key features: Short of withholding grant eligibility, Oklahoma’s penalty for “refusal or persistent failure of any law enforcement agency to submit reports required by this section” is “discontinued access to Bureau information and assistance” (74 OK Stat. § 74-150.10E).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: “The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation shall be the entity recognized by the Bureau of Justice Statistics as the Statistical Analysis Center” (22 OK Stat. § 22-1517).

OREGON

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: Oregon’s crime-reporting legislation explicitly defines the national UCR content as a subset of information required from local law enforcement agencies. As per OR Rev. Stat. § 181A.225(1):

  All law enforcement agencies shall report to the Department of State Police statistics concerning crimes:

  1. As directed by the department, for purposes of the Uniform Crime Reporting System of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
  2. As otherwise directed by the Governor concerning general criminal categories of criminal activities but not individual criminal records.

• 3. Motivated by prejudice based on the perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, political affiliation or beliefs, membership or activity in or on behalf of a labor organization or against a labor organization, physical or mental disability, age, economic or social status or citizenship of the victim.
  4. And other incidents arising out of domestic disturbances.
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation not directly specified by law—but is certainly consistent with the language cited above.
• State maintains own incident-based reporting system, and discontinued Summary-format reporting in January 2017: The state crime reporting program accepts data submissions in either straight NIBRS format or in ONIBRS format—the Oregon National Incident-Based Reporting System. The principal difference in content between the two is that ONIBRS covers certain regulatory offenses not handled in NIBRS: some traffic crimes, fish and game regulatory violations, and marine violations (Oregon Uniform Crime Reporting Program, 2017). As of the JRSA inventory, 29 percent of Oregon’s population and 28 percent of its crime were covered by incident-based reporting agencies, and the state program is itself NIBRS certified. A prominent exception to incident-based reporting—the Portland Police Department—was awarded NCS-X development funds, while the state UCR program is deemed a “state-led” conversion for NCS-X purposes.
• Annual crime report required by law: The enabling law requires general statistical crime reports on both a quarterly and annual basis, reports on statistics of domestic disturbances on both a quarterly and annual basis, and an “annual public report” on bias-motivated crimes. In addition, the Department of State Police is directed to complete “special reports” as requested by the governor (OR Rev. Stat. § 181A.225(2)).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Separately vested in Oregon Criminal Justice Commission.

PENNSYLVANIA

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: A Pennsylvania Uniform Crime Reporting program was first established in 1970, placed under authority of the attorney general. In 1973, authority was transferred to the Pennsylvania State Police, and current authority stems from the Uniform Crime Reporting Act enacted in 2004. Under that law, the state UCR program “shall be established under the direction, control and supervision of the Pennsylvania State Police,” which “shall have the power and duty to promulgate such rules and regulations” as necessary “to collect and gather the information from State, county and local law enforcement agencies” (18 P.S. § 20.503, 2014). Prior to the 2004 act, contribution of data to the state program was voluntary, but a lengthy section of the 2004

• legislation established penalties for failure to comply with monthly offense reporting—principally, removal of eligibility for distribution of funds from the collection of fines (§ 20.504)

• Transfer to FBI/national compilation is apparently not mentioned in law.
• State does not maintain incident-based reporting system: As of the JRSA inventory, the state was said to be “testing” NIBRS compliance issues. The FBI’s 2015 NIBRS tabulations suggest 12 months of NIBRS-format submissions by only 22 (small) Pennsylvania agencies. The state program was awarded NCS-X Implementation monies, and the Philadelphia Police Department was awarded NCS-X development grant funds in 2016.
• Annual crime report required by law: Drawing from 2004 language, Pennsylvania’s requirement of an annual report in that it specifies that it be in electronic format—“the Pennsylvania State Police shall electronically publish an annual report containing results of the information gathered and collated for access by the Governor, the General Assembly, the Attorney General and the public” (§ 20.506).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Separately vested in Office of Research, Evaluation, and Strategic Policy Development, Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency.

RHODE ISLAND

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: “A uniform crime reporting system shall be established under the direction, control, and supervision of the superintendent of state police. The superintendent of state police shall have the power and duty, by any rules and regulations that he or she may deem necessary to collect and gather any information from local police departments and the enforcement division of the department of environmental management that may be and is prescribed in this chapter” (RI Gen Laws § 12-24-1). § 12-24-2 expands on this, holding that “the police department of each city and town and the enforcement division of the department of environmental management, once each quarter, upon a date and form prescribed and furnished by the superintendent of state police, shall forward to the division of state police a crime report.”
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation required by law: The statewide compilation of agency-submitted data must be “available to any governmental law enforcement agency in the state, the judiciary committees of the senate and the house of representatives, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, upon request” (§ 12-24-2).
• State maintains own incident-based reporting system: The Rhode Island Incident Based Reporting System (RIBR) system evidently began operations in 2005, winning NIBRS certification in 2006. Though the JRSA profile lists

• Rhode Island as fully NIBRS-compliant with 100 percent of jurisdictions reporting in the format, it is deemed as just “> 80% NIBRS” for NCS-X purposes.

• Annual crime report not apparently referenced in law.
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Rhode Island Department of Public Safety, Grants Administration Office.

SOUTH CAROLINA

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: The South Carolina Code of Laws grants general information-gathering authority to the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED); the state’s Code of Regulations builds on that authority to define roles more completely. Specifically, SC Code of Regulations § 73-21(4) creates a UCR Department that “has the responsibility for processing, analyzing, coding and compiling incident, supplemental, and booking reports received from law enforcement agencies, whether such reports are submitted on paper or by automated means.” § 73-30 mandates that “every law enforcement agency must send SLED a copy of each report made by any officer during the performance of his duties in responding to reported criminal violations, . . . regardless of the degree of seriousness of the reported criminal activity.” These incident reports “must be recorded on standard forms approved by SLED” and “must be forwarded to SLED on a regular and timely basis, but not less often than once weekly”; incident reports “during any month must arrive at SLED no later than the fifth day of the following month.”
• No apparent explicit legal mandate for data transfer to the FBI/national compilation: However, the state regulations are replete with references to FBI UCR standards, and transfer to the national program is certainly consistent with the spirit of the regulation text.
• State maintains own incident-based reporting system: The South Carolina Incident-Based Reporting System (SCIBRS) was the first state incident-based reporting system, serving as a model/demonstration for NIBRS formatting and beginning operations in 1991. Beginning with its 2013 annual report, South Carolina began to feature exclusively incident-based reporting data (rather than SCIBRS-format data converted to Summary Reporting System-style counts). Accordingly, it is listed in the JRSA inventory as fully NIBRS compliant.
• Annual crime report not apparently referenced in law.
• Other key features: In defining its role in the crime reporting process, SLED assumes a strong role in ensuring data quality and implementing consistent editing/classification routines. Per SC Code of Regulations § 73-21(4), the UCR department:

• will classify and count incident, supplemental, and booking reports submitted by other agencies according to procedures defined by the International Association of Chiefs of Police Committee on Uniform Crime Reports, the Uniform Crime Records Committee of the National Sheriffs Association, the Uniform Crime Reports Section of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the State Law Enforcement Division. The Uniform Crime Reporting Department will assure through training and quality control measures that all automated incident, supplemental, and arrest data submitted to the State Uniform Crime Reporting program are classified and counted according to these procedures.

  (This responsibility is reaffirmed in § 73-30.)

• State Statistical Analysis Center: Office of Justice Programs, Department of Public Safety.

SOUTH DAKOTA

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: The attorney general of South Dakota, who is also designated by law as director of the state Bureau of Criminal Statistics, is directed to (SD Codified Laws § 23-6-4):

  collect and compile information, statistical and otherwise, which will, as far as practicable, present an accurate survey of the number and character of crimes committed in the state, the extent and character of delinquency, [and the administration of justice]. He shall include such information as may be useful in the study of crime and delinquency and the causes thereof, for the administration of criminal justice, and for the apprehension, punishment and treatment of criminal offenders.

  Pursuant to § 23-6-11, “every person having custody or charge of public or official records or documents, from which information is sought for the purposes of this chapter, shall grant to the director, or to any person deputized by him, access thereto.”³ The state’s designated UCR program is housed in the Division of Criminal Investigation.

• Transfer to FBI/national compilation is not directly referenced in law—but such is certainly consistent with the law, which includes a quirk. The legal language establishing state crime statistics dates back to South Dakota’s Uniform Criminal Statistics Act enacted in 1939, at which time there remained some uncertainty as to where authority for national crime statistics would reside. Hence, South Dakota statute is perhaps unique in referencing the U.S. Census Bureau’s historical role in crime statistics: § 23-6-6 requires the Bureau of Criminal Statistics to “promulgate classifications and shall

___________________

³ That said, the South Dakota attorney general’s website states bluntly that “crime reporting is voluntary” http://atg.sd.gov/OurOffice/Departments/DCI/SAC/NIBRS.aspx.

• prepare forms for the statistical classification of crimes, of offenders, of their punishment and treatment and of all other pertinent information, to conform, as far as practicable, with those promulgated by the appropriate agency in the United States Department of Justice, and by the Federal Bureau of the Census.”

• State is fully NIBRS compliant: As described by the attorney general’s website (http://atg.sd.gov/OurOffice/Departments/DCI/SAC/NIBRS.aspx), the South Dakota UCR program was NIBRS certified in 2001. In 2006, a new web-based NIBRS tool was made available to South Dakota law enforcement agencies to encourage adoption of the new format; the move enabled the state to become NIBRS-only two years later. The JRSA profile and NCS-X planning tabulation both identify South Dakota as 100 percent NIBRS, yet the attorney general’s website says “approximately 95% of the state’s population is covered by NIBRS,” without specifying what constitutes the other 5 percent.
• Annual crime report required by law: Reports on “the crime situation in this state” are required “annually, and at such other times as he may determine,” from the attorney general. These reports are intended to “point out what he considers to be significant features regarding crime, the administration of criminal justice and the punishment or treatment of criminals, and may recommend such measures as he may consider desirable or constructive with reference thereto” (§ 23-6-10).
• Other key features: Most clauses in the section of code regarding the collection of crime statistics—the basic responsibility of the attorney general for collection, and even the promulgation of classifications of crime—include language that make violations of the clauses crimes in themselves: “a violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor” (§ 23-6-4 and elsewhere).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Same entity, Division of Criminal Investigation.

TENNESSEE

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: Tennessee Code § 38-10-101 directs the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) to “establish a system of intrastate communication of vital statistics and information relating to crime, criminals, and criminal activity.” “All state, county, and municipal law enforcement and correctional agencies, and courts, shall submit [to the TBI] reports setting forth their activities in connection with law enforcement and criminal justice, including uniform crime reports,”⁴ as required by § 38-10-102. Moreover, § 38-10-103 grants the

___________________

⁴ New law effective January 1, 2017, continues this phrase to include “reports of law-enforcement-related deaths.”

• TBI authority to “adopt and promulgate rules and regulations prescribing the form, general content, time, and manner of submission of the uniform crime reports,” holding that such rules “shall have the force and effect of law.”

• Transfer to FBI/national compilation required by law: The law does not explicitly reference information sharing with the FBI, but the rules promulgated under § 38-10-103 state “compiling and transmitting the data to the FBI monthly for all reporting agencies” as a core responsibility of the TBI (Rules of the TBI § 1395-1-2-.03), and note legislative intent for sharing of the data “by agreements between the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Law Enforcement Telecommunications Systems” (Rules of the TBI § 1395-1-1.02).
• State maintains own incident-based reporting system: Tennessee was a relatively early adopter of its own incident-based reporting system, TIBRS; the original rules defining TIBRS administration were apparently filed with the Tennessee Secretary of State in 2001 and took effect in 2002.
• Annual crime report required by law: By Tennessee Code § 38-10-104, the TBI “shall correlate the reports submitted” by local agencies “and shall compile and submit to the governor and the general assembly an annual report based on such reports.” Said report “shall contain demographic data, including the percentage of suspects, victims, and convicted offenders based on race, gender, age, nationality, and any other appropriate demographic, as determined by the director of the Tennessee bureau of investigation.”
• Other key features: As with some other states, failure to report crime data pursuant to the laws and regulations is subject to penalty in Tennessee: “Any officer or official mentioned in this chapter who shall have been notified and refuses to make any report or do any act required by any provision of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of nonfeasance of office and subject to removal therefrom” (§ 38-10-105).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Same entity, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

TEXAS

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: Texas Government Code § 411.042(b)(2) vests the Texas Department of Public Safety’s Bureau of Identification and Records with authority to:

  collect information concerning the number and nature of offenses reported or known to have been committed in the state and the legal steps taken in connection with the offenses, and other information useful in the study of crime and the administration of justice, including information that enables the bureau to create a statistical breakdown of: (A) offenses in which family and violence was involved; (b) [sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault offenses defined under Texas Penal Code]; and (C) [trafficking of persons and ‘compelled prostitution’ offenses under Texas Penal Code].

  The clause implying mandatory response to the state reads: “A law enforcement agency shall report offenses under Section 22.011 or 22.021, Penal Code, to the department in the form and manner and at regular intervals as prescribed by rules adopted by the department” (Texas Government Code § 411.042(i)). An apparent quirk in the law is that the referenced Penal Code sections cover only sexual assault offenses.

• Transfer to FBI/national compilation encouraged by law: The Bureau is directed to “cooperate with identification and crime records bureaus in other states and the United States Department of Justice” (Texas Government Code § 411.042(b)(4)).
• Legally established goal of full incident-based reporting: In September 2015, Texas enacted legislation “establish[ing] a goal that, not later than September 1, 2019, all local law enforcement agencies: (1) will have implemented an incident-based reporting system that meets the reporting requirements of the National Incident-Based Reporting System of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and (2) will use [that system] to submit to the department information and statistics concerning criminal offenses committed in the jurisdiction of the local law enforcement agency.” The act further requires that the Department of Public Safety report to the legislature by January 2017 on progress in meeting this goal (Texas Government Code § 411.054). The first such progress report indicated that 97 Texas law enforcement agencies (covering 14.4 percent of the state’s population) were NIBRS-compliant, with an additional 23 agencies about to come online—this relative to the total of 1,068 agencies reporting data to the state’s UCR program (in Summary Reporting System or NIBRS format). For NCS-X purposes, the state program is considered a “state-led” initiative; however, the Dallas and San Antonio Police Departments were awarded NCS-X development funds in 2016.
• Annual crime report not apparently referenced in law.

• Other key features: For sexual assault offenses, Texas law (prior to the incident-based reporting legislation described above) prescribed the collection of additional incident-level detail. Specifically, Texas Government Code § 411.042(h) mandates that “information collected to perform a statistical breakdown of [these] offenses [must] include information indicating the specific offense committed and information regarding: (1) the victim; (2) the offender and the offender’s relationship to the victim; (3) any weapons used or exhibited in the commission of the offense; and (4) any injuries sustained by the victim.”
• State Statistical Analysis Center: None, at present.

UTAH

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: UT Code § 53-10-202(2) directs the Bureau of Criminal Identification within the Utah Department of Public Safety to “establish a statewide uniform crime reporting system that shall include: (a) statistics concerning general categories of criminal activities; (b) statistics concerning crimes that exhibit evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, ancestry, national origin, ethnicity, or other categories that the division finds appropriate; and (c) other statistics as required by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” Section 53-10-206 holds that the bureau “may require all peace officers, the warden of the state prison, the keeper of any jail or correctional institution, or superintendent of the state hospital to obtain information that will aid in establishing the records required to be kept.”
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation is not explicitly required by law: The passage just quoted, hewing the content of state crime reporting to data items “required” by the FBI, would seem to imply “mandatory” turnover of the data.
• State maintains own incident-based reporting system: The Utah Incident Based Reporting System began work in 1991, with 75 initial contributors; the JRSA inventory suggests incident-based reporting coverage of 81 percent of the state’s population and 86 percent of crime. Despite being listed above the 80 percent mark in the JRSA profile, the Utah program was eligible for NCS-X funds and received an Implementation grant.
• Annual crime report required by law: The Bureau of Criminal Identification is required to “publish an annual report concerning the extent, fluctuation, distribution, and nature of crime in Utah” (UT Code § 53-10-202(5)).
• Other key features: Utah is one of very few states whose legislation includes an explicit disclaimer on the use of crime data: “The data acquired under the statewide uniform crime reporting system shall be used only for research or statistical purposes and may not contain any information that may reveal the

• identity of an individual victim of a crime” (UT Code § 53-10-205). Likewise, Utah’s code makes it incumbent on local communities and authorities to provide the means for their law enforcement agencies to be able to supply data: “All governing boards or commissions of each city, town, county, or correctional institution of the state shall furnish the appropriate officials with supplies and equipment necessary to perform the duties prescribed in this part” (UT Code § 53-10-212).

• State Statistical Analysis Center: Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice.

VERMONT

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: The Vermont Crime Information Center in the Department of Public Safety is designated as the official repository of criminal justice information, but the basic enabling legislation casts the relationship between the state and local agencies as a cooperative. “All state departments and agencies, municipal police departments, sheriffs and other law enforcement officers shall cooperate with and assist the center in the establishment of a complete and uniform system of records relating to the commission of crimes, arrests,” and so forth (20 V.S.A. § 2053), and the center is empowered to suggest “uniform forms for the reporting of the commission of crimes” and other data items (20 V.S.A. § 2054). Local agency failure to contribute data is subject to penalty; see below.
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation encouraged by law: Similar “cooperate” language characterizes data transfer and sharing: “The center shall cooperate with other state [and local agencies] and with federal and international law enforcement agencies to develop and carry on a uniform and complete state, interstate, national and international system of records of criminal activities and information” (20 V.S.A. § 2053)
• State is fully NIBRS compliant: All of Vermont’s law enforcement agencies appear to have won NIBRS certification by mid-2004, per the JRSA inventory
• Annual crime report required by law: “From time to time but at least annually, the center shall publish information relating to criminal activity, arrests, convictions and such other information as the commissioner deems relevant” (20 V.S.A. § 2057).
• Other key features: “A department, agency or law enforcement officer who fails to comply with the regulations adopted by the director [for crime reporting] with respect to the use, completion or filing of the uniform forms, after notice of failure to comply, shall be fined not more than $100.00. Each such failure shall constitute a separate offense” (20 V.S.A. § 2054).

• State Statistical Analysis Center: Services provided by contract to the Department of Public Safety by Crime Research Group, Inc.

VIRGINIA

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: The superintendent of the Virginia State Police “shall establish, organize, equip, staff and maintain within the Department of State Police, at such departmental locations as the Superintendent may direct, [a] uniform crime reporting system for the purpose of receiving, compiling, classifying, analyzing and publishing crime statistics of offenses known, persons arrested, and persons charged and other information pertaining to the investigation of crime and the apprehension of criminals, as hereinafter provided” (Va. Code Ann. § 52-29, 2015). Section 52-28 makes it the duty of “all Commonwealth, county and municipal law-enforcement agencies” to provide “all periodic uniform crime reports setting forth their activities in connection with law enforcement.” Further, § 52-26 authorizes the State Police to “maintain liaison and to cooperate with law-enforcement and criminal justice agencies of all counties, cities and towns and all other agencies, departments, and institutions of the Commonwealth, other states and of the United States in order to develop and carry on a comprehensive uniform crime reporting program for the Commonwealth.”
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation required by law: The State Police’s data collection authority “includ[es], but [is] not limited to, part I and part II offenses as set out by the Federal Bureau of Investigation” (§ 52-29); moreover, the State Police “shall correlate reports submitted to it and shall compile and submit reports to the Federal Bureau of Investigation on behalf of all agencies of the Commonwealth, as may be required by the federal standards for the uniform crime reporting program” (§ 52-30).
• State maintains own incident-based reporting system: A very early adopter of incident-based reporting, the Virginia State Police stopped accepting Summary-format, hardcopy reports in 2000, which was the first year in which the annual Crime in Virginia report reflected all incident-based reporting.
• Annual crime report required by law: The enabling law for the state UCR program references the “annual Crime in Virginia report,” requiring that information on gang-related crimes and officer-involved shootings, in particular, be included in it (§ 52-28.1 and 52-28.2).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Separately vested in Criminal Justice Research Center, Department of Criminal Justice Services.

WASHINGTON

• The Uniform Crime Reporting Program in Washington is described as a “cooperative” between the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) and the state’s Criminal Justice Training Commission (Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, 2017). WASPC is itself a legally recognized “combination of units of local government,” a consortium of local law enforcement agencies operating in the state (WA Rev Code § 36.28A.010). WASPC is the designated state UCR Program, and one passage of law characterizes the Criminal Justice Training Commission as maintaining “its contract for collection of statewide crime data” with the WASPC (WA Rev Code § 10.99.130(12)).
• Local law enforcement agencies not required to submit crime statistics to state entity: The transfer of data to WASPC is characterized as being entirely voluntary.
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation not apparently mentioned in law, though the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (2017) crime report for 2016 does indicate that it is part of the unit’s mission to forward crime data to the FBI.
• State is largely incident-based reporting compliant: According to the (Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, 2017:2–3):

  The Washington State UCR Program was activated in October 1979 and collection of the monthly SRS data from contributing agencies began in January 1980. In December 2006, Washington State was certified by the FBI to officially collect and submit NIBRS data. In January 2008, based on a 2007 advisory committee recommendation, the WASPC Executive Board made the decision to set the goal date for Washington State law enfo rcement agencies to convert from the SRS method to NIBRS by January 1, 2012. . . . The majority of Washington State agencies submit via the NIBRS method and our goal is 100% NIBRS participation in the near future.

  The JRSA inventory suggests that incident-based reporting covered 45 percent of the state’s population and 34 percent of crime; the state program was awarded an NCS-X Implementation grant.

• Other key features: At least two major crime classes are called out for special reporting by state law. A subsection of the passage of law authorizing WASPC directs the association to serve as repository for information on “malicious harassment”—acts of assault or threat that are committed based on offender’s “perception of the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap” (WA Rev Stat § 36.28A.030, 9A.36.080). Further, effective in 1994, WASPC was directed to collect data for major offense types to differentiate domestic violence incidents from others, including information on “violations of

• the provisions of a protection order or no-contact order” (WA Rev Stat § 10.99.030).

• State Statistical Analysis Center: By state executive order, housed in Washington Office of Financial Management.

WEST VIRGINIA

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: As per WV Code § 15-2-24, “all state, county and municipal law-enforcement agencies shall submit to” the West Virginia State Police “uniform crime reports setting forth their activities in connection with law enforcement. It shall be the duty of the bureau to adopt and promulgate rules and regulations prescribing the form, general content, time and manner of submission of such uniform crime reports.”
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation not apparently mentioned in law.
• State maintains own incident-based reporting system: State is fully incident-based report compliant, and began accepting only West Virginia Incident-Based Reporting System-format data from local departments in 1999
• Semiannual crime report required by law: “The bureau shall correlate the reports submitted to it and shall compile and submit to the Governor and the Legislature semiannual reports based on such reports. A copy of such reports shall be furnished to all prosecuting attorneys and law- enforcement agencies” (WV Code § 15-2-24).
• State maintains own incident-based reporting system and is fully NIBRS compliant: As per a descriptive page (http://www.djcs.wv.gov/ORSP/SAC/Pages/WVIBRS.aspx) and the JRSA inventory, the West Virginia Incident-Based Reporting System was an early adherent to NIBRS standards, so much so that the state program “began only accepting data in the WVIBRS format as of January 1, 1999.”
• Other key features: Violation of crime reporting routines is itself technically considered a crime. “Willful or repeated failure by any state, county or municipal law-enforcement official to submit the uniform crime reports required by this article shall constitute neglect of duty in public office” (WV Code § 15-2-24).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Housed in the West Virginia Office of Research and Strategic Planning, a unit of the Division of Justice and Community Services within the state Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety.

WISCONSIN

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: The Wisconsin Department of Justice is directed to “collect information concerning the number and nature of offenses known to have been committed in this state and such other information as may be useful in the study of crime and the administration of justice. The department of justice may determine any other information to be obtained regarding crime and justice system statistics” (WI Stat. § 165.845(1)(a), 2016). Section 165.845(2) reinforces the point by directing that “all persons in charge of law enforcement agencies and other criminal and juvenile justice agencies shall supply the department of justice with the information” requested.
• Transfer to FBI/national compilation encouraged by law: Though the crime data authorized by law “shall include data requested by the federal bureau of investigation under its system of uniform crime reports for the United States,” there is no apparent direct mandate that the data be forwarded to the FBI.
• State maintains own incident-based system; state program is NIBRS certified, with limited local agency participation to date: As of the JRSA inventory, NIBRS-format jurisdictions covered 38 percent of Wisconsin’s population and 45 percent of the state’s crime. The state program received a NIBRS Planning grant.
• Annual crime report not apparently referenced by law.
• Other key features: In the same clause that mandates that local agencies report data to the state, the state Department of Justice is authorized to “conduct an audit to determine the accuracy of the data and other information it receives” from contributing agencies (§ 165.845(2)).
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Same entity, in the Wisconsin Department of Justice; indeed, the section of code authorizing UCR-type data collection directs that the department “maintain a statistical analysis center to serve as a clearing house of justice system data and information and conduct justice system research and data analysis under this section” (§ 165.845(1)(c)). The SAC is the Bureau of Justice Information and Analysis, in the department’s Division of Law Enforcement Services.

WYOMING

• Local law enforcement agencies required to submit crime statistics to state entity: Wyo. Stat. § 7-1-102 vests authority in the state attorney general to “provide uniform forms for reporting all information necessary to obtain reliable statistics to ascertain the true condition of the crime situation in the state.” Functionally, the authority is delegated to the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation. The statute obliges “all town, city, county and

• state law enforcement agencies, district courts, courts of limited jurisdiction, district attorneys, state adult and juvenile correctional institutions and state and local probation and parole agencies” to “maintain a public record of crime and criminals,” and directs that they “shall furnish the information requested by the attorney general.”

• Transfer to FBI/national compilation not mentioned in law.
• State has no incident-based reporting system, and was long labeled a state with no plan for NIBRS implementation. The Wyoming state UCR program did receive an NCS-X grant for basic planning of a a NIBRS-compliant system in 2015.
• No apparent direct legal mandate for a crime report: However, the Division of Criminal Investigation issued annual reports on crime in the state between 1977 and 2010, and instituted quarterly reports beginning in 2011.
• State Statistical Analysis Center: Sited separately from Uniform Crime Reporting Program, in Wyoming Survey and Analysis Center at the University of Wyoming.

This page intentionally left blank.