by Steve Reinbrecht
How does Reading’s police department stack up in crime
solving?
I compared the clearance rates reported by three city
departments for major crimes in 2014 and 2015, and state totals, using state police data.
During the period, Reading was on par with the state in
solving murders. Allentown and Lancaster each had fewer murders to solve than
Reading did. Murders provide small data samples.
The Reading department topped the state and Allentown in
solving assaults, and did better than all in clearing rapes – to me a good sign
of a progressive department.
The Reading department was behind the state in clearing
burglaries and robberies. Maybe the Reading officers are duffers. Maybe they’re understaffed. Maybe
Reading residents report more of these crimes because they know the Reading
police will work on them. Maybe in Allentown, people don’t bother to report
robberies and burglaries because they don’t have confidence in the police.
I always hear that these sorts of statistics are unreliable because police
chiefs cook the books, misreporting the crimes by calling rapes “assaults,” or
robberies “assaults,” or assaults “disorderly conduct.” They might want to under-report crime at a mayor's request or to look like they are doing a good job. Or over-report it to get a bigger budget.
The state police, who compile the data, said the FBI checks
the numbers.
“To prevent and discover any over or under reporting of UCR [uniform
crime reporting] data, the FBI conducts random audits of agencies that submit
data,” Trooper Adam Reed, public
information office coordinator.
The state police’s function is to facilitate and provide the
electronic system to enter the data.
“We do our best to monitor for any errors or non-reporting
and will reach out to any agency that appears to have inaccurate or no
information entered,” he wrote.
Ultimately, the FBI sets the guidelines and definitions for
the data,” Reed wrote.
I e-mailed the FBI press office but got no reply.
No comments:
Post a Comment