COSTS OF CRIME

Experts Report 

Challenges Estimating 

Costs and Suggest 

Improvements to 

Better Inform Policy 

Decisions

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2017

GAO-17-732

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-732, a report to 

congressional requesters

September 2017

COSTS OF CRIME

Experts Report Challenges Estimating Costs and 

Suggest Improvements to Better Inform Policy 

Decisions

What GAO Found

Based on a survey of experts associated with studying the costs of crime and a 

literature review, GAO found that there is no commonly used approach for 

estimating the costs of crime, and experts face multiple challenges when making 

estimates. GAO identified four primary methods to estimate costs, each with 

limitations: 1) measuring effects on markets, 2) using jury awards, 3) surveying 

the public for its willingness to pay to reduce crime, and 4) calculating individual 

categories of cost to develop a total cost. Experts stated that current 

methodologies are inadequate to fully estimate costs and that they face 

numerous challenges in developing estimates, such as the value of intangible 

costs of crime. As a result, research has produced widely varying and 

inconsistent estimates on the costs of crime.

Experts provided five broad areas they believe warrant further study to improve 

understanding of the costs of crime: 1) costs of crimes not reported to law 

enforcement agencies, 2) costs of punishment and incarceration, 3) costs of 

recidivism, 4) costs of potential bias in the administration of justice, and 5) 

uncertainty of cost estimates. Further, experts noted that researchers could 

refine estimates by combining different methodological approaches. They urged

researchers to consider cost of crime estimates under different policy scenarios, 

such as in setting sentencing guidelines, to help better inform policy decisions.

Figure: Examples of Costs of Crime and Elements to Categorize Costs

View GAO-17-732. For more information, 

contact Diana Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or 

maurerd@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

Crime and society’s response to it

pose significant costs to the United 

States. The Department of Justice’s 

Bureau of Justice Statistics reported 

that federal, state, and local 

governments collectively spent over 

$280 billion in fiscal year 2012 

(adjusted to 2016 dollars) on criminal 

justice programs such as police 

protection, the court system, and 

incarceration. There are also many 

other financial and nonfinancial effects 

of crime that researchers consider 

when estimating the total costs of 

crime in the United States. These can 

include tangible costs such as 

replacing damaged property or medical 

care to treat victims’ injuries, and 

intangible costs such as changes in 

people’s behavior to avoid crime, 

among many other costs. Researchers

have estimated varying annual costs of 

crime, including totals of $690 billion, 

$1.57 trillion, and $3.41 trillion, 

adjusted to 2016 dollars.

GAO was asked to examine issues 

related to estimating the costs of crime 

committed in the United States. This 

report examines: 1) how experts 

estimate the cost of crime in the United 

States, and the challenges they face, 

and 2) the actions experts have 

considered in order to improve the 

understanding and use of cost of crime 

research. To answer these questions, 

GAO worked with the National 

Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 

and Medicine to identify and survey 

experts in fields associated with 

estimating the cost of crime, including

criminology, economics, public health, 

public policy, and statistics, among 

others. GAO also reviewed 27 studies 

that estimated the cost of crime in the 

United States, published from 1996 to 

2017.
Page i GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

Letter 1

Background 3

Researchers Use Differing Approaches and Face Numerous 

Challenges, Leading to Disagreement on Cost Estimates 10

Experts Identified Approaches that Could Improve the 

Understanding of the Cost of Crime and Its Use in Policy 

Discussions 23

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 31

Appendix I Experts Consulted to Provide Views on Cost of Crime Research 33

Appendix II Bibliography of Research on the Cost of Crime 34

Appendix III Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 38

Appendix IV Expert Responses of Additional Topics to Consider and Suggested 

Ways to Improve Cost of Crime Estimation Methods 44

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 46

Tables

Table 1: Eleven Crime Categories Identified in a recent National 

Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 

Report on Modernizing Crime Statistics 5

Table 2: Expert Responses of Additional Topics and Suggested 

Ways to Improve Cost of Crime Estimation Methods 44

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

Figures

Figure 1: Examples of Costs of Crime and Elements of Costs 

Such as Tangible or Intangible, the Relationship in Time 

to a Crime, and Who Bears the Cost of Crime 7

Figure 2: Complexity of Estimating the Cost of Premature Death 

from Methamphetamine Use 21

Figure 3: Cost Estimates, Methodology, and Focus of Who Bears 

the Cost of Fatal Crimes in Select Research 22

Figure 4: Using Cost of Crime Estimates to Evaluate the Costs 

and Benefits of Criminal Justice Policy for the State of 

Washington 30

Abbreviations

BJS Bureau of Justice Statistics

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

DOJ Department of Justice

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FTC Federal Trade Commission

National Academies National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 

Medicine

NCVS National Crime Victimization Survey

NIBRS National Incident-Based Reporting System

NIJ National Institute of Justice

OJP Office of Justice Programs

SRS Summary Reporting System

UCR Uniform Crime Reporting Program

WSIPP Washington State Institute for Public Policy

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

September 26, 2017

Congressional Requesters

Crime and society’s response to crime pose significant costs to the United 

States. For instance, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (BJS) reported that federal, state, and local governments 

collectively spent over $280 billion in fiscal year 2012 on criminal justice 

programs such as police protection, the court system, and incarceration.1

However, in addition to the costs of the criminal justice system, there are 

many other financial and nonfinancial effects of crime that researchers 

consider when estimating the total cost of crime in the United States. 

These can include costs such as the replacement of damaged property, 

changes in people’s behavior to avoid crime, and the medical care to treat 

victims’ injuries. Research has estimated varying annual costs of crime, 

including totals of $690 billion, $1.57 trillion, and $3.41 trillion.2 While 

such a range indicates that researchers use various methods and 

information to estimate crime costs, the results all underscore the 

magnitude of crime’s effect on society.

Research indicates that to best understand the cost of crime, estimates 

should consider both the financial and non-monetary effects of crime—

such as the impact on quality of life, increasing fear in a community, or 

the indirect effects such as people’s change in behavior in response to 

crime. Some researchers have concluded that crime’s most costly factors 

stem from these less tangible effects. For example, an estimate published 

in 1996 on the cost of property loss and damage resulting from arson was 

almost $35,000 per incident.3 However, once researchers considered the 

arson victim’s injuries and lost quality of life in the aftermath of an 

incident, the average cost per incident increased to over $300,000, with 

intangible costs accounting for about 75 percent of the total.

 1

BJS estimates are based on extracts from the U.S. Census Bureau’s annual surveys of 

government finances. This and all amounts in the report have been adjusted to reflect 

2016 dollars to allow numbers to be comparable to each other.

2

Ted R. Miller, Mark A. Cohen, and Brian Wiersema, Victim Costs and Consequences: A 

New Look, A Final Summary Report Presented to the National Institute of Justice 

(National Criminal Justice Reference Service, January 1996); David A. Anderson, “The 

Aggregate Burden of Crime,” Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 42, no. 2 (October 

1999); and David A. Anderson, “The Cost of Crime,” Foundations and Trends in 

Microeconomics, vol. 7, no. 3 (2012). 

3

Miller, et al., Victim Costs and Consequences.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

You asked us to examine issues related to estimating the costs of crime 

committed in the United States. This report examines two questions:

1. How do experts estimate the cost of crime in the United States, and 

what challenges do they face?

2. What actions have experts considered in order to improve the 

understanding and use of cost of crime research?

To answer our questions, we worked with the National Academies of 

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) to identify 

experts in fields associated with estimating the cost of crime. The experts’

fields included criminology, economics, public health, public policy, and 

statistics, among others. We surveyed 20 experts to obtain their views 

about the state of cost of crime academic research, including the 

challenges to estimate crime’s cost and the benefits, limitations, and 

implications of the most widely used methods to calculate those costs, 

and 17 responded.4 However, not all experts who responded to the 

survey chose to answer all questions. We also reviewed literature from 

academic experts, think tanks, and research identified by government 

agencies. We analyzed 27 articles representing different analytical 

perspectives, such as the types of crime studied, various methods and 

assumptions considered, and the bearers of costs resulting from crime 

and its effects in the community.5 Our review focused exclusively on costs 

of crime committed in the United States or borne by victims in the United 

States. We limited the scope of our work by looking at studies published 

since 1996, which is when a key study that is frequently cited by other 

studies was published.6 To select the list of articles, we obtained input 

from federal officials and our group of experts, and independently 

assessed the articles to ensure the studies used sound and reliable 

methods. While we did not conduct a comprehensive study of the costs of 

crime, we believe that the input from our identified experts and studies is 

sufficient to provide an overview and identify general challenges, 

limitations, and benefits of the topics and general methods used when 

estimating the cost of crime.

We supplemented our review of expert opinion and cost of crime literature 

with interviews of DOJ officials. Specifically, we interviewed officials in 

 4

For more information on the experts we consulted, see app. I.

5

See app. II for a bibliography of the articles we analyzed for this report. 

6

DOJ funded this key study. See, Miller, et al., Victim Costs and Consequences.
Page 3 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP), including the BJS and the 

National Institute of Justice (NIJ), to obtain their insights about identifying, 

estimating, and using cost of crime estimates in the federal government. 

During our interviews, officials provided us research that either OJP 

sponsored through grants or they believed to be relevant and appropriate 

to our review. We incorporated DOJ’s insight as appropriate throughout 

the report. We also obtained information on BJS’s relevant programs to 

estimate national crime victimization rates and national criminal justice 

expenditures. Further, we interviewed officials from the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) to obtain information on its program to obtain data on 

violent and property crimes reported to local, state, and other law 

enforcement agencies. We included information on these programs to the 

extent that research has used these crime statistics to estimate crime 

costs. See appendix III for more details on our scope and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2016 through September 

2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The federal government is not responsible for estimating the costs of 

crime. However, federal agencies support the development of research 

either by sponsoring academic studies or conducting direct research of 

information used to develop cost estimates. For example, DOJ 

components collect and report on annual crime statistics and government 

criminal justice expenditures. Specifically, the FBI works with local, state, 

and other law enforcement agencies to obtain information on reported 

crime incidents, which researchers use in cost of crime estimates. Also, 

BJS manages programs to estimate national crime victimization trends 

and victims’ costs. BJS also produces annual estimates of federal, state, 

and local governments’ criminal justice costs. In addition, the NIJ has 

awarded grants to support academic research on the cost of crime. 

Further, other federal agencies have studied aspects of the cost of crime 

pertaining to their missions. For instance, the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC) published a study on the cost of domestic 

Background

The Role of Federal 

Agencies in Estimating 

Costs of Crime
Page 4 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

violence,7 and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has released reports 

on the cost and extent of consumer fraud in the United States.8

For the purposes of this report, we define crime as a social harm that 

federal or state law makes punishable by criminal sanction or penalty.9

While cost of crime estimates may focus on serious “street crimes,” a 

broader cost of crime measure can include any illegal activities with a 

criminal sanction or penalty.10 Such crimes include felonies and 

misdemeanors, and may include both reported and unreported criminal 

activity. Definitions of crime may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. 

However, the National Academies developed 11 categories to classify 

crimes throughout the country. See table 1 below.

 7

See CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Costs of Intimate Partner 

Violence Against Women in the United States, (Atlanta, GA: 2003).

8 See K.B. Anderson, Consumer Fraud in the United States, 2011: The Third FTC Survey, 

(Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission, 2013).

9

Under federal law, many crimes are defined within title 18 of the United States Code. 

However, crimes are interspersed throughout the United States Code. 

10For the purposes of our report, we excluded any research that focused on crimes where 

the offender and victim were outside the United States. Such crimes would include 

offenses adjudicated in other countries, international terrorism, or piracy on the high seas.

Definition of Crime

What is “Street Crime?” 

Researchers and law enforcement often use 

the term “street crime” to refer to a group of 

serious offenses that generally require 

personal contact between the offender and 

the victim or the victim’s property. There are 

eight street crimes that the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation reports nationally, including 

criminal homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated 

assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle 

theft, and arson.

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ information and select cost of 

crime research. I GAO-17-732
Page 5 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

Table 1: Eleven Crime Categories Identified in a recent National Academies of 

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Report on Modernizing Crime Statistics 

Crime Categories Examples of included crimes

1. Acts leading to death or intending 

to cause death

Murder and intentional homicide, non-intentional 

homicide, assisting or instigating suicide

2. Acts causing harm or intending to 

cause harm to the person

Assault, threats, slavery and exploitation, human 

trafficking, acts intended to induce fear or 

emotional distress

3. Injurious acts of a sexual nature Rape, sexual assault, sexual exploitation

4. Acts of violence or threatened 

violence against a person that involve 

property

Robbery, terroristic or disruptive threats to 

buildings or critical infrastructure

5. Acts against property only Burglary, acts against computer systems, 

property damage

6. Acts involving controlled 

substances

Unlawful possession or use of controlled drugs 

for personal consumption, unlawful trafficking or 

distribution of controlled drugs

7. Acts involving fraud, deception, or 

corruption

Fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, corruption

8. Acts against public order and 

authority

Acts contrary to public revenue or regulatory 

provisions, acts related to freedom of expression 

or control of expression, acts related to 

democratic elections

9. Acts against public safety and 

national security

Acts involving weapons, explosives, and other 

destructive, acts against national security, 

terrorism

10. Acts against the natural 

environment or against animals

Acts that cause environmental pollution or 

degradation, acts involving the movement or 

dumping of waste, acts against animals

11. Other criminal acts not elsewhere 

classified

Violations of tribal law, piracy, torture

Source: GAO analysis of National Academies Modernizing Crime Statistics: Report 1—Defining and Classifying Crime (Washington, 

DC: 2016). | GAO-17-732

A cost is a monetary value associated with the negative effect of a crime. 

When estimating costs of crime, researchers consider the effects that 

occur to individuals, households, communities, and to local and state 

governments, and the federal government. Researchers have developed 

a variety of terms to characterize the numerous effects on costs of crime. 

While not all researchers use the same terminology to analyze costs, 

studies generally consider the following elements:

• Tangible costs: Tangible costs are those where the effect can be 

valued by observing product or service transactions that arise in 

National Academies of Sciences, 

Engineering, and Medicine (National 

Academies)

Established by Congress as a private, nonprofit society of scholars, the National 

Academies is charged to provide 

independent, objective advice to the nation on 

matters related to science and technology and 

to conduct other activities to inform public 

policy decisions. Members of the National 

Academies cover major scientific and social 

science branches, including statistics, 

criminology, and economics. In 2013, the 

Department of Justice tasked the National 

Academies to convene a panel to help the 

department modernize the nation’s crime 

statistics. In response, the National 

Academies released a report in 2016 that 

included, among other things, an updated 

approach for classifying crime. This approach 

identified 11 categories of crimes, which 

appear in table 1.

Source: GAO analysis of National Academies Modernizing 

Crime Statistics: Report 1—Defining and Classifying Crime 

(Washington, DC: 2016); and DOJ officials. I GAO-17-732

Definition of Costs and 

Who Bears Such Costs
Page 6 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

response to or in anticipation of criminal activity. Such costs include 

the value of damaged property, medical care to treat injuries, and 

costs to install alarm systems to avoid crime.

• Intangible costs: Intangible costs result from negative effects of crime, 

but the effects do not have directly observed market values. Such 

costs from crime include lost quality of life as a result of victimization, 

fear in the community, or avoidance behaviors to reduce the likelihood 

of being victimized.

• Timing of the cost in relation to the crime: While the most recognized 

costs of crime are those that occur as a direct consequence of the 

crime, such as the cost to recover from crime-related injuries, 

researchers consider secondary consequences of crime as well. Such 

consequences may occur before or after a particular crime occurs. 

For example, some costs of crime occur in anticipation of crime, for 

instance to avoid victimization. Other costs occur as a response to 

crime, such as the cost of judicial proceedings or the costs to 

incarcerate offenders.11

• Who bears the cost: Crime costs can be borne by individuals, such as 

the victim or the victim’s family, employers or businesses, and broader 

society, such as when public property is destroyed. Societal costs can 

also take the form of taxpayer funds for crime prevention or criminal 

justice system expenses. Cost estimates may also include not only 

victims’ costs, but also costs to potential victims (such as costs 

associated with the fear of crime), future victims, offenders, and 

offenders’ families.12 See figure 1 for more information.

 11Similar to this approach, researchers may categorize costs as ex ante or ex post, 

referring to if the cost occurred before or after the crime occurred. In addition, researchers 

may consider whether a cost is a direct result of a crime, including most costs borne by 

the victim. Or, researchers may consider whether a cost is an indirect cost of crime, 

including fear in the community or some criminal justice costs, without necessarily 

considering whether a cost is in anticipation of a crime or in response to crime. Studies 

may not necessarily agree on whether a cost should fit into a particular category or if the 

studies should consider these categories separately. 

12Researchers may refer to costs as either external or social costs, which to some extent 

focus on who bears the cost. For instance, external costs are those imposed by one 

person onto another, where the affected person does not voluntarily accept the negative 

consequences. Costs imposed on the victim, such as medical bills, property damage, and 

lost quality of life are examples of external costs. Social costs are those that reduce the 

aggregate well-being of society and may include not only victim costs, but also costs 

considered to divert resources from socially productive uses. Researchers may not agree 

on which costs to consider or which costs may be external versus social costs.
Page 7 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

Figure 1: Examples of Costs of Crime and Elements of Costs Such as Tangible or Intangible, the Relationship in Time to a 

Crime, and Who Bears the Cost of Crime
Page 8 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

The United States has two primary sources for measuring the magnitude 

of crime: the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, and the BJS 

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).13

• UCR Program: The UCR Program compiles data on reported crime 

incidents from participating local, state, and other law enforcement 

agencies on 10 serious types of crime—criminal homicide, rape, 

robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny theft, motor vehicle 

theft, arson, human trafficking-related commercial sex acts, and 

human trafficking-related involuntary servitude. The FBI releases 

national and subnational crime statistics from the UCR Program in 

annual publications titled Crime in the United States.

14 To collect data 

for the UCR Program, the FBI uses two systems: the traditional 

Summary Reporting System (SRS) and the newer National IncidentBased Reporting System (NIBRS). Law enforcement agencies that 

use the SRS provide data on reported crime offenses in the 10 crime 

categories.15 Law enforcement agencies opting to use the NIBRS can 

provide greater detail on a wider array of reported offenses than they 

can through the SRS, while still having the capability to report 

offenses in the 10 crime categories. According to the FBI, the UCR 

Program covers almost 98 percent of the American population.

 13For the purposes of this report, we refer to the collective reporting of crime statistics 

such as crime incidence, crime victimizations, crime rates, or crime prevalence as the 

magnitude of crime. However, there are important distinctions between the terms. For 

instance, the UCR focuses on crime incidence: the number of times in which a law 

enforcement agency reports a distinct crime event. The NCVS focuses on victimization 

rates, which measure the extent to which victimizations occur with a given time and 

population. When compared to incident rate, this accounts for a single incident that can 

have multiple victims. NCVS less frequently tracks crime prevalence, which measures the 

risk of experiencing at least one crime in a given period. When compared to crime 

incidence or victimization, prevalence does not measure the number of incidents or 

victimizations, but rather the chance of experiencing one crime, regardless of the count. 

14The latest annual publication of crime statistics was for crime committed in 2015. As of 

August 2017, FBI has provided preliminary figures for 2016 data. According to the FBI, 

2015 data were released in the fall of 2016. For more information on FBI’s 2015 crime 

statistics, visit: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015.

15The SRS also collects arrest information for an additional 20 crime types, including 

fraud, embezzlement, and vandalism, among others.

Crime Statistics in the 

United States

Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) 

Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program

The FBI has managed the UCR Program 

since its inception in 1930. According to the 

FBI, its UCR Program is the primary law 

enforcement national crime statistics program 

with over 18,000 city, county, 

university/college, state, federal, and tribal law 

enforcement agencies participating in the 

program. While participating in the UCR 

Program is voluntary, the FBI stated that the 

statistics from the program have become a 

vital tool for law enforcement agencies to help 

administer, operate, and manage their 

criminal justice functions. 

Source: GAO analysis of FBI information. I GAO-17-732
Page 9 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

• NCVS: The NCVS is a nationally representative household survey on 

crime victimization with the intent to capture those crimes not reported 

to police, in addition to reported crimes. To collect survey information, 

the BJS developed a series of questions for interviewers to ask of 

household members ages 12 and above. While varying definitions of 

certain crimes may affect how law enforcement agencies report them 

in the UCR Program, the NCVS avoids using crime-type labels and 

legalistic language as much as possible. Instead, survey respondents 

describe the contextual factors of an incident. BJS analysts use these 

contextual factors to estimate national crime victimization rates.16

Further, BJS designed the NCVS to be able to capture multiple 

elements of a crime, instead of information on the most severe 

offense. Whereas, based on the UCR SRS hierarchical coding rules, 

law enforcement agencies will only report a rape that occurred during 

a burglary as an incidence of rape in the SRS.17 However, the NCVS 

can identify multiple offenses that occur during one incident. Thus, the 

NCVS is less likely to underestimate crime rates for certain crime only 

because a crime occurred in conjunction with a more severe crime.18

BJS releases national crime victimization statistics from the NCVS in 

annual publications titled Criminal Victimization.

19

 16As an example, surveyors would ask a respondent whether an incident involved taking 

property and whether the perpetrator used violence to take the property. Using these 

responses, BJS analysts would assign a crime category based on the specific elements of 

the incident. The NCVS also collects information about the respondent’s expenses to 

recover from the incident, such as medical expenses related to a recorded incident.

17This is known as the Hierarchy Rule, which is used to determine the one—and only 

one—offense type that is recorded for a particular offense in the SRS. This order of 

offenses has been in place since they were presented in 1929, and states that when 

several offenses are committed by one person at the same time, law enforcement officials 

should identify the incident as the crime that comes first in the classification. NIBRS 

reporting does not use the hierarchy rule. However, for reporting and publication 

purposes, crime data from law enforcement agencies using NIBRS are converted or 

simplified, to SRS format. Since 2011, DOJ has also published a separate NIBRS report. 

This report is limited to the crimes reported by law enforcement in NIBRS, which for 2015 

was 28 percent of total reported crimes, and does not use the Hierarchy Rule.

18The public-use NCVS data file contains additional offense codes—as well as the 

attribute and variable data used to derive the type of crime codes—so that researchers, 

including cost of crime researchers, may examine and classify incidents in this flexible 

manner. However, for BJS reporting purposes, the single most serious offense is used for 

basic tabulation and presentation of the survey’s results. 

19The latest annual publication of crime victimization statistics was for crime committed in 

2015. For more information on BJS’s 2015 crime statistics, visit: 

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5804.

National Crime Victimization Survey 

(NCVS)

The NCVS was first administered in 1973. 

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 

manages the survey questions in the NCVS 

and publishes the findings from the survey. In 

the most recent year, about 95,800 

households and 163,900 persons 12 or older 

participated. Once selected, households 

remain in the sample for 3 years, and eligible 

persons in these households are interviewed 

every 6 months either in-person or over the 

phone for a total of seven interviews. BJS 

works in concert with the Bureau of the 

Census, which is the agency that administers 

the survey. BJS designed the survey to 

answer questions about the effectiveness of 

policing and law enforcement. It has been the 

basis for better understanding criminal 

victimization in the United States.

Over the years, NCVS has grown in its scope 

to collect information on different forms of 

victimization. For instance, in response to the 

Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act, 

Pub. L. No. 105-301, 112 Stat. 2838 (1998), 

the NCVS began producing measures of the 

nature of crimes against individuals with 

developmental disabilities. In the latest 

published survey administered in 2015, the 

NCVS identified 34 different crime types in 

general categories such as violent crime and 

property crime.

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ information. I GAO-17-732
Page 10 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

Based on a survey of experts associated with the cost of crime and a 

review of literature in the field, we found that there is no commonly used 

approach for estimating the costs of crime. We identified four primary 

methods to estimate costs. However, each method has limitations in its 

approach or with the usefulness of the estimates. In addition, some 

experts told us that current methodologies are inadequate to fully 

estimate costs. Further, researchers face numerous challenges in 

developing cost of crime estimates, such as estimating a value for 

intangible costs of crime. As a result of these challenges, research has 

produced widely varying estimates on the costs of crime.

According to 14 of 16 experts we surveyed that provided an opinion on 

the topic, there is no commonly used approach to estimate the cost of

crime in the United States. In addition, experts and studies identified 

limitations with the primary approaches for estimating costs.20

While researchers have used a variety of methods to estimate the costs 

of crime and overcome challenges with measuring certain costs, recent 

U.S. studies we reviewed focused primarily on four approaches.21

Research we reviewed and experts we surveyed identified examples of 

both benefits and limitations of each general approach, as discussed 

below.

Measuring crime’s economic effect on markets. This approach 

compares property values or wages across safer and less safe 

environments to determine how people implicitly value risk of injury or 

victimization to determine the effect crime has on market prices.22

 

20The numbers of experts who responded to survey questions varied because some 

chose not to respond to certain questions.

21While some estimates employed a single method, studies can combine more than one 

approach to estimate different elements of costs. Further, studies we reviewed and 

experts we surveyed identified other methods to estimate costs of crime in the United 

States that are not as commonly mentioned. For more information about our approach to 

identifying cost of crime methodologies, see app. III. 

22Studies may refer to this method as the hedonic analysis, or property value approach.

Researchers Use 

Differing Approaches 

and Face Numerous 

Challenges, Leading 

to Disagreement on 

Cost Estimates

There Is No Commonly 

Used Approach to 

Estimate Costs and 

Experts Have Identified 

Limitations with Primary 

Approaches

Our Approach: Surveying Experts on the 

Costs of Crime

To obtain expert views on different 

approaches and associated challenges 

estimating the costs of crime, we surveyed 20

experts from a range of disciplines that study 

crime and the costs and effects of crime, and 

17 responded. We solicited information from 

each expert separately and did not try to 

arrive at a consensus of views among the 

experts. Based on their responses, we 

identified (1) viewpoints on the dominant 

approaches to cost of crime research, and (2) 

the experts’ perspectives on the challenges 

facing cost of crime estimation efforts. We 

corroborated the expert’s opinion with 

information from the studies we reviewed. 

Source: GAO. I GAO-17-732

Cost Estimation Approaches
Page 11 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

• Benefits: Research studies we reviewed and the experts we 

surveyed noted that an advantage of this approach is that by 

looking at what the public has actually paid for real estate property 

or received in wages for riskier job occupations, the study’s results 

reflect market-based decisions. As a result, estimated costs 

correspond to people’s actual behaviors rather than how they may 

respond to a hypothetical scenario in a survey.

• Limitations: Critics observed that the differences in real estate 

values may reflect factors other than crime such as neighborhood 

socioeconomic status or the quality of schools, among others. In 

addition, they note that using this method may not estimate costs 

for crimes where the crime is widespread or conducted in virtual 

space, such as online fraud. Further, one study noted that those 

who select high-risk occupations may not be representative of the 

average individual and thus may have selected the occupation 

based on factors other than the risk of injury or death.23 Therefore, 

wages for these occupations may not reflect the value the general 

population places on injury or death. Also, one expert explained 

that this approach assumes that people have full information 

about crime risks in different neighborhoods or the risks 

associated with different occupations and have the ability to move 

or change jobs given those risks.

Using jury awards to estimate victimization costs. This approach 

uses jury awards in civil personal injury cases to derive a monetary 

value of intangible harms such as pain, suffering, and lost quality of 

life as a result of crime victimization.24

• Benefits: According to literature and experts, an advantage of 

this approach is that jury awards represent actual estimates of 

value to victims for specific crimes rather than responses to 

hypothetical scenarios.

• Limitations: Critics have cautioned that this approach may be 

unreliable because it is not clear that jury awards are 

consistent, unbiased across cases, or are representative of the 

damages incurred for every related crime. Further, they noted 

that jury awards are per victim and not necessarily per 

 23See Patricio Dominguez and Steven Raphael, “The Role of the Cost-of-Crime Literature 

in Bridging the Gap Between Social Science Research and Policy Making: Potentials and 

Limitations,” Criminology & Public Policy, vol. 14, no. 4 (2015). 

24Researchers may refer to jury award estimates as “willingness-to-accept” studies.
Page 12 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

victimization because victims may suffer multiple crimes or a 

repetition of the same crime. As a result, the awarded amount 

may not reflect a cost for one criminal act. Critics also 

mentioned that estimates using jury awards may include 

amounts where the crime committed was accidental or not 

intentional, even though the events may result in similar 

physical harms as a premeditated or intentional act—for 

instance a broken bone. However, as one study noted, 

individuals suffering harm from certain crimes may experience 

more psychological trauma from an intentional act than from 

an unpremeditated crime.

Using surveys to estimate what the public is willing to pay to 

reduce crime. This approach uses surveys to estimate the monetary 

value that respondents are willing to pay to achieve or avoid a certain 

outcome such as reducing neighborhood crime or avoiding death or 

disability.25 For example, a 2004 study asked survey respondents how 

much they would be willing to pay to reduce violent crimes in their 

community and found that households would pay an additional $100 

to $150 per year to reduce specific violent crimes—such as assault or 

armed robbery—by 10 percent.26

• Benefits: Studies and experts believe that this approach captures 

both tangible and intangible costs and estimates a total cost of a 

specific crime without the concern of overlapping cost categories 

(for instance, the possible overlap between pain and suffering 

costs and the costs related to psychological treatment after a 

crime). In addition, 6 of 14 experts who provided comment on this 

approach said it may provide accurate estimates under certain 

conditions when researchers design the survey carefully. Further, 

studies we reviewed consider this method to be closer to 

economic conditions because respondents are weighing their 

responses as they consider their own resources.

• Limitations: Critics of the method have stated that the approach 

may overestimate the cost of crime by looking at the self-reported, 

hypothetical preferences of the respondents rather than the 

actual, observable behavior where individuals must weigh their 

 25Studies may refer to this method as a contingent valuation or willingness-to-pay.

26See M. A. Cohen, R. T. Rust, S. Steen, S. T. Tidd, “Willingness-To-Pay for Crime 

Control Programs.” Criminology, vol. 42, no. 1 (2004).
Page 13 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

choices among competing demands and limited resources. In 

addition, according to some studies and experts, survey 

respondents’ perception of the risk of crime in their neighborhood 

may not align with the actual risk. As such, the amounts they are 

willing to pay to reduce crime may be higher than they would be if 

the respondents had a better understanding of the actual risk. 

Finally, the studies note that individuals’ willingness to pay to 

reduce crime may vary depending on respondents’ race or income 

level. Specifically, one 2004 study found that the willingness to 

pay was lower for low-income respondents, although they are at a 

higher risk of becoming a crime victim.27 The study concluded that 

the ability to pay and other factors outweighed fear of crime risk.

Calculating categories of costs separately to develop a total 

cost. This approach identifies the cost categories associated with one 

or multiple crimes—such as medical costs or criminal justice costs—

and estimates a monetary value for the individual cost categories to 

develop a total estimate, either by crime or for all crime.28 For 

example, researchers using this approach may estimate the cost of 

assault by identifying the various harms attributed to assault, such as 

physical injuries resulting from assaults. They then obtain data to 

measure the cost of identified harms, such as medical administrative 

data to estimate costs for treating injuries from an assault, or law 

enforcement agencies’ caseload information to estimate the costs for 

police to respond to and investigate assaults.

• Benefits: Experts and studies stated that this approach helps develop 

estimates for a variety of specific cost components, and allows 

researchers to estimate costs by crime as well as determine the total 

costs of crime. For example, of the 12 experts we surveyed who 

provided their opinion on the use of this method, 7 stated that it 

provides transparency and specificity in the types of costs included in 

the estimates.

• Limitations: Critics have stated that this approach may provide a 

limited view of the costs of crime and may exclude intangible costs 

such as fear of crime. Further, of the 12 experts we surveyed who 

provided comment on the use of this approach, 4 said its ability to 

 27See Cohen, et al., “Crime Control Programs.” 28Articles we reviewed may refer to this and related methods as a “bottom-up,”

accounting-based, cost-of-illness, or cost-of-injury approach, and methods that isolate 

smaller costs from broader expenditures or cost data as top-down.
Page 14 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

provide accurate and reliable estimates depend on certain conditions, 

such as clarity on what costs are and are not included.

Experts we surveyed indicated that there are longstanding divisions in the 

research community on how to approach estimating the cost of crime, in 

part because of the limitations associated with each method. For 

instance, 11 of the 14 experts we surveyed who commented on the 

reliability of at least one of the four approaches said that they had serious 

concerns with the reliability of one or more approaches to estimate costs. 

In addition, two experts indicated that the existing methods are so limited 

that the field may need an entirely new approach to estimating the cost of 

crime.

According to 8 of 10 experts we surveyed who responded to a question 

on crime statistics, limitations with determining the magnitude of crime 

made it more difficult to estimate the cost of crime. For instance, four 

experts stated that, generally, the limited scope of crime data can pose 

challenges to researchers’ cost of crime estimates. They also said that 

incomplete data on the magnitude of crime affected their ability to 

estimate the cost of crime.

Challenges Considering the 

Magnitude of Crime for

Estimating Costs
Page 15 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

In a recent report on modernizing crime statistics, the National Academies 

identified multiple limitations in the UCR Program and the NCVS.29 For 

example, the UCR Program and the NCVS focus on a more traditional 

conception of crime, and the definitions of crime used for collecting data 

have changed little since the programs were first established. For 

instance, while the National Academies report stated that the programs 

provide detailed information on “street crimes” – violent and property 

crime categories, they do not provide the same extent of information on 

other concepts of crime, such as white-collar or cyber-related crimes. The 

National Academies reported that the programs’ focus on street crime has 

limited the public’s perception of what constitutes a crime. Since, the UCR 

Program and the NCVS do not regularly report estimates on the 

magnitude of cybercrime, for instance, news media and policy makers 

may not consider cybercrime as concerning of a problem as street crime. 

However, our review of the research indicated that other crimes like 

cybercrime may occur frequently and could pose significant societal 

costs, but systematic information on these types of crimes is not 

available.

The National Academies report and experts we surveyed also identified 

limitations about how the UCR Program and the NCVS collect and report 

on crime statistics that may affect cost of crime estimates. For instance, 

the National Academies reported that while the UCR Program has a high 

overall participation rate from law enforcement agencies, individual 

agencies may not always provide responses for some crime types, such 

as arson, which makes estimates for these crimes less reliable.30 Experts 

 29The National Academies published the report at the request of the FBI and BJS for the 

purpose of making recommendations to help the federal government modernize its 

approach to collecting crime data. As a part of that report, the National Academies

identified limitations with the current set of crime statistics. According to FBI officials, the 

agency does not plan on responding to these recommendations until the National 

Academies’ publishes its final report.

30According to the FBI, the agency conducts analysis to reduce the effect of such 

nonresponse rates, such as using previous years’ estimates and estimates from similarlysized populations to attribute crime incidence for certain jurisdictions.

The Department of Justice Has Taken 

Steps To Improve its Crime Data 

Collections

• In 2016, the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) added two new fraud 

definitions—hacking and identity theft—

and one new location type—

cyberspace—to the National IncidentBased Reporting System (NIBRS) to 

address the growing concern of 

cybercrime. 

• Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) officials 

stated the agency is developing options to 

build out subnational estimates for the 

National Crime Victimization Survey, and 

will identify the feasibility of publishing 

subnational crime estimates at the end of 

fiscal year 2017.

• FBI and BJS stated that they are funding 

the expansion of the National Crime 

Statistics Exchange, a program expected 

to help 400 of the largest law enforcement 

agencies in the country implement NIBRS 

for reporting crime data that represent the 

vast majority of the population. FBI stated 

that they plan to phase out SRS and 

make NIBRS the primary system for 

reporting crime offenses by 2021. 

• Cost of crime experts stated that NIBRS 

provides more comprehensive crime 

information and expanding its usage 

could lead to better cost of crime 

estimates than using traditional UCR 

summary data. 

Source: DOJ agency documents and interviews with agency 

officials and cost of crime experts. I GAO-17-732
Page 16 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

we surveyed also identified some concern with the reliability of some 

UCR crime information.31

Further, the National Academies reported that while FBI’s UCR NIBRS 

program provides greater detail on crime incidence, law enforcement 

agencies have been slow to adopt the program’s standards. According to 

the FBI, only 28 percent of the total crimes reported in the UCR are from 

agencies using NIBRS standards.32 Therefore, researchers cannot use 

NIBRS data to estimate the magnitude of crime nationwide without using 

supplemental data sets. Specifically, the two cost of crime experts we 

surveyed who discussed NIBRS challenges stated that because NIBRS is 

not nationally generalizable, it has limited use for estimating costs.

Regarding the NCVS, the National Academies report and experts we 

surveyed stated that while the NCVS methodology provides national 

statistics, it has limited use when researchers want to develop state-level 

or other subnational cost estimates. This is because the NCVS is 

designed to provide national-level estimates, and is best suited for such 

analysis. However, cost of crime researchers value crime statistics that 

can provide more precise estimates of crime for studying state or other 

subnational costs.

Despite the challenges associated with determining the magnitude of 

crime, researchers have developed methods to use federal crime data in 

some cost of crime estimates. Specifically, all nine experts we surveyed 

who provided a response stated that the cost of crime literature has 

developed methods for addressing and mitigating concerns when using 

the crime data. Based on information from these experts and our review 

 31Seven out of nine experts who responded believed that UCR Program data on violent 

crime—specifically homicide—were more reliable than other crime types. Three experts 

attributed this greater reliability in reporting to the seriousness of the crime. Also, three 

experts reported that crime level data for certain crimes were less reliable when used for 

cost of crime estimates. For example, two experts stated that sexual assault data were 

unreliable due to perceived underreporting of such crimes. Another expert stated that 

certain misdemeanors were less reliable due to perceived discrepancies in crime 

definitions among different law enforcement jurisdictions and ultimately what law 

enforcement agencies choose to report. 

32DOJ identified several reasons why law enforcement agencies might not report crime 

data using NIBRS standards, including law enforcement agency’s limited budgetary 

resources to implement a new system, a lack of training, and the perceived notion that the 

agency’s crime count will rise. 
Page 17 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

of the cost of crime literature, we identified three general approaches to 

address limitations with crime data:

• Using multiple datasets: In our analysis of crime estimates, we 

found examples of researchers using multiple data sources to identify 

crime rate and severity. For instance, in one estimate on career 

criminal costs, a researcher conducted offender surveys and 

supplemented information from criminals’ rap sheets to estimate all 

crimes committed for each offender in the study.33 In another example 

that estimated the cost of intimate partner violence, researchers used 

information from the National Violence Against Woman Survey, UCR 

information, and U.S. Census population data to estimate crime 

rates.34

• Employing various methodological techniques: Estimates may 

use different techniques to overcome challenges in the magnitude of 

crime. For instance, one expert we surveyed multiplied victimization 

rates estimated using victim surveys to fill perceived gaps in policereported crime incidence data. Another study estimated fatal crimes 

by reviewing national vital statistics instead of UCR homicide 

information.35 In addition, two experts we surveyed stated that some 

methodological approaches may not require crime magnitude data to 

generate estimates. For example, one expert stated that many studies 

that use surveys to estimate the public’s willingness to pay to reduce 

crime develop their estimates on the basis of the public’s perception 

of crime and not the actual magnitude of crime. For instance, 

researchers who conduct some public surveys may not inform the 

respondents about the actual crime rates. However, they ask 

respondents what they are willing to pay for a 10 percent decrease in 

crime and rely on the individual respondents to infer what the 

magnitude of crime may be.

• Communicating assumptions: Research articles regularly 

communicate data limitations about the approach and assumptions 

they used in the study. One expert we surveyed indicated that 

researchers must clearly communicate their assumptions when 

developing estimates. Doing so makes it easier for other researchers 

 33Matt DeLisi and Jewel M. Gatling, “Who Pays for a Life of Crime? An Empirical 

Assessment of the Assorted Victimization Costs Posed by Career Criminals,” Criminal 

Justice Studies, vol. 16, no. 4 (2003).

34CDC, Costs of Intimate Partner Violence. 

35Miller, et al., Victim Costs and Consequences. 
Page 18 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

to test these assumptions and refine their methods in future cost 

estimates. For instance, one article studying juvenile crime costs in 

urban areas reported that, in order to use a specific dataset to 

estimate crime among children ages 7 to 17, researchers assumed 

that the severity of assaults committed by juveniles is equal to the 

average severity of assaults in general, including assaults committed 

by adults.36 However, the authors point out evidence that the severity 

for younger children may be more limited compared to other age 

groups and adults. By providing the assumptions underlying cost of 

crime estimates, future researchers can test accuracy of the estimates 

and determine how limitations may be overcome.

We identified various challenges with estimating the costs of the effects of 

crime. Specifically, 5 of 16 experts we surveyed argued and the research 

we reviewed confirmed that the lack of reliable data is a key issue that 

challenges researchers’ ability to monetize costs. For instance, our review 

found that often researchers focused on certain costs because data were 

available to estimate them. However, the studies often stated that the 

estimated monetized value excluded certain crimes or certain types of 

costs because researchers believed they could not estimate such costs 

reliably. As a result, much of the research noted that the identified costs 

were likely underestimates of the total monetized value of crime.

Based on both our review of the literature and information provided by 

experts, estimating the intangible costs of crime is conceptually more 

difficult than estimating the tangible costs. For instance, 8 of 15 experts 

we surveyed agreed that estimates of tangible costs are more accurate 

and reliable compared to intangible costs. However, a common concern 

in our review of cost estimate studies was that research must consider 

the intangible costs of crime because they are likely much greater than 

the tangible costs.

While researchers believed that estimating intangible costs is important, 

we found that the research community is divided about which methods to 

use and whether identified methods may accurately estimate intangible 

costs. For example, we found in our literature review objections to using 

jury awards altogether because awards from juries did not adequately 

conform to market rules. For instance, jury awards did not consider 

 36Brandon C. Welsh, Rolf Loeber, Bradley R. Stevens, Magda Southamer-Loeber, Mark 

A. Cohen, and David P. Farrington, “Cost of Juvenile Crime in Urban Areas: A 

Longitudinal Perspective,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, vol. 6 , no. 3 (2008). 

Challenges Monetizing Costs

Distinction Between Tangible and 

Intangible Costs of Crime

Tangible costs: A measure of the negative 

effect of crime where the amount represents a 

good or service with an existing market value. 

Examples of tangible costs include medical 

treatment from injuries, the value of replacing 

damaged or stolen property, or lost wages 

because of missed workdays.

Intangible costs: A measure of the negative 

effect of crime for which there is no existing 

market to buy or trade such effects. Examples 

of intangible costs include pain and suffering, 

lost quality of life, and avoiding otherwise 

enjoyable activities or places.

Source: GAO. I GAO-17-732
Page 19 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

scarcity of resources like a common market would. Researchers have 

also criticized using jury awards because awards are likely not 

determined when the crime occurred or may have been awarded to have 

a punitive effect rather than just to compensate victims. Further, of the 13 

experts surveyed who provided their opinion on the use of this method, 8 

stated that jury awards are not generalizable and may be biased based 

on factors that are not related to the crime—for instance, the race of the 

victim or defendant, or the expertise of the defense or prosecution. They 

said that such bias should be excluded when estimating the cost of a 

victim’s pain and suffering.37

 37One expert noted that while estimates from jury award methods may be biased because 

of these factors, researchers attempt to control for these factors using regression analysis 

and other methods to arrive at more typical “average” awards.
Page 20 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

Our literature review found that certain tangible costs can be a challenge 

to estimate because of the lack of sufficiently reliable data. For example, 

one study found that there is limited information about victims’ out-ofpocket expenses resulting from crime they experienced.38 Specifically, the 

study found that the NCVS was the primary source of information for 

researchers to estimate victims’ out-of-pocket expenses. However, the 

NCVS only collects information on victim expenses incurred over the 

course of the 6 months prior to the time being surveyed. As a result, 

NCVS reports would likely only include short-term expenses and would 

not capture costs such as long-term mental health care or expenses 

incurred to avoid further victimization, which could be substantial. Thus, 

researchers would need to identify additional sources of information to

calculate longer term out-of-pocket expenses for victims.

To mitigate the various challenges and limitations with certain methods 

and data sources, researchers conduct numerous steps and use differing 

approaches to estimate difficult costs, such as psychological injury (see 

text box). As researchers increase steps and assumptions in their 

methodologies, they add more complexity and wider levels of uncertainty. 

As a result of this uncertainty, researchers may develop cost estimates 

with wide ranges that are highly sensitive to changes in those 

assumptions. For example, one study estimated the annual cost of 

premature death from methamphetamine usage at about $4.9 billion.39

However, the research indicates that the costs could be between $876 

million and $14.3 billion when considering uncertainties with each 

assumption in the estimate. In other words, while the study found the cost 

of premature death from methamphetamine usage was $4.9 billion, the 

real cost could be about 20 percent of this amount, or it could be almost 3 

times larger than estimated. See figure 2 below.

 38Mark A. Cohen, “Measuring the Costs and Benefits of Crime and Justice,” Criminal 

Justice 2000, vol. 4: Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice, (Washington, DC: 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, July 2000).

39Nancy Nicosia, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Beau Kilmer, Russell Lundberg, and James 

Chiesa, The Economic Cost of Methamphetamine Use in the United States, 2005 (Santa 

Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 2009).

Limited data to estimate the cost of 

psychological injury

Studies we reviewed identified psychological 

injury as a cost that is difficult to estimate and 

needs additional research. Often, research 

found that available estimates exclude certain 

psychological effects where available data are 

limited or nonexistent.

Example of limitation estimating intangible 

costs:

• Pain and suffering. Researchers have 

raised concerns that cost estimates of 

victim pain and suffering may exclude 

certain psychological harms of crime, 

such as fear in the community. One article 

noted that fear in the community might be 

one of the largest costs of crime.

Examples of limitations estimating 

tangible costs:

• No national database. Studies 

suggested that there is no national 

database that collects information on 

psychological harm. In addition, while the 

National Crime Victimization Survey 

collects medical cost information for 

physical injuries, it does not cover mental 

health treatment.

• Excluding certain affected populations. 

Studies may rely on non-representative 

sampling and self-reported information 

that may affect the reliability of the 

estimate. For example, one 2003 study 

we reviewed focused only on the cost of 

intimate partner violence to women, 

because the study determined such data 

for the cost to men was unreliable. 

Therefore, the total costs were likely an 

underestimate.

Source: GAO analysis of selected studies and survey of 

subject matter experts. I GAO-17-732
Page 21 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

Figure 2: Complexity of Estimating the Cost of Premature Death from Methamphetamine Use

Researchers have disagreed on the most appropriate ways to estimate 

costs because, as previously stated, some costs are difficult to monetize. 

Such disagreement and the use of extensively different sets of 

methodologies and assumptions result in widely ranging estimates on 

costs. Further, researchers include different types of costs in their 

estimates. For example in figure 3, we selected seven studies from our 

literature review that estimated costs related to fatal crime. Each study 

has a different purpose and employs differing methods, data, and 

assumption. Hence, estimates for fatal crimes ranged from about 

$580,000 to about $19.4 million in six of the articles, either per 

victimization or per crime conducted by a career criminal. In addition, the 

seventh study focused on a single cost category, specifically the mental 

health costs to treat affected loved ones or witnesses of murder.

Disagreement on How to 

Address Challenges 

Estimating the Costs of 

Crime Leads to Varying 

Estimates of Costs
Page 22 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

Figure 3: Cost Estimates, Methodology, and Focus of Who Bears the Cost of Fatal Crimes in Select Research

a

Tangible costs are those where one can estimate an amount by observing a product or service 

transaction in response or in anticipation of criminal activity. Intangible costs are negative effects of 
Page 23 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

crime but where there are no directly observed market values, such as lost quality of life. If an 

estimate only calculated tangible costs, the amount appears in the left-hand portion of the estimated 

cost column.

b

Per victimization costs refer to the effects of crime imposed on one victim during one incident. One 

crime may have multiple victims or offenders. Per career criminal costs refer to costs imposed by one 

criminal in the span of his or her life as a criminal. Per victim costs refer to costs imposed on a victim, 

regardless of incidents or crimes.

c

For those estimates where the study methodology identified a total cost that did not distinguish 

between tangible and intangible costs—such as with contingent valuation surveys—the calculated 

amount is listed as a single figure that includes both tangible and intangible costs.

Experts GAO surveyed generally agreed that it is difficult to measure the 

cost of crime precisely. However, in response to our findings on the 

differing estimates on the costs of crime, two experts noted that while cost 

of crime estimates vary widely, the range in estimates does not 

necessarily indicate that the studies are either flawed or unreliable for 

their purposes or for policymaking. For instance, estimates on the cost 

per homicide vary, as noted above. However, the estimated costs for 

homicide generally confirm that cost per crime is in the millions of dollars, 

even when researchers use unrelated methodologies to develop their 

estimates. Additionally, one expert noted that despite using different 

methods to estimate the costs of crime, he believes there is general 

agreement about which crimes cost more based on their severity—that is 

crimes like murder, aggravated assault, and rape, are generally more 

expensive than crimes like burglary and vehicle theft. Moreover, another

expert stated that estimates of certain costs of crime such as intangible 

costs are subjective in nature. One expert also indicated that, although 

cost estimates can vary widely, they can still be useful for researchers 

and other users, as long as the estimates carefully describe what the 

costs represent—including the units of analysis—and users are mindful of 

the limitations associated with the methodologies and assumptions used 

to develop the estimates.

Experts we surveyed for this report provided five broad topic areas that 

may help improve the understanding of the cost of crime. They stated that 

there is growing interest in researching additional topics, such as the 

costs of incarceration. Further, experts noted that researchers could 

refine their estimates by combining different methodological approaches. 

Experts also stated that researchers and policymakers should avoid 

viewing the cost of crime in isolation from specific policy goals or 

scenarios. Rather, experts stated that researchers and policymakers 

should view the cost of crime under different policy scenarios to help 

policymakers determine how to achieve the desired outcomes and 

efficiently use limited resources.

Experts Identified 

Approaches that 

Could Improve the 

Understanding of the 

Cost of Crime and Its 

Use in Policy 

Discussions
Page 24 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

As part of our survey, we asked all 17 experts to independently identify 

topics of interest that they believed needed additional research or 

methods to improve estimates of the cost of crime. The experts we 

surveyed have expertise in a range of disciplines and fields of study and, 

as such, volunteered topics of interest based on their own unique 

perspectives of the cost of crime. We did not try to arrive at a consensus 

among the experts.

These additional topics included the following:

Cost of crimes not traditionally reported in the FBI’s UCR.

According to studies we reviewed, researchers have primarily 

studied the costs associated with street crimes reported in the 

traditional UCR SRS. One expert noted that the standardized 

definition of these crimes across the United States helps improve 

the accuracy of the cost estimates for these crimes. However, six 

experts we surveyed said that cost of crime research should 

expand to study the costs of other crimes not captured in the 

traditional UCR system, such as unlawful drug use, regulatory 

offenses, cybercrime, and white-collar crime.40 Three of these 

experts said that the challenge estimating the cost of these crimes 

is the lack of data on the magnitude of these crimes. For instance, 

while one researcher conjectured that white-collar crime could 

cost more than all street crime, according to studies we reviewed, 

little is known about the cost of white-collar crimes. One study 

indicated that while such economic crimes have serious 

consequences that far exceed the financial dollar loss, there is 

little systematic evidence about the magnitude of these losses.41

Further, according to another study we reviewed, criminal activity 

 40Regulatory crimes include acts against financial or environmental regulations.

Cybercrimes include computer and network intrusions and ransomware attacks. White 

collar crimes include fraud and identity theft. According to DOJ, NIBRS has had the 

means to report on some white collar crimes since its inception, such as wire fraud, 

extortion, and bribery, among others. In 2015, FBI updated the white collar crimes 

collected in FBI’s NIBRS to include new categories of cybercrime such as identity theft 

(e.g., wrongfully obtaining and using another person’s personal data like name, date of 

birth, Social Security number, driver’s license, credit card number); and hacking (e.g., 

wrongfully gaining access to another person’s or institution’s computer software, or 

networks without authorized permissions or security clearances).

41Mark A. Cohen, Willingness to Pay to Reduce White Collar and Corporate Crime, 

(SSRN, May 20, 2015), accessed July 20, 2017, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2486220; and 

Mark A.R. Kleiman, Jonathan P. Caulkins, and Peter Gehred, Measuring the Costs of 

Crime, (National Criminal Justice Reference Service, April 2014).

Experts Identified 

Additional Topics and 

Methods that Cost of 

Crime Researchers 

Should Explore
Page 25 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

has evolved with technological advancements, such as the 

widespread use of the Internet.42 Internet-perpetrated crimes like 

credit card theft and cyber attacks on computer infrastructure 

present unique challenges that require researchers to develop 

different approaches to analyzing the magnitude of these crimes 

and estimating their cost. For example, Internet-perpetrated 

crimes may require separate counts of offenders, victims, and

financial losses because a few offenders can potentially affect 

millions of victims in one coordinated attack, such as when a 

security breach occurs and personal information is stolen.43

Cost of punishment and incarceration. Seven experts we 

surveyed identified the cost of punishment and incarceration upon 

the offender, the offender’s family, and the offender’s children as a 

significant cost to society that needs to be better understood. 

Experts also identified these costs as a growing area of interest to 

researchers. In our review of research studies, we found that 

researchers have historically focused on estimated costs that 

were a direct consequence of a crime, such as victimization costs 

or the amount spent on the corrections system. According to one 

of the studies, previous estimates of the cost of incarceration have 

only included the cost of administering the corrections systems, 

such as how much it costs to run a prison. Only recently have 

researchers turned to estimating additional categories of costs

associated with incarceration, including

• Costs to the offender: these include the effects of incarceration 

on an offender’s health, employment, and earnings after being 

released from prison;

• Costs to the offender’s family: these include the loss of income 

due to incarceration and the impact upon the offender’s family 

in terms of housing stability and reliance on public assistance; 

and

• Costs to the offender’s children: these include the 

intergenerational costs such as potential increased criminal 

 42Maria Tcherni, Andrew Lucas Blaize Davies, Giza Lopes, and Alan Lizotte. “The Dark 

Figure of Online Property Crime: Is Cyberspace Hiding a Crime Wave?” Justice Quarterly, 

vol. 33, no. 5 (2016). 

43According to the FBI, as part of its crime data modernization efforts, it intends to include 

white collar crime and cybercrime in future crime publications. 
Page 26 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

activity and lowered educational attainment for children who 

had incarcerated parents.

According to six experts we surveyed and studies we reviewed, 

these spillover costs of incarceration may be substantial, and 

ignoring them can lead to underestimating the cost of crime and 

the cost of incarceration.44 Further, these studies and two of the 

experts mentioned that policymakers should incorporate the full 

cost of incarceration, which includes the cost to offenders and the 

offender’s families, while weighing the costs and benefits of 

criminal justice policies and alternatives, such as setting prisonsentencing guidelines.

Cost of recidivism. According to the research we reviewed on 

the cost of recidivating offenders, there are few studies available 

on the monetary costs of crimes committed by released inmates.45

However, other aspects of recidivism are more well known, such 

as predictors of recidivism and options to improve the outcomes of 

former inmates to reduce recidivism. One expert we surveyed said 

it is important to understand the cost of recidivating offenders 

within the context of what type of conditions the recidivating 

offender was released (e.g., parole supervision or unconditional 

release) to help evaluate the effectiveness of interventions. 

Another expert said that estimating recidivism costs is important to 

help measure the effect that different interventions may have on 

reintegrating former inmates into society and reducing the costs of 

further criminal activity from released inmates. Further, one expert 

said it is important to understand common characteristics among 

offenders that lead to higher crime costs over the course of their 

lives so that society can intervene early and prevent these costs 

from occurring. For example, we identified in our literature review 

that some repeat offenders, referred to as career criminals, are 

 44Michael McLaughlin, Carrie Pettus-Davis, Derek Brown, Chris Veeh, and Tanya Renn. 

The Economic Burden of Incarceration in the U.S. Concordance Institute for Advancing 

Social Justice Working Paper #CI072016. St. Louis, Mo: Washington University, 2016; 

and Executive Office of the President of the United States, Council of Economic Advisers. 

Economic Perspectives on Incarceration and the Criminal Justice System (Washington, 

D.C.: April 2016).

45To consider recidivism in our study, we asked DOJ officials and experts to provide 

articles that estimate costs associated with recidivism. We identified two articles to include 

in our analysis. See DeLisi and Gatling, “Who Pays for a Life of Crime?”; and M. 

Ostermann and J. Caplan, “How Much do the Crimes Committed By Released Inmates 

Cost?” Crime & Delinquency, vol. 62, no. 5 (2016). 

Defining Recidivism

Recidivism refers to a person’s relapse into 

criminal behavior, often after the person 

received sanctions or undergoes intervention 

for a previous crime, such as imprisonment. 

Recidivism is measured by criminal acts that 

resulted in rearrest, reconviction, or return to 

prison with or without a new sentence during 

a three-year period following the prisoner's 

release. 

Department of Justice studies have found 

high rates of recidivism among released 

prisoners. For example, one study found that 

about two-thirds of released prisoners were 

rearrested within 3 years of release. Nonviolent offenders were the most likely to be 

rearrested. 

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Justice. I GAO-17-732
Page 27 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

responsible for a significant portion of the cost of crime compared 

to first-time offenders.46

Cost of potential bias in the administration of justice. Four 

experts we surveyed independently identified the need to better 

understand the cost of potential racial and socioeconomic bias in 

the administration of justice, such as the cost to society of racial 

bias in who is incarcerated or comes into contact with the criminal 

justice system. Research studies identified by DOJ or experts we 

surveyed indicate that there is a significant cost resulting from 

such bias. For example, according to these studies, racial 

minorities—namely black and Hispanic people—disproportionately 

come into contact with police and are incarcerated compared to 

non-Hispanic white people.47 These research studies also stated 

that increased criminal justice system contact is associated with 

lower levels of political participation, family stability, high school 

completion, and future earnings, which can further marginalize 

these minority groups.

Uncertainty of cost of crime estimates. Three experts we 

surveyed said that the research community should exert greater 

effort into estimating the uncertainty of cost of crime estimates, 

such as confidence intervals or standard error estimates. 

According to studies we reviewed, most cost of crime estimates 

are a single dollar value without a range to show the associated 

uncertainty of the estimate. However, both experts and our review 

of research point to considerable uncertainty for some cost 

estimates, such as the estimated dollar value of a victim’s pain 

and suffering. One expert said that a cost of crime estimate 

without a range—such as a confidence interval—gives a false 

appearance of accuracy.

 46DeLisi and Gatling, “Who Pays for a Life of Crime?”

47See Executive Office of the President, Council of Economic Advisors, Economic 

Perspectives on Incarceration and the Criminal Justice System, (Washington, D.C.: April 

2016); and National Research Council, Committee on Causes and Consequences of High 

Rates of Incarceration, The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring 

Causes and Consequences, (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2014).

Incarceration Rates Among Different 

Racial Groups

According to Department of Justice data, 

there are differences in the incarceration rates 

for black, Hispanic, and white people. The 

National Academies of Sciences reported that 

there are several factors contributing to the 

difference, including higher rates of poverty 

and urbanization and a younger age 

distribution for black and Hispanic 

communities. In addition, research suggests 

that racial and ethnic bias persists, and that 

small but systematic biases at several stages 

of the criminal justice system have contributed 

to higher incarceration rates. For example, 

research studies show that even with 

comparable criminal records and criminal

offenses, blacks have higher arrest rates for 

drug offenses and are charged and sentenced 

more severely than whites.

Incarceration rate of persons under the 

jurisdiction of state or federal correctional 

authorities per 100,000 U.S. residents age 

18 or older, by race and Hispanic origin

Note: White and Black categories exclude people of Hispanic 

origin or those of two or more races.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics; GAO analysis of 

selected research studies. | GAO-17-732
Page 28 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

The experts we surveyed also described data and methods to improve 

estimates of the cost of crime:

Better incorporating existing data in approaches to estimate 

costs. Three experts we surveyed pointed out existing available 

data sets, such as the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 

which could be used for further research on the costs of drugrelated crime and the health costs of incarceration. Two experts 

also suggested that researchers could make better use of 

government and organizational administrative data, such as 

budgets for police departments, prisons, and courts, to estimate 

the taxpayer and government costs of crime. These data provide 

direct estimates of the costs of crime related to government 

spending.

Improving existing methods. Experts we surveyed identified 

ways to improve upon existing methods currently used to estimate 

the cost of crime. Specifically, two experts described new survey 

approaches such as leveraging federal jury pools as survey 

respondents or adding questions to existing national surveys to 

better understand the effect of crime and recidivism on offenders’

health and the utilization of the public health systems. Another 

expert suggested combining methods and data, such as 

combining survey information with government budget data, to 

improve the accuracy of cost of crime estimates. Another expert 

suggested that researchers should take advantage of studying 

states or other jurisdictions as they change criminal justice policies 

or when they start new crime reduction or prevention programs in 

order to help refine estimates of the cost of crime. For instance, 

researchers could measure the effects and associated costs when 

a municipality establishes a new prisoner reentry program. Last, 

three experts suggested establishing a process, such as a federal 

agency initiating a competition or commissioning a broad group of 

experts, to develop new ideas and methods for estimating the cost 

of crime.

Establishing an authoritative organization. Two experts we 

surveyed suggested establishing an authoritative organization, 

such as a standing science advisory committee or an ongoing 

panel of experts, to provide guidance and best practices on 

estimating the cost of crime or to rethink and improve upon the 

current standards for estimating the cost of crime. One of these 

experts indicated that this type of authoritative organization may 
Page 29 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

be able to help resolve the debate, as mentioned previously, over 

the validity of methods used to estimate the costs of crime.

According to experts we surveyed and studies we reviewed, estimating 

the cost of crime without a specific policy context may not be especially 

helpful. Rather, three experts stressed the importance of using estimates 

of the cost of crime within the context of comparing alternative policies to 

achieve public policy outcomes, such as comparing the costs and 

benefits of releasing inmates to paroled supervision versus unconditional 

release to help reintegrate former inmates into society. Of the 12 experts 

who discussed the utility of cost of crime research to policymaking, 10 

experts believed that comparing the costs or costs and benefits of 

criminal justice policies could be useful to policymakers. However, three 

experts expressed reservations due to the lack of accuracy or omission of 

certain costs of crime, such as estimates of the intangible costs of crime 

or the cost of incarceration.

One expert discussed how the state of Washington has funded 

researchers to estimate costs of crime and use these costs to help 

evaluate criminal justice policy alternatives.48 Policymakers then used the 

evaluation results to inform their decision on which programs to fund in 

order to achieve the desired policy outcome, such as reducing juvenile 

crime, among others. This expert stressed the importance of using a 

standardized, consistent method to estimate the costs of crime and 

program benefits because it allows policymakers to review internally 

consistent estimates, or do an “apples-to-apples” comparison among the 

programs in question, when deciding on how to allocate limited 

government funds. See figure 4 below for information on how the state of 

Washington has used cost of crime estimates to evaluate policy 

alternatives.

 48According to one expert, other research studies where cost of crime estimates have 

been used to evaluate criminal justice policies include: John Donohue, “Assessing the 

Relative Benefits of Incarceration: The Overall Change Over the Previous Decades and 

the Benefits on the Margin,” Do Prisons Make Us Safer? The Benefits and Costs of the 

Prison Boom, eds. Steven Raphael and Michael Stoll (New York: Russell Safe 

Foundation, 2009); and John Donohue and Peter Siegleman, “Allocating Resources 

Among Prisons and Social Programs in the Battle Against Crime,” The Journal of Legal 

Studies, vol. 27, no. 1 (January 1998). 

Experts Identified the 

Need to Link Cost of 

Crime Estimates to 

Specific Policies
Page 30 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

Figure 4: Using Cost of Crime Estimates to Evaluate the Costs and Benefits of Criminal Justice Policy for the State of 

Washington

a

WSIPP is governed by directors representing both major political parties in the state legislature, the 

governor, and state public universities.

b

Cost-benefit analysis is a method used in public policy to identify effective policy options and to 

decide between policy alternatives. Cost-benefit analysis calculates the dollar value of the benefits 

and costs of a program, so that the net economic benefit (or cost) of a program is known. Another 

method used in public policy is called a “cost-effectiveness analysis”. The cost-effectiveness method 

estimates the cost of achieving an outcome, such as the cost per avoided crime and can help 

determine the cheapest way to achieve a desired outcome.
Page 31 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

We provided a draft of this report to DOJ for review and comment. DOJ 

provided technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General,

appropriate congressional committees and members, and other 

interested parties. In addition, this report is available at no charge on 

GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions, please contact Diana Maurer at 

(202) 512-8777 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff that made significant contributions to this report

are listed in appendix V.

Diana Maurer

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 32 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

List of Addressees

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

The Honorable Tom Cotton

United States Senate

The Honorable Orrin Hatch

United States Senate

The Honorable David Perdue

United States Senate

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte

Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

The Honorable Steve King

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Experts Consulted to Provide 

Views on Cost of Crime Research

Page 33 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

Name Affiliation Discipline

Steve Aos Washington State Institute of Public Policy 

(retired)

Public policy, economics, national and state 

benefit cost analysis

Mark A. Cohen, Ph.D. Vanderbilt University Economics, costs of crime and justice, benefit cost 

analysis 

Paul Heaton, Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania

Law School

Economics, application of economics to criminal 

law, policy evaluation

Michael Jacobson, Ph.D. City University of New York Institute for State 

and Local Governance

Mass incarceration and crime reduction, public 

safety and justice, public finance

Charles F. Manski, Ph.D. Northwestern University Economics and public policy

Michelle L. Maroto, Ph.D. University of Alberta Sociology, inequality and social policy, 

quantitative and qualitative methods

Daniel S. Nagin, Ph.D. Carnegie Mellon University Public policy and statistics, criminology, deterrent 

effect of criminal and non-criminal penalties on 

illegal behavior

Stan Orchowsky, Ph.D. Justice Research and Statistics Association Sociology and Psychology, Statistics

Michael Ostermann, Ph.D. Rutgers University Criminal justice, evidence-based crime policy, 

program evaluation of post-incarceration

programs and recidivism

Emily G. Owens, Ph.D. University of California, Irvine Criminology, economics of crime (e.g., policing, 

sentencing, and local policies’ effect on criminal 

behavior)

Steven Raphael, Ph.D. University of California, Berkeley Economics, public policy, crime and corrections, 

mental health and corrections

Josiah D. Rich, MD, MPH Brown University Medicine, epidemiology, public health, criminal 

justice, disadvantaged populations and substance 

abuse

Sally S. Simpson, Ph.D. University of Maryland Corporate and white-collar crime, willingness to 

pay for white collar crime control

Bryan L. Sykes, Ph.D. University of California, Irvine Criminology, demography, sociology, law and 

society, long term consequences of criminal 

justice contact

Emily Wang, MD Yale School of Medicine Public health, effects of incarceration on health

Brandon C. Welsh, Ph.D. Northeastern University Criminology, prevention of delinquency and crime, 

evidence-based social policy

Christopher Wildeman, Ph.D. Cornell University Sociology, demography, policy analysis, child 

welfare and mass incarceration.

Source: GAO. | GAO-17-732

Appendix I: Experts Consulted to Provide 

Views on Cost of Crime Research
Appendix II: Bibliography of Research on the 

Cost of Crime

Page 34 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

We reviewed and analyzed 27 research studies on estimating the cost of 

crime in the United States, published from 1996 to April 2017.1 We used 

these studies to identify commonly used approaches and methodologies 

for estimating cost of crime as well as the benefits, challenges, and 

limitations associated with estimating costs.

Anderson, David A. “The Cost of Crime.” Foundations and Trends in 

Microeconomics, vol. 7 no. 3 (2012): 209-265.

Caulkins, Jonathan P., and Mark A.R. Kleiman. How Much Crime Is DrugRelated? History, Limitations, and Potential Improvements of Estimation 

Methods. National Criminal Justice Reference Service, April 2014. 

Accessed July 20, 2017. 

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=268491.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Injury 

Prevention and Control. Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against 

Women in the United States. Atlanta, GA: 2003.

Chalfin, Aaron. “The Economic Costs of Crime.” The Encyclopedia of 

Crime and Punishment, 2015: 1-12.

Cohen, Mark A. “Measuring the Costs and Benefits of Crime and Justice.”

Criminal Justice 2000, Volume 4: Measurement and Analysis of Crime 

and Justice. U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. 

Washington, DC: July 2000, 263-315.

Cohen, Mark A. The “Cost of Crime” and Benefit-Cost Analysis of 

Criminal Justice Policy: Understanding and Improving Upon the State-ofThe-Art. SSRN. September 2016. Accessed July 20, 2017. 

https://ssrn.com/abstract=2832944.

Cohen, Mark A. Willingness to Pay to Reduce White Collar and Corporate 

Crime. May 2015. SSRN. Accessed July 20, 2017. 

https://ssrn.com/abstract=2486220.

 1

We conducted our original literature search in October 2016. We also requested research 

from the experts identified in app. I. We received their literature recommendations by April 

2017.

Appendix II: Bibliography of Research on the 

Cost of Crime
Appendix II: Bibliography of Research on the 

Cost of Crime

Page 35 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

Cohen, Mark A. and Ted R. Miller. “The Cost of Mental Health Care for 

Victims of Crime.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 13, no. 1 

(February 1998): 93-110.

Cohen, Mark A., Roland T. Rust, Sara Steen, and Simon T. Tidd. 

“Willingness-To-Pay for Crime Control Programs.” Criminology, vol. 42, 

no. 1 (2004): 89-109.

DeLisi, Matt, and Jewel M. Gatling. “Who Pays for a Life of Crime? An 

Empirical Assessment of the Assorted Victimization Costs Posed by 

Career Criminals.” Criminal Justice Studies, vol. 16, no. 4 (2003): 283-

293.

DeLisi, Matt, Anna Kosloski, Molly Sween, Emily Hachmeister, Matt 

Moore, and Alan Drury. “Murder by Numbers: Monetary Costs Imposed 

by a Sample of Homicide Offenders.” The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 

& Psychology, vol. 21, no. 4 (2010): 501-513.

Dominguez, Patricio, and Steven Raphael. “The Role of the Cost-ofCrime Literature in Bridging the Gap Between Social Science Research 

and Policy Making: Potentials and Limitations.” Criminology & Public 

Policy, vol. 14, no. 4 (2015): 589-632.

Executive Office of the President of the United States. Council of 

Economic Advisers. Economic Perspectives on Incarceration and the 

Criminal Justice System. Washington, D.C.: April 2016.

Finklea, Kristin M. “Organized Retail Crime.” Journal of Current Issues in 

Crime, Law and Law Enforcement, vol. 5, no. 3 (2012): 163-187.

Hunt, Priscillia, James Anderson, and Jessica Saunders. “The Price of 

Justice: New National and State-Level Estimates of the Judicial and Legal 

Costs of Crime to Taxpayers.” American Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 

42, no. 2 (June 2017): 231-254.

Kleiman, Mark A.R., Jonathan P. Caulkins, and Peter Gehred. Measuring 

the Costs of Crime. National Criminal Justice Reference Service. April 

2014. Accessed July 20, 2017. 

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=268492.
Appendix II: Bibliography of Research on the 

Cost of Crime

Page 36 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

Linden, Leigh L., and Jonah E. Rockoff. There Goes the Neighborhood? 

Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values from Megan’s 

Laws. Working Paper 12253 Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of 

Economic Research, May 2006.

McLaughlin, Michael, Carrie Pettus-Davis, Derek Brown, Chris Veeh, and 

Tanya Renn. The Economic Burden of Incarceration in the U.S. 

Concordance Institute for Advancing Social Justice Working Paper 

#CI072016. St. Louis, MO: Washington University, 2016.

McCollister, Kathryn E., Michael T. French, and Hai Fang. “The Cost of 

Crime to Society: New Crime Specific Estimates for Policy and Program 

Evaluation.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence, vol. 108, no. 1-2 (2010): 98-

109.

Miller, Ted R., Mark A. Cohen, and Brian Wiersema. Victim Costs and 

Consequences: A New Look. A Final Summary Report Presented to the 

National Institute of Justice. National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 

January 1996. Accessed July 20, 2017. 

https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?id=155282.

Nicosia, Nancy, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Beau Kilmer, Russell Lundberg, 

and James Chiesa. The Economic Cost of Methamphetamine Use in the 

United States, 2005. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 2009.

Ostermann, Michael, and Joel M. Caplan. “How Much do the Crimes 

Committed By Released Inmates Cost?” Crime & Delinquency, vol. 62, 

no. 5 (2016): 563-591.

Roman, John K. “How Do We Measure the Severity of Crimes? New 

Estimates of the Cost of Criminal Victimization.” Measuring Crime and 

Criminality: Advances in Criminological Theory, Volume 17, edited by 

John MacDonald, 37-70. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 

2011.

Soares, Rodrigo R. “Welfare Costs of Crime and Common Violence.”

Journal of Economic Studies, vol. 42, no. 1 (2015): 117-137.

Tcherni, Maria, Andrew Lucas Blaize Davies, Giza Lopes, and Alan 

Lizotte. “The Dark Figure of Online Property Crime: Is Cyberspace Hiding 

a Crime Wave?” Justice Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 5 (2016): 890-911.
Appendix II: Bibliography of Research on the 

Cost of Crime

Page 37 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

Welsh, Brandon C., Rolf Loeber, Bradley R. Stevens, Magda SouthamerLoeber, Mark A. Cohen, and David P. Farrington. “Costs of Juvenile 

Crime in Urban Areas: A Longitudinal Perspective.” Youth Violence and 

Juvenile Justice, vol. 6, no. 3 (January 2008): 3-27.

Wickramasekera, Nyantara, Judy Wright, Helen Elsey, Jenni Murray, and 

Sandy Tubeuf. “Cost of Crime: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Criminal 

Justice, vol. 43, no. 3 (May-June 2015): 218-228.
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

Our report examines the following questions about the cost of crime:

(1) How do experts estimate the cost of crime in the U.S., and what 

challenges do they face?

(2) What actions have experts considered in order to improve the 

understanding and use of cost of crime research?

For purposes of this report, we focused on crimes committed in the 

United States. Specifically, we included crimes where the victim was in 

the United States and U.S. courts would be the primary jurisdiction. We 

excluded any crimes that would be adjudicated in other countries, such as 

international terrorism or piracy on the high seas. To identify various 

categories of crime, we relied on information from Department of Justice’s 

(DOJ) Office of Justice Programs (OJP), the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), and a study released by the National Academies of 

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies), which FBI 

and OJP commissioned in 2013.1 We also interviewed DOJ officials to 

obtain information about which crimes that researchers consider in their 

estimates. Further, we analyzed the methods, benefits, limitations, and 

challenges of any cost category that we identified during our review of the 

cost of crime research.

To answer our research questions, we surveyed 20 experts on the cost of 

crime. Seventeen of those experts responded to the survey. We 

contracted with the National Academies to select our participants. Staff 

from the National Academies chose experts by soliciting nominations 

from its membership, including those that represent the Committee on 

Law and Justice, Committee on National Statistics, Computer Science 

and Telecommunications Board, and Population Health and Public Health 

Practice Board. National Academies staff also attended the American 

Society of Criminology annual meeting in November 2016 and solicited 

nominations from select attendees and presenters at the meeting. The 

survey participants were selected based on the following:

 1

National Academies, Modernizing Crime Statistics.

Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Objectives

Scope of Crimes and 

Costs

Selecting and Surveying 

Cost of Crime Experts
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

• Expertise in a range of fields that focus on aspects of crime and its 

costs and effects. These fields include economics, criminology, 

demography, sociology, public health, and computer science;

• Knowledge on specific or technical aspects of estimating various 

costs of crime, such as statistics on the prevalence of crime, methods 

used to estimate the cost of crime, and experience or knowledge of 

the full range of crimes and challenges estimating costs for these 

crimes; and

• For participants with criminology expertise, experience with different 

aspects of assessing various costs of crime, such as the effects of 

crime on offenders, victims, and communities, corporate and whitecollar crime, recidivism, substance abuse, mental illness, juvenile 

delinquency, policing, and mass incarceration.

The experts we surveyed collectively represented a broad set of 

viewpoints and knowledge, including experts from state government 

agencies, academia, and nonprofit research institutions. Experts who 

participated and their institutions are listed in appendix I.

Before surveying the experts, we evaluated them for possible conflicts of 

interest. We considered conflicts of interest to be any current financial or 

other interest that might conflict with the service of an individual because 

it (1) could impair objectivity, and (2) could create an unfair competitive 

advantage for any person or organization. Further, we used a 

methodology that deemphasized the opinion of any one individual to 

support a significant finding, instead using the 17 experts’ questionnaire 

responses as a collective body of information to answer our research 

objectives.

The structured questionnaire included questions about existing research 

studies, methods used to estimate the cost of crime and the advantages 

and challenges of each method, challenges creating estimates for certain 

costs and certain crimes, challenges identifying the magnitude of crime, 

how cost of crime estimates can be used in criminal justice policy 

decisions, and what can be done to improve cost of crime estimates. We 

conducted one pretest of the questionnaire and made appropriate 

changes based on the pretest. Thirteen of 17 experts submitted written 

responses. Four experts chose to be interviewed, and we used the 

structured questionnaire to obtain responses over the phone.

We did not attempt to generate consensus among the experts, as the 

experts’ background and expertise varied. In some cases, experts 

skipped questions as they felt it was appropriate. For example, some 
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 40 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

experts were not familiar with certain methods used to estimate the cost 

of crime, and they chose not respond to those questions. Further, while 

the results of our questionnaire cannot be used to generalize all expert 

opinions about the cost of crime, we believe the chosen experts and their 

responses are a reasonable basis for discussing prevalent cost of crime 

methodologies and the general state of information across the different 

fields represented.

To address information in both objectives, we conducted a literature 

review and analyzed 27 cost of crime research articles. Our initial 

selection requirements excluded any article published prior to 1996, 

which is when a key study cited by other studies was published, and 

whether the research focused on costs of crime in countries other than 

the United States.2 Based on these criteria, we then identified articles 

from four sources. First, we identified an article that conducted a review of 

recent cost of crime literature.3 Second, we obtained a bibliography of 

recommended cost of crime research articles from relevant DOJ officials. 

Third, we conducted a search of several bibliographic databases, such as 

ProQuest, Dialog, and Scopus to identify books and academic, 

government, think tank and trade literature using related search terms on 

the cost of crime.4 The search looked for studies published during or after 

1996. Fourth, we asked our experts to comment on a select list of articles 

and to recommend additional articles for us to include in our review.

We screened articles based on the following questions: (1) Did the 

research article employ a novel method for estimating costs; (2) If the 

article did not estimate the cost of crime, did it discuss challenges, 

limitations and policy implications of approaching the estimating of the 

cost of crime; (3) Was the article often cited by other studies; (3) On 

which crimes and costs did the research article focus; and (5) Did the 

article use generally reliable methods in its study?5 Two of our analysts 

independently screened these studies and determined whether it met the 

scope of our review. A third analyst reconciled any differences in the 

 2

Miller, Cohen, and Wiersema, Victim Costs and Consequences. 

3

Nyantara Wickramasekera, et al., “Cost of Crime: A Systematic Review,” Journal of 

Criminal Justice, vol. 43, no. 3 (2015).

4

We conducted this search in October 2016.

5

For the list of articles we included, see app. II. 

Selecting and Analyzing 

Cost of Crime Literature
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 41 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

screening process. An economist and methodologist on our staff 

independently assessed the studies to ensure that the chosen articles 

used sound and reliable methods. Based on this process, we chose 27 

articles to analyze for our review. While these articles do not represent 

the universe of crime cost estimates, we believe they are suitable for our 

purposes to provide an overview of the general cost estimation methods; 

highlight various limitations, challenges, and disagreements among 

researchers; and are a reasonable basis for discussing the general state 

of the cost of crime literature.

To analyze the selected 27 articles, we developed a data collection 

instrument. One analyst coded and another analyst reviewed this coding 

to ensure consistency. An economist reconciled any differences that the 

coders could not address. Articles were coded to identify (1) the various 

estimates in the document, (2) the crimes associated with the estimate, 

(3) the cost category as identified in the estimate, (4) the bearer of the 

cost, (5) the methodologies used generally in the article and for the 

separate cost categories, (6) the mentioned challenges and limitations 

with the estimates and methods, (7) any challenges and limitations with 

other identified estimates and methods, and (8) the mentioned 

implications of the research and areas for future study. To analyze the 

challenges, limitations, and implications, we created various categories 

based on themes in the research using an iterative process. We assigned 

each sentence or group of sentences to one of these categories. We 

analyzed the information within these themes to obtain insight on broader 

concepts identified throughout the literature. To ensure consistency, a 

second analyst also assigned themes separately. A third analyst 

addressed any disagreements.

To address our first objective on how experts estimate the cost of crime, 

we identified key approaches used by reviewing the estimates and 

methods present in the cost of crime literature. We then characterized 

these methods and presented them to our experts in the survey. We 

asked in the questionnaire if there were other methods we should include 

in our analysis. Experts generally agreed with our characterization of the 

approaches. However, experts did identify less frequently used methods 

that we excluded. For example, experts identified a method used by other 

Identifying the Methods, 

Benefits, and Limitations 

to Estimate Costs
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

countries that focus on physical harm from injury6 as well as a budgetbased method that was consistent with an approach we identified in this 

report.7

To identify the benefits, challenges, and limitations associated with each 

approach, we surveyed the experts to obtain their opinion. We 

supplemented expert responses with examples we identified from our 

analysis of the literature research. We focused our discussion of the 

benefits, challenges, and limitations to those that experts identified most 

frequently.

During our review, experts and the cost of crime literature highlighted two 

federal programs that measure the magnitude of crime, the FBI’s Uniform 

Crime Reporting (UCR) Program and the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). We 

reviewed documentation about these data collection efforts and 

interviewed FBI and BJS officials to obtain information about their 

purposes, and the challenges and limitations associated with the 

methodologies each uses. While these programs long preceded the 

beginning date for our literature review, we focused on FBI’s and BJS’s 

recent efforts to measure crime. For instance, we identified current efforts 

that FBI and BJS have taken to encourage fuller participation in the UCR 

National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). Further, we asked 

BJS and FBI about the study they recently commissioned the National 

Academies to conduct on modernizing crime statistics.

For the purposes of this report, we focused our analysis on the key 

characteristics of each data collection effort, rather than the actual data 

itself. We performed this work to understand the potential effect, if any, of 

federal crime level data’s structure and composition on cost of crime 

 6

Two experts identified Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) as a common public health 

measure that may be used to estimate costs. However, they noted that using the QALY 

does not estimate all costs caused by crimes, since it focuses primarily on the extent of 

physical harm from injury. Further, we found that while QALY appears often in cost of 

crimes research for other countries, it is not as frequently used for cost estimates for crime 

in the United States.

7

Budget-based estimates that focus only on a subset of costs that have a budget or total 

already associated with it are by definition not trying to estimate larger costs of crime. As a 

result, we decided not to include it as a separate cost estimate approach. For more 

information on the bottom-up approach that is consistent with the budget-based 

methodology, see objective 1. 
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

estimates.8 We compiled a set of characteristics of the federal data 

collection efforts in our review. We then matched these characteristics to 

associated expert comments and conclusions drawn in the literature in 

order to understand the benefits and challenges of using such data for 

cost of crime estimates.

To respond to the second objective to identify actions experts considered 

to improve the understanding and use of costs of crime research, we 

analyzed expert responses from our survey. Specifically, we reviewed 

expert responses that expressed opinions on the state of the cost of 

crime research and ways to improve estimates and methods. To do this, 

we identified thematic categories in the experts’ responses and assigned 

each sentence or group of sentences to one of these categories. We 

analyzed the experts’ responses within these themes to obtain insight on 

a specific questionnaire question or to obtain information on a broader 

crosscutting concept. To ensure consistency, a second analyst also 

assigned themes separately. A third analyst addressed any 

disagreements.

We did not report on every topic or methodology mentioned by the 

experts. Instead, we focused on those opinions that experts mentioned 

more frequently. We also did not include suggestions where we had 

already discussed specific challenges and limitations. For instance, two 

experts mentioned improving federal data collection efforts such as the 

UCR Program and the NCVS. However, we dedicated a section of the 

report to discuss the concerns using these data in cost of crime estimates 

and determined it was unnecessary to highlight these suggestions a 

second time. For a complete list of expert suggestions, see appendix IV.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2016 through September 

2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 8

Such characteristics included data collection methodology and the scope of the data.

Identifying Additional 

Topics and Methods for 

Future Research
Appendix IV: Expert Responses of Additional 

Topics to Consider and Suggested Ways to 

Improve Cost of Crime Estimation Methods

Page 44 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

We surveyed 17 experts to obtain their opinion about the state of cost of 

crime research and ways it could improve. Expert responses fell into two 

general categories: Additional topics to research and suggestions for 

improved data collection and estimation methods. The descriptions in 

table 3 below are the characterization of all expert comments provided to 

us on the topics, regardless of how many experts mentioned them in our 

responses. We did not independently assess the expert suggestions for 

feasibility or how effective they would be in addressing limitations in 

current cost of crime research.

Table 2: Expert Responses of Additional Topics and Suggested Ways to Improve Cost of Crime Estimation Methods

Experts making the 

suggestion

Additional topics of research

Cost of punishment and incarceration, including the effects on future earnings of offenders and offender 

families, and costs to communities that have high incarceration rates

7

Cost of crimes not in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program 

index of crimes. Specific categories mentioned include (1) white-collar and corporate crime, (2) regulatory 

offenses, (3) victimless crime, (4) cybercrime (5) unreported crime, (6) petty crime, and (7) terrorism

6

Cost of racism and bias in the administration of criminal justice 4

Costs associated with recidivism, including the effects of interventions and release programs and the 

effect of recidivism on an offender’s health

3

Evaluation of the statistical uncertainty in cost of crime research estimates 3

Factors that affect crime rates such as second generation costs (where victims become perpetrators of 

crime), addiction, and mental illness

3

Factors affecting the criminal justice system costs to the government, including restitution and fines from 

convicted offenders, and savings from changes in criminal justice policies

2

Costs to deter and prevent crime 1

Heterogeneity in costs, including how costs vary by geography, severity, and victim types 1

Improved data collection and estimation methods

Create and make available national databases that link criminal justice data with other federal data, such 

as tax data and use of public benefits

3

Develop a standardized approach for researchers and governments to estimate costs of crime to facilitate 

the evaluation of criminal justice policies and comparison of costs from other areas of public policy, such 

as education and health care

3

Expand UCR and National Incidence-Based Reporting System collection of information on recidivism and 

improve the collection of crime incidence data

3

Incorporate additional datasets to estimate costs of crime. Datasets mentioned include (1) National 

Survey on Drug Use and Health, (2) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, and (3) Census of 

Governments 

3

Develop new methods or approaches for estimating costs by either establishing a body of experts or 

having the government initiate a competition among researchers

3

Appendix IV: Expert Responses of Additional 

Topics to Consider and Suggested Ways to 

Improve Cost of Crime Estimation Methods
Appendix IV: Expert Responses of Additional 

Topics to Consider and Suggested Ways to 

Improve Cost of Crime Estimation Methods

Page 45 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

Experts making the 

suggestion

Establish a body of experts to act as an advisory committee to identify best practices and gaps in the 

research on costs of crime

2

Refine the use of government budget and administrative data to improve estimates of criminal justice 

system costs

2

Add questions to existing surveys to determine whether individuals have had contact with the criminal 

justice system to understand the effect on health

1

Combine information from multiple methodologies, such as surveys and government budget data, to 

estimate costs of crime

1

Develop and maintain a database of unit estimates of costs of crime with state and county price 

adjustments

1

Encourage estimating costs when changes in criminal justice policy or other external events may affect 

crime and people’s behavior in response to the change

1

Encourage states to collect data on the race and gender of people stopped by police 1

Give cost of crime researchers access to federal jury pools that are already randomly selected to use 

waiting jurors as survey respondents

1

Publish an annual report on the cost of crime in the United States 1

Refine how an existing method—surveys to estimate what the public is willing to pay to reduce crime—is 

used to estimate the cost of crime

1

Source: GAO analysis of expert responses to administered survey. | GAO-17-732
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 46 GAO-17-732 Cost of Crime to the United States

Diana Maurer, (202) 512-9627, maurerd@gao.gov. 

In addition to the contact named above, Dawn Locke (Assistant Director) 

and Jeremy Manion (Analyst-in-Charge) managed this body of work. In 

addition, David Alexander, Benjamin Bolitzer, Susan Czachor, Eric 

Hauswirth, Winchee Lin, Amanda Miller, Adrian Pavia, and Adam Vogt 

made key contributions to this report.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgements

(101030)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.