Costs of Crime: Experts Report Challenges Estimating Costs and Suggest Improvements to Better Inform Policy Decisions
Released: 2017-09-26T00:00:00

Letter

Background

The Role of Federal Agencies in Estimating Costs of Crime

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 violence, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has released reports on the cost and extent of consumer fraud in the United States.

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.

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. 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. 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.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) Established by Congress as a private, non- profit 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.

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 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.

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. See figure 1 for more information.

Crime Statistics in 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).

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.

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. To collect data for the UCR Program, the FBI uses two systems: the traditional Summary Reporting System (SRS) and the newer National Incident- Based Reporting System (NIBRS). Law enforcement agencies that use the SRS provide data on reported crime offenses in the 10 crime categories. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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. BJS releases national crime victimization statistics from the NCVS in annual publications titled Criminal Victimization.

Researchers Use Differing Approaches and Face Numerous Challenges, Leading to Disagreement on Cost Estimates

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.

There Is No Commonly Used Approach to Estimate Costs and Experts Have Identified Limitations with Primary Approaches

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.

Cost Estimation Approaches

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. 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.

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. 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.

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 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. 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.

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 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. 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. 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 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.

Challenges Considering the Magnitude of Crime for Estimating Costs

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.

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.

In a recent report on modernizing crime statistics, the National Academies identified multiple limitations in the UCR Program and the NCVS. 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. Experts we surveyed also identified some concern with the reliability of some UCR crime information.

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. 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 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. 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.

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 police- reported crime incidence data. Another study estimated fatal crimes by reviewing national vital statistics instead of UCR homicide information. 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 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. 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.

Challenges Monetizing Costs

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.

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.

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 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.

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-of- pocket expenses resulting from crime they experienced. 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. 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.

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. 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.

Disagreement on How to Address Challenges Estimating the Costs of Crime Leads to Varying Estimates of Costs

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.

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 Identified Approaches that Could Improve the Understanding of the Cost of Crime and Its Use in Policy Discussions

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 Additional Topics and Methods that Cost of Crime Researchers Should Explore

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. 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. Further, according to another study we reviewed, criminal activity has evolved with technological advancements, such as the widespread use of the Internet. 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.

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 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. 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 prison- sentencing guidelines.

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. Non- violent offenders were the most likely to be rearrested.

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. 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 responsible for a significant portion of the cost of crime compared to first-time offenders.

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. 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.

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 drug- related 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 be able to help resolve the debate, as mentioned previously, over the validity of methods used to estimate the costs of crime.

Experts Identified the Need to Link Cost of Crime Estimates to Specific Policies

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. 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.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

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.

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

Appendix I: Experts Consulted to Provide Views on Cost of Crime Research Affiliation Washington State Institute of Public Policy (retired)

Criminology, economics of crime (e.g., policing, sentencing, and local policies’ effect on criminal behavior)

Criminology, demography, sociology, law and society, long term consequences of criminal justice contact Public health, effects of incarceration on health Criminology, prevention of delinquency and crime, evidence-based social policy Sociology, demography, policy analysis, child welfare and mass incarceration.

Appendix II: Bibliography of Research on the Cost of Crime

We reviewed and analyzed 27 research studies on estimating the cost of crime in the United States, published from 1996 to April 2017. 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 Drug- Related? 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-of- The-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.

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-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): 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.

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.

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

Objectives

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?

Scope of Crimes and Costs

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. 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.

Selecting and Surveying Cost of Crime Experts

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:

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 white- collar 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 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.

Selecting and Analyzing Cost of Crime Literature

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. 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. 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. 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? 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 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.

Identifying the Methods, Benefits, and Limitations to Estimate Costs

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 countries that focus on physical harm from injury as well as a budget- based method that was consistent with an approach we identified in this report.

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 estimates. 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.

Identifying Additional Topics and Methods for Future Research

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.

Appendix IV: Expert Responses of Additional Topics to Consider and Suggested Ways to Improve Cost of Crime Estimation Methods

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.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Diana Maurer, (202) 512-9627, maurerd@gao.gov.

Staff Acknowledgements

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.