NSF Award
2213819
In this study, the relationship between serious violent and property crime case outcomes and the variation in how exceptional clearances are used by agencies is investigated. Law enforcement agencies control how cases flow through the criminal justice system through the use of arrest and exceptional clearance. Exceptional clearance occurs when law enforcement has sufficient evidence to arrest but circumstances prevented them from taking the offender into custody (e.g., suspect whereabouts unknown). If the crime is recorded as solved but no arrest was made, this can degrade the accuracy of the reported crime clearance data and can lead to the dissemination of misinformation to decision makers and others. The analysis in this study uses characteristics of the crime incident as well as information from the law enforcement organization and the community. Results will further the precision and transparency of the measurement and reporting of criminal case outcomes, which in turn will help improve public safety.<br/><br/>Guided by the constructs of victim devaluation perspective, social disorganization theory, and organizational theory, this study examines the extent of variation among the three common criminal case outcomes (i.e., open, clearance by arrest, and exceptional clearance) for Index crimes using a multi-level approach. At the micro-level, 2015-2016 National Incident-Based Reporting System data is used which includes victim, offender, and case characteristics and the outcome of the case. This is merged with macro-level data which includes police organizational data derived from the 2016 Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics survey and community data via the 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. The study has practical applications in how crime clearance statistics are presented to decision makers and the public in addition to addressing the wide variation in use of exceptional clearances by law enforcement agencies.<br/><br/>This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.
