For decades, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has manipulated crime statistics to increase funding for police forces. The 1970s marked the beginning of the FBI’s new Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) which collected crime data onto one federalized network providing themselves the power to control crime statistics in America. The consequence is an overfunded police force that has skyrocketed incarceration rates particularly in minority dominated, low-income areas (Maltz 5). Regardless, Others view the issue of mass incarceration as a plot to keep racism alive in America. The primary disagreement in the debate is whether the UCR or racist political policy links to mass incarceration. Michelle Alexander asserts that the mass incarceration of minority groups is due to policies which indirectly cause racial injustice such as the War on drugs to create a racially biased justice system. In contrast, Elizabeth Hinton asserts that the FBI unintentionally increased incarceration rates using the UCR program to justify larger executive spending which increased incarceration rates. In this essay, I will examine the methods in which the FBI began collecting violent crime data in the 1970s to argue that mass incarceration in America is due more so to bureaucratic corruption rather than the facilitation of a political system which supports racial segregation.
Those who assert that mass incarceration is down to an intentionally racist political system can be represented by Michelle Alexander through her thought-provoking analogy the “New Jim Crow”. The analogy makes the argument that the primary reason minority groups in America are disproportionately imprisoned is due to a hidden political system threatening minority rights, much like the original Jim Crow laws. She supports this theory explaining “… People who have been incarcerated rarely have difficulty identifying the parallels between these systems of control [US justice system and Jim Crow]” (Alexander 5). She places an emphasis on how the US justice system was purposefully built to hinder those leaving the penal system rather than focusing on criminal correction (Alexander 111). Since minority groups are incarcerated at significantly higher rates proportional to population, there are consequently more minorities with limited rights post correction. Although critiques can be made to Alexander’s “New Jim Crow” analogy, I acknowledge that America’s racist justice system is due to flawed aspects in America’s bureaucracy. I seek to specify that these flaws were put in place not directly with racial segregation in mind, but rather indirectly through program funding loopholes.
Data collected by the UCR from the 1970s can be used to demonstrate how the FBI began misrepresenting violent crime data for their own personal gain. After its creation in 1908, the FBI pushed for state-run criminal justice systems to provide arrest reports for a federal database which could present crime statistics publicly (Maltz 11). In 1970, three states submitted their arrest reports, but by the end of the decade, this number rose to 48 states (Maltz 12). To handle the enormous amount of data, the FBI created the UCR program to streamline the process of data collection. While computers were able to efficiently collect millions of crime reports across the nation, Maltz writes that “more and more of the crime statistics reported by the police have not been based on crime counts but on imputed crime counts” (Maltz 12). Essentially, while violent crime arrests laid in the six figures, crimes recorded by the police without an arrest as well as reported victimizations were included under violent crime: imputing a total violent crime count closer to 3.5 million in the UCR (Maltz 23). By overinflating the crime statistics with unofficial reports, the FBI assembled the data necessary to request higher funding accounting for the supposed increase in violent crime. Rather than attempting to accurately represent violent crime data in America, the FBI used the UCR to gain funding and power. Maltz continues to explain how by the end of the decade, UCR data was used exclusively to allocate federal executive funds. Whenever the FBI could show an increase in crime rates, their budget automatically increased (Maltz 35). The evidence above supports my conclusion regarding mass incarceration resulting from an overly funded bureaucracy and police force running off a system which rewards arrest instead of correction.
While UCR data supports the idea that the FBI began inflating violent crime reports in the 1970s to receive more funding, the full story requires more information to show how the data relates to the mass incarceration of minorities. Elizabeth Hinton adds historical context to Maltz’s data analysis, asserting that the transition in American policy to the War on Crime in the late 1970s led to the increase in incarceration of minorities due to over policing in lower income areas. She writes “politicians and officials have explained mass incarceration as a seemingly natural policy response to a surge in criminality and violence” (Hinton 8) and contrasts this statement by writing “but scholars have pointed to the ways in which mass incarceration and the justice disparities within it expressed changes in law, budgetary allocations for crime control, and punitive practices at all levels of government” (Hinton 8). Hinton demonstrates a clear split in rhetoric between political officials who blame mass incarceration on the increasing crime shown by the UCR, while scholars outside the government see mass incarceration because of over policing due to the UCR. She urges her readers to explore how injustice in the U.S. justice system could result from corrupt budgeting policies instead of focusing exclusively on racial bias. Hinton also builds off Alexander’s work in this way. While Alexander asserts the War on Drugs in the 1980s was used to carry out the “New Jim Crow”, Hinton elaborates that the previous 1970s War on Crime led to rising incarceration rates due to over policing in low-income areas with higher minority populations. The War on Crime was likely paid for by the additional funding the FBI received through the inflation of crime statistics illuminating the connection between the mass incarceration of minority groups, and the FBI’s misrepresentation of crime data with the UCR.
By focusing specifically on violent crime statistics in America, the connection between the FBI’s overinflation of crime data and the mass incarceration of minorities becomes even more apparent. James Forman contends that Alexander’s “New Jim Crow” analogy holds power in bringing light to the issues of mass incarceration but can take away portions of context that make up the problem. The “New Jim Crow” idea never considers non-violent vs violent crime instead labeling all prisoners equal in the severity of their crimes. He writes against the analogy stating that it “generates an incomplete account of mass incarceration-one in which most prisoners are drug offenders, violent crime and its victim’s merit only passing mention, and white prisoners are largely invisible” (Forman 34). Forman promotes the important distinction to his audience as to how non-violent vs violent crimes are changing in America and how this relates to the incarceration of minorities. Connecting this point of Maltz’s data, The FBI’s overinflation method revolves around imputing unofficial violent crime reports which appear most prominently in lower income urban areas with higher proportions of minority groups. This further supports my argument that the discussion of mass incarceration in America must be looked upon as a policy issue rather than a social justice one. While I fully endorse the fact that minority groups are disproportionately imprisoned at higher rates in America, I contend flaws in America’s bureaucracy are to blame rather than racist politicians plotting a “New Jim Crow.”
Analyzing how minorities in legislative offices vote towards FBI budgeting and judicial reform further solidifies how the problems which cause mass incarceration lie in the political system itself. Forman adds another layer to the discourse by acknowledging the African American justices and politicians in Washington D.C. who vote for policies that determine the FBI’s budget. He states, “Washington, D.C. is the nation’s only majority-black jurisdiction that controls sentencing policy” (Forman 38) and follows with “there is little evidence that D.C. officials have sought more lenient criminal policies, only to be overruled by Congress. To the contrary, local elected officials have recently pushed for tougher criminal penalties” (Forman 41). This evidence suggests mass incarceration results not from politics, but from corrupt bureaucratic systems such as the FBI’s UCR. While D.C. cannot represent the entire U.S., I still assert that the representation of minorities in D.C. supporting law enforcement in policy demonstrates how the causes of mass incarceration in America could be more than racial bias in the legislature.
The debate ultimately comes down to whether the broken incarceration system in America is due to the rise of the “New Jim Crow” or if the FBI’s manipulation of violent crime data to increase budgeting has indirectly created the issue. There is no argument regarding the over policing of low-income areas with high percentages of minorities leading to increased levels of incarceration. I contend the best way forward is to collect violent crime data separate from the FBI to determine and regulate budget. An independent data collection agency dedicated to fairly representing crime data would allow legislation to more accurately gauge the FBI’s budget. This solution could potentially minimize mass incarceration by allowing the executive to focus on criminal correction. Suggestions aside, the essence of the mass incarceration discussion remains a systemic issue rather than a social justice issue.
PLEDGE: Robby Votta
“On my honor I have neither given nor received unauthorized information regarding this work, I have followed and will continue to observe all regulations regarding it, and I am unaware of any violation of the Honor Code by others.”
* No form of AI was used in the making of this essay
Citations:
Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. 10th ed., New Press, 2020.
Forman, James Jr. “Racial Critiques of Mass Incarceration: Beyond the New Jim Crow.” Hein Online, Harvard Law School Library , 29 Nov. 2011,
Hinton, Elizabeth. “Introduction: Origins of Mass Incarceration” From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime, Edited by the Harvard University Press, 2016, pages 1-28
Maltz, Michael D. “Bridging Gaps in Police Crime Data – Bureau of Justice Statistics.” Bridging Gaps in Police Crime Data, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sept. 1999, bjs.ojp.gov