Proper coding and classification of crimes in each jurisdiction help ensure accurate data to fully track and understand the types of crimes and the outcome of the cases. Most jurisdictions have a multitude of domestic violence and sexual assault (DVSA)-related crimes, each with similar but different elements. Confusion often leads to miscoding and misclassification. Some errors occur when a report is given an improper or non-criminal classification that obscures the nature of the incident in records. Others arise when cases are inappropriately removed from an active investigative status due to misinterpretation or misapplication of clearance codes. These errors can lead to reports being incorrectly or prematurely closed without thorough investigation or an offer of victim support services. Officers and detectives should receive training on coding and its importance, while supervisors must ensure that the coding is accurate. 

The sections below provides examples of agencies in three stages of development:  

Lagging Behind, when an agency does not have a formal policy or the practices are outdated and/or harmful; 

Making Progress, when an agency uses practices that are considered the minimum standard; and  

Leading the Way, when an agency has researched promising practices and implements best practices tailored to the needs of victims. 

The examples provided below are not exhaustive for each category; they are only meant to illustrate the types of practices common at each stage.  

 

  • The agency does not contribute data to the FBI National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS).  

  • If NIBRS codes are used, agency personnel are not given training or guidance on how they should be properly applied. 

  • The agency has a high volume of cases closed by exception and/or unfounded, which may be an indicator of not applying these codes correctly.   

  • Agency does not require a supervisor to review and verify the correctness of clearance codes used. 

  • The agency does contribute data to NIBRS. 

  • NIBRS codes are sometimes used incorrectly. Officers, detectives, and supervisors may not consistently understand the elements that determine how cases should be classified. 

  • There is an above-average number of cases that are closed by exception or unfounded, which may be an indicator of not applying these codes correctly.  

  • Agency policy requires supervisor review of clearance coding, but in practice the officer’s decisions may be rubber-stamped.   

  • Officers can clear cases at the patrol level without detective review.  

  • The agency contributes data to NIBRS. 

  • Each unit responsible for DVSA and related crimes has clear and specific guidance on case classification and clearance coding.  

  • ​​The agency uses report review checklists or similar tools to systematically ensure required information is appropriately documented for each case.  

  • Agency policies clearly define clearance codes in alignment with NIBRS standards, such as “closed by arrest,” “unfounded,” and “exceptional clearance.” Detectives are given additional training on their use.  

  • Supervisors must confirm that cases meet the classification criteria before approving reports.  

  • The agency conducts periodic audits to ensure classifications are appropriately recorded.      ​​ 

  • Detectives confer with prosecutors before closing or declining an investigation.  

  • ​​​All reports are received as valid unless evidence proves otherwise. 

Explore the resources below for guidance on how to move beyond “Lagging Behind” and “Making Progress” to “Leading the Way.” The following links provide guidance on accurately coding incident and clearance types: 

  • Joanne Archambault and Kimberly A. Lonsway, Clearance Methods for Sexual Assault Cases, End Violence Against Women International (2021). https://evawintl.org/wp-content/uploads/Module-13_Clearance-Methods-Module.pdf (Note: While this resource specifically focuses on clearance of sexual assault cases, its takeaways on case closure methods are applicable to other crime types as well.)  

  
This project was supported by Grant No. 15JOVW-22-GK-04008-MUMU, awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed on this page are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Justice.