Daniel Cork

Window on Washington

Column Editors’ Note: Every year, the results of two large data collection efforts are used to gauge the problem of crime in America. These two data series are intended to measure different aspects of crime, but this point is often lost in the front-page headline summaries of whether crime is “up,” “down,” or about the same. Confusion regarding the two crime indicators is exacerbated when the two data series show substantially different trends, as was the case with the most recent release of data in 2001. For this column, we asked Michael Rand and Callie Rennison of the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics to describe the two national crime indicators and their differences. Their article clearly describes the distinct approaches to measuring crime used by these two data series, and provides a strong justification for maintaining these two approaches to address very distinct policy needs. Just a thought... A previous Window on Washington column from summer 1998 discussed the U.S. Census Bureau’s Small-Area Income and Poverty Estimates Program, which used administrative records and census data in conjunction with Current Population Survey estimates to produce modelbased small-area estimates that incorporated information from all these sources. It would be interesting to see if a similar approach might be used to provide small-area estimates of violent crime, possibly by fitting a regression model to the National Crime Victimization Survey data, using the Uniform Crime Reports and other data as explanatory variables. Such approaches to combine information from the two national crime indicators—continuing efforts to refine inferences from two frequently confused data series—are interesting possibilities for future research. True Crime Stories? Accounting for Differences in Our National Crime Indicators

Principles and Practices for the Federal Statistical System: The View from the Committee on National Statistics

The Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) was established in 1972 to improve the statistical methods and information upon which public policy decisions are based, thereby furthering the ability of the highly decentralized federal statistical system to deliver relevent, timely, and cost-effective information. While CNSTAT’s original mandate was to provide an independent and objective resource for evaluating and improving the work of the system, its work expanded over the years to include undertaking studies from a broad range of research and program agencies of the U.S. government. For these and other reasons, CNSTAT occupies a unique position at the intersection of statistics and public policy.

Window on Washington: Business Employment Dynamics

Column Editors Note: David M. Talan, James R. Spletzet, and Richard L. Clayton, all of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, describe the new BLS Business and Employment Dynamics data series. Based on the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wage, this new data series provides important information on job churn at the establishment level that is often hidden by focusing on statistics on net employment change. Further, through use of this data series, changes in the rate ofjob growth can be better tracked by source job creation in new businesses, job creation or loss in established businesses, or loss ofjobs in failing businesses. One interesting complication in producing these statistics is that it is difficult to determine when the unemployment insurance identification number for a business changes due to ownership turnover instead ofa complete reformulation ofthe business. Failure to ascertain when this has happened can result in serious overestimation ofjob churn. Fellegi-Sunters exact match techniques are used to identify these instances. One very important application of this work is to help identify business cycles and their underlying causes.