Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly, Julia Bryant.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law: #1 Northwestern University School of Law appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly, Julia Bryant.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law: #5 Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University appeared first on Law Street.

Following is the full text of the FBI’s disclaimer about the use of its Uniform Crime Reports. The disclaimer appears here in its entirety.

Variables Affecting Crime

Each year when Crime in the United States is published, many entities—news media, tourism agencies, and other groups with an interest in crime in our Nation—use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rankings, however, are merely a quick choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city, county, state, region, or other jurisdiction. Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents.

Consider Other Characteristics of a Jurisdiction

To assess criminality and law enforcement’s response from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, one must consider many variables, some of which, while having significant impact on crime, are not readily measurable or applicable pervasively among all locales. Geographic and demographic factors specific to each jurisdiction must be considered and applied if one is going to make an accurate and complete assessment of crime in that jurisdiction. Several sources of information are available that may assist the responsible researcher in exploring the many variables that affect crime in a particular locale. The U.S. Census Bureau data, for example, can be used to better understand the makeup of a locale’s population. The transience of the population, its racial and ethnic makeup, its composition by age and gender, educational levels, and prevalent family structures are all key factors in assessing and comprehending the crime issue.

Local chambers of commerce, government agencies, planning offices, or similar entities provide information regarding the economic and cultural makeup of cities and counties. Understanding a jurisdiction’s industrial/economic base; its dependence upon neighboring jurisdictions; its transportation system; its economic dependence on nonresidents (such as tourists and convention attendees); its proximity to military installations, correctional facilities, etc., all contribute to accurately gauging and interpreting the crime known to and reported by law enforcement.

The strength (personnel and other resources) and the aggressiveness of a jurisdiction’s law enforcement agency are also key factors in understanding the nature and extent of crime occurring in that area. Although information pertaining to the number of sworn and civilian employees can be found in this publication, it cannot be used alone as an assessment of the emphasis that a community places on enforcing the law. For example, one city may report more crime than a comparable one, not because there is more crime, but rather because its law enforcement agency, through proactive efforts, identifies more offenses. Attitudes of the citizens toward crime and their crime reporting practices, especially concerning minor offenses, also have an impact on the volume of crimes known to police.

Make Valid Assessments of Crime

It is incumbent upon all data users to become as well educated as possible about how to understand and quantify the nature and extent of crime in the United States and in any of the more than 18,000 jurisdictions represented by law enforcement contributors to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the various unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction.

Historically, the causes and origins of crime have been the subjects of investigation by many disciplines. Some factors that are known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are:

• Population density and degree of urbanization.
• Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
• Stability of the population with respect to residents’ mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
• Modes of transportation and highway system.
• Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
• Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
• Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
• Climate.
• Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
• Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
• Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
• Citizens’ attitudes toward crime.
• Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

Crime in the United States provides a nationwide view of crime based on statistics contributed by local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies. Population size and student enrollment are the only correlates of crime presented in this publication. Although many of the listed factors equally affect the crime of a particular area, the UCR Program makes no attempt to relate them to the data presented. The data user is, therefore, cautioned against comparing statistical data of individual reporting units from cities, counties, metropolitan areas, states, or colleges or universities solely on the basis of their population coverage or student enrollment. Until data users examine all the variables that affect crime in a town, city, county, state, region, or other jurisdiction, they can make no meaningful comparisons.

Uniform Crime Report Ranking Disclaimer is from the FBI.

Click here to read more Crime in America coverage.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What the FBI Says About Its Uniform Crime Reports appeared first on Law Street.

In 2011, a debate over the FBI’s definition of rape emerged. Each year, the FBI creates Uniform Crime Reports, a cooperative effort to gather crime statistics from various jurisdictions all across the United States. In 2011, the FBI was still using a definition that was written in the 1930s. It constituted rape as, “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.” This definition came under heavy fire, slammed for being incredibly narrow. There were numerous problems with this definition, but one of the most heavily cited problems included that under this definition, men could not be victims of rape. Another was that under this definition, the victim must have tried to physically resist the assault, preventing victims who were drugged or terrified from being counted. It also could not include any other kind of sexual assault, such as forcing a victim to perform sexual activities. Incest and statutory rape were both excluded.

As a result of this archaic definition, thousands of rapes were not being included in the Uniform Crime Reports each year. After intensive lobbying from special interest groups, law enforcement, and Congress; the FBI did eventually change its definition, in March of 2012. The new definition reads: “the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” This definition will be put into place for the first time in the Uniform Crime Reports of 2013.

Despite the old definition used by the FBI, many states and cities had long since updated their methods of defining rape and sexual assault. In the years between state statutes updating their definitions, and the FBI taking the same steps, cities and states had to report two separate pieces of data: the ones that were included in a state statue’s usually broader definition, and the smaller number that fell into the FBI’s narrow definition. For example, in 2010, NYPD reported 1,369 rapes, but only 1,036 were entered into the FBI’s database. Minneapolis actually over-reported their rapes, stating that the cases they reported were accurate according to their modern definition, and that they did not have the resources to filter out cases for the FBI’s reports.

One of the few places that did not take efforts to break down the data this way was the city of Chicago. In 2010, Chicago had approximately 1,400 sexual assaults. Not a single one of these made their way into the FBI report, because the FBI did not accept the way that Chicago reported their rapes. For years, Chicago was not included on the FBI list of cities, or any of the underlying data because of this lack of reporting. The first year in which Chicago will actually be able to report their rape statistics accurately will be 2013, so expect changes to violent crime statistics to happen in the new Uniform Crime Reports to be released for 2013. If the measure of violent crime were based on murder, robbery, and aggravated assault (excluding forcible rape), Chicago, Ill. would rank 33 on the overall list of Most Dangerous Cities for calendar 2012.

Click here to read more Crime in America coverage.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Defining Rape: The FBI Takes Action appeared first on Law Street.

America is a nation of lists. We rate and rank colleges and universities, hospitals, school systems, governmental entities, college football teams, movies, songs (with a bullet), and just about anything else that matters to us, from the frivolous to the most serious.

And crime is one rating that really matters to all of us.

Law Street’s Crime in America utilizes the FBI’s comprehensive collection of crime statistics from 286 American cities to provide a valuable perspective on personal safety in the United States. The FBI releases these statistics annually, and in doing so it performs a significant public service. We at Law Street are engaged in a journalistic service of our own by analyzing and further disseminating the FBI’s results.

If the past is a guide, our Crime in America rankings will be met with criticism by cities with high crime rates and welcomed by those deemed safest. Scholars who rely on the FBI data as the starting point for their own analyses will nonetheless register their objections. Even the FBI hasn’t been spared this criticism, to the point where the agency now even publishes its own disclaimer.  We, too, repeat the FBI’s disclaimer.

Criminologists have received millions of dollars from the federal government in recent years to tell the FBI how it could do a better job of crime data gathering and dissemination – you can read one such report for yourself and see whether it is worth the $4.5 million that the Justice Department paid for it. Looking at that report, one thing that stands out is that the researchers could not easily come to terms with how to make the FBI’s reporting better or more meaningful. And that is not surprising, because crime is as much about perception as it is about reality. A city with some very safe streets may still rank among the most dangerous overall. And although rankings alone cannot tell the whole story, there is still a certain validity to them from a purely qualitative level. Where do you feel safer: strolling the streets of Flint, or Irvine?

In the end, the rankings are what they are – imperfect measures, but illuminating nevertheless. And although some cities may argue against them in order to protect tourism dollars – a few years ago, St. Louis business interests spent $500,000 on a PR campaign against the crime rankings – those same cities also use the rankings to their advantage, to argue for more resources with which to fight such high levels of crime. In fact, that is exactly what is happening in St. Louis. Once ranked Most Dangerous, it was the only city in the Top 10 this year where violent crime significantly dropped.

Acknowledging the limitations of the FBI data doesn’t mean the agency’s reporting is without great value. In fact, the crime data gathered by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program is used by states and localities to target crime-fighting resources, and by the federal government to direct billions of dollars in federal taxpayer dollars to local police forces who urgently need the funding.  Without the FBI’s crime data, such federal programs could not exist; crime-fighting accountability would be weakened; and the public would be denied its right to know. That is why we rank.

Click here to read more Crime in America coverage.

John A. Jenkins

John A. Jenkins is Founder & CEO of Law Street Media. Contact John at jjenkins@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why We Rank: The Public’s Right to Know appeared first on Law Street.