Crime Data Integrity: A Growing Problem for Security & Executive Protection Professionals

More than a third of law enforcement agencies are not reporting their crime statistics

As security and executive protection professionals, our work depends on accurate threat assessments. Whether we’re conducting advance work, building travel risk profiles, or advising clients on safety in unfamiliar environments, we must have a clear and truthful picture of the risks.

But a disturbing trend is making that job harder: official crime statistics can no longer be taken at face value.

When the Crime Numbers Are Cooked

In May 2025, the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C. suspended a district commander for allegedly falsifying crime statistics to show a sharper decline in violent crime than actually occurred.

This wasn’t a small administrative error. It affected how residents, city leaders, and even the national media understood the state of public safety in the nation’s capital. Many outlets touted “historic crime drops” without mentioning the manipulation allegations—effectively presenting security professionals and the public with an unreliable operational picture.

If the crime stats in Washington, D.C. can be massaged for optics, we have to ask: How confident can we be in the numbers elsewhere?

A National Crime Reporting Blind Spot

The problem extends far beyond one city. Nearly a third of America’s law-enforcement agencies are not reporting their crime statistics to the FBI.

According to The Marshall Project, 31% of the nation’s 18,000 agencies failed to submit crime data in the latest FBI cycle. And it’s not just rural departments—it includes some of the largest, highest-risk cities in the country:

• New York: Only 24% of agencies reported, with no data from the NYPD or major surrounding departments.

• Pennsylvania: 9% reporting, with Pittsburgh, Allentown, and Scranton missing entirely.

• Maryland: 38% reporting, with suburban D.C. counties either absent or providing only partial data.

• California: Less than half of agencies reporting, with gaps from LAPD, LA County Sheriff, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland.

• Illinois & New Jersey: Just 52% reporting, with large suburbs and mid-sized cities missing from the record.

This reporting failure is partly due to the transition to the FBI’s new National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), but the operational effect is the same: we are working with an incomplete threat picture.

Why This Matters for Security Operations

Incomplete or manipulated data undermines risk analysis. If we base a security plan on “official” statistics that omit key incidents or regions, our client’s safety could be compromised.

• Advance Work Impact: When traveling to a city where crime appears “low” on paper, the reality on the ground may be very different.

• Resource Allocation: If reported threats seem minimal, protective resources might be under-allocated.

• Client Confidence: Clients trust us to base our advice on the best intelligence available. If we use bad inputs, we risk making bad decisions.

The Cautionary Path Forward

The Washington, D.C., scandal is more than a local embarrassment—it’s a wake-up call for our profession. Official statistics are useful, but they cannot be the only source we rely on.

To build a truly accurate threat profile, we must:

1. Tap Local Knowledge: Use vetted local contacts, protective intelligence sources, and street-level reporting to confirm conditions.

2. Monitor Non-Governmental Data: Local news, community crime trackers, and private intelligence feeds often reveal incidents not reflected in official stats.

3. Cross-Check Multiple Sources: Compare FBI data, local police releases, and real-time incident reports before making decisions.

4. Leverage OSINT Tools: Map-based crime reporting platforms, social media monitoring, and crowdsourced safety apps can fill gaps in the official picture.

Bottom line: The numbers you see in an FBI database or municipal crime report may be incomplete—or in rare cases, deliberately misleading. As professionals tasked with safeguarding lives, we must treat official statistics as just one piece of the threat intelligence puzzle.

In an era of manipulated data and underreporting, the best protection comes from local intelligence, multiple data streams, and on-the-ground verification. Our clients deserve nothing less.