Safety Atlas Research · Procurement Guide
How to evaluate crime risk data
Direct answerGood crime-risk data is traceable, coverage-aware, geographically defensible, normalized with a disclosed denominator, and reproducible from versioned source inputs. A single score without those fields is not enough.
The ten-check buyer audit
| # | Check | Evidence to request |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Source provenance | Primary source URL, file or endpoint, access date, and source year |
| 2 | Agency coverage | Participating ORIs, mapping rules, and explicit missing-data flags |
| 3 | Geographic fit | Boundary or service-area definition for every place |
| 4 | Offense definition | Codes, labels, inclusions, exclusions, and system used |
| 5 | Zero handling | Rule separating a reported zero from null or unavailable |
| 6 | Normalization | Population source, year, geography, and per-capita formula |
| 7 | Recency | Latest complete period plus update schedule |
| 8 | Score construction | Weights, caps, shrinkage, and eligibility rules |
| 9 | Licensing | Permitted use, redistribution, attribution, and retention terms |
| 10 | Reproducibility | Version identifier, QA sample, and correction process |
Red flags
- “Nationwide coverage” with no agency participation table.
- A zero that cannot be traced to a reported source value.
- City scores built from county data without a visible substitution notice.
- Rankings that mix reporting years or population geographies without qualification.
- Proprietary scores with no version, methodology, or correction route.
Match evidence to the decision
Newsrooms may prioritize transparent sources and reproducible charts. Insurance and investment teams may need consistent licensing, batch delivery, and audit logs. Policy researchers may require longitudinal fields and sensitivity tests. In every case, coverage should be a first-class field rather than a footnote.