Using the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) to Study Animal Cruelty: Preliminary Results (2016–2019)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Journal: Social Sciences
Manuscript ID: socsci-1355539
Type of manuscript: Article
Title: Using the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) to Study Animal Cruelty: Preliminary Results (2016-2019)

This is a review of the above referenced manuscript. The authors presented preliminary results from animal cruelty (AC) offenses reported in 2016-2019 in the NIMRS as “all other offenses.” The authors provided background and history on AC reporting and documentation. Most of the paper focused on documenting descriptive information on characteristics of the AC offenses. The manuscript is well-written, comprehensive, and informative for any AC researcher. It is a contribution to the research on crimes of AC. There are a few (mostly minor) recommendations for the authors to consider in their revision.
1. Please consider rephrasing “warning sign” (p. 3, line 101) when referring to exposure to animal abuse for future antisocial behavior. It may be more appropriate to refer to this as a risk factor.
2. Please clarify what constructs are referred to when describing them as “unclear definitions” (p. 3, line 116).
3. Please define what is meant by “predatory violence” on the Hoffer et al. (2018) study (p. 3, lie 124).
4. On page 7, 1st full paragraph (lines 309-324), what factors impacted rates of reporting AC in NIBRS for each year. Were there any patterns in the individual agencies? Can the reader understand what areas there was more or less reporting?
5. The authors report that these are indeed preliminary results, I would recommend that the authors remind the reader that these results are based on a small slice (do we actually have a percentage?) of available data. Some of the interpretations offered need to be either removed (i.e., time of day and child and AC crimes) or stated with more caution. Please consider this point in your revision.
6. Is there any information on how AC crime data are actually entered? Who enters the data and are people trained on what to enter?
7. Table 1 seems to not include all states (e.g., NY). Please include a table note on why some states are missing from this reporting.
8. The difference between DE numbers and the other states is interesting! Are there any conclusions regarding the accuracy of the data gathered and reported in DE vs the other states? Is the OAW more comprehensive?

 9. The point made regarding the value of cross-training and reporting among law enforcement agencies is an important one (p.12, line 451-452). Can the authors more explicitly provide evidence from their data to support this claim
10. I was concerned about the reporting and emphasis on time of day when AC occurred. Is this data valuable? It seemed to be emphasized in most of the results after it was first presented on page 12. I suppose it would be useful to convince the reader that time of day is indeed an important variable if it will be emphasized throughout the paper and linked to other characteristics of AC crimes.
11. How does adjusting data to account for missing data explain the difference in rates of male and female offenders between the FBI and AWI data (p. 13, line 481)?
12. Please cite the statement on page 15 (lines 512-513) regarding children engaged in AC. I also wonder if reporting AC crimes among minors is qualitatively different from reporting AC crimes by adults - the actual classification of it. I would also limit speculation about law enforcement officers choosing to perhaps not report minor AC crimes. (lines 515-516)
13. I would encourage statements that suggest profiling by law enforcement not be included in the manuscript (p. 15, lines 531-533). There are so many factors to consider when trying to understand who commits AC crimes.
14. Can the authors perform chi-square analyses to statistical compare proportions of men and women committing the different AC crimes (A and I) (p. 17)?
15. Please support statement regarding animal and human neglect connection with theory (p. 20, lines 652-654).
16. Can the authors cite and perhaps provide a percentage of sex offenders often being under the age of 18? (p. 21, lines 710-711)?
17. I really appreciated the 1st full paragraph (p. 23) on animals not being considered victims but property. I think it should be stated earlier in the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see attached. File contains just response to Reviewer 1. Unfortunately I have no way to share the extensive edits made to the paper based on comments from both Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2. I also have written cover letter to editor. I also have the revised paper with track changes as well as a version showing the paper with all changes accepted to make it easier to read the revised paper. If I could share this I would. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for providing a summary of the NIBRS animal cruelty data from the first 4 years of collection.  While we are still in the early phases of learning what the data may be able to tell us, I appreciate a look into what has been collected and made available so far!  

Comments:

1. On line 226  you state that "all law enforcement agencies were required to start using NIBRS".  It is my understanding that on Jan. 2021, the SRS would no longer be in use but that NIBRS is not required but encouraged.  I would recommend adding citations to support this statement.  

2. In Table 1 at the top of page 9, 4 rows down the column titles are displayed.  I believe this is meant to be at the top of the continuation of the table.

3. Recommend removing lines 515-517, as the statement is speculative.

4. Are there peer-reviewed studies to support the statement on line 658?  If not, I would recommend removing this statement.

5. Lines 717 and 711 have unnecessary indentations.  

6. Lines 765-773- Do we know that using information about animal cruelty offenders can identify those who are likely to abuse children?  If so, this needs to be referenced, or if not this statement should be removed.

7. Overall it seems that most of the discussion occurs within the results section.  Ideally, this should be moved under the discussion section.

Author Response

Please see attached. File contains just response to Reviewer 2. Unfortunately I have no way to share the extensive edits made to the paper based on comments from both Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2. I also have written cover letter to editor. I also have the revised paper with track changes as well as a version showing the paper with all changes accepted to make it easier to read the revised paper. If I could share this I would. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your diligent work on this manuscript!  All comments and concerns have been adequately addressed.  I do have one question concerning new content.

1. On lines 476-478 you discuss co-occurring crimes.  Were sexual offenses the only type of co-occurring crime?  If so, this statement seems to contradict Figure 10.  I would recommend clarifying.  

Additionally, I noted that "animal abuse" and "animal cruelty" seem to be used synonymously throughout the manuscript.  I would recommend utilizing the term "cruelty" as that is the terminology recognized by the law. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you for your diligent work on this manuscript!  All comments and concerns have been adequately addressed.  I do have one question concerning new content.
1.    On lines 476-478 you discuss co-occurring crimes.  Were sexual offenses the only type of co-occurring crime?  If so, this statement seems to contradict Figure 10.  I would recommend clarifying.  
Additionally, I noted that "animal abuse" and "animal cruelty" seem to be used synonymously throughout the manuscript.  I would recommend utilizing the term "cruelty" as that is the terminology recognized by the law. 

Authors Response to Comment about use of the term cruelty vs. abuse:

The word abuse has been replaced with the term cruelty in many places when speaking about criminal behavior. However, when speaking about the study of animal abuse as a symptom of conduct disorder (Section 2.1) or when using it in the way it is used by the FBI, the term abuse is retained.

I have replaced “animal abuse” with “animal cruelty” some places where it appears. Please refer to this document from the FBI where you will see the term “abuse” used in a few places on p. 1. I have retained this terminology using the term “abuse” where appropriate and where it is used in a definition. For example: 

“For Animal Cruelty offenses, reporting agencies must enter at least one but no more than three types of activity (simple/gross neglect, organized abuse, intentional abuse and torture, or animal sexual abuse).”
https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2016/resource-pages/nibrs-2016-homepage_alt.pdf 

Authors Response to Point # 1
In response to point # 1 I have revised this paragraph “An analysis of the 2019 animal cruelty data from DJIS (typo, should be CJIS) (which provides information about the co-occurring crimes associated with animal cruelty incidents) shows that there were 12 incidents that also involved some form of sex offense. Even though it is not known if these incidents involved an adult or a child victim, it is still clear that when an animal is harmed a person may also be harmed, and therefore getting social services involved is probably very important.”

to instead say:

An analysis of the 2019 animal cruelty data provided by CJIS, which gives information about the co-occurring crimes associated with animal cruelty incidents, shows that non-violent and violent crimes such as assault (both simple and aggravated), vandalism, drug/narcotics violations, burglary, and weapons law violations are the types of crime most commonly co-occurring with animal cruelty. This is discussed in more detail below in section 3.5.  Only a small number of the incidents in the database had crimes commonly associated with family violence. These included kidnapping/abduction (12) and different types of sex offenses (16)(rape, sodomy, fondling). Even though it is not known if these incidents involved an adult or a child victim, it is still clear that when an animal is harmed a person may also be harmed, and therefore, getting social services involved is probably very important.