From Ideal to Reality: The (Mis)Interpretation of the Crime Severity Index


Meaghan Boily, University of Saskatchewan

In 2009, Statistics Canada introduced the Crime Severity Index (CSI), claiming that it would, “for the first time, enable Canadians to track changes in the severity of police-reported crime from year to year” (Wallace et al, 2009). The CSI was based on the idea that more serious crimes would have a greater impact on the index in comparison to less serious but higher volume crimes. This is accomplished by assigning a weight to criminal offences that reflects its gravity, derived from the incarceration rate and mean length of the prison sentence for each type of offence. Although the stated aim of the CSI was to track changes in the severity of crime in a single jurisdiction over time, the CSI is often used to make comparisons from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as made infamous by, for instance, the Macleans list of Canada’s Most Dangerous Places (Smith, 2019). Yet, questions remains regarding the validity of using the CSI in this way, and whether the CSI is an appropriate basis upon which to make such comprehensive and bold conclusions. Thus, this research will 1) critically engage with the merits and limitations of the CSI in order to determine methodologically sound interpretations of the CSI. Then, we will 2) compare this with the current usage of the CSI in the media to determine the extent that the CSI is being (mis)interpreted or (mis)used in popular and public discourse. Specifically, this research will begin with a comprehensive review of the extant knowledge of the sound usage of crime statistics and critically engage with the construction of police-reported crime statistics and the methodology behind the CSI. Then, the ways that Statistics Canada and the media present the CSI to the public will be evaluated to understand how this information is disseminated and how discourse around crime is constructed. In shedding light on the use of CSI statistics, this study aims to contribute to an informed discourse surrounding crime assessment methodologies and the responsible dissemination of statistical information within the public sphere. Ultimately, the research seeks to encourage a more thoughtful and conscientious approach to the interpretation and application of crime statistics in the context of between-city comparisons in Canada. This study is informed by the potential consequences of the inappropriate use of statistics in general, and the CSI in particular. If the CSI is misinterpreted, it can result in the long-term disadvantage of certain communities, resulting in a systemic form of marginalization. Continued misuse of the CSI may contribute to the systemic amplification of these disadvantages over time, which may exacerbate existing inequalities within Canadian communities through sustained challenges in attracting investments, encouraging migration, and supporting growth. To the extent that statistics like the CSI are consequential in the long-term shaping of communities at the micro- and macro-levels, it is imperative that these measures be used and disseminated accurately and judiciously. The Crime Severity Index, whether intentional or not, currently serves as an oft-cited instrument in gauging crime in Canada. However, its application in comparing cities requires careful consideration and scrutiny. This research endeavors to provide insights into the efficacy and validity of employing the CSI for comparing crime across Canadian cities and highlights the importance of responsible and accurate statistical interpretation and dissemination. By engaging with the methodology and challenging the current usage of the CSI, this study aims to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of crime severity as well as promote fair and equitable practices in the use of statistical data within Canadian society.

Non-presenting author: Timothy Kang, University of Saskatchewan

This paper will be presented at the following session: