SpotCrime Crime Data Transparency Ranking 2025
The SpotCrime Crime Data Transparency Ranking was established in 2013 to assess how openly cities share crime data. We periodically update the ranking to reflect the evolving landscape of open crime data.
With the increasing use of AI in policing, ensuring public access to this data is more critical than ever. AI models are only as reliable as the data they are built on. Continuous monitoring using open data helps identify and correct biases in real time, ensuring these models evolve to be more equitable.
Scoring System: 0, 1, 2
The scoring system remains unchanged since our 2020 update.
This year, we expanded our ranking to include cities evaluated in the Vera Institute for Justice’s Police Data Transparency Index (published since 2022). We found significant overlap in covered cities and appreciated their approach to assessing police data transparency. Their ranking considers factors beyond just open Records Management System (RMS) and Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) data.
A troubling trend is the shift from open data to dashboards and proprietary platforms that prevent downloading raw data.
As transparency standards evolve, it is vital that cities prioritize open data practices to foster accountability and public trust. Agencies should take proactive steps to ensure that crime data remains open, discoverable, and usable by all.
- Score of 2: Awarded only if the data is openly and timely published on an open data portal.
- "Open" means data is available for download in a machine-readable format, accessible to anyone for use and sharing.
- A dedicated portal and feed improve data discoverability.
- Open data portals often include documentation and contact information, ensuring transparency and accountability.
- Open data also aligns with recent mandates to improve website accessibility for people with disabilities.
- Score of 1: Given when data is available but not fully open. This may be due to:
- Infrequent updates.
- Lack of inclusion on an open data portal.
- The absence of a machine-readable format.
- Difficulty in accessing the data (e.g., requiring an email request or special access permissions).
- Score of 0: Indicates that the public has no meaningful way to access, collect, or share the data.
- This is particularly concerning when a city provides crime data to private vendors but makes no effort to share it with the public.
Expanding the Ranking: More Cities Added
Previously, our ranking included:- The 50 most populous U.S. cities.
- State capitals.
- Cities participating in the Police Data Initiative.
This year, we expanded our ranking to include cities evaluated in the Vera Institute for Justice’s Police Data Transparency Index (published since 2022). We found significant overlap in covered cities and appreciated their approach to assessing police data transparency. Their ranking considers factors beyond just open Records Management System (RMS) and Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) data.
Transparency Trends
We have now ranked nearly 200 police agencies:- 48% received a 2 (fully open data).
- 30% received a 1 (partially open data).
- 22% received a 0 (no meaningful public access).
Since our last ranking in 2020:
- 21 agencies improved their transparency scores.
- 8 agencies were downgraded.
- 32% received a 2
- 35% received a 1
- 33% received a 0
Barriers to Transparency
1. Dashboards & Proprietary SoftwareA troubling trend is the shift from open data to dashboards and proprietary platforms that prevent downloading raw data.
- Dashboards are not open data—they typically display only graphs and summaries, lacking full data access.
- If an agency moves to a dashboard-only system, it sends a clear message: they do not want to share the underlying data.
- Some agencies mislead the public by linking to third-party vendors that restrict downloads and reuse, falsely presenting them as "open data."
2. Vendor Software Transition Issues
Many agencies cite software transitions—such as moving from UCR to NIBRS or switching to a new vendor—as a reason for turning off open data feeds.
We have documented the misuse of Marsy’s Law, particularly in Florida, Ohio, and Iowa.
- These outages often last months or even years, which is unacceptable.
- Example: Louisville's open data feed was offline for 18 months before being restored.
- Crime data should be treated as a utility—just as a city would not shut off water for months during infrastructure upgrades, crime data access should remain uninterrupted.
- Some agencies claim their new vendor’s software cannot export machine-readable data, raising serious concerns about transparency.
We have documented the misuse of Marsy’s Law, particularly in Florida, Ohio, and Iowa.
- Some Florida agencies have exploited the law to shield police officers’ identities in use-of-force and shooting cases.
- While Marsy’s Law is intended to protect victims, its application should not obstruct accountability.
The Importance of Open Crime Data
The SpotCrime Crime Data Transparency Ranking underscores the critical need for publicly accessible crime dataAs transparency standards evolve, it is vital that cities prioritize open data practices to foster accountability and public trust. Agencies should take proactive steps to ensure that crime data remains open, discoverable, and usable by all.
Comments