Decade of Data Delivers Clearer View of Animal Cruelty Crimes

This year, we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the addition of animal cruelty data to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). This accomplishment came after a hard-fought campaign of as many years by AWI and allies.

Previously, information collected about animal cruelty crimes was relegated to the catch-all “All Other Offenses” category of NIBRS, making tracking and analysis all but impossible. Thus, the addition of animal cruelty as its own category—with sub-categories of neglect, intentional abuse, organized abuse (i.e., animal fighting), and animal sexual abuse—represented a dramatic change.

In 2024, AWI launched the Center for the Study of NIBRS Animal Cruelty Data (the Center) to encourage researchers, policymakers, law enforcement officials, and animal advocates to use this newly available wealth of information on animal cruelty in ways that will inform more effective intervention and prevention strategies. The Center provides easy online access to the annually released NIBRS animal cruelty data on the Center’s website as SPSS and Excel files—formats typically used by researchers.

NIBRS animal cruelty crime data provide information such as offender demographics (but not identity), co-occurring crimes, location of crime, and whether an arrest was made. Researchers and policymakers now have the opportunity to analyze this data, use it to reexamine findings from earlier studies, and obtain a more nuanced understanding of animal cruelty.

While previous studies were helpful in calling attention to the link between animal cruelty and other interpersonal offenses, they had limitations. They said little, for example, about how animal cruelty patterns changed over time and varied across jurisdictions. They often lacked detailed information about the demographics of animal cruelty offenders. Moreover, previous research on animal cruelty did not distinguish between neglect and intentional animal cruelty.

One of the first studies using NIBRS data to examine animal cruelty focused on these two distinct forms of animal cruelty—neglect and intentional abuse. The study found no great difference in the percentage of males and females implicated in cases of neglect; however, males were four times more likely than females to commit acts of intentional abuse. Compared to neglect, intentional abuse was also far more likely to co-occur with other criminal activity: In 20 percent of the intentional abuse cases, other crimes were committed—including assault, sexual assault, and robbery—compared to only 3 percent in neglect cases.

Another study focused on animal cruelty that co-occurred with interpersonal violence specifically. Although previous studies have reported on the connections between animal abuse and domestic violence, child abuse, and elder abuse, this study was able to analyze a wider range of relationships. It found that the two most prominent forms of violence against family members (excluding spouses) associated with animal cruelty were sibling violence (20.2%) and parental abuse (26.7%)—both involving interfamily dynamics not examined in prior studies. (As a category, parental abuse is distinguished from elder abuse in that it includes abuse of both elderly and nonelderly parents.) In terms of intimate partner violence, this study found that the type of relationship most strongly associated with animal cruelty was boyfriend/girlfriend (66.3%), followed by spousal (18.9%).

NIBRS data have also been used to examine animal cruelty committed by individuals 25 years old and younger, yielding findings not reported previously. For example, within this population segment, individuals 11 to 18 years of age were responsible for 56 percent of animal sexual abuse incidents. More broadly, a quarter of the intentional animal abuse cases involved individuals 18 and under (the vast majority of whom were again in this 11–18 range, although children 7 to 10 years of age did account for 2.3 percent of the total for the entire 25-and-under population). This study, and others like it, would not have been possible without the addition of animal cruelty crime data to NIBRS.

While analysis of NIBRS animal cruelty data has given law enforcement and policymakers important information, there are still challenges to achieving a comprehensive understanding of animal cruelty offenses. First and foremost, NIBRS does not allow reporting agencies to include details about the types of animals victimized—NIBRS reports, for instance, do not indicate whether the crime involved companion animals or farmed animals. The motivation for harming one type of animal versus another may vary and require different interventions, so the inability to capture details concerning the animal victims is problematic.

Another element that cannot specifically be captured in NIBRS is animal hoarding—for which there is no subcategory—and this means important information is overlooked. The number of animals affected by animal hoarding is often much greater than any other type of animal cruelty. One study estimated that a quarter of a million animals a year are victims of hoarding (Arluke & Patronek, 2016). Given that the nature and circumstances surrounding animal hoarding are markedly different from other forms of animal cruelty, AWI is urging that it be recognized as a separate animal cruelty subcategory in NIBRS.

An additional challenge is that, currently, only animal control agencies that operate as divisions of law enforcement agencies can report to NIBRS, yet approximately 50 percent of animal control agencies operate independently from local law enforcement. We need robust reporting if we are to truly understand the scope of these crimes, so finding ways for these other animal control agencies to also report animal cruelty is vital. AWI is working to evaluate and promote trainings that would help fill this gap.

As we seek refinements to the categorization of animal cruelty crimes and consistent reporting from a wider pool of animal control agencies, we are also working to improve data collection and reporting rates of current contributors to NIBRS. The Center’s website now includes state-specific reporting rates, and we encourage constituents to help us disseminate information on reporting rates and be advocates for improved data collection and reporting in their communities.

The animal cruelty crime data captured via NIBRS over the last 10 years has allowed for significant improvement in our ability to understand and address these heart-wrenching crimes. Looking ahead, improved reporting and increased access to state-level data will allow us to further our understanding of animal cruelty and use what we learn to promote meaningful change.

See more AWI Quarterly articles about: Companion Animals

See more AWI Quarterly articles of type: Feature Article