A few weeks ago I wrote that only about one in five crime victims reports to the police. Since then, many people have asked the same question: “Okay, I understand the number. So what can be done?”
It’s a good question, and frankly, it’s harder to answer than understanding the number itself. This Sunday, to close the week, I’ll try to answer it in three layers: what we need to understand, who can do what, and what we should avoid.
First, recall the number
According to the 2024 National Socioeconomic Survey (Susenas), 20.28% of crime victims reported to the police. A year earlier it was 23.36%. That means roughly four out of five victims chose not to report, and the share who do report has actually fallen.
The impact on how we read statistics is significant. The police data we see in the news is only the part that makes it into the records. As a very rough illustration: if one type of crime is recorded at 1,000 cases and only 20% of its victims report, the actual number of victims could be around 5,000. This is not a finding, only a sense of scale, because reporting rates differ across crime types and regions.
Second, why don’t people report?
Before discussing action, we need to understand the causes. In the criminology literature, the most common reasons include:
- Seeing the loss as small, or the matter as too trivial to report.
- Not believing a report will be followed up, or worrying the process will be complicated.
- Fear or shame, especially for sensitive incidents or ones involving people close to them.
- Cost and time: the distance to the police station, the queue, and having to come back for further questioning.
Interestingly, when we put this data side by side with infrastructure data, the picture becomes even more unusual. Village Potential (Podes) data shows that 89.14% of villages and urban wards have no police post, yet around 85% of them say access to the police is easy. If distance isn’t the main barrier, then what needs closer study is trust and the experience of reporting.
Third, who can do what
| Party | Reasonable actions |
|---|---|
| Statistical agencies and researchers | Keep publishing victimization surveys and link them to registration data |
| Law enforcement and complaint services | Make reporting easier and faster, keep reporters updated on their cases, train officers to be welcoming to people who report |
| Local governments | Provide alternative reporting channels (online, through community services) and monitor reporting rates, not just the number of reports |
| Media | Include the dark-figure context when reporting rises or falls in crime figures |
| Readers | Weigh crime figures against comparison sources before sharing them |
A few brief explanations.
For researchers and statistical agencies, the key is triangulation. One source is never enough. Victimization surveys capture experience, registration data captures the system’s response, and perception surveys capture the sense of safety. Putting all three into one framework gives a far more honest picture.
For law enforcement and policymakers, there’s one trap to watch for. If a program to build public trust succeeds, the number of reports may rise at first, because people who used to stay silent start to come forward. If success is measured only by a drop in reports, a program that is actually working may look like a failure. Monitor the reporting rate, not just the number of reports.
For the media and readers, the most realistic action is a simple habit: every time a story says crime has “gone up” or “gone down,” ask whether what changed is the incidents themselves or people’s willingness to report them.
Fourth, what to avoid
There are three common mistakes when people talk about the dark figure of crime.
Blaming victims who don’t report. The decision not to report usually makes sense from the perspective of the person who experienced it. Calling it “not caring” or “not law-abiding” doesn’t help; it only widens the gap between victims and the system.
Turning an illustrative number into a fact. The “1,000 divided by 0.20 equals 5,000” calculation is deliberately simplified. Don’t quote it as if it were an official estimate.
Concluding that crime figures are useless. Registration data remains important, especially for understanding the workload of law enforcement and for comparisons over time with consistent definitions. What we need is to read it correctly, not to throw it away.
Applying it in organizations: from the dark figure to a reporting culture
The concept of a dark figure doesn’t belong to criminology alone. Imagine a company that records two workplace incident reports in a month. Management is pleased: “Great, our office is safe.” But there are two very different possibilities behind that number. Perhaps only two incidents really happened. Or perhaps employees are reluctant to report because the procedure is complicated, they’re afraid of being labeled troublemakers, or they aren’t sure their report will be used.
The way to tell them apart is similar to how BPS complements police data with surveys: run an anonymous survey asking whether employees have experienced or witnessed an incident in the past three months and whether they reported it. Compare the results with the number of official reports. The gap between the two is your organization’s dark figure. And that number, just like in crime statistics, is the most valuable information of all.
Good policy doesn’t stop at “reduce the number of incidents.” It first asks, “do people feel safe reporting?”, because without that, incident counts can’t be trusted as a measure of success.
Research questions worth exploring
For students and researchers looking for a topic, the dark figure opens many directions. What factors are associated with the decision to report, by type of crime? Is there a difference in reporting rates between urban and rural areas, and is the gap related to perceptions of law enforcement? How does the reporting rate change after a new complaint service is introduced? These questions can be answered with available survey data, with care for their limitations and research ethics.
Lessons for data readers
If we step outside criminology, this pattern shows up everywhere. A small number of customer complaints doesn’t necessarily mean customers are satisfied; maybe the complaint channel is hard to use. A small number of workplace incident reports doesn’t necessarily mean the office is safe; maybe people are afraid of being labeled troublemakers. “Clean” data sometimes means no one dares to record anything.
That’s why my favorite question whenever I see a small number is: who actually had the chance to show up in this data?
Closing
The dark figure can’t be eliminated, but it can be reduced and understood. The first step is to acknowledge that official records are not the whole of reality. The next step is to build systems that make people feel safe and confident enough to report, and to measure them with the right indicators.
Tomorrow we start a new week on young people and the world of work. Thank you for following this week’s discussions. If there’s a criminology or social data topic you’d like us to cover, leave it in the comments.
Tinggalkan Balasan