MAJOR NATIONAL AND FEDERAL CRIMINAL STATISTICS PROGRAMS ARE IDENTIFIED, AND RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE PROGRAMS ARE DISCUSSED AND ILLUSTRATED IN CHARTS. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CENTRAL DIRECTION ARE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF THREE MAJOR APPROACHES TO CRIMINAL STATISTICS: VICTIMIZATION SURVEYS, AGENCY STATISTICAL PROGRAMS, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE RECORD STATISTICS. ALSO DISCUSSED ARE THE RELATIVE ADVANTAGES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DATA-GATHERING EFFORTS, AS WELL AS PROBLEMS THAT ARISE WHEN THE TERM 'INFORMATION' IS USED IN REFERENCE TO BOTH STATISTICAL AND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS. IMPROVEMENTS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT THE CREATION OF A SEPARATE BUREAU WITHIN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ARE NOTED, AS ARE WAYS IN WHICH THE BUREAU SHOULD BE ABLE TO REDUCE FRAGMENTATION AND CONFUSION IN CRIMINAL STATISTICS PROGRAMS. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE EXTENSIVE REORGANIZATION POSSIBLE WITH THE NEW BUREAU WILL FACILITATE COORDINATION AMONG THE MANY AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR GATHERING CRIME STATISTICS. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE BUREAU MUST ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: (1) WHETHER TO ENCOURAGE PASSAGE OF UNIFORM STATE LAWS CREATING STATE BUREAUS OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, OR SEEK VOLUNTARY COOPERATION OF STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES; (2) WHETHER TO CONCENTRATE ON DEVELOPING A SINGLE INDEX OF CRIME, OR ESTABLISH SEVERAL INDICATORS; AND (3) HOW TO OBTAIN THE COOPERATION OF MORE COURTS AND JUDGES. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED.