Gallup recently came out with their annual poll of American perceptions of crime trends and it’s a real doozy. Gallup has asked Americans how they would describe crime in the United States and locally every year since 2000, and a record 63 percent of respondents described crime in the United States as “Extremely Serious” or “Very Serious” in the most recent survey (conducted in October 2023). Moreover, 77 percent of respondents said there was more crime in the US than there was a year ago, largely on par with recent years.
This problem seems reasonably unique to crime. If you polled Americans on who won the World Series this season you’d probably get mostly right answers, or at least people would be easily able to look it up and provide the correct answer.
So why are Americans so bad at perceiving crime trends? Did a majority of Americans really think crime rose in 2014, the year with the lowest violent crime and murder rates recorded since 1969?!
I came up with five factors — presented below in the order I wrote them — that I think most likely explain this phenomenon. There are undoubtedly other factors, but these are the ones that speak to me.
“Crime” is poorly defined.
The crux of the problem is that there is no definition of crime provided by the survey. “Crime” could mean UCR Part I major crimes (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, and auto theft) that are the only types of crime formally measured nationally each year by the FBI. Beyond that, there are NIBRS offenses — both Group A and Group B — and UCR Part II offenses which are criminal but for which we have no national estimates to say whether they're rising or falling from year to year.
Most UCR Part I offenses are property crimes, but respondents may be thinking of violent crimes when they're asked about crime. Violent offenses carry a higher societal burden and tend to make up the crux of most crime reporting by the media. Or respondents might be thinking of murder, the crime with the highest societal cost but which makes up around 0.2 percent of all UCR Part I incidents each year.
This distinction matters quite a bit because “Crime” as measured by UCR Part I has been falling steadily for decades (though, ironically, they increased in 2022 due to increasing theft and auto theft and likely artificially low property crimes during the pandemic).
Violent crime has fallen considerably from the 1990s and it fell in 2022 to one of the lowest rates in decades while murder surged up 30 percent in 2020 and increased again in 2021 before falling in 2022 and (almost certainly) 2023.
Different respondents can mean different things when they say “crime” is extremely serious or whether “crime” rose or fell in the last year. Some years there may not be an actual right or wrong answer to such a vaguely defined questiob.
The Questions Are Hard To Answer
Those saying crime rose in the last year were technically correct in 2022 based on UCR Part I crime data, but if they meant violent crime or murder then they were wrong.
But that’s just going based on reported major crimes. There’s no national estimates of less serious crimes like vandalism or embezzlement. And most crimes that occur do not get reported to the police according to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).
NCVS does not include murder because it’s a survey, but the 2022 version of NCVS pointed to a sizable increase in violent crime that year relative to 2021. This flies in the face of what we see in reported crime and certainly creates some questions about what we know about American crime rates.
Additionally, violent crime and murder were largely flat or down slightly between 2000 and 2019 making it even harder for an average American to say whether these crimes are going up or down in a given year. Can you really expect a random American to correctly know this year’s crime trend if murder fell 1 percent from last year? That's way tougher than if it surged of plummeted in a year.
There’s certainly less crime in the US in 2022 than in the 1990s, but it’s much tougher to gauge whether there’s less crime this year than last.
The Data Is Hard To Come By
There are 18,000 law enforcement agencies that report crime data to the FBI every year, but this data is only formally reported annually after a lengthy delay. Some agencies publish their own data online, but only a few do that. Our YTD murder dashboard has data from roughly 170 agencies, less than 1 percent of the existing total, so most Americans couldn’t use hard data to know whether reported crime is going up or down in their locality even if they wanted to.
This problem is particularly acute with small cities and rural counties, so it shouldn’t be a huge surprise to see 81 percent of rural respondents saying there was more crime than there was a year ago. People are predisposed to use vibes rather than data to evaluate crime trends because quick access to clear information about those trends has never really been a thing in most places.
The Media Doesn’t Cover The Planes That Land
People are often forced to rely on anecdotes for their perceptions of crime trends which means they're overly reliant on the media and websites like NextDoor. I first heard the above saying from Chris Hayes and it could not be more true of crime coverage.
There are rarely stories highlighting days where a murder did not occur, only when they add up to an unusual streak does the absence of crime become a media story. On the flip side, most murders will get anecdotally reported in the media and people are forced to remember whether they heard more anecdotes this year compared to last year. It’s virtually impossible for people to get right.
Moreover, the spread of social media and video technology has made it infinitely easier to film and publicize a viral crime incident such as a large scale shoplifting spree. There are millions of property crimes occurring each year, but these outlier incidents become the glue people rely on when guesstimating whether crime is up or down. My neighbors never post on NextDoor how many thousands of packages they successfully receive, only video of the one that randomly got swiped.
Partisanship
This is probably the explanation that people go to most often, and it appears to be with good reason. The Gallup poll has broken down the share of respondents by political party (I'm ignoring independents here) which shows partisanship taking hold of this question around the George W Bush administration.
The question was only asked once during Clinton’s first term (in 1996) but the parties largely were in lockstep as crime of all kinds fell rapidly throughout the latter 90s. Starting in the 2000s, however, the question appears to have becomemore partisan. Democrats said crime was rising throughout Bush and Trump’s tenure while Republicans said crime was rising through Obama’s time in officer (despite most types of crime reaching modern lows during that span).
Of course, 91 percent of Republicans saying crime has risen from last year in 2023 basically breaks the graph and takes the partisan bias of this question to new heights.
Conclusion
Partisanship plays a role in this survey’s results, and the 2023 figures suggest the role is larger than ever before. But the share of Democrats saying crime rose in the last year is also higher than at any other point in the survey’s history, so it can’t all be partisanship.
None of this would be possible without a data vacuum leading to anecdote — rather than data — driving what people think. Combine that with the increasing spread of social media, a poorly defined concept, and media hyperattention to viral outliers and you get an environment for public opinion to detach completely from reported trends.
And that, in my opinion, is why people are so bad at perceiving crime trends.
This is excellent and a discussion that is sorely needed. I would only add that the right-wing media's uber-focus on crime in cities is designed to (and does) increase racism. Racism is a key to their in-group/out-group political strategy. So, sure, Republicans perceive a lot of crime because it is intentionally spoon-fed to them. Democrats perceive it mostly because of the mainstream media's "if it bleeds it leads" and legitimate media's desire to keep up with the popularity of Fox News et al.
I just got blasted for posing the same question in a Reddit group.
One can make any observation they want regarding crime data. There's "proof" that homicides increased by 50 percent and aggravated assaults increased by 36 percent 2019-2022 via big city crime dashboards. There's "proof" that via the NCVS that violence increased 44 percent in 2022. There's "proof" that rates of reported crime are lower than previous decades. There's "proof" that fear or concern depends on age or political affiliation.
But do we run a risk of downplaying concerns about crime? Those of us who are/were in the mainstream justice system came into direct contact with endless people victimized by "minor" crimes who were so negatively impacted that they moved or restricted their movements or who spent thousands on security systems or bought firearms (now in 50 percent of households per Gallup).
I'm aware of a newly hired news director for a Baltimore TV station who wanted to live in the city but their garage was broken into three times to steal bikes. They moved 30 miles away from the city. I just finished reading a story about e bikes in NYC having the potential for solving an array of problems but people keep stealing the bikes.
After personally witnessing (and assisting) multiple victims of crime, their reactions are posted on social media and shared with family and friends. This is multiplied many thousands of times daily. We may believe that their distress is an overreaction based on inaccurate data but, to them, it's real fear with considerable consequences.
I'm unwilling to suggest that that their feelings are invalid (and I understand that's not what you’re saying) but what we consider "minor" crimes lives with them and their friends and family for a very long period of crime.
Now, take it to the next level of violent crimes. The examples of human distress are literally endless with people living their lives in fear and they share that fear with every Facebook photo of them sleeping with Pitbulls. It's the well documented instances of people living in high crime areas with PTSD.
So I'm torn between a statistical approach as to how people "should" feel and how crime has affected them. I'll go back to my experience posting on a Reddit group where I was called every name in the book with people saying that I was "fear mongering" for posting the same data.
I don't know the answer as to how people should feel but I have great sympathy for those who are affected by crime and how it's impacted their lives. It's almost like we are telling rape victims that they shouldn't feel afraid or concerned or that they should stop expressing those feelings via social media.
It would help if there was an accurate synthesis of crime data. It would help if crime victims got the support they need to overcome their very real issues. Yet I understand that, like my experience on Reddit, I just made a lot of people upset for saying the above because they believe that it has a negative impact on their preferred justice policies.
I don't have answers but I believe that we must tread carefully or we alienate a ton of people directly or indirectly victimized.
Best, Len.