Hi Jeff: I'm old enough to remember the reasons for the National Crime Victimization Survey and how the criminological community (and the media-politicians) demanded it's creation 50 years ago. When I was a senior specialist for the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (ran by the National Institute of Justice) it was explained to me that crimes reported to law enforcement via the FBI were extremely problematic to the point of being not useful (their language was a bit more dramatic) and that the Survey was our best hope as to understanding crime in the US.
Now the NCVS is ignored and the 44 percent increase in violent crime is not part of the discussion which is either disappointing or malfeasance.
The USDOJ spent decades trying to get the practitioner community to read and use the data strategically but BJS reports are almost impossible to read and yes, the FBI's new website is also a bit of a cluster-f.
It's no wonder why there are people who want crime data expanded to include other reputable sources (Gallup-Pew-CDC-others) and the inclusion of cybercrimes to fully understand the crime issue.
Crimes reported to law enforcement are ridiculously small, especially when analyzing property crime, (32 percent of 80 percent)? Tiny percentages of cyber crimes and juvenile crimes are reported.
So if we are going to address and understand crime (and fear of crime) we greatly need to expand our horizons. I just did a national TV show trying to explain all of this and the reporter (off air) asked "what the hell is the National Crime Victimization Survey?"
It's as if we have entered an alternative universe where the best possible shot at understanding crime is ignored. After 35 years of explaining this stuff to reporters, it's with great sadness that the really good crime reporters have left and they are being replaced with "journalists" with a very limited knowledge of crime or the justice system. If the WP's "Democracy Dies In Darkness" is true, it seems that there is little hope in understanding what Pew indicates as one of the biggest concerns of voters.
Please consider including the actual NUMBERS of various crimes in addition to changes in crime RATE, which can create false perceptions.
For example, the significant RATE growth in Homicide during peak covid caught the media's attention and their context-free headlines blared "30% increase in Homicide!!!". In response, the fear of being randomly killed rose and many rushed to buy guns under the illusion that more guns make us safer, despite the contradictory data from nations, states, cities and homes agreeing that more guns = more gun crime, including Homicide and Suicide. The media, of course, didn't give nearly as much emphasis to the subsequent record Decrease in Homicides from 2020 to 2023.
In any case, the increase in the actual NUMBER of Homicides was only 5,000 +/-, growing from 17k +/- to 23k +/-. Across our population of 335 Million or so, the %age of Homicide victims rose only slightly, from .0005% to .00068%.
Certainly, that increase was vitally significant to those who were killed and to their loved ones, but the actual increase in risk to any one of us was small. In addition, considering that the majority of Homicides occur in a small number of historically violent zip codes, and that many victims are socially connected with their killers, means the actual increased risk to any one of us random citizens was miniscule.
It is valuable to know the NUMBERS of crimes in addition to crime RATES.
Great explainer on these two data sources. I wasn't really aware of how they worked.
The only part that I found weird was murder surging without other crimes surging. That's because murder tends to be generated by other forms of violence, like other violent assaults, domestic violence, robberies that escalate., etc.. There's not a lot of "pure murders" like contract killings. So if murder is rising but these other things are falling that part doesn't add up to me.
I'm also interested in the potential for error in the UCR based on the transition in data collection from SRS to NIBRS. (My expectation is that the new data should be more accurate, but I'm not sure how directly it compares to the old data.) Further to the definitions used for crime therein. Several in my community believe there is an emerging gulf between the victim's experience and the enforcement agencies record, which I am exploring at a grass roots level. Your work is very informative - thanks.
Hi Jeff: I'm old enough to remember the reasons for the National Crime Victimization Survey and how the criminological community (and the media-politicians) demanded it's creation 50 years ago. When I was a senior specialist for the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (ran by the National Institute of Justice) it was explained to me that crimes reported to law enforcement via the FBI were extremely problematic to the point of being not useful (their language was a bit more dramatic) and that the Survey was our best hope as to understanding crime in the US.
Now the NCVS is ignored and the 44 percent increase in violent crime is not part of the discussion which is either disappointing or malfeasance.
The USDOJ spent decades trying to get the practitioner community to read and use the data strategically but BJS reports are almost impossible to read and yes, the FBI's new website is also a bit of a cluster-f.
It's no wonder why there are people who want crime data expanded to include other reputable sources (Gallup-Pew-CDC-others) and the inclusion of cybercrimes to fully understand the crime issue.
Crimes reported to law enforcement are ridiculously small, especially when analyzing property crime, (32 percent of 80 percent)? Tiny percentages of cyber crimes and juvenile crimes are reported.
So if we are going to address and understand crime (and fear of crime) we greatly need to expand our horizons. I just did a national TV show trying to explain all of this and the reporter (off air) asked "what the hell is the National Crime Victimization Survey?"
It's as if we have entered an alternative universe where the best possible shot at understanding crime is ignored. After 35 years of explaining this stuff to reporters, it's with great sadness that the really good crime reporters have left and they are being replaced with "journalists" with a very limited knowledge of crime or the justice system. If the WP's "Democracy Dies In Darkness" is true, it seems that there is little hope in understanding what Pew indicates as one of the biggest concerns of voters.
Thanks for clarifying.
I apologize for the rant.
Best, Len.
Please consider including the actual NUMBERS of various crimes in addition to changes in crime RATE, which can create false perceptions.
For example, the significant RATE growth in Homicide during peak covid caught the media's attention and their context-free headlines blared "30% increase in Homicide!!!". In response, the fear of being randomly killed rose and many rushed to buy guns under the illusion that more guns make us safer, despite the contradictory data from nations, states, cities and homes agreeing that more guns = more gun crime, including Homicide and Suicide. The media, of course, didn't give nearly as much emphasis to the subsequent record Decrease in Homicides from 2020 to 2023.
In any case, the increase in the actual NUMBER of Homicides was only 5,000 +/-, growing from 17k +/- to 23k +/-. Across our population of 335 Million or so, the %age of Homicide victims rose only slightly, from .0005% to .00068%.
Certainly, that increase was vitally significant to those who were killed and to their loved ones, but the actual increase in risk to any one of us was small. In addition, considering that the majority of Homicides occur in a small number of historically violent zip codes, and that many victims are socially connected with their killers, means the actual increased risk to any one of us random citizens was miniscule.
It is valuable to know the NUMBERS of crimes in addition to crime RATES.
Thank you so much for this discussion of a topic that I had been wondering about lately
Great explainer on these two data sources. I wasn't really aware of how they worked.
The only part that I found weird was murder surging without other crimes surging. That's because murder tends to be generated by other forms of violence, like other violent assaults, domestic violence, robberies that escalate., etc.. There's not a lot of "pure murders" like contract killings. So if murder is rising but these other things are falling that part doesn't add up to me.
Thanks for the analysis - I appreciate your work. I just wrote a more skeptical piece about this here: https://joelelorentzen.substack.com/p/statistically-sneaking.
I'm also interested in the potential for error in the UCR based on the transition in data collection from SRS to NIBRS. (My expectation is that the new data should be more accurate, but I'm not sure how directly it compares to the old data.) Further to the definitions used for crime therein. Several in my community believe there is an emerging gulf between the victim's experience and the enforcement agencies record, which I am exploring at a grass roots level. Your work is very informative - thanks.