Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:39:23.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Conclusion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2009

By
James P. Lynch  and
Lynn A. Addington
Edited by
James P. Lynch  and
Lynn A. Addington
James P. Lynch
Affiliation:
Distinguished Professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York
Lynn A. Addington
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Justice, Law, and Society, American University in Washington, D.C.
James P. Lynch
Affiliation:
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York
Lynn A. Addington
Affiliation:
American University, Washington DC
Get access

Summary

One goal of Understanding Crime Statistics is to encourage and facilitate the appropriate use of crime statistics through a discussion of the divergence of the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). We also seek to build on the idea of complementarity, which originated from the work of Biderman and Lynch (1991). Specifically, Biderman and Lynch's work makes two important points concerning crime statistics. One is that all statistical systems will distort to some degree the data produced and the important lesson for researchers is to understand how this occurs so that appropriate adjustments can be made. The second point is that it is virtually impossible to get statistical systems that are organized as differently as the NCVS and the UCR to tell the same story across the board. Given these two points, Biderman and Lynch concluded that energy and resources were better invested in discovering ways to use these data systems in complementary rather than competing ways.

Although the principle of complementarity seems to be widely accepted today, this acceptance may be fickle. Complementarity has not received a real test because of the coincidence that the two series have tracked reasonably well for more than a decade. When the two series diverge, and history tells us that they will, ready explanations for this divergence must be available as well as examples of very specific ways in which the two systems (even in a divergent state) can be used jointly to shed new light on the crime problem.

Type
Chapter
Information
Understanding Crime Statistics
Revisiting the Divergence of the NCVS and the UCR
 , pp. 297 - 334
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Addington, L. A. (2005). “Disentangling the effects of bounding and mobility on reports of criminal victimization.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 21:321–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumer, E., Felson, R., & Messner, S. (2003). “Changes in police notification for rape.” Criminology 41:841–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biderman, A. D., & Cantor, D. (1984, August). “A longitudinal analysis of bounding, respondent conditioning and mobility as a source of panel bias in the National Crime Survey.” Presented at the American Statistical Association, Social Statistics Section, Philadelphia.
Biderman, A. D., Cantor, D., & Reiss, A. J. (1982). “A quasi-experimental analysis of personal victimization in the National Crime Survey.” Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Methods (pp. 516–521). Washington, DC: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar
Biderman, A. D., & Lynch, J. P. (1991). Understanding crime incidence statistics: Why the UCR diverges from the NCS. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumstein, A., & Wallman, J. (2005). The crime drop in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantor, D., & Lynch, J. P. (2005). “Exploring the effects of changes in design on the analytical uses of the NCVS data.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 21:293–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claritas, Inc . (2005). American Red Cross: Customer segmentation pumps new life into blood donation efforts. San Diego, CA: Author.Google Scholar
Currivan, D. B., & Roe, D. J. (2004, May). Using a dual frame sampling design increase the efficiency of reaching population subgroups in a telephone survey. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Association of Public Opinion Researchers, Phoenix, AZ.Google Scholar
Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International. (2004). Evaluation of Edison-Mitofsky Election System 2004. Washington, DC.
Henderson, N. (2005, October 8). “Storms took toll on jobs in September: Unemployment rate up to 5.1%.” Washington Post, p. D01.Google Scholar
Hubble, D., & Wilder, B. E. (1988). “Preliminary results from the NCVS CATI experiment.” American Statistical Association Proceedings of the Survey Research Section. Washington, DC: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar
Kelling, G., & Wilson, J. Q. (1982, March). “Broken windows: The police and public safety.” Atlantic Monthly, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Kinderman, C., Lynch, J. P., & Cantor, D. (1997). The effects of the redesign on victimization estimates: Data brief. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
Koss, M. (1996). “The measurement of rape victimization in crime surveys.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 23:55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langan, P., & Durose, M. (2004, December). The remarkable drop in crime in New York. Paper presented at the meeting of Italy's National Institute of Statistics.Google Scholar
Lauritsen, J. (2001). “The social ecology of violent victimization: Individual and contextual effects.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 17:3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauritsen, J., & Schaum, R. J. (2005). Crime and victimization in the three largest metropolitan areas, 1980–1998.Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
Lynch, J. P. (2002). Trends in juvenile offending: An analysis of victim survey data. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention.Google Scholar
Lynch, J., & Jarvis, J. P. (2003, November). Exploring the sources of non-response in the Uniform Crime Reports. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Society of Criminology, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
Lynch, J., & Jarvis, J. P. (2005). Towards an error profile of the Uniform Crime Reports: Assessing the magnitude of missing data and the effects of imputation. Unpublished manuscript, John Jay College, New York.
Maltz, M. (1999). Bridging the gaps: Estimating crime rates from police data.Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
Mankewi, N. G., & Matthew, W. (2004). Dynamic scoring: A back of the envelope guide (Working Paper 11000). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCleary, R., Nienstedt, B. C., & Erven, J. M. (1982). Uniform Crime Reports as organizational outcomes: Three time series experiments. Social Problems 29:361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penick, B., & Owens, M. (1976). Surveying crime. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Prewitt, K. (2003). Politics and science in census taking. Washington, DC: Population Research Bureau.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. P. (1997). Time for life: The surprising way that Americans use their time. College Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Simmons, J., & Dodd, T. (2003). Crime statistics England and Wales, 2002/2003. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Taylor, R. B. (2001). Breaking away from broken windows: Baltimore neighborhoods and the nationwide fight against crime, grime, fear, and decline. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Survey of Violence Against Women. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
Wiersema, B., McDowall, D., & Loftin, C. (August, 2000). Comparing metropolitan area estimates of crime from the NCVS and UCR. Paper presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings, American Statistical Association, Indianapolis, Indiana.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Conclusion
    • By James P. Lynch, Distinguished Professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, Lynn A. Addington, Assistant Professor of Justice, Law, and Society, American University in Washington, D.C.
  • Edited by James P. Lynch, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Lynn A. Addington, American University, Washington DC
  • Book: Understanding Crime Statistics
  • Online publication: 23 December 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618543.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Conclusion
    • By James P. Lynch, Distinguished Professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, Lynn A. Addington, Assistant Professor of Justice, Law, and Society, American University in Washington, D.C.
  • Edited by James P. Lynch, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Lynn A. Addington, American University, Washington DC
  • Book: Understanding Crime Statistics
  • Online publication: 23 December 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618543.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Conclusion
    • By James P. Lynch, Distinguished Professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, Lynn A. Addington, Assistant Professor of Justice, Law, and Society, American University in Washington, D.C.
  • Edited by James P. Lynch, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Lynn A. Addington, American University, Washington DC
  • Book: Understanding Crime Statistics
  • Online publication: 23 December 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618543.011
Available formats
×