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-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:50:34.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Missing UCR Data and Divergence of the NCVS and UCR Trends

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2009

By
Michael D. Maltz
Edited by
James P. Lynch  and
Lynn A. Addington
Michael D. Maltz
Affiliation:
Senior Research Scientist, Ohio State University's (OSU) Criminal Justice Research Center; Adjunct Professor of Sociology, OSU
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

INTRODUCTION

The National Crime Survey (NCS, now the National Crime Victimization Survey, or NCVS) was originally designed to provide a check against the crime statistics voluntarily provided to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program by police departments (President's Commission, 1967, p. 21). Pilot surveys (Biderman et al., 1967; Ennis, 1967) had confirmed the widespread belief that many crimes are not reported to the police, the so-called “dark figure” of crime, so a survey would provide information about the nature and extent of unreported crime. Because the survey – which gathers data directly from household residents concerning victimizations they may have experienced over the past six months – provides a more direct check on the true amount of crime, it is considered superior to the UCR for this purpose.

There are also reasons that the UCR may be considered superior to the NCVS. After all, the UCR is a complete count of crimes reported to the police, whereas the NCVS is based on a sample of crimes recalled by citizens aged 12 years and older, in 45,000 randomly selected households, which occurred within the past 6 months. A complete count has no sampling error, whereas the sampling error for the NCVS exists – and is growing as financial considerations dictate reductions in sample size. Moreover, the detailed nature of UCR reporting makes it possible to look at specific time patterns (hour of day, day of week or month) and places where crime is occurring, a specificity that is not available using the NCVS.

Type
Chapter
Information
Understanding Crime Statistics
Revisiting the Divergence of the NCVS and the UCR
 , pp. 269 - 294
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

Akiyama, Y., & Nolan, J. (1999). “Methods for understanding and analyzing NIBRS data.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 15:225–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biderman, A. D., Johnson, L. A., McIntyre, J., & Weir, A. W. (1967). Report on a pilot study in the District of Columbia on victimization and attitudes toward law enforcement. Field Surveys I. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Bureau of Investigation. (1930, August). Uniform Crime Reports for the United States and its possessions (monthly bulletin, Vol. 1, no. 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
“Crime in Capital Is Focus of National Political Fight.” (1972, September 26). New York Times, p. 37.
Ennis, P. (1967). Criminal victimization in the United States: A report of a national survey. Field Surveys II for the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1935). Uniform Crime Reports for the United States and its possessions (fourth quarterly bulletin, Vol. V, No. 4). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2003). Crime in the United States, 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
International Association of Chiefs of Police, Committee on Uniform Crime Records. (1929). Uniform Crime Reporting: A complete manual for police. New York: International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Lejins, P. P., Chute, C. F., & Schrotel, S. R. (1958). Uniform Crime Reporting: Report of the consultant committee. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation.Google Scholar
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lott, J. R. Jr., & Whitley, J. (2003). “Measurement error in county-level data.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 19:185–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maltz, M. D. (1999). Bridging gaps in police crime data: A discussion paper from the BJS Fellows Program. Report No. NCJ-1176365, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, September, 1999, 72 pp. Available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/bgpcd.pdf.Google Scholar
Maltz, M. D., & Targonski, J. (2002). “A note on the use of county-level crime data.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 18:297–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maltz, M. D., & Targonski, J. (2003). “Measurement and other errors in county-level UCR data: A reply to Lott and Whitley.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 19:199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. (2005). County-level UCR data. Retrieved February 17, 2005, from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/ucr.html#desc_cl.
Poggio, E. C., Kennedy, S. D., Chaiken, J. M., & Carlson, K. E. (1985). Blueprint for the future of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Final report of the UCR Study (NCJ 98348). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. (1967). The challenge of crime in a free society. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Seidman, D., & Couzens, M. (1974). “Getting the crime rate down: Political pressure and crime reporting.” Law and Society Review 8:457–493.CrossRefGoogle 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.

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.

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.

Available formats
×