Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 335–355 | Cite as

When Choice of Data Matters: Analyses of U.S. Crime Trends, 1973–2012

  • Janet L. Lauritsen
  • Maribeth L. Rezey
  • Karen Heimer
Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives

This study uses UCR and NCVS crime data to assess which data source appears to be more valid for analyses of long-term trends in crime. The relationships between UCR and NCVS trends in violence and six factors from prior research are estimated to illustrate the impact of data choice on findings about potential sources of changes in crime over time.

Methods

Crime-specific data from the UCR and NCVS for the period 1973–2012 are compared to each other using a variety of correlational techniques to assess correspondence in the trends, and to UCR homicide data which have been shown to be externally valid in comparison with other mortality records. Log-level trend correlations are used to describe the associations between trends in violence, homicide and the potential explanatory factors.

Results

Although long-term trends in robbery, burglary and motor vehicle theft in the UCR and NCVS are similar, this is not the case for rape, aggravated assault, or a summary measure of serious violence. NCVS trends in serious violence are more highly correlated with homicide data than are UCR trends suggesting that the NCVS is a more valid indicator of long-term trends in violence for crimes other than robbery. This is largely due to differences during the early part of the time series for aggravated assault and rape when the UCR data exhibited consistent increases in the rates in contrast to general declines in the NCVS. Choice of data does affect conclusions about the relationships between hypothesized explanatory factors and serious violence. Most notably, the reported association between trends in levels of gasoline lead exposure and serious violence is likely to be an artifact associated with the reliance on UCR data, as it is not found when NCVS or homicide trend data are used.

Conclusions

The weight of the evidence suggests that NCVS data represent more valid indicators of the trends in rape, aggravated assault and serious violence from 1973 to the mid-1980s. Studies of national trends in serious violence that include the 1973 to mid-1980s period should rely on NCVS and homicide data for analyses of the covariates of violent crime trends.

Keywords

Crime trends Violence trends Lead exposure NCVS UCR 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the members of the National Academy of Sciences’ Roundtable on Crime Trends and to anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

References

  1. Ansari S, He N (2012) Convergence revisited. A multi-definition, multi-method analysis of the UCR and NCVS crime series: 1973–2008. Justice Q 29:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett-Ryan C, Langton L, Planty M (2014) The nation’s two crime measures. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumer E (2008) An empirical assessment of the contemporary crime trends puzzle: a modest step toward a more comprehensive research agenda. In: Goldberger A, Rosenfeld R (eds) Understanding crime trends: workshop report. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumer E, Lauritsen J (2010) Reporting crime to the police, 1973–2005: a multivariate analysis of long term trends in the National Crime Survey (NCS) and National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Criminology 48:131–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg M, Lauritsen J (2015) Telling a similar story twice? NCVS/UCR convergence in serious violent crime in rural, suburban and urban places (1973–2010). J Quant Criminol. doi:10.1007/s10940-015-9254-9 Google Scholar
  6. Biderman A, Lynch J (1991) Understanding crime incidence statistics: why the UCR diverges from the NCS. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blumstein A, Cohen J, Rosenfeld R (1991) Trend and deviation in crime rates: a comparison of UCR and NCS data for burglary and robbery. Criminology 29:237–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1986) State and federal prisoners, 1925–85. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Bureau of Justice Statistics (no date) Correctional statistics analysis tool (CSAT)—prisoners. Retrieved from: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=nps
  10. Bureau of Labor Statistics (no date-a) Labor force statistics from the Current Population Survey. Retrieved from: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=ln
  11. Bureau of Labor Statistics (no date-b) Consumer price index. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/
  12. Cantor D, Land K (1985) Unemployment and crime rates in post-World War II United States: a theoretical and empirical analysis. Am Sociol Rev 50:317–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drum K (2013) America’s Real Criminal Element. Mother Jones, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. Jensen G, Karpos M (1993) Managing rape: exploratory research on the behavior of rape statistics. Criminology 31:363–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kindermann C, Lynch J, Cantor D (1997) Effects of the redesign on victimization estimates. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Lauritsen J, Heimer K (2010) Violent victimization among males and economic conditions: the vulnerability of race and ethnic minorities. Criminol Public Policy 9:665–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Loftin C, McDowall D (2010) The use of official records to measure crime and delinquency. J Quant Criminol 26:527–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lynch J, Addington L (eds) (2007) Understanding crime statistics: revisiting the divergence of the NCVS and UCR. Cambridge Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Lynch J, Jarvis J (2008) Missing data and imputation in the uniform crime reports and the effects on national estimates. J Contemp Crim Justice 24:69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maltz M, Targonski J (2002) A note on the use of county-level UCR data. J Quant Criminol 18:297–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCall P, Land K (2004) Trends in environmental lead exposure and troubled youth, 1960–1995: an age-period-cohort characteristic analysis. Soc Sci Res 33:339–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McDowall D, Loftin C (2007) What is convergence and what do we know about it? In: Lynch J, Addington L (eds) Understanding crime statistics: revisiting the divergence of the NCVS and UCR. Cambridge Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Nevin R (2000) How lead exposure relates to temporal changes in IQ, violent crime, and unwed pregnancy. Environ Res 83:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Brien R (1996) Police productivity and crime rates: 1983–1992. Criminology 34:187–207Google Scholar
  25. Reyes J (2007a) Environmental policy as social policy? The impact of childhood lead exposure on crime. Working Paper 13097, National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  26. Reyes J (2007b) Environmental policy as social policy? The impact of childhood lead exposure on crime. BE J Econ Anal Policy 7:1–41Google Scholar
  27. Rosenfeld R (2007) Explaining the divergence between UCR and NCVS aggravated assault trends. In: Lynch J, Addington L (eds) Understanding crime statistics: revisiting the divergence of the NCVS and UCR. Cambridge Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosenfeld R (2015) Crime and inflation in cross-national perspective. In: Tonry M (ed) Why crime rates fall and why they don’t: crime and justice: a review of research, vol 43. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosenfeld R, Fornango R (2007) The impact of economic conditions on robbery and property crime: the role of consumer sentiment. Criminology 45:735–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith E, Cooper A (2013) Homicide in the U.S. known to law enforcement, 2011. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Thomas S, Shihadeh E (2013) Institutional isolation and crime: the mediating effect of disengaged youth on levels of crime. Soc Sci Res 42:1167–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. U.S. Census Bureau (no date) Historical national population estimates: July 1, 1900 to July 1, 1999. Population Estimates Program, Population DivisionGoogle Scholar
  33. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2015) How do I convert between short tons and metric tons? Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=7&t=2
  34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1985) National air quality and emissions trends report, 1983. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. Woodbury W (1991) Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook: lead. U.S. Geological Society, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janet L. Lauritsen
    • 1
  • Maribeth L. Rezey
    • 1
  • Karen Heimer
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Criminology and Criminal JusticeUniversity of Missouri – St. LouisSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.University of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations