Criminal Statistics And

C H A P T E R 4

Criminal Statistics and

the Extent of Crime

SUMMARY

Most of the data on the nature, extent, and trends of crime in the United States come from official crime statistics. Official statistics are collected and compiled by the FBI and published annually as the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). The UCR includes crimes known to the police and arrests. Data are broken down into Part I and Part II offenses, and arrests are subdivided by age, race, and gender. The UCR also includes rates of crime, percent changes from year to year, and breakdowns by region, state, and metropolitan area.

Although official statistics are the primary source of crime data, they have numerous shortcomings. Most criminal acts are not reported to the police, and statistical data are subject to concealment, overreporting, nonreporting, and other manipulations. On the other hand, despite these difficulties, UCR data are useful for gaining insight into the relative amount of crime and for analyzing crime and arrest trends.

In an effort to determine the parameters of crime that did not appear in official statistics, in 1965 the President’s Commission initiated the first National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) ever conducted. Similar surveys have been undertaken since then. These surveys demonstrate that the actual amount of crime is probably several times greater than that estimated in the UCR. NCVS and UCR data, however, are not fully comparable. The bases of their rates are different, the yardsticks of measurement are different, and crime classifications are not uniform.

Victimization data have numerous useful applications for understanding the characteristics of victims, evaluating the effectiveness of police programs, developing insights into victim-offender relationships, sensitizing the criminal justice system to the needs of the victim, and structuring more focused crime prevention programs. On the other hand, victimization surveys have their shortcomings. They are expensive, and they raise a number of basic methodological issues.

Self-reported data on offenses represent a third source of information on crime. These data reflect the so-called dark figure, or unknown crime. The findings of self-report studies suggest the extent of crime in both “normal” and special populations (such as street drug users), what kinds of crimes are committed that typically remain unknown, and how the official system of crime control may select its cases. Self-report studies, however, have problems of validity and reliability.

CHAPTER TOPIC OUTLINE

1.Uniform Crime Reports

a.At the 1927 annual meeting of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Committee on Uniform Crime Reports was appointed. In 1930 Congress authorized the FBI to compile and collect data on crime. For more on the extent of crime before the UCR, see Exhibit 4.1, Historical Perspectives on Criminal Justice: Late-19th-Century Homicide Rates in the United States

b.The crime clock (See Exhibit 4.2.)

c.Part I offenses and Part II offenses

Total Crime Index: the sum of all Part I offenses

e.Crime rate =Total Crime Index x 100,000

Population

f.Percent change = current Total Crime Index – previous Total Crime Index

previous Total Crime Index

g.Index of Crime in the United States(See Exhibit 4.3.)

h.The extent of crime

i.Problems with the UCR

Concealment by victims
Nonreporting by authorities
Methods of recording at the local level

j.Incident-based reporting.

k.See also Exhibit 4.4, Victims and Justice: Kitty Genovese and the “No Duty to Aid” Rule.

2.Victim Survey Research: began in 1965 with the President’s Commission

Early comparison with the UCR
For a discussion of victimization, see Exhibit 4.5, Gender Perspectives on Crime and Justice: Violence Against Pregnant Women.

c. National Crime Victimization Survey

d.Comparability of UCR and NCVS estimates (See also Exhibit 4.6.)

Bases vary (total population for UCR, persons age 12 and above for NCVS).
Yardstick varies (the incident for UCR, the victimization for NCVS).
NCVS data on homicide are unreliable.

e. Exhibit 4.7, Victims and Justice: Percent of Victimizations Reported to the Police

f. Applications and limitations of victimization data

3.Self-Reported Criminal Behavior

a.Studies examine the “dark figure” of crime.

b.Self-report studies indicate (1) how extensive crime commission may be within a normal population; (2) what kinds of crime remain unknown; (3) how the official system selects its cases; (4) whether certain offenders are over- or underselected by official control mechanisms; and (5) whether theories of crime apply to all offenders.

c.Problems of validity and reliability

Other Sources of Data

a. For a discussion on the nationwide system designed to apprehend child abductors and the data

associated with these crimes, see Exhibit 4.8, Victims and Justice: The AMBER Alert.

b. National Household Survey of Drug Abuse

Monitoring the Future Survey

Other Topics of Interest:

Critical Thinking in Criminal Justice: International Crime Statistics and the World’s Most Dangerous Places

Careers in Criminal Justice: Document Examiners and Fingerprint Analysts

Famous Criminals: Celebrity Mug Shots

KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS

Crime IndexSelf-reported crime

Crime rateUniform Crime Reports (UCR)

Part I offenses Victimization surveys

Part II offenses

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After a thorough study of Chapter 4, students should be able to answer the following questions:

1.What are the major sources of statistical information about crime?

2.What are the limitations of the Uniform Crime Reports?

3.Which kinds of crimes tend to go unreported, and why is there so much nonreporting and concealment of crime?

4.Can you interpret the data in the Uniform Crime Reports?

5.How do you compute a crime rate, and what does it mean?

6.What are the strengths and weaknesses of the National Crime Victimization Survey?

7.What are the major sources of statistical data on drug abuse in the United States?

8.Is the United States the most crime-ridden country in the world?

SUPPLEMENTARY LECTURE MATERIALS

THE CONSTRUCTION OF CRIME WAVES

The material in Chapter 4 ends with a quotation from New York journalist Lincoln Steffens: “Every now and then there occurs the phenomenon called a crime wave.” More information on Steffens might be interesting to students, because his exploits illustrate how “perception becomes reality.”

In 1891, Steffens inaugurated the era of journalistic “muckraking” — so-called by Theodore Roosevelt — by publishing a series of exposésof corruption in business and city government. Throughout most of the 1880s Steffens was a police reporter for the New York Evening Post; and much of his leisure time was spent in the basement of police headquarters trading stories of the underworld with detectives, prisoners, and other reporters. It was on one of these occasions that he, with the help of rival reporter Jacob Riis, actually started what appeared to be a crime wave in New York City.

One evening at police headquarters, Steffens was told the story of how an old professional thief, with the aid and protection of the police, had burglarized the Madison Avenue home of a popular Wall Street broker. Steffens put together the facts of the crime and reported them in the Post the following day. Jacob Riis, who was the police reporter for the New York Evening Sun at that time, was immediately called down by his city editor and criticized for not having the story of such a sensational crime. That afternoon Riis “scooped” a new burglary, reported it in his column, and the competition had begun in earnest. What followed over the succeeding weeks was a growing series of crime stories in the Post, the Sun, and the other New York dailies, written in a manner that suggested that there was indeed a crime wave on the streets of the city. As Steffens described it:

I called on my assistant, Robert, and told him we must get some crimes. We spent the day buttonholing detectives; I sat an hour asleep in the basement in vain. Nothing but old stories. Robert saved the day. He learned, and I wrote, of the robbery of a Fifth Avenue club. That was a beat, but Riis had two robberies that were beats on me. By that time the other evening papers were having some thefts of their own. The poker club reporters were loafers only by choice. They could get the news when they had to, and being awakened by the scrap between Riis and me, they broke up their game and went to work, a combine, and they were soon beating me, as Riis was. I was sorry I had started it. Robert or I had to sleep in turns in the basement, and we picked up some crimes, but Riis had two or three a day, and the combine had at least one a day. The morning newspapers not only rewrote ours; they had crimes of their own, which they grouped to show that there was a crime wave.

Because of the sudden and persistent “outbreak of crime,” explanations were demanded from the police for the increased lawlessness and their inability to deal with New York’s criminal element. Ultimately, Theodore Roosevelt, who was then president of New York City’s Board of Police Commissioners, ordered Steffens and Riis to discontinue their lurid reporting of robberies and thefts, and the period of sudden lawlessness quickly abated.

In retrospect, Lincoln Steffens and Jacob Riis had generated what appeared to be a crime wave by taking reports of robberies and run-of-the-mill burglaries and thefts from police blotters and featuring them in black headlines. Yet there had been not a crime wave in New York during that period but rather a “crime-reporting wave” spirited by overzealous police reporters and competition among the daily presses. This pattern, initiated by Steffens and Riis, continues in many communities.

CLASS PROJECTS AND DISCUSSION TOPICS

In keeping with the theme in the above-mentioned discussion, can your students identify any recent examples of crime “epidemics” that have been generated by the media? They are likely too young to remember the “crack epidemic” and “crack babies” of the 1980s, but that topic could serve to introduce a discussion on the media’s portrayal of drug users and the “war on drugs.” [See, for example, “Don't Forget the Hype: Media, Drugs, and Public Opinion” by Micah Fink, available from FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) in the September 1992 online issue of Extra! at Students might also be interested in researching trends in drug use by accessing the National Household Survey of Drug Use and/or the Monitoring the Future Survey Web sites. These data can provide the topic for an essay on drug use trends over time and how the media have portrayed these trends.

What other crimes do the media tend to sensationalize? What has been cable television’s impact on “crime waves”?

Textbook discussion question 3 asks how the three data sources on crime ought to be combined to give a more accurate picture of crime in the United States. First of all, the UCR and the NCVS would have to use the same units of measurement. That would make the two data sources more comparable, and thus they would supplement one another for making better estimates. Self-report studies indicate those populations where the rates of certain crimes may be highest or lowest. These data could suggest areas and segments of the population that should be oversampled by victimization studies.

ANALYZING CRIME RATES

Lecturing about how crime rates are determined can be tedious for both professors and students. However, students like to compare their perceptions about crime with actual rates in places with which they are familiar. New York City provides an interesting example, as its crime rate is among the lowest in the nation right now, which is certainly contrary to public perceptions.

Have your students examine UCR data for the last five years. There are many interesting exercises they can perform. One of the more interesting is an examination of trends in crime — homicide, larceny-theft, and the other Part I crimes. Quite startling is the fact that the country’s murder capitals seem to change hands over time. Murder in New York, for example, has declined, but for cities like Nashville and Louisville, there has been a dramatic upward trend. Have your students create some graphics depicting these trends.

Below are several examples of violent crime rate analyses. Have your students conduct similar analyses of crime rates by state, metropolitan statistical area, or city, sorted by either population or crime rate. It is interesting to see that many places across the nation with high violent crime rates would probably not immediately come to mind. Are any of your students from these areas with the highest violent crime rates? Are some of them from large metropolitan areas with a reputation for rampant crime? What experiences can your students share about violent crime in these areas? What are their theories as to why the crime rate is so high (or so low) in specific geographic locations across the country?

2003 FBI Crime Statistics: Violent Crime Rates

Violent crime rate per 100,000 = number of violent crimes known to police ÷ population × 100,000

Violent Crime Rate by State, 2003

State

/ Population / Violent Crime Rate Per 100,000 Population
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA / 563,384 / 1608.1
SOUTH CAROLINA / 4,147,152 / 793.5
FLORIDA / 17,019,068 / 730.2
MARYLAND / 5,508,909 / 703.9
TENNESSEE / 5,841,748 / 687.8
NEW MEXICO / 1,874,614 / 665.2
DELAWARE / 817,491 / 658.0
LOUISIANA / 4,496,334 / 646.3
NEVADA / 2,241,154 / 614.2
ALASKA / 648,818 / 593.4
CALIFORNIA / 35,484,453 / 579.3
ILLINOIS / 12,653,544 / 556.8
TEXAS / 22,118,509 / 552.5
ARIZONA / 5,580,811 / 513.2
MICHIGAN / 10,079,985 / 511.2
OKLAHOMA / 3,511,532 / 505.7
MISSOURI / 5,704,484 / 472.8
MASSACHUSETTS / 6,433,422 / 469.4
NEW YORK / 19,190,115 / 465.2
ARKANSAS / 2,725,714 / 456.1
NORTH CAROLINA / 8,407,248 / 454.9
GEORGIA / 8,684,715 / 453.9
ALABAMA / 4,500,752 / 429.5
PENNSYLVANIA / 12,365,455 / 398.0
KANSAS / 2,723,507 / 395.5
NEW JERSEY / 8,638,396 / 365.8
MONTANA / 917,621 / 365.2
INDIANA / 6,195,643 / 352.8
WASHINGTON / 6,131,445 / 347.0
COLORADO / 4,550,688 / 345.1
OHIO / 11,435,798 / 333.2
MISSISSIPPI / 2,881,281 / 325.5
CONNECTICUT / 3,483,372 / 308.2
PUERTO RICO / 3,878,532 / 306.4
OREGON / 3,559,596 / 295.5
NEBRASKA / 1,739,291 / 289.0
RHODE ISLAND / 1,076,164 / 285.6
VIRGINIA / 7,386,330 / 275.8
IOWA / 2,944,062 / 272.4
HAWAII / 1,257,608 / 270.4
MINNESOTA / 5,059,375 / 262.6
WYOMING / 501,242 / 262.1
KENTUCKY / 4,117,827 / 261.7
WEST VIRGINIA / 1,810,354 / 257.5
UTAH / 2,351,467 / 248.6
IDAHO / 1,366,332 / 242.7
WISCONSIN / 5,472,299 / 221.0
SOUTH DAKOTA / 764,309 / 173.4
NEW HAMPSHIRE / 1,287,687 / 148.8
VERMONT / 619,107 / 110.2
MAINE / 1,305,728 / 108.9
NORTH DAKOTA / 633,837 / 77.8
Violent Crime Rate for Top 21 Largest U.S. Cities, 2003
City / Population / Violent Crime / Violent Crime Rate per
100,000 Inhabitants
Detroit / 927,766 / 18,724 / 2018.2
Baltimore / 644,554 / 11,183 / 1735.0
Memphis / 653,858 / 10,297 / 1574.8
Philadelphia / 1,495,903 / 20,620 / 1378.4
Dallas / 1,230,302 / 16,865 / 1370.8
Los Angeles / 3,838,838 / 48,824 / 1271.8
Houston / 2,041,081 / 23,988 / 1175.3
Charlotte-Mecklenburg / 668,003 / 7,194 / 1076.9
Indianapolis / 800,167 / 7,069 / 883.4
Jacksonville / 776,417 / 6,729 / 866.7
Columbus / 726,151 / 6,215 / 855.9
Las Vegas / 1,189,388 / 9,158 / 770.0
San Francisco / 772,065 / 5,725 / 741.5
New York / 8,098,066 / 59,448 / 734.1
Phoenix / 1,403,228 / 9,722 / 692.8
San Antonio / 1,212,789 / 7,252 / 598.0
San Diego / 1,272,746 / 7,366 / 578.7
Austin / 682,319 / 3,153 / 462.1
San Jose / 909,890 / 3,378 / 371.3
Honolulu / 905,301 / 2,606 / 287.9
Chicago / 2,898,374 / data not available / data not available

Crime by Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA): New York

Metropolitan statistical area is defined in the Uniform Crime Reports by the FBI as a central city or urbanized area of at least 50,000 inhabitants, the county containing that city or area, and any other adjacent suburban counties with close cultural and economic ties.

Of 307 designated metropolitan statistical areas, New York had the 119th-highest violent crime rate in 2003.

The NY metropolitan statistical area includes the metropolitan divisions of Edison, NJ; Nassau-Suffolk County, NY; Newark-Union, NJ-PA; and New York-Wayne-White Plains, NY-NJ.

Metropolitan Statistical Area / Population / Violent Crime
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island,
NY-NJ-PA M.S.A. / 18,659,493
City of:
New York, NY / 8,098,066 / 59,448
Newark, NJ / 278,551 / 2,731
Edison Township, NJ / 100,484 / 285
Wayne Township, NJ / 55,241 / 39
White Plains, NY / 55,488 / 221
Union Township, NJ / 55,849 / 161
Total area actually reporting / 99.7% / 90,041
Estimated total / 100.0% / 90,184
Rate per 100,000 inhabitants / 483.3
Top 20 Highest Violent Crime Rates by Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2003

Metropolitan Statistical Area

/ Population / Violent Crime Rate /100,00
Sumter, SC M.S.A. / 106,222 / 1,179.6
Saginaw-Saginaw Township North, MI M.S.A. / 210,704 / 1,052.7
Florence, SC M.S.A. / 197,067 / 1,044.8
Memphis, TN-MS-AR M.S.A. / 1,239,073 / 998.8
Lubbock, TX M.S.A. / 258,395 / 978.3
Alexandria, LA M.S.A. / 146,057 / 959.2
Fairbanks, AK M.S.A. / 32,652 / 921.8
Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC M.S.A. / 208,044 / 909.9
Baltimore-Towson, MD M.S.A. / 2,626,193 / 883.0
Stockton, CA M.S.A. / 620,747 / 866.9
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL M.S.A. / 2,535,878 / 863.8
Columbia, SC M.S.A. / 670,693 / 858.7
Gainesville, FL M.S.A. / 241,311 / 857.0
Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro, TN M.S.A. / 1,363,472 / 844.6
Albuquerque, NM M.S.A. / 761,936 / 815.3
Charleston-North Charleston, SC M.S.A. / 568,142 / 814.2
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL M.S.A. / 5,327,879 / 813.1
Jackson, TN M.S.A. / 110,128 / 783.6
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA M.S.A. / 379,039 / 775.9
Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ M.S.A. / 148,595 / 772.6

IM 4 | 1