Introduction
The United States government has for a long time been using the Uniform Crime Reports and the National crime victimization survey as the two major sources of crime data (Schmalleger, 2009). These primary crime data sources have been extensively used by the government to establish the magnitude, characteristics and implications of crimes committed within the country’s borders. More importantly, the two primary data sources have been extensively used to provide security personnel with valuable information regarding the nature of crime in the country.
The Uniform Crime Reports and the National crime victimization survey have been used concurrently, but both of them were developed for different purposes. All of them also have different methodologies and evidently, they are also differently designed to help in the investigation and solution of different types of crime (Schmalleger, 2009). Despite the dynamism in design and purpose, both data sources have been identified to produce a hybrid platform through which crimes can be investigated and solved. In fact, the value both data sources bring to the investigative process cannot be compared to the value each of the data sources would bring in isolation. This study investigates the methodology and implications of the two data sources.
Uniform Crime Reports
Rosen (1995) explains that the uniform crime report encompasses reports of crime including “murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson” (p. 215). The data source is basically reliant on information coming from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other law enforcement agencies which are obligated to report to the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2010, p. 2).
The data obtained is normally updated on monthly basis. The officers working for the uniform crime report have been sourced from all over the country and therefore represent a huge section of the population. Rosen (1995) reports that in 2004, the current staff working for the program represented approximately 95% of the population, which equally amounted to a representation of about 280 million people. This kind of statistic exposes the holistic nature of the uniform crime report data which means that all the interests of the different regions in the country are effectively represented in the program. It is also correct to note that this nationwide representation of officers also improves the credibility of the uniform crime data report.
Methodological Approaches
Crime data sourced from the uniform crime report is normally thoroughly scrutinized before use. The basic aim of scrutinizing the data is to ascertain its reasonability, accuracy and any instances of deviations that may lead to the development of errors in the overall database (Rosen, 1995, p. 216). This kind of process is normally upheld because large volumes of data (that the system has) are prone to errors and normally, episodes where crime excessively varies are also prone to high levels of inconsistencies and erroneous reporting.
The thorough scrutiny of crime data is therefore upheld so that instances of unusual crime fluctuations are identified in advance to avoid instances of compromising the quality of data. It is also a standard methodological procedure in data storage that the information obtained is compared with previous timeframes and data from other similar agencies (either in or out of the country). This significantly increases the reliability of the data stored, but in a deeper sense; it upholds the credibility of the data.
Implications
The uniform crime report is rather shallow in its reporting of crime data because more emphasis is based on the most serious crimes as opposed to the most common or simplest crimes (Rosen, 1995, p. 216). For example, if a person rapes and kills his or her victim, the crime reported under the system will be murder (rape will be excluded). In this manner, law enforcement officers have an abstract concept of crime as opposed to its detailed form.
Moreover, the abstractive nature of the uniform crime report can be evidenced from the fact that it can only report eight crimes (as opposed to 46, which the national crime victimization survey does) (Rosen, 1995, p. 216). However, this sort of shallow analysis of crime can be beneficial in generally reporting on the state of crime in the country (without going into much detail). Probably, such criteria can be beneficial when comparing country crime rates.
National Crime Victimization Survey
The national crime victimization survey was established after the uniform crime report to provide a deeper analysis of crime incidents, its victims and the trends that are synonymous to crime occurrence in the country (Faggiani, 1999, p. 181). The methodological approaches adopted after the establishment of the data source were however amended in the year 2003 to make crime data recording and reporting more efficient than it previously was (Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 2011, p. 1).
The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the official body mandated to undertake such reforms, and in the recent past, it has undertaken intensive redesigning of the agency to improve questions asked in uncovering crime, expanding the scope of crimes recorded and enhancing the statistical tools used to collect data (Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 2011, p. 2).
Faggiani (1999, p. 181) explains that it is important to note that the National Crime Victimization survey differs from the uniform crime report because “the survey collects detailed information on the frequency and nature of the crimes of rape, sexual assault, personal robbery, aggravated and simple assault, household burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft”. It is however, essential to note that this crime report agency does not include information attributed to homicide cases. This is probably the biggest distinction in crime categorization between the two types of crime data sources.
Methodological Approaches
The National Crime Victimization Survey employs a different methodology when compared to the uniform crime report. Faggiani (1999) explains this difference by stating that:
“Two times a year, U.S. Bureau of the Census personnel interview household members in a nationally representative sample of approximately 43,000 households (about 76,000 people). Approximately 150,000 interviews of persons age 12 or older are conducted annually. Households stay in the sample for 3 years. New households rotate into the sample on an ongoing basis” (p. 182).
Under the uniform crime report, surveys are done on populations and not households. It is important to note that under the National crime victimization survey, crime data is collected from the public, regardless of whether it was reported or not. The uniform crime report on the other hand, greatly relies on the FBI and its antecedents (meaning that it greatly relies on reported data). On these grounds, the officers mandated to collect data have to report on why the victims reported crime incidents to the law enforcement agencies (or not). Moreover, they are supposed to estimate the proportion of the crime reported to the law enforcement officers so that they have a better understanding of the nature of crime committed.
The information available in this data source is normally comprehensive as can be observed through the assertion of Faggiani (1999) that “The survey provides information about victims (age, sex, race, ethnicity, income, and educational level), offenders (sex, race, approximate age, and victim-offender relationship), and the crimes (time and place of occurrence, use of weapons, nature of injury, and economic consequences)” (p. 182). Important information about crime is however not left out when collecting data under this categorization. Some of them include, the self-defense practices learnt by the public, the nature of interaction between the public and law enforcement officials, and any experiences where offenders may have been hooked to drugs or substance abuse at the time a crime was being committed (Faggiani, 1999).
Usually, such data is collected using simple sampling techniques; implying that the national crime victimization survey is prone to margin of errors (when compared to the uniform crime reporting technique). However, there is a high sense of affirmation applied when collecting the data, to mean that before data is considered factual, it must at least attain a 90% affirmation (to avoid any occurrences of margin error). Other auxiliary studies are normally done to explore specific crime occurrence in various types of incidents such as school crime.
The national crime victimization survey is different from the uniform crime reporting in the sense that their definitions of crime differ. For example, in the definition of burglary under the national crime victimization survey, burglary is defined as the forceful entry of someone who was not supposed to be within a given premise (Faggiani, 1999, p. 183). This definition is probably motivated by the fact that the data collection methods used are not meant to force the respondents to speculate why a given offender did a crime. The uniform crime reporting system on the other hand, ascertains the motive of the offender. For instance in defining burglary, the act is assumed to be the illegal entry of a person into another’s premise with the aim of stealing or committing a given felony (Rosen, 1995, p. 216).
In determining the crime rates for crimes done against property, the National crime victimization survey is reliant on the crimes committed in every household (as its base of analysis). Normally, the greatest motivation for adopting this assessment criterion is the fact that household numbers do not increase in the same rate as the population. Reference here is made of the population because this is the primary basis of uniform crime reporting (with regards to property crime alone) (Rosen, 1995, p. 216). The two data sources therefore have different methodological approaches to data collection.
Implications
The national crime victimization survey is normally synonymous with the reporting of crime dynamics. This implies that officers relying on such data enjoy a broader utilization of crime data. This advantage also implies that law enforcement officers can depend on the statistics obtained and combine it with other facts to have a full understanding of the nature of crime in a given area. Researchers have also acknowledged that data obtained from the national crime victimization survey is normally comprehensive and can be successfully relied on. This is the reason why many researchers have consistently used data from the national crime victimization survey to assess dual arrest data and examine the distribution of drugs in the country (Faggiani, 1999, p. 183).
Conclusion
This study points out that the uniform crime report and the national crime victimization survey are the two primary sources of crime data in America. However, the two have different purposes, methodologies and consequently different implications. More importantly, this study notes that among other factors, national crime victimization survey is more reliable than the uniform crime report because it is more detailed than the latter. These insights define the government’s crime data sources.
References
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2011). National Crime Victimization Survey Redesign – Fact Sheet. Web.
Faggiani, D. (1999). Using National Incident-Based Reporting System Data for Strategic Crime Analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15(2), 181–191.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2010). Crime in the United States. Web.
Rosen, L. (1995). The Creation of the Uniform Crime Report. Social Science History, 19(2), 215-238.
Schmalleger, F. (2009). Criminology Today. London: Pearson/Prentice Hall.