Crime Statistics Project
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) are two statistical initiatives utilized by the American justice department to measure the extent, nature, and occurrence of a given crime in the country (Lynch & Addington, 2007). These are two programs that differ in several ways but still continuously offers valuable data after the complementary information that they provide is utilized for a thorough understanding of crimes in the country entirely. Despite the fact that the two initiatives have their similarities as well as differences the gathered data can differ in regard to the rate of crime amid UCR and NCVs in different ways (Lynch & Addington, 2007). To begin with, UCR gathers information that is then recorded by law enforcers or police officers. In an account that this is a more summarized system, the acquire crime occurrence degree that is submitted by the agencies to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) will show the gathered offenses within the first part (Lynch & Addington, 2007). The first part crimes might incorporate robbery, rape, killing, manslaughter out of negligence, arson among many others. The arrest information that is submitted to UCR, on the other hand, will show the essential aspects of the offenders such as age, race, and gender. On the other hand, NCVS gathers data using an experimental survey that asks the participants on whether they have been a victim of such crimes as recorded by UCR like rape, assault, robbery, snatching amid much more ( Lynch & Addington, 2007). For this exercise to be effective and practical, the survey primarily focuses on gathering information in regard to the association amid a victim and the offenders. This data is specifically centered on the time when the crimes were conducted, geographic location, offender’s individualities, protective actions that each took based on the actions of the offender, resulting impacts like injury, property loss and if the victim make any reports of the incidence to the police and the response acquired (Lynch & Addington, 2007).
The data that is gathered by UCR and NCVS is related in some ways accounting that they mainly focus their investigation efforts on similar crimes (Lauritsen, 2005). The information that they gather is dependent on estimates and customized characteristics of the crime such as age, gender, and race. The differences are however based on the data that each of them acquires. This is considered by the faults that mainly inhibits the reliability, accuracy, and quality of the approximations (Lauritsen, 2005). Those interviews that are primarily performed by NCVS, for instance, is mainly grounded on household’s samples and their general estimations that might be a primary subject to the matter (Lauritsen, 2005). UCR, on the other hand, is accounted as a more deliberate initiative and most of the reporting departments might fail to file their reports within a specified periods.
The strategies that UCR and NCVS utilize in calculating the number of crimes that have occurred also differ in regard to certain crimes (Lauritsen, 2005). In that UCR mainly calculates all its first section crimes based on per capital grounds that is based on the number of offenses committed in every a hundred thousand persons (Lynch & Addington, 2007). On the other hand, NCVS normally estimates property related criminalities level for every one thousand households. This, therefore, implies that for every criminality that is measured by NVCS thus is a projection for the entire nation. If a different sample was to be taken, the likelihood is high of the resulting estimations demonstrating a more distinct difference (Lynch & Addington, 2007). NCVS information is thus just considered to be particularly genuine f the tendency in information gathering for each year shows little variations. For UCR, information is normally grounded on a real estimation of the recorded offenses to the police agencies across the nation. However, in distinct circumstances, projections are conducted for the agencies that offer partial information. The probability of mistakes that occurs from such projections is thus high (Lynch & Addington, 2007).
Both initiatives collect data that is based on similar crimes such as robbery, theft, and rape. Similarly, for certain offenses the NCVS and UCR accommodating similar regulations (Press, 2010). Both initiatives offer the information in every year in their respective findings. An additional similarity is that all the programs are fundamental (Lauritsen, 2005). Despite the fact that both programs are mainly guided by different purposes the acquired data is utilized comparatively to justify as well as generate strategies for combating crimes based on the acquired estimations (Press, 2010). Their similarity and yet dissimilar nature are brought about by the fact that the programs understand that similar strategies or there are no accurate approaches for measuring data regarding comprehensive features of crimes and so each of them focuses on its customized strategies. UCR is acknowledged for being highly effective since it focuses on monthly information that is acquired from law enforcer’s recordings (Press, 2010). However, the system is weakened by the fact that law offenders are not mandated to make reports. In addition, the reports are based on the recorded arrests but exclude the crimes that the offenders have been sentenced in regard. Both programs conduct their research based on a selected samples rather than the general one and thus, creates assumption from it (Press, 2010).
References
Janet L. Lauritsen, (2005). Social and Scientific Influences on the Measurement of Criminal Victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 21(.3): 245-266.
Lynch, J.P., & Addington, L.A. (2007). Understanding Crime Statistics: Revisiting the Divergence of the NCVS and UCR. Cambridge studies in criminology. Cambridge University Press.
Press, B. (2010). Crime in the United States 2010. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Pub. Group.
