The National Crime Victimization report ncvr and the Uniform Crime report (UCR)

Enter Your Full Name

• Please enter your Full Name in order to search your order more easily in our database.

Phone Number Is Required

• Phone Number is required to notify you about the order progress or updations through whatsapp, text message, or sometimes by calling you.

We Will Use E-Mail Only For

• Communication regarding your orders.
• To send you invoices, and other billing info.
• To provide you with information of offers and other benefits.

Select A Deadline

• Please select a deadline that is feasible to work on. Sometimes low deadlines lead to low-quality or no work. Hence, please choose a reasonable deadline for everyone to take care of.

Description

Drop Files Here Or Click to Upload

Upload Files

• Please Upload all instruction files and if possible some relevant material.
• Please avoid attaching duplicate files .
• In case of a larger file size(>25MB), please send it through the public drive link.

In the United States, crime rates are measured in one of two ways.

(1) The Uniform Crime Report, administered by Federal Bureau of Investigation, compiles data of crimes reported to local police. The UCR was established in the early 1930s. Because it is based on local information, the UCR permits statistical analysis for local areas. For example, recent reports that crime was down in Allegheny County in the late 1990s are the results of Uniform Crime Report data.

The accuracy of the UCR varies with the likelihood that people will report crimes to the police. The UCR is most accurate for murders, which are almost always reported or noticed, but may be less accurate for crimes that aren�t reported as often, such as rape or assault. In addition, for crimes such as theft, the UCR tends to underrepresent the frequency of offenses (because people do not always report minor theft), but overrepresent the value of thefts (because people are more likely to report major thefts). Long-term analyses of UCR data are also questionable because computers have permitted better police record keeping in the last 20 years. Therefore, increases in UCR crime rates partly result from improved recording of crimes by police. Still, the UCR is the standard & most widely cited method of measuring crime in the US.

(2) The National Crime Victimization Survey, begun in 1973, is administered by US Census Bureau. This measure is a representative telephone sampling of approximately 40,000 households to determine how many people were victimized by one of seven crimes in past year. The crimes recorded are rape, robbery, assault, personal theft, household theft, burglary, and motor vehicle theft; the NCVS does not measure murder rates because the victims cannot be surveyed. The NCVS employs a national survey, so it cannot break down data by state or locality. Samuel Walker and most criminologists see the NCVS as more accurate than the UCR; people will acknowledge that they have been victims of a crime to an anonymous survey, even they did not report the crimes to police.

(3) Determining rates of crime (generally, per 1000 people or 100,000 people) requires that the number of offenses (the numerator) be divided by an accurate count of the population (the denominator). The results of the decennial United States Census are conventionally used as the sources of population data.

[Adapted from Steven R. Donziger, ed., The Real War on Crime: The Report of the National Criminal Justice Commission (NY: Harper, 1996).]

References

Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (1995). The survey research handbook: Guidelines and strategies for conducting a survey. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Beattie, R. H. (1941). “The sources of criminal statistics.” American Academy of Political and Social Science 217:19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biderman, A. D. (1967). “Surveys of population samples for estimating crime incidence.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 374:16–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biderman, A. D. (1981). “Notes on the methodological development of the National Crime Survey.” In Lehnen, R. G. & Skogan, W. G. (Eds.), The National Crime Survey: Working papers, volume I: Current and historical perspectives (NCJ-75374). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar

Biderman, A. D., Cantor, D., Lynch, J. P., & Martin, E. (1986). Final report of the National Crime Survey redesign. Washington, DC: Bureau of Social Science Research.Google Scholar

Biderman, A. D., & Lynch, J. P. (1991). Understanding crime incidence statistics: Why the UCR diverges from the NCS. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biderman, A. D., & Moore, J. (1982). Report on the workshop on cognitive issues in surveys of retrospective surveys. Washington, DC: Bureau of Social Science Research and U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar

Biderman, A. D., & Reiss, A. J. Jr. (1967). “On exploring the ‘dark figure’ of crime.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 374:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1989). National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) redesign: Questions and answers (NCJ-15117). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1990). Criminal victimization in the United States 1988 (NCJ-122024). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1994). Technical background on the redesigned National Crime Victimization Survey (NCJ-151172). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1997). Criminal victimization 1996, changes 1995–96 with trends 1993–96 (NCJ-165812). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2000). Criminal victimization in the United States 1995 (NCJ-171129). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Criminal victimization in the United States 2003 statistical tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved July 11, 2006 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/cvus03mt.pdf.

Bushery, J. M. (1978). “NCS noninterview rates by time-in-sample.” Unpublished memorandum, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.

Cantor, D., & Lynch, J. P. (2000). “Self report surveys as measures of crime and criminal victimization.” In Duffee, D. (Ed.), Criminal justice 2000: Measurement and analysis of crime and justice (Vol. 4). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Pp. 85–138.Google Scholar

Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Dodge, R. W. (1981). “The Washington D.C. recall study.” Reprinted in Lehnen, R. G. & Skogan, W. G. (Eds.), The National Crime Survey: Working papers, volume I: Current and historical perspectives (NCJ-75374). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. (Original work published 1970) pp. 12–15.Google Scholar

Dodge, R. W., & Balog, F. D. (1987). Series crimes: Report of a field test (NCJ-104615). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar

Dodge, R. W., & Turner, A. (1981). “Methodological foundations for establishing a national survey of victimization.” Reprinted in Lehnen, R. G. & Skogan, W. G. (Eds.), The National Crime Survey: Working papers, volume I: Current and historical perspectives (NCJ-75374). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. (Original work published 1971) pp. 2–6.Google Scholar

Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey methodology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar

Hart, T. C., & Rennison, C. M. (2003). Reporting crime to police, 1992–2000 (NCJ-195710). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hubble, D. L. (1995). The National Crime Victimization Survey redesign: New questionnaire and procedures development and phase-in methodology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Statistical Association, Orlando, Florida, August 1995.Google Scholar

Hubble, D. L., & Wilder, B. E. (1995). Preliminary results from the National Crime Survey CATI experiment. New Orleans, LA: Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Survey Methods Section, 1995.Google Scholar

Kindermann, C., Lynch, J. P., & Cantor, D. (1997). The effects of the redesign on victimization estimates (NCJ-164381). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar

Klaus, P., & Rennison, C. M. (2002). Age patterns of violent victimization, 1976–2000 (NCJ-190104). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lauritsen, J. L. (2005). “Social and scientific influences on the measurement of criminal victimization.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 21:245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. (circa 1974). National sample survey documentation, appendix D. NCP classification scheme description. Unpublished memo.

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. (1976a). Criminal victimization in the United States 1973 (SD-NCP-N4). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. (1976b). Criminal victimization in the United States 1974 (SD-NCS-N-6). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. (1976c). Criminal victimization surveys in eight American cities: A comparison of 1971/72 and 1974/75 findings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. (circa 1977–1978). Report concerning the future of the National Crime Survey (NCS). Unpublished internal memo written in response to an October 21, 1977, directive from the deputy attorney general.

Lehnen, R. G., & Reiss, A. J. (1978). “Response effects in the National Crime Survey.” Victimology 3:110–160.Google Scholar

Lehnen, R. G., & Skogan, W. G. (1981). The National Crime Survey: Working papers, volume I: Current and historical perspectives (NCJ-75374). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar

Lehnen, R. G., & Skogan, W. G. (1984). The National Crime Survey: Working papers volume II: Methodological studies (NCJ-90307). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar

Martin, E. (1982). Procedural history of changes in NCS instruments, interviewing procedures, and definitions. Unpublished memo, Bureau of Social Science Research, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Mosher, C. J., Miethe, T. D., & Phillips, D. M. (2002). The mismeasure of crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Murphy, L. R., & Cowan, C. D. (1984). “Effects of bounding on telescoping in the National Crime Survey.” Reprinted in Lehnen, R. G. & Skogan, W. G. (Eds.), The National Crime Survey: Working papers volume II: Methodological studies (NCJ-90307). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. (Original work published 1976) pp. 83–89.Google Scholar

Murphy, L. R., & Dodge, R. (1981). “The Baltimore recall study.” Reprinted in Lehnen, R. G. & Skogan, W. G. (Eds.), The National Crime Survey: Working papers, volume I: Current and historical perspectives (NCJ-75374). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. (Original work published 1970) pp. 16–21.Google Scholar

Neter, J., & Waksberg, J. (1964). “Conditioning effects from repeated household interviews.” Journal of Marketing 29:51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Penick, B., & Owens, M. (1976). Surveying crime. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. (1967a). The challenge of crime in a free society.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. (1967b). Task force report: Crime and its impact – an assessment.

Rand, M. R., Lynch, J. P., & Cantor, D. (1997). Criminal victimization 1973–95 (NCJ-163069). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar

Rennison, C. M. (2001a). Intimate partner violence and age of victim (NCJ-187635). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar

Rennison, C. M. (2001b). Violent victimization and race, 1993–98 (NCJ-176354). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar

Rennison, C. M. (2002a). Rape and sexual assault: Reporting to police and medical attention, 1992–2000 (NCJ-194530). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar

Rennison, C. M. (2002b). Hispanic victims of violent crime, 1993–2000/Víctimas hispanas de crímenes violentos, 1993–2000 (NCJ-191208). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar

Rennison, C. M. (2003). Intimate partner violence, 1993–2001 (NCJ-197838). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rennison, C. M., & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate partner violence (NCJ-178247). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ringel, C. (1997). Criminal victimization 1996, changes 1995–96 with trends 1993–96 (NCJ-165812). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar

Rosenthal, M. D., & Hubble, D. L. (1993). “Results from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) CATI experiment.” In American Statistical Association 1993 Proceedings of the Section in Survey Research Methods, Volume II (pp. 742–747). Arlington, VA: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar

Sellin, T. (1931). “The basis of a crime index.” Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology 22:52–64.Google Scholar

Skogan, W. G. (1981). Issues in the measurement of victimization (NCJ-74682). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar

Strack, F., & Martin, L. L. (1987). “Thinking, judging, and communicating: A process account of context effects in attitude surveys.” In Hippler, H. J., Schwarz, N., & Sudman, S. (Eds.), Social information processing and survey methodology (pp. 123–148). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. M., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Taylor, B. (1989). Redesign of the National Crime Survey (NCJ-111457). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar

Taylor, B., & Rand, M. R. (1995). “The National Crime Victimization Survey redesign: New understandings of victimization dynamics and measurement.” Paper presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings of the American Statistical Association, Orlando, FL, August 1995.

Tourengeau, R. (1984). “Cognitive sciences and survey methods.” In Jabine, T., Straf, M., Tanur, J. M., & Tourangeau, R. (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of survey methodology: Building a bridge between disciplines (pp. 73–100). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Turner, A. G. (1972). San Jose methods test of known crime victims. Washington, DC: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.Google Scholar

U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). National Crime Victimization Survey regional office manual (NCVS-570). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Commerce. (1968). Report on national needs for criminal justice statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

What are the significant differences between the UCR and NCVS?

What is the Uniform Crime Report UCR quizlet?

Which government agency is responsible for maintaining the Uniform Crime Report UCR )?

What is the purpose of the National crime victimization survey?