For nearly 300 years, researchers have conducted crime surveys (Winfree and Abadinsky, 2010). During the 1960’s, a pilot study, referred to today as the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), was conducted by the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. The results of this study were recommendations in which federal funding was programmed for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) to conduct the first few national victimization surveys during the years 1972, 1973, and 1974. The findings of these surveys were published in a report titled the National Crime Survey. This publication proved to be quite controversial when the findings showed the incidence rate of crime to be much greater that
…show more content…
In covering what criminologists call the “dark side of unreported crime” (Goode, 2011), the NCVS interviews respondents resulting in information on who the victims of crime are. Additionally, more detail information is obtained, specifically if the crime involves face-to-face hostility, for example, rape, robbery or aggravated assault (Goode, 2011). By interviewing victims, key features of the offender, such as age, sex, size and race, are identified; criminologists are able to interpret data that has critical theoretical and policy consequences. For example, through examining NCVS data, criminologists know that low-income households are victimized twice as much as affluent households; males are more likely to be victimized that females; and blacks are more likely to victims that whites. The most useful aspect of the NCVS is the response rate is approximately ninety percent of household that are contacted and asked to participate (Goode, 2011). Due to the findings of the NCVS, researchers can promulgate with confidence that crime victimization is significantly greater that the date provided from the …show more content…
First, the NCVS and the UCR serve different purposes. The UCR’s primary function is to provide criminal justice statistics to enhance law enforcement administration, operation and management. On the other hand, the NCVS provides unavailable information dealing with crime, to include crimes not reported to police, victims, and offenders. Second, NCVS and UCR measures of crimes are overlapping, however not identical. Stated earlier, the NCVS omits certain crimes, and the UCR summarizes crime reported to law enforcement agencies but only collects arrest information for simple assaults and sexual assaults other than forcible rape. Third, due to their methodology, the two programs’ definitions are different. For example, the UCR’s definition of burglary is the unlawful entry or attempted entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft. However, the NCVS defines burglary as the entry or attempted entry of a residence by a person who did not have the right to be there. This method by the NCVS allows the interview not to ask the victims to determine offender motives. Finally, the NCVS and UCR determine property crime rates using different formulas. The UCR utilizes crime rates based on per capita and the NCVS determines crime rates per households. Since the number of households may not increase each year as the total population, property crime rates are not comparable (FBI,
In covering what criminologists call the “dark side of unreported crime” (Goode, 2011), the NCVS interviews respondents resulting in information on who the victims of crime are. Additionally, more detail information is obtained, specifically if the crime involves face-to-face hostility, for example, rape, robbery or aggravated assault (Goode, 2011). By interviewing victims, key features of the offender, such as age, sex, size and race, are identified; criminologists are able to interpret data that has critical theoretical and policy consequences. For example, through examining NCVS data, criminologists know that low-income households are victimized twice as much as affluent households; males are more likely to be victimized that females; and blacks are more likely to victims that whites. The most useful aspect of the NCVS is the response rate is approximately ninety percent of household that are contacted and asked to participate (Goode, 2011). Due to the findings of the NCVS, researchers can promulgate with confidence that crime victimization is significantly greater that the date provided from the …show more content…
First, the NCVS and the UCR serve different purposes. The UCR’s primary function is to provide criminal justice statistics to enhance law enforcement administration, operation and management. On the other hand, the NCVS provides unavailable information dealing with crime, to include crimes not reported to police, victims, and offenders. Second, NCVS and UCR measures of crimes are overlapping, however not identical. Stated earlier, the NCVS omits certain crimes, and the UCR summarizes crime reported to law enforcement agencies but only collects arrest information for simple assaults and sexual assaults other than forcible rape. Third, due to their methodology, the two programs’ definitions are different. For example, the UCR’s definition of burglary is the unlawful entry or attempted entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft. However, the NCVS defines burglary as the entry or attempted entry of a residence by a person who did not have the right to be there. This method by the NCVS allows the interview not to ask the victims to determine offender motives. Finally, the NCVS and UCR determine property crime rates using different formulas. The UCR utilizes crime rates based on per capita and the NCVS determines crime rates per households. Since the number of households may not increase each year as the total population, property crime rates are not comparable (FBI,