Search

Researchers seeking to provide a better understanding of crime statistics tend to compare survey-based statistics such as the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) with data from police administrative series like the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). Because these two types of data collections systems are so different, simple direct comparisons are of little value regarding limitations inherent to a particular data collection system (McDowall and Loftin, this volume). This chapter explores the NCVS data using a different perspective that compares data from the national crime survey of population with those from a national survey of establishments – the National Hospital Ambulatory Care Survey (NHAMCS). This comparison provides an understanding of how the design, instrumentation, and procedures of the NCVS may influence estimates of interpersonal violence, particularly that component of violence resulting in injuries treated in hospital emergency rooms. The estimates of emergency room visits for injuries due to violence obtained from the NCVS are considerably smaller than those from the NHAMCS. The analyses include a series of adjustments to these estimates that explore the role of features specific to each survey in the observed differences. The household sampling frame employed in the NCVS receives special attention as a potential source of the observed differences. Investigating this source of divergence is particularly important because many of our major social indicators on the economy and participation in government programs depend upon household surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For the past 30 years, the Uniform Crime Reporting System (UCR) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which includes its predecessor the National Crime Survey (NCS), have been the two sources of national level estimates of crime in the United States as well as estimates of changes in crime rates. During most of this time, the two series have presented a consistent picture of crime trends. Episodically, however, the two series diverge. Initially this divergence produced ill-informed debates about which series was the better indicator of crime, built around the assumption that only one data source could be correct. These debates motivated researchers to examine the issue of divergence (see Chapter 4, this volume, for a summary). One of the most significant works arising from this body of work is the 1991 book Understanding Crime Incidence Statistics: Why the UCR Diverges from the NCS written by Albert Biderman and one of the coeditors of the current volume, James Lynch. Biderman and Lynch's work used the divergence of the UCR–NCS trends as a vehicle for explaining how each data series measures crime differently and for emphasizing that it was acceptable (and even expected) for the two data series to diverge. Their work had two important results. First, it helped quell the “which is better” debates. Second, their work established a foundation for today's commonly held perception that the two indicators are complementary as opposed to competing and that each system should enlighten the portion of the crime problem it is best equipped to address. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]