Crime statistics have been compiled for 2014, and are now available at the Lincoln Police Department's website, using the
interactive tool for creating statistical reports. Katie Flood, LPD's public information officer, has also posted some
nice graphics, a prelude to the forthcoming Annual Report: Here's what 2014 looks like:
 |
| click image to enlarge |
Overall Part 1 offenses (the crimes tracked nationally by the FBI) are down 2.9% from 2013. Violent crimes (murder, robbery, rape, and aggravated assault) are down 5.4%, while property crimes (burglary, auto theft, and larceny/theft) are down 2.7%. It is probably more meaningful, however, to look at the crime
rate, which is the number of crimes divided by the population. Since the City is growing by over 3,000 residents per year, the decline in the crime rate is somewhat greater than the decrease in the raw number of offenses.
I am also an advocate of looking at the crime rate over a period of several years, to provide a better perspective. Year-to-year data can fluctuate quite a bit. A period of several years depicts trends more effectively. Here's what the long term crime rate in Lincoln looks like, starting with five year increments in 1970, then switching to one year increments in 1990:
 |
| click image to enlarge |
If you are interested in the full data,
here's a link to the sheet upon which this graph is based, which will save you some time digging through the
archives of annual reports.
9 comments:
tom casady math...a crack up...coincides with the mayoral election and our current do nothing wanting his job again. how do you look at yourself in the mirror every morning?
4:38,
Huh? It's not like I've never posted this kind of data on my blog before.
I think you'll find the annual article in most years sometime between mid January and mid February.
That's the first thing I thought. I'm sure the Mayor didn't call and ask for some crime stats and they just happened to end up in his favor. Since the Mayor's competition just happens to be an ex-Deputy you probably feel about him the way you feel about most of your officers. Probably don't even say hello to him in the hallway.
Wow! Someone got their panties in bunch this morning. It's not like a 2.9% decline in part one crimes is something to hoot and holler about, or that it would insure the mayor getting re-elected. In a city with a crime rate as low as LIncoln's, it's almost an insignificant number. I guess if this person wanted to smear the mayor he could point out that there was a 40% increase in murder; now there's something that might sway the vote of an idiot or two.
There's a mayoral election coming up quite soon, that's a fact. It's the way crime stats are usually presented by local governments (shine a light on what's improved, don't mention what hasn't). Above all, never mention that the reported rate of some crimes is far lower than their actual rate.
What's that saying about statistics being similar to a bikini, "what it reveals is interesting, but what is conceals is essential".
I wasn't aware that anyone who might vote against the incumbent mayor was an "idiot", but that ad hominem probably tells you a lot about who wrote it.
@ anon 12:26 p.m.
Apparently, you don't really understand the ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem is directing comments against a person rather than their logic, or argument. My comment was that using the 40% increase as a tool against the incumbent mayor was not valid, since it is based on such a low number and could change a great deal either way by pure chance or coincidence rather than by any policy against crime coming from the mayor. Furthermore, I didn't say anything about anyone voting against the mayor or for the mayor; I simply said the use of that kind of statistic might sway the vote of an idiot. Perhaps idiot was not the proper term to use, but it was you who assigned it to those who would vote against the mayor, not me. Your final sentence was an attack on me rather than my argument about the statistics. What does that imply?
It implies that your vocabulary toolbox is somewhat limited.
12:26,
Your point about reported vs. unreported crime is true, however the nationwide drop in crime since the early 1990s is mirrored by the National Criminal Victimization Survey, which is not based on police reports.
Director,
I am not a "numbers" follower and my Math skills suck. However I am curious about one thing. Do you have the various crime categories broken down by Gender? Maybe it is just my imagination but the young Women of 2015 sure seem a lot more aggressive than the young ladies from the 1960's.
Charlie Manson's girls were an aberration in the 1960's but it seems like more Women are doing violent crimes nowadays.
Gun Nut
Post a Comment