Skip to main content
Workforce LibreTexts

5.3: Crime Trends

  1. Last updated
  2. Save as PDF
  • Page ID
    69473

    • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\dsum}{\displaystyle\sum\limits} \)

    \( \newcommand{\dint}{\displaystyle\int\limits} \)

    \( \newcommand{\dlim}{\displaystyle\lim\limits} \)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    ( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \(\newcommand{\longvect}{\overrightarrow}\)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    \(\newcommand{\ket}[1]{\left| #1 \right>}\)
    \(\newcommand{\bra}[1]{\left< #1 \right|}\)
    \(\newcommand{\braket}[2]{\left< #1 \vphantom{#2} \right| \left. #2 \vphantom{#1} \right>}\)
    \(\newcommand{\braopket}[3]{\left< #1 \vphantom{#2}\vphantom{#3} \right| #2 \vphantom{#1}\vphantom{#3} \left| #3 \vphantom{#1}\vphantom{#2} \right>}\)
    \(\newcommand{\qmvec}[1]{\mathbf{\vec{#1}}}\)
    \(\newcommand{\op}[1]{\hat{\mathbf{#1}}}\)
    \(\newcommand{\expect}[1]{\langle #1 \rangle}\)
    \(\newcommand{\dfn}[1]{\emph{\textbf{#1}}}\)

    \(\newcommand{\avec}{\mathbf a}\) \(\newcommand{\bvec}{\mathbf b}\) \(\newcommand{\cvec}{\mathbf c}\) \(\newcommand{\dvec}{\mathbf d}\) \(\newcommand{\dtil}{\widetilde{\mathbf d}}\) \(\newcommand{\evec}{\mathbf e}\) \(\newcommand{\fvec}{\mathbf f}\) \(\newcommand{\nvec}{\mathbf n}\) \(\newcommand{\pvec}{\mathbf p}\) \(\newcommand{\qvec}{\mathbf q}\) \(\newcommand{\svec}{\mathbf s}\) \(\newcommand{\tvec}{\mathbf t}\) \(\newcommand{\uvec}{\mathbf u}\) \(\newcommand{\vvec}{\mathbf v}\) \(\newcommand{\wvec}{\mathbf w}\) \(\newcommand{\xvec}{\mathbf x}\) \(\newcommand{\yvec}{\mathbf y}\) \(\newcommand{\zvec}{\mathbf z}\) \(\newcommand{\rvec}{\mathbf r}\) \(\newcommand{\mvec}{\mathbf m}\) \(\newcommand{\zerovec}{\mathbf 0}\) \(\newcommand{\onevec}{\mathbf 1}\) \(\newcommand{\real}{\mathbb R}\) \(\newcommand{\twovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\ctwovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\threevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cthreevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\mattwo}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{rr}#1 \amp #2 \\ #3 \amp #4 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\laspan}[1]{\text{Span}\{#1\}}\) \(\newcommand{\bcal}{\cal B}\) \(\newcommand{\ccal}{\cal C}\) \(\newcommand{\scal}{\cal S}\) \(\newcommand{\wcal}{\cal W}\) \(\newcommand{\ecal}{\cal E}\) \(\newcommand{\coords}[2]{\left\{#1\right\}_{#2}}\) \(\newcommand{\gray}[1]{\color{gray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\lgray}[1]{\color{lightgray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\rank}{\operatorname{rank}}\) \(\newcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\col}{\text{Col}}\) \(\renewcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\nul}{\text{Nul}}\) \(\newcommand{\var}{\text{Var}}\) \(\newcommand{\corr}{\text{corr}}\) \(\newcommand{\len}[1]{\left|#1\right|}\) \(\newcommand{\bbar}{\overline{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bhat}{\widehat{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bperp}{\bvec^\perp}\) \(\newcommand{\xhat}{\widehat{\xvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\vhat}{\widehat{\vvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\uhat}{\widehat{\uvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\what}{\widehat{\wvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\Sighat}{\widehat{\Sigma}}\) \(\newcommand{\lt}{<}\) \(\newcommand{\gt}{>}\) \(\newcommand{\amp}{&}\) \(\definecolor{fillinmathshade}{gray}{0.9}\)

    Certain types of crime fluctuate in prevalence over time, while others remain relatively constant. By analyzing statistical data from the sources discussed in the previous unit, we can identify these patterns in criminal behavior. However, analyzing statistical data alone is insufficient for obtaining a comprehensive understanding of crime trends. Qualitative and contextual factors such as the implementation or removal of laws, changes in population density among criminogenic age groups, and even weather conditions can significantly influence contemporary crime trends. Considering these additional factors is imperative for obtaining more accurate interpretations of crime statistics that curtail misleading conclusions. The following section provides a general overview of current nationwide crime trends, highlighting recent changes in the landscape of criminal activity and some of the factors underpinning these shifts.

    UCR and NIBRS Crime Trends

    The UCR and NIBRS provide valuable data for identifying short- and long-term crime trends in America. According to UCR and NIBRS data, U.S. crime rates prior to the 1960s, particularly violent crime rates, remained fairly consistent (Blumstein & Wallman, 2006). However, crime rates in most categories began to increase throughout the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. By contrast, both violent and property crime rates steadily decreased between the early 1990s and the 2010s. During the early 2020s, certain types of crime, such as homicide and auto theft, experienced slight increases, while other forms of criminal activity remained relatively constant over this same time.

    Violent Crime

    This section will discuss violent crime trends in the U.S. using UCR and NIBRS data, focusing on homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. By examining these data sources, we can identify patterns and shifts in violent crime rates over time. Historical data reveals a significant rise in violent crime from the 1960s through the 1980s, followed by a notable decline starting in the early 1990s and continuing into the 2010s (Blumstein & Wallman, 2006). Despite this overall downward trend, recent years have seen slight increases in certain violent crimes, such as homicide and aggravated assault, while burglary has steadily decreased over the past several decades.

    clipboard_ed89baa036e5735a00b419e820221ef16.png
    Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Illustrates the per capita homicide rate in the U.S. between 1985 and 2022 (FBI, 2022d). Data from the UCR indicate that prior to 1965, homicide rates stayed below 5 homicides per 100,000 people. In the 1970s, the rates oscillated between 8 and 10 homicides per 100,000 people (Blumstein & Wallman, 2006). In 1980, the homicide rate reached an all-time high of 10.2 per 100,000 people before dropping over the subsequent five years, only to rise again to the second-highest rate of 9.8 homicides per 100,000 people in 1991. Following a sharp decline in the 1990s, the homicide rate remained below 6 per 100,000 people throughout most of the 2000s. Despite a short-lived spike in 2020 and 2021, the rate began to decline in 2022 (FBI, 2022d).
    Photo Credit: Wesley B. Maier, Ph.D., CC BY 4.0

    The figure below illustrates rape rates per capita in the U.S. between 1985 and 2022. Overall, there has been a gradual decline in rape rates since the early 1990s (FBI, 2022g). While UCR and NIBRS data are beneficial for evaluating rape rates, it is essential to consider legal and cultural changes.

    clipboard_ea6e5d6543ff2e8f7be7f03a7c884249b.png
    Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\): UCR and NIBRS Rape Crime Rates in the U.S. (1985-2022) Rate per 100,000 population (FBI, 2022g). Chart illustrating the rape rates in the U.S. from 1985 to 2022, depicting trends under the traditional definition of rape and highlighting the sharp increase following the adoption of the revised definition.
    Photo Credit: Wesley B. Maier, Ph.D., CC BY 4.0

    Because homicide is often considered the “ultimate violent act,” police tend to allocate more resources and effort to investigating and recording this crime. Similarly, robbery is another offense that is well-defined in law and receives intensive police attention (Blumstein & Wallman, 2006). Like homicide, the rates of robbery have decreased since the peak in 1991, when there were over 250 robberies per 100,000 people. The robbery rates in 2022 were less than 66 per 100,000 people, which is lower than the rates during the 1960s (Blumstein & Wallman, 2006; FBI, 2011, 2022h).

    clipboard_e1fb3dbab5843e34b24574a85aefbf132.png
    Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\): Rate per 100,000 population (FBI, 2022h).
    Photo Credit: Wesley B. Maier, Ph.D., CC BY 4.0

    Between 1972 and 1992, aggravated assault rates grew by 132%, from just under 200 per 100,000 people to close to 450 per 100,000 people (Blumstein & Wallman, 2006). According to UCR and NIBRS data demonstrated in figure below, the rate of aggravated assault crime decreased since the early 1990s, like homicide and robbery rates during this period (FBI, 2022a). Data from the NIBRS indicates that aggravated assault rates dropped to less than 250 per 100,000 people in 2013 but rose to almost 280 per 100,000 people in 2020. However, it is essential to acknowledge the subjectivity inherent in how police officers and departments categorize aggravated and simple assault when analyzing aggravated assault data (Blumstein & Wallman, 2006). Understanding this subjectivity is crucial as it can impact the comparability and accuracy of crime statistics over time and across different jurisdictions, influencing our interpretation of trends and the development of effective policies.

    clipboard_ebfd2fe38caa4a069d96ba9275a772902.png
    Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\): Rate per 100,000 population (FBI, 2022a)
    Photo Credit: Wesley B. Maier, Ph.D., CC BY 4.0

    Property Crime Trends

    Like violent crimes, data from the UCR and NIBRS indicate that property crime rates have declined over the past 40 years. The following sections will examine four types of property crimes—arson, burglary, larceny, and auto theft—to illustrate trends in property crime in the U.S.

    clipboard_e015545f1067e999e96f73b00679ff447.png
    Figure \(\PageIndex{5}\): Rate per 100,000 population (FBI, 2022b)
    Photo Credit: Wesley B. Maier, Ph.D., CC BY 4.0

    As above, arson crime trends have decreased considerably over the past 35 years (FBI, 2022b). The motivations for arson can vary greatly, including covering up evidence for other crimes, committing insurance fraud, protesting, or stemming from mental health issues such as pyromania. Additionally, arson is difficult to investigate as the evidence is often destroyed in the fire. Even when investigators determine that a fire was caused by arson, only a small percentage (21%) of offenders are apprehended (Brett, 2004). Increased surveillance, such as home security cameras, and improved mental health practices may help explain the national decrease in arson rates. Research has also identified a pattern linking arson to motor vehicle theft, showing an observed increase in vehicle arson in areas or during periods with higher rates of motor vehicle theft and joyriding (Potter, 2000).

    clipboard_e84b368c0c5538cfd24b8cd74591d93fc.png
    Figure \(\PageIndex{6}\): Rate per 100,000 population (FBI, 2022c).
    Photo Credit: Wesley B. Maier, Ph.D., CC BY 4.0

    According to the NIBRS, burglary and breaking and entering are defined as “the unlawful entry into a building or other structure with the intent to commit a felony or a theft” (FBI, 2012, p. 2). While larceny/theft offenses are defined by the NIBRS as “the unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession, or constructive possession, of another person” (FBI, 2012, p. 4). As illustrated in figure above and in larceny below, both burglary and larceny exhibited comparable trends between the mid-1980s and 2022 (FBI, 2022c).

    clipboard_e85d27d4cb0945c12852791b5bd7395e1.png
    Figure \(\PageIndex{7}\): Rate per 100,000 population (FBI, 2022e).
    Photo Credit: Wesley B. Maier, Ph.D., CC BY 4.0

    The analysis of larceny crime rates in the United States from 1985 to 2022, as depicted above, reveals notable trends. Initially, there was a discernible peak in 1991, indicative of heightened criminal activity during that period (FBI, 2022e). However, subsequent years witnessed a consistent downward trajectory in larceny rates, possibly reflecting effective crime prevention measures or shifting societal dynamics. Despite this overall decline, there was a slight uptick observed in 2022, suggesting potential fluctuations in crime patterns or the efficacy of law enforcement strategies in recent years. However, to fully understand the reasons underpinning these criminal behavior trends, additional qualitative information is needed to complement the quantitative data provided by the figures.

    clipboard_e890a825d6d728bde2a443a0de210e33c.png
    Figure \(\PageIndex{8}\): Rate per 100,000 population (FBI, 2022f)
    Photo Credit: Wesley B. Maier, Ph.D., CC BY 4.0

    Motor vehicle theft, as depicted above, peaked in the early 1990s, followed by a decrease until 2019 (FBI, 2022f). However, there has been a small increase in motor vehicle thefts in 2020, 2021, and 2022, prompting questions about the factors contributing to this recent uptick. While advancements in technology and theft-prevention features in cars would typically lead to a decrease in car thefts, the evolution of technology also enhances offenders’ capabilities to commit such crimes. For instance, a popular TikTok trend in 2021 demonstrated how to steal 2010-2021 Kia and Hyundai vehicles using a USB cord and mechanical key (DiLella & Day, 2022). As such, further qualitative research is essential to comprehensively understand these trends and devise effective strategies to combat auto theft in the evolving technological landscape.

    NCVS Crime Trends

    The following section provides an analysis of NCVS crime data spanning from 1993 to 2022, focusing on four crime types: rape/sexual assault, robbery, motor vehicle theft, and burglary. These specific crime categories were selected to offer insight into a broad spectrum of criminal trends, encompassing both violent and property crimes. It is crucial to consider the data collection method, which involves surveying approximately 240,000 individuals from around 150,000 households (Harrell et al., 2009). While this is a large population for a survey, this approach represents a significantly smaller population within the dataset compared to NIBRS and UCR data. Therefore, the NCVS data will yield more varied results from year to year than the NIBRS and UCR data. This variability could stem from factors such as changes in reporting behavior, shifts in survey demographics, or fluctuations in respondents’ perceptions of crime or interpretations of survey questions.

    clipboard_e6be111238ff9e900a829c8990b38fa52.png
    Figure \(\PageIndex{9}\): “95% C.I.”: 95% confidence interval. “S.E.”: Standard error. *Estimates for 2006 should not be compared to other years. See User’s Guide for more information (Bureau of Justice Statistics [BJS], 2022d).
    Photo Credit: Wesley B. Maier, Ph.D., CC BY 4.0

    According to the NCVS data presented in the rape/sexual assault chart, victimization rates declined substantially from 1993 to 2022 (BJS, 2022d). It is important to note, however, that year-to-year variation in these rates appears more pronounced than in the NIBRS rape data illustrated above. Notwithstanding this variability, the overall trend reflects a comparable pattern of decline.

    clipboard_e0b0486cf152fef26edfbd4b616531a28.png
    Figure \(\PageIndex{10}\): “95% C.I.”: 95% confidence interval. “S.E.”: Standard error. *Estimates for 2006 should not be compared to other years. See User’s Guide for more information (BJS, 2022e)
    Photo Credit: Wesley B. Maier, Ph.D., CC BY 4.0

    The above chart illustrates the trends in robbery victimization between 1993 and 2022 (BJS, 2022e). Overall, there has been a substantial decrease in robberies during this period. The findings suggest that participants in the NCVS were 250% more likely to report being a victim of robbery in 1993 than in 2022. Despite this long-term decline, the survey indicates a slight increase in robberies in 2021 and again in 2022, mirroring a common trend observed in several crime category charts.

    clipboard_eeca8f005e3f6e1cb9078a3b589fbdc33.png
    Figure \(\PageIndex{11}\): NCVS Motor Vehicle Theft Crime Rates in the U.S. (1993-2022) "95% C.I.”: 95% confidence interval. “S.E.”: Standard error. *Estimates for 2006 should not be compared to other years. See User’s Guide for more information (BJS, 2022c)
    Photo Credit: Wesley B. Maier, Ph.D., CC BY 4.0

    Like the trends observed in violent crimes reported in the NCVS, property crimes, such as motor vehicle theft (depicted above), have experienced significant declines over the past 30 years (BJS, 2022c). This pattern is evident in the decrease in reported motor vehicle thefts between 1993 and 2020. However, there was a slight increase in respondents reporting being victims of motor vehicle theft in 2021 and 2022, which corresponds with data concerning other criminal activity patterns during this same timeframe.

    clipboard_e446eeee8d03118a04f57d407b1cba50a.png
    Figure \(\PageIndex{12}\): "95% C.I.”: 95% confidence interval. “S.E.”: Standard error. *Estimates for 2006 should not be compared to other years. See User’s Guide for more information (BJS, 2022b).
    Photo Credit: Wesley B. Maier, Ph.D., CC BY 4.0

    Consistent with trends in other property crimes, burglary victimization (above) has declined among respondents over the past 30 years (BJS, 2022b). When comparing findings concerning burglary trends from the UCR/NIBRS with their counterpart findings from the NCVS, a consistent pattern emerges.

    Types of Crimes in Madera

    Violent Crimes:

    • Murder and non-negligent manslaughter
    • Rape
    • Robbery (including armed robbery)
    • Aggravated assault (including assault with a deadly weapon)

    According to the data, residents have a 1 in 168 to 1 in 171 chance of becoming a victim of violent crime in Madera.

    Property Crimes:

    • Motor vehicle theft
    • Larceny (theft)
    • Burglary
    • Arson

    Residents have approximately a 1 in 78 to 1 in 83 chances of becoming a victim of property crime.

    Overall Crime Patterns:

    The data shows that Madera experiences about 3.95 daily crimes on average, broken down into 0.88 violent incidents and 3.07 property-related offenses. The overall crime rate is about 19-27 crimes per 1,000 residents, which translates to roughly one crime every 3 hours and 44 minutes.

    Recent trends indicate that violent crime has been increasing while property crime has been declining over the past 5 years. In 2023, Madera recorded 4 homicides, which was an increase of 2 from the previous year.

    The violent crime rate in Madera is notably higher than the national average, while property crime rates are above average but less severe than violent crime rates.

    This page titled 5.3: Crime Trends was last modified on Sat, 26 Sep 2026 19:45:02 GMT and is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Antoniette Aizon.