Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property
Motor Vehicle Theft
Sex Offenses, Forcible & Nonforcible
Stolen Property Offenses
Weapon Law Violations
These data have their peculiarities. The first obvious one: The totals reported by VSP are different, in most cases, from the sums of offenses. For example, for 2017 the VSP reports 19,270 offenses reported to the Richmond Police Dep’t but the total of the Richmond offenses listed in the same table with that 19,270 is 20,705, a 7.4% difference. When I inquired about the difference, they responded:
There can be multiple offenses within an incident. If a murder, rape and robbery occur in one incident (one event), all offenses are counted under Incident Based Reporting. The old UCR Summary System used the hierarchy rule and counted only one offense per incident.
That certainly is true, but it does not explain the discrepancy: Whatever they are counting, the total should be the total. (The table says it reports “offenses.”) In any case, the numbers below are their totals.
They report the numbers by police agency, both the local force and, in most cases, the State Police. For example, the Richmond Police Department shows 19,270 incident reports and the State Police show 233 in Richmond. The report also includes data for the colleges, the Capitol Police, and state agencies such as the ABC Board. Finally, the small jurisdictions produce some weird statistics because even a small variation can produce a large change in the crime rate. As well, the State Police report a significant fraction of the incidents in some small jurisdictions; for instance, in Craig County in 2017, the sheriff reported 22 incidents while the State Police reported 20.
I obtained the data below by leaving out the data for the State Police (9,709 offenses, 2.5% of the total) and State agencies (8,633 offenses, 2.2% of the total). I also left out the jurisdictions with populations <10,000 (19,980 offenses, 5.1%). That’s a total of 38,322, 9.7% of the 394,197 total offenses.
BTW: The VCU total (not included in Richmond’s total) was 1,207.
Here, then, are the remaining 2017 data (pdf), expressed as Type A offense reports per 100 population vs. population.
Richmond is the gold square. The red diamonds, from the left, are the peer jurisdictions of Hampton, Newport News, and Norfolk.
There is no particular reason to expect these data to fit a straight line but Excel is happy to fit one. The slope suggests that the rate (per hundred population) increases by about 0.15 for a population increase of 100,000. The R2, however, tells us that population explains less than 1% of the variance in the crime rate; i.e., overall crime rate (by this measure) does not correlate with jurisdiction size.
Here is the same graph, with the axis expanded to cut off the Big Guys (Fairfax, Va. Beach, Prince Wm., Chesterfield, Loudoun, and Henrico) in order to emphasize the distribution of the smaller jurisdictions.
Among the jurisdictions with populations >10,000, we are seventh in the state, with a rate 1.94 times the state average.
(Blame the cut off department names on the VSP database, which appears to truncate at 25 characters.)
Here are the totals for the eighteen largest jurisdictions, sorted by rate, with the grand total for all but the smallest (<10K) jurisdictions.
You’ll notice dramatic difference between the large cities and the large counties.
CAVEATS: These numbers tell us about overall crime rates but not about the environment faced by any particular citizen. As well, the VSP emphasizes that, as we see above, population is not a good predictor of crime rate. They list other factors:
1. Population density and degree of urbanization;
2. Population variations in composition and stability;
3. Economic conditions and employment availability;
4. Mores, cultural conditions, education, and religious characteristics;
5. Family cohesiveness;
6. Climate, including seasonal weather conditions;
7. Effective strength of the police force;
8. Standards governing appointments to the police force;
9. Attitudes and policies of the courts, prosecutors and corrections;
10. Citizen attitudes toward crime and police;
11. The administrative and investigative efficiency of police agencies and the organization and cooperation of adjoining and overlapping police jurisdictions;
12. Crime reporting practices of citizens.
The Type A total is driven by the property crime numbers: Typically the larceny, vandalism, and motor vehicle theft numbers will account for 2/3 of the Type A total. To see how violent and drug crime are doing, we have to look underneath the totals.
When we do that, we see that the Richmond count of simple assaults dropped while the drug and weapon law numbers rose.
Note: This graph and those immediately below report the raw counts of offenses reported in Richmond, not the count per 100K. Throughout this period, the Richmond population has been near 200,000, with very little change, so you can get close to the rates per 100 by dividing these numbers by 2,000.
The robbery numbers continued a long downward trend; aggravated assaults rose slightly.
The “other” sex crimes (non forcible) showed a jump, as did the murder count. Kidnapping, rape, and arson enjoyed decreases. The decreases from the early 2000’s, both here and above, are remarkable.
Much of Richmond’s plethora of crime is drug-related.
To complement the still outrageous crime rate, our schools are among the worst in the state and our public housing agency maintains a sanctuary for crime on its property. To support all this dysfunction, we pay some of the highest taxes in the state. Go figure.
Note: Mr Westerberg of the VSP kindly furnished a copy of the data as an Excel spreadsheet, so I didn’t have to copy the numbers from the PDF report on the Web.