Crime data for the 50 states + dc

[bob000555]

The Pearson Correlation Coefficient masseurs the strength of the linear relation between two variables. The higher the absolute value of the coefficient the stronger the correlation. A negative number indicates an inverse relation while a positive number indicates a positive relationship. Today I was home sick from school so I calculated a few correlations about crime:

 

Correlation coefficient between high school gradation rates and violent crime rates: [math]-.337[/math]

 

Correlation coefficient between population density and violent crime rates: [math].132[/math]

 

Correlation coefficient between average income and violent crime rates: [math]-.046[/math] (this one surprised me)

 

Correlation between (self reported) gun ownership and violent crime rates: [math]-.134[/math]

 

Correlation between % below poverty line and violent crime rates: [math].107[/math]

 

 

Graduation rates: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo.htm

Violent crime rates: http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html

Population density: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density

Average income: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_United_States_of_America_by_income

Gun ownership: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html

Poverty Rate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate

 

The strongest correlation was between high school graduation rates and crime rates. What if anything do you think this data says about US education and crime policy?

Edited January 29, 2010 by bob000555
bolded numbers

[The Bear's Key]

The strongest correlation was between high school graduation rates and crime rates. What if anything do you think this data says about US education and crime policy?

In my opinion, a bit of it has to do with problem-solving abilities gained through education.

 

But it's probably a lot more complex, though, and involves both the person and their environment. So a person who adapts easily, picks things up quickly, and/or natuarally possesses a strong inner determination, could have much greater odds in a shitty environment than a person who's qualities are the opposite.

 

If that first person doesn't bother to learn anything in school or flunks out, they might succeed just as well or better than the second example who did graduate and/or tried hard. But if the second person were in a superior environment, their odds might break even.

 

Also nothing's set in concrete, being of a statistical nature. And who knows, other unknown variables could make a difference (or tip the balance).

 

The education system's influence on the crime data is therefore possibly the simple result of a numbers game. If most people's inner qualities are likely to fit mid between the above extremes, then providing everyone with a free and quality education is likely to have an impact...one that results in a drop of crime.

 

My 2¢

 

i.e. opinion.

 

But it's awesome you did that with the numbers. It'd be cool do the same for other things, if you end up with more time on your hands. After work I might think up an interesting one and search the data online, for you to calculate perhaps -- if up to it.

[bob000555]

Since the data is for a state and not individuals I rather doubt it has anything to do with individual problem solving ability. Not to mention states that have reputations for being less then genius level intelligence like West Virginia and Mississippi have low crime rates.

 

If I had to guess I would say that because gainful employment is growing more and more dependent on education states with high numbers of uneducated people have droves of desperate people roaming around getting into trouble. It is possible you’re right though.

[npts2020]

In addition to having more limited opportunities, I would think a fairly high percentage of the drop-outs did so at an age where they had no realistic chance of getting good employment because they were under 18. Idle youth=more crime, in most cases.

[Sisyphus]

Most states are quite heterogeneous, so state-level data is probably going to be pretty muddled. Data between cities or even neighborhoods would probably tell you a lot more, as well as urban vs. suburban vs. rural. For example, the very minor inverse correlation between wealth and violent crime (presumably it surprised you because you thought it would be stronger?) might be explained by the fact that more urban areas probably means both more wealth and more crime, though probably not in the same urban areas.

 

As far as the education vs. crime, I think npts has it about right. I don't think it's about what you learn in school, but rather that a) options are very limited without a high school diploma, and b) idle youth get in trouble. And I imagine high crime rates and weak schools are mutually reinforcing.

[Mokele]

As far as the education vs. crime, I think npts has it about right. I don't think it's about what you learn in school, but rather that a) options are very limited without a high school diploma, and b) idle youth get in trouble.

 

Also, c) Failure to finish school can be *caused* by the same underlying factors that lead to crime.

 

And I imagine high crime rates and weak schools are mutually reinforcing.

 

In the US, schools are funded by local property taxes, and by "local" I mean "confined to the immediate area of the school". Thus, even within the same city, a school in a wealthy area will get more funding, and a school in a high-crime area will have low property values leading to low revenue.

[Mr Skeptic]

The strongest correlation was between high school graduation rates and crime rates. What if anything do you think this data says about US education and crime policy?

 

Well, a portion of successful graduation depends on the ability to follow instructions, jump through hoops, self-control to do homework and pay attention, etc. Likewise, graduation is a prerequisite for any reasonably paying job. The time spent in school also is time not spent doing mischief or participating in gangs. So it could be that education itself is not responsible. The obligatory "correlation does not equal causation".

[CharonY]

Well, the correlations are weak to begin with and would warrant more statistical analyzes. Chances are that they are not significant to begin with.

[The Bear's Key]

:doh::doh: I think we all erred. The OP's data is for VIOLENT crime. Unless anyone's seriously proposing that idle hands is linked to violence. "Hey I'm bored" -- POW! -- "ok then, much better". Yeah, doesn't fit.

 

Even so...

 

I must object to this kind of reasoning in "idle hands" = more crime.

 

No one is really idle, they sit and watch TV, play video games, craft things at home, etc. Not a prerequisite for mischief and crime.

 

One great example is myself. I used to study daily, be in the library from day to night, be part of boy scouts, have a mentor from Big Brothers, and whatnot, yet spent lots of enjoyable time on vandalism, stealing, breaking into cars, fire-bugging in public areas, many things which land other people in jail quickly.

 

Either you don't really know, or simply forget, how easy it's to get other people -- anyone, even nerds -- into a mischief state of excitement without forewarning. You start, they go along. It's kind of amazing sometimes how natural it goes.

 

And the kicker is most delinquents who get caught are exactly the poorly-learned type or who are deficient in problem-solving. We often laugh at the stupid robber who did a nincompoop act. Meanwhile, the schooled criminals laugh at our juvenile perception of the criminal mindset and/or dress, perhaps why it's easier for them to get away with crimes more often.

 

Reflecting back in life at who mostly didn't get caught, they're a line-up of pretty-boy, clean-cut, well dressed people. The irony? Back then, I used to be saintly-looking and perform the innocence talk. But after I decided to strive being a more honorable person, I now have a more deviant appearance.

 

Perhaps like a sheep in wolf's clothing?

 

Thankfully, I got away with nearly the entirety of it to avoid prosecution/imprisonment. No regrets too, especially it's allowed me to recognize the criminal element who, dressed in official sheep's clothing, warns us of the (uneducated) criminals -- i.e. those who mostly act from desperation and a profound inability to solve their life's problems.

 

Why did I change?

 

Threat of pushment? Not entirely. Keep in mind I'd often walk up to a patrol cop's vehicle, ask them for a ride to the mall 3km away (occasionally with the "innocent" excuse that I didn't want to hitchhike from strangers), then I'd get an empty bag from a store clerk, hide it behind a tree on the side of the mall, and proceed to shoplift until the bag(s) was full enough. Then I'd hitchike back or just walk.

 

In other cases....if ready to vandalize, and let's say a cop drove by while I scouted the area, I'd wait until the patrol car turned from sight and then continue merrily on.

 

So I'd say...

 

The biggest variables in getting me to change were the lasting influence by people, some who did good unrewarded and seldom judging, plus when I gained real knowledge about how society works -- and the effort that goes into much of the system we often take for granted. Even in corporate-owned stores, the manager or person further up the chain's going to be affected by my theft. Being without any money was no longer an excuse I could rely on.

 

It's why idle hands is mostly a farce. The rich criminals' hands aren't ever idle -- that's why you don't see a correlation with income. I lived in poverty, and hardly of the neighbors were criminals.

 

Rather than idle hands, it's usually many variables. For example, one culprit seems to be a disconnect. The perception is things "come easy" to other people, so you're not really affecting them badly. Many other culprits are likely to exist.

 

So what variables lessen crime?

 

Education, knowledge of society's functions, leading by example, and showing how to overcome life's difficulties, if those are missing for a person, it becomes a numbers game: they're more likely -- although not definitely -- to be inclinded towards (at the least) an occasional crime.

 

 

Now to the OP, maybe you're able to investigate the correlation between the % who are in prison vs crime, and the % who die in war vs crime -- per state. I'll try to find websites listing the figures and PM you.