I would really appreciate the help of the community with this. I went and used the uniform crime report as Source Data to manually check the percentage of women raped each year in the United States I have thrown my results up here Synthesized rape Data so people can check my results but my concern is that the rate that I have calculated is 0.21% per year but I'm not sure that I've done anything incorrectly so if some of you would like to check my work I would appreciate it. The source data contains the population figures for each state and the number of reported rapes in the states, I am also calculating that there is a 2/3 non-report rate meaning I've multiplied the reported rate by 3 then I've divided that figure by one half the state's total population to represent that this is only happening to women and I ran total separate for each state and the bottom line are the sum totals that are then manipulated in the same way described as above for the national rate.
I'm not sure if I've made a major mistake or if reporting on the subject is so extraordinarily awful that no one's willing to report the actual rate at which these things take place your input would be greatly appreciated.
Edited for formatting
[–]iehava 1 point2 points3 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[+]the00zeus [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link
Here is what i can say after reviewing the BJS surveys I'm inclined to accept the 2/3 under reporting, this does not mean that my estimates are as accurate as possible. Unless you have a good source for the rate of false reports that can be used before the application of the under report adjustment I can't reasonably up date the data. I largely think we would not be able to collect such data as it would require extraordinary reporting systems in every police department that could be accounted for in the Uniform Crime Reports and the BJS which I think would be a waste of money. It is unfortunate that we do not have better figures but we must work with what we have. So far i think my analysis (after necessary revisions) is sufficiently robust to do a fair amount of heavy lifting to shift the discussion into a much more accurate realm. I appreciate your effort to improve the analysis, but I do not have anything else to work with at the moment.
[–]iehava 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+]the00zeus [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link
the study you cite only has 109 data points, too few to offer a general trend the most this study can do is give support to someone else doing a much larger and more through study.
as far as the BJS study is concerned
1 It would be wholly unreasonable to try and filter out the false unreported claims considering how through the interview process is for this survey read below
2 if you had actually looked at the survey questions from BJS PDF of that survey page 6 question 43a
Incidents involving forced or unwanted sexual acts are often difficult to talk about. (Other than any incidents already mentioned,) have you been forced or coerced to engage in unwanted sexual activity by -
a someone you did not know
b a casual acquaintance
c someone you know well
when compared to the other questions in this study it follows the standard format to calculate the non-report rate for all other crimes and when comparing that question to the ones used by the unreliable Ohio study that produced the 1in5 stat the question is not leading, also we know that the Ohio study was awful because 75% of women who were marked as being raped, when interviewed afterwards said that they had not been raped. Further more that question is being used to lead to an entirely separate questionnaire that gathers a great deal of specific data about every unreported crime not just rape
3 Finally no matter what is done when attempting to assess under reporting rates you will always have some problems like this because they were not reported, and investigated. It is a sad fact that we have to accept some uncertainty in the data but it is unavoidable and means we mearly have to grant some error in the evaluation of the national data
[–]iehava 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+]the00zeus [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
I understand your point on the false report rate, it is very through it is still to small of a data set for me. I still would like to see a much broader study before I adjust the data, but provided that one exists I would apply it before the unreported rate so that it would reduce the false report error in that as well.
it seems that you did not read the follow up questionnaire
starting at question 27a
there are 14 further responses here directed to 4 more follow up questions and it keeps going they are definitely separating rape from sexual assault when generating that data with a total of up to 174 follow up questions depending on the event described if anything they are going out of there way to ask too many questions about the attack
as to your point about
while i agree with you on that point, these types of claims are already in the the UCR data set, they did not differentiate good reports and false reports in the data unfortunately it means that is already in the data set, as per above
i would like to point out that i appreciate this discussion because its is making sure that i am removing as many errors as posible
[–]iehava 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+]the00zeus [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
what you are suggesting to verify the rate is effectively impossible, and further more are you also seem to be suggesting that the report rate for burglary is equally unreliable. there is a rate of under reporting and the study attempts to address that as best as it can it will always be flawed and they know that as well as i do but absent a nearly unlimited amount of money and human resources we can not get the true rate so baring that how should we attempt to find the unreported rate and if you have a study that does that im happy to look at it but until then i only have so much to work with
[–]iehava 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]the00zeus1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Men13 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+]the00zeus [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link
those data points are reports not necessarily separate incidents, in your example if the 50 incidences were discovered by one report that would be the only thing that shows up in the UCR, one report is one data point
[–]Men13 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]the00zeus1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]_Sir_Loin_of_Steak_ 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]the00zeus0 points [recovered] | Copy Link