There’s a lot of math and problematic assumptions, but “statistically significant” means “we think it’s not just chance.”
Ok, back to the NCVS:
Now the UCR changed how it defined rape a few yrs back, but this doesn’t appear to be a product of that.
The usual response to big shifts in rapes in the police-based UCR is to say it reflects a change in willingness to report.
But the NCVS is designed to avoid this: it is based on interviews, not police reports.
Did THAT willingness to talk change?
On the other hand, don’t want to dismiss this too quickly. If real, it’s serious.
And correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the UCR usually come out before the NCVS? Sort of surprised that this broke first.
Many reform efforts have framed decarceration as “look, as prison pops have shrunk, so has crime, so it’s a good thing to do!”
This is… risky. It suggests—wrongly!—that if crime goes up, maybe… prisons should too.
Which is bad policy for a host of reasons. But this is a real risk:
AK passed a big reform bill, crime went up mostly due to a recession and opioids, and the reforms—even those that had not yet gone into effect!—were rolled back.
So, the NCVS: