This paper introduces researchers and practitioners to a new data source called the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS), which has the potential to be linked to the Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR). Using data from Maryland, we examine limitations of the SHR cited by past research and how integration of the SHR with the NVDRS can simultaneously enhance both the SHR and NVDRS. Although some limitations remain, it appears that the integration of the SHR with the NVDRS has potential benefits that can more accurately inform both homicide research and local policy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AddingtonL. A. (2006). Using National Incident-Based Reporting System murder data to evaluate clearance predictors: A research note. Homicide Studies, 10, 140–152.
2.
AddingtonL. A. (2007). Hot vs. cold cases: Examining time to clearance for homicides using NIBRS data. Justice Research and Policy, 9(2), 87–112.
3.
AkiyamaY., & NolanJ. (1999). Methods for understanding and analyzing NIBRS data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 225–238.
4.
BallerR. D.MessnerS. F.AnselinL., & DeaneG. (2002). The interchangeability of homicide data sources: A spatial analytical procedure. Homicide Studies, 6, 211–227.
5.
BarberC.HemenwayD.HochstadtJ.AzraelD. (2002). Underestimates of unintentional firearm fatalities: Comparing Supplementary Homicide Report data with the National Vital Statistics System. Injury Prevention, 8, 252–256.
6.
BazleyT. D., & MieczkowskiT. (2004). Researching workplace homicide: An assessment of the limitation of the Supplementary Homicide Reports. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 243–252.
7.
BennettM. D.Jr.HallJ.FrazierL.Jr.PatelN.BarkerL., & ShawK. (2006). Homicide of children aged 0–4 years, 2003–04: Results from the National Violent Death Reporting System. Injury Prevention, 12, ii39–ii43.
8.
BossarteR.M.SimonR.T., & BarkerL. (2006). Characteristics of homicide followed by suicide incidents in multiple states, 2003–04. Injury Prevention, 12, ii33–ii38.
9.
BrownsteinH. H. (2000). The social production of crime statistics. Justice Research and Policy, 2(2), 73–89.
10.
CampbellR.WeisM. A.MilletL.PowellV.Hull-JillyD., & HackmanH. (2006). From surveillance to action: Early gains from the National Violent Death Reporting System. Injury Prevention, 12, ii6–ii9.
11.
CanterP., & HarriesK. (2003). Locational precision in crime analyses: A case study in Baltimore County, Maryland. Justice Research and Policy, 5(1), 129–138.
12.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1988). Guidelines for evaluating surveillance systems. Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Review, 37, 1–18.
13.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2004). National Violent Death Reporting System coding manual — Version 2. Atlanta, GA: Author.
14.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2005). Homicide and suicide rates — National Violent Death Reporting System, six states, 2003. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 54, 377–380.
15.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Homicides and suicides — National Violent Death Reporting System, United States, 2003–2004. Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 55, 721–724.
16.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007a). National Violent Death Reporting System frequently asked questions. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved November 7, 2008, from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/profiles/nvdrs/faqs.htm.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). WISQARS: Web-based Inquiry Statistics Query and Reporting System. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved November 11, 2008, from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/.
19.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1984). Uniform Crime Reporting handbook. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
20.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2005). Crime in the United States 2004: Uniform Crime Reports. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
21.
FlewellingR. L. (2004). A nonparametric imputation approach for dealing with missing variables in SHR data. Homicide Studies, 8, 255–266.
22.
FoxJ. A. (2004). Missing data problems in the SHR. Homicide Studies, 8, 214–254.
23.
FridayJ. C. (2006). Law enforcement and the National Violent Death Reporting System: A partnership in the making. Injury Prevention, 12, ii55–ii57.
24.
FyfeJ. J. (2002). Too many missing cases: Holes in our knowledge about police use of force. Justice Research and Policy, 4, 87–102.
25.
HempsteadK. (2006). Manner of death and circumstances in fatal poisonings: Evidence from New Jersey. Injury Prevention, 12, ii44–ii48.
26.
KohnM. (2004). National Violent Death Reporting System: Monitoring and tracking the cause of violence-related deaths. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
27.
LangfordL.IsaacN., & KabatS. (1998). Homicides related to intimate partner violence in Massachusetts. Homicide Studies, 2, 353–377.
28.
LoftinC. (1986). The validity of robbery-murder classifications in Baltimore. Violence and Victims, 1, 191–204.
29.
LoftinC.McDowallD., & XieM. (2008). Likely errors when linking Supplementary Homicide Report records for large U.S. cities. Homicide Studies, 12, 234–248.
30.
LynmanJ. M.McGwinG.Jr.DavisG.KovandzicT. V.KingW., & VermundS. H. (2004). A comparison of three sources of data on child homicide. Death Studies, 28, 659–669.
31.
MaltzM. D., & TargonskiJ. (2002). A note on the use of county-level UCR data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18, 297–318.
32.
MaltzM. D., & TargonskiJ. (2003). Measurement and other errors in county-level UCR data: A reply to Lott and Whitley. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 199–206.
33.
Maryland State Police. (2005). Crime in Maryland: 2004 Uniform Crime Report. Baltimore, MD: Author.
34.
MaxfieldM. G. (1989). Circumstances in supplementary homicide reports: Variety and validity. Criminology, 27, 671–695.
35.
McGarrellE. F.GiacomazziA. L., & ThurmanQ. C. (1999). Reducing disorder, fear, and crime in public housing: A case study of place-specific crime prevention. Justice Research and Policy, 1(2), 61–87.
36.
McKnightP. E.McKnightK. M.SidaniS., & FigueredoA. J. (2007). Missing data: A gentle introduction. New York: Guilford Press.
37.
National Center for Health Statistics. (2002). Vital statistics of the United States, 1993: Vol. II, mortality, part A. Hyattsville, MD: Author.
NeapolitanJ. L. (2005). An evaluation of the quality and use of race-specific homicide data. Homicide Studies, 9, 324–349.
40.
PowellV.BarberC. W.HedegaardH.HempsteadK.Hull-JillyD.ShenX.ThorpeG. E., & WeisM. A. (2006). Using NVDRS data for suicide prevention: Promising practices in seven states. Injury Prevention, 12, ii28–ii32.
41.
PridemoreW. A. (2005). A cautionary note on using county-level crime and homicide data. Homicide Studies, 9, 256–268.
42.
RiedelM. (1990). Nationwide homicide datasets: An evaluation of the Uniform Crime Reports and National Center for Health Statistics data. In MacKenzieD. L.BaunachP. J., & RobergR. R. (Eds.), Measuring crime: Large-scale, long-range efforts (pp. 175–205). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
43.
RiedelM. (1999). Sources of homicide data. In SmithM. D. & ZahnM. A. (Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social research (pp. 75–95). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
44.
RiedelM., & RegoecziW. C. (2004). Missing data in homicide research. Homicide Studies, 8, 163–192.
RokawW. M.MercyJ. A., & SmithJ. C. (1990). Comparing death certificate data with FBI crime reporting statistics on U. S. homicides. Public Health Reports, 105, 447–455.
47.
SanfordC.MarshallS. W.MartinS. L.Coyne-BeasleyT.WallerA. E.NorwoodT., & DemissieZ. (2006). Deaths from violence in North Carolina, 2004: How deaths differ in females and males. Injury Prevention, 12, ii10–ii16.
48.
TennebaumA. N. (1993). The Supplementary Homicide Report: A neglected but valuable source for homicide research. In BlockC. R. & BlockR. L. (Eds.), Questions and answers in lethal and non-lethal violence 1993: Proceedings of the second annual workshop of the Homicide Research Working Group. Quantico, VA: National Institute of Justice.
49.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2005a). Table 1: Annual estimates for counties of Maryland: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004 (CO-EST2004-01-24). Washington, DC: Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau.
50.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2005b). Table 2: Annual estimates of the population by sex and age for Maryland: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004 (SC-EST2004-02-24). Washington, DC: Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau.
51.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2005c). Table 3: Annual estimates of the population by sex, race and Hispanic or Latino origin for Maryland: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004 (SC-EST2004-03-24). Washington, DC: Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau.
52.
Van CourtJ., & TrentR. B. (2001). Why didn't we get them all?Homicide Studies, 8, 311–321.
53.
WeisM. A.BradberryC.CarterL. P.FergusonJ., & KozarevaD. (2006). An exploration of human service system contacts prior to suicide in South Carolina: An expansion of the South Carolina Violent Death Reporting System. Injury Prevention, 12, ii17–ii21.
54.
WiersemaB.LoftinC, & McDowallD. (2000). A comparison of supplementary homicide reports and national vital statistics system homicide estimates for U.S. counties. Homicide Studies, 4, 317–340.
55.
WilliamsK. R., & FlewellingR. L. (1987). Family, acquaintance, and stranger homicide: Alternative procedures for rate calculations. Criminology, 25, 543–560.
56.
YearwoodD. L., & LubitzR. L. (1999). Domestic violence in North Carolina: Utilizing court data for policy formation. Justice Research and Policy, 1(1), 51–66.
57.
ZahnM. A., & McCallP. L. (1999). Trends and patterns of homicide in the 20th-century United States. In SmithM. D. & ZahnM. A. (Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social research (pp. 9–23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
