Crime has always been an issue in every community or city.

It continues to be one of the

foremost problems which is constantly addressed by the government through various solutions
such as better laws and programs meant to stop or decrease the level of crime. However,
despite the constant attention given to prevention of crime, it still is an inevitable phenomenon in
every community worldwide.

In my report, I will be analyzing the relationship between violent crime and poverty. My
independent variable will be poverty (x variable) and my dependent variable will be violent crime
(y variable). According to the US Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
In the FBIs Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four
offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated
assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force
or threat of force.

By analysing the relationship between violent crime and poverty, the government may be able to
address the problem of violent crime better and more efficiently. Should this report conclude that
poverty and violent crime are strongly associated and that poverty indeed causes violent crime,
instead of solely focusing on crime prevention, the government may also devise new programs
meant to combat poverty. By doing this, the government is not only preventing violent crime but
also eroding poverty which will benefit the community as a whole.

I think that violent crime has a strong positive relationship with poverty. According to Norman
Brill, author of Americas Psychic Malignancy, the poor are more likely to cause violent crime
because they have higher rates of mental illness compared to those who are relatively
wealthier. Mental illness which impairs and distorts judgment can easily lead to violent crime -
from assault to murder. Mental illness robs an individuals sense of right and wrong and
therefore may lead violent crime. A study titled as Urban Poverty and Juvenile Crime:
Evidence From a Randomized Housing-Mobility Experiment further supports this argument,
stating that poverty often leads to inferior or lack of proper education, leading to less access to
quality schools, jobs, and role models, decreasing the opportunity costs of crime and increasing
the probability of youth spending time on the street associating with gangs, etc. The study also
argues that poverty can lead to high levels of stress that in turn may lead individuals to commit
theft, robbery, or other violent acts.




Linear Trend

Violent.crime..per.100.000. = -3.0549 * Poverty.Rate....households. + 421.03
Correlation = -0.051462

Based on the scatter graph, the trend can be seen as weakly linear. There is negative
association among the variables as shown by the downward sloping trend line but it can also be
observed that the line is almost straight. The strength of the graph is moderate, the points are
relatively near to each other. There are no obvious groups in the graph that can be noted of. It
can be observed that there is a point, which is very from from all the other points. The point
represents The District of Columbia with a poverty rate of 2.7 and a violent crime of 1330.2 per
100,000.

The coefficient of the correlation is -.0514. The negative value means that poverty and crime
have an inverse relationship; as poverty decreases, crime increases. The value of the
coefficient suggests that there is little association between poverty and crime which suggests
that poverty does not necessarily result to crime.



When the point representing The District of Columbia is removed, the scatter graph significantly
changes.


Linear Trend

Violent.crime..per.100.000. = 16.029 * Poverty.Rate....households. + 170.96
Correlation = 0.34232

The trend remains linear however, the slope of the scatter graph significantly changes. The
slope is now upward sloping and it is much steeper compared to the previous scatter graph
which is almost flat. The strength of the graph remains weak and there are also no obvious
groups present.

The coefficient of the correlation is 0.34232. The positive value means that poverty and crime
have a direct relationship; as poverty increases, crime increases. The value of the coefficient
suggests that there is little association between poverty and crime which suggests that poverty
does not necessarily result to crime.

The District of Columbia may therefore be concluded as an outlier in the scattergraph. After
removing the point, the coefficient has changed from positive to negative which will significantly
affect the conclusion of this report. If The District of Columbia is included in the analysis of this
report, it may be concluded that as poverty increases, crime decreases and vice versa.
However, if it is included, it may be concluded that as poverty increases, crime also increases
and vice versa. The value of the coefficient however stays the same therefore there is still weak
association between poverty and crime.

The District of Columbia has the highest rate of violent crime despite having the lowest poverty
rate. There are different theories given by specialists as to why D.C. has a very high crime rate,
however no single reason is proven to be the definite cause of the high crime rate. In a USA
-based tv show 20/20 hosted by ABC anchor John Stossel, he stated that D.C.s ban on gun
ownership is one of the foremost causes of violent crime. Citing the recent Federal Appeals
Court for D.C. ruling overturning Washington, D.C.'s ban on gun ownership for 32 years, Stossel
talked to the pro-gun plaintiff in the case, Tom Palmer, and pointed out that the murder rate in
D.C. increased after the city's gun ban. Stossel argues, "Since Washington's gun law passed,
the murder rate actually increased, even while America's murder rate dropped. It's because
guns can also save lives, says Palmer, as one saved his years ago in California."

In a study titled as Color of Crime, it is suggests that The single best indicator of violent crime
levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic. In the data sets
in the study, it is shown that violent crime is mostly committed by black people compared to
other ethnicities. The District of Columbias population composed of 60% black people in 2000.
This may therefore explain why violent crime is high in D.C.

The wealth gap in D.C. also explains may also explain how the dataset may lead to a different
conclusion due to the positive and negative correlations. In an article in Business Insider titled
as The Wealth Gap is Obviously Painful in Washington D.C., it says that, The booming District
of Columbia features the wealthiest high-income strata among big U.S. cities and more poor
people than the national average. The poverty rate of 2.7 in the data may therefore not be
accurately interpreted. The wealth gap may have caused the correlation to have an almost flat
slope and negative association.

All stated explanations or theories combined together may have caused D.C. to go against the
general trend of the data. The scatter graph without the data from the District of Columbia may
therefore prove to be more reliable in the analysis of this report as it proves itself to be an
outlier.

I added three trend lines to the scatter graph to identify which is suited best to predict the data.
As seen above, not one of the three trend curves fit the scatter graph properly. However, it is
the linear trend line that has the most points following it compared to the quadratic and cubic
trend lines.

Using the correlation equation, Violent.crime..per.100.000. = 16.029 *
Poverty.Rate....households. + 170.96, when poverty rate is 10 v=16.029(10) +170.96 will result
to 331.25. Based on the scatter graph, states with the poverty rate of 10 will have a violent
crime per 100,000 of 200 to 650. The value of the interpolation prediction is within the range.
However, it is still not reliable as the range extends from 200 to 650. When poverty rate is 20
v=16.029(20) + 170.96 will result to 491.54. Based on the scatter graph, states with the poverty
rate of 20 will have a violent crime per 100,000 of approximately 250 to 600. The value of the
interpolation prediction is within the range. However, it is still not reliable as the range extends
from 250 to 600. This shows that a linear trend does not effectively fit the model and prediction
will be unreliable though there is also possibility that it will be correct.

When data is analysed compartmentally by poverty rates, different conclusions can be drawn
due to different slopes and values of the correlation coefficients.



For states with the poverty rate of 6-10, the slope is upward sloping and very steep, with a
coefficient of .46099. For states with the poverty rate of 10-12, the slope is downward sloping
and is almost flat, with a coefficient of -0.03604. For states with the poverty rate of 12-14, the
slope is upward sloping and very steep, with a coefficient of 0.22678. For states with the poverty
rate of 14-20, the slope is downward sloping and is almost flat, with a coefficient of -0.036249.

The different scatter graphs above arranged by poverty rates show that there is very little
association between poverty and crime. The inconsistencies between positive and negative
values of the coefficients as well as their values prove that poverty does not necessarily lead to
crime.


Another variable that could be compared to violent crime per 100,00 is homicides per 100,000.


Violent.crime..per.100.000. = 57.886 * Homicides..per.100.000 + 143.31
Correlation = 0.76439

Using homicides per 100,00 as the independent variable instead will better predict violent crime
due to strong correlation. This may be the case because when a homicide happens, the more
likely that a violent crime may also occur. The elements that are present in the environment that
cultivates the occurrence of homicide are the same for a violent crime. Such elements related to
poverty include educational attainment, unemployment rate, and population density. Other
elements not related to poverty may include age distribution, police force, family structure,
climate, divorce rate and religion.

In conclusion, through the analysis using iNZight, poverty does not necessarily lead to higher
levels of violent crime. This is because violent crime is caused by other factors combined such
as unemployment, population density, minority population, and age distribution. According to
fundamentalfinance.com, Geographic regions within the US have different characteristics and
therefore lead to differing levels of both crime and poverty... Climate, associated with
geographical location, is also believed to affect crime - more temperate climates being positively
correlated with crime. Cultural factors such as recreational activities, religious characteristics,
and family cohesiveness are all associated with geographic regions of the US and influence
crime.

Predicting violent crimes based on poverty rate alone will therefore lead to inaccurate
conclusions. Violent crime rate is not caused by a single factor but numerous factors combined
together. Though several studies have concluded that poverty is indeed strongly associated to
crime, the dataset shows otherwise because other factors related to poverty such as population
density, employment, and educational attainment are not considered in the analysis. Such
factors causing violent crime are indeed related to poverty therefore poverty as a whole and not
merely based on income can strongly predict violent crimes. Furthermore, as is the case with
the District of Columbia, wealth inequality may distort the data and therefore lead to inaccurate
conclusions.

REFERENCES
Short, James F., Jr. Poverty, Ethnicity, and Violent Crime
Brill, Norman Q. Americas Psychic Malignancy
Ludwig, Jens, Greg J. Duncan, and Paul Hirschfield. Urban Poverty and Juvenile Crime:
Evidence From a Randomized Housing-Mobility Experiment.
http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com/povertycrime.php
http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf