and motor vehicle theft (39.1) (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2017). For the overall state of California in the same year, based on a population of 100,000, the rate for violent crime was 396.1, murder and non-negligent manslaughter (4.4), rape (29.7), robbery (125.5), aggravated assault (236.6), property crime (2,441.1), burglary (522.3), larceny (1,527.4), and motor vehicle theft (391.3) (FBI, “State-by-State”, 2017). Lastly, for the country as a whole in the same year, based on a population of 100,000, the rate of violent crime was 375.7, murder and non-negligent manslaughter (4.5), rape (36.6), robbery (102.2), aggravated assault (232.5), property crime (2,596.1), burglary (542.5), larceny (1,837.3), and motor vehicle theft (216.2) (FBI, “State-by-State”, 2017). Analysis of Data 1.Based on your subjective and objectivereview of your findings, what conclusions have you arrived at? Remember to cite sources as appropriate.
these findings, it was observed that the incidence of murder and non-negligent manslaughter in the zip code 92692 was greater than that of the state and national rates for the year 2014 (FBI, 2017). Lastly, the objectivedata seen on City-Data and the Bureau of Labor Statistics proved that the unemployment rate was higher in the 92692 community than had originally been assumed. According to these sites, the unemployment rate forthe area in question was higher than that of the state and national levels, although not by very much. Given the objective data, what impressions were validated/substantiated?The objective data helped prove many of the subjective observations that were made through the Windshield survey. A lot of the impressions that were made in the subjective portion of this assignment held true throughout the objective portion. For example, housing and poverty were categories in which the subjective assumptions proved to be valid. In the subjective data, it was discussed that much of the 92692
- Spring '17