CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION 1992 --------------------------------------------------------- Earlier editions of printed reports are available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#ncvs --------------------------------------------------------- Copy of the printed report may be obtained from the BJS Clearinghouse, 1-800-732-3277. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1992 A National Crime Victimization Survey Report March 1994, NCJ-145125 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Lawrence A. Greenfeld Acting Director Acknowledgments. This report was prepared by Lisa D. Bastian and Marshall M. DeBerry, Jr.of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, under the supervision of Patsy A. Klaus. Christopher Laskey, of the Bureau of the Census, produced the tables in this report. Production assistance was furnished by Tina Dorsey. Tom Hester edited this report. In the Bureau of Justice Statistics the data collection program is monitored by Michael R. Rand. National Crime Victimization Survey data collection and processing activities are conducted by the Bureau of the Census. The program is currently under the supervision of N. Gail Hoff, Chief, Crime Surveys Branch, Demographic Surveys Division, assisted by Marilyn Monahan, Patricia Bowles, Edwina Jaramillo, Christopher Laskey, Karen Monroe, and Sherrie Schrama. Programming assistance in the Demographic Surveys Division was under the supervision of Stephen Phillips, with assistance by Chris Alaura, Hugh O'Connor, Mildred Strange, and David Watt. Guidance on technical matters related to this program was provided by Miriam Rosenthal, Carol Persely and David Hubble, Statistical Methods Division, Bureau of the Census, under the supervision of Charles Alexander. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data United States. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Criminal Victimization in the United States. (A National Crime Victimization Survey report: NCJ-145125) 1. Victims of crime-United States. 2. Crime and criminals-United States. I. Title. II. Series. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Foreword In this 20th annual report of the National Crime Victimization Survey, the Bureau of Justice Statistics presents over 120 numerical tables describing criminal victimization. The findings include measures of the amount of crime that U.S. residents experience, the characteristics of crime victims, the nature and circumstances of the crime incidents, and costs of crime. There are data on how police responded to reported crimes and on the victims' perception of drug and alcohol use by violent offenders. Data from the annual Bulletin Criminal Victimization 1992 have been reprinted to provide the reader with additional information on trends in crime rates. The Bureau expresses its sincerest gratitude to the nearly 110,000 persons who, by participating in extensive interviews, help to make the National Crime Victimization Survey the second largest ongoing household survey in the Nation. Because of the cooperation by these individuals, criminal justice professionals, lawmakers, researchers, and the public have facts to guide responses to crime and its victims. Lawrence A. Greenfeld Acting Director Preface This report presents information on criminal victimization in the United States during 1992. This edition is the 20th in a series of annual reports prepared under the National Crime Survey (NCS) program. The survey was recently renamed the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to more clearly emphasize the measurement of those victimizations experienced by our citizens. The Bureau of the Census has administered the National Crime Victimization Survey for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (formerly the National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration) since the program began in 1972. All of the data presented in this report were derived from a continuing survey of the occupants of a representative sample of housing units in the United States. About 110,000 people age 12 or older living in 66,000 housing units were interviewed. Ninety-six percent of the households selected to participate did so. Currently, the NCVS focuses on certain criminal offenses, both completed and attempted, which concern the general public and law enforcement authorities. These offenses include the personal crimes of rape, robbery, assault, and larceny and the household crimes of burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. (Definitions of the measured crimes do not necessarily conform to any Federal or State statutes, which vary considerably. The NCVS offense definitions (listed in the Glossary at the end of this report) are generally compatible with conventional usage and with the definitions used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its annual publication Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports.) Each report in this series examines the frequency and impact of crimes, characteristics of victims and offenders, circumstances surrounding the crimes, and patterns of reporting to the police. The first appendix to this report contains 120 tables. These tables explore the areas of victim and offender characteristics, police response, drug and alcohol use among offenders, and other topics. Appendix II includes a copy of the survey questionnaire and a basic description of the interview procedures. This revised questionnaire was first used in July 1986. The third appendix contains technical information concerning sample design, data collection, estimation procedures, and sources of nonsampling error. Information about computing and using standard errors is also included. Appendix IV provides information on the economic cost of crime to victims, while Appendix V presents results from three special supplementary tables on family violence. Crime categories and subcategories are defined in the Glossary. Additionally, variables and special terms specific to the NCVS are explained in this section. All rates and percentages in this report are estimates and therefore are subject to errors arising from obtaining data from a sample rather than a complete census. Since these numbers are based on a sample, not a complete census, these estimates are subject to sampling error. In the summary findings presented here, all comparisons were significant at the 90 percent confidence level or more. In fact, most comparisons passed the test at the 95 percent confidence level. Therefore, for most of the comparisons cited, the estimated difference between the values was greater than twice the standard error of this difference. Appendix III provides further information on significance levels. Subject and table numbers General crime statistics Number of victimizations, 1 Victimization rates, 2* Ratio of victimizations to incidents, 56 Series victimizations, I Victim characteristics Sex, 3*, 5*, 7*, 9*, 11*, 13*, 14*, 19*, 38-40, 74, 76, 80, 86-88, 102, 103, V* Age, 4*, 5*, 10*, 11*, 38, 46, 53, 74, 80, 86, 87, 106, 107, V* Race, 6*, 7*, 10*, 11*, 16*, 17*, 19*, 39, 41, 47, 48, 54, 74, 76, 80, 82-88, 91-93, 96, 100, 102, 104, 113, V* Ethnicity, 8*, 9*, 102, 105 Marital status, 12*, 13*, 40, V* Relationship to household head, 14* Educational attainment, 17* Annual family income, 15*, 16*, 41, 80, 85, 114, V* Number of years at current residence, 20* Locality of residence, 18*, 19* Region, 21* Crime characteristics Time of occurrence, 59-61 Place of occurrence, 62-65, 67, 68 Distance from home, 69 Number of victims**, 57 Number of offenders**, 70 Weapon use**, 60, 63, 71, 72 Self-protection**, 73-79 Physical injury**, 80, 83-97 Medical expenses**, 82-84 Medical insurance coverage**, 85 Medical care**, 81, 86-88 Value of theft loss, 68, 91, 92, 94, 110, 118 Economic loss (includes property damage), 89-91 Property recovery, 93 Days lost from work, 95-100 Total economic loss to victims, II*** Offender characteristics** Victim-offender relationship, 37, 38-41, 49, 55, 58, 61, 64, 65, 70-73, 80, 82-84, 86-88, 90, 97, 99, 103-105, 107, 115, III, IV, V* Age of single offender, 44, 46 Race of single offender, 45, 47, 48 Sex of single offender, 43 Age of multiple offenders, 51, 53 Race of multiple offenders, 52, 54 Sex of multiple offenders, 50 Drug and alcohol use by offenders, 42 Household characteristics Race of head, 22*, 24*, 27*-29*, 31*, 34*, 108, 116 Ethnicity of head, 23* Age of head, 24*, 25* Sex of head, 14* Family income, 26*-29*, 109, 117 Number of persons in household, 30* Tenure, 24*, 31*, 108 Number of units in structure, 32* Number of years lived at current residence, 35* Locality of residence, 33*, 34* Region, 36* Reporting to police Whether reported, 101-110 Reasons for reporting, 111 Reasons not reported, 112-118 Police response, 119, 120 Type of crime Crimes of violence, 1, 2*-21*, 37*, 38-59, 61, 62, 64-66, 69-79, 81-91, 95-107, 111-115, 119, 120, I, II***, III, IV, V* Rape, 1, 2*-10*, 12*-21*, 37*, 38-45, 47-52, 55-59, 61, 62, 64-66, 69-78, 81, 89, 90, 95-98, 101, 103-106, 111-113, 115, 119, I, II***, III, IV Robbery, 1, 2*-10*, 12*-21*, 37*, 38- 66, 69-84, 86-93, 95-98, 101, 103-106, 111-113, 115, 119, 120, I, II***, III, IV Assault, 1, 2*-10*, 12*-21*, 37*, 38-66, 69-84, 86-91, 95-98, 101, 103-106, 111-113, 115, 119, 120, I, II***, III, IV, V* Crimes of theft, 1, 2*-21*, 56, 59, 66, 69, 89, 91-93, 95, 96, 98, 100-106, 111-114, 119, 120, I, II*** Personal larceny with contact, 1, 2*-10*, 12*-21*, 56, 59, 62, 66, 69, 89, 91, 93, 95, 96, 98, 101, 103-106, 111- 113, 119, 120, I, II*** Personal larceny without contact, 1, 2*-10*, 12*-21*, 56, 59, 66-69, 89, 91, 93, 95, 96, 98, 101, 103-106, 111-113, 119, 120, I, II*** Household crimes, 1, 2*, 22*, 23*, 25*, 26*, 30*-36*, 59, 66, 89, 91, 93-96, 98, 100, 101, 108-112, 116-120, I, II*** Burglary, 1, 2*, 22*, 23*, 25*-27*, 30*- 36*, 59, 66, 89, 91, 93-96, 98, 100, 101, 108-112, 116, 118-120, I, II*** Household larceny, 1, 2*, 22*, 23*, 25*, 26*, 28*, 30*-36*, 59, 66-68, 89, 91, 93-96, 98, 100, 101, 108-112, 116, 118-120, I, II*** Motor vehicle theft, 1, 2*, 22*-26*, 29*-36*, 59, 62, 66, 69, 89, 91, 93-96, 98, 100, 101, 108-112, 116, 118-120, I, II*** * Victimization rate table-all others are counts or percents. ** Personal crimes of violence only. *** Cost estimate only. Contents Foreword Preface Subject and table numbers Introduction NCVS-measured crimes Crimes not measured by the NCVS Classifying the crimes Victimizations versus incidents Series victimizations Locality of residence Region Criminal Victimization 1992 excerpt from the BJS Bulletin Trends in crime rates Trends in police reporting Summary findings Characteristics of personal crime victims Sex, age, race, and ethnicity Marital status Household composition Income Educational attainment Locality of residence Region Characteristics of household crime victims Sex, age, race, and ethnicity Annual family income Household size and tenure Locality of residence Region Victim-offender relationships Offender characteristics in personal crimes of violence Crime characteristics Number of victims Time of occurrence Place of occurrence Victim activity Number of offenders Use of weapons Victim self-protection Physical injury to victims of personal crimes of violence Economic loss Time lost from work Reporting crimes to the police Rates of reporting Reasons for reporting and not reporting Appendixes I. Survey data tables II. Survey instruments III. Survey methodology and standard errors Data collection Sample design and size Estimation procedure Series victimizations Reliability of estimates Computation and application of standard errors IV. Survey estimate of the economic cost of crime to victims V. Supplementary analysis on family violence Glossary Introduction The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) provides information on crimes which interest the general public and the criminal justice community. Not all crimes are measured; many offenses are difficult to detect through a survey of the general population. NCVS-measured crimes The success of a victimization survey like the NCVS depends on the ability to identify specific crimes. This requires that the victims not only are willing to report the crime but also understand what happened and how it happened. The NCVS measures the crimes most likely to be identified by a general survey, namely, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, personal and household larceny, and motor vehicle theft. Since crime victims are asked directly about crime, all crimes are measured, whether or not they were reported to the police. No attempt is made to validate reported crimes by checking them against other sources of criminal data, such as police records. Crimes not measured by the NCVS The NCVS does not measure murder and kidnaping. Formerly, the survey included commercial burglary and robbery, but these crimes were dropped in 1977, largely for economic reasons. Crimes such as public drunkenness, drug abuse, and prostitution, which are often referred to as victimless crimes, are not measured. The survey also excludes crimes where the victim shows a willingness to participate. Some examples of this type of crime include illegal gambling, con games, and blackmail. Sometimes people are not aware they have been victims of a crime, making such crimes difficult to measure accurately. Buying stolen property, and certain types of fraud and embezzlement are examples of this type of crime. In addition, many attempted crimes of all types are probably underreported because victims were not aware of the incident. Classifying the crimes In any criminal encounter, more than one criminal act may be committed against the same individual. For example, a victim may be both raped and robbed during the same incident. To record crimes accurately, each criminal incident is counted only once and is classified according to the most serious event that occurred during the crime. Offenses are ranked according to severity by using the system employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Personal crimes of contact are considered more serious than household crimes. In descending order of severity, the personal crimes are rape, robbery, assault, and personal larceny. The household crimes, in the same order, are burglary, motor vehicle theft, and household larceny. Thus, if a person is both robbed and assaulted, the event is classified as a robbery; if the victim suffers physical harm, the crime is categorized as a robbery with injury. Victimizations versus incidents A single crime may victimize one or more individuals. For example, two people may be victimized during a single personal robbery. Thus, a single incident can result in more than one victimization. This distinction is applied to personal crimes, but all household crime incidents are assumed to have only one victim, the household as a unit. A victimization, the basic measure of the occurrence of crime, is a specific criminal act because it affects a single victim. The number of victimizations is determined by the number of victims of such acts. Victimization counts serve as key elements in computing rates of victimization, as described in the victim characteristics sections of this report. Victimizations also are used in developing a variety of information on crime characteristics and the effects of crime on victims, including injuries and medical care, economic losses, time lost from work, self-protection, and reporting to police. For violent personal crimes, offender characteristics are also measured by victimizations. An incident is a specific criminal act involving one or more victims. The number of incidents of personal crime is lower than that of victimizations because some crimes are simultaneously committed against more than one individual. Incident figures are used in describing the settings and circumstances in which crimes occurred, including the time and place of occurrence, number of victims and offenders, and use of weapons. Series victimizations A series victimization is defined as three or more similar but separate crimes which the victim is unable to recall individually or describe to the interviewer in detail. Prior to 1979, series victimizations were recorded by the season of occurrence and tabulated according to the quarter of the year in which the data was collected. Because of this procedure, it was not possible to total nonseries and series crimes together. In January of 1979 the NCVS questionnaire was revised to enable series crimes and regular (nonseries) crimes to be combined. The effects of this change were included in the initial release of the 1980 data. Summary data on series crimes are presented separately in the NCVS annual report in Appendix III. Locality of residence Locality of residence, as used in the NCVS, refers to where a person live d when he was interviewed, not to the place where a crime occurred. The country is divided into three locality types: central cities, metropolitan areas not located inside central cities, and nonmetropolitan places. The areas defined as Metropolitan Statistical Areas (see Glossary) are divided into central cities and suburban areas, while the remaining areas are classified as nonmetropolitan. Further distinctions are within the Metropolitan Statistical Areas according to the size of the population. Geographical areas were assigned to the appropriate category on the basis of the 1990 census. Region In 1987, the NCVS began presenting crime data according to the region in which the victims lived at the time of the interview. The country has been divided into four regions by the Census Bureau. These regions, the Midwest, Northeast, South, and West, are defined in the glossary. Criminal Victimization 1992 excerpt from the BJS Bulletin This is an excerpt from the BJS Bulletin, Criminal Victimization 1992. This document is published annually to provide a first look at final NCVS data for the year under examination, as well as to make comparisons between crime rates for that year and previous ones. This is the third year in which the annual Bulletin has been reproduced in this volume. The addition provides the reader with information on long term trends in crime and comparisons between crime levels and rates for 1992 and 1991, which are not available elsewhere in this volume. Immediately following is a summary of the main findings from the report: ^G Persons age 12 or older living in the United States experienced 6.6 million violent victimizations and 12.2 million personal thefts during 1992. In addition, American households wre the victims of 14.8 million crimes according to the NCVS. The NCVS measures the violent crimes of rape, robbery, aggravated and simple assault; personal thefts; and the household crimes of burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. ^G Just as in 1991, the level of violent crime in 1992 did not differ significantly from the number measured in 1981, the peak year for crime. Approximately 6.6 million violent crimes occurred in both 1981 and 1992. ^G Rates of crime either declined or remainedstable last year. While violent crime ratesdid not changesignificantly compared to figures for 1991, rates of theft, both personal and household, decreased. ^G The robbery rate was lower last year than at its highest points in 1981 and 1982, and the rate of household burglary was significantly lower than at any time throughout the 1970's or 1980's. ^G Motor vehicle thefts were the most likely to bereported to the police (75%) while larcenies without contact were the least likely (30%). ^G Certain demographic groups had higher victimization rates than others: Blacks were more likely than whites to be victims of violent crime; persons under age 25 had higher victimization rates than older persons; and households with the lowest incomes were more likely to be violent crime victims than households with higher incomes. Crime levels and rates in 1992 The level of theft overall, as well as the level of completed thefts, declined somewhat between 1991 and 1992. However, the number of personal larcenies without contact resulting in losses of $50 or more decreased significantly by 8% in 1992. The number of household crimes, completed household crimes, and household larcenies, including those with losses under $50, all also decreased, differing measurably over the previous year's levels. Burglaries showed some evidence of a decline in 1992. Just as in 1991, the level of violent crime did not differ significantly last year from the number measured in 1981, the peak year for crime. Approximately 6.6 million violent crimes occurred in both 1981 and 1992. Levels in all other general crime categories continued to decline from the peak. There were 23% fewer thefts and 22% fewer household crimes last year than in 1981. With 12.2 million thefts in 1992, this crime reached its lowest level since the peak year. Rates of crime--the number of crimes or per 1,000 persons for personal crimes or per 1,000 households for household crimes--either declined or remained stable last year. While violent crime rates did not change significantly compared to figures for 1991, rates of theft, both personal and household, decreased. The rate of personal larceny without contact between the victim and offender dropped significantly in 1992, primarily attributable to a 9% decline in those larcenies that resulted in losses of $50 or more. The total household crime rate also declined about 9% last year, from 166 crimes per 1,000 households in 1991 to 152 per 1,000 in 1992. Much of this decline may be accounted for by an 8% decrease in household larcenies overall, and especially by the sharp 19% drop in the rate of household larcenies resulting in losses under $50. There was some evidence of a decrease in burglaries as well: 54 burglaries per 1,000 households in 1991 compared to 49 per 1,000 in 1992. Trends in crime rates, 1973-92 In 1992 both the total theft rate and total household crime rate reached all time lows, partly because of significant declines in personal larcenies without contact and household larcenies. The rate of personal theft was 59 crimes per 1,000 persons in 1992, and for household crime the rate was 152 crimes per 1,000 households. Although the rates of personal crime, theft, and household crime have all generally shown declining trends since the early years of the survey, the violent crime rate has fluctuated. The rate of violent crime in 1992 was lower than in its peak years during the late 1970's and early 1980's, at 32 crimes per 1,000 persons, but generally higher than at any year between 1985 and 1991. Although assault rates have also fluctuated, the percent change between 1974 and 1992 was the largest significant decrease for aggravated assault (-13.8%). The percent change, 1974-92, represented the largest increase for simple assault rates (14.3%). The robbery rate was lower last year than at its highest points in 1981 and 1982, and the rate of household burglary was significantly lower than at any time throughout the 1970's or 1980's. The burglary rate last year was 49 burglaries per 1,000 households. During the late 1980's the motor vehicle theft rate began to increase over its peak years in the early 1970's; the rate has remained stable at these high levels from 1989 to the present. Reporting of crime remains stable Of all crimes measured by the NCVS only 39% were reported to law enforcement officials in 1992. The rate at which crimes were reported to the police has not changed significantly since 1990. Fifty percent of all violent crimes were reported to police last year, as were 30% of all personal thefts and 41% of household crimes. In specific crime categories, motor vehicle thefts were most likely to be reported to the police (75%), while larcenies without contact were the least likely (30%). Over time the reporting rate for violent crime has remained stable. However, the rates at which the crimes of theft and household crimes, overall, were reported to the police were generally higher in 1992 than in any year between 1973 and 1980. Differences between estimates based on the 1980-and 1990-decennial censuses The NCVS employs independent population estimates, derived and updated from decennial censuses, to improve the precision of its statistics on victimization. Use of the latest census counts allows the population controls (which are used in weighting the sample data) to be updated and provides an opportunity for introducing estimation refinements that further enhance the reliability of the estimates. The population counts for 1991 based on the 1980 census compared to those based on the 1990 census varied by only about one-half of one percent for both persons and households. Also, there were no significant differences between estimates of crime rates based on the 1980 census counts compared to rates based on the 1990 census. Appendix I Survey data tables and summary text The 120 data tables in this appendix present the results of the National Crime Victimization Survey for the calendar year 1992. The tables are grouped according to topics, and each group follows a section of text which summarizes findings within the topic grouping. All tables included in Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1991 have been updated and included here. The numbers in these tables are estimates derived from a complex sample survey. Because the numbers were not derived from a complete census, each one has a sampling error associated with it. Information on the use of these numbers and their reliability is contained in the third appendix. In general, all levels based on about 10 or fewer cases were not analyzed in this report. Ten sample cases represent weighted estimates of approximately 40,000 cases. The levels, rates, and percentages based on these small numbers are accurate, but the standard error estimates for them are not reliable. Therefore caution should be used when comparing these small estimates. Tables 3 through 36 show the size of each group for which a victimization rate was computed. These numbers, like the rates, are estimates. The most recent Census data are used to calculate the population control numbers. A list of topics covered by the tables follows. The list under each main subheading indicates the number, title, and page number of each table. General characteristics (Tables 1 and 2) (see *.wk files) Table 1 displays the number and percent distribution of victimizations, whereas table 2 shows the rates of victimization. Each table covers all measured crimes, broken down into various subcategories. Personal and household crimes Number and percent distribution of victimizations 1 By sector and type of crime Victimization rates 2 By sector and type of crime Victim characteristics (Tables 3-36) These tables contain victimization rates for crimes against persons (3-21) and households (22-36). Personal crimes Victimization rates for persons age 12 and over- 3 By type of crime and sex of victims 4 By type of crime and age of victims 5 By sex and age of victims and type of crime 6 By type of crime and race of victims 7 By type of crime and sex and race of victims 8 By type of crime and ethnicity of victims 9 By type of crime and ethnicity and sex of victims 10 By race and age of victims and type of crime 11 By race, sex, and age of victims and type of crime 12 By type of crime and marital status of victims 13 By sex and marital status of victims and type of crime 14 By sex of head of household, relationship of victims to head, and type of crime 15 By type of crime and annual family income of victims 16 By race and annual family income of victims and type of crime 17 By level of educational attainment and race of victims and type of crime 18 By type of crime and type of locality of residence of victims 19 By type of locality of residence, race and sex of victims, and type of crime 20 By type of crime and number of years lived at current residence 21 By type of crime and region Household crimes Victimization rates by type of crime- 22 And race of head of household 23 And ethnicity of head of household Motor vehicle theft Victimization rates on the basis of thefts per 1,000 households and of thefts per 1,000 vehicles owned- 24 By selected household characteristics Household crimes Victimization rates by type of crime- 25 And age of head of household 26 And annual family income Household burglary Victimization rates- 27 By race of head of household, annual family income, and type of burglary Household larceny Victimization rates- 28 By race of head household, annual family income, and type of larceny Motor vehicle theft Victimization rates- 29 By race of head of household, annual family income, and type of theft Household crimes Victimization rates- 30 By type of crime and number of persons in household 31 By type of crime, form of tenure, and race of head of household 32 By type of crime and number of units in structure occupied by household 33 By type of crime and type of locality of residence 34 By type of locality of residence, race of head of household, and type of crime 35 By type of crime and number of years lived at current residence 36 By type of crime and region Offender characteristics in personal crimes of violence (Tables 37-55) Five tables (37-41) relate to the victim-offender relationship. The first is a rate table; the others are percentage distribution tables of victim characteristics for stranger-to-stranger violent crimes. Of the remaining tables (42-55), seven present demographic information on the offenders only, and seven others have such data on both victims and offenders. Thirteen of these tables distinguish single from multiple-offender victimizations. Personal crimes of violence Number of victimizations and victimization rates for persons age 12 and over- 37 By type of crime and victim-offender relationship, 55 Percent of victimizations involving strangers 38 By sex and age of victims and type of crime 39 By sex and race of victims and type of crime 40 By sex and marital status of victims and type of crime 41 By race and annual family income of victims and type of crime Percent distribution of victimizations 42 By perceived drug or alcohol use by offender, 58 Percent distribution of single-offender victimizations 43 By type of crime and perceived sex of offender 44 By type of crime and perceived age of offender 45 By type of crime and perceived race of offender 46 By type of crime, age of victims, and perceived age of offender 47 Based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender 48 Based on perceived race of offender, by type of crime and race of victims 49 By type of crime and detailed victim-offender relationship, 63 Percent distribution of multiple-offender victimizations 50 By type of crime and perceived sex of offenders 51 By type of crime and perceived age of offenders 52 By type of crime and perceived race of offenders 53 By type of crime, age of victims, and perceived age of offenders 54 By type of crime, race of victims, and perceived race of offender 55 By type of crime and detaile victim-offender relationship Crime characteristics Tables 56-100) Table 56 illustrates the distinction between victimizations and incidents for crimes against persons. Table 57 displays data on the number of victims per incident, while the next table gives incident levels for crimes of violence broken down by the victim-offender relationship. Areas covered by the remaining tables include: time of occurrence (59-61), place of occurrence, or activity (62-68), number of offenders (70), use of weapons (71-72), victim self-protection (73-79), physical injury to victims (80-88), economic loss (89-94), and time lost from work (95-100). The tables cover crimes against persons or households, or both, when applicable. Personal crimes Number of incidents and victimizations and ratio of incidents to victimizations- 56 By type of crime Personal crimes Percent distribution of incidents- 57 By victim-offender relationship, type of crime, and number of victims Number and percent distribution of incidents- 58 By type of crime and victim-offender relationship Personal and household crimes Percent distribution of incidents- 59 By type of crime and time of occurrence Personal robbery and assault by armed or unarmed offender Percent distribution of incidents- 60 By type of crime, type of offender, and time of occurrence Personal crimes of violence Percent distribution of incidents- 61 By victim-offender relationship, type of crime, and time of occurrence Selected personal and household crimes Percent distribution of incidents- 62 By type of crime and place of occurrence Personal robbery and assault by armed or unarmed offenders Percent distribution of incidents- 63 By type of crime, type of offender, and place of occurrence Personal crimes of violence Percent distribution of incidents- 64 By victim-offender relationship, type of crime, and place of occurrence Between stranger and nonstranger incidents based on place of occurrence- 65 By type of crime Personal and household crimes Percent distribution of incidents- 66 By victim's activity at time of incident and type of crime Larcenies not involving victim-offender contact Percent distribution of incidents- 67 By type of crime, and place of occurrence 68 By type of crime, place of occurrence, and value of theft loss Personal and household crimes Percent distribution of incidents- 69 By distance from home and type of crime Personal crimes of violence Percent distribution of incidents- 70 By victim-offender relationship, type of crime, and number of offenders Percent of incidents in which offenders used weapons- 71 By type of crime and victim-offender relationship Percent distribution of types of weapons used in incidents by armed offenders- 72 By victim-offender relationship, type of crime, and type of weapon Percent of victimizations in which victims took self-protective measures- 73 By type of crime and victim-offender relationship 74 By characteristics of victims and type of crime Percent distribution of self-protective measures employed by victims- 75 By type of measure and type of crime 76 By selected characteristics of victims Percent of violent crime victimizations in which self-protective measures were employed- 77 By person taking the measure, outcome of action, and type of crime Percent distribution of violent crime victimizations in which self-protective measures taken by the victim- 78 Were helpful 79 Were harmful Personal robbery and assault Percent of victimizations in which victims sustained physical injury- 80 By selected characteristics of victims and type of crime Personal crimes of violence Percent distribution of victims receiving medical care- 81 By type of crime and where care was received Percent of victimizations in which victims incurred medical expenses- 82 By selected characteristics of victims and type of crime Percent of victimizations in which injured victims incurred medical expenses- 83 By selected characteristics of victims and type of crime Percent distribution of victimizations in which injured victims incurred medical expenses- 84 By selected characteristics of victims, type of crime, and amount of expenses, 90 Percent of victimizations in which injured victims had health insurance coverage or were eligible for public medical services- 85 By selected characteristics of victims Percent of victimizations in which victims received hospital care- 86 By selected characteristics of victims and type of crime Percent of victimizations in which injured victims received hospital care- 87 By selected characteristics of victims and type of crime Percent distribution of victimizations in which injured victims received hospital care- 88 By selected characteristics of victims, type of crime, and type of hospital care Personal and household crimes Percent of victimizations resulting in economic loss- 89 By type of crime and type of loss Personal crimes of violence Percent of victimizations resulting in economic loss- 90 By type of crime, type of loss, and victim-offender relationship Personal and household crimes Percent distribution of victimizations resulting in economic loss- 91 By race of victims, type of crime, and value of loss Selected personal crimes Percent distribution of victimizations resulting in theft loss- 92 By race of victims, type of crime, and value of loss Personal and household crimes Percent distribution of victimizations resulting in theft loss- 93 By race of victims, type of crime, and proportion of loss recovered Household crimes Percent distribution of victimizations resulting in theft loss- 94 By value of loss and type of crime Personal and household crimes Percent of victimizations resulting in loss of time from work- 95 By type of crime 96 By type of crime and race of victims Personal crimes of violence Percent of victimizations resulting in loss of time from work- 97 By type of crime and victim-offender relationship Personal and household crimes Percent distribution of victimizations resulting in loss of time from work- 98 By type of crime and number of days lost Personal crimes of violence Percent distribution of victimizations resulting in loss of time from work- 99 By number of days lost and victim-offender relationship Personal and household crimes Percent distribution of victimizations resulting in loss of time from work- 100 By race of victims, type of crime, and number of days lost Reporting of victimizations to the police and police response (Tables 101-120) Information is displayed on the extent of reasons or reporting and for failure to report. Certain tables display data on both personal and household crimes. Personal and household crimes Percent distribution of victimizations- 101 By type of crime and whether or not reported to the police, 102 Personal crimes Percent of victimizations reported to the police- 102 By selected characteristics of victims and type of crime 103 By type of crime, victim-offender relationship, and sex of victims 104 By type of crime, victim-offender relationship, and race of victims 105 By type of crime, victim-offender relationship, and ethnicity of victims 106 By type of crime and age of victims Personal crimes of violence Percent of victimizations reported to the police- 107 By age of victims and victim-offender relationship Household crimes Percent of victimizations reported to the police- 108 By type of crime, race of head of household, and form of tenure 109 By type of crime and annual family income 110 By value of loss and type of crime Personal and household crimes Percent distribution of reasons for reporting victimizations to the police- 111 By type of crime Percent distribution of reasons for not reporting victimizations to the police- 112 By type of crime Personal crimes Percent distribution of reasons for not reporting victimizations to the police- 113 By race of victims and type of crime 114 By type of crime and annual family income Personal crimes of violence Percent distribution of reasons for not reporting victimizations to the police- 115 By victim-offender relationship and type of crime Household crimes Percent distribution of reasons for not reporting victimizations to the police- 116 By race of head of household and type of crime 117 By annual family income 118 By type of crime and value of theft loss Personal and household crimes Percent distribution of police response to a reported incident- 119 By police response and type of crime Percent distribution of incidents where police came to the victim- 120 By police response time and type of crime Summary findings The following are statements which illustrate the type of findings that may be obtained from the data in this report. Tables are referenced after each finding. *The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) estimated that there were 33.6 million crimes committed against individuals or households in the United States in 1992. *Approximately 36% of all violent crimes reported to NCVS interviewers were completed offenses. Personal thefts were completed at a rate of 94%, and 85% of household crimes were completed. *The violent crimes of rape, robbery, and assault which involve a threat or an act of violence in confrontations between victims and offenders are considered the most serious crimes measured by the NCVS. Twenty percent of all crimes measured by the survey were violent crimes. *The less serious crimes of personal and household larceny comprised 60% of all offenses committed in 1992. Household burglaries and motor vehicle thefts accounted for another 20% of all crimes. *In 1992 the rate of violent crime victimization was 32 victimizations per every 1,000 persons age 12 or older; the rate of personal theft was 59 thefts per every 1,000. Characteristics of personal crime victims Victimization rates are measures of the frequency of crime among subgroups of the population. Rates are computed by dividing the number of victimizations occurring in a specific population by the number of persons in that population. The NCVS has consistently shown that criminal victimizations do not occur at the same rate for all sub-groups of the population. For example, victimization rates for personal crimes of violence tend to be relatively high for people who are male, black, poor, young, or single. Victimization rates for personal crimes of theft tend to be higher for people who are male, wealthy, young, or single. Sex, age, race, and ethnicity *Rates of violent crime and theft victimizations were significantly higher for males than for females. *Those under 25 years of age had the highest rates of both violent and theft victimizations. For persons over 25, as age increased crime rates decreased. *Blacks had significantly higher rates of robbery and aggravated assault than either whites or persons of other races, such as Asians or Native Americans. Rates of simple assault and personal theft did not vary significantly between persons of different races. *Black males had the highest rate of violent crime victimization with 63 victimizations per every 1,000 persons. At 36 per 1,000, white males had a violent victimization rate that was not significantly different from black females (40 per 1,000). White females had the lowest rate (24 per 1,000). There were no significant differences between black and white males or between black and white females in rates of personal theft. However, males continued to have higher theft rates than females of either race. *Persons of Hispanic origin had higher rates of robbery than did non-Hispanic persons. There were no measurable differences between rates for Hispanics and non-Hispanics of the crimes of simple and aggravated assault and personal theft. *Hispanic males had the highest violent crime victimization rates followed by non-Hispanic males. There were no significant differences in violent crime rates for Hispanic and non-Hispanic females. *Black males age 16 through 19 had a violent crime rate that was significantly higher than that of most other age or racial groups. The rate was nearly double that of white males in the same age range and 3 times the rate for white females between 16 and 19 years of age. Marital status *Those who had never married the highest rates of both violent crimes and personal thefts; widowed persons had the lowest rates for these crimes. *Violent victimization rates for widowed and divorced or separated males were not significantly different from violent victimization rates for females of the same marital status. Males who had never married or who were currently married, however, had higher rates than their female counterparts. Household composition *In households with a male head and more than a single member, nonrelated members, children of the head under age 18, and other relatives had the highest rates of violent crime victimization *Wives of male heads of households, as well as other relatives and male heads living with others, had the lowest theft victimization rates *In households headed by females, children of the head who were under 18 years of age and nonrelatives had the highest violent victimization rates. Female heads living alone and husbands of female heads of households had the lowest rates. *For crimes of theft, nonrelatives and children of a female head of household, who were under 18, had the highest rates. Income and education *Persons from families earning less than $7,500 a year hadthe highest violent crime rates. Members of families with incomes over $50,ooo a year generally had the lowest violent crime rates. *Theft rates were not significantly different for persons from families earning under $7,500 a year compared to persons from families earning $50,000 or more. When compared to all other income categories, individuals from the wealthiest families had higher rates of personal theft. In findings on education, victimization rates for personal crimes were calculated for persons age 12 or older on the basis of years of school completed: *Those who had attained only an elementary level education had the highest rates of violent crime, while persons who had attained a c ollege education had the lowest. *Generally, as educational level increased so did the rate of theft. However, this may be partially explained by an association between educational level and income. Locality of residence *Rates of violent crime were not significantly different for residents of suburban and nonmetropolitan areas (28 vicitimizations per every 1,000). Residents of central cities had the highest violent crime victimization rates at 43 victimizations per every 1,000 residents. *Theft rates were highest for central city residents, followed by suburban residents. Rural residents had the lowest rates of personal theft. *Black males from central cities experienced violent crime at higher rates than white males who resided in these areas). *For suburban and nonmetropolitan area residents, the violent victimization rates of black and white males in each area were not significantly different. *Only in suburban areas were black females more likely than white females to be violent crime victims (51 victimizations per 1,000 versus 23 per 1,000, respectively); for central city and nonmetropolitan areas there were no significant differences between the two groups. Characteristics of household crime victims The NCVS regards household crimes as crimes against a household as a whole, rather than a crime directed towards an individual. Thus, rates are computed by dividing the appropriate number of crimes by the number of households, not persons. In general, renters, larger households, and households heded by blacks, Hispanics, and younger persons had higher victimization rates. Sex, age, race, and ethnicity *Households headed by blacks had the highest rates of household crimes (199 victimizations per 1,000 households). Rates for households headed by persons of other races (147 victimizations per 1,000) and households headed by whites (146 per 1,000) did not differ significantly. Black households had a higher burglary rate than households headed by whites, and there was some evidence the rate was also higher than that for households headed by persons from other racial groups. There were no significant differences in rates for the crime of household larceny. Households headed by blacks had a higher rate of motor vehicle theft than households headed by whites. There was no significant difference between rates of motor vehicle theft for black households compared to households of persons from other racial groups. *For each household crime measured by the NCVS, Hispanics had higher rates than non-Hispanics. *When the rate of motor vehicle theft is calculated on the basis of the number of vehicles owned, households of blacks had a higher theft rate than households of whites, while the rates for blacks and persons of other races were not measurably different from other. Households that rented their homes had higher theft rates than households that owned or were buying their dwellings. *Generally, as the age of the household head increased, the rate of each type of household crime decreased. Annual family income *Although patterns of household victimization by annual family income were difficult to discern, households with an annual income less than $15,000 were shown to have the highest burglary rates. *There were no significant differences among any of the income groups in motor vehicle theft rates. *Rates of burglary were not generally higher for blacks than for whites within specific income categories. However, black households earning between $10,000 and $14,999 a year had a burglary rate that was significantly higher than that for comparable white households (109 burglaries per 1,000 black households versus 55 per 1,000 white households). *As with burglary, there were few significant differences in larceny rates for black and white households within specific income groupings; there was some evidence that black households earning between $15,000 and $24,999 a year had a higher larceny rate than withe households in the dame income category (118 larcenies per 1,000 black households versus 82 per 1,000 white households). *Black households with annual incomes of $30,000 or more were more likely to experience motor vehicle thefts than white households with similar annual incomes. Household size and tenure *Generally, as household size increased, victimization rates in each category of household crime also increased. *White households that owned their homes were significantly less likely than black households that owned, or households of either race that rented, to be victims of any type of household crime. *There were no measurable differences in burglary, larceny, or motor vehicle theft rates for black households that owned their homes compared to rates of these crimes for renting households of either race. There were no significant differences among renters of either race for any of the household crimes. Locality of residence *Households in central cities had the highest victimization rates for household crimes in general, followed by households in suburban areas. Households in nonmetropolitan areas had the lowest rates. *For each specific category of household crime except burglary, central city households continued to have the highest victimization rates and nonmetropolitan households the lowest. There was no significant difference between burglary rates for suburban and nonmetropolitan households. *Burglary rates for black households were higher than for white households in c entral cities only. Rates of motor vehicle theft generally followed the same pattern. *Although central city households had the highest victimization rates, the burglary rate for white households located in central city areas was not significantly different from burglary rates for black households in either suburban or nonmetropolitan areas. For white households, motor vehicle theft rates were highest in central cities and lowest in nonmetropolitan areas. *Auto theft rates were significantly higher for black households in central city areas compared to black households in suburban areas. Victim-offender relationships and charactertics of offenders The NCVS gathers information from victims about their relationship to the offender. Based on this information, victimizations may be classified as having been committed by a stranger or nonstranger, among other categorizations. The Glossary contains information about classifying crimes as involving strangers and nonstrangers. *Violent crimes were generally more likely to be committed by strangers than nonstrangers. There were no measurable differences in rates of rapes or simple assaults committed by strangers compared to those committed by nonstrangers. *Sixty percent of all violent victimizations, 48% of rapes, 81% of robberies, and 56% of all assaults were committed by strangers in 1992). *Males were more likely than females to be victimized by strangers. *There was no significant difference between the proportions of violent victimizations committed against blacks and whites by strangers. *Except for the crime of robbery, women who were divorced or separated were less likely than women in any other category of marital status to report that they had been victimized by strangers. For males, however, the likelihood of being victimized by a stranger did not vary with marital status. Victims were also asked to describe the offenders. The following descriptions of drug use, age, sex, and race are based on the victim's perception of the offender. Victims were also asked to describe the offenders. The following descriptions of drug use, age, sex, and race are based on the victim's perception of the offender. *Thirty percent of all violent crime victims perceived the offender or offenders to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense. Eighteen percent of violent crime victims felt that the offender or offenders were under the influence of alcohol only, and another 4% believed that offenders had been influenced by drugs alone. In 6% of violent victimizatinos, the victims reported that offenders were under the influence of both drugs and alcohol. *Males were more likely to be offenders than females in violent victimizations, whether these crimes were committed by a single-offender or by multiple-offenders. *In nearly one-third of violent victimizations committed by a single-offender, the perpetrator was perceived to be between 21 and 29 years of age; persons age 30 and over were offenders in another third of these victimizations. The offender was perceived to be between the ages of 12 and 20 in 29% of violent single-offender victimizations. *In multiple-offender victimizations, most frequently the offenders were either all perceived to be between the ages of 12 and 20, or of mixed ages. *In aggravated assaults committed by multiple offenders, victims perceived that similar proportions of blacks and whites had committed the crimes. However, a larger proportion of black offenders than white offenders had committed multiple-offender robberies, while the converse was true for simple assaults. *Approximately 73% of all single-offender violent crimes against whites were committed by white offenders, and 84% of the single-offender victimizations commeitted against blacks were by blacks. However, almost all single-offender violent crimes by white offenders were committed against other whites (97%). Forty-eight percent of all single-offender victimizations committed by black offenders were against other blacks. *Twenty percent of violent victimizations committed by single-offenders involved a victim and offender who were related. In 44% of violent single-offender victimizations the offender was well known but not related to the victim. About 36% of single-offender violent crimes were between casual acquaintances. *Of multiple-offender violent crimes in which at least one of the offenders was known to the victim, offenders and their victims were casually acquainted with each other in half of these victimizatins. Victim and offender were well known but not related to each other in 40%. Approximately 10% of these victimizations involved relatives. Crime characteristics The characteristics of crimes measured by the NCVS may be grouped into two overall categories: (1) the settings and associated circumstances under which the offenses occurred (time and place of occurrence, number of victims and offenders, and weapons used) and (2) the impact of the crimes on the victims, including self-protective measures, physical injury, economic loss, and time lost from work. The first category is based on incidents while the second one is based on victimizations. Number of victims *In 1992, 11% more violent crime victimizations than incidents were collected by the survey. *The vast majority of violent crimes were committed against one individual only (92%). When a violent incident did involve more than one victim, most commonly two victims were present. *Violent crimes were more likely to be committed by someone who was a stranger to the victim or victims rather than someone the victim knew. This was especially the case for the crime of robbery. Time of occurrence *Personal crimes of theft were significantly more likely to occur during the day, between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., than at nighttime, while household crimes more frequently occurred at night. *While violent incidents occurring at night most frequently had been committed between 6 p.m. and midnight, household crimes were more likely to have been committed between midnight and 6 a.m. *Robberies and assaults in which the offender or offenders were armed were more likely to occur at night than during the day, frequently between 6 p.m. and midnight. *Violent crimes committed by a stranger were more likely to occur at night than those committed by someone who was known to the victim. Place of occurrence *The largest proportion of violent incidents occurred on a street away from the victim's home (24%). As many as 40% of all robberies took place on the street. The victim's home was the next most common site for a violent crime (12%). Almost 9% of violent crimes, overall, occurred in a parking lot or a garage and 12% inside a school building or on school property. Approximately 1% of violent incidents were committed on public transportation or inside the station. *The most common place for a motor vehicle theft to occur was in a parking lot or garage (35%). Other common areas for these thefts included places near the victim's home, such as a driveway, and the street near the victim's home (21% and 22%, respectively). *The largest proportions of armed robberies and armed assaults occurred on a street away from the victim's home, however, nearly 8% of these robberies and 9% of the assaults occurred in the victim's home. *Violent crimes involving victims and offenders who were strangers to each other were most likely to take place on the street, while violent crimes involving persons who knew each other were most likely to occur in the victim's home. *About half of all violent incidents occurred five miles or less from the victim's home. Only 4% took place more than 50 miles from home, and another 27% took place inside or near the victim's home or lodging. Victim Activity *At the time of the violent incident or theft, victims were most likely to have been taking part in some type of leisure activity away from home, such as patronizing a restaurant or nightclub, for example. During the occurrence of a theft, the second most likely activity for a victim to have been participating in was work. In the case of violent crimes, an activity at home (other than sleeping) was next most common. Number of offenders *The majority of violent incidents were committed by a lone offender. However, simple assaults were significantly more likely than robberies and aggravated assaults to involve only one offender. *Violent crimes committed by strangers were more likely to involve multiple-offenders than crimes committed by nonstrangers. Use of weapons *Twenty-eight percent of rapes and over 50% of robberies involved an offender with a weapon. *Violent incidents that had been committed by a stranger were more likely to have involved weapons than violent crimes in which the victim and offender knew each other. *Firearms (40%), followed by knives (21%) and blunt objects (17%), were the most common weapons used in violent incidents committed by armed offenders. *Strangers were more likely to arm themselves with a firearm than non-strangers in violent crimes. Victim self-protection *In nearly 72% of all violent victimizations, 80% of rapes, 60% of robberies, and 74% of assaults, victims took some type of measure to protect themselves. *Victims were no more likely to take self-protective measures when victimized by someone known to them than when victimized by a stranger. *The likelihood of a victim taking self-protective measures did not vary measurably with sex or race. Persons age 50 and over were generally less likely than younger persons to take self-protective measures. *Males were more likely than females to protect themselves by attacking an offender without a weapon and by resisting or capturing an offender. Females were more likely to get help or give an alarm, as well as warn or scare the offender as a means of protecting themselves. *Victims of violent crimes were more likely to report that a protective measure they had taken helped the situation than a measure that had been taken by someone else. The most common way that victims reported their actions helped was by allowing them to avoid injury altogether or to prevent greater injury. *In those victimizations in which a self-protective measure taken was considered harmful, the most common reason given by victims for this view was that the action made the offender angrier or more aggressive. Physical injury to victims of personal crimes of violence *There was some evidence that females were more likely than males to sustain injuries in robberies (45% versus 31%). *An assault committed by an offender who was known to the victim was significantly more likely to result in physical injury than an assault that was committed by a stranger. *Violent crime victims receiving medical care most frequently were treated at a hospital emergency room or emergency clinic (32%) or at their own house, a neighbor's, or a friend's house (30%). *Victims received hospital care in about 8% of all violent victimizations. In nearly a quarter of the violent victimizations in which injuries were sustained, hospital care was received. *Black victims were significantly more likely than white victims to receive hospital care, regardless of whether or not injuries had been sustained. There was some evidence that injured male victims received hospital care more frequently than injured female victims. *In 61% of the victimizations in which those who were injured received hospital care, treatment took place in a hospital emergency room. Victims received inpatient care in 39% of these victimizations, generally remaining at the hospital for less than 1 complete day. Economic loss *Seventy-one percent of all personal crimes resulted in economic loss. Ninety-seven percent of all personal crimes of theft, and 23% of all violent crimes involved economic loss. Ninety-one percent of all household crimes resulted ineconomic loss from theft or damage of property. *In violent crimes, personal thefts, and household crimes resulting in economic loss, most frequently the value of the loss was under $50. In 13% of the violent crimes, 12% of the thefts and 24% value of loss equalled or exceeded $500. Time lost from work *Victims lost time from work in approximately 8% of violent victimizations, 4% of personal thefts, and 6% of household crimes. *Robberies were more likely than simple assaults to result in time lost from work. *Victims of violent crimes that were completed wre more likely than victims of attempted violent crimes to lose time from work. *Victims were away from work between 1 and 5 days in 55% of the violent victimizations that resulted in loss of time from work. In nearly 13% of the violent victimizations, victims were absent for less than a day, and in 17% they missed work for 11 or more days. Reporting crimes to the police The majority of crimes measuredby the NCVS in 1992 were not reported to the police. The NCVS data examine reasons why crimes were or were not reported, as well as data on who did or did not report crimes. Rates of reporting *Only 39% of all victimizations, 50% of violent victimizations, 30% of personal thefts, and 41% of all household crimes were reported to the police. In fact, household crimes and personal thefts were more likely not to be reported to the police than to be reported. There was no significant difference between the proportion of violent crime that was reported to the police and that not reported. *Of the three major crime categories, violent crimes were most likely to be reported to the police, followed by household crimes. Personal thefts were the least likely crimes to be reported. *Three out of four motor vehicle thefts were reported to the police, making this the most highly reported crime. Personal larcenies withut contact between victim and offender were least likely to be reported (30%). *Completed robberies, assaults and thefts were more likely to be reported to the police than attempts at these crimes. *Females were more likely to report violent victimizations to the police than were males, but this was not the case fro crimes of theft. *The reporting rates for both violent crimes and thefts committed against whites and blacks did not differ measurably. *Non-Hispanics were significantly more likely than Hispanics to report thefts to the police. *Violent crimes committed by strangers were no more likely to be reported to the police than violent crimes committed by someone who was known to the victim. *The youngest victims of violent crimes and thefts those between 12 and 19 years of age were lesslikely than persons in any other age group to report crimes to the police. Generally, reporting rates for persons 20 and over were similar. *Households that owned their homes were significantly more likely than those that rented to report household crimes to the police (44% versus 38%). White homeowners were also more likely than white renters to report crimes, but this pattern did not hold for black homeowners when compared to black renters. *There was no consistent pattern in the reporting of crimes to the police based on annual family income. *Generally, as the value of loss increased, so did the likelihood that a household crime would be reported. Thus, 88% of victimizations involving losses of $1,000 or more were reported to the police. Reasons for reporting and not reporting *The most common reason victims gave for reporting violent crimes to the police was to prevent further crimes from being committed against them by the same offender (20%). For both household crimes and thefts, the most common reason given for reporting was so that the victim could recover property (26% and 29%, respectively). *Common reasons given for not reporting violent victimizations to the police included: the crime was a private or personal matter (22%), or the offender was unsuccessful (18%). *The most common reason for not reporting household crimes and thefts was that an object had been recovered (27% and 30%). The next most common reason cited for failing to report a theft was that the crime had been reported to some other official (17%), and in the case of household crime, the next most common reasons were a lack of proof relating to the crime and that the victim thought the police would not want to be bothered. *The reasons given for not reporting crimes did not vary measurably by race. *Victims gave different rreasons for not reporting victimizations to the police when the offender was a stranger than when a nonstranger. Victims of stranger crimes were more likely not to report the victimization because the offender was unsuccessful, the victim considered the police inefficient, ineffective, or felt that they would not want to be bothered, or because it was not important enough to the victim to report the crime. Persons who had been victimized by someone they kenw chose not to report crimes because they considered them private or personal matters or because they had reported the crime to another official. *Police response to reported crimes varied by the type of crime that had occurred. Police came to the victim in 75% of violent crimes, 50% of thefts, and 67% of household crimes, for instance. Police were more likely to respond to a violent or household crime than to a theft. In 13% of violent crimes, 35% of thefts, and 25% of household crimes the police did not respond. *In incidents where the police cme to the victim, response time also varied by the type of crime. In 89% of violent crimes, 81% of thefts, and 78% of household crimes, the police came in an hour or less. The police were more likely to repond to a violent crime within 5 minutes than to a theft or household crime. Appendix II Survey instruments A screen questionnaire (form NCS-1) and a crime incident report (form NCS-2) are used to obtain information about households, individuals, and the relevant crimes they have experienced. The first form, NCS-1, is designed to obtain demographic characteristics and to screen for any crime incidents. Each household member age 12 or older is interviewed individually, unless a proxy is used. Proxy interviews are used for children age 12 or 13 when the parents object to an individual interview, as well as for persons who are absent during the entire interviewing period and persons who are otherwise incapable of answering for themselves. Details about the interviewing methods are located in the third appendix, under "Data collection." After the firs form is completed, the interviewer fills out a second form, the NCS-2 form, for each reported incident. Along with general questions about the incident, the NCS-2 form includes questions about the extent of physical injury, economic loss, offender characteristics, and notification of police. The basic screen questionnaire and incident report were revised in January 1979 and in July 1986. The 1986 questionnaire is reproduced on the following pages. Copies of the original questionnaire are located in the annual reports from 1973 through 1977, and copies of the first revised questionnaire are published in the annual reports from 1978 through 1986. Appendix III Survey methodolgy and standard errors The survey results contained in this report are based on data gathered from residents living throughout the United States, including persons living in group quarters, such as dormitories, rooming houses, and religious group dwellings. Crew members of merchant vessels, Armed Forces personnel living in military barracks, and institutionalized persons, such as correctional facility inmates, were not included in the scope of this survey. Similarly, U.S. citizens residing abroad and foreign visitors to this country were excluded. With these exceptions, individuals age 12 or older living in units designated for the sample were eligible to be interviewed. Data collection Each housing unit selected for the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) remains in the sample for 3 years, with each of seven interviews taking place at 6 month intervals. An NCVS interviewer's first contact with a housing unit selected for the survey is in person, and, if it is not possible to secure face-to-face interviews with all eligible members of the household during this initial visit, interviews by telephone are permissible thereafter. The only exceptions to the requirement that each eligible person be interviewed apply to incapacitated persons and individuals who are absent from the household during the entire field-interviewing period. Since July 1986, unless a knowledgeable household member insists otherwise, 12-and 13-year-olds are interviewed directly by the interviewer. This differs from the previous practice of interviewing a knowledgeable adult as a proxy respondent for all 12-and 13-year-olds, unless the adult insisted that the child be interviewed and the alternative was no interview at all. In the case of temporarily absent household members and persons who are physically or mentally incapable of granting interviews, interviewers may accept other household members as proxy respondents, and in certain situations non-household members may provide information for incapacitated persons. Prior to February 1980 the second through seventh interviews were conducted in the same manner as the initial interview. At that time, however, the mode of interviewing was changed to cut data collection costs. Telephone interviewing was increased, and in-person interviewing was reduced. This change was implemented in a manner that reduced the possibility of biasing the results. For half the remaining interviews at a sample address, the procedure was the same as that used for the entire sample prior to February 1980: the third, fifth, and seventh interviews were conducted primarily in person, with telephone followup permitted. The three even-numbered interviews were conducted as often as possible by telephone. Beginning in March 1986 all interviews were done by telephone whenever possible, except for the first and fifth interviews, which are still primarily conducted in person. Before February 1980, about 20% of the interviews were completed by telephone, as compared to about 50% until March 1986. The percentage of telephone interviews is approximately 75% currently. The results of an assessment of the change in the data collection mode on results for 1980 were reported in the initial data release for that year. (See Criminal Victimization in the United States; 1979-80 Changes, 1973-80 Trends, BJS Technical Report, NCJ-80838, July 1982.) Sample design and size Survey estimates are based on data obtained from a stratified, multi-stage cluster sample. The primary sampling units (PSU's) composing the first stage of the sampling were counties, groups of counties, or large metropolitan areas. Large PSU's were included in the sample automatically and are considered to be self-representing (SR). The remaining PSU's, called non-self-representing (NSR), were combined into strata by grouping PSU's with similar demographic characteristics, as determined by the 1980 census. One PSU was selected from each stratum by making the probability of selection proportionate to the population of the PSU. In June 1984 a sample cut resulted in the reduction of NSR strata from 220 to 153. This also included a 20% sample reduction in the larger of the 156 PSU's. Phase-in of a revised NCVS sample design based on 1980 census data began in January 1985. Households that were interviewed during 1987 were drawn from both the 1970 and the 1980 based sample designs. The 1980 design consists of 84 SR PSU's and 153 NSR strata, with one PSU per stratum selected with probability proportionate to size. Because part of the reduction in the number of SR PSU's is due to a different procedure for drawing PSU boundaries, especially in the New England States, the 156 PSU's in the 1970 design are equivalent to 130 PSU's in the current design. Even with this smaller number of sample areas, the reliability of estimates has been maintained by using crime-related characteristics in the formation of the strata and by improving sample selection within the PSU's. The remaining stages of sampling were designed to ensure a self-weighting probability sample of dwelling units and group quarters within each of the selected areas. (Self-weighting means that each sample housing unit had the same initial probability of being selected.) This involved a systematic selection of enumeration districts (geographic areas used for the 1980 census), with a probability of selection proportionate to their 1980 population size, followed by the selection of clusters of approximately four housing units each from within each numeration district. (All references to the 1980-based sample design also apply to the 1970-based design.) To account for units built within each of the sample areas after the 1980 census, a sample was drawn, by means of an independent clerical operation, of permits issued for the construction of residential housing. Jurisdictions that do not issue building permits were sampled using small land-area segments. These supplementary procedures, though yielding a relatively small portion of the total sample, enabled persons living in housing units built after 1980 to be properly represented in the survey. With the passage of time, newly constructed units account for an increased proportion of the total sample. Approximately 60,500 housing units and other living quarters were designated for the sample. In order to conduct field interviews, the sample was divided into six groups, or rotations, each of which contained housing units whose occupants were to be interviewed once every 6 months over a period of 3 years. The initial interview was used to bound the interviews, (bounding establishes a timeframe to avoid duplication of crimes on subsequent interviews) but was not used to compute the annual estimates. Each rotation group was further divided into six panels. Persons occupying housing units within a sixth of each rotation group, or one panel, were interviewed each month during the 6-month period. Because the survey is continuous, additional housing units are selected in the manner described, and assigned to rotation groups and panels for subsequent incorporation into the sample. A new rotation group enters the sample every 6 months, replacing a group phased out after being in the sample for 3 years. About 28,700 of the 60,500 housing units were selected to participate in this survey but were given a revised survey questionnaire. Persons in approximately 23,900 households were interviewed with this new questionnaire. The remaining 4,870 housing units were either vacant, demolished, or otherwise ineligible for the sample (about 3,770 units), or the occupants could not be reached or refused to participate (about 1,100 units). The new survey instrument provides more information about incidents of crime, and includes the additional crime of vandalism. In order to convert to this instrument next year, and not affect the compatibility of the current NCVS data with the estimates obtained from this new instrument, the new survey questionnaire is being phased in gradually. A statistical splice will be performed and the NCVS will use the new survey instrument for all households in the sample. Information collected from households that are given this new questionnaire is not used in the data tables shown in this report. Interviews were obtained at 6-month intervals from the occupants of about 26,200 of the 31,800 housing units selected for the near-term sample. About 4,700 of the remaining 5,700 units were found to be vacant, demolished, converted to non-residential use, or otherwise ineligible for the survey. However, approximately 950 of the 5,700 units were occupied by persons who were eligible for the survey yet were not interviewed because they could not be reached after repeated visits, declined to be interviewed, were temporarily absent, or were otherwise not available. Thus, the occupants of about 96% of all eligible housing units, some 52,100 persons, provided responses for the survey through the near-term questionnaire. About 10% of the 26,200 households in the 1992 sample were interviewed using a new technique called Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI). This technique was first used in 1987, and a study of the results revealed it had no serious effects on the NCVS data. Thus, the data obtained through CATI have been included in this report. Estimation procedure To enhance the reliability of the estimates in this report, the estimation procedures utilized additional data concerning population characteristics which are believed to affect victimization rates. These data were used in various stages of ratio estimation. The estimation procedure provides quarterly estimates of the levels and rates of victimization. Sample data from eight months of field interviewing are required to produce estimates for each quarter. For example, data collected between February and September are required to estimate the first quarter of any given calendar year (see accompanying chart). Each quarterly estimate is composed of equal numbers of field observations from the months during the half-year interval prior to the time of interview. Therefore, incidents occurring in January may be reported in a February interview (1 month between the crime and the interview), in a March interview (2 months), and so on up to 6 months ago for interviews conducted in July. This arrangement minimizes expected biases associated with the tendency of respondents to place victimizations in more recent months of a 6 month reference period rather than the month in which they actually occurred. Annual estimates are derived by accumulating data from the four quarterly estimates, which in turn are obtained from 17 months of field interviewing, ranging from February of 1 year through June of the following year. The population and household figures shown on victimization rate tables are based on an average for these 17 months, centering on the ninth month of the data collection period, in this case October 1992. The estimation procedure begins with the application of a basic weight to the data from each individual interviewed. A basic weight is the reciprocal of the probability of each housing unit's selection for the sample, and provides a rough measure of the population represented by each person in the sample. Next, an adjustment was made to account for occupied units as well as individuals in occupied units who were selected for the survey but unavailable for interview. The distribution of the sample population usually differs somewhat from that of the total population in terms of age, race, sex, residence, and other characteristics. Because of this, an additional stage of ratio estimation was employed to bring the two distributions into closer agreement, thereby reducing the variability of the sample estimates. The first stage of ratio estimation was applied only to data obtained from non-self-representing sample areas. Its purpose was to reduce the error caused by selecting one area to represent an entire stratum. Ratios concerning race and residence were calculated to reflect the relationship between the weighted 1990 census counts for all the sample areas in each region and the population in the non-self-representing parts of the region. The second stage of ratio estimation was applied on an individual basis in order to bring the distribution of individuals in the sample into closer agreement with independent current estimates of the population according to the characteristics of age, sex, and race. (Armed forces personnel who are eligible to be interviewed are not included in the second stage ratio estimate.) For household crimes, the characteristics of the wife in a husband-wife household and the characteristics of the head of household in other types of households were used to determine the ratio estimates. This procedure is considered more precise than simply using the characteristics of the head of household since sample coverage is generally better for females than males. In order to estimate incidents as opposed to victimizations, further adjustments were made to those cases where an incident involved more than one person. These incidents had more than one chance of being included in the sample so each multiple-victimization was reduced by the number of victims. Thus, if two people were victimized during the same incident, the weight assigned to that incident was reduced by one-half so that the incident could not be counted twice. However, the details of the event's outcome as they related to the victim were reflected in the survey results. No adjustment was necessary in estimating data on household crimes because each separate crime was defined as involving only one household. Series victimizations A series victimization is defined as three or more similar but separate crimes which the victim is unable to recall individually or describe in detail to an interviewer. These crimes have been excluded from the tables in this report because the victims were unable to provide details for each event. Prior to 1979, NCVS interviewers recorded series victimizations by the season(s) of occurrence within the 6-month reference period, and the data were tabulated by the quarter of the year in which they were collected. Since January 1979, however, data on series crimes have been gathered by the calendar quarter(s) of occurrence, making it possible to match the time-frames used in tabulating the data for non-series crimes. The effect of combining series and non-series crimes, counting each of the series crimes as a single victimization based on the details of the most recent incident, was included in the initial release of the 1980 data (see footnote 3 for reference). The report showed that victimization counts and rates were higher in 1979 and 1980 when the series crimes were added. However, rate changes between these two years were basically in the same direction and significantly affected the same crimes as those affected when only non-series crimes were analyzed. Table I shows the counts of regular and series victimizations for 1992, as well as the results of combining the two, with each series tallied as a single event. A total of 843,820 personal series crimes and 542,590 household series crimes were measured in 1992. As in the past, series crimes tended to be simple assaults, personal larcenies without contact, or household larcenies. From January through June of 1985, a followup questionnaire was administered to persons reporting series crimes. This questionnaire addressed issues relating to the methods of collecting and analyzing data on series crimes. Results of this test are contained in Series Crimes: Report of a Field Test, BJS Technical Report NCJ-104615, April 1987. Further tests of approaches to collecting data on series crimes are anticipated. Reliability of estimates The sample used for the NCVS is one of a large number of possible samples of equal size that could have been obtained by using the same sample design and selection procedures. Estimates derived from different samples would differ somewhat. The standard error of a survey estimate is a measure of the variation among the estimates from all possible samples. Therefore, it is a measure of the precision with which a particular estimate approximates the average result of all possible samples. The estimate and its associated standard error may be used to construct a confidence interval. A confidence interval is a range of numbers which has a specified probability that the average of all possible samples, which is the true unknown value of interest, is contained within the interval. About 68% of the time, the survey estimate will differ from the true average by less than one standard error. Only 10% of the time will the difference be more than 1.6 standard errors, and just 1 time in 100 will it be greater than 2.5 standard errors. A 95 percent confidence interval is the estimate plus or minus twice the standard error, thus there is a 95 percent chance that the result of a complete census would fall within the confidence interval. In addition to sampling error, the estimates in this report are subject to nonsampling error. Major sources of nonsampling error are related to the ability of the respondents to recall in detail the crimes which occurred during the six months prior to the interview. Research based on interviews of victims obtained from police files indicates that assault is recalled with the least accuracy of any crime measured by the NCVS. This may be related to the tendency of victims to not report crimes committed by offenders who are not strangers, especially if they are relatives. In addition, among certain groups, crimes which contain elements of assault could be a part of everyday life, and are therefore forgotten or not considered important enough to mention to a survey interviewer. These recall problems may result in a substantial understatement of the actual rate of assault. Another source of nonsampling error is the inability of some respondents to recall the exact month a crime occurred, even though it was placed in the correct reference period. This error source is partially offset by interviewing monthly and using the estimation procedure described earlier. Telescoping is another problem in which incidents that occurred before the reference period, or in a few cases, after it, are placed within the period. Events which occurred after the reference period are considered extremely rare because 75% to 80% of the interviewing takes place during the first week of the month following the reference period. The effect of telescoping is minimized by using the bounding procedure previously described. The interviewer is provided with a summary of the incidents reported in the preceding interview, and, if a similar incident is reported, it can then be determined whether the reported crime is a new one or not by discussing it with the victim. As calculated for the NCVS, the standard errors partially measure only those nonsampling errors arising from these sources; they do not reflect any systematic biases in the data. Methodological research indicates that substantially fewer incidents of crime are reported when one household member reports for all individuals residing in the household than when each person is interviewed individually. Therefore, the self-response procedure was adopted as a general rule; allowances for proxy response under the contingencies discussed earlier are the only exceptions to this rule. Other sources of nonsampling error result from other types of response mistakes, including errors in reporting incidents as crimes, misclassification of crimes, systematic data errors introduced by the interviewer, errors made in coding and processing the data, and biases resulting from the rotation patterns and incomplete sampling frames in the 1970-based design. The last problem has been corrected in the 1980-based design. Quality control and editing procedures were used to minimize the number of errors made by the respondents and the interviewers. Since the field representatives conducting the interviews usually reside in the area in which they interview, the race and ethnicity of the field representatives generally matches that of the local population. Special efforts are made to further match field representatives and the people they interview in areas where English is not commonly spoken. About 90% of all NCVS field representatives are female. Deriving standard errors which are applicable to a wide variety of items and can be prepared at a moderate cost requires a number of approximations. Therefore, two parameters (identified as "a" and "b" in the following section) were developed for use in calculating standard errors. The parameters provide an indication of the order of magnitude of the standard errors rather than the precise standard error for any specific item. Computation and application of standard errors The results presented in this report were tested to determine whether or not the observed differences between groups were statistically significant. Differences were tested for significance at the 90 percent confidence level, or roughly 1.6 standard errors. Most of the comparisons in this report were significant at the 95 percent confidence level (about 2.0 standard errors, meaning that the difference between the estimates is greater than twice the standard error of the difference). Comparisons which failed the 90 percent test were not considered statistically significant. Comparisons qualified by the phrase "some evidence" had a significance level between 90% and 95%. Formula 1. Standard errors for the estimated number of victimizations or incidents may be calculated by using the following formula: s.e. (x)= square root of ax2tbx where x = estimated number of personal or household victimizations or incidents a = a constant equal to -0.00003657 b = a constant equal to 7549 The following example illustrates the proper use of this formula. Table 1 (Appendix I) shows 806,460 completed robberies in 1992; this estimate and the appropriate parameters are substituted in the formula as follows: s.e. (x)= the square root of (- 0.00003657) (806,460)2 + (7549) (806,460) Therefore the 95 percent confidence interval around the estimated number of robbery victimizations is about equal to 806,460 plus or minus 152,631 (653,829 to 959,091). Formula 2. Standard errors for the estimated victimization rates or percentages are calculated using the following formula: s.e. (p) = the square root of (b/y) (p (1.0 -p) where p = percentage or rate expressed in decimal form y = base population or total number of crimes b = a constant equal to 7549 The following example demonstrates the use of formula 2. Table 4 (Appendix I) shows an estimated robbery rate of 11.4 per 1,000 persons between the ages of 20 and 24. Substituting the appropriate values into the formula yields: s.e. (p)= the square root of (7549/18,350,160) (0114 (1.0-,0114)). Thus, the 95 percent confidence interal is 11.4 per 1,000 plus or minus 4.3 (7.1 to 15.7 per 1,000). Formula 3. The standard error of a difference between two rates or percentages having different bases is calculated using the formula: s.e. (p)= the square root of (p1 (1.0-p1) b) /y1 + (p2 (1.0-p2) b)\y2. where p1 = first percent or rate (expressed in decimal form) y1 = base from which first percent or rate was derived p2 = second percent or rate (expressed in decimal form) y2 = base from which second percent or rate was derived b = a constant equal to 7549 This formula provides an accurate standard error for the difference between uncorrelated estimates; however, if the two estimates have a strong positive correlation, the formula overestimates the true standard error. If the numbers have a strong negative correlation the formula underestimates the actual standard error of the difference. The following example illustrates the use of formula 3. Table 3 (Appendix I) lists the victimization rate for aggravated assault for males as 12.0 per 1,000, and the rate for females as 6.1 per 1,000. Placing the appropriate values in the formulas yields: Standard error of the difference (.0120-.0061)= the square root of .0120 (1.0-.0120)(7549)\99,263, 800+.0061(1.0-.0061)7549)\107,150610=.0011527. The 95 percent confidence interval a round the difference of .0059 is approximately the difference plus or minus twice the standard error (a difference between .0036 and .0082). The ratio of the difference between two numbers to the standard error of their difference is equivalent to the statistical level of significance. For example, a ratio of two or more indicates that the difference is significant at the 95 percent confidence level (or greater); a ratio between 1.6 and 2.0 indicates the difference is significant at a confidence level between 90% and 95%; a ratio less than 1.6 denotes a confidence level less than 90%. In the previous example, the ratio of the difference (.0059) to the standard error (.001153) is 5.1. Thus the aggravated assault rate for males and females was significantly different at a confidence level exceeding 95%. Formula 4. The standard error of the difference between two rates or percentages derived from the same base is calculated using the formula: s.e. (p1-p2)= the square root of b\y((p1+p2)-(p1-p2)2) where the symbols are the same as in formula three, except that "y" refers to a common base. The following example, which uses table 58 (Appendix I), illustrates the use of this formula. The proportion of violent crime incidents involving strangers was 59.1% and the proportion involving nonstrangers was 40.9%. Substituting the appropriate values into the formula gives: Standard error of the difference (.591-.409) = the square root of (7549\5,964,090)-(.591-.409)2)= .0349831. The confidence interval around the difference at one standard error is from .147 to .217 (.182 plus or minus .035). The ratio of the difference (.182) to its standard error (.035) is 5.2. Since 5.2 is greater than 2.0, the difference between these two percentages is statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. Appendix IV Survey estimate of the economic cost of crime to victims This appendix provides a special supplementary analysis of the cost of crime to victims in 1992. (The methodology used in this analysis is similar to that of a previous BJS Special eport, The Economic Cost of Crime to Victims, NCJ-93450, April 1984.) Appendix I presents data on several specific aspects of economic cost, such as medical expenses and the value of stolen property, while this appendix estimates the total cost of crime sustained by victims in 1992. In 1992 the total estimated cost of crime to victims was $17.6 billion. This estimate includes losses from property theft or damage, cash losses, medical expenses and other costs. The estimate was derived by summing crime victims' estimates of the amount of stolen cash, the value of stolen property, estimated or actual costs of replacing damaged property, medical expenses, and the amount of pay lost from work because of injuries, police-related activities, court-related activities, or time spent repairing or replacing property. The NCVS only measures direct costs to the victims. Such costs as running the criminal justice system or increased insurance premiums are not measured. Table II shows the aggregate estimates of the total economic cost of crime for each of the major crime categories. Appendix V Supplementary analysis on family violence This appendix provides a supplementary analysis of family violence against persons age 12 or older. Tables III through V provide additional informatin on family violence to supplement the tables contained in Appendix I. Family violence, as it is used here, implies crimes committed by a relative against a family member. These tables combine victimizations committed by single and multiple offenders. When classifying the multiple-offender crimes, the relationship of the offender who was closest to the victim is used. The closest relationship is, in descending order, a spouse, ex-spouse, parent, child, other relative, well known person who is not related, casual acquaintance, or stranger. In instances where the offender is well known, but the degree of the victim-offender relationship is not obtainable from the data, the relationship is classified as "well known." Crimes shown in the category "Don't know relationship" are those for which the data contain no information on the relationship, while those classified as "Don't know number of offenders" include only those crimes in which the victim was unwilling or unable to state the number of offenders. * Family violence accounted for 7% of all violent crimes, including 9% of all completed crimes and 6% of all attempted crimes. Five percent of all robberies, and 8% of all assaults were committed by the victim's relatives. *Almost 86% of the violent crimes committed by relatives were assaults. furthermore, simple assaults by family members accounted for 59% of the reported family violence, and aggravated assaults made up another 27% of these crimes. * The rate of violent crimes against women committed by relatives was 3.8 per 1,000, while the rate for men was 0.8 per 1,000. Men and women had comparable victimization rates when the offenders were well known but not related to the victims. Males, however, were significantly more likely than females to be victimized by a casual acquaintance. * Blacks were more likely than whites to be victims of violent crimes by persons who were well known but not related to them. There was not a significant difference between whites and blacks in the proportions of violent victimizations that were committed by relatives or casual acquaintances. * Marital status also affected the chances of an individual being victimized by a nonstranger. Widowed persons were excluded from the following analysis because the number of cases reported was too small to form reliable estimates. Among the other groups, married persons were the least likely to be victims of violence from well known offenders, and persons who had never married were the most likely. Persons who had never married were also most likely to be victimized by a casual acquaintance. Divorced or separated persons had the highest rate of violent crimes committed by relatives. * Fifty-three percent of the 489,460 violent crimes occurring between relatives involved the spouse or the exspouse of the victim. Family violence was more likely to involve the victim's spouse than ex-spouse, parents, or children. Violence between parents and children combined accounted for 14% of the crimes between relatives, while violence from other relatives accounted for nearly 33%. Glossary Age -- The appropriate age category is determined by the respondent's age on the last day of the month before the interview. Aggravated assault -- Attack or attempted attack with a weapon, regardless of whether or not an injury occurred, and attack without a weapon when serious injury results. Serious injury includes broken bones, lost teeth, internal injuries, loss of consciousness, and any injury requiring two or more days of hospitalization. Annual family income --The total income of the household head and all relatives living in the same housing unit for the 12 months preceding the interview. Includes wages, salaries, net income from businesses or farms, pensions, interest, dividends, rent, and any other form of monetary income. The incomes of people who are not related to the head of the household are not included. Assault --An unlawful physical attack or threat of attack. Assaults may be classified as aggravated or simple. Rape and attempted rape are excluded from this category, as well as robbery and attempted robbery. The severity of assaults ranges from minor threat to incidents which are nearly fatal. Attempted forcible entry --A form of burglary in which force is used in an attempt to gain entry. Burglary --Unlawful or forcible entry or attempted entry of a residence. This crime usually, but not always, involves theft. The illegal entry may be by force, such as breaking a window or slashing a screen, or may be without force by entering through an unlocked door or an open window. As long as the person entering has no legal right to be present in the structure a burglary has occurred. Furthermore, the structure need not be the house itself for a burglary to take place; illegal entry of a garage, shed, or any other structure on the premises also constitutes household burglary. If breaking and entering occurs in a hotel or vacation residence, it is still classified as a burglary for the household whose member or members were staying there at the time the entry occurred. Central city --The largest city (or grouping of cities) in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (see below). Ethnicity --A classification based on Hispanic culture and origin, regardless of race. Forcible entry --A form of burglary in which force is used to gain entry to a residence. Some examples include breaking a window or slashing a screen. Head of household --A classification which defines one and only one person in each housing unit as the head. Head of household implies that the person rents or owns (or is in the process of buying), the housing unit. The head of household must be at least 18, unless all members of the household are under 18, or the head is married to someone 18 or older. Hispanic --A person who describes himself as Mexican-American, Chicano, Mexican, Mexicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central American, South American, or from some other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. Household --A person or group of people meeting either of the following criteria. (1) people whose usual place of residence is the same housing unit, even if they are temporarily absent. (2) people staying in a housing unit who have no usual place of residence elsewhere. Household crimes --Attempted and completed crimes that do not involve personal confrontation. Examples of household crimes include burglary, motor vehicle theft, and household larceny. Household larceny --Theft or attempted theft of property or cash from a residence or the immediate vicinity of the residence. In order to occur within a house, the thief must have a legal right to be in the house (such as a maid, delivery person, or guest), as unlawful or forcible entry constitutes a burglary. Incident --A specific criminal act involving one or more victims and offenders. For example, if two people are robbed at the same time and place, this is classified as two robbery victimizations but only one robbery incident. Larceny --Theft or attempted theft of property or cash without involving force or illegal entry. This category is subdivided into personal larceny and household larceny. Marital status --Every person is as signed to one of the following classifications: (1) married, which includes persons in common-law unions and those who are currently living apart for reasons other than marital discord (employment, military service, etc.); (2) separated or divorced, which includes married persons who are legally separated and those who are not living together because of marital discord; (3) widowed; and (4) never married, which includes persons whose marriages have been annulled and those who are living together and not in a common-law union. Metropolitan area --See "Metropolitan Statistical Area". Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)--The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) defines this as a population nucleus of 50,000 or more, generally consisting of a city and its immediate suburbs, along with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social integration with the nucleus. MSA's are designated by counties, the smallest geographic units for which a wide range of statistical data can be obtained. However, in New England, MSA's are designated by cities and towns since these subcounty units are of great local significance and considerable data is available for them. Currently, an area is defined as an MSA if it meets one of two standards: (1) a city has a population of at least 50,000; (2) the Census Bureau defines an urbanized area of at least 50,000 people with a total metropolitan population of at least 100,000 (or 75,000 in New England). The Census Bureau's definition of urbanized areas, data on commuting to work, and the strength of the economic and social ties between the surrounding counties and the central city determine which counties not containing a main city are included in an MSA. For New England, MSA's are determined by a core area and related cities and towns, not counties. A metropolitan statistical area may contain more than one city of 50,000 and may cross State lines. Motor vehicle --An automobile, truck, motorcycle, or any other motorized vehicle legally allowed on public roads and highways. Motor vehicle theft --Stealing or unauthorized taking of a motor vehicle, including attempted thefts. Non-Hispanic --Persons who report their culture or origin as something other than "Hispanic" as defined above. This distinction is made regardless of race. Nonmetropolitan area --A place not located inside an MSA. This category includes a variety of localities, ranging from sparsely populated rural areas to cities with populations less than 50,000. Nonstranger --A classification of a crime victim's relationship to the offender. An offender who is either related to, well known to or casually acquainted with the victim is a non-stranger. For crimes with more than one offender, if any of the offenders are nonstrangers, then the group of offenders as a whole is classified as nonstranger. This category only applies to crimes which involve contact between the victim and the offender; the distinction is not made for personal larceny without contact since victims of this offense rarely see the offenders. Offender --The perpetrator of a crime; this term usually applies to crimes involving contact between the victim and the offender. Offense --A crime. When referring to personal crimes, the term can be used to refer to both victimizations and incidents. Outside central cities --Refer to "suburban area." Personal crimes --Rape, personal robbery, assault, personal larceny with contact or personal larceny without contact. This category includes both attempted and completed crimes. Personal crimes of theft --Personal larceny. The theft or attempted theft of property or cash by stealth, either with contact (but without force or threat of force) or without direct contact between the victim and the offender. Personal crimes of violence --Rape, personal robbery or assault. This category includes both attempted and completed crimes, and the crime always involves contact between the victim and the offender. Personal larceny --Equivalent to the personal crimes of theft. Personal larceny is divided into two subgroups depending on whether or not the crime involved personal contact between the victim and the offender. Personal larceny with contact --Theft or attempted theft of property or cash directly from the victim by stealth, not force or threat of force. Includes both purse snatching and pocket picking. Personal larceny without contact --Theft or attempted theft of property or cash from any place other than the victim's home or its immediate vicinity, without direct contact between the victim and the offender. This crime differs from household larceny only in he location in which the theft occurs. Examples of personal larceny without contact include theft of an umbrella in a restaurant, a radio from the beach, or cash from an automobile parked in a parking lot. Occasionally, the victim may see the offender commit the crime. Physical injury-- Physical injury is measured for the three personal crimes of violence. Completed or attempted robberies that result in injury are classified as involving "serious" or "minor" assault. Examples of injuries from serious assault include broken bones, loss of teeth, internal injuries, loss of consciousness, and undetermined injuries requiring two or more days of hospitalization. Injuries from minor assault include bruises, black eyes, cuts, scratches, swelling, or undetermined injuries requiring less than two days of hospitalization. Assaults without a weapon are classified as aggravated if the victim's injuries fit the description given above of serious assault. All completed rapes are defined as having resulted in physical injury. Attempted rapes are classified as having resulted in injury if the victim reported having suffered some form of physical injury. Race --Racial categories for this survey are white, black, and other. The "other" category is composed mainly of Asians and American Indians. The race of the head of household is used in determining the race of the household for computing household crime demographics. Rape --Carnal knowledge through the use of force or the threat of force, including attempts. Statutory rape (without force) is excluded. Both heterosexual and homosexual rape are included. Rate of victimization --See "Victimization rate." Region --The States have been divided into four groups or census regions: Midwest --Includes the 12 States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Northeast --Includes the 9 States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. South --Includes the District of Columbia and the 16 States of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. West --Includes the 13 States of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Robbery --Completed or attempted theft, directly from a person, of property or cash by force or threat of force, with or without a weapon. Robbery with injury --Completed or attempted theft from a person, accompanied by an attack, either with or without a weapon, resulting in injury. An injury is classified as resulting from a serious assault, irrespective of the extent of injury, if a weapon was used in committing the crime, or, if not, when the extent of the injury was either serious (broken bones, loss of teeth, internal injuries or loss of consciousness, for example) or undetermined but requiring two or more days of hospitalization. An injury is classified as resulting from a minor assault when the extent of the injury was minor (for example, bruises, black eyes, cuts, scratches or swelling) or undetermined but requiring less than two days of hospitalization. Robbery without injury --Theft or attempted theft from a person, accompanied by force or the threat of force, either with or without a weapon, but not resulting in injury. Series --Three or more similar but separate events, which the respondent is unable to describe separately in detail to an interviewer. Simple assault --Attack without a weapon resulting either in minor injury (for example, bruises, black eyes, cuts, scratches or swelling) or in undetermined injury requiring less than 2 days of hospitalization. Also includes attempted assault without a weapon. Stranger --A classification of the victim's relationship to the offender for crimes involving direct contact between the two. Incidents are classified as involving strangers if the victim identifies the offender as a stranger, did not see or recognize the offender, or knew the offender only by sight. Crimes involving multiple offenders are classified as involving nonstrangers if any of the offenders was a nonstranger. Since victims of personal larceny without contact rarely see the offender, no distinction is made between strangers and nonstrangers for this crime. Suburban areas --A county or counties containing a central city, plus any contiguous counties that are linked socially and economically to the central city. On data tables, suburban areas are categorized as those portions of metropolitan areas situated "outside central cities." Tenure --The NCVS recognizes two forms of household tenancy: (1) owned, which includes dwellings that are mortgaged, and (2) rented, which includes rent-free quarters belonging to a party other than the occupants, and situations where rental payments are in ind or services. Unlawful entry --A form of burglary committed by someone having no legal right to be on the premises, even though no force is used. Victim --The recipient of a criminal act, usually used in relation to personal crimes, but also applicable to households. Victimization --A crime as it affects one individual person or household. For personal crimes, the number of victimizations is equal to the number of victims involved. The number of victimizations may be greater than the number of incidents because more than one person may be victimized during an incident. Each crime against a household is assumed to involve a single victim, the affected household. Victimization rate --A measure of the occurrence of victimizations among a specified population group. For personal crimes, this is based on the number of victimizations per 1,000 residents age 12 or older. For household crimes, the victimization rates are calculated using the number of incidents per 1,000 households. Victimize --To commit a crime against a person or household.