U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Estimates from the Redesigned Survey Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1993 May 1996, NCJ-151657 --------------------------------------------------------- Earlier editions of printed reports are available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#ncvs --------------------------------------------------------- The full text of this report is available through: *the BJS Clearinghouse, 1-800-732-3277 *on the Internet at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ *on the BJS gopher: gopher://www.ojp.usdoj.gov:70/11/bjs/ *on the National Criminal Justice Reference Service Electronic Bulletin Board (set at 8-N-1, call 301-738-8895, select BJS). By Craig A. Perkins, Patsy A. Klaus, Lisa D. Bastian, and Robyn L. Cohen Statisticians, Bureau of Justice Statistics ------------------ Highlights ------------------ ------------------------------ Overall victimization ------------------------------ *Overall during 1993 there were almost 11 million violent victimizations and over 32 million property crimes. Expressed as the number of crimes per 1,000, there were 51 violent victimizations per 1,000 persons and 322 property crimes per 1,000 households. *In terms of crime rates per 1,000 persons age 12 or older, there were 2 rapes or sexual assaults (including attempts), 6 robberies, 12 aggravated assaults, and 31 simple assaults. Murder is not measured in the survey because of the inability to question the victims. *There were 322 property crimes per 1,000 households. These included 60 burglaries per 1,000 households, 20 motor vehicle thefts, and 243 property thefts. *Seventy percent of the violent victimizations were attempted but uncompleted criminal incidents, such as attempted robberies or threats involving weapons. *Victims sustained a rape or some other non-rape injury in over 2.6 million incidents; about 29% of all robberies involved injury. ------------------------------------------- Sex, race, and age of victim ------------------------------------------- *One in sixteen males and 1 in 24 females were a victim of violent crime. *One in fifteen blacks and 1 in 20 whites were a victim of violent crime. *Hispanics and non-Hispanics had similar rates for rape/sexual assault, simple assault, and personal theft. However, Hispanics sustained significantly higher rates for robbery and aggravated assault. Hispanics had a robbery rate twice that of non-Hispanics. *The youngest age group surveyed -- those age 12 through 15 -- had the greatest risk of being violent crime victims. The risk decreased steadily with age, from 1 in 8 persons age 12-15 to 1 in 179 for those 65 or older. *Persons age 12 to 15, who accounted for about 7% of the population their age and older, experienced 12% of all rapes and 17% of sexual assaults measured by the victimization survey. *In general, persons from households with low incomes experienced higher violent crime victimization rates than persons from wealthier households. Persons living in households with yearly incomes under $7,500 were more than twice as likely to fall victim to violence as persons in households with incomes of $75,000 or more. ---------------------------------- Victims and offenders ---------------------------------- Robbery and aggravated assault were more likely to be committed by strangers to the victim than nonstrangers. Rape/sexual assault and simple assault were more likely to be committed by nonstrangers than strangers. *About 1 million violent crimes committed during 1993 were against victims related to the offender. In more than 500,000 incidents the offender was the victim's spouse or former spouse. Of these, 9% were rapes or other sexual assaults; 5%, robberies; 15%, aggravated assaults; and 71%, simple assaults. *Females were victimized by relatives at 4 times the rate of males (8 violent victimizations per 1,000 females versus 2 per 1,000 males). ------------------- Geography ------------------- City residents were robbed at more than 3 times the rural residents' rate. *Households in U.S. cities were victimized by motor vehicle theft at almost five times the rate experienced by rural households. *In each region -- Northeast, Midwest, South, and the West -- households in urban areas had the highest victimization rates for property crimes in general, followed by households in suburban areas. Households in rural areas had the lowest rates of property crimes. *The western region had the highest victimization rates for both violent and property crimes overall. ------------------------- The crime event ------------------------- *Violent incidents occurring at night most frequently were committed between 6 p.m. and midnight. *Property crimes were more likely to have occurred between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. *Twenty-seven percent of all violent incidents occurred in or near the victim's home. Including those, about half took place within 5 miles of the victim's home. Only 4% took place more than 50 miles from home. *Twenty-nine percent of all violent crime victims believed the offender or offenders were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the offense -- 20%, under the influence of alcohol only; 4%, drugs alone; and 4%, both drugs and alcohol. *About 42% of the violent crimes and 33% of the property crimes were reported to police. Seventy-eight percent of the almost 2 million completed or attempted motor vehicle thefts were reported to law enforcement agencies. *The most common reason given for not reporting violent victimizations to the police was that the crime was a private or personal matter (21%). The next most common reason cited was that the offender was unsuccessful in committing the crime (18%). *For property crimes the most common reason for not reporting to the police was that stolen property had been recovered (29%). The next most common reason given for failing to report a property crime was that there was a lack of proof relating to the crime (11%). *Whether victimized by a violent or a property crime, victims rarely received assistance from either governmental or private agencies. ---------------------------------------------------------- National Crime Victimization Survey ---------------------------------------------------------- This report presents information on criminal victimization in the United States during 1993. This edition, the 21st in a series of annual reports, is the first that presents data from the redesigned National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). For the past 20 years data have been presented in a series of annual reports prepared under the National Crime Survey (NCS). The survey name was changed to the National Crime Victimization Survey in conjunction with changes introduced as a result of the survey redesign. 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 100,000 persons age 12 or older living in 50,000 housing units were interviewed. Ninety-six percent of the households selected to participate did so; 93% of persons in these selected households were interviewed. The redesign of the survey was a decade-long effort to improve its ability to measure victimization, particularly certain difficult-to-measure crimes like rape and sexual assault. As a reflection of this survey redesign the format of the criminal victimization report series has changed as well. ----------------------------------- Chapter I - Introduction ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------- NCVS-measured crimes -------------------------------------- The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is one of two Justice Department measures of crime in the United States. A pioneering effort when it was begun in 1972, the survey was intended to complement what is known about crime from the FBI's annual compilation of information reported to law enforcement agencies (Uniform Crime Reports). The survey, which also counts incidents not reported to the police, provides a detailed picture of crime incidents, victims, and trends from the victim's perspective. Data are collected every year from a sample of approximately 50,000 households with more than 100,000 individuals age 12 or older. Victimizations are categorized as personal or property crimes. Personal crimes, including attempts, involve direct contact between the victim and offender. Property crimes do not involve personal confrontation and include the crimes of household burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft. Since crime victims are asked directly about crime, 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, kidnaping, or crimes against commercial establishments such as commercial burglary and robbery. (Murder is not measured by the NCVS because of the inability to question the victim.) Crimes such as public drunkenness, drug abuse, prostitution, illegal gambling, con games, and blackmail are also excluded. Sometimes people are not aware they have been victims of a crime, making such crimes difficult to measure accurately. Buying stolen property 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 their occurrence. --------------------------- Survey redesign -------------------------- The report presents the first detailed findings from a comprehensive survey redesign program. This section presents a brief overview of the redesign; more detailed information on the redesign can be found in appendixes II and IV. The survey was redesigned because -- *Criticism of the earlier survey's capacity to gather information about certain crimes, including sexual assaults and domestic violence prompted numerous improvements. *Improved survey methodology enhances the ability of people being interviewed to recall events. *Public attitudes toward victims have changed, permitting more direct questioning about sexual assaults. The new methodology was systematically field tested and introduced starting in 1989, and its results are being published for the first time this year. New questions were added to accommodate heightened interest in certain types of victimizations. Improvements in technology and survey methods were incorporated in the redesign. An advisory panel of criminal justice policymakers, social scientists, victim advocates, and statisticians oversaw the work of a consortium of criminologists and social and survey scientists who conducted research on improved procedures. With the redesigned survey, victims are now reporting more types of crime incidents to the survey's interviewers. Previously undetected victimizations are being captured. For example, the survey changes have substantially increased the numberof rapes and aggravated and simple assaults reported to interviewers. In the redesigned survey other victimizations, such as non-rape sexual assault and unwanted or coerced sexual contact that involves a threat or attempt to harm, are also being measured. The survey now includes improved questions and cues that aid victims in recalling victimizations. Survey interviewers ask more explicit questions about sexual victimizations. Advocates have also encouraged victims to talk more openly about their experiences. Together, these changes substantially improve reporting for many types of personal and household crime. ----------------------------------- Major redesign changes ----------------------------------- All crimes *********** A new screening questionnaire (to determine whether the respondent has been the victim of any crime within the scope of the survey) uses extensive, detailed cues to help respondents recall and report incidents. These new questions and cues jog memories of the respondents and let them know that the survey is interested in a broad spectrum of incidents, not just those involving weapons, severe violence, or strangers. Because of these changes, substantial increases occur in the extent to which victims tell the interviewers about simple assault (defined as assault without a weapon or resulting in minor injury) and sexual crimes. Domestic violence ****************** Multiple questions and cues on crimes committed by family members, intimates, and acquaintances have been added. The survey also encourages respondents to report incidents even if they are not sure whether a crime has been committed. The survey staff review these reported incidents using standardized definitions of crimes. Thus, within the categories of violent crime measured by the NCVS, the redesign will produce fuller reporting of those incidents that involved intimates or other family members. Sexual crimes *************** The new NCVS broadens the scope of covered sexual incidents beyond the categories of rape and attempted rape. These include: *sexual assault (other than rape) *verbal threats of rape or sexual assault *unwanted sexual contact without force but involving threats or other harm to the victim. These new categories, broadened coverage, and more extensive questions on sexual victimizations have elicited information on about 3 to 4 times as many sexual crime victimizations as in the past. ---------------------------------------------- Selection of survey participants ---------------------------------------------- The survey collects its data from a nationally representative sample of individuals age 12 or older living in U.S. households. Basic demographic information, such as age, race, sex, and income, is collected to enable analysis of victimizations of various subpopulations. Interviews are translated for non-English speaking respondents. Each month the U.S. Bureau of the Census selects respondents for the NCVS using a "rotating panel" design. Households are randomly selected, and all age-eligible individuals in a selected household become part of the panel. Once in the sample, respondents are interviewed every 6 months for a total of seven interviews over a 3-year period. The first and fifth interviews are face-to-face; the rest are by telephone when possible. After the seventh interview the household leaves the panel and a new household is rotated into the sample. The interview takes about 1/2 hour. The NCVS has consistently obtained a response rate of about 95%. ------------------------------------ The NCVS questionnaire ------------------------------------ The NCVS questionnaire does more than simply ask participants if they have been victimized by crime. A screening section provides respondents with a series of detailed questions and cues on victimizations and the situations within which crimes may take place. If any screening question elicits a positive response to a crime within the scope of the survey, interviewers collect details about the victimization in an incident report. The screening section describes crimes in simple language, avoiding technical and legal terms such as aggravated assault. Attempting to elicit an accurate account, interview- ers provide respondents with detailed features that may characterize a criminal incident, such as offender behavior, crime location and whether the offender was a stranger, acquaintance, or relative. If a feature produces a positive response, details on the incident are gathered. When NCVS data are processed, incident report data are classified by elements necessary to define the incident as a crime. If an incident does not satisfy these criteria, it is not counted as a crime. -------------------------------- Uses of NCVS data -------------------------------- NCVS data have informed a wide audience concerned with crime and crime prevention. Researchers at academic, government, private, and nonprofit research institutions use NCVS data to prepare reports, policy recommendations, scholarly publications, testimony before Congress, and documentation for use in courts. Community groups and government agencies use the data to develop neighborhood watch and victim assistance and compensation programs. Law enforcement agencies use NCVS findings for training. The data appear in public service announcements on crime prevention and crime documentaries. Finally, print and broadcast media regularly cite NCVS findings when reporting on a host of crime-related topics. --------------------------------------------------- Chapter II - Demography of victims ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Characteristics of personal crime victims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Personal crimes consist of rapes, sexual assaults, robberies, assaults, and purse snatchings or pocket pickings. Victimization rates are measures of the frequency of crime among the Nation's population or 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 subgroups of the population. For example, victimization rates for personal crimes of violence tend to be relatively high for people who are male, black, poor, or young. ------------------------------------------------ Victimization levels and rates ------------------------------------------------ *Victims sustained 10.9 million violent crimes in 1993. These crimes included a half million rapes and sexual assaults, 1.3 million robberies, over 2.5 million aggravated assaults, and 6.5 million simple assaults. Murder is not measured by the NCVS because of the inability to question the victims. *In terms of crime rates per 1,000 persons age 12 or older, there were 2 rapes or attempted rapes, 1 sexual assault, 6 robberies, 12 aggravated assaults, and 31 simple assaults. --------------------------------------------- Sex, age, race, and ethnicity --------------------------------------------- *For robbery and aggravated or simple assault, males sustained significantly higher victimization rates than females. Males were twice as likely as females to experience both robberies and aggravated assaults. However, there were 4 rapes or sexual assaults per 1,000 females age 12 or older and 0.4 per 1,000 males. *Persons under age 25 had higher victimization rates than older persons. Those 65 or older generally had the lowest victimization rates. The rate of assault, for example, was 98 per 1,000 persons age 16 to 19 and 4 per 1,000 persons 65 or older. *Blacks were more likely than whites or persons of other races, such as Asians or Native Americans, to be victims of robbery and aggravated assault. In 1993 there were 19 aggravated assaults per 1,000 black persons, 11 per 1,000 whites, and 9 for every 1,000 persons in other racial categories. There were no significant differences among the three racial groups for rape and sexual assault. *Both black males and black females had violent crime rates that were significantly higher than their counterparts in other racial groups. Black males had the highest rate of violent crime victimization: 76 victimizations per 1,000. Black females were as vulnerable to violent crime as white males (58 versus 59 per 1,000, respectively). Among whites and blacks, white females had the lowest rate (41 per 1,000). *Black males experienced robberies at greater than twice the rate of white males (18 per 1,000 black males versus 7 per 1,000 white males). Black females had a robbery rate 3 times that of white females (9 versus 3 per 1,000, respectively). *Hispanics and non-Hispanics had similar victimization rates for rape/sexual assault, simple assault, and personal theft. However, Hispanics sustained significantly higher rates for robbery and aggravated assault. Hispanics had a robbery rate about twice that of non-Hispanics (11 versus 6 per 1,000, respectively). *The overall violent victimization rate of Hispanic males was not significantly different from that for non-Hispanic males. However, Hispanic males were more likely to be robbed or experience aggravated assault than were non-Hispanic males. Violent crime rates for Hispanic and non-Hispanic females were not significantly different. *Young males, both black and white, experienced the highest violent crime rates. However, black females age 16 to 19 had a violent crime rate that was greater than that for black males of the same ages and about the same as for white males 16 to 19. The violent victimization of white males age 16 to 19 exceeded that of black males of similar ages. This difference was largely due to white males' higher rates of simple assault among those age 16 to 19. ---------------------- Marital status ---------------------- *Persons who had never married had the highest rate of violent crimes, followed by divorced or separated individuals. Widowed persons had the lowest rate of violent crime. *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 had higher rates than their female counterparts. Unmarried males also had the highest violent victimization rates (112 per 1,000). *Females who were divorced or separated were as likely as those who had never married to experience a rape/sexual assault. *Of those divorced or separated, females were somewhat more likely than males to have experienced simple assault. ---------------- Income ---------------- *In general, persons from households with low incomes experienced higher violent crime victimization rates than persons from wealthier households. *Persons from households with annual incomes below $7,500 were over twice as likely as those from households with incomes of $75,000 or more to be violent crime victims. *Persons from households with yearly incomes under $7,500 had significantly higher rates of rape/sexual assault and aggravated assault compared to persons in all other income groups. Persons from households with annual incomes below $7,500 had personal theft rates that were not significantly different from those of persons with household incomes of $75,000 or more. *Black persons from households earning between $7,500 and $14,999 each year had a violent crime rate significantly greater than that of whites with similar incomes. Black persons from households with an annual income of $50,000 or more had higher violent crime rates than whites from households in this income range. For all other income levels, there were no significant differences between black and white households. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Characteristics of property crime victims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Property crimes consist of completed or attempted burglaries, thefts, and motor vehicle thefts committed against a household. Victimization rates are calculated using the number of incidents per 1,000 households. In general, renters, larger households, and households headed by blacks, Hispanics, and younger persons had higher property crime victimization rates. ------------------------------------------------ Victimization levels and rates ------------------------------------------------ *Most crimes sustained in 1993 were property crimes. Households experience about 24 million crimes of theft, 6 million household burglaries, and 2 million motor vehicle thefts. *Expressed as a property crime rate, there were 60 burglaries, 20 motor vehicle thefts, and 243 property thefts per 1,000 households. ---------------------------------------------- Race, ethnicity, and age ----------------------------------------------- *Households headed by blacks had significantly higher rates of burglary and motor vehicle theft than did households headed by whites. Theft rates did not differ significantly among the three racial groups. *Black households had the highest burglary rate (86 burglaries per 1,000 black households). Burglary rates for white households and those of other racial groups were not significantly different (57 versus 51 per 1,000, respectively). *For each property crime measured by the NCVS, Hispanics had significantly greater rates than non-Hispanics. Hispanic households sustained motor vehicle thefts at twice the rate of non-Hispanic households (37 thefts per 1,000 Hispanic households versus 18 per 1,000 non-Hispanic households). *When the rate of motor vehicle theft was calculated on the basis of the number of vehicles owned, black households experienced a theft rate 3 times that of white households. Households renting their homes sustained motor vehicle thefts at a greater rate than other households. Urban households experienced these thefts at 6 times the rate of rural households. *Property crime rates generally declined as the age of the head of the household increased. ------------------------------------------- Annual household income -------------------------------------------- *In general, households with higher annual household incomes were victimized by property crimes at greater rates than the lowest income households. However, households earning under $7,500 a year sustained burglaries at almost twice the rate of households with the highest annual incomes. *Within most income categories black households had higher burglary rates than white households. For both the lowest and the highest income groupings, however, rates for different racial groups did not vary measurably. *Within each income group, black households generally sustained motor vehicle thefts at a greater rate than white households. Black households with annual incomes between $7,500 and $24,999 experienced motor vehicle thefts at twice the rate of their white counterparts. Those earning between $25,000 and $34,999 a year or between $50,000 and $74,999 annually had rates almost 3 times those of comparable white households. ---------------------------- Household size ----------------------------- As household size increased, victimization rates in each category of property crime also increased. For example, households with six or more members experienced an overall property crime rate that was 3 times the rate for households with a single member. ---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter III - Victims and offenders ---------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------- Victim-offender relationship ----------------------------------------------------- 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 Appendix IV: Glossary contains information about classifying crimes as involving strangers and nonstrangers. *Robbery and aggravated assault were more likely to be committed by strangers than nonstrangers. Rape/sexual assault and simple assault were more likely to be committed by nonstrangers than strangers. *Fifty-three percent of all violent victimizations, 28% of rapes, 81% of robberies, and 50% of assaults were committed by strangers in 1993. *Males were more likely than females to be victimized by strangers. *There was no significant difference between blacks and whites in proportions of violent victimizations committed by strangers. *Women who were divorced or separated were less likely than women in any other marital status category to report that they had been victimized by strangers. --------------------------------------------- Characteristics of offenders ------------------------------------------------- Victims were also asked to describe the offenders. The following description of drug use, age, sex, and race are based on the victim's perception of the offender. ---------------------------------------------------- Drug and alcohol use by offenders ---------------------------------------------------- Twenty-nine 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 -- 20% alcohol only, 4% drugs alone, and 4% both. ------------------------------ Family violence ------------------------------ Family violence includes 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. (See Appendix IV: Glossary for the definition of multiple offenders.) *About 88% of the violent crimes committed by relatives were assaults -- 68% simple assaults and 20% aggravated assaults. *Family violence accounted for 9% of all violent crimes, including 14% of completed crimes and 8% of attempted crimes. Victims' relatives committed 14% of all rapes/sexual assaults, 4% of all robberies, and 10% of all assaults. *Fifty-four percent of the 1 million violent crimes occurring between relatives involved the spouse or the ex-spouse 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 17% of the crimes between relatives, while violence from other relatives accounted for 29%. *The rate of violent crimes against women committed by relatives was 8 per 1,000, while the rate for men was 2 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 unrelated persons whom they knew well. There was no significant difference between whites and blacks in the rates of violent victimizations committed by relatives or casual acquaintances. *People who were married or widowed 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. ----------------------------------------------------- Number of victims in violent crimes ----------------------------------------------------- *The vast majority of violent crimes were committed against one individual (93%). When a violent incident did involve more than one victim, most commonly two people were victimized. ------------------------------------------------------- Number of offenders in violent crimes -------------------------------------------------------- *The majority of violent incidents were committed by a lone offender. 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. *In both single and multiple offender crimes, the offender(s) were more likely to be male. ------------------------------------------------ Characteristics of offenders ------------------------------------------------ Single-offender victimizations ******************************* *In nearly a third of violent victimizations committed by a single offender, the perpetrator was perceived to be between ages 12 and 20; less than a third, 21 to 29, and in more than a third, age 30 or older. *The offender was white in a majority of all single offender assaults (67%) and rape/sexual assaults (69%). Single offender robberies were about equally likely to have been committed by whites or blacks. *Most violent crime was intraracial. Seventy-four percent of all single offender violent crimes against whites were committed by whites. Eighty- one percent of single offender violent crimes against blacks were committed by blacks. *For violent victimizations committed by a single offender, 44% involved a stranger to the victim; 12% a relative; 24% a person well known to the victim; and 19% a casual acquaintance. Multiple-offender victimizations ********************************* *In multiple-offender victimizations, most frequently the offenders were all perceived to be between the ages of 12 and 20. *According to victim perceptions, a higher percentage of multiple-offender robberies were committed by black offenders than by white offenders. For assaults, the converse was true. *For violent victimizations committed by multiple offenders, 79% involved strangers to the victim; 11%, casual acquaintances; 8%, persons well known but not related to the victim; and 2% relatives of the victim. -------------------------------------- Chapter IV - Geography --------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- Number of years at current residence ---------------------------------------------------------- More transient persons and households had higher victimization rates. ------------------------------------- Locality of residence ------------------------------------ *Residents of suburban and rural areas had rates of violent crime that were not significantly different (46 victimizations per every 1,000 residents versus 42 per every 1,000, respectively.) Residents of cities had the highest violent crime victimization rates (69 victimizations per every 1,000 residents). *Among suburban males, blacks experienced violent crime at slightly higher rates than whites. *For urban and rural area residents, the violent victimization rates of black and white males were not significantly different. *Only in urban areas were black females more likely than white females to be violent crime victims (79 victimizations per 1,000 versus 54 per 1,000, respectively); for suburban and rural areas there were no significant differences between the two groups. *Households in urban areas had the highest property victimization rates, followed by those in suburban areas and rural areas. *For each specific category of property crimes except burglary, urban households had the highest victimization rates and rural household had the lowest. There was some evidence suburban compared to rural households had higher burglary rates. *Burglary and motor vehicle rates for black households were higher than for white households in urban and suburban areas. *There was no significant difference in theft rates between white and black households in urban or suburban areas. In rural areas, the rates of theft were higher for white households than for black households. *For white households, motor vehicle theft rates were highest in urban areas and lowest in rural areas. *Motor vehicle theft rates were higher for black households in urban areas compared to black households in suburban areas. *Households in urban areas had the highest property crime rates compared to households in suburban and rural areas. ----------- Region ----------- *The western region had the highest victimization rates for violent crimes and property crimes. In each region -- Northeast, Midwest, South, and West -- households in urban areas had the highest victimization rates for property crimes, followed by households in suburban areas. Households in rural areas had the lowest rates of property crimes. ------------------------------------------ Chapter V - The crime event ------------------------------------------ -------------------------------- Time of occurrence --------------------------------- *In general, violent crimes were equally likely to occur during the day or night. Violent incidents occurring at night more frequently were committed between 6 p.m. and midnight. *Rape/sexual assaults and motor vehicle thefts were more likely to occur at night than during the day. *Armed robberies were more likely to occur at night than during the day, especially at between 6 p.m. and midnight. *Assaults by armed offenders occurring at night were most likely committed between 6 p.m. and midnight. ---------------------------------- Place of occurrence ----------------------------------- *The largest proportion of violent incidents occurred on a street away from the victim's home (20%). The victim's home was the next most common site for a violent crime (15%). Almost 9% of violent crimes occurred in a parking lot or a garage and 13% inside a school building or on school property. Approximately 1% of violent incidents were committed on public transportation or inside the station. *Thirty-six percent of robberies took place on the street away from the victim's home. *The most common place for a motor vehicle theft to occur was in a parking lot or garage (32%). 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 (26% and 19%, respectively). *The largest proportion of armed robberies and armed assaults occurred on a street away from the victim's home. About 10% of armed robberies and assaults occurred in the victim's home. *Violent crimes involving strangers were most likely to take place on the street away from the victim's home, while violent crimes involving persons who knew each other were most likely to occur in the victim's home. *Twenty-seven percent of all violent incidents occurred in or near the victim's home. Including those, about half took place within 5 miles of the victim's home. Four percent took place more than 50 miles from home. ------------------------- Victim activity ------------------------ *Violent incidents were most likely to occur while the victims were taking part in a leisure activity away from home, such as patronizing a restaurant or nightclub. The second most likely activity at the time of a violent crime victimization was doing something at home other than sleeping. At the time of the crime, victims of property crime were more likely to be sleeping than doing any other type of activity. A leisure activity away from home was the next most common activity. ------------------------------ Use of weapons ------------------------------- *Offenders used or possessed a weapon in an estimated 27% of overall violent incidents, 8% of rapes/sexual assaults, 52% of robberies, and 25% of assaults. *Offenders were armed with a firearm in 10% of all violent crimes; a knife in 6% and some other object used as a weapon in 5%. *Violent crimes by strangers were more likely than crimes by nonstrangers to involve a weapon. ------------------------------- Victim self-protection ------------------------------- *In incidents involving physical force, 83% of victims reported that the offender was the first to use force. *In about 71% of all violent crimes, 81% of rapes and sexual assaults, 61% of robberies, and 71% 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 65 or older 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 to warn or scare the offender. *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 was that the action made the offender angrier or more aggressive. ------------------------- Physical injury --------------------------- *Females were more likely than males to sustain injuries in assaults (27% versus 20%, respectively). *Blacks were more likely than whites to sustain injuries in assaults. *Victims who knew their offenders were more likely than victims who did not know their assailants to suffer injuries as a result of a robbery or assault. *Violent crime victims receiving medical care were most frequently treated at a hospital emergency room or emergency clinic (31%) or at their own home, a neighbor's, or a friend's (31%). *Victims received hospital care in about 5% of all victimizations. Robbery victims were more likely than assault victims to receive hospital care (8% versus 4%). *Black victims were significantly more likely than white victims to receive hospital care. -------------------------- Economic loss ------------------------- Nineteen percent of all personal crimes and 16% of violent crimes resulted in economic loss to the victim. Ninety-four percent of all property crimes resulted in economic loss from theft or damage of property. *In 1993, crime cost victims approximately $19.4 billion. This includes victims' estimates of the cost of the stolen property, the cost to repair or replace damaged property, medical expenses, and lost wages due to injuries, police related activities, court related activities, or time spent repairing or replacing damaged property. *An estimated 33% of all personal crimes resulted in economic lossunder $50. In 15% of violent crimes and 16% of property crimes, the loss was $500 or more. -------------------------------- Time lost from work -------------------------------- Victims lost time from work in approximately 6% of violent victimizations, and 5% of property crimes. *Robberies were more likely than simple assaults to result in the victim losing time from work. *Victims were away from work between 1 and 5 days in 50% of the violent victimizations that resulted in loss of time from work. In nearly 26% of the violent victimizations resulting in time lost from work, victims were absent for less than a day, and in 12% they missed work for 11 or more days. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter VI - Victims and the criminal justice system ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The majority of crimes measured by the NCVS in 1993 were not reported to the police. The NCVS data provide reasons why crimes were or were not reported, as well as information on who did or did not report crimes. ------------------------------ Rates of reporting ------------------------------ A majority of crimes were not reported to police. About 35% of all victimizations, 42% of violent victimizations, 27% of personal thefts, and 33% of all property crimes were reported to the police. *More than 3 out of 4 motor vehicle thefts were reported to the police, making this the most highly reported of the major crime categories. Rapes and sexual assaults, pocket picking/- purse snatching, and crimes of theft were the least likely to be reported (29%, 26%, and 27%, respectively). *Completed robberies, simple assaults, burglaries, and motor vehicle thefts were more likely to be reported to the police than attempts at these crimes. *Females were somewhat more likely than males to report violent victimizations to the police. *Blacks were significantly more likely than whites to report violent victimizations to the police. *There was no measurable difference between the rates at which Hispanics and non-Hispanics reported violent crimes to police. *In general, victims of violent crimes were more likely to report the crime to the police when the offender was a stranger than when the offender was known to the victim (45% versus 38%). *Blacks and Hispanics, as opposed to whites and non-Hispanics, were more likely to report violent victimizations committed by nonstrangers. *The youngest victims of violent crime -- those between ages 12 and 19 -- were less likely than persons in any other age group to report crimes to the police. Violent crime reporting rates for persons 20 and over were similar across age groups. *Members of white households were more likely to report property thefts to the police than were members of black households (26% versus 23%, respectively). No measurable differences between the two racial groups were found in the reporting rates of burglary or motor vehicle theft. *Non-Hispanic households were significantly more likely than Hispanic households to report property thefts to the police. *People who owned their homes were no more likely than those that rented to report property crimes to the police (34% versus 33%). However, white homeowners were generally more likely than white renters to report motor vehicle and property thefts -- a pattern that did not hold for blacks. *There were no consistent patterns in the reporting of crimes to the police based on annual household income. *As the value of loss increased, so did the likelihood that a property crime would be reported. About 9 in 10 of victimizations involving losses of $1,000 or more were reported to the police compared to about 1 in 10 involving losses less than $10. ------------------------------------------------------------ Reasons for reporting and not reporting ------------------------------------------------------------ *The two most common reasons victims gave for reporting violent crimes to the police were to prevent further crimes from being committed against them by the same offender (19%) and because the incident was a crime (22%). For the property crimes, the most common reason given was because the incident was a crime (29%). *In general, the most common reason given for not reporting violent victimizations to the police was that the crime was a private or personal matter (21%). The next most common reason cited was that the offender had been unsuccessful (18%). *For property crimes the most common reason for not reporting to the police was that an object had been recovered (29%). The next most common reason given was that there was a lack of proof relating to the crime (11%). *Black victims were significantly more likely than white victims to say a violent crime was not reported because it was too inconvenient. White victims were somewhat more likely than black victims not to report because the offender was unsuccessful. In terms of property crimes, white victims more frequently than black victims chose not to report because an object had been recovered or because the incident was not considered important enough to the victim. *Victims gave different reasons for not reporting crimes to the police when the offender was a stranger than when a nonstranger. Victims of crimes by strangers were more likely to give as a reason for not reporting the victimization that the offender was unsuccessful or because the victim felt that the police would not want to be bothered. Persons victimized by someone they knew were more likely to give as a reason for not reporting that they considered the incident to be a private or personal matter or because of a fear of reprisal by the offender). ----------------------------------------- Police responses to crime ------------------------------------------- *The police were more likely to respond to violent crimes than property crimes; they responded in 71% of violent crimes and 62% of property crimes. In 13% of violent crimes and 29% of property crimes the police did not respond. *For those crimes to which police responded, in 88% of violent crimes and 78% of property crimes the response was within an hour. The police were more likely to respond within 5 minutes to a violent crime than to any property crime. *For both violent and property crimes, the police most often took a report during their initial contact with victims (39% and 50%, respectively). They were also likely to question witnesses or suspects when a violent crime had occurred and to look around when they had responded to a property crime. *Whether victimized by a violent or a property crime, victims rarely received any assistance from either government or private agencies. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I - Survey instrument (questionnaire form NCVS-1 and crime incident report form NCVS-2) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II - National Crime Victimization Survey redesign ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is one of two Justice Department measures of crime in the United States. A pioneering effort when it was begun in 1972, the survey was intended to complement what is known about crime from the FBI's annual compilation of information reported to law enforcement agencies. The survey provides a detailed picture of crime incidents, victims, and trends from the victim's perspective. This year the survey results reflect major improvements in the methods used to measure victimization. These changes are the product of: *a decade-long technical review and testing of the survey's design *consultation with criminal justice experts and victim advocacy groups on the survey's content and procedures. Among the most important changes to the questionnaire were: *additional cues to help survey participants recall incidents *questions encouraging respondents to report victimizations that they themselves may not define as crimes *more direct questions on rape, sexual assault, and other sexual crimes *new material to measure victimizations by non-strangers, including domestic violence. These improvements result in more complete reporting of the number and nature of victimizations, particularly for the crimes of simple assault, rape, and other sexual assault. ------------------------------------------ The NCVS redesign timing ------------------------------------------- In the mid-1970's the National Academy of Sciences evaluated the NCVS for accuracy and usefulness. While the survey was found to be an effective instrument for measuring crime, reviewers identified aspects of the methodology and scope of the NCVS that could be improved. They proposed research to investigate the following: *an enhanced screening section that would better stimulate respondents' recall of victimizations *screening questions that would sharpen the concepts of criminal victimization and diminish the effects of subjective interpretations of the survey questions *additional questions on the nature and consequence of victimizations that would yield useful data for analysis *enhanced questions and inquiries about domestic violence, rape, and sexual attack to get better estimates of these hard-to-measure victimizations. ------------------------------------------------------ Appendix IV - Survey methodology ------------------------------------------------------ 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 selected 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. The interviewer may then conduct subsequent visits, except for the fifth, by telephone. To elicit more accurate reporting of incidents, NCVS directly interviews each person 12 years or older in the household. Proxy interviewing instead of direct interviewing may be done in the following three cases: 12- and 13-year-old persons when a knowledgeable household member insists they not be interviewed directly, incapacitated persons, and individuals absent from the household during the entire field-interviewing period. 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. As noted in the sample design section, about 30% of the interviews in the 1993 sample were conducted using Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI), a data collection mode which involves interviewing from centralized facilities and using a computerized instrument. In the CATI-eligible part of the sample, all interviews are done by telephone whenever possible, except for the first and fifth interviews, which are still primarily conducted in person. The telephone interviews are conducted by the Census Bureau's CATI facilities (Hagerstown, Maryland, and Tucson, Arizona). -------------------------------------- Sample design and size ----------------------------------------- Survey estimates are derived from a stratified, multi-stage cluster sample. The primary sampling units (PSU's) composing the first stage of the sample 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) since all of them were selected. The remaining PSU's, called non-self-representing (NSR) because only a subset of them was selected, were combined into strata by grouping PSU's with similar geographic and demographic characteristics, as determined by the 1980 census. The 1993 NCVS sample households were drawn according to a design based on the 1980 census. This design consisted of 84 SR PSU's and 153 NSR strata, with 1 PSU per stratum selected with probability proportionate to population size. The NCVS sample design has been revised to take advantage of the availability of data from the 1990 census. However, the 1990-based sample will not start contributing to the NCVS estimates until 1995. The two remaining stages of sampling were designed to ensure a self-weighting (Self-weighting means that, prior to any weighting adjustments, each sample housing unit had the same overall probability of being selected) probability sample of housing units and group-quarter dwellings within each of the selected areas. 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 segments (clusters of approximately four housing units each) from within each enumeration district. To account for units built within each of the sample areas after the 1980 Census, a sample was drawn 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 unit built after 1980 to be properly represented in the survey. Approximately 58,700 housing units and other living quarters were designated for the sample. In order to conduct field interviews, the sample is divided into six groups, or rotations, and each group of households is interviewed once every 6 months over a period of 3 years. The initial interview is used to bound the interviews (bounding establishes a timeframe to avoid duplication of crimes on subsequent interviews), but is not used to compute the annual estimates. Each rotation group is further divided into six panels. A different panel of households, corresponding to one sixth of each rotation group, is interviewed each month during the 6-month period. Because the survey is continuous, newly constructed housing units are selected as 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. 1992-93 sample split ********************* In 1992 and part of 1993, the sample was split in half. Fifty percent of sample households were assigned a revised questionnaire or an old questionnaire. Rigorous control was exercised over the composition of the half-samples to make them as comparable as possible in terms of crime characteristics. The 50-50 split with the 18-month overlap was designed to permit comparative analyses between the old and new methods, to provide a basis for measuring the impact of the new methods on the crime rates, and to lay the foundation for statistical adjustments to connect the historical and the new time series of crime rates. As the NCVS new methods were still being phased-in in January through June 1993, persons in about 28,700 housing units, designated to be in a half-sample, continued under the old methods while those in the remaining half-sample were given the redesigned methods. Beginning in July 1993, however, all 58,710 sample households were given the redesigned methods. Complete interviews were obtained for about 48,270 households in 1993, about 95.6% of all eligible housing units. Within the interviewed households, some 93,420 persons or about 93.1%, provided responses; the other individuals for the most part either refused, or were unavailable or unable to answer and no proxy was available. The remaining 10,440 housing units were not interviewed because either they were ineligible -- vacant, demolished, or otherwise ineligible -- for the survey (about 8,200 units), or the occupants could not be reached or refused to participate (about 2,240 units). Only information collected under the new NCVS methods was used in the data tables shown in this report. It should be noted that, with the exclusion of the cases using the old methods in the first half of 1993, standard errors for 1993 are larger than those in previous years, although smaller than for 1992. Still, larger observed differences between two numbers are needed in order to be declared significantly different. ----------------------------- Selection of cases for CATI ----------------------------- About 30% of the 48,270 households in the 1993 sample were interviewed using the CATI. Currently, the NCVS sample PSU's fall into three groups of CATI usage: maximum-CATI PSU's, where all the segments in the PSU are CATI-eligible; half-CATI PSU's, (randomly designated); and no-CATI PSU's. The level of CATI usage for each PSU provided an optimal workload for the field interviewers. All CATI interviews are conducted from CATI facilities, while the other sample cases are interviewed by the standard NCVS field procedures. ----------------------------------- Series victimizations ------------------------------------ A series victimization is defined as six or more similar but separate crimes which the victim is unable to recall individually or describe in detail to an interviewer. These series crimes have been excluded from the tables in this report because the victims were unable to provide details for each event. Data on series crimes are gathered by the calendar quarter(s) of occurrence, making it possible to match the timeframes used in tabulating the data for non-series crimes. A total of 782,630 personal series crimes and 460,740 property series crimes were measured in 1993. Series crimes tended to be crimes of violence. 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 Criminal Victimization in the United States; 1973-80 Trends, BJS Technical Report, NCJ-80838, July 1982). 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 2 years were basically in the same direction and significantly affected the same crimes as those affected when only non-series crimes were analyzed. ----------------------------------- Accuracy of estimates ----------------------------------- The accuracy of an estimate is a measure of its total error, that is, the sum of all the errors affecting the estimate: sampling error as well as nonsampling error. 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 from one another due to sampling variability, or sampling error. 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 (reliability) 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 in an unbiased design, 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% confidence interval is the estimate plus or minus twice the standard error, thus there is a 95% 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. While substantial care is taken in the NCVS to reduce the sources of nonsampling error throughout all the survey operations, by means of a quality assurance program, quality controls, operational controls, and error-correcting procedures, an unquantified amount of nonsampling error remains still. Major sources of nonsampling error are related to the ability of the respondents to recall in detail the crimes which occurred during the 6 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 an understatement of the actual rate of assault. However, as part of the redesign of the survey, substantial improvements were made to measure crime more accurately and, therefore, reduce the nonsampling error. The NCVS now includes improved questions and cues that aid victims in recalling victimizations. More explicit questions are now asked about sexual victimizations, and new components have been added to measure victimizations by nonstrangers. 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 are placed within the 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 be determined whether or not it is a new one by discussing it with the victim. Events which occurred after the reference period are set aside for inclusion with the data from the following interview. Other sources of nonsampling error can 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. Quality control and editing procedures were used to minimize the number of errors made by the respondents and the interviewers. Since 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. Standard errors measure only those nonsampling errors arising from transient factors affecting individual responses completely at random (simple response variance); they do not reveal any systematic biases in the data. As calculated in the NCVS, the standard errors would partially measure nonsampling error arising from some of the above sources, such as transient memory errors or accidental errors in recording or coding answers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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% confidence level, or roughly 1.6 standard errors. Most of the comparisons in this report were significant at the 95% 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% test were not considered statistically significant. Comparisons qualified by the phrase "some evidence" or "statistically significant" had a significance level between 90% and 95%. Deriving standard errors, which are applicable to a wide variety of items and which can be prepared at a moderate cost requires a number of approximations. Therefore, three generalized variance function (gvf) constant parameters (identified as "a", "b", and "c" 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. The gvf represents the curve fitted to the individual standard errors, which were calculated using the jackknife repeated replication technique. The 1993 gvf provides revised values for the "a" and "b" parameters, and a new, third "c" parameter. The following are the notation, formulas, and parameters for use of the gvf. Notation ********* x = the estimated number (level) of personal or household victimizations or incidents y = the base; either the total number of persons or households (for victimization rates) or the total of all victimizations (for incident characteristics) p = the estimated proportion, resulting from dividing the number of victimizations into the base. Also, the percentage or rate expressed in decimal form. The percentage is 100p and the rate per thousand is 1000p. s(p) = the estimated standard error of "p" It follows that: s(percentage) = s(100p) = 100 s(p) s(rate) = s(1000p) = 1000 s(p) a,b,c = the generalized variance function parameters (see chart) GVF parameters for 1993 data-year estimates -------------------------------------------- Personal crimes a = -0.0002399097 b = 2752 c = 3.30 Property crimes a = -0.0002379678 b = 2787 c = 2.10 -------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Appendix V - Chronology ------------------------------------------------ Mid-1960's *First U.S. victimization surveys carried out by the National Opinion Research Center for the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Task Force Report: Crime and Its Impact -- An Assessment. Washington, USGPO, 1967; A. Biderman, Johnson, McIntyre, and Weir, Report on a Pilot Study in the District of Columbia on Victimization and Attitudes Toward Law Enforcement, Field Studies I, President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Washington: USGPO 1967; P. Ennis, Criminal Victimization in the United States: A Report of a National Survey. Field Studies II, President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Washington: USGPO 1967. 1967-68 -- *Census Bureau conferences on need for law enforcement, courts, and corrections data. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Report on National Needs for Criminal Justice Statistics, Washington: USGPO, 1968. 1969 -- Statistics Division organized in Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA). Planning for NCS begins. March 1970 -- First reverse record check study conducted in Washington, D.C. Known victims (identified through police records) were interviewed to test the questionnaire. July 1970 -- Baltimore reverse record check study. Jan. 1971 -- *San Jose reverse record check study. San Jose Methods Test of Known Crime Victims. Washington: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA), 1972. Household victimization surveys in San Jose and Dayton, using probability sample. (Crime and Victims: A Report on the Dayton-San Jose Pilot Survey of Victimization. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service. Washington: June, 1974.) Jan.-July 1971 -- First and second victimization supplements to Quarterly Household Survey (QHS). Designed to indicate sample size needed for reliable estimates of victimization and to resolve remaining methodological issues. Jan.-July 1972 -- Third and final QHS supplements. July-Dec. 1972 -- *Data collection for NCS national sample begins. Half of sample introduced during this period. A rotating panel design is adopted that requires 7 successive interviews at 6-month intervals for all eligible respondents at a housing location. Commercial Victimization Survey begins. First Cities Surveys conducted in 8 impact cities: Atlanta, Baltimore, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Newark, Portland OR, and St. Louis. Jan.-June 1973 -- Remainder of national sample introduced to produce a total of 72,000 housing locations in active sample. 1973 -- Cities surveys conducted in large urban centers: Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, and Philadelphia. 1974 -- One-time cities surveys conducted in Boston, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Houston, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Oakland, Pittsburgh, San Diego, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. 1974-76 -- *National Academy of Sciences reviews NCS program. Surveying Crime, Bettye K. Eidson Penick, ed. Washington: National Academy of Sciences, 1976. 1975 -- Cities surveys replicated in impact cities and large urban centers. July 1976 -- NCS national sample matures. In-rotation of new sample unit fully balanced by out-rotation sample scheduled for all 7 interviews. Provides full comparability of annual estimates. Dec. 1976 -- Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1973 released. (National Crime Survey Report No. SD-NCP-N-4). First annual report based on national NCS sample. 1976-77 -- *Census Bureau experiment on effect of personal visit versus telephone interviews. H. Woltman and J. Bushery, Results of the NCS Maximum Personal Visit -- Maximum Telephone Interview Experiment. Washington: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Methods Division, 1977. 1977 -- *Congressional hearings on continuation of NCS program. As a result of the National Academy evaluation, LEAA considered suspending data collection, pending outcome of research and design project to redesign survey. House Subcommittee on Crime examined implications of this proposal. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Ninety-Fifth congress, First Session on Suspension of the National Crime Survey, October 13, 1977, Serial No. 23. Washington: USGPO, 1977. Commercial Victimization Survey (CVS) suspended, because of two concerns: (1) FBI's Uniform Crime Reports collected such data well, and CVS appeared to duplicate this function; (2) obstacles to maintaining current sampling frame for commercial victims limited the accuracy and utility of CVS estimates. *Data collection for National Survey of Crime Severity supplement. M. Wolfgang, Figlio, Tracy, and Singer, The National Survey of Crime Severity. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1985. 1978 -- *LEAA Statistics Division sponsors conference in Leesburg, Virginia, to evaluate NCS conceptual and methodological issues. Conference report proposes agenda for research and development. A. Biderman, Toward an Agenda for Research on National Victimization Survey Statistics. Unpublished manuscript. *Research Triangle Institute analysis of NCS benefits and uses. Analysis of the Utility and Benefits of the National Crime Survey (NCS); Research Triangle Park: Research Triangle Institute: 1978. Request for proposals issued for major redesign of NCS. 1979 -- Modifications to NCS-2 (Incident Form) introduced. NCS redesign contract awarded to Crime Survey Research Consortium (CSRC), headed by the Bureau of Social Science Research. New crime legislation splits LEAA into separate program agencies, among them the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), which assumes responsibility for NCS. 1980 -- Proportion of NCS phone interviews increased from 20% to 50%. (Interviews 1,3,5,7 conducted in person, remainder by phone when possible.) *CSRC convenes Workshop on Applying Cognitive Psychology to Recall Problems of the National Crime Survey. Conference suggestions used to develop new approach to eliciting reports of victimization in NCS-1 (Screener). J. Moore, Report of the Workshop on Applying Cognitive Psychology to Recall Problems of the National Crime Survey. Unpublished manuscript. 1981 -- Measuring Crime released, inaugurating BJS Bulletin series. Compares NCS and Uniform Crime Reports methodologies and measures. CSRC conducts first test of new screening strategies to elicit reports of victimizations in Peoria reverse record check study. First application of Computer Assisted Telephone interviewing (CATI) methods to NCS. 1982 -- Households Touched by Crime, 1981 released, introducing NCS indicator of victimization prevalence. Criminal Victimization in the United States 1979-80 Changes, 1973-80 Trends (NCS-87587) released. First NCS Technical Report. 1982-83 -- *Longitudinal Task Force, created by CSRC, studies feasibility of adopting longitudinal design for NCS. T. Jabine, Longitudinal Task Force Findings and Recommendations. Unpublished manuscript. 1983 -- Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1973-82 Trends (NCJ-90541) released. First NCS Special Report. *District of Columbia Victimization Survey conducted. Questionnaire, using new screening techniques, developed by CSRC. B. Cox and J. Collins, Criminal Victimization of District of Columbia Residents and Capitol Hill Employees. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1985. BJS creates Implementation Task Force to evaluate proposed changes emerging from CSRC work and to advise on strategies for adopting revisions in operational NCS environment. Proposed changes are divided into two groups, depending on their expected likelihood for affecting crime rates. Near-term changes (judged non-rate-affecting) were implemented simultaneously in 1986 (near-term changes). Long-term changes (rate-affecting) were later implemented together. Design work begins at Census Bureau for CATI version of NCS. 1984 -- Severity of crime (NCJ-92326) published. Victim Risk Supplement (VRS) administered as part of ongoing NCS, in part to examine viability of regular inclusion of supplements as part of NCS data collection program. (Results reported in Special Report Crime Prevention Measures, NCJ-99643, 1986.) CSRC tests three screening strategies in Peoria, using reverse record check and Random Digit Dial (RDD) data. NCS sample cut of 15% implemented to provide funds for redesign testing and phase-in at Census Bureau. 1985 -- Census Bureau opens provisional CATI interviewing facility in Hagerstown, MD. NCS is the first federally-sponsored survey program to evaluate use of CATI for data collection and to utilize this facility. *CSRC conducts split-ballot test, comparing revised screener and current NCS vehicle, using national RDD sample. Revised screener produced a net increase of 28% more victimization reports. Contractual phase of CSRC work ends. The National Survey of Crime Severity (NCJ-96017) published. 1986 -- *Redesigned sample based on 1980 Decennial Census introduced. Incorporates stratifiers based on Uniform Crime Reports jurisdiction-level data. Public use tape record ID scrambled to preserve confidentiality. Proportion of NCS phone interviews increased from 50% to 75%. (Interviews 1 and 5 conducted in person) BJS finalizes long-term, rate-affecting revisions to NCS and communicates these decisions to Census Bureau. July 1986 -- Near-term changes implemented. 1987 -- Census Bureau begins phase-in of CATI for cases drawn from actual NCS sample at Hagerstown (400 cases). Census Bureau conducts Washington, D.C. area pretest of long-term NCS revisions. 1988 -- Census Bureau increases NCS cases receiving CATI from 400 to 600 monthly. 1988-89 -- Census Bureau conducts three-wave national pretest of long-term changes, using 6-month reference period and bounded data. 1989 -- *Census Bureau begins phase-in of long-term changes. Random 5% of NCS sample receives long-term questionnaire. Three publications related to NCS Redesign project appear: Redesigned National Crime Survey: Selected New Data (NCJ-114746); Redesign of the National Crime Survey (NCJ-111457); New directions for the National Crime Survey Technical report (NCJ-115571). Jan.-June 1989 -- Data collection for School Crime supplement. 1990 -- Additional 5% (total 10%) of NCS sample receives long-term questionnaire. CATI first used with long-term questionnaire on these cases. 1991 -- CATI fully implemented for 10% of sample receiving long-term questionnaire. July 1991 -- Rape and sexual assault screener items are revised in long-term questionnaire to improve accuracy of sexual victimization measures. Survey name changed to National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Subsequent discussion results in name National Crime Survey being used for data collected prior to long-term changes, National Crime Victimization Survey afterwards. Sept. 1991 -- *Report issued on School Crime supplement. School Crime, (NCJ-131645) published. Jan. 1992 -- Proportion of NCVS sample receiving long-term questionnaire increased to 50%. CATI fully implemented for sample receiving long-term questionnaire. Question asking about membership in sreet gang by offender(s) is added to incident form, which details characteristics of victimization. July 1993 -- Long-term NCVS questionnaire fully implemented. Oct. 1993 -- Criminal Victimization 1992 (NCJ-144776) published. Last annual change estimates utilizing near-term questionnaire. Highlights from 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims, The National Crime Victimization Survey, 1973-1992 (NCJ-144525) published. Jan. 1994 -- First NCVS Data Brief released. July 1994 -- Criminal Victimization in the United States: 1973-92 Trends (NCJ-147006) released. Final trends report before break in series resulting from implementation of long-term revisions. Aug.-Sept. 1994 -- First data utilizing new, long-term procedures received for producing annual change estimates. Oct.-Nov. 1994 -- First annual change estimates utilizing long-term questionnaire announced (1992-93). Jan.-June 1995 -- Replication of School Crime Supplement, co-sponsored with National Center for Education Statistics. May 1995 -- Criminal Victimization 1993 (NCJ-151658) released. First released data from the revised screener estimates. Break in series from earlier NCS data collected with original screener. April 1996 -- Criminal Victimization 1994 (NCJ-158022) released. First release of 1994 findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), based on an ongoing survey of households. Summarizes characteristics of victims and comparisons between 1993 and 1994 victimization rates and levels. Both 1993 and 1994 findings are based on the redesigned survey that was phased into the sample beginning in 1992. ------------------------------------ Appendix IV - Glossary ------------------------------------ Age -- The appropriate age category is determined by the respondent's age on the last day of the month before the interview. Annual household income -- The total income of the household head and all members of the household 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. 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. With injury -- An attack without a weapon when serious injury results or an attack with a weapon involving any injury. Serious injury includes broken bones, lost teeth, internal injuries, loss of consciousness, and any unspecified injury requiring two or more days of hospitalization. Threatened with a weapon -- Threat or attempted attack by an offender armed with a gun, knife, or other object used as a weapon, not resulting in victim injury. Assault -- An unlawful physical attack or threat of attack. Assaults may be classified as aggravated or simple. Rape, attempted rape, and sexual assaults 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. Household 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. Completed burglary -- A form of burglary in which a person who has no legal right to be present in the structure successfully gains entry to a residence, by use of force, or without force. Forcible entry -- A form of completed burglary in which force is used to gain entry to a residence. Some examples include breaking a window or slashing a screen. Unlawful entry without force -- A form of completed burglary committed by someone having no legal right to be on the premises, even though no force is used. Attempted forcible entry -- A form of burglary in which force is used in an attempt to gain entry. Commercial crimes -- Crimes against commercial establishments of any type are not included in the survey. Commercial establishments include stores, restaurants, businesses, service stations, medical offices or hospitals, or other similiar establishments. For victimizations occurring in commercial establishments, the crime is included or not included depending upon whether the survey respondent was threatened or harmed in some way or personal property was taken. Crime classification -- Victimizations and incidents are classified based upon detailed characteristics of the event provided by the respondent. Neither victims nor interviewers classify crimes at the time of interview. During data processing, a computer program classifies each event into one type of crime, based upon the entries on a number of items on the survey questionnaire. This ensures that similar events will be classified using a standard procedure. The glossary definition for each crime indicates the major characteristics required to be so classified. If an event can be classified as more than one type of crime, a hierarchy is used which classifies the crime according to the most serious event that occurred. The hierarchy is: rape, sexual assault, robbery, assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, theft. Ethnicity -- A classification based on Hispanic culture and origin, regardless of race. 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. 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. Marital status -- Every person is assigned 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 attained. 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. Completed motor vehicle theft -- The successful taking of a vehicle by an unauthorized person. Attempted motor vehicle theft -- The unsuccessful attempt by an unauthorized person to take a vehicle. Multiple offenders -- Two or more persons inflicting some direct harm to a victim. The victim-offender relationship is determined by the offender with the closest relationship to the victim. The following list ranks the different relationships from closest to most distant: spouse, ex-spouse, parent, child, other relative, nonrelative well-known person, casual acquaintance, or stranger. (see Nonstranger and Stranger) Non-Hispanic -- Persons who report their culture or origin as something other than "Hispanic" as defined above. This distinction is made regardless of race. 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 nonstranger. 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 victim and the offender; the distinction is not made for crimes of theft 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. Personal crimes -- Rape, sexual assault, personal robbery, assault, purse snatching and pocket picking. This category includes both attempted and completed crimes. Place of occurrence of crime -- The location at which a crime occurred, as specified by the victim. Survey measures of crimes occurring in commercial establishments, restaurants, nightclubs, public transportation and other similar places include only those crimes involving NCVS measured crimes against persons, not the establishments. Crimes against commercial establishments and other places are not measured by the survey. Property crimes -- Property crimes including burglary, motor vehicle theft, or theft. This category includes both attempted and completed crimes. Purse snatching/Pocket picking -- Theft or attempted theft of property or cash directly from the victim by stealth, without force or threat of force. Race -- Racial categories for this survey are white, black, and other. The "other" category is composed mainly of Asian Pacific Islanders, and American Indian, Aleut, and Eskimo. The race of the head of household is used in determining the race of the household for computing household crime demographics. Rape -- Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal or oral penetration by the offender(s). This category also includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape. 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, and with or without injury. Completed/property taken -- The successful taking of property from a person by force or threat of force, with or without a weapon, and with or without injury. Completed with injury -- The successful taking of property from a person, accompanied by an attack, either with or without a weapon, resulting in injury. Completed without injury -- The successful taking of property from a person by force or the threat of force, either with or without a weapon, but not resulting in injury. Attempted to take property -- The attempt to take property from a person by force or threat of force without success, with or without a weapon, and with or without injury. Attempted without injury -- The attempt to take property from a person by force or the threat of force without success, either with or without a weapon, but not resulting in injury. Attempted with injury -- The attempt to take property from a person without success, accompanied by an attack, either with or without a weapon, resulting in injury. Rural area -- A place not located inside the Metropolitan Statistical Area. This category includes a variety of localities, ranging from sparsely populated rural areas to cities with populations less than 50,000. Sample -- The set of housing units selected by the U. S. Census Bureau to be interviewed for the survey. All occupants of the household age 12 or older are interviewed. Series -- Six or more similar but separate events, which the respondent is unable to describe separately in detail to an interviewer. Sexual assault -- A wide range of victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between victim and offender. Sexual assaults may or may not involve force and include such things as grabbing or fondling. Sexual assault also includes verbal threats. Simple assault -- Attack without a weapon resulting either in no injury, 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. With minor injury -- An attack without a weapon resulting in such injuries as bruises, black eyes, cuts or in undetermined injury requiring less than 2 days of hospitalization. Without injury -- An attempted assault without a weapon not resulting in injury. 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 theft 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 kind or services. Theft -- Completed or attempted theft of property or cash without personal contact. Incidents involving theft of property from within the sample household would classify as theft if the offender has a legal right to be in the house (such as a maid, delivery person, or guest). If the offender has no legal right to be in the house, the incident would classify as a burglary. Completed -- To successfully take without permission property or cash without personal contact between the victim and offender. Attempted -- To unsuccessfully attempt to take property or cash without personal contact. Urban areas -- The largest city (or grouping of cities) in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (see definition of Metropolitan Statistical Area). 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. Violence, crimes of -- Rape, sexual assault, personal robbery or assault. This category includes both attempted and completed crimes. It does not include purse snatching and pocket picking. Murder is not measured by the NCVS because of an inability to question the victim. Completed violence -- The sum of all completed rapes, sexual assaults, robberies, and assaults. See individual crime types for definition of completed crimes. Attempted/threatened violence -- The unsuccessful attempt of rape, sexual assault, personal robbery or assault. Includes attempted attacks or sexual assaults by means of verbal threats. See individual crime types for definition of attempted crimes.