U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics August 2012, NCJ 238536 Victimizations Not Reported to the Police, 2006-2010 Lynn Langton, BJS Statistician, Marcus Berzofsky, Chris Krebs, and Hope Smiley-McDonald, RTI International --------------------------------------------- This file is text without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in Spreadsheet format (.cvs) and the full report including tables and graphs in .pdf format are available at: http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4393 --------------------------------------------- During the period from 2006 to 2010, 52% of all violent victimizations, or an annual average of 3,382,200 violent victimizations, were not reported to the police. Of these, over a third (34%) went unreported because the victim dealt with the crime in another way, such as reporting it to another official, like a guard, manager, or school official (figure 1). Almost 1 in 5 unreported violent victimizations (18%) were not reported because the victim believed the crime was not important enough. When crimes are not reported to the police, victims may not be able to obtain necessary services to cope with the victimization, offenders may go unpunished, and law enforcement and community resources may be misallocated due to a lack of accurate information about local crime problems. Understanding the characteristics of crimes unknown to police, victims who do not report crimes, and the reasons these crimes are not reported may help identify gaps in the provision of criminal justice services and inform police practice and policies. Using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, this report examines trends in the types of crime not reported to police, the characteristics of unreported victimizations, and the victims’ rationale for not reporting these crimes. ---------------------------------------------------- HIGHLIGHTS * From 1994 to 2010, the percentage of serious violent crime—rape or sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault—that was not reported to police declined from 50% to 42%. * The percentage of unreported violent crime victimizations that were not reported because the victim believed the police would not or could not do anything to help doubled from 10% 1994 to 20% in 2010. * From 2006 to 2010, the highest percentages of unreported crime were among household theft (67%) and rape or sexual assault (65%) victimizations, while the lowest percentage was among motor vehicle theft (17%) victimizations. * About 3 in 10 (31%) victimizations involving a weapon and an injury to the victim went unreported to police between 2006 and 2010. * From 2006 to 2010, a greater percentage of victimizations perpetrated by someone the victim knew well (62%) went unreported to police, compared to victimizations committed by a stranger (51%). * Among unreported intimate partner violent victimizations, 38% went unreported because the victim was afraid of reprisal or getting the offender in trouble. * About 76% of violent crime victimizations that occurred at school were not reported to police. * From 2006 to 2010, victimizations against youth ages 12 to 17 were more likely to go unreported than victimizations against persons in other age categories. -------------------------------------------------------------- Although caution is warranted when comparing data from 2006 to other years, this report examines aggregate data from 2006 to 2010. (See Methodology for more information about the 2006 data collection.) The combination of five years of data diminishes the potential variation between data from 2006 and later years. ------------------------------------------ Percentage of victimizations not reported to police declined from 1994 to 2010 ------------------------------------------ From 1994 to 2010, the percentage of serious violent crime—rape or sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault—that was not reported to police declined overall from 50% to 42% (figure 2). Unreported serious violent victimizations reached one of the lowest levels in 2002, when 34% of these victimizations were not reported to police. The decline in the percentage of unreported rape or sexual assault and aggravated assault victimizations from 1994 to 2010 contributed to the overall decline in unreported serious violent victimizations during this period (appendix table 2). No change was detected in the percentage of unreported robberies from 1994 to 2010. The percentage of property and simple assault victimizations not reported to police declined from 1994 to 2010. Despite an increase in 2006 and 2007, the percentage of simple assaults not reported declined from 63% in 1994 to 51% in 2010. The percentage of property crime victimizations not reported declined from 67% in 1994 to 60% in 2010. ------------------------------------------ Percentage of unreported violent crime victimizations not reported because the victim believed the police would not or could not help doubled from 1994 to 2010 ----------------------------------------- Victims gave a variety of reasons for not reporting violent crime victimizations to the police. From 1994 to 2010 the most common reason was that the victim dealt with the victimization in another way, such as reporting it to another official or addressing it privately (figure 3). In 1994, the percentage of unreported violent crime victimizations that were not reported because the victim believed the crime was not important enough to report (21%) was more than double the percentage that went unreported because the victim believed the police would not or could not help (10%). From 2005 to 2010, the percentage of victimizations that went unreported due to the belief that the police would not or could not help increased from 7% to 20%. In 2010, a greater percentage of unreported victimizations was not reported because the victim believed the police would not or could not help (20%), than was not reported because the victim did not think that the crime was important enough to report (15%). ----------------------------------------- Trends in police-related reasons for not reporting violent crime The percentage of unreported violent victimizations that were not reported because of a police-related reason (i.e., the police would not or could not do anything to help) nearly tripled from 2005 to 2010 (not shown in figure). Within the general category of police-related reasons for not reporting crime, victims gave a number of more specific reasons why violent crimes went unreported. An examination of trends in these more specific police-related reasons for not reporting a violent victimization provides a clearer understanding of the overall increase. The increase in the percentage of unreported violent crime victimizations not reported for police-related reasons was driven by a rise in the percentage of victims who reported that the police would not think the crime was important enough to address, from 5% in 2005 to 12% in 2010 (figure 4). The percentage of victims who said that the police would be ineffective or inefficient also increased from 2% in 1995 to 4% in 2010, as well as the percentage who thought that the police would be biased (from 1% in 1995 to 3% in 2010). The percentage of unreported victimizations that were not reported because the victim believed that the police could not do anything to help remained stable. ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ 2 in 3 (65%) rape or sexual assault victimizations were not reported to police from 2006 to 2010 ------------------------------------------ From 2006 to 2010, the two highest percentages of unreported crime were among household theft (67%) and rape or sexual assault (65%) victimizations, and the lowest percentage was among motor vehicle theft (17%) victimizations (table 1). About 46% of serious violent victimizations were not reported to police. In general, the percentage of unreported victimizations was lower for serious violent crime than simple assault (simple assault does not involve an injury or a weapon). However, a higher percentage of rape or sexual assault victimizations (65%) compared to simple assault victimizations (56%) went unreported during the five-year period. The rationale for not reporting to police varied depending on the type of criminal victimization. For example, among unreported violent crime victimizations, the most common reason the crime was not reported was that the victim dealt with it in another way (34%). Among unreported property crime victimizations, the most common reason was that the victim believed the police would not or could not do anything to help (36%). A lower percentage of unreported serious violent crime (13%) were not reported because the victim believed that the crime was not important enough to report, compared to simple assault (21%) and property crime (30%) victimizations. A greater percentage of unreported rape or sexual assault (28%) and aggravated assault (22%) victimizations compared to any other type of criminal victimization were not reported because the victim was afraid of reprisal or getting the offender in trouble. ------------------------------------------------------ From 2006 to 2010, 3 in 10 victimizations involving a weapon and an injury to the victim went unreported to police ------------------------------------------------------- Violent crime victimizations in which the victim was injured (43%), the offender had a weapon (42%), or both (31%) were less likely to go unreported to police than victimizations in which there was neither an injury nor a weapon (59%) (table 2). About 3 in 10 victimizations (29%) involving a serious injury (e.g., the victim was knocked unconscious or sustained a broken bone, a gunshot or stab wound, or internal injuries) went unreported to police. About 4 in 10 victimizations (38%) involving a firearm went unreported. When the unreported victimization resulted in an injury and the perpetrator had a weapon, the most common reason the police were not notified was that the victim was afraid of reprisal or of getting the offender into trouble (42%). In comparison, when the unreported victimization involved an injury but no weapon (30%), a weapon without an injury (30%), or neither (38%), the most common reason for not reporting was that the victimization was dealt with in another way. ----------------------------------------------- Among unreported intimate partner violence victimizations, the most common reason for not reporting to police was fear of reprisal or getting the offender in trouble (38%) ----------------------------------------------- From 2006 to 2010, victimizations perpetrated by someone who was well known to the victim (62%)—a neighbor, coworker, patient, or teacher—or by someone with whom the victim was casually acquainted (60%) were most likely to go unreported to police (table 3). About 46% of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimizations were not reported to police between 2006 and 2010. The percentage of IPV victimizations not reported to police was about the same, regardless of whether the victimization was a simple assault (44%) or a serious violent crime (47%) (not shown in table). Among the unreported IPV victimizations, 38% went unreported because the victim was afraid of reprisal or getting the offender in trouble. From 2006 to 2010, over half (51%) of violent crime victimizations committed by a stranger went unreported to police. Of those, about 18% went unreported because the victim believed that the police would not or could not do anything to help. ------------------------------------------- About three-quarters of violent crime victimizations that occurred at school were not reported to police ------------------------------------------- From 2006 to 2010, violent crime victimizations that took place at school (76%), in a public location (55%), or at work (56%) were more likely to go unreported to police than violent crime victimizations that took place in the home (42%) (table 4). The greatest percentage of unreported violent crime victimizations that occurred at school (50%) or work (47%) were not reported because the victim dealt with the crime in some other way, such as reporting it to another official such as a manager or school staff. Unreported violent crime victimizations that occurred in the home (27%) were more likely than unreported violent victimizations at school (6%), work (4%), or in a public location (7%) to go unreported because the victim was afraid of reprisal or getting the offender in trouble. --------------------------------------------- A greater percentage of unreported violent victimizations against women (20%) than men (8%) were not reported because the victim was afraid of reprisal or getting the offender in trouble --------------------------------------------- The demographic characteristics of violent crime victims contributed to differences in the percentage of unreported victimizations and reasons for not reporting the crime to the police. From 2006 to 2010, a greater percentage of victimizations against men (55%) were not reported to police than victimizations against women (49%) (table 5). A greater percentage of victimizations against white non-Hispanics (54%) than black non-Hispanics (46%) went unreported to police. The rationale for not reporting a victimization to the police also varied depending on the demographic characteristics of violent crime victims. For example, from 2006 to 2010, a greater percentage of unreported violent victimizations against women (20%) than men (8%) were not reported to police because the victim was afraid of reprisal or getting the offender in trouble. In addition, from 2006 to 2010, unreported violent crimes against victims age 65 or older (33%) were more likely than violent crimes against victims ages 12 to 17 (10%) to go unreported because the victim believed that the police would not or could not do anything to help. A greater percentage of unreported crimes against victims age 17 or younger (42%) than victims age 65 or older (19%) were not reported to police because the victim handled it in another way. ------------------------------------------- Over 20% of unreported violent victimizations against persons living in urban areas were not reported because the victim believed the police would not or could not help -------------------------------------------- During the period from 2006 to 2010, victimizations against persons living in households with two or more children under age 12 were less likely to go unreported to police (46%) than victimizations involving households with no children (54%) or one child (53%) (table 6). A greater percentage of violent victimizations against persons in households with an income of $50,000 or more (56%) went unreported, compared to households with an income of less than $25,000 (50%). Household characteristics associated with violent crime victimizations also contributed to differences in the rationale for not reporting victimizations to police. For instance, unreported violent victimizations against persons living in urban areas (21%) were more likely to not be reported because the victim believed that the police would not or could not do anything to help, in comparison to unreported victimizations against people living in suburban (12%) and rural (16%) areas. -------------------------------------- Methodology -------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- Survey coverage ------------------------------------- The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is an annual data collection conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NCVS collects information on nonfatal crimes, reported and not reported to the police, against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of households in the United States. Survey results are based on data gathered from residents living throughout the United States, including people living in group quarters, such as dormitories, rooming houses, and religious group dwellings. The survey excludes persons living in military barracks and people living in institutional settings, such as correctional or hospital facilities. (For more detail, see the Survey Methodology for Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2007 on the BJS website at www.bjs.gov.) Victim self- reports capture information about the number and characteristics of victimizations reported and not reported to law enforcement each year. --------------------------------------- Nonresponse and weighting adjustments --------------------------------------- Estimates in this report use data from the 1994-2010 NCVS data files, weighted to produce annual estimates for persons age 12 or older living in U.S. households. The weights used in this analysis employ the series enumeration detailed in the report Methods for Counting High Frequency Repeat Victimizations in the National Crime Victimization Survey, NCJ 237308, April 2012. Victimizations that occurred outside of the U.S. were excluded. --------------------------------------- Standard error computations --------------------------------------- When national estimates are derived from a sample rather than the entire population, as is the case with the NCVS, it is important to be cautious when drawing conclusions about the size of one population estimate in comparison to another or about whether the population estimates are changing over time. Although one estimate may be larger than another, estimates based on responses from a sample of the population each have some degree of sampling error. The sampling error of an estimate depends on several factors, including the amount of variation in the responses, the size and representativeness of the sample, and the size of the subgroup for which the estimate is computed. One measure of the sampling error associated with an estimate is the standard error. The standard error can vary from one estimate to the next. In general, an estimate with a smaller standard error provides a more reliable approximation of the true value than an estimate with a larger standard error for a given metric. Estimates with relatively large standard errors are associated with less precision and reliability and should be interpreted with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) is a measure of an estimate’s reliability and a means of comparing standard errors across metrics. The CV is the ratio of the standard error to the estimate. In this report, the CV was calculated for all estimates. In cases where the CV was greater than 50%, or the unweighted sample had ten or fewer cases, the estimate was noted with a “!” symbol (interpret data with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation exceeds 50%). Tests were conducted to determine whether differences in estimated numbers or percentages were statistically significant once sampling error was taken into account. Comparisons made in the text were tested for statistical significance at the p < .05 level to ensure that the differences were larger than might be expected due to sampling variation. Significance tests were conducted using statistical programs developed specifically for the NCVS by the U.S. Census Bureau. These programs take into consideration many aspects of the complex NCVS sample design when calculating estimates. Standard errors for average annual estimates were calculated based on the ratio of the sums of victimizations and respondents across years. ----------------------------------------------- Methodological changes to the NCVS in 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Methodological changes implemented in 2006 may have affected the crime estimates for that year to such an extent that they are not comparable to estimates from other years. Evaluation of 2007 and later data from the NCVS conducted by BJS and the Census Bureau found a high degree of confidence that estimates for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 are consistent with and comparable to estimates for 2005 and previous years. The reports, Criminal Victimization, 2006, NCJ 219413, December 2007; Criminal Victimization, 2007, NCJ 224390, December 2008; Criminal Victimization, 2008, NCJ 227777, September 2009; Criminal Victimization, 2009, NCJ 231327, October 2010; and Criminal Victimization, 2010, NCJ 235508, September 2011, are available on the BJS website at http://www.bjs.gov. Although caution is warranted when comparing data from 2006 to other years, the combination of five years of data in this report diminishes the potential variation between 2006 and later years. In general, findings do not change significantly if the year 2006 is excluded from the analysis. ------------------------------------------- The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. James P. Lynch is the director. This Special Report was written by Lynn Langton, BJS, Marcus Berzofsky, RTI International, Chris Krebs, RTI International, and Hope Smiley- McDonald, RTI International. Erika Harrell verified the report. Vanessa Curto and Jill Thomas edited the report and Barbara Quinn produced the report under the supervision of Doris J. James. August 2012, NCJ 238536 --------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- Office of Justice Programs Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov ---------------------------------------------- ******************* 7/12/2012/TLD/2:45p *******************