U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics ------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available on BJS website at: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5090 ------------------------------------------------------- **************** Special Report **************** Violent Victimization in New and Established Hispanic Areas, 2007-2010 Hispanic populations in many U.S. communities experienced rapid growth during the past 3 decades***Footnote 1**Massey, Douglas S (Ed.) (2008). New Faces in New Places: The Changing Geography of American Immigration. New York: Russell Sage. *** Before 1980, most Hispanics lived in the Southwest and in New York, Florida, and Illinois. From 1980 to 2010, the number of Hispanics living outside of these areas increased from 2.7 million to 13.5 million. Meanwhile, from 2007 to 2010, the overall rate of violence in new Hispanic areas exhibited no statistically significant difference from that in established Hispanic areas. This report is based on data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) area-identified National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). It examines violent victimization (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault) among blacks, whites, and Hispanics in four types of Hispanic areas: (1) established slow-growth areas, (2) established fast-growth areas, (3) new Hispanic areas, and (4) small Hispanic areas. The NCVS collects information on nonfatal crimes reported and not reported to police against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. The 2007 to 2010 NCVS data contain geographic codes for states, metropolitan areas, counties, and census tracts based on the respondents' place of residence. The 4 years of data were pooled to increase the sample size to produce reliable estimates for the area comparison analysis. *************************************** U.S. Hispanic population has grown 246% over the past 30 years *************************************** Since 1980, the number of Hispanics in the United States has grown from a small proportion of the population to the largest minority group in the country. *** Footnote 2 Starting in 1980, the U.S. Census Bureau began using only self-identification to enumerate the Hispanic population. (See Gibson, Campbell, and Kay Jung (2002). Historical Census Statistics on Population Totals by Race, 1970 to 1990, and by Hispanic Origin, 1970 to 1990, for the United States, Regions, Divisions, and States. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.*** The Hispanic growth rate from 1980 to 2010 (246%) exceeded the rates for non-Hispanic blacks (44%) and non-Hispanic whites (9%) (figure 1). A typology was used to define established and new Hispanic areas based on historical and recent Hispanic population counts. ***Footnote 3 Suro, Roberto, and Audrey Singer (2002). Latino Growth in Metropolitan America: Changing Patterns, New Locations. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and the Pew Hispanic Center.*** The typology classified 363 metropolitan areas and 3,103 counties in the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia into four categories according to their Hispanic base population in 1980 and the growth in their Hispanic population from 1980 to 2010. Established Hispanic areas were metropolitan areas or counties in which the Hispanic base population exceeded the national average of 6.4% in 1980. These areas were further divided into two groups (i.e., slow or fast growth) depending on whether the growth in their Hispanic population lagged or exceeded the national average growth rate of 246% between 1980 and 2010. ******************************************************** *********** Highlights *********** This report describes violent victimization rates by victims' race and ethnicity within four types of Hispanic areas using National Crime Victimization Survey data from 2007 to 2010. Hispanic areas are classified based on their historical Hispanic population and the growth in their Hispanic population between 1980 and 2010: (1) established slow-growth areas, (2) established fast-growth areas, (3) new Hispanic areas, and (4) small Hispanic areas. * From 1980 to 2010, the Hispanic population increased 246%, compared to 44% for non-Hispanic blacks and 9% for non-Hispanic whites. * From 2007 to 2010, new Hispanic areas had a lower overall rate of violent victimization compared to small Hispanic areas that had relatively little growth in Hispanic populations. * Unlike blacks and whites, Hispanics experienced higher rates of violent victimization in new Hispanic metropolitan areas (26 per 1,000) than in other areas (16 to 20 per 1,000). * Hispanics ages 18 to 34 exhibited the largest variation in victimization rates by type of area. Those in new Hispanic areas experienced violence at higher rates than those in established and small Hispanic areas. * Among all age groups, new Hispanic areas did not show statistically significant higher rates of violent victimization for non-Hispanic white and black residents. * Blacks experienced higher rates of violent victimization in small Hispanic metropolitan areas (50 per 1,000) than in new Hispanic areas (27 per 1,000). * For whites, the overall rate of violent victimization was lower in established slow-growth areas, while the other areas showed no significant differences in the overall rate of violent victimization. ******************************************************** Small Hispanic areas were those in which the Hispanic base population and growth rate were both lower than the national average. New Hispanic areas began with a small, lower than average percentage of Hispanics, but the growth in their Hispanic population exceeded the national average. Using the typology, two maps showing Hispanic residential patterns were developed: one for metropolitan areas and one for counties (figures 2 and 3). Analyses of the metropolitan areas and counties are presented separately throughout this report. Together, they provide a comprehensive overview of Hispanic settlement patterns. Established slow-growth areas contained the major immigration gateways (e.g., Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago) and the major metropolitan areas in the Southwest (e.g., California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Colorado) where Hispanic communities developed largely along the U.S.-Mexico border. These areas extended beyond the metropolitan regions to neighboring non-metro counties, and they formed a continuing strip from Texas to Colorado while covering large proportions of Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, and Wyoming. With the exception of counties near Chicago, New York, and Miami, established Hispanic communities traditionally were concentrated in the Southwest and neighboring states. More than 8 million Hispanics lived in these areas in 1980, and the number grew to nearly 20 million in 2010 (tables 1 and 2). Overall, the number of Hispanics grew by 143% in established Hispanic metropolitan areas and by 120% in established Hispanic counties (tables 3 and 4). The growth rates in established slow-growth Hispanic metropolitan areas and counties were lower than those of the other area types; however, Hispanics still accounted for a substantial portion of the overall population growth in these areas. The total population grew by about 30% in these areas from 1980 to 2010, with Hispanics accounting for 84% of the growth in metropolitan areas and 98% of the growth in counties. Established fast-growth Hispanic areas contained metropolitan areas and counties that mainly served as secondary destinations for Hispanics passing through major immigration gateways. With the exception of a few metropolitan areas (e.g., Phoenix, Las Vegas, Denver, and Miami), the communities in this category were largely clustered in California and Texas, with a few scattered around the edge of the more established Hispanic areas. Slightly more than 3 million Hispanics lived in these metropolitan areas in 1980, representing 20% of Hispanics in the United States. Established fast-growth Hispanic areas saw an increase of close to 400% in their Hispanic population, as nearly 30% of Hispanics lived in these areas in 2010. The population growth in these areas showed a different pattern than in other area types: the increase in the Hispanic population accounted for slightly more than 50% of the areas' overall population growth. (Compared with the more established Hispanic areas, the growth in the Hispanic population in these secondary destinations represented a more generalized population expansion among all groups.) New Hispanic areas contained a large number of metropolitan areas and counties outside of the traditional Hispanic gateways. These areas varied in the opportunities they provided for new Hispanic residents. For example, food-processing industries in the Midwest created a demand for labor that was associated with an influx of Hispanics. ***Footnote 4 Leach, Mark A., and Frank D. Bean (2008). The structure and dynamics of Mexican migration to New Destinations in the United States. In Douglas S. Massey (Ed.), New Faces in New Places: The Changing Geography of American Immigration. New York: Russell Sage***. In the meantime, areas in the Southeast, mid-Atlantic, Northeast, and north- Pacific regions experienced rapid development in technology, information, and financial sectors, which resulted in the expansion of local labor markets ***Footnote 5 Carnoy, Martin (2000). Sustaining the New Economy: Work, Family, and Community in the Information Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press***. The expansion and restructuring of the service economy, manufacturing industry, and construction industry was associated with the increased presence of Hispanics in many locales where there had been little previous Hispanic migration ***Footnote 6 Parrado, Emilio A., and William Kandel (2008). New Hispanic migrant destinations: A tale of two industries. In Douglas S. Massey (Ed.), New Faces in New Places: The Changing Geography of American Immigration. New York: Russell Sage***. In these new Hispanic areas, the increase in the Hispanic population accounted for only a small proportion (about 25%) of the overall population growth. This pattern is not surprising because the growing economies and relatively low costs of living in many new Hispanic areas made them attractive for both Hispanic and non-Hispanic populations. Small Hispanic areas contained metropolitan areas and counties in the South (mainly in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama), Midwest, northeastern postindustrial rust belt region, and mountain states (mainly in Montana and Wyoming). Less than 5% of the U.S. Hispanic population lived in these areas in 2010. In addition to showing a limited growth in the Hispanic population, these areas showed a slow (or lack of) growth in the population of the other racial and ethnic groups. The total population of this area type remained essentially unchanged from 1980 to 2010. When examined individually, half of the metropolitan areas and counties in this category (e.g., Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo) experienced population loss during the 30-year period. Without the small increase in the Hispanic population, this area type would have shown a greater loss in population. In many cases, a sluggish economy and fewer employment opportunities were related to the slow rate of growth among Hispanics and other population groups in these areas. *** Footnote 7 Beauregard, Robert A (2009). Urban population loss in historical perspective: United States, 1820-2000. Environment and Planning A41: 514-528.*** ********************************** Social and organizational context of Hispanic areas ********************************** Study of the socioeconomic and organizational structures of the areas in the National Crime Victimization Survey sample adds context to the understanding of life in different communities. The areas' income, poverty rate, unemployment rate, and percentage of female heads of households with children were charted using the American Community Survey 5-year estimates from 2006 to 2010 (figures 4 and 5). Although there was substantial overlap in socioeconomic characteristics among area types, new Hispanic areas had relatively high measures of economic wealth compared to small Hispanic areas. In both counties and metropolitan areas, new Hispanic areas showed higher incomes and lower rates of poverty, unemployment, and family disruption compared to small Hispanic areas as shown by the median values of the social indicators. This pattern was expected as new Hispanic areas were typically formed on the foundation of better economic opportunities. In 2006, each area's organizational structures were charted (per 1,000 residents) for numbers of police, social service workers, civic and social organization employees, and religious organization employees (figures 6 and 7). When expressed on a per 1,000 resident basis, these represent measures of a community's formal and informal social control and support networks. *** Footnote 8 Xie, Min, Janet L. Lauritsen, and Karen Heimer (2012). Intimate partner violence in U.S. metropolitan areas: The contextual influences of police and social services. Criminology 50: 961-992***. In 2006, there were modest differences in organizational structures between new and small Hispanic areas, except there were fewer social service workers in new Hispanic areas than in small Hispanic areas. When compared with established Hispanic areas, new Hispanic areas had a relatively large number of employees for both civic and social organizations and religious organizations. ************************************************ New Hispanic areas had a lower rate of violent victimization compared to small Hispanic areas that had little growth in Hispanic populations ************************************************ The rate of nonfatal violence was approximately 24 violent crimes per 1,000 persons for new Hispanic metropolitan areas when all racial and ethnic groups were combined, which was close to the average for all metropolitan areas (table 5). The violence rate was lower in established slow-growth Hispanic areas (approximately 17 violent crimes per 1,000 persons), and higher in small Hispanic areas where there was little growth in Hispanic populations (about 31 violent crimes per 1,000 persons). The county level showed a similar pattern, although the difference in victimization between the new and small Hispanic areas was not statistically significant at the county level (table 6). Overall, when all racial and ethnic groups were combined, new Hispanic areas did not show a higher rate of violent victimization than the U.S. total population. Instead, small Hispanic areas tended to show higher rates of violence. ************************************************ Hispanics in new Hispanic areas experienced higher rates of violent victimization compared to other Hispanic areas ************************************************ Hispanics, whites, and blacks showed some similarity with the overall patterns of violence; however, important differences existed between groups. For whites, the rate of violence for those living in established slow-growth Hispanic metropolitan areas (16 per 1,000) was lower than in other areas (23 to 27 per 1,000) (table 5). The three areas (established fast-growth, new, and small Hispanic metropolitan areas) exhibited no significant differences between victimization rates for whites. A similar pattern was observed for whites at the county level (table 6). Blacks in small Hispanic metropolitan areas experienced violence at higher rates (50 per 1,000) than blacks in new Hispanic areas (27 per 1,000) and accounted for the higher overall rates of violence in small Hispanic areas. Blacks also had relatively higher risks of violent victimization in established fast-growth Hispanic metropolitan areas (36 per 1,000). New Hispanic areas were not high-risk areas for blacks. At the county level, black victimization patterns were similar to the metropolitan areas. Compared to whites and blacks, victimization rates for Hispanics showed a different pattern. Hispanics in new Hispanic metropolitan areas experienced higher rates of violent victimization (26 per 1,000) than those in established areas, regardless of their Hispanic growth rates. The differences were more pronounced in metropolitan areas than in counties. The victimization rate for Hispanics was also higher in new Hispanic metropolitan areas (26 per 1,000) than in small Hispanic areas (16 per 1,000), although the difference was only marginally statistically significant at the metropolitan area level (p < .10) and not statistically significant at the county level. Overall, the pattern of victimization for Hispanics was unique in that those living in new Hispanic areas experienced more violent victimization compared to other areas. ************************************************ Young Hispanics accounted for the higher rates of violent victimization in new Hispanic areas ************************************************ Since Hispanics in new Hispanic areas have a younger age profile and younger age is associated with higher victimization rates, violent victimization rates were adjusted by age, and the comparison between area types accounted for the age differences. The age-adjusted victimization rates were calculated using a standard age distribution based on the U.S. population in 2000 (tables 7 and 8). The age-adjusted victimization rates showed that the risk of violent victimization appeared to be higher for Hispanics in new Hispanic metropolitan areas (21 per 1,000), although the differences were not statistically significant (table 7). However, the age-specific victimization rates showed that the differences in victimization between new Hispanic areas and other area types were the largest for Hispanics ages 18 to 24, followed by those ages 25 to 34. Among Hispanics ages 18 to 24, those in new Hispanic areas had higher rates of violent victimization than those in established and small Hispanic areas (figures 8a and 9a). Among those ages 25 to 34, the rate of violent victimization was higher in new Hispanic areas than in established fast-growth areas. For Hispanics in other age groups, the apparent difference in violent victimization was not statistically significant across area types. Overall, the victimization of young adult Hispanics ages 18 to 34 was the main reason Hispanics showed higher rates of violent victimization in new Hispanic areas than in other area types. In comparison, new Hispanic areas did not present elevated risks of violent victimization for non-Hispanic whites and blacks, and the pattern was consistent across all age groups (figures 8b, 8c, 9b, and 9c). For example, small Hispanic areas were the sites of the highest victimization rate for whites ages 18 to 24, whereas the rate of violent victimization was significantly lower in new Hispanic areas for whites in this age group. Blacks also showed higher rates of violent victimization in small Hispanic areas compared with new Hispanic areas, and the differences were statistically significant for most age groups (i.e., ages 12 to 17, ages 25 to 34, and age 50 or older). ************ Methodology ************ The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is a data collection conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NCVS is a self-report survey in which interviewed persons are asked about the number and characteristics of victimizations experienced during the past 6 months. The NCVS collects information on nonfatal personal crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault) and property crimes (burglary, larceny-theft, arson, motor vehicle theft, and other theft) both reported and not reported to police. In addition to providing annual level and change estimates on criminal victimization, the NCVS is the primary source of information on the nature of criminal victimization incidents. Survey respondents provide information about themselves (such as age, sex, race and ethnicity, marital status, education level, and income) and whether they experienced victimization. For each victimization incident, information is collected about the offender (such as age, race and ethnicity, sex, and victim-offender relationship), characteristics of the crime (including time and place of occurrence, use of weapons, nature of injury, and economic consequences), whether the crime was reported to police, reasons the crime was or was not reported, and experiences with the criminal justice system. The NCVS is administered to persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of households in the United States. The NCVS defines a household as a group of members who all reside at a sampled address. Persons are considered household members when the sampled address is their usual place of residence at the time of the interview and when they have no usual place of residence elsewhere. Once selected, households remain in the sample for 3 years, and eligible persons in these households are interviewed every 6 months for a total of seven interviews. New households rotate into the sample on an ongoing basis to replace outgoing households that have been in the sample for the 3-year period. The sample includes persons living in group quarters (such as dormitories, rooming houses, and religious group dwellings) and excludes persons living in military barracks and institutional settings (such as correctional or hospital facilities) and the homeless. (For more information, see Survey Methodology for Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2008, NCJ 231173, BJS web, May 2011.) This report uses the geographic micro-data restricted-use files from 2007 to 2010 to identify specific counties and metropolitan statistical areas. From 2007 to 2010, the NCVS conducted more than 130,000 interviews each year, providing sufficient observations for each area type (appendix tables 1 and 2). For all years, the number of Hispanic respondents was relatively small in each Hispanic area type. The data were pooled across the 4-year period to increase the reliability of the violent victimization estimates. ************************************************ Weighting adjustments for estimating personal victimization ************************************************ NCVS data files are weighted to produce annual estimates of victimization for persons age 12 or older living in U.S. households. Because the NCVS relies on a sample rather than a census of the entire U.S. population, weights are designed to inflate sample point estimates to known population totals and to compensate for survey nonresponse and other aspects of the sample design. The NCVS data files include both household and person weights. Household weights provide an estimate of the total U.S. household population. Person weights provide an estimate of the population represented by each person in the sample. Person weights are most frequently used to compute estimates of criminal victimizations of persons in the total population. After proper adjustment, both household and person weights are also used to form the denominator in calculations of crime rates. Victimization weights used in this analysis account for the number of persons present during an incident and for repeat victims of series incidents. The weight counts series incidents as the actual number of incidents reported by the victim, up to a maximum of 10 incidents. Series victimizations are similar in type but occur with such frequency that a victim is unable to recall each individual event or to describe each event in detail. Survey procedures allow NCVS interviewers to identify and classify these similar victimizations as series victimizations and to collect detailed information on only the most recent incident in the series. In 2011, about 3% of all victimizations were series incidents. Weighting series incidents as the number of incidents up to a maximum of 10 produces more reliable estimates of crime levels, while the cap at 10 minimizes the effect of extreme outliers on the rates. For more information on the series enumeration, see Methods for Counting High-Frequency Repeat Victimizations in the National Crime Victimization Survey, NCJ 237308, BJS web, April 2012. ******************************* Standard error computations ******************************* When national estimates are derived from a sample, as is the case with the NCVS, caution must be taken when comparing one estimate to another estimate or when comparing estimates over time. Although one estimate may be larger than another, estimates based on a sample 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 of the sample, and the size of the subgroup for which the estimate is computed. When the sampling error around the estimates is taken into consideration, the estimates that appear different may not be statistically different. 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, for a given metric, an estimate with a small standard error provides a more reliable approximation of the true value than an estimate with a large standard error. Estimates with relatively large standard errors are associated with less precision and reliability and should be interpreted with caution. In order to generate standard errors around estimates from the NCVS, the Census Bureau produced generalized variance function (GVF) parameters for BJS. The GVFs take into account aspects of the NCVS complex sample design and represent the curve fitted to a selection of individual standard errors based on the Jackknife Repeated Replication technique. The GVF parameters were used to generate standard errors for each point estimate (such as counts, percentages, and rates) in the report. For average annual estimates, standard errors were based on the ratio of the sums of victimizations and respondents across years. In this report, BJS conducted tests to determine whether differences in estimated numbers and percentages were statistically significant once sampling error was taken into account. Using statistical programs developed specifically for the NCVS, all comparisons in the text were tested for significance. The primary test procedure used was Student's t-statistic, which tests the difference between two sample estimates. To ensure that the observed differences between estimates were larger than might be expected due to sampling variation, BJS set the significance level at the 95% confidence level. In this report, BJS also calculated a coefficient of variation (CV) for all estimates, representing the ratio of the standard error to the estimate. CVs provide a measure of reliability and a means to compare the precision of estimates across measures with differing levels or metrics. In cases where the CV was greater than 50%, or the unweighted sample had 10 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%). Many of the variables examined in this report may be related to one another and to other variables not included in the analyses. Complex relationships among variables were not fully explored in this report and warrant more extensive analysis. Causal inferences should not be made based on the results presented. ************************************************ Direct standardization with the 2000 U.S. Standard Population ***Footnote 9 For more information on direct standardization, see Curtin, L.R. & Klein, R.J. (1995). Direct standardization (age-adjusted death rates). Healthy People 2000: Statistical Notes, 6 Revised. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statnt/statnt06rv.pdf ************************************************ The method used to generate age-adjusted rates of violent victimization presented in this report was direct standardization with the 2000 U.S. Standard Population from the Decennial Census as the standard population. Age-adjusted standardization eliminates the problem of different age distributions between and within groups. Because crime rates vary by age, direct standardization produces age-adjusted rates that would occur if both populations had the same age distribution as the standard population. The 2000 U.S. Standard Population was created by the U.S. Census Bureau Population Projection Program (http://www.census.gov/population/projections/), which uses data from the Current Population Survey. To calculate age groups using the 2000 U.S. Standard Population, populations of single years of age were obtained for persons age 12 or older from the Census P25-1130 (http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1130.pdf) series estimates of the 2000 populations generated by the U. S. Census Bureau Population Projection Program. These single-year populations for persons age 12 or older were then summed to create the following age groups: ages 12 to 17, 18 to 24, 25 to 34, 35 to 49, and 50 or older. In this report, the total standard population refers to the 2000 U.S. Standard Population age 12 or older. The violent victimization rate, age-adjusted using direct standardization with the 2000 U.S. Standard Population (Rd) is calculated as-- Rd = Σ (wa * ra) Where Rd = age-adjusted rate of violent victimization of the population of interest calculated using direct standardization wa = weight calculated from the 2000 U.S. Standard Population for age group a ra = unadjusted rate of violent victimization for age group a. The weight (wa) for age group a is calculated as-- wa = na / N where wa = weight calculated from the 2000 U.S. Standard Population for age group a na = number of persons in age group a in the 2000 U.S. Standard Population N = total number of persons in the 2000 U.S. Standard Population. ************************************************ Standard error computations and statistical significance for age-adjusted rates ***Footnote 10 For more information on computing standard errors for age-adjusted rates, see Anderson, R.N., & Rosenberg, H.M. (1998). Age Standardization of Death Rates: Implementation of the Year 2000 Standard. National Vital statistics Reports, 47 (3). Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr47/nvs47_03.pdf. ************************************************ Due to the complexity in generating age-adjusted rates of violent crime, other methods were used to compute standard errors and determine statistical significance. For each age-adjusted rate, variances were computed for each age group-specific rate using information from the generalized variance function (GVF) parameters that the Census Bureau produced for the NCVS. For each age group, the variance was multiplied by the squared weight for that particular age group in the 2000 U.S. Standard Population. The result was then summed across all age groups to produce the variance for the age-adjusted rate. The square root of this variance was taken to produce the standard error of the age- adjusted rate. To calculate statistical significance among two age adjusted rates, the standard errors were computed for each rate. Next, the estimated standard error for the difference of the two rates was calculated. This was done by taking the square root of the sum of each rate's squared standard error (that is, Se12 + Se22). The absolute difference in the rates was divided by the estimated standard error for the difference to generate a t-statistic. If the t-statistic was greater than 1.96, the difference was statistically significant. If it was equal to or less than 1.96, the difference between the two rates was not statistically significant. ************************************************ The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization, criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime, and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable and valid statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, and participates with national and international organizations to develop and recommend national standards for justice statistics. William J. Sabol is acting director. This report was written by Min Xie, Ph.D., University of Maryland at College Park, and Michael Planty, Ph.D., Bureau of Justice Statistics. Britney Mason, BJS intern, verified the report. This report was funded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice, Award No. 2012-R2-CX-0017. It also received funding from the American Society of Criminology (ASC) through the ASC and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Collaborative Research Program for Young Scholars in 2013. The findings and conclusions of this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the funding agencies. Jill Thomas and Vanessa Curto edited the report. Barbara Quinn produced the report. August 2014, NCJ 246311 ************************************************ ************************************************ Office of Justice Programs Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov ************************************************