U.S.

Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bulletin
December 2008, NCJ 224390

National Crime Victimization Survey

Criminal Victimization, 2007

Michael R. Rand Table 1. Criminal victimization, numbers, rates, and percent
BJS Statistician change, by type of crime, 2005 and 2007
In 2007 U.S. residents experienced an estimated 23 Percent
Number of victimizations Ratesa change
million violent and property victimizations, according to Type of crime 2005b 2007 2005b 2007 2005-2007c
the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Crim-
All crimes 23,452,100 22,879,700 ~ ~
inal victimizations in 2007 included approximately 5.2
Violent crimesd 5,162,400 5,177,100 21.1 20.7 -1.9%
million violent crimes and 17.5 million property crimes. Rape/sexual assault 190,600 248,300 0.8 1.0 25.0
The rates for every major violent and property crime Robbery 630,100 597,300 2.6 2.4 -7.7
measured by the NCVS in 2007 were at or near the Assault 4,341,600 4,331,500 17.8 17.3 -2.8
lowest levels recorded since 1973, the first year that Aggravated 1,046,500 858,900 4.3 3.4 -20.9*
Simple 3,295,200 3,472,600 13.5 13.9 3.0
such data were available.1
Personal thefte 229,500 194,100 0.9 0.8 -11.1%
The overall victimization rate in 2007 for violent crimes
was 20.7 per 1,000 persons, which was not signifi- Property crimes 18,060,200 17,508,500 154.2 146.5 -5.0%**
Household burglary 3,464,500 3,215,100 29.6 26.9 -9.1**
cantly different from the 2005 rate of 21.1 per 1,000
Motor vehicle theft 981,900 979,600 8.4 8.2 -2.4
persons (table 1). For property crimes, the overall rate Theft 13,613,800 13,313,800 116.3 111.4 -4.2
of 146.5 per 1,000 households in 2007 was somewhat Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Total population age 12 or
lower than the rate of 154.2 per 1,000 households in older was 244,505,300 in 2005 and 250,344,870 in 2007. Total number of house-
2005. As in previous years, about half of the violent holds was 117,099,820 in 2005 and 119,503,530 in 2007. Estimates for 2006
were not presented because they are not comparable to other years.
crimes and almost two-thirds of the property crimes
~Not applicable.
measured by the NCVS in 2007 were not reported to *Difference is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
police. **Difference is significant at the 90%-confidence level.
aEstimates for 2005 have been updated and do not match those presented in
NCVS is an annual data collection conducted by the previous editions of this bulletin.
U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Justice Statistics b
Victimization rates are per 1,000 persons age 12 or older or per 1,000
(BJS). This report provides the initial release of data for households.
2007 from the NCVS. c
Percent change calculated based on unrounded estimates.
d
Excludes murder because the NCVS is based on interviews with victims and
This bulletin describes the substantial fluctuations in therefore cannot measure murder.
the survey measure of crime from 2005 through 2007. e
Includes pocket picking, completed purse snatching, and attempted purse
As discussed in the Technical Notes, these changes do snatching.
not appear to be due to changes in the rate of criminal
activity during this period. Evaluation of the NCVS esti-
mates suggest that changes in the sample design and Changes to the NCVS and their impact upon the survey’s estimates in 2006 are
implementation of the survey account for the fluctua- discussed in the Criminal Victimization, 2006 Technical Notes. The bulletin and
technical notes are available online at: <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/
tions in crime rates measured from 2005 to 2006 and cv06.pdf>.
from 2006 to 2007.
1
The discussion of victimization rate trends excludes NCVS esti-
mates for 2006 because of the methodological inconsistencies
between the data for that year and the data for other years.
BJS continues to work with the U.S. Census Bureau to bet- NCVS collects information from victims of nonfatal
ter understand the impact of these changes upon survey violent crimes and property crimes
estimates. Once the research is complete, BJS will publish
The NCVS collects information on nonfatal crimes,
a technical report to describe the findings. If adjustments to
reported and not reported to the police, against persons
the reported crime rates for 2006 and 2007 are warranted,
age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of
or if other changes to the data are identified, BJS will issue
U.S. households. It produces national rates and levels of
a revised report to provide users with a more comparable
personal and property victimization. Information on homi-
set of figures. Based on research completed to date, there
cide presented in this report was obtained from the Uniform
is a high degree of confidence that survey estimates for
Crime Reporting (UCR) program of the Federal Bureau of
2007 are consistent with and comparable to those for 2005
Investigation (FBI).
and previous years.
Violent crimes measured by the NCVS include rape, sexual
While the estimates for 2007 are close to the levels for
assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.
2005, they are substantially below the levels for 2006.
Property crimes include household burglary, motor vehicle
Changes in 2006 included the introduction of a new sample
theft, and theft. The survey also measures personal theft,
based on the 2000 decennial census, a transition from
which includes pocket picking and purse snatching.
paper-and-pencil interviewing (PAPI) to computer-assisted
interviewing (CAPI), and the use of first-time interviews in In 2007, 41,500 households and 73,600 individuals age 12
the new sample areas in the production of survey esti- or older were interviewed for the NCVS. Each household
mates. was interviewed twice during the year. The response rate
was 90.3% of households and 86.2% of eligible individuals.
In 2007, three additional changes were made largely for
budgetary reasons to the NCVS program:
Violent and property victimization rates remain at
• The sample was reduced by 14% in July 2007. historic lows in 2007

• First-time interviews from all sample areas were used in The 2007 violent crime rate was 43% lower than in 1998
the production of 2007 estimates. due to a decline in crime between 1998 and 2002 (figure 1).
This rate has remained generally stable since 2003. Rates
• Computer-assisted interviews from centralized tele- for robbery and simple assault followed similar patterns
phone centers were discontinued in July 2007. across the 10-year period. The crime rate for rape declined
marginally between 1998 and 2007. For aggravated
Analyses of the 2007 estimates indicate that the program assault, the crime rate fell during both five-year periods,
changes made in 2007 had relatively small effects on between 1998 and 2002 and between 2003 and 2007.
NCVS estimates. As discussed in Criminal Victimization,
2006, the substantial increases in victimization rates from
Overall rate of violent crime fell by 43% from 1998 to 2007
2005 to 2006 do not appear to be due to actual changes in
crime during that period. The increases were attributed to Victimization rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older
the impact of the methodological changes in the survey.2 40
35
These effects were reversed in 2007, suggesting that the
2006 findings represent a temporary anomaly in the data. 30
Total violent crime
The methodological changes implemented in 2007, their 25
impact on the survey estimates, and the NCVS method- 20 3
Simple assault
ological research program are described more fully in the 15 3
Technical Notes on page 7.
10
2
Aggravated assault
Users are encouraged to focus on the comparison between 2005 and 5 3
2007 victimization rates until the changes to the NCVS in 2006 are better 3
3 Robbery
0 Rape
understood.
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007
3Represents 2007. Data for 2006 are not included.

Figure 1

2 Criminal Victimization, 2007

From 1998 to 2007, the rate of overall property crime fell by Property crime rates overall fell by 33% from 1998 to 2007
33% (figure 2). The property crime rate has had a long-
Property crime rate per 1,000 households
term declining trend for most of the survey’s 36-year his- 250
tory.
200
The overall rates for property crime and theft fell in both the Total property crime
3
first and second half of the 10-year period, with a greater 150
Theft
decline from 1998 to 2002 than from 2003 to 2007. The 3
burglary rate fell from 1998 to 2002 and also declined 100
slightly from 2003 to 2007. For motor vehicle theft, the rate
50 Burglary
declined from 1998 to 2002 and has remained stable since 3
Motor vehicle theft
2003 (table 2). 0 3
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007
Victimization rates in 2007 were near the levels 3Represents 2007. Data for 2006 are not included.
experienced in 2005 Figure 2
The overall violent crime rate in 2007 was not statistically Table 2. Rates of criminal victimization and percent change,
different from the rate in 2005. In comparison, the 2007 by type of crime, 1998 and 2007
property crime rate was marginally lower than the rate in
2005. Of the violent crimes measured by the NCVS, aggra- Victimization rates (per 1,000 persons age
12 or older or per 1,000 households)
vated assault was the only crime with a significantly lower
Percent changea
rate in 2007 than in 2005. The rate of victimization for over- Type of crime 1998 2007 1998-2007
all property crime and household burglary were somewhat Violent crimesb 36.6 20.7 -43.4%*
lower in 2007, compared to 2005. Rape/sexual assault 1.5 1.0 -33.3*
Robbery 4.0 2.4 -40.0*
Comparisons are made between the rates for 2005 and Assault 31.1 17.3 -44.4*
2007 because 2006 was an anomalous year due to the Aggravated 7.5 3.4 -54.7*
impact of the methodological changes introduced to the Simple 23.5 13.9 -40.9*
survey. A new sample introduced in 2006 affected the Personal theftc 1.3 0.8 -38.5%*
NCVS estimates in new areas, especially in non-urban Property crimes 217.4 146.5 -32.6%*
areas. The new sample required hiring and training a large Household burglary 38.5 26.9 -30.1*
number of new interviewers in the new areas. The variation Motor vehicle theft 10.8 8.2 -24.1*
in the amount and rates of crime was too extreme to be Theft 168.1 111.4 -33.7*
attributed to actual year-to-year changes. These effects Note: In 1998 the total population age 12 or older was 221,880,960 and
were reversed in 2007, suggesting that the 2006 findings 250,344,870 in 2007. The total number of households in 1998 was
105,322,920 and 119,503,530 in 2007.
represent a temporary anomaly in the data (table 3). See *Difference is significant at the 95%-confidence level.
Technical Notes on page 7. aDifferences
between the annual rates shown do not take into account
changes that may have occurred during interim years.
bExcludes murder because the NCVS is based on interviews with
victims and therefore cannot measure murder.
c
Includes pocket picking, completed purse snatching, and attempted
purse snatching.

Table 3. National crime victimization rates and percent change in rates, by type of crime, 2005-2007

Rates per 1,000 persons or households Percent change Percent change Percent change
Type of crime 2005 2006 2007 2005-2006 2006-2007 2005-2007
Violent crime 21.1 24.7 20.7 17.1% -16.2% -1.9%
Rape/sexual assault 0.8 1.1 1.0 37.5 -9.1 25.0
Robbery 2.6 2.9 2.4 11.5 -17.2 -7.7
Assault 17.8 20.7 17.3 16.3 -16.4 -2.8
Aggravated 4.3 5.4 3.4 25.6 -37.0 -20.9
Simple 13.5 15.3 13.9 13.3 -9.2 3.0
Personal larceny without contact 0.9 0.7 0.8 -22.2% 14.3% -11.1%
Property crime 154.2 160.5 146.5 4.1% -8.7% -5.0%
Burglary 29.6 30.2 26.9 2.0 -10.9 -9.1
Motor vehicle theft 8.4 8.4 8.2 0.0 -2.4 -2.4
Theft 116.3 121.9 111.4 4.8 -8.6 -4.2
Populations
Persons age 12 or older 244,505,300 247,233,100 250,344,900
Households headed by persons
age 12 or older 117,099,800 117,858,400 119,503,500

Criminal Victimization, 2007 3

Characteristics of victims of violent crimes in 2007 Since 2003, survey respondents have been able to report
were similar to previous years more than one racial identity. In 2007, persons of two or
more races were victims of violence at higher rates than
As in previous years, males, blacks, and persons age 24 or
blacks, whites, and persons of other races.
younger in 2007 continued to experience violent crime vic-
timizations at higher or somewhat higher rates than
Hispanic origin of victim
females, whites, and persons age 25 or older (table 4).
In 2007, there were no significant differences in the rates of
Gender of victims victimization for overall violent crime and aggravated
assault between Hispanics and non-Hispanics. Hispanics
Overall, males were victims of violent crime, robbery, and
were more likely than non-Hispanics to be victims of rob-
aggravated and simple assault at rates higher than
bery. Non-Hispanics had a somewhat higher rate of simple
females. Females were more likely than males to be vic-
assault compared to Hispanics.
tims of rape or sexual assault. Differences between male
and female victims of simple assault were not statistically
Age of victim
significant.
As in previous years, a general pattern of decreasing crime
Race of victim rates was observed in 2007 for persons in older age
groups. For victims of violent crimes, persons age 12 to 15
Blacks were more likely than whites to be victims of rob-
and age 16 to 19 were victimized at a significantly higher
bery, and somewhat more likely than whites to be victims of
rate than persons in all other groups age 25 or older. Per-
overall violence. Blacks were also more likely than persons
sons age 16 to 19 also experienced higher violent crime
of other races (American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian,
rates than those age 20 to 24. Persons age 50 and older
Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander) to be victims of
were victims of violent crime at lower rates than persons in
overall violence, robbery, and aggravated and simple
younger age groups.
assault.

Table 4. Rates of violent crime and personal theft, by gender, race, Hispanic origin, and age, 2007

Victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older

Violent crimes
Assault
Demographic characteristic of victim Population All Rape/sexual assault Robbery Total Aggravated Simple Personal thefta
Gender
Male 122,122,700 22.5 0.1^ 3.4 19.1 4.5 14.5 0.9
Female 128,222,170 18.9 1.8 1.4 15.6 2.4 13.2 0.7
Race
White 203,470,370 19.9 1.0 1.9 17.0 3.2 13.9 0.6
Black 30,385,460 24.3 0.5^ 4.9 18.8 4.4 14.4 1.9
Other raceb 13,340,930 11.4 1.2^ 1.8^ 8.3 2.7 5.7 1.1^
Two or more races 3,148,100 73.8 5.5^ 10.8 57.5 13.3 44.2 0.6^
Hispanic origin
Hispanic 34,423,520 18.6 0.3^ 3.9 14.5 3.0 11.4 1.0^
Non-Hispanic 215,499,060 21.0 1.1 2.2 17.8 3.5 14.3 0.7
Age
12-15 16,755,440 43.4 1.0^ 4.2 38.2 2.8 35.5 0.8
16-19 16,981,750 50.1 2.4 6.4 41.4 7.2 34.2 1.6^
20-24 20,752,030 35.2 2.9 3.5 28.7 7.5 21.2 1.1^
25-34 40,349,730 24.7 1.2 3.4 20.1 4.8 15.3 1.1
35-49 65,636,410 17.7 1.0 1.4 15.3 3.2 12.1 0.6
50-64 53,677,460 11.6 0.3^ 1.7 9.5 2.3 7.2 0.3^
65 or older 36,192,050 2.5 0.1^ 0.6^ 1.8 0.3^ 1.5 0.8^
Note: The National Crime Victimization Survey includes as violent crime rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.
Because the NCVS interviews persons about their victimizations, murder and manslaughter cannot be included.
^Based upon 10 or fewer sample cases.
a
Includes pocket picking, completed purse snatching, and attempted purse snatching.
b
Other race includes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.

4 Criminal Victimization, 2007

Rates for property crimes were higher in lower income Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime
households and large households Reports, 2005-2007
Rates of overall property crime were higher for lower Violent crime as measured by the FBI through the
income households compared to higher income house- Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) includes murder and
holds. Households earning less than $7,500 per year were non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery,
victims of property crime at a rate that was about 1.5 times and aggravated assault. Property crime includes
higher than households earning $75,000 per year or more. burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. UCR
Households earning less than $15,000 per year had higher measures crimes reported to the police, including
property crime rates than households in all other income commercial crimes.
categories (table 5).
The violent crime rate as measured by the UCR
Patterns in the rates of household burglary and property increased by 1% between 2005 and 2006 from 469
theft were similar to that of overall property crime. House- per 100,000 persons to about 474.
holds in the two lowest income categories—less than
$7,500 per year and $7,500 to $14,999 per year—were vic- • Between 2006 and 2007, the violent crime rate declined
tims of burglary and theft at higher or marginally higher by 1.4% from about 474 per 100,000 persons to about
rates than households in all other income categories. For 467.
motor vehicle theft, there was no significant difference in
the crime rate across most income categories. • In 2007, the FBI reported 16,929 murders and non-
negligent manslaughters.
Property crime rates overall were higher for persons living
in larger households than for those living in smaller house- • Between 2006 and 2007, the homicide rate declined by
holds. Households with six or more persons were about 2.6 about 1%, from 5.7 per 100,000 persons to 5.6.
times more likely to be victims of property crime than single
person households. For property theft and motor vehicle • The property crime rate declined by 2.8% between 2005
theft, patterns across households of different sizes were and 2006, from 3,432 per 100,000 persons to 3,335.
similar to that of overall property crime. For household bur-
glary, the rate for households with six or more persons was • Between 2006 and 2007, the property crime rate
higher than that for households in most other income cate- declined by 2.1%, from 3,335 per 100,000 persons to
gories. 3,264.

Table 5. Property crime rates, by household income and household size, 2007

Victimizations per 1,000 households

Characteristics of household Number of households Total Burglary Motor vehicle theft Theft
Household income
Less than $7,500 4,381,010 213.1 57.6 11.1 144.4
$7,500-$14,999 6,757,910 201.3 51.2 10.8 139.4
$15,000-$24,999 9,552,980 167.0 33.5 11.0 122.4
$25,000-$34,999 10,084,590 154.6 25.2 9.5 119.8
$35,000-$49,999 13,292,780 151.2 28.3 7.6 115.2
$50,000-$74,999 14,932,280 144.3 21.8 7.9 114.6
$75,000 or more 22,886,490 146.3 17.2 7.1 122.0

Size of household
One person 33,322,630 105.7 26.2 5.4 74.0
Two or three persons 59,490,690 137.7 25.4 8.2 104.2
Four or five persons 23,021,800 207.5 29.6 11.2 166.7
Six or more persons 3,668,420 277.5 40.7 15.1 221.7

Criminal Victimization, 2007 5

The general character of violent crime was unchanged In 2007, 1% of rape or sexual assaults, 5% of assaults, and
in 2007 25% of robberies were committed by an offender with a
firearm.
Historically, females have been most often victimized by
someone they knew, while half or more of the crimes Between 1998 and 2007, the overall rate of firearm vio-
against males have been committed by strangers. Those lence declined from 3.0 to 1.6 victimizations per 1,000 per-
general patterns continued in 2007. sons age 12 or older. In 2007, firearms were used in 7% of
all violent crime incidents. Over the 10-year period, about
In 2007, males were equally likely to be victimized overall
7% to 9% of all violent crimes were committed by offenders
by a stranger or a nonstranger (table 6). Male victims of
using firearms (not shown in table).
robbery and aggravated assault were more likely to be vic-
timized by strangers. For simple assault, male victims were Firearm 1998 2007
more likely to have been victimized by someone they knew. Incidents 557,200 348,910
Victimizations 670,500 394,580
Females who were victims of violence were more likely to
Firearm crime
be victimized by a nonstranger than by a stranger for all
Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older 3.0 1.6
measured violent crimes, except robbery. Equal percent-
Percent of all violent incidents 7.5% 7.1%
ages of women reported that they were victims of robberies
by strangers and nonstrangers (48%).
Nearly half of all violent victimizations were reported to
About 623,000 violent crimes—554,000 against female vic- the police in 2007
tims and 69,000 against male victims—were committed by
During 2007, 46% of all violent victimizations and 37% of
an intimate partner in 2007. The percentage of female vic-
all property crimes were reported to the police. The per-
tims (23%) of intimate partner violence was nearly 8 times
centage of robberies (66%) reported to the police was
that of male victims (3%).
higher than the percentage of rape or sexual assaults
An estimated 20% of all violent crime incidents were com- (42%) and simple assaults (41%).
mitted by an armed offender (table 7). As in previous years,
the presence of a firearm was related to the type of crime.

Table 6. Victim and offender relationship, 2007

Violent crime Rape/sexual assault Robbery Aggravated assault Simple assault

Relationship to victim Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Male victims
Total 2,752,030 100% 11,300 100% 411,450 100% 555,010 100% 1,774,290 100%
Nonstranger 1,264,850 46% 6,600 58%^ 89,180 22% 227,870 41% 941,200 53%
Intimate 69,100 3 0 0^ 5,960 1^ 16,000 3^ 47,140 3
Other relative 104,810 4 0 0^ 5,710 1^ 24,120 4^ 74,980 4
Friend/acquaintance 1,090,940 40 6,600 58^ 77,510 19 187,760 34 819,080 46

Stranger 1,380,230 50% 4,690 42%^ 302,520 74% 303,530 55% 769,480 43%

Relationship unknown 106,960 4% 0 0%^ 19,740 5%^ 23,610 4%^ 63,610 4%

Female victims
Total 2,425,100 100% 236,980 100% 185,880 100% 303,930 100% 1,698,310 100%
Nonstranger 1,677,000 69% 150,830 64% 89,690 48% 186,670 61% 1,249,810 74%
Intimate 554,260 23 55,110 23 37,310 20 69,010 23 392,830 23
Other relative 192,250 8 6,530 3^ 14,470 8^ 27,340 9^ 143,920 9
Friend/acquaintance 930,480 38 89,190 38 37,910 20 90,320 30 713,060 42

Stranger 689,780 28% 72,780 31% 89,760 48% 108,690 36% 418,550 25%

Relationship unknown 58,330 2% 13,370 6%^ 6,430 4%^ 8,570 3%^ 29,960 2%^
Note: Percentages may not total to 100% because of rounding.
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.

6 Criminal Victimization, 2007

 Table 7. Presence of weapons in violent incidents, 2007
Presence of Violent crime Rape/sexual assault Robbery Simple and aggravated assault
offender's weapon Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total 4,892,000 100% 248,280 100% 566,270 100% 4,077,450 100%

No weapon 3,510,330 72% 226,410 91% 230,910 41% 3,053,000 75%

Weapon 996,980 20% 13,980^ 6%^ 265,900 47% 717,100 18%

Firearm 348,910 7 2,830^ 1^ 144,200 25 201,880 5
Knife 276,150 6 6,280^ 3^ 66,670 12 203,190 5
Other 319,760 7 4,870^ 2^ 44,110 8 270,780 7
Type not ascertained 52,160 1 0^ 0^ 10,910^ 2^ 41,250 1

Don't know 384,690 8% 7,890^ 3%^ 69,460 12% 307,350 8%

Note: Percentage may not total to 100% because of rounding. If the offender was armed with more than one weapon, the crime is classified
based on the most serious weapon present.
^Based upon 10 or fewer sample cases.

Fifty percent of burglaries and 31% of household thefts Table 8. Crimes reported to the police, by gender, race, and
were reported to the police. Motor vehicle theft (85%) was Hispanic origin, 2007
the property crime most frequently reported to the police. Victim gender, race, and Percent of crime reported to police, 2007
Hispanic origin Violent Property
Percent of crime reported to police, 2007
Total 46.3% 37.2%
Violent crime 46.3%
Rape/sexual assault 41.6 Male 45.4% 38.2%
Robbery 65.6 White 46.5 38.1
Aggravated assault 57.2 Black 43.6 36.6
Simple assault 40.6 Other* 53.0 45.0

Hispanic 46.0% 35.7%

Property crime 37.2%
Non-Hispanic 45.4 38.6
Burglary 50.1
Motor vehicle theft 85.3 Female 47.3% 36.2%
Theft 30.6 White 45.1 36.3
Black 60.2 38.5
Other* 35.3 26.7
Violent crimes against males (45%) and females (47%)
were equally likely to be reported to the police in 2007. The Hispanic 49.8% 35.2%
same was true for property crimes for households headed Non-Hispanic 46.9 36.5
by males and those headed by females (table 8). Note: Total includes estimates for persons identifying with two or more
races, not shown separately. Racial categories displayed are for persons
Rates of reporting did not differ for males in different racial who identified with one race.
*Other race includes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native
groups. Violent crimes against black females were more Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.
likely to be reported to the police than such crimes against
white females or females of other races. For both males
and females, there were no differences among Hispanics • In July 2007, computer assisted telephone interviews
and non-Hispanics in the likelihood of reporting violent (CATI) from centralized interviewing centers were dis-
crime to police. continued, and all interviewing was conducted by field
interviewers using computer-assisted personal inter-
Technical Notes viewing (CAPI).
The U.S. Census Bureau undertook a number of analyses
Changes implemented in the NCVS in 2007 had minor to determine the impact of the changes to the NCVS in
impacts on estimates 2007. Initial reviews of processes and workload data
Three changes were made to the NCVS for budgetary rea- uncovered no factors that would explain the overall year-to-
sons in 2007: year differences between the victimization rates for 2006
and 2007.
• The sample was reduced by 14% beginning July 2007.
Further analyses concentrated on three areas: the NCVS
• To offset the impact of reducing the sample, first-time sample reduction implemented in July 2007, the bounding
interviews (or bounding interviews) were used in the pro- adjustment, and the elimination of CATI interviews in July
duction of 2007 NCVS estimates. Adjustment factors 2007.
were applied to the first-time interviews to counteract the
effect of including unbounded interviews.

Criminal Victimization, 2007 7

Victimization estimates in 2007 were relatively upward bias in the NCVS estimates in 2007. The adjust-
unaffected by the 14% sample reduction ment process was similar to the one used in 2006 to elimi-
nate the impact of using first-time interviews in the incom-
The U.S. Census Bureau evaluated whether victimization
ing sample associated with the sample redesign.
rates for cases dropped from the NCVS sample in July
were similar to cases that remained in the sample. Victim- Analyses of the 2007 estimates demonstrate that the
ization rates from January to June 2007 were calculated for bounding adjustment effectively countered the impact of
cases removed from the sample and for those that including unbounded interviews (table 9). Estimates
remained in sample. adjusted for the bounding or first-time interviews were virtu-
ally identical to the estimates produced using the second
The analysis determined that the sample reduction cases
through seventh interviews.
had nominally higher personal and property crime rates
than those that remained in the sample. An overall 14%
Changes in the survey mode and sample redesign
sample reduction was not large enough to explain the
impacted estimates to a greater extent in 2006 than in
observed changes in victimization rates from 2006 to 2007.
2007
Rate per 1,000 persons or households,
January - June 2007 The NCVS transitioned from a paper-and-pencil interview
Personal crimes Property crimes (PAPI) to a computer-assisted interview (CAPI) to become
Cases remaining in sample a fully automated data collection in July 2006. Interviews
after July 2007 23.6 151.1 were completed by field representatives either by tele-
Cases removed from sample
in July 2007 26.6 166.0
phone or in person using questionnaires loaded into laptop
computers.
Bounding adjustment effectively compensated for the Both before and after the transition, a substantial proportion
impact of unbounded interviews of interviews were conducted using computer-assisted-
telephone interviews (CATI) from two U.S. Census Bureau
The NCVS uses a rotating panel design in which house-
telephone centers. CATI is a telephone survey technique in
holds remain in sample for three years. All residents age 12
which the interviewer follows a script provided by a soft-
or older are interviewed at 6-month intervals for a total of
ware application. From 2004 through 2006, the percentage
seven interviews. As discussed more fully in the Criminal
of sample cases interviewed using CATI declined from
Victimization, 2006, Technical Notes, this panel design pro-
about 30% to 15% of all interviews.
duces a time-in-sample effect on survey estimates.
Cases assigned to be interviewed by CATI were not ran-
Respondents tend to report more victimizations during first-
dom assignments. They were generally selected from pri-
time interviews than in subsequent interviews. In part, this
mary sampling units (PSUs) with large numbers of sample
is because respondents new to the survey tend to recall
cases. Cases assigned to CATI were considered easier to
events as having taken place at a time that was more
enumerate and were usually in urban and suburban areas.
recent than when they actually occurred.
If a case could not be completed in CATI, it was returned to
To offset this bias, a bounding procedure in which first-time a field representative to attempt to complete the interview.
interviews are not included in the production of estimates
has traditionally been used for the NCVS (i.e., seven inter-
view rotations minus the bounding interview). Prior to 2006, Table 9. Type of crime, with bounding adjustment
victimizations reported during first-time interviews were and without first interview, 2007
used only to bound future interviews. Rate per 1,000 persons or households
With bounding Without first
In July 2007, interviews with first-time households were Type of crime adjustment interview
used in the production of survey estimates to offset the
impact of the 14% sample reduction. During the year, one- Violent crime 20.7 20.5
Rape/sexual assault 1.0 1.0
seventh of all sampled households were interviewed each Robbery 2.4 2.3
month for the first time. Using first-time interviews to calcu- Assault 17.3 17.2
late victimization estimates helped to ensure that the over- Aggravated 3.4 3.5
all sample size would remain consistent with previous Simple 13.9 13.8
years. Personal larceny 0.8 0.7
Without an adjustment for the time-in-sample effects of Property crime 146.5 144.9
first-time interviews, including those households would Burglary 26.9 26.9
have introduced an upward bias in the survey estimates. Motor vehicle theft 8.2 8.2
Theft 111.4 109.9
Weighting adjustments were developed to counteract an

8 Criminal Victimization, 2007

In July 2007, CATI as an interview technique was discontin- Personal crime rates for outgoing sample areas in 2005
ued due to the cost and time involved to transfer cases to were generally lower than those in areas that continued in
and from the telephone centers. Beginning in the second sample across the redesign. Incoming or new sample
half of 2007, all NCVS interviewing was conducted using areas in 2006 generally had higher personal crime rates
CAPI. Analysis by the U.S. Census Bureau indicated that than continuing areas. Not all differences measured quar-
the transition from PAPI to CAPI affected the 2006 personal terly—January through March, April through June, July
crime (violent crime and personal theft) rates. Those effects through September, and October through December—
were reduced in 2007 (figure 3). were statistically significant (figure 4).
As standard practice, the U.S. Census Bureau updates its The transition from PAPI to CAPI as an interview technique
sample areas for ongoing household surveys about mid- affected the property crime rates in 2006. Those effects
decade. To account for shifts in the population and house- were reduced in 2007 (figure 5). In 2007, there was little
hold locations that occur over time, a new sample was evidence that the household crime rates for outgoing or
introduced to the NCVS in 2006. Analysis of personal crime incoming areas were different than the rates for continuing
rates before and after the sample redesign showed an areas (figure 6).
extensive effect in 2006 and a reduced effect beginning
April 2007.

Increased rates of victimization for personal crimes were Transition from PAPI to CAPI in 2006 affected the
observed in 2006 during the transition from PAPI to CAPI victimization rate reported for property crime
Crime rate per 1,000 persons Crime rate per 1,000 households
35 200
CAPI
30 CATI
Overall 175
CATI Overall CAPI
25
150
20 PAPI
PAPI 125
15
100
10
75
5
50
0
1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd
1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd
2004 2005 2006 2007
2004 2005 2006 2007
Calendar years shown in 6-month intervals
Calendar years shown in 6-month intervals
January-June (1st) and July-December (2nd)
January-June (1st) and July-December (2nd)
Figure 5
Figure 3

Personal crime rates were generally higher for incoming or Property crime rates in 2007 were about the same for
new sample areas after CAPI was introduced in July 2006 incoming, continuing, and outgoing sample areas
Crime rate per 1,000 persons
Crime rate per 1,000 households
35
New 200
30 Continuing New
Overall 175
25
150
Continuing
20 Overall
125 Old
Old
15
100
10
75
5
50
0 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd
1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 2004 2005 2006 2007
2004 2005 2006 2007 Calendar years shown in 6-month intervals
Calendar years shown in 6-month intervals January-June (1st) and July-December (2nd)
January-June (1st) and July-December (2nd)
Figure 4 Figure 6

Criminal Victimization, 2007 9

Analysis of the 2006 and 2007 estimates revealed interac- BJS and the U.S. Census Bureau continue to examine
tions between survey mode and sample type (i.e., old ver- the impact of methodological changes on survey
sus new versus continuing). When CAPI interviewing was estimates
introduced in July 2006, interviews conducted in incoming
Analyses undertaken by BJS and the U.S. Census Bureau
sample areas produced much higher personal crime rates
established that the year-to-year 2005 to 2006 and 2006 to
than CAPI interviews in continuing areas, an effect attrib-
2007 NCVS estimates were not comparable as a result of
uted to the impact of new interviewers in the new sample
the methodological changes introduced to the survey in
areas. This effect appeared to diminish in the second
2006. The apparent increase in victimization from 2005 to
quarter, April to June 2007. In comparison, no such clear
2006 has been largely attributed to implementing a new
patterns were evident for property crime rates when
sample design, training interviewers new to the survey, and
mode—PAPI, CATI, and CAPI—and sample type were
changing the mode of collecting the data.
examined.
These changes were most heavily felt in new sample areas
The transition from PAPI to CAPI and the effects of the
in 2006, which were mainly rural areas. Data collected in
sample redesign resulted in increases in crime rates in
those areas appeared to coincide with the greatest shifts in
2006 and prevented comparing those NCVS estimates with
reported crime rates from 2005 to 2006.
earlier years. The effects were primarily in rural areas,
which had a larger percentage than urban and suburban Urban and suburban areas surveyed in 2006 using both the
areas of incoming or new sample areas and outgoing old and new sample designs were designated as continu-
areas. ing areas. Estimates of violent and property crime did not
change significantly from 2005 to 2006 in those continuing
The observed effects on the 2006 estimates diminished in
areas. In comparison, violent and property victimization
2007. This decrease was consistent with the explanation
rates in new areas—areas included in the new sample
that the selection of a new sample requires hiring and train-
design only—increased greatly, compared to the old areas
ing new interviewers to administer the survey during every
they replaced.
redesign. Interviewers new to the survey and the training
associated with the redesign resulted in higher victimization The substantial changes in victimization estimates from
rates being reported. 2005 to 2006 and from 2006 to 2007 were too extreme to
be attributable to actual year-to-year changes. Users
The effects of the sample redesign and changes in the sur-
should focus on the comparison of the 2005 and 2007 rates
vey administration or mode in 2006 decreased in 2007. The
until these issues are resolved. It is emphasized that the
NCVS estimates in 2007 are comparable to those in 2005
impact of the changes is on estimates of the extent and
and earlier years.
rates of crime, not on the attributes of victims or crime inci-
dents. Based on research completed to date, the data for
2007 as presented in this report are comparable with esti-
mates for 2005 all previous years of the NCVS.

10 Criminal Victimization, 2007

Methodology personal crimes is the sum of all person weights. The base
for the property crime rates is the sum of all household
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is an
weights. For more detail, see Criminal Victimization in the
annual data collection conducted by the U.S. Census
United States, Statistical Tables, Methodology at <http://
Bureau for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm>.
NCVS collects information on nonfatal crimes, reported and
not reported to the police, against persons age 12 or older The NCVS sample was reduced by 14% in 2007 based on
from a nationally representative sample of U.S. house- new budgetary constraints. To offset this reduction begin-
holds. Violent crimes measured by the NCVS include rape ning with the 2006 NCVS, BJS included the data from the
or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple first interview in the production of estimates.
assault. Property crimes include household burglary, motor
Earlier research conducted during the development of the
vehicle theft, and theft.
NCVS found that persons often report crimes that occurred
The survey results in this report are based on data gath- before the reference period. Prior to 2006, the first of seven
ered from residents living throughout the United States, interviews was used to bound subsequent interviews and
including persons living in group quarters, such as dormito- not in the production of NCVS estimates. The second inter-
ries, rooming houses, and religious group dwellings. Armed view was the first data used in the analysis.
Forces personnel living in military barracks and institutional
To reduce costs and leverage more of the data in 2006, and
persons, such as correctional facility inmates, were not
to account for the sample reduction in 2007, BJS applied a
included in the scope of this survey.
bounding adjustment to the first interview to nullify any
Each housing unit selected for the National Crime Victim- over-reporting of crime. This allowed BJS to use the sur-
ization Survey (NCVS) remains in the sample for three vey’s full data collection. Further research showed that the
years, with each of seven interviews taking place at 6- bounding adjustment had no appreciable effect on the esti-
month intervals. An NCVS field representative’s first con- mates. This change did not explain the fluctuation in the
tact with a household selected for the survey is in person. rates observed from 2005 through 2007.
The field representative may conduct subsequent inter-
Comparisons of percentages and rates in this report were
views by telephone. To elicit more accurate reporting of
tested to determine if observed differences were statisti-
incidents, the NCVS uses a self-respondent method that
cally significant. Differences described as higher, lower, or
requires a direct interview with each person 12 years or
different passed a test at the 0.05 level of statistical signifi-
older in the household.
cance (95%-confidence level). Differences described as
Annual collection year estimates of the levels and rates of somewhat, slightly, marginally, or some indication passed a
victimization are derived by accumulating estimates quar- test at the 0.10 level of statistical significance (90%-confi-
terly. The weights of all crimes reported during the inter- dence level). Caution is required when comparing esti-
views in that year are summed, regardless of when the mates not explicitly discussed in this bulletin.
crime occurred. The base for the collection year rate for

Criminal Victimization, 2007 11

U.S. Department of Justice *NCJ~224390* PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
Office of Justice Programs DOJ/BJS
Bureau of Justice Statistics Permit No. G-91

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

This report in portable document format and in The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency
ASCII and its related statistical data are of the U.S. Department of Justice. Michael D. Sinclair is
available at the BJS World Wide Web Internet deputy director.
site: <http://www. ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/
BJS Bulletins present the first release of findings from
cv07.htm>
permanent data collection programs.
This Bulletin was written by Michael R. Rand.
Patsy A. Klaus and Cathy T. Maston verified the report.
Office of Justice Programs
Georgette Walsh edited the report. Tina Dorsey
Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods produced the report and Jayne Robinson prepared
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov the report for final printing under the supervision of
Doris J. James.
December 2008, NCJ 224390

12 Criminal Victimization, 2007