Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T06:39:50.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Introduction to the National Crime Victimization Survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2009

By
Callie Marie Rennison  and
Michael Rand
Edited by
James P. Lynch  and
Lynn A. Addington
Callie Marie Rennison
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri–St. Louis
Michael Rand
Affiliation:
Chief of Victimization Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
James P. Lynch
Affiliation:
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York
Lynn A. Addington
Affiliation:
American University, Washington DC
Get access

Summary

If we knew more about the character of both offenders and victims, the nature of their relationships and the circumstances that create a high probability of crime conduct, it seems likely that crime prevention and control programs could be made much more effective.

The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, 1967a

For more than 30 years, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and its predecessor the National Crime Survey (NCS) have provided detailed information about the nature and extent of personal and property victimization in the United States. Much of our current understanding about crime, such as the most vulnerable segments of the population, the proportion of crime involving weapons, the types of injuries sustained in violent crimes, and the extent of reporting to police, is derived from the NCS and NCVS. The NCVS also serves as a model for victimization surveys implemented throughout the world because it incorporates many innovative methodological protocols that enhance its ability to produce reliable estimates of the nature and extent of criminal victimization. These methodological techniques combined with the large sample size and the extensive details collected by the survey on crime events are all reasons that the current NCVS remains the “most comprehensive and systematic survey of victims in the United States” (Mosher et al., 2002, p. 137).

The NCVS and the Uniform Crime Reporting System (UCR) comprise the two ongoing national measures of crime in the United States.

Type
Chapter
Information
Understanding Crime Statistics
Revisiting the Divergence of the NCVS and the UCR
 , pp. 17 - 54
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (1995). The survey research handbook: Guidelines and strategies for conducting a survey. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Beattie, R. H. (1941). “The sources of criminal statistics.” American Academy of Political and Social Science 217:19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biderman, A. D. (1967). “Surveys of population samples for estimating crime incidence.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 374:16–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biderman, A. D. (1981). “Notes on the methodological development of the National Crime Survey.” In Lehnen, R. G. & Skogan, W. G. (Eds.), The National Crime Survey: Working papers, volume I: Current and historical perspectives (NCJ-75374). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Biderman, A. D., Cantor, D., Lynch, J. P., & Martin, E. (1986). Final report of the National Crime Survey redesign. Washington, DC: Bureau of Social Science Research.Google Scholar
Biderman, A. D., & Lynch, J. P. (1991). Understanding crime incidence statistics: Why the UCR diverges from the NCS. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biderman, A. D., & Moore, J. (1982). Report on the workshop on cognitive issues in surveys of retrospective surveys. Washington, DC: Bureau of Social Science Research and U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
Biderman, A. D., & Reiss, A. J. Jr. (1967). “On exploring the ‘dark figure’ of crime.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 374:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1989). National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) redesign: Questions and answers (NCJ-15117). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1990). Criminal victimization in the United States 1988 (NCJ-122024). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1994). Technical background on the redesigned National Crime Victimization Survey (NCJ-151172). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1997). Criminal victimization 1996, changes 1995–96 with trends 1993–96 (NCJ-165812). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2000). Criminal victimization in the United States 1995 (NCJ-171129). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Criminal victimization in the United States 2003 statistical tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved July 11, 2006 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/cvus03mt.pdf.
Bushery, J. M. (1978). “NCS noninterview rates by time-in-sample.” Unpublished memorandum, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.
Cantor, D., & Lynch, J. P. (2000). “Self report surveys as measures of crime and criminal victimization.” In Duffee, D. (Ed.), Criminal justice 2000: Measurement and analysis of crime and justice (Vol. 4). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Pp. 85–138.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Dodge, R. W. (1981). “The Washington D.C. recall study.” Reprinted in Lehnen, R. G. & Skogan, W. G. (Eds.), The National Crime Survey: Working papers, volume I: Current and historical perspectives (NCJ-75374). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. (Original work published 1970) pp. 12–15.Google Scholar
Dodge, R. W., & Balog, F. D. (1987). Series crimes: Report of a field test (NCJ-104615). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Dodge, R. W., & Turner, A. (1981). “Methodological foundations for establishing a national survey of victimization.” Reprinted in Lehnen, R. G. & Skogan, W. G. (Eds.), The National Crime Survey: Working papers, volume I: Current and historical perspectives (NCJ-75374). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. (Original work published 1971) pp. 2–6.Google Scholar
Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey methodology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hart, T. C., & Rennison, C. M. (2003). Reporting crime to police, 1992–2000 (NCJ-195710). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubble, D. L. (1995). The National Crime Victimization Survey redesign: New questionnaire and procedures development and phase-in methodology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Statistical Association, Orlando, Florida, August 1995.Google Scholar
Hubble, D. L., & Wilder, B. E. (1995). Preliminary results from the National Crime Survey CATI experiment. New Orleans, LA: Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Survey Methods Section, 1995.Google Scholar
Kindermann, C., Lynch, J. P., & Cantor, D. (1997). The effects of the redesign on victimization estimates (NCJ-164381). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Klaus, P., & Rennison, C. M. (2002). Age patterns of violent victimization, 1976–2000 (NCJ-190104). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauritsen, J. L. (2005). “Social and scientific influences on the measurement of criminal victimization.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 21:245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. (circa 1974). National sample survey documentation, appendix D. NCP classification scheme description. Unpublished memo.
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. (1976a). Criminal victimization in the United States 1973 (SD-NCP-N4). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. (1976b). Criminal victimization in the United States 1974 (SD-NCS-N-6). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. (1976c). Criminal victimization surveys in eight American cities: A comparison of 1971/72 and 1974/75 findings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. (circa 1977–1978). Report concerning the future of the National Crime Survey (NCS). Unpublished internal memo written in response to an October 21, 1977, directive from the deputy attorney general.
Lehnen, R. G., & Reiss, A. J. (1978). “Response effects in the National Crime Survey.” Victimology 3:110–160.Google Scholar
Lehnen, R. G., & Skogan, W. G. (1981). The National Crime Survey: Working papers, volume I: Current and historical perspectives (NCJ-75374). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Lehnen, R. G., & Skogan, W. G. (1984). The National Crime Survey: Working papers volume II: Methodological studies (NCJ-90307). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Martin, E. (1982). Procedural history of changes in NCS instruments, interviewing procedures, and definitions. Unpublished memo, Bureau of Social Science Research, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Mosher, C. J., Miethe, T. D., & Phillips, D. M. (2002). The mismeasure of crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Murphy, L. R., & Cowan, C. D. (1984). “Effects of bounding on telescoping in the National Crime Survey.” Reprinted in Lehnen, R. G. & Skogan, W. G. (Eds.), The National Crime Survey: Working papers volume II: Methodological studies (NCJ-90307). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. (Original work published 1976) pp. 83–89.Google Scholar
Murphy, L. R., & Dodge, R. (1981). “The Baltimore recall study.” Reprinted in Lehnen, R. G. & Skogan, W. G. (Eds.), The National Crime Survey: Working papers, volume I: Current and historical perspectives (NCJ-75374). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. (Original work published 1970) pp. 16–21.Google Scholar
Neter, J., & Waksberg, J. (1964). “Conditioning effects from repeated household interviews.” Journal of Marketing 29:51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penick, B., & Owens, M. (1976). Surveying crime. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. (1967a). The challenge of crime in a free society.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. (1967b). Task force report: Crime and its impact – an assessment.
Rand, M. R., Lynch, J. P., & Cantor, D. (1997). Criminal victimization 1973–95 (NCJ-163069). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Rennison, C. M. (2001a). Intimate partner violence and age of victim (NCJ-187635). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Rennison, C. M. (2001b). Violent victimization and race, 1993–98 (NCJ-176354). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Rennison, C. M. (2002a). Rape and sexual assault: Reporting to police and medical attention, 1992–2000 (NCJ-194530). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Rennison, C. M. (2002b). Hispanic victims of violent crime, 1993–2000/Víctimas hispanas de crímenes violentos, 1993–2000 (NCJ-191208). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Rennison, C. M. (2003). Intimate partner violence, 1993–2001 (NCJ-197838). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rennison, C. M., & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate partner violence (NCJ-178247). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringel, C. (1997). Criminal victimization 1996, changes 1995–96 with trends 1993–96 (NCJ-165812). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, M. D., & Hubble, D. L. (1993). “Results from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) CATI experiment.” In American Statistical Association 1993 Proceedings of the Section in Survey Research Methods, Volume II (pp. 742–747). Arlington, VA: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar
Sellin, T. (1931). “The basis of a crime index.” Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology 22:52–64.Google Scholar
Skogan, W. G. (1981). Issues in the measurement of victimization (NCJ-74682). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Strack, F., & Martin, L. L. (1987). “Thinking, judging, and communicating: A process account of context effects in attitude surveys.” In Hippler, H. J., Schwarz, N., & Sudman, S. (Eds.), Social information processing and survey methodology (pp. 123–148). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. M., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Taylor, B. (1989). Redesign of the National Crime Survey (NCJ-111457). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Taylor, B., & Rand, M. R. (1995). “The National Crime Victimization Survey redesign: New understandings of victimization dynamics and measurement.” Paper presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings of the American Statistical Association, Orlando, FL, August 1995.
Tourengeau, R. (1984). “Cognitive sciences and survey methods.” In Jabine, T., Straf, M., Tanur, J. M., & Tourangeau, R. (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of survey methodology: Building a bridge between disciplines (pp. 73–100). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Turner, A. G. (1972). San Jose methods test of known crime victims. Washington, DC: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). National Crime Victimization Survey regional office manual (NCVS-570). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (1968). Report on national needs for criminal justice statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×