Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 179–200

Understanding the Role of Repeat Victims in the Production of Annual US Victimization Rates

Original Paper

Abstract

Victimization incidence rates produced from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) are a generally accepted annual indicator of the amount and type of crime in the United States. However, persons who report a large number of similar victimizations—known as series victimizations in the NCVS—are currently excluded in government reports of annual violent victimizations. This paper quantifies the effect of series incident counting procedures on national estimates of violent victimization. The findings suggest that these high-volume repeat victims can have a significant impact on the magnitude and distribution of violent victimization. Current government counting rules that exclude series incidents do not include about three out of every five violent victimizations and distorts the characterization and risk of violence in the United States. However, the inclusion of series incidents introduces significant estimate instability. One remedy is to use prevalence rates in concert with incidence rates to present a more complete and reliable picture of victimization.

Keywords

National Crime Victimization Survey Victimization rates Survey methodology Repeat victimization 

References

  1. Biderman AD (1980) Notes on measurement by crime victimization surveys. In: Fienberg SE, Reiss AJ Jr (eds) Indicators of crime and criminal justice: quantitative studies. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Biderman A, Lynch J (1991) Understanding crime incidence statistics: why the UCR diverges from the NCS. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Dodge RW (1984) Series victimization—what is to be done? In: Lehnen RG, Skogan WG (eds) National Crime Survey: Working Papers, Current and historical perspectives, vol 1. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Dodge RW (1987) Series crimes: report of a field test. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Farrell G (1995) Preventing repeat victimization. In: Tonry M, Farrington DP (eds) Crime and justice: building a safer society, vol 19. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 469–534Google Scholar
  6. Farrell G, Pease K (1993) Once bitten, twice bitten: repeat victimisation & its implications for crime prevention (Home Office Crime Prevention Unit Series No. 46, HMSO). Home Office Crime Prevention Unit, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Farrell G, Tseloni A, Pease K (2005) Repeat victimization in the ICVS and the NCVS. Crime Prev Community Saf Int J 7:7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fienberg SE, Reiss AJ (1980) Indicators of crime and criminal justice: quantitative studies. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Klaus PA (2003) Crime and the nation’s households, 2003. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Lauritsen JL, Davis Quinnet KF (1995) Repeat victimization among adolescents and young adults. J Quant Criminol 11:143–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lynch J, Berbaum M, Planty M (2002) Investigating repeated victimization with the NCVS: Final Report, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Pease K (1998) Repeat victimisation: taking stock (Crime Prevention and Detection Paper 90). Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Penick B, Owens M (1976) Surveying crime. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Polvi N, Looman T, Humphries C, Pease K (1991) The time-course of repeat burglary victimization. Br J Criminol 31:411–414Google Scholar
  15. Rand M, Saltzman LE (2003) The nature and extent of recurring intimate partner violence in the United States. J Comp Fam Stud XXXIV:137–149Google Scholar
  16. Rand M, Rennison CM (2005) Bigger is not necessarily better: an analysis of violence against women estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey and the National Violence Against Women Survey. J Quant Criminol 21:267–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rennison CM (2002) Criminal victimization 2001: changes 2000–2001 with trends 1993–2001. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Rennison CM (2003) Intimate partner violence, 1993–2001. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Shenk F, McInerney W (1981) Analytic limitations of the National Crime Survey. In: Lehnen RG, Skogan WG (eds) National Crime Survey: Working Papers, Current and historical perspectives, vol 1. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Skogan WG (1981) Issues in the measurement of victimization. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Sparks RF (1981a) Multiple victimization: evidence, theory and future research. J Crim Law Criminol 72:762–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sparks RF (1981b) Measuring crime rates and opportunities for crime. In: Lehnen RG, Skogan WG (eds) National Crime Survey: Working Papers, Current and historical perspectives, vol 1. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Trickett A, Osborn D, Seymour J, Pease K (1992) What is different about high crime areas? Br J Criminol 32:81–89Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Center for Education StatisticsWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.RTI InternationalResearch Triangle ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations