How Crime in the United States Is Measured






Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress



Crime data collected through the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), the National Incident-Based
Reporting System (NIBRS), and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) are used by
Congress to inform policy decisions and allocate federal criminal justice funding to states. As
such, it is important to understand how each program collects and reports crime data, and the
limitations associated with the data.
This report reviews (1) the history of the UCR, the NIBRS, and the NCVS; (2) the methods each
program uses to collect crime data; and (3) the limitations of the data collected by each program.
The report then compares the similarities and differences of UCR and NCVS data. It concludes
by reviewing issues related to the NIBRS and the NCVS.
The UCR represents the first effort to create a national, standardized measure of the incidence of
crime. It was conceived as a way to measure the effectiveness of local law enforcement and to
provide law enforcement with data that could be used to help fight crime. UCR data are now used
extensively by researchers, government officials, and the media for research, policy, and planning
purposes. The UCR also provides some of the most commonly cited crime statistics in the United
States. The UCR reports offense and arrest data for 8 different Part I offenses and arrest data for

21 different Part II offenses.


The NIBRS was developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to respond to the law
enforcement community’s belief that the UCR needed to be updated to provide more in-depth st
data to meet the needs of law enforcement into the 21 century. The NIBRS collects data,
including data on offense(s), offender(s), victim(s), arrestee(s), and any property involved in an
offense, for 46 different Group A offenses and 11 different Group B offenses. Despite the more
detailed crime data that the NIBRS can provide, nationwide implementation of the program has
been slow, for a variety of reasons, including cost considerations.
The NCVS is the primary source of information on the characteristics of criminal victimization,
and on the number and types of crime not reported to law enforcement. The NCVS has four major
objectives: (1) to develop detailed information about the victims and consequences of crime, (2)
to estimate the number and types of crimes not reported to police, (3) to provide uniform
measures of selected types of crimes, and (4) to permit comparisons over time and population
type (e.g., urban, suburban, and rural). The NCVS asks respondents whether they have been the
victim of rape and sexual assault, robbery, simple and aggravated assault, purse
snatching/pickpocketing, burglary, theft, or motor vehicle theft. In addition to collecting data on
the number of victimizations, the NCVS gathers data on the details of each incident of
victimization. This report will be updated as warranted.






Introduc tion ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Uniform Crime Reports...................................................................................................................2
UCR’s History...........................................................................................................................2
How UCR Data Are Collected..................................................................................................4
UCR Participation in the United States...............................................................................4
State UCR Programs...........................................................................................................5
UCR Data............................................................................................................................6
Scoring and Classifying UCR Data....................................................................................7
Development of the NIBRS......................................................................................................9
The NIBRS Compared with the UCR......................................................................................11
NIBRS Data.......................................................................................................................11
NIBRS Certification..........................................................................................................12
Classifying and Scoring NIBRS Data...............................................................................13
Advantages of the NIBRS.................................................................................................13
Transition to the NIBRS..........................................................................................................14
Limitations of UCR and NIBRS Data.....................................................................................14
Limited Offense Data........................................................................................................14
Unreported Crimes............................................................................................................15
Reporting Practices of Law Enforcement.........................................................................15
Missing Data.....................................................................................................................16
Imputation Procedures......................................................................................................16
National Crime Victimization Survey...........................................................................................17
NCVS’s History......................................................................................................................18
How NCVS Data Are Collected..............................................................................................23
NCVS Data.......................................................................................................................23
NCVS Methodology.........................................................................................................24
Limitations of NCVS Data......................................................................................................27
Sampling and Non-sampling Error...................................................................................27
Sampling Bias...................................................................................................................28
Series Victimizations........................................................................................................28
Changes in Household Residents......................................................................................29
Limitations on the Scope of Crimes Covered...................................................................30
Survey Design and Implementation..................................................................................30
The UCR Compared with the NCVS............................................................................................31
Select Issues..................................................................................................................................32
Implementing the NIBRS Nationwide..............................................................................32
Does the NIBRS Increase the Crime Rate? .....................................................................34
Decreases in the NCVS Sample Size................................................................................36
Figure 1. Percentage of Victimizations Reported as Series Victimizations, 2000-2005...............29





Table 1. Number and Percentage of Cases in Which NIBRS Crime Rates Differ from
UCR Crime Rates by 5.5% or Less............................................................................................35
Appendix A. Status of UCR and NIBRS Reporting, by State.......................................................38
Appendix B. UCR Part I and Part II Offenses...............................................................................41
Appendix C. UCR Hierarchy of Part I Offenses...........................................................................43
Appendix D. NIBRS Data Elements.............................................................................................45
Appendix E. Relationship Between NIBRS Data Elements..........................................................48
Appendix F. NIBRS Group A and Group B Offenses...................................................................49
Appendix G. UCR Offense Definitions.........................................................................................52
Appendix H. NIBRS Offense Definitions.....................................................................................56
Appendix I. Number of Households and Persons Interviewed for the NCVS, by Year................64
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................64






Congress uses data from the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), the National Incident-Based 1
Reporting System (NIBRS), and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to inform
policy decisions and develop appropriate responses to crime. Such crime data have been used to rd
shape policy in a variety of ways. For example, in the 103 Congress, the Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS) program was created to provide state and local law enforcement
agencies with grants to help them hire, rehire, and redeploy law enforcement officers to engage in
community policing. Congress cited both UCR and NCVS crime statistics when articulating the 2
need for more community policing officers.
In addition to shaping policy, Congress has used crime data to develop formula allocations for
certain grant programs. For example, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)
program formula uses UCR data to allocate federal funds to state and local governments for 3
criminal justice programs.
In the 110th Congress, two bills have been introduced (S. 368 and H.R. 1700) that would increase 4
authorized funding for and expand the scope of the COPS program. The impetus for the 5
legislation was a recent increase in the violent crime rate as reported by the UCR. Moreover,
both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees recommended increased funding for state
and local law enforcement to support efforts to fight and prevent crime. The House report that
accompanied the House Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill stated that the 6
committee was concerned about the recent increase in the violent crime rate. In addition, the
House and the Senate Appropriations Committees increased funding for the Federal Bureau of 7
Investigation (FBI) to hire additional agents to investigate violent crime. The committees felt it
was important for the FBI to help state and local law enforcement investigate violent crime in

1 Currently, there are not enough law enforcement agencies in the country submitting NIBRS data for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to report annual crime statistics using NIBRS data. The FBI still publishes annual crime
data using the UCR summary format (see below). As such, the FBI converts data submitted from NIBRS-compliant
law enforcement agencies into UCR summary data.
2 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, conference report
to accompany H.R. 3355, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 103-711 (Washington: GPO, 1994), p. 372.
3 For more information on how UCR crime data are used in the JAG program, see CRS Report RS22416, Edward
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program: Legislative and Funding History, by Nathan James.
4 For more information on S. 368, H.R. 1700, and the COPS program, see CRS Report RL33308, Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS): Background, Legislation, and Issues, by Nathan James.
5 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, COPS Improvement Act of 2007, report to accompany H.R. 1700,
110th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 110-150 (Washington: GPO, 2007), pp. 6-7; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the thst
Judiciary, COPS Improvement Act of 2007, report to accompany S. 368, 110 Cong., 1 sess., S.Rept. 110-73
(Washington: GPO, 2007), pp. 3, 7.
6 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies, Making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies thst
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, report to accompany H.R. 3093, 110 Cong., 1
sess., H.Rept. 110-240 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 37.
7 Ibid., pp. 53-54; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science,
and Related Agencies, Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, thst
2008, report to accompany S. 1745, 110 Cong., 1 sess., S.Rept. 110-124 (Washington: GPO, 2007), pp. 65-66.





light of the recent increase in the violent crime rate.8 The aforementioned legislation and
congressional action were based on crime data collected by the UCR and the NCVS.
Because of the importance of crime data in both shaping policy and allocating federal funding, it
is important to understand how each program collects data and the limitations of the data. This
report reviews (1) the history of the UCR, the NIBRS, and the NCVS; (2) the methods each
program uses to collect crime data; and (3) the limitations of the data collected by each program.
The report then compares the similarities and differences of UCR and NCVS data. It concludes
by reviewing issues related to the NIBRS and the NCVS.

When the UCR was established in the late 1920s, it represented the first national, standardized
measure of the incidence of crime. It was originally conceived as a way to measure the
effectiveness of local law enforcement to provide law enforcement with data that could be used to
help fight crime. UCR data are now used extensively by academics and government officials for
research, policy, and planning purposes, and the data are widely cited in the media. The UCR also
provides some of the most commonly cited crime statistics in the United States. An effort is
currently underway to replace the UCR with the NIBRS, a more detailed version of the UCR.
However, the transition from the UCR to the NIBRS has been slow.
In 1927, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) formed the Committee on
Uniform Crime Records (the Committee) to develop a system for collecting uniform crime 9
statistics. The IACP felt that a national system of crime reporting would put inevitable (and
unpredictable) swings in the number of reported crimes in a single jurisdiction into a proper 10
context. The IACP felt that putting changes in local crime incidence in the proper context would
help reduce media pressure on local jurisdictions and police chiefs from sensational or sporadic
increases in crime, which had resulted in some police departments “cooking the books” to reduce
the amount of recorded crime (though there was no reduction in the amount of crime reported to 11
the police). The Committee decided that offenses known to police would be the most 12
appropriate measure of the incidence of crime in the United States. The Committee—after
evaluating various crimes on the basis of their seriousness, frequency of occurrence,
pervasiveness in all areas of the country, and likelihood of being reported to the police—
identified seven crimes for which local law enforcement would report data to the national
program: felonious murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny/theft, and auto

8 Ibid.
9 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, Revised 2004, p.
2, hereafterUCR Handbook.”
10 Michael D. Maltz, Bridging Gaps in Police Crime Data, NCJ 176365, September 1999, U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 4, hereafter M.D. Maltz, Bridging Gaps in Police Crime
Data.”
11 Ibid.
12 UCR Handbook, p. 2.





theft.13 The IACP focused on these seven crimes because they were prevalent, generally serious in
their nature, widely identified by victims and witnesses as criminal incidents, and most likely to 14
be reported to police. Differences in the way that state criminal codes defined different crimes
prevented the IACP from simply aggregating state statistics to count the number of offenses 15
known to police. Thus, the IACP developed standardized offense definitions for the seven
offense categories.
In 1929, IACP published Uniform Crime Reporting, a manual for police records and statistics,
which included uniform definitions for law enforcement agencies to use when submitting data to 16
IACP. In that same year, 400 cities in 43 states and the territories of Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and
Alaska submitted statistics to IACP, which published the data in Uniform Crime Reports for the 17
United States and Its Possessions. In 1930, Congress, at the urging of IACP, authorized the 18
Attorney General to collect crime data. The Attorney General designated the FBI as the 19
clearinghouse for crime data collected through the UCR.
The scope of the UCR program has continued to expand since it was created. Some of the
changes to the UCR program include the following:
• Starting in 1952, law enforcement agencies began to submit data on the age, sex, 20
and race of people arrested for crimes.
• Beginning in 1958, the FBI began to estimate annual crime rates for the nation as 21
a whole. Prior to 1958, the FBI did not aggregate the data to the national level
because there were not enough law enforcement agencies submitting data to the
FBI to allow it to report national crime rates. Instead, the FBI published data in
tables only according to the size of the reporting jurisdiction.
• In 1958, the FBI created a national crime index to serve as a general indicator of 22
criminality in the United States. The national crime index was the total number
of reported murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny/theft 23
(over $50), and auto theft offenses.
• In 1960, the UCR started to collect national statistics on law enforcement officers 24
killed. In 1972, the UCR started to collect specific information on incidents in 25
which law enforcement officers were killed or assaulted.

13 Ibid.
14 Clayton J. Mosher, Terance D. Miethe, and Dretha M. Phillips, The Mismeasure of Crime (Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, 2002), p. 60, hereafter “C.J. Mosher et al., The Mismeasure of Crime.”
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
18 28 U.S.C. § 534.
19 UCR Handbook, p. 2.
20 Ibid.
21 M.D. Maltz, Bridging Gaps in Police Crime Data, p. 4.
22 UCR Handbook, p. 2.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.





• In 1962, the UCR, through the Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR), started to
collect data, where available, on the age, sex, and race of murder victims, the
weapon used, and the circumstances surrounding the offense.
• In the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, there was continued growth of state
UCR programs, which served as an intermediary between local law enforcement 26
and the FBI (see below).
• In 1978, Congress mandated the collection of arson data.27 In 1982, Congress
required the FBI to permanently count arson as a Part I offense (a definition of 28
“Part I offense” is below). The FBI started to publish a “modified crime index,”
which included the total number of reported index crimes plus the total number
of reported arsons.
• In 1990, following the passage of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (P.L. 101-275),29
the FBI started to collect data on bias motivation in criminal incidents in which
the offense resulted in whole or in part because of the offender’s prejudice 30
against a race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/nationality. In 1994,
Congress amended the Act to require the FBI to collect data on incidents in
which the offense resulted from the offender’s bias against a physical or mental 31
disability.
• In 2004, the FBI discontinued publishing both the crime index and the modified
crime index. Since 2004, the FBI has published only a violent crime total and a 32
property crime total.
According to the FBI, 17,456 law enforcement agencies in the United States submitted UCR data 3334
in 2005, meaning that 98% of all agencies in the nation participated in the UCR in 2005.

26 C.J. Mosher et al., The Mismeasure of Crime, p. 61.
27 UCR Handbook, p. 2.
28 Ibid.
29 For more information on the Hate Crime Statistics Act, see CRS Report RL33403, Hate Crime Legislation, by
William J. Krouse.
30 UCR Handbook, p. 3.
31 Ibid.
32 The FBI reported that it chose to suspend using the crime index and the modified crime index after studying their
appropriateness and usefulness for several years. The FBI determined that both indexes were not true indicators of the
degree of criminality because they were driven upward by the offense with the highest number, typically larceny-theft.
The FBI reported that the sheer volume of those offenses overshadowed more serious but less frequently committed
offenses, creating a bias against a jurisdiction with a high number of larceny-thefts but a low number of other serious
crimes such as murder and forcible rape. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the
United States, 2005: About CUIS 2005, September 2006, hereafter About CUIS 2005.”
33 The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that in 2004 there were 17,876 state and local law enforcement agencies in
the United States. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Law
Enforcement Statistics. Document on file with author, available upon request.
34 About CUIS 2005.





Currently, 46 states and the District of Columbia submit UCR data through a state UCR program
(see Appendix A). In the remaining four states, local law enforcement agencies submit UCR data
directly to the FBI. In 25 of the states with a state UCR program, law enforcement agencies are
required by the state to submit UCR data to the state program (see Appendix A).
In order for UCR data to be collected from law enforcement agencies and submitted to the FBI,
the state UCR programs must meet certain requirements. The FBI established these requirements 35
to ensure consistency and comparability in the data it receives from state UCR programs. The
FBI has stated that should circumstances develop whereby a state UCR program does not comply
with the requirements, the FBI might bypass the state program and collect UCR data directly 36
from law enforcement agencies in the state. The FBI’s requirements for state UCR programs are
as follows:
• UCR program must conform to national UCR program standards, definitions, and
information required.
• The agency responsible for collecting UCR data must have a proven, effective,
statewide program, and it must have instituted acceptable quality control
procedures.
• The state crime reporting must cover a percentage of the state’s population at
least equal to that covered by the national UCR program.
• The state UCR program must have adequate field staff assigned to conduct audits
and assist contributing agencies in record-keeping practices and crime-reporting
procedures.
• The state UCR program must regularly provide the FBI with all of the detailed
data collected from individual law enforcement agencies that report to the state
UCR program in the form of duplicate returns, computer printouts, and/or
appropriate electronic media.
• The state UCR program must have the proven capability (tested over a period of
time) to supply all the statistical data required in time to meet the publication 37
deadlines of the national UCR program.
The FBI helps state UCR programs meet these requirements by (1) reviewing and editing data
submitted by individual agencies; (2) contacting individual agencies within a state when
necessary in connection with crime reporting matters; (3) coordinating with the state UCR
program to conduct training on law enforcement record-keeping and crime-reporting procedures;
(4) sending reporting forms to state UCR programs so they can be distributed to law enforcement
agencies within the state; and (5) coordinating individual law enforcement agency contacts with 38
the state UCR program. The FBI also makes Quality Assurance Reviews (QARs) available to
state UCR programs. QARs are voluntary and part of the FBI’s triennial audit of states’ criminal

35 UCR Handbook, p. 4.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid.





justice information systems.39 QARs help ensure that each state UCR program adheres to
summary and incident-based (see discussion of the NIBRS below) reporting methods that are 40
consistent with UCR standards, thereby increasing uniformity in the data reported.
The FBI collects data on the number of offenses known to police, the number and characteristics 41
of persons arrested, and the number of “clearances” for eight different offenses (see Appendix
B), collectively referred to as Part I offenses. Part I offenses include murder and nonnegligent
manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle
theft, and arson. The FBI collects data on the number of arrests made for 21 other offenses (see
Appendix B), known as Part II offenses. The UCR is a summary system, meaning that offense
data submitted to the FBI by local law enforcement agencies show the total number of known
Part I offenses. Likewise, UCR arrest data show the total number of persons arrested by reporting
law enforcement agencies. Arrest data submitted to the UCR program by local law enforcement 42
agencies also provide data on the basic characteristics—age, sex, and race—of persons arrested.
Because the UCR is a summary system, there is no way to determine whether a particular offense
was cleared by an arrest, or whether an arrest was made pursuant to a certain offense.
In addition to offense and arrest data, the FBI collects supplemental data on the type and value of 43
property stolen and recovered pursuant to reported crimes. The FBI asks law enforcement
agencies across the country to submit data to the UCR program on the number of sworn officers 44
and civilian law enforcement personnel. The FBI, through the UCR’s Supplementary Homicide
Report (SHR), collects data on the age, sex, and race of murder victims and offenders; the type of
weapon(s) used in the murders; relationships between victims and offenders; and the 45
circumstances surrounding each incident. The FBI collects data on incidents in which law
enforcement officers are killed, either feloniously or accidently, or assaulted while performing 46
their duties. The FBI also collects data on incidents of hate crime in the United States. For each
hate crime incident, law enforcement agencies collect data on the offense type, location, bias 47
motivation, victim type, number of offenders, and the apparent race of the offenders.

39 Ibid., p. 3.
40 Ibid.
41 A “clearance” is when a known offense is “solved through either an arrest or through exceptional means. An offense
is cleared through an arrest when at least one person is (1) arrested, (2) charged with the commission of the offense,
and (3) turned over to the court for prosecution. In some cases, law enforcement cannot follow the three steps to clear
an offense by arrest. In these cases, law enforcement might be able to clear an arrest through exceptional means. An
offense is cleared through exceptional means when a law enforcement agency can answer all of the following questions
in the affirmative: Has the investigation definitively established the identity of the offender? Is there enough
information to support an arrest, charge, and turning over to the court for prosecution? Is the exact location of the
offender known so that the subject could be taken into custody now? Is there some reason outside the law enforcement
control that precludes arresting, charging, and prosecuting the offender? (UCR handbook, pp. 78-82.)
42 Ibid., p. 96.
43 Ibid., p. 85.
44 About CUIS 2005.
45 Ibid.
46 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Law Enforcement Officers Killed or Assaulted, 2005.
47 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hate Crime Statistics, 2005.





Law enforcement agencies submit offense, arrest, clearance, and SHR data monthly. Law
enforcement agencies submit data on law enforcement officers killed or assaulted only when an
officer has been killed or assaulted. The FBI requires law enforcement agencies to submit hate
crime data on a quarterly basis. The FBI collects data on the number of sworn officers and law
enforcement personnel annually. The FBI publishes offense, arrest, clearance, SHR, and sworn
law enforcement officer data in its annual publication Crime in the United States. Data on law
enforcement officers killed or assaulted and on hate crimes are published by the FBI in two
separate publications: Law Enforcement Officers Killed or Assaulted and Hate Crime Statistics.
All law enforcement agencies participating in the UCR system must classify and score reported
crimes. Classifying criminal offenses refers to the process of translating offense titles used in 48
local and state criminal codes into the standard UCR definitions for Part I and Part II offenses.
Scoring criminal offenses refers to counting the number of offenses after they have been 49
classified. The FBI reminds state and local law enforcement agencies that they must classify and 50
score criminal offenses based on records for calls for service, complaints, and/or investigations.
According to the FBI, UCR data must reflect offense counts, not the decision of a prosecutor or 51
the findings of a court, coroner, or jury. Uniformity in the classification and scoring of criminal 52
offenses across jurisdictions is essential for maintaining the integrity of UCR data. In general,
reporting law enforcement agencies classify and score attempted crimes as though they were 53
completed. For example, an attempt to steal a motor vehicle would be classified and scored as a
motor vehicle theft. The only exception to this rule applies to attempted murder, which is 54
classified and scored as aggravated assault.
The FBI has instituted three rules—the hierarchy, hotel, and separation of time and place rules—
that local law enforcement agencies must apply when they are classifying and scoring criminal
offenses. The hierarchy rule states that when multiple Part I offenses occur in a single criminal 55
incident, only the most serious offense is scored and reported to the FBI. The hierarchy of Part I
offenses is provided in Appendix C. For example, if an offender raped and then murdered a
victim, the reporting law enforcement agency would score only the murder. However, there are
exceptions to the hierarchy rule. The hierarchy rule does not apply to cases of arson, which are
always scored and reported to the FBI, even if other Part I offenses are committed during the 56
incident. Another exception involves motor vehicle theft. If a motor vehicle is stolen and, by

48 C.J. Mosher et al., The Mismeasure of Crime, p. 63.
49 Ibid.
50 UCR Handbook, p. 7.
51 Ibid.
52 C.J. Mosher et al., The Mismeasure of Crime, p. 63.
53 UCR Handbook, pp. 15, 41.
54 Ibid.
55 The FBI states that the hierarchy rule applies only to crime reporting and does not affect the number of charges for
which a defendant may be prosecuted for in court. UCR Handbook, p. 10.
56 If multiple Part I offenses are committed concurrently with the arson, the hierarchy rule would be applied to the
additional Part I offenses and only the most serious offense would be scored along with the arson. Cynthia Barnett-
Ryan, “Introduction to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, in James P. Lynch and Lynn A. Addington, eds.,
Understanding Crime Statistics: Revisiting the Divergence of the NCVS and UCR (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2007), p. 65, hereafterC. Barnett-Ryan, ‘Introduction to the UCR Program.





extension, the contents of the vehicle constitute a larceny-theft, only the motor vehicle theft is
scored and reported to the FBI, even though larceny-theft ranks higher on the hierarchy of Part I 57
offenses. The final exception to the hierarchy rule involves justifiable homicide. In cases of
justifiable homicide, two offenses are scored and reported: one for the felonious offense
connected with the offender and one for the justifiable homicide, which is reported as an 5859
unfounded murder/nonnegilgent manslaughter.
The hotel rule applies only to burglary offenses. In cases where multiple dwelling units under a
single manager are burglarized and the offenses are more likely to be reported to the police by the 60
manager rather than the individual occupants, the burglaries are scored as one offense. The hotel
rule usually applies to burglaries of hotels, motels, lodging houses, or other places where the
lodging of transients is the main purpose. The hotel rule would not apply in instances where
multiple units that were leased or rented to tennants were burglarized, such as apartments or 61
offices in a business building. For example, if five hotel rooms were burglarized, it would be
scored as one burglary, but if five apartments were burglarized, it would be scored as five
burglaries.
The separation of time and place rule applies in instances where the same offender commits 62
multiple offenses over a short period of time in different locations. In such cases, the reporting
agency treats the offenses as separate events and classifies and scores them accordingly (i.e., 63
applies the hierarchy and/or hotel rule). According to the FBI, the “same time and place” means
that the time interval between the offenses and the distance between the locations where they 64
occurred are insignificant. Normally, the offenses must have occurred during an unbroken 65
period of time and at the same or adjoining location(s). However, the time and place rule does
not apply in instances where offenses, even if they are committed at different times and places,
are a part of continuing criminal activity committed by the same offender(s), and an investigation 66
deems the activity to constitute a single criminal transaction.
When scoring offenses, the UCR program distinguishes between crimes against persons (i.e.,
homicide/nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, and aggravated assault) and crimes against property 67
(i.e., robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson). For crimes against 68
persons, one offense is counted for each victim in the criminal incident. For example, if a
gunman shot and killed three people, the reporting agency would report three homicides. For
crimes against property, one offense is counted for each distinct operation or attempt in a criminal
incident, with the exception of motor vehicle theft, in which case one offense is counted for each

57 Ibid.
58Unfounded” crimes are crimes that come to the attention of law enforcement but are later found to be false or
baseless.
59 Ibid., pp. 65-66.
60 UCR Handbook, p. 62.
61 Ibid.
62 Ibid., p. 12.
63 C. Barnett-Ryan, “Introduction to the UCR Program, p. 66.
64 UCR Handbook, p. 12.
65 Ibid.
66 Ibid.
67 Ibid., p. 41.
68 Ibid.





stolen vehicle and one offense for each attempt to steal a motor vehicle in a criminal incident.69
For example, if someone walked into a store, pulled a gun, and robbed five customers, it would
be scored as one robbery. In instances where multiple Part I offenses are committed against
multiple victims in the same criminal incident, the hierarchy rule is applied first, and then crimes
are scored based on whether they were crimes against persons or crimes against property. For
example, if an assailant robbed one person and murdered someone who tried to break up the
robbery, only the murder would be scored, even though two crimes were committed against two
different people in the same criminal incident.
In addition to classifying and scoring offense data, law enforcement agencies must classify and
score arrest data. In many ways, arrests are classified and scored similar to the way offenses are
classified and scored. Arrest data submitted to the FBI reflect the number of people arrested, not 70
the number of charges lodged. For example, if one person is arrested for multiple crimes, the
reporting law enforcement agency reports one arrest. However, if one person is arrested multiple
times, and there is a separation of time and space between the arrests, each arrest is recorded
separately. If a person is arrested for multiple charges, the reporting agency must use only one 71
crime classification when reporting the arrest. Thus, if a person is arrested for both Part I and
Part II offenses, the reporting agency ignores the Part II offenses and scores only the most serious
Part I crime (see Appendix C) for which the person was arrested. If a person is arrested for Part
II offenses, the reporting agency must determine which is the most serious offense and score an 72
arrest only for that offense. If multiple people are arrested for the same crime, each person is 73
counted as a separate arrest. If a reporting agency determines that someone in custody has
committed other crimes, the agency does not report additional arrests; it reports only the original 74
arrest.
The data collected and disseminated by the UCR remained largely unchanged over time (i.e.,
since the beginning of the UCR system in 1929). Starting in the 1970s, consensus grew in the law
enforcement community that the UCR needed to be updated to provide more in-depth data to st75
meet the needs of law enforcement into the 21 century. In response, the FBI, through the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), contracted for a phased study of the UCR program, which 76
culminated with recommendations on how it could be improved. The study’s final report,
Blueprint for the Future of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program (Blueprint), was released in
May 1985, and it outlined three areas where the UCR could be enhanced to meet the future needs 77
of law enforcement. The study recommended that law enforcement agencies use an incident-

69 Ibid.
70 Ibid., p. 96.
71 Ibid., p. 97.
72 Ibid.
73 Ibid.
74 Ibid.
75 SEARCH, Cost Issues of Implementing the National-Incident Based Reporting System in Local Law Enforcement
Agencies, May 1997, hereafterSEARCH, ‘Cost Issues of Implementing NIBRS.’
76 C. Barnett-Ryan, “Introduction to the UCR Program, p. 81.
77 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States 2005: About the UCR
Program, September 2006, hereafter,About the UCR Program 2005.”





based system to report offenses and arrests.78 It also recommended that some law enforcement
agencies submit incident-based data for all of their known offenses and all arrests (i.e., full
participation), while other law enforcement agencies submit only a more limited range of 79
incident-based data for certain crimes (i.e., limited participation). The study also recommended 80
that the national UCR program implement a quality assurance program.
Based on the recommendation outlined in the Blueprint, the FBI developed guidelines and design
specifications for what would later become the National Incident-Based Reporting System 81
(NIBRS). The FBI chose the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) to conduct a 82
pilot study of the newly developed NIBRS guidelines and design specifications. SLED adapted
its existing incident-based UCR system to meet NIBRS specifications, and it enlisted the 83
assistance of nine local law enforcement agencies in the state to participate in the pilot study.
The pilot study ran from March 1 to September 30, 1987, and it resulted in further refinement of 84
NIBRS’s guidelines and specifications.
The FBI presented the NIBRS to law enforcement at a national UCR conference in March 1988.85
The conference gave the FBI the opportunity to receive feedback on the NIBRS from the law 86
enforcement community. According to the FBI, conference attendees overwhelmingly supported 87
implementation of the NIBRS nationwide. Attendees passed three overall recommendations: (1)
that there be established a new, incident-based national crime reporting system; (2) that the FBI
manage the program; and (3) that an advisory policy board composed of law enforcement 88
executives be formed to help direct and implement the new program. The law enforcement
community rejected the Blueprint’s proposal to have both full and limited participating law 89
enforcement agencies, and endorsed implementing the full version of the NIBRS nationwide.

78 Ibid.
79 The Blueprint initially proposed that only a small sample of law enforcement agencies nationwide (3%-7%) would
report comprehensive incident-based statistics. The remaining law enforcement agencies would report incident-based
data but in a much more abbreviated format, focusing only on Part I UCR offenses, with a limited range of victim,
offender, and incident data. All law enforcement agencies would collect and submit arrest data, with linkages to cleared
offenses. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Implementing the
National Incident-Based Reporting System: A Project Status Report, NCJ 165581, July 1997, p. 5, hereafterBJS,
Implementing NIBRS Status Report.’
80 Ibid.
81 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Incident-Based Reporting System, Volume 1:
Data Collection Guidelines, August 2000, p. 1, hereafterNIBRS Data Collection Guidelines.”
82 Ibid.
83 Ibid., p. 2.
84 Ibid.
85 Ibid.
86 Ibid.
87 Ibid.
88 About the UCR Program 2005.
89 C. Barnett-Ryan, “Introduction to the UCR Program, p. 82.





As discussed above, under the UCR, local law enforcement agencies tally the number of known
offenses for each Part I offense, as well as arrest data for both Part I and Part II offenses, and
submit aggregate counts on a monthly basis to the FBI. Under the NIBRS, data are not 90
aggregated; rather, data for each criminal incident are submitted to the FBI in a separate 91
report. For each criminal incident, participating law enforcement agencies collect data on 53
different data elements, including data on the offense(s), the offender(s), the victim(s), the 92
arrestee(s), and any property involved in the offense. The data elements are combined into six
different data segments (see Appendices D and E). The NIBRS allows for data on multiple 93
offenses, offenders, and victims to be collected for each criminal incident.
NIBRS data are intended to be a by-product of local incident-based reporting (IBR) systems.94
Therefore, local and state law enforcement agencies can develop their own IBR systems to suit
their local needs, and they can use the data from their own IBR systems to participate in the
NIBRS, as long as the data submitted to the FBI meets NIBRS specifications. State and local law 95
enforcement agencies can add additional data elements or data values to their systems.
The NIBRS does not use the UCR’s Part I and Part II offense classifications. Instead, offenses are
classified as being either a Group A or Group B offense (see Appendix F). Group A contains 46
different offenses grouped into 22 offense categories. Group B contains 11 different offenses.
Law enforcement agencies are required to submit incident reports, which contain data from all six 96
data segments, for all Group A offenses. For Group B offenses, law enforcement agencies are 97
required to submit only arrest reports, which contain data only from the arrestee data segment.
The expanded list of crimes required the FBI to create definitions for crimes counted only in the 98
NIBRS and to modify definitions for crimes that are a part of the UCR. For example, the FBI
expanded the definition of rape to include rapes of both women and men. Under the UCR, rapes
are defined as being committed against women only.

90 An incident is defined for NIBRS reporting purposes as one or more offenses committed by the same offender, or
group of offenders “acting in concert,” at the “same time and place.” “Acting in concert requires that the offenders
actually commit or assist in the commission of the crime(s). The offenders must be aware of and consent to the
commission of the crime(s) or even if nonconsenting, their actions assist in the commission of the offense(s). As it is
under the UCR system, for the purposes of NIBRS reporting,same time and place” means that the time interval
between the offenses and the distance between locations where they occurred are insignificant. Normally, the offenses
must have occurred during an unbroken period of time and at the same or adjoining location(s). However, the time and
place rule does not apply in instances where offenses, even if they are committed at different time and places, are a part
of continuing criminal activity committed by the same offender(s), and an investigation deems the activity to constitute
a single criminal transaction. NIBRS Data Collection Guidelines, pp.16-17.
91 Ibid., p. 5.
92 C.J. Mosher et al., The Mismeasure of Crime, p. 70.
93 Michael G. Maxfield, “The National Incident-Based Reporting System: Research and Policy Applications, Journal
of Quantitative Criminology, vol. 15, no. 2 (1999), p. 123.
94 SEARCH, “Cost Issues of Implementing NIBRS,” p. 1.
95 Ibid.
96 NIBRS Data Collection Guidelines, p. 5.
97 Ibid., p. 8.
98 C. Barnett-Ryan, “Introduction to the UCR Program, p. 62.





Before a state can submit NIBRS data to the FBI, the state NIBRS program must be certified by 99
the FBI. The FBI has developed a state certification policy, which uses the following criteria to
evaluate the NIBRS data submitted by a state:
• Error rate—before a state can submit NIBRS data, the FBI requires that fewer
than 4% of the incident reports submitted by the state contain errors for three
consecutive months.
• Statistical reasonableness—before a state can submit NIBRS data, the FBI
evaluates the reasonableness of the data based on analyses of trends, volumes,
and monthly fluctuations.
• Updating capability and responsiveness—the FBI requires the state program to
have ample ability to update its records, meet deadlines, and respond in a timely
manner to error messages from the national program.
• System appropriateness—the FBI requires a state’s NIBRS program to be
systematically compatible with the NIBRS data reporting requirements and 100
guidelines.
Simply because a state’s IBR program is certified as NIBRS-compliant does not necessarily mean 101
that every law enforcement agency in the state is reporting NIBRS-compliant data. If a state’s
program is certified by the FBI, it means that the state program is capable of processing NIBRS
data at the state level and submitting virtually error-free data to the FBI in an acceptable 102
format.
If a state program is certified as NIBRS-compliant, local law enforcement agencies within the 103
state must submit their NIBRS data through the state program. If a state does not have a
certified state program, the FBI will consider allowing local law enforcement agencies with
NIBRS-compliant IBR systems to submit data directly to the FBI, if the agency serves a 104
population of over 100,000. The FBI coordinates decisions regarding such requests with the
appropriate state UCR program. If a local law enforcement agency in a state without a state UCR
program wants to submit NIBRS data directly to the FBI, it will consider such a request if the 105
agency has a NIBRS-compliant IBR system. The FBI reported that the number of local law
enforcement agencies in states without UCR programs allowed to submit NIBRS data directly to 106
the FBI is limited by the availability of resources at the FBI. When a local law enforcement
agency is allowed to submit NIBRS data directly to the FBI, the agency must sign an agreement

99 BJS, Implementing NIBRS Status Report, p. 7.
100 Ibid.
101 Ibid.
102 Ibid.
103 NIBRS Data Collection Guidelines, p. 4.
104 Ibid.
105 Ibid.
106 Ibid.





stating that it will discontinue direct reporting to the FBI when the state has a certified 107
program.
Like the UCR program, law enforcement agencies participating in the NIBRS have to classify
and score offenses. However, the NIBRS does not use the hierarchy rule discussed previously
because law enforcement agencies can report all of the offenses that occurred in a criminal 108
incident.
The FBI expanded the definition of the hotel rule under NIBRS to apply to rental storage facilities 109
(i.e., mini-storage and self-storage buildings). For example, 10 storage units burglarized in one
self-storage building would be counted as one burglary offense. However, NIBRS data reporting
allows law enforcement agencies to report how many premises were entered (see Appendix D,
data element 10 under the Offense segment). Using the same example, the break-ins at the storage
facility would be reported as one burglary, even though the law enforcement agency would
include data in the incident report indicating that 10 premises were entered.
The separation of time and place rule still applies when classifying and scoring offenses under the 110
NIBRS. Law enforcement agencies have to use the separation of time and place rule to
determine whether a group of offenses should be reported as individual incidents, or whether the
offenses should be reported as one incident where multiple offenses occurred.
Like the UCR program, the NIBRS also distinguishes between crimes against persons and crimes
against property. Crimes against persons and crimes against property are scored the same way for
NIBRS reporting as they are for UCR reporting. However, because NIBRS Group A offenses
include offenses that cannot be classified as crimes against persons (because they do not involve
an actual victim) or classified as crimes against property (because property is not the object of the 111
crime), the NIBRS includes another scoring category—crimes against society. For NIBRS
reporting, crimes against society include drug/narcotics offenses, gambling offenses,
pornography/obscene materials, and prostitution offenses (see Appendix F). Reporting law 112
enforcement agencies score one offense for each crime against society in an incident.
Because of the expanded amount of data collected in NIBRS reporting, the NIBRS has several
advantages compared with the traditional UCR system. In addition to those described above,
advantages of the NIBRS include the following:
• Data collection is not restricted to a limited number of offense categories (i.e.,
Part I offenses).

107 Ibid.
108 Ibid., p. 13.
109 Ibid., p. 15.
110 Ibid., pp.16-17.
111 Ibid., p. 14.
112 Ibid.





• Offense definitions can meet state, local, and national reporting needs.
• Details on individual crime incidents (offenses, offenders, victims, property, and
arrests) can be collected and analyzed.
• Arrests and clearances can be linked to specific incidents and offenses.
• Distinctions can be made between attempted and completed crimes.
• Linkages can be established between variables for examining interrelationships
between offenses, offenders, victims, property, and arrestees.
• Detailed crime analyses can be made within and across law enforcement
jurisdictions.
• Strategic and tactical crime analyses can be made at the local and regional 113
levels.
According to the Justice Research and Statistics Association’s IBR Resource Center,
approximately 22% of the nation’s population is covered by law enforcement agencies that report 114
NIBRS-compliant data and 17% of reported crime is reported through the NIBRS program. As
of August 2007, and as shown in Appendix A, 31 states had been certified by the FBI to submit
NIBRS data. In addition, the FBI accepts NIBRS data directly from agencies in Alabama, Illinois,
Kentucky, and the District of Columbia, even though each state does not have an FBI-certified
NIBRS program. In 11 states (35% of all certified states), all law enforcement agencies in the
state collect and submit NIBRS-compliant data. In another 10 states (32% of all certified states),
between 50%-99% of law enforcement agencies in the state collect and submit NIBRS-compliant
data.
As discussed above, the UCR collects offense data on a limited number of crimes (Part I crimes),
which means that offense data are available only for a small number of all crimes committed in
the United States. Offense data are not available for Part II crimes, which tend to be committed at
a greater frequency than Part I crimes. Currently, the UCR does not collect data on crimes
commonly covered by the media, such as kidnapping, bribery, or child pornography. The FBI is
trying to address this gap by implementing the NIBRS, but as discussed above, many
jurisdictions have yet to make the switch from the UCR to the NIBRS. Neither the UCR nor the

113 Justice Research and Statistics Association, IBR Resource Center, Advantages of Incident-Based Reporting Over
Summary Reporting. Document on file with author, available upon request.
114 Justice Research and Statistics Association, IBR Resource Center, Status of NIBRS in the States, document on file
with author, available upon request.





NIBRS collect data on political crimes, price-fixing and illegal environmental pollution.115 116
Moreover, the UCR and the NIBRS most likely undercount corporate and occupational crimes.
As discussed above, both the UCR and the NIBRS collect data on the number of offenses known
to law enforcement each year. However, not all crimes that occur are known to the police. In
some cases, the victim(s) of or witness(es) to a crime might not report the incident to the 117
police. Researchers have reported that a majority of crimes become known to the police only 118
after they are reported by either the victims or citizens who witnessed the crime. If crimes are
not reported to law enforcement, both the UCR and NIBRS will undercount the actual amount of
crime that occurred.
Evidence shows that UCR data may be affected by the reporting practices of local law
enforcement. In some instances, law enforcement officials, usually because of political pressure
to lower the crime rates, might manipulate crime reports to decrease the amount of reported 119
crime. In other instances, the number of reported offenses might be a product of how
assiduously local law enforcement follow the FBI’s definitions for crimes under the UCR or the 120
NIBRS. For example, if a local law enforcement agency does not closely follow UCR or
NIBRS definitions, the agency might classify an assault against a woman as an attempted rape, or
a trespass as a burglary. Ironically, the number of reported offenses might increase as local law 121
enforcement agencies become more efficient. If a law enforcement agency puts more officers
on patrol, the number of known offenses might increase because there are more officers to catch
offenders. If law enforcement agencies work to develop a better relationship with the citizens they
serve, the reported number of offenses could increase because citizens might report more crimes.
The number of reported offenses might also increase as law enforcement agencies develop better
record-keeping systems and as they assign more employees to do dispatching, record keeping, 122
and criminal incident reporting.

115 C.J. Mosher et al., The Mismeasure of Crime, p. 86.
116 Ibid.
117 2005 NCVS data showed that 57.4% of all crimes, 51.3% of personal crimes, 50.7% of crimes of violence, and
59.3% of property crimes were not reported to police. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau
of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005 Statistical Tables, National Crime Victimization
Survey, Table 91, NCJ 215244, December 2006, p. 107.
118 C.J. Mosher et al., The Mismeasure of Crime, p. 84.
119 David Seidman and Michael Couzens, “Getting the Crime Rate Down: Political Pressures and Crime Reporting,”
Law and Society Review, vol. 8 (1973-1974), p. 457; Larry J. Siegel, Criminology (9th ed.) (Belmont, CA: Thompson
and Wadsworth, 2006), p. 35, hereafter,L.J. Seigel, Criminology; C.J. Mosher et al., The Mismeasure of Crime, pp.
91-93.
120 L.J. Siegel, Criminology, p. 35.
121 Ibid.
122 Ibid.





Federal law does not require local law enforcement agencies to submit offense data to the UCR
program. Although participation in the UCR program has been above 90% since the 1970s, not all 123
law enforcement agencies in the country submit UCR data to the FBI. Also, law enforcement 124
agencies are not required to submit a full year of UCR data to the FBI. In some instances, a
local law enforcement agency will submit only a few months’ worth of data, or will fall shy of the 125
full 12 months by 1 or 2 months. In other instances, a local law enforcement agency will
submit offense data but will not submit any of the other data (e.g., the supplementary homicide 126
report data or the hate crime data; see discussion above).
One researcher found that missing data are not equally distributed among all law enforcement
agencies in the country. The researcher reported that, for the years 1960-2003, law enforcement
agencies serving populations under 2,500 people and university and college law enforcement
agencies are more likely to have missing data than law enforcement agencies that serve 127
populations over 2,500 people. In general, the larger the population the law enforcement
agency served, the less likely the agency was to have missing data. The analysis showed that law
enforcement agencies that served 250,000 or more people did not have missing data for the years 128

1960-2003.


If a law enforcement agency does not report UCR data to the FBI for the entire year, the FBI uses
imputation techniques to estimate the law enforcement agency’s number of reported crimes for 129
the entire year. The methodology differs depending on the number of months for which crime
data were reported. If the law enforcement agency has submitted three or more months of data,
the FBI estimates the total annual number of crimes for the jurisdiction by multiplying the
reported number of crimes by a weight equal to “12/N,” where “N” equals the number of months 130
of data submitted by the law enforcement agency. For law enforcement agencies that have
submitted less than three months of data (“non-reporting agencies”), the missing data are
estimated based on the reported number of crimes from other similar agencies based on 131
population. For core cities in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), the crime rate is estimated
by applying the crime rate for all other law enforcement agencies in the agency’s population

123 C.J. Mosher et al., The Mismeasure of Crime, p. 88.
124 C. Barnett-Ryan, “Introduction to the UCR Program, p. 69.
125 Ibid.
126 Ibid.
127 Michael D. Maltz, Analysis of Missingness in UCR Crime Data, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, August 2006, p. 11.
128 Ibid., p. 12.
129 The FBI converts all NIBRS data into summary UCR data for publication in Crime in the United States. If a law
enforcement agency reports NIBRS data and does not report any data for the year, or if it reports data only for part of
the year, the FBI converts the reported data, if any, to summary UCR data. The FBI then applies the imputation
procedures used for summary UCR data to estimate the agency’s crime rate for the full year.
130 M.D. Maltz, Bridging Gaps in Police Crime Data, p. 23; C. Barnett-Ryan, “Introduction to the UCR Program, p.
70.
131 MSA is a designated area consisting of a principal city of at least 50,000 people and the surrounding counties that
have strong economic ties.





group132 to the agency’s population.133 For example, if a law enforcement agency served a city of
80,000 people and the murder rate for all other MSA core cities in its population group was 10
per 100,000, then the estimated number of murders for the city would be 8 (calculated as

80,000x10.0/100,000). The crime rates for the remaining agencies are estimated using the state 134


rate for the agency’s population group from the current year. In absence of a state rate, the FBI 135136
will apply the division or region rate. Agency-level estimates are always aggregated into 137
larger geographic areas, such as MSAs, state, geographic division, region, and the nation.
Researchers have stated that the imputation methods used by the FBI to estimate crime in
jurisdictions that have not reported for the full year or non-reporting jurisdictions make
questionable assumptions. The imputation method used by the FBI to estimate a full year’s worth
of data for jurisdictions that report three or more months of data implicitly assumes that the crime 138
rate for non-reported months is the same as for reported months. If the crime rates in the
months for which data were not reported differ from the rates in the months for which data were
reported, then the imputation procedure could either overestimate or underestimate the
jurisdiction’s annual crime rate. The imputation procedure used to estimate the crime rate for non-
reporting jurisdictions assumes that cities and towns with similar sized populations are also
similar in other factors that might affect the city or town’s crime rate, such as income distribution, 139
unemployment rates, population density, and racial composition.

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is the primary source for information on the
characteristics of criminal victimization and on the number and types of crime not reported to law 140
enforcement. The NCVS has four major objectives: (1) developing detailed information about
the victims and consequences of crime, (2) estimating the number and types of crimes not

132 The FBI classifies each law enforcement agency into one of eight population groups. The population groups are as
follows: I (250,000 inhabitants or more); II (100,000-249,999 inhabitants); III (50,000-99,999 inhabitants); IV (25,000-
49,999 inhabitants); V (10,000-24,999 inhabitants); VI (less than 10,000 inhabitants; includes universities and colleges
to which no population is attributed); VIII (Nonmetropolitan county; includes state police to which no population is
attributed); and IX (Metropolitan county; includes state police to which no population is attributed). About CUIS 2005.
133 The FBI attempts to collect data from core cities for the full year in order to avoid estimating crime data for the city.
C. Barnett-Ryan, “Introduction to the UCR Program, p. 70.
134 Ibid.
135 Geographic divisions are as follows: Pacific (AK, HI, WA, OR, and CA); Mountain (MT, UT, ID, AZ, NM, NV,
WY, and CO); West North Central (ND, SD, MN, NE, KS, IA, and MO); West South Central (OK, TX, AR, and LA);
East North Central (WI, MI, IL, IN, and OH); East South Central (KY, TN, AL, and MS); South Atlantic (DE, MD,
WV, VA, NC, SC, GA, and FL); Middle Atlantic (NY, PA, and NJ); and New England (CT, RI, MA, VT, NH, and
ME). About CUIS 2005.
136 The geographic regions are as follows: West (AK, HI, WA, OR, CA, MT, UT, ID, AZ, NM, NV, WY, and CO);
South (OK, TX, AR, LA, KY, TN, AL, MS, DE, MD, WV, VA, NC, SC, GA, and FL); Midwest (ND, SD, MN, NE,
KS, IA, MO, WI, MI, IL, IN, and OH); and Northeast (NY, PA, NJ, CT, RI, MA, VT, NH, and ME). About CUIS
2005.
137 C. Barnett-Ryan, “Introduction to the UCR Program, p. 71.
138 C.J. Mosher et al., The Mismeasure of Crime, p. 89.
139 Ibid., p. 90.
140 U.S. Department of Justice, The Nation’s Two Crime Measures, NCJ 122705, October 2004, p. 1, hereafterU.S.
DOJ, The Nations Two Crime Measures.”





reported to police, (3) providing uniform measures of selected types of crimes, and (4) permitting 141
comparisons over time and population types (e.g., urban, suburban, and rural).
The NCVS began as a way to supplement UCR data.142 In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson
convened the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice 143
(hereafter referred to as “the Commission”). The Commission was charged with examining the
causes and characteristics of crime in the United States and formulating recommendations for 144
polices and programs that could address crime in the country. At the time, the UCR was the 145
only source for official crime data, and the Commission found that several limitations
associated with the data prevented it from helping the Commission develop policy 146
recommendations. To help rectify some of the limitations associated with UCR data, the 147
Commission recommended the creation of a national survey of crime victimization.
The first crime victimization survey pilot study was conducted in three Washington, DC, police 148
precincts in the spring of 1966. The survey asked 511 Washington, DC, residents, chosen from
a probability sample of homes, whether they had been a victim of one or more of a list of 149
crimes. The Washington, DC, pilot study demonstrated that household surveys could provide a
different picture of crime than the one derived from UCR data. The study showed that, depending
on the type of crime, there were 3 to 10 times as many criminal incidents reported by victims than 150
there were recorded in UCR data.
A supplementary study was conducted in three cities: Boston, Chicago, and Washington, DC. The
second study surveyed businesses and organizations in selected high-crime areas of all three cities

141 National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, National Crime Victimization Survey Resource Guide. Document on file
with author, available upon request.
142 Callie Marie Rennison and Michael Rand, “Introduction to the National Crime Victimization Survey,” in James P.
Lynch and Lynn A. Addington, eds., Understanding Crime Statistics: Revisiting the Divergence of the NCVS and UCR
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 19, hereafterC.M. Rennison and M. Rand, ‘Introduction to the
NCVS.
143 Ibid., p. 18.
144 Ibid.
145 The Commission found four limitations associated with UCR data that prevented it from addressing the needs of the
Commission. The Commission found that UCR data
reflected only crimes known to law enforcement;
reflected law enforcement activity and not necessarily actual crime trends;
were open to possible manipulation and misrepresentation that could threaten their validity; and
lacked important information about the criminal incident, including details about the characteristics
of offenders, offenses, and victims. (Ibid., pp. 18-19.)
146 Ibid.
147 Ibid., p. 19.
148 C.J. Mosher et al., The Mismeasure of Crime, p. 54.
149 Ibid.
150 Ibid.





about criminal victimizations they had experienced.151 The supplementary study also surveyed 152
residents of Chicago and Boston about their household’s criminal victimizations. Like the
Washington, DC, pilot study, the supplementary study found that the number of reported 153
victimizations exceeded the number of reported crimes.
A third victimization survey sponsored by the Commission was conducted by the National 154
Opinion Research Center (NORC). NORC’s victimization survey differed from the two
previous surveys in that it involved a national sample, not just a sample of local households and
businesses. NORC’s victimization survey interviewed one person in each of 10,000 households 155
nationwide. Like the two previous pilot studies, NORC’s survey found that more crime was 156
being committed than was being reported to law enforcement. Unlike the other two studies,
NORC’s survey collected data on which crimes were not reported to the police and on the
respondent’s reason for not reporting the crime. Non-reporting was found to vary by offense. For
example, the study found that 90% of consumer frauds were not reported, but 11% of motor 157
vehicle thefts were unreported. NORC found that most people who chose not to report a crime
to the police did so because they either thought the incident was a private matter or did not think 158
the police could do anything about it.
The three pilot studies indicated that UCR data underestimated the true level of crime in the
United States. Moreover, the studies showed that a household survey could help estimate the 159
extent of unreported crime, also known as the “dark figure of crime.” They also demonstrated
that a household survey was a reasonable method for estimating the number of criminal 160
victimizations in the United States. The Commission recommended that a national criminal 161
justice statistics center be established to collect victimization data on an ongoing basis. In 162

1968, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) was created and charged with 163


implementing a national victimization survey.
In the early 1970s, LEAA, in cooperation with the U.S. Census Bureau, worked to develop a
national victimization survey, which would come to be known as the National Crime Survey
(NCS). The pilot studies for the NCS demonstrated that a large national sample of households 164
would be required to obtain an accurate estimate of some crimes. The Census Bureau was

151 Ibid., pp. 54-55.
152 Ibid., p. 55.
153 Ibid.
154 Ibid.
155 Ibid.
156 Ibid.
157 Ibid.
158 Ibid.
159 David Cantor and James P. Lynch, “Self-Report Surveys as Measures of Crime and Criminal Victimization,” in U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Criminal Justice 2000, Volume 4, NCJ
182411, July 2000, p. 105, hereafterD. Cantor and J.P. Lynch, ‘Self-Report Surveys as Measures of Crime and
Criminal Victimization.’”
160 C.M. Rennison and M. Rand, “Introduction to the NCVS,” p. 20.
161 Ibid.
162 The LEAA was the predecessor to the Office of Justice Programs.
163 C.M. Rennison and M. Rand, “Introduction to the NCVS,” p. 20.
164 D. Cantor and J.P. Lynch, “Self-Report Surveys as Measures of Crime and Criminal Victimization,” p. 105.





chosen to conduct the NCS because it was the only organization that had the capacity to field 165
such a large survey. During the development of the NCS, the survey’s methodology was refined 166
based on some of the lessons learned from the three pilot studies. There were a series of 167
pretests, trial surveys, and record-check experiments to help address some of the 168
methodological issues associated with implementing a nationwide victimization survey. Some
of the issues examined included
• the use of a single household respondent, as opposed to interviewing everyone in
the household;
• the respondent’s ability to recall events;
• the length of the reference period;
• the minimum age of the respondent; and
• the appropriate question cues and wording.169
As a result of the studies, the NCS chose to interview all members of the household about 170
victimizations they experienced. It was decided that the NCS would use a six-month reference 171
period. It was also decided that only one person (referred to as a “household respondent”) 172
would answer questions about crimes against household property.
The first NCS was conducted in July 1972 by the Census Bureau.173 The NCS was originally
composed of four interrelated surveys: a national sample of households, referred to as the “Crime 174
Panel”; a sample of households from central cities; and a national and central city sample of 175
commercial establishments. As of 1976, data were no longer collected for the sample of
households from central cities, nor were data collected for the national and central city sample of
commercial establishments. Since 1976, the NCS consisted only of the national sample of
households (i.e., the Crime Panel).

165 Ibid.
166 Ibid.
167 Record-check experiments involve comparing police records to reported victimizations to determine whether crimes
are being reported and, if so, how frequently they are being reported.
168 Ibid.
169 C.M. Rennison and M. Rand, “Introduction to the NCVS, pp. 20-21.
170 D. Cantor and J.P. Lynch, “Self-Report Surveys as Measures of Crime and Criminal Victimization,” p. 106.
171 Ibid.
172 Ibid.
173 U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, National Crime Victimization Survey: Interviewing Manual for
Field Representatives, February 2003, p. A1-5, hereafterCensus Bureau, NCVS Interviewing Manual.”
174 Data collected from a nationwide sample of households in central cities were designed to estimate the level and
change of victimization for a selected set of crime committed against residents of major cities in the United States. The
surveys were designed to obtain benchmark estimates of crime in cities, which could then be updated in subsequent
enumerations for each city. For example, in 1972 and 1975, approximately 12,000 households in eight different cities
(Atlanta, Baltimore, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Newark [NJ], Portland [OR], and St. Louis) were surveyed. The central
city household survey was also fielded in the five largest cities in 1973 and 1975. An additional 13 cities received the
survey once in 1974. C.M. Rennison and M. Rand, “Introduction to the NCVS,” p. 21.
175 The national survey of commercial establishments was conducted once in 1972. The survey of commercial
establishments was conducted concurrently with the central city household survey. Both surveys collected data on
robbery and burglary victimizations of commercial establishments. Ibid.





In the mid-1970s, in response to concerns about the quality and usefulness of NCS data, the 176
LEAA asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to evaluate the NCS. In 1976, the NAS 177
published a report that provided recommendations for how to improve the NCS. The NAS
found that although the NCS was an effective instrument for measuring crime, certain aspects of 178
the survey’s methodology and scope could be improved. The NAS recommended that
researchers investigate the following:
• Enhanced screening questions that would better stimulate respondents’ recall of
victimizations, thus reducing underreporting resulting from forgotten incidents.
• Screening questions that would sharpen the concepts of criminal victimization
and diminish the effects of subjective interpretations of the survey questions.
• Additional questions on the nature and consequences of victimizations that would
yield useful data for analysis.
• Enhanced questions and inquiries about domestic violence, rape, and sexual 179
attack to get better estimates of these victimizations.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) sponsored a research consortium that investigated the
issues raised in the NAS review and provided recommendations that would improve the accuracy 180
and utility of the NCS. In 1986, the consortium proposed new instrumentation and procedures 181
to improve the NCS.
BJS chose to implement the consortium’s proposals and redesign the NCS. BJS stated that the
overall objectives for redesigning the NCS were to increase reporting of crime victimization and 182
provide additional details on individual crime incidents. BJS also had more specific objectives
for the redesign, including
• developing improved screening questions, thereby stimulating recall of incidents;
• sharpening concepts of victimization for survey respondents by providing a more
thorough description of criminal incidents, thus diminishing effects of cognitive
and subcultural differences among respondents;
• improving data collection techniques by adopting Computer-Assisted Telephone
Interviewing (CATI) for some segments of survey participants;
• improving measures of rape and sexual attack by asking respondents directly
about these crimes; and

176 D. Cantor and J.P. Lynch, “Self-Report Surveys as Measures of Crime and Criminal Victimization,” p. 108.
177 C.M. Rennison and M. Rand, “Introduction to the NCVS,” p. 33.
178 Charles Kindermann, James Lynch, and David Cantor, Effects of the Redesign on Victimization Estimates, NCJ
164381, April 1997, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 1, hereafter,
“C. Kindermann et al., Effects of the Redesign on Victimization Estimates.”
179 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization
Survey: Questions and Answers about the Redesign, NCJ 151171, October 1994, p. 4, hereafter “BJS, Questions and
Answers about the Redesign.”
180 Ibid.
181 David Cantor and James P. Lynch, “Exploring the Effects of Changes in Design on the Analytical Uses of the
NCVS Data, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, vol. 21, no. 3 (2005), p. 295.
182 BJS, Questions and Answers about the Redesign, p. 4.





• providing better measures of domestic violence.183
The recommended changes were phased in as part of a two stage process: near-term and long-184
term. The near-term changes focused on the NCS’s procedures and questionnaires, but they
were not substantial enough to affect the comparability of the crime rates for previous years (i.e., 185
they were non-rate affecting changes). The near-term changes were implemented by the Census 186
Bureau in July 1986. Long-term changes had a substantial impact on the crime rate reported by 187
the NCS. The long-term changes to the NCS’s design were phased in gradually. Starting in

1989, BJS and the Census Bureau pre-tested the long-term changes using 5% and 10% 188


subsamples of the NCS sample. After extensive pre-testing, the long-term changes were fully 189
implemented by BJS in 1992. Between 1986 and 1992, the following changes were made to the
survey:
• Better “short cue” screening questions were added to stimulate respondent recall
of victimization incidents.
• More thorough descriptions of crime incidents were added in an effort to help all
respondents interpret NCS concepts correctly.
• CATI was introduced to improve data collection.
• Specific questions about rape and sexual assaults were added to improve
measurement of these crimes.
• Screening questions were reworded and added to get a better measure of 190
domestic violence.
After the implementation of the redesigned NCS, BJS changed the name of the NCS to the
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). From January 1992 through June 1993, the full 191
NCS-NCVS sample was divided into two parts. One half of the sample was administered the 192
NCS, and the other half was administered the NCVS. BJS chose to give each half of the sample
either the NCS or the NCVS to permit the continuous publication of estimates of the year-to-year 193
change in crime rates with comparable data while the NCVS was being introduced. The
procedure was also intended to provide data on how the reported rate of victimization might have 194
changed from the NCS to the NCVS.

183 Ibid.
184 Census Bureau, NCVS Interviewing Manual, p. A1-6.
185 Ibid.
186 Ibid.
187 Ibid.
188 C.M. Rennison and M. Rand, “Introduction to the NCVS,” p. 37.
189 Ibid.
190 Census Bureau, NCVS Interviewing Manual, pp. A1-6 to A1-7.
191 C. Kindermann et al., Effects of the Redesign on Victimization Estimates, p. 2.
192 Ibid.
193 Ibid.
194 BJS reported that the NCVS accomplished its overall objective of producing higher estimates of crime rates than the
NCS. In general, the implementation of the NCVS had the effect of increasing the number of crimes counted by the
survey. BJS found that the NCVS produced higher estimates of violent crime rates regardless of the context (i.e.,
victimized by a stranger vs. a non-stranger, crime was completed vs. attempted, victimization was reported to the police
(continued...)





Periodically, BJS has expanded the scope of the NCVS to address new issues in crime. In 1998,
Congress required BJS to add questions to the NCVS to identify crime victims with 195
developmental disabilities. In 1999, BJS added questions to the NCVS to determine the extent 196
to which respondents who were victims of crime perceived the crimes to be hate crimes. In

2001, BJS added questions to the NCVS to explore the extent to which people were victimized by 197


computer-related crimes. In 2004, the computer crimes questions were replaced by questions 198
about identity theft.
The Census Bureau conducts the NCVS for BJS.199 As shown in Appendix I, in 2005, data were
collected from 67,000 people in 38,600 households. The survey asks respondents whether they
have been the victim of
• rape and sexual assault,
• robbery,
• simple and aggravated assault,
• purse snatching/pickpocketing,
• burglary,
• theft, or
• motor vehicle theft.200
In addition to estimating the number of annual victimizations, the NCVS also gathers data on the
details of each victimization incident. To do this, the survey collects data on
• the month, time, and location of the crime;
• the relationship between the victim and the offender;
• characteristics of the offender;

(...continued)
vs. not reported). However, the NCVS had a larger impact on the estimates of non-stranger and attempted crimes and
crimes reported to the police than on stranger, completed and non-reported crime. For household crimes, the NCVS
produced higher estimates of rates for completed crimes and for crimes either reported or unreported to the police.
However, the magnitude of the effect on household crimes is less than the magnitude of the effect on violent crimes.
Ibid., pp.2-3.
195 See the Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act (P.L. 105-301). C.M. Rennison and M. Rand, “Introduction
to the NCVS,” p. 46.
196 Ibid.
197 Ibid.
198 Ibid.
199 BJS, Questions and Answers about the Redesign, p. 2.
200 Ibid.





• self-protective actions taken by the victim during the incident and results of those
actions;
• consequences of the victimization, including any injury or property loss;
• whether the crime was reported to the police and the reason for reporting or not
reporting; and
• offender use of weapons, drugs, and alcohol.201
The NCVS sample is selected using a stratified, multistage cluster sample.202 The sampling
process starts by identifying approximately 2,000 primary sampling units (PSUs) that are
composed of standard metropolitan statistical areas, a county, or a small group of contiguous 203
counties. PSUs are stratified with respect to important demographic characteristics, such as
geographic region, population density, population growth rate, and proportion of nonwhite 204
population. A sample of households is chosen from each stratum in a manner that is 205
proportionate to their representation in the larger population. When a household is selected for
the sample, all eligible people in the household are interviewed. Non-institutionalized persons 206
aged 12 and older living in the United States are eligible to be interviewed for the NCVS.
When a household is selected for the NCVS sample, eligible members of the household are
interviewed once every six months for three years, for a total of seven interviews. After three
years, the household is rotated out of the sample and a new one is brought in. The rotational panel
design of the NCVS is accomplished by dividing all sampled households into six rotational 207
groups, with each group containing six panels of households. Each month, one panel from each
group is interviewed, so that in any given month, one-sixth of the sample is being interviewed for 208
the first time, one-sixth is being interviewed for the second time, and so forth.
The survey instrument used in the NCVS consists of three parts: the “control card,” a basic
“screen” questionnaire, and crime incident reports. The control card contains basic administrative
information for the sampled household, including the house’s address and basic household data,
such as the household’s income, whether the house is owned or rented, and the names, age, race, 209
sex, marital status, and education of all individuals living in the household. The control card
also contains a record of visits, telephone calls, interviews, and information about non-210
interviews. Information on the control card is provided by a “knowledgeable adult” in the

201 Ibid.
202 C.J. Mosher et al., The Mismeasure of Crime, p. 138.
203 Ibid.
204 Ibid.; C.M. Rennison and M. Rand, “Introduction to the NCVS,” p. 24.
205 C.J. Mosher et al., The Mismeasure of Crime, p. 138.
206 Census Bureau, NCVS Interviewing Manual, p. A1-9.
207 C.M. Rennison and M. Rand, “Introduction to the NCVS,” p. 24.
208 Census Bureau, NCVS Interviewing Manual, p. A1-10.
209 C.J. Mosher et al., The Mismeasure of Crime, p. 138.
210 Ibid.





household.211 The “knowledgeable adult” is interviewed about victimizations against the 212
household (i.e., burglaries, motor vehicle thefts, and household larcenies).
The screen questionnaire is designed to elicit information about whether the household or a 213
particular respondent has experienced certain types of victimizations. The screen questionnaire
provides respondents with a series of detailed questions and cues about victimizations and 214
situations in which crimes may take place. Questions on the screen questionnaire describe
crimes in plain language, avoiding technical legal terms. To elicit an accurate response, 215
respondents are provided with detailed features that may characterize a criminal incident. If a
screening question elicits a positive response, more information about the incident is collected on
an incident report.
For each separate victimization incident mentioned on the screening questionnaire, the respondent
is asked to complete an incident report. Incident reports include a series of questions about the
particular crime event, the offending parties, and the consequences of the crime. Some of the
questions on incident reports include the following:
• Was the crime reported to the police?
• Was the offense completed or just attempted?
• Did the victim know the offender, or was the offender identified?
• If known, what were the demographic characteristics (i.e., race, gender, age) of
the offender?
• Was a weapon used in the crime?
• Did the victim resist?
• Was there any monetary loss or physical injury, or both, that resulted from the 216
victimization?
The first interview is conducted in person, and all subsequent interviews, unless requested by the 217
respondent, are conducted by telephone. Data collected during first interviews are used for 218
bounding purposes and are excluded when calculating the crime rate. In the context of the
NCVS, “bounding” refers to a process whereby the prior interview and the data collected during
it are used in subsequent interviews to ensure that victimizations before the reference period and 219
victimizations reported in prior interviews are not counted twice. Bounding procedures can
help reduce the effects of “telescoping,” which refers to the tendency of people to incorrectly

211 Ibid.
212 Ibid.
213 Ibid.
214 BJS, Questions and Answers about the Redesign, p. 3.
215 Ibid.
216 C.J. Mosher et al., The Mismeasure of Crime, p. 139.
217 Janet L. Lauritsen, “Social and Scientific Influences on the Measurement of Criminal Victimization,” Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, vol. 21, no. 3 (2005), p. 247, hereafterJ. Lauritsen, ‘Social and Scientific Influences on the
Measurement of Criminal Victimization.’”
218 Ibid.
219 C.M. Rennison and M. Rand, “Introduction to the NCVS,” p. 29.





identify the timing of past events.220 For example, if a respondent is asked whether he or she has
been the victim of a crime in the past six months, the respondent might report a victimization that
actually occurred seven months ago. The bounding procedure provides respondents with both a 221
cognitive and mechanical bound. The prior interview can serve as an event that respondents 222
can use to help determine whether a victimization occurred within the current reference period.
Furthermore, if the interviewer finds that a reported victimization is similar to one reported
previously, the interviewer can question the respondent further to ensure that the reported 223
victimization did indeed occur in the current reference period. Data collected during bounding
interviews are not used by BJS to calculate annual victimization rates.
A growing number of interviews for the NCVS are being conducted via Computer-Assisted
Telephone Interviewing (CATI). Currently, about 30% of all NCVS interviews are conducted by 224
using CATI. As discussed above, the first interview is conducted face-to-face, and subsequent
interviews are conducted by phone. Face-to-face and non-CATI telephone interviews are
conducted using Paper and Pencil Interviewing (PAPI); that is, the respondent’s answers are 225
recorded on printed instruments. The survey has evolved from one in which all interviews were
done face-to-face to one in which most interviews are conducted over the telephone, with a 226
growing number of phone interviews employing CATI. With CATI, interviews are conducted
from a centralized telephone facility where they read questions from a computer screen and 227
record answers directly into a computer. The computer provides the interviewer with the next
appropriate question based on the last answer; it also allows for automated internal consistency 228
checks and reduces transcription errors. CATI improves data quality because all interviewers
are in a centralized facility, allowing them to be monitored for adherence to standardized 229
interviewing techniques.
In some instances, an interviewer is unable to complete an interview with a household or an 230
individual in the household (i.e., they are “noninterviews”). The NCVS classifies various types
of noninterviews. Because the sample is a sample of households, and not of the people who live 231
in the household, some sampled households may not be able to be interviewed. For example,
the household may be vacant, occupied by persons who have usual residences elsewhere, or 232
temporarily or permanently converted to a business. In these instances, the households are
removed from the sample, either until the next time the household is to be interviewed (if the
situation is temporary) or permanently, if the household will not be eligible for interviewing in the

220 Ibid.
221 Ibid.
222 Ibid.
223 Ibid.
224 Ibid., p. 43.
225 Ibid., p. 28.
226 Ibid., p. 48.
227 BJS, Questions and Answers about the Redesign, p. 6.
228 Ibid.
229 Ibid.
230 Michael R. Rand, The National Crime Victimization Survey: 32 Years of Measuring Crime in the United States,
paper prepared for the Siena Group on Social Statistics meeting in Helsinki, Finland, February 2005, p. 9, hereafter
M.R. Rand, The National Crime Victimization Survey: 32 Years of Measuring Crime in the United States.”
231 Ibid.
232 Ibid.





future.233 Other noninterviews occur when an interview cannot be completed with the entire
eligible household, or when an interview cannot be completed with an eligible member of a 234
household. Such noninterviews occur for a variety of reasons, including if no one is home
during the three-week interview period, if the household or persons in the household refuse to be 235
interviewed, and if the household is not reachable, for example, because of impassable roads.
The NCVS does not rely on the respondent or the interviewer to classify reported victimizations.
Rather, victimizations are classified based on details of the reported incident provided by the 236
respondent. For example, a woman does not have to report that she was the victim of a rape for
the victimization to be classified as a rape. If the details provided by the respondent indicate that
the respondent was the victim of a rape, the victimization will be classified as a rape in the
NCVS. Moreover, if the details of the incident do not meet the criteria necessary to define a 237
victimization as a particular crime, the victimization will not be counted as a crime. For
example, if a respondent believes that he/she was assaulted but the details do not meet the criteria
of a simple assault, the victimization will not be counted as a simple assault in the NCVS.
As described above, the NCVS estimates national crime rates by interviewing a sample of
households across the country. Because the NCVS is a sample survey, it is subject to both
sampling and non-sampling error, meaning that the estimated victimization rate might not
accurately reflect the true victimization rate. Whenever samples are used to represent entire
populations, there could be a discrepancy between the sample estimate and the true value of what
the sample is trying to estimate. The NCVS accounts for sampling error by calculating confidence 238
intervals for estimated rates of victimization. For example, in 2000, the estimated violent crime 239
victimization rate was 27.9 victimizations per 100,000 people aged 12 and older. The 240
calculated 95% confidence interval for the estimated violent crime victimization rate was 25.85 241
to 29.95 victimizations per 100,000 people aged 12 and older.
The NCVS is also subject to non-sampling error. The methodology employed by the NCVS
attempts to reduce the effects of non-sampling error as much as possible, but an unquantified

233 Ibid.
234 Ibid.
235 Ibid.
236 J. Lauritsen, “Social and Scientific Influences on the Measurement of Criminal Victimization,” p. 247.
237 BJS, Questions and Answers about the Redesign, p. 3.
238 Michael R. Rand and Callie M. Rennison, “True Crime Stories? Accounting for Differences in Our National Crime
Indicators, Chance, vol. 15, no. 1 (2002), p. 49, hereafterM.R. Rand and C.M RennisonAccounting for Differences
in Our National Crime Indicators.’”
239 Ibid.
240 A confidence interval shows the range within which the true value of a calculated statistic is likely to fall a certain
percentage of the time. In this case, the NCVS estimated that 95% of the time, the true violent crime victimization rate
was in the range of 25.85 to 29.95 victimizations per 100,000 people aged 12 or older. There was a 5% chance that it
was either higher or lower than that range.
241 M.R. Rand and C.M RennisonAccounting for Differences in Our National Crime Indicators, p. 49.





amount remains.242 Non-sampling error can result from respondents not being able to recall
victimizations that occurred to them during the reference period. Non-sampling error can also
occur when respondents do not report crimes to the interviewer. Respondents may not report
crimes because they know the perpetrator or because they are victims of certain crimes frequently
enough that they forget that they were victimized or they do not consider the victimizations 243
important enough to report.
The NCVS relies on interviews with household members to collect its data, but it is likely that
some people sampled will not complete the survey. As shown in Appendix G, between 1996 and
2005, anywhere from 9% to 16% of people included in the sample did not complete the survey. If
non-responders differ from responders in the number of victimizations they experienced, the
estimated national victimization rate might be lower or higher than the true victimization rate.
Researchers have reported that homeless people, young males, and members of minority groups
are less likely to be included in the NCVS sample and have higher rates of victimization than 244
their older, female, non-minority counterparts.
When a respondent experiences six or more similar but separate victimizations, and when the
respondent is unable to recall the details of each incident well enough to describe them to the 245
interviewer, the interviewer completes one incident report to cover the series of incidents. The
incident report is completed using information from the most recent incident. BJS does not 246
include series victimizations when it calculates annual victimization rates. However, BJS does
use series victimization data in special reports where series victimizations are an important aspect 247
of the subject being analyzed (e.g., domestic violence). In these instances, one series is counted
as one incident.
It is likely that not including series victimization estimates in the annual victimization estimates
would result in an underestimation of the true national victimization rate. But the question
remains, how large would this effect be? Each year, BJS includes data on the number and
percentage of total victimizations reported as series victimizations. As shown in Figure 1, the
percentage of personal crimes reported as series victimizations ranged from 3.5% in 2001 to 4.7%
in 2003 and 2004. The percentage of property crimes reported as series victimizations was
consistent from 2001 to 2004 (0.8%) and decreased to 0.5% in 2005.

242 Ibid.
243 Ibid.
244 C.J. Mosher et al., The Mismeasure of Crime, p. 159.
245 C.M. Rennison and M. Rand, “Introduction to the NCVS, pp. 42-43.
246 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization in the
United States, 2005 Statistical Tables, National Crime Victimization Survey, NCJ 215244, December 2006, p. 134.
247 See, for example, Callie Marie Rennison, Intimate Partner Violence and Age of Victim, 1993-99, U.S Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 187635, October 2001.





Figure 1. Percentage of Victimizations Reported as Series Victimizations, 2000-2005
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization
in the United States, 2005 Statistical Tables, National Crime Victimization Survey, NCJ 215244, December 2006.
As described above, a sample of households is selected to be interviewed for the NCVS, and it is
the household, not the people in the household, that remains in the sample. Hence, the interviewer
interviews anyone in the household over the age of 12 at each enumeration, even if the residents
of the household have changed from the previous interview. This can result in some cases where
unbounded interviews can be included in the national victimization estimates. For example, if a
new family moves into the household while the household is in the sample, the interviews with
the family will be unbounded because the bounding interview for the household was conducted 248
during the first interview with the household. If a family member was under the age of 12 at the
time of the bounding interview but turns 12 while the household is in the sample, the interview
with the family member that “aged in” to the sample is unbounded. As described above,
unbounded interviews may result in inflated estimates of victimizations. It has been estimated that
between 17% and 19% of household and person interviews were unbounded in any given year of 249
data.

248 C.M. Rennison and M. Rand, “Introduction to the NCVS, pp. 30-31.
249 As cited in Ibid.





The NCVS collects data only on crimes that have a victim. Data on “victimless” crimes—such as
drug crimes, prostitution, and gambling—cannot be collected by the NCVS. Data on a host of
other crimes—including illegal weapons possession, murder, crimes perpetrated against business
or commercial establishments, consumer fraud, possession of stolen property, and public order
offenses—are also excluded from the NCVS. As a result, the crimes that the NCVS collects data 250
on make up a small part of all criminal offenses committed in the United States.
The design of the NCVS survey instrument and the methods used to administer it can affect
estimated victimization rates. As described above, changes in the wording of questions associated
with the redesign of the NCVS increased reported rates of victimization. The redesign showed
that the wording of screening questions can influence respondents’ ability to recall victimizations.
Researchers have reported that both incident rates and subgroup variation in reported 251
victimization are affected by the wording of screening questions. It has been reported that short
screening questions may cue a respondent’s recall of only a small subset of incidents that
involved the most serious or frequent crimes, whereas longer screening questions encourage the 252
recounting of a fuller range of victimizations.
In addition to wording and type of questions included in the survey, the survey’s methods can
influence the number of reported victimizations. As discussed above, the NCVS has started to
conduct more interviews using CATI. Researchers have found that using CATI can increase the 253
number of reported victimizations for some crimes. The use of CATI from a centralized 254
telephone facility has been shown to increase the number of reported crimes. It is believed that
the combined effect of centralization (ability to monitor interviewers) and computerization of the
survey help standardize the interviewer-respondent interaction, resulting in higher and more 255
realistic crime rates. NCVS surveys that used CATI resulted in higher crime rates than surveys
that did not; for example, violence, crimes of theft, and household larceny increased by 15%-256
20%, and burglary increased by about 10%. CATI’s effect on motor vehicle thefts was
negligible. Because CATI provides greater anonymity for respondents than in-person interviews,
respondents may answer sensitive questions more honestly, thereby producing a greater number 257
of reported victimizations.
The length of the recall period used by the NCVS can affect estimated victimization rates. The
six-month reference period used by the NCVS was not chosen because it was the optimal 258
reference period, but rather because it provided a balance between accuracy and economy.

250 C.J. Mosher et al., The Mismeasure of Crime, p. 156.
251 Ibid., p. 160.
252 Ibid., pp. 160-161.
253 Ibid., p. 160.
254 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS) Redesign: Technical Background, NCJ 151172, October 1994.
255 Ibid.
256 Ibid.
257 C.J. Mosher et al., The Mismeasure of Crime, p. 160.
258 C.M. Rennison and M. Rand, “Introduction to the NCVS,” p. 29.





Longer reference periods make it difficult for respondents to recall past victimizations 259
accurately. Also, the longer the reference period, the more likely it is that a greater number of
victimizations will be reported, because respondents are at-risk for victimization for a longer
period of time. Shorter reference periods would increase the cost of conducting the NCVS 260
because respondents would have to be interviewed more frequently.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) uses both the UCR and the NCVS to measure the magnitude,
nature, and impact of crime in the United States. Both the UCR and the NCVS are important
because, as one pair of researchers states, “crime, unlike the weather, is a phenomenon that is not
directly observable. No one measure is capable of providing all the information about the extent 262
and characteristics of crime.” The UCR measures offenses known to the police, and the NCVS
collects data on crimes that people have experienced, whether they were reported to the police or
not. DOJ states, “each program produces valuable information about aspects of the Nation’s
crime problem. Because both the UCR and NCVS programs are conducted for different purposes,
use different methods, and focus on somewhat different aspects of crime, the information they
produce together provides a more comprehensive panorama of the Nation’s crime problem than 263
either could produce alone.”
The NCVS was designed to complement the UCR, yet the UCR and the NCVS serve two
different purposes. The primary objective of the UCR is to provide a reliable set of criminal 264
justice statistics for law enforcement administration, operation, and management. The NCVS
was created to provide previously unavailable information about crime (including crime not 265
reported to the police), victims, and offenders.
The UCR and the NCVS collect data on an overlapping, but not identical, set of offenses against 266
an overlapping, but not identical, population. The NCVS does not collect data on homicide,
arson, or commercial crimes, and the UCR does not collect offense data on sexual assaults or
simple assaults. Because the UCR collects data on offenses known to police, it includes offenses
committed against children under the age of 12, visitors from other countries, and businesses or 267
organizations. The NCVS’s methodology precludes the survey from collecting data on crimes
against these populations.
The methodologies used by the UCR and the NCVS differ in some important aspects. First, the 268
UCR and the NCVS have different definitions for some crimes. One example is the definition

259 Ibid.
260 Ibid.
261 This section compares only the UCR with the NCVS; it does not compare the NIBRS with the NCVS because the
FBI still reports crime statistics in the UCR summary format.
262 M.R. Rand and C.M Rennison, “Accounting for Differences in Our National Crime Indicators, p. 48.
263 U.S. DOJ, The Nation’s Two Crime Measures, p. 1.
264 Ibid., p. 2.
265 Ibid.
266 M.R. Rand and C.M Rennison, “Accounting for Differences in Our National Crime Indicators, p. 48.
267 Ibid.
268 Ibid., p. 49.





used by the UCR and the NCVS for rape. The UCR defines rape as the “carnal knowledge of a
female forcibly and against her will” (see Appendix B). However, under the NCVS, rape and 269
sexual assault can be perpetrated against both men and women. Second, the UCR and the
NCVS use different methods for calculating the crime rates for some crimes. The crime rates for
all Part I offenses are calculated on a per capita basis (i.e., the number of offenses per 100,000 270
people). The NCVS calculates property crime rates (burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft) on 271
a per household basis (i.e., the number of crimes per 1,000 households). Third, the
methodologies used by both programs are subject to limitations and sources of error that can
affect the quality, accuracy, and reliability of their estimates and hence influence comparisons of 272
the data produced by the two programs. As discussed above, the UCR is a voluntary program,
which means that some agencies might not submit data for the entire year, or at all. Similarly,
because the NCVS interviews a sample of households, its victimization estimates are subject to 273
both sampling and nonsampling errors.

As discussed above, there are issues associated with UCR, NIBRS, and NCVS data. Moreover,
there are issues Congress might face when considering the future of each program, especially the
NIBRS and the NCVS. These issues include (1) barriers to implementing the NIBRS nationwide,
(2) potential increases in the crime rate because of transitioning to the NIBRS, and (3) cuts in the
NCVS sample size and the effects associated with the decrease in sample size. Each of these
issues is discussed in more detail below.

As discussed above, implementing the NIBRS system nationwide has been a slow process. The
SEARCH group collected data from the 64 largest law enforcement agencies in the United States
to determine what impediments they face in making the transition to the NIBRS. SEARCH found
that some law enforcement agencies’ record management systems (RMS) were more capable of
making the switch from the UCR to the NIBRS than others. SEARCH reported that some law
enforcement agencies have RMSs that are unable to report NIBRS data, either because the data
are in an incompatible format (i.e., they still follow the hierarchy rule and fail to capture multiple
offenses and victims), or because they do not record data for all of the mandatory data elements
or code the data in a NIBRS-compliant manner. Some law enforcement agencies reported that
they had antiquated systems that are fragmented and in need of upgrades or replacement. Other
law enforcement agencies have automated incident-based systems that meet the agency’s
operational needs but fail to capture the necessary data in an appropriate format for NIBRS
reporting.

269 Ibid.
270 U.S. DOJ, The Nation’s Two Crime Measures, p. 2.
271 Ibid.
272 M.R. Rand and C.M Rennison, “Accounting for Differences in Our National Crime Indicators, p. 49.
273 Ibid.
274 SEARCH, Implementing the National Incident-Based Reporting System: A Project Status Report, NCJ 165581, July
1997, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.





Law enforcement agencies identified seven general impediments to NIBRS implementation in
their jurisdictions:
• Funding: SEARCH reported that the general perception was that implementing
the NIBRS is very costly for local law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement
agencies are concerned that they will incur a series of new costs, including
developing or acquiring new or upgrading existing hardware or software;
implementing automated incident-based reporting at the street level; hiring new
data entry staff to process the additional data collected; establishing new quality
control procedures; and having to increase the volume and complexity of
training. Law enforcement agencies expressed concern that NIBRS is not a
funding priority among local decision makers and stakeholders.
• Uncertainty of benefits: Law enforcement agencies reported that no clear
operational value for the use of NIBRS data has been established. For example,
NIBRS data do not include information on the address where a crime took place,
hence NIBRS data cannot be used for crime mapping. Absent a demonstration of
its practical use, law enforcement agencies felt that NIBRS data were more
useful to researchers than to them.
• Policy concerns: Law enforcement agencies expressed concern that reported
crime will increase when they implement the NIBRS because NIBRS does not
use the hierarchy rule, meaning that all crimes in an incident will be reported (a
more detailed discussion of this issue can be found below).
• Administrative issues: According to SEARCH, there was some concern that law
enforcement officers would spend more time completing incident reports, which
would decrease the time they have to respond to calls for service. Law
enforcement agencies were also concerned about the time that would have to be
spent on training officers on how to complete NIBRS incident reports and the
technical support necessary for ongoing operations.
• Federal and state reporting: SEARCH reported that some law enforcement
agencies were concerned about the “all or nothing” policy of NIBRS
participation, which meant that if law enforcement agencies could not meet every
NIBRS data reporting element, they could not participate in the program. Law
enforcement agencies were also concerned about meeting the reporting
requirements set forth by state programs, which had in some cases expanded
reporting requirement beyond those required for the national NIBRS program.
• Data elements: Law enforcement agencies reported that some of the data
elements, such as the victim-offender relationship, multiple offenses, and
multiple victims, did not provide investigative value. Other data elements were
viewed as being largely subjective (i.e., bias motivation and victim ethnicity) or
irrelevant (i.e., residential status of an arrestee or the nature of suspected
substance abuse).
• Education: SEARCH found that law enforcement agencies were concerned that
key decision makers and stakeholders did not have sufficient or accurate
information regarding the objectives or nature of the NIBRS.
It appears that although local law enforcement agencies are receptive to the idea of reporting
NIBRS data, several barriers prevent law enforcement agencies from making the switch from the





UCR to the NIBRS. Congress may want to consider whether anything could be done to promote a
more rapid expansion of the NIBRS program. Policy options for Congress might include the
following:
• Appropriate grant funds to be awarded to state and local law enforcement
agencies to allow them to update or expand their crime data reporting systems. In
2001, BJS awarded over $13 million in grants to states for the purpose of
implementing NIBRS-compatible systems. Grant funds for this purpose have not
been available since 2001.
• Provide funding to agencies such as the National Institute of Justice to allow
them to develop NIBRS software that could be distributed at no charge to local
law enforcement. Congress may also consider making grant funds available to
local law enforcement agencies to allow them to purchase NIBRS software from
a vendor. This could allow law enforcement agencies to customize the software
to meet their specifications.
• Provide funding to an organization such as the Justice Research and Statistics
Association to allow them to provide training and continued support to local law
enforcement agencies that implement NIBRS systems.

Some local officials have expressed concern that implementing the NIBRS will result in a higher
reported crime rate in their jurisdictions. As described above, the NIBRS does not use the
hierarchy rule, so all crimes in an incident are reported, unlike the UCR, where only the most
serious offense in an incident is reported. Therefore, local officials are concerned that crime rates
may appear to increase even though the actual number of crimes committed does not change.
BJS conducted a study that compared NIBRS-computed crime rates to UCR crime rates for 276
agencies in nine NIBRS-certified states for 1991-1996. To be included in the study, an agency
must have submitted at least one full year of data and it must serve a “nonzero” population (i.e.,
police departments or sheriff’s offices, but it would most likely not include state or county 277
police). The study included 4,068 cases from 1,131 unique law enforcement agencies.
Summary UCR data were derived from NIBRS data by using a computer program that applied
the hierarchy rule to reported incidents in the NIBRS data.
BJS found that, overall, the difference between the crime rates calculated using NIBRS and UCR 278
data was small. On average, the NIBRS index crime rate was 2% higher than the UCR crime

275 Ramona R. Rantala, Effects of NIBRS on Crime Statistics, NCJ 178890, July 2000, U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 2, hereafter, “R.R. Rantala, Effects of NIBRS on Crime
Statistics.”
276 The nine NIBRS-certified states were Idaho, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah,
Vermont, and Virginia. Ibid.
277 Acase refers to anagency-year.” For example, 156 agencies submitted one full year of data, meaning that these
156 agencies represented 156 cases. Another 80 agencies submitted four full years of data, meaning that these 80
agencies represent 320 cases (80x4=320). A case includes both NIBRS and summary UCR aggregate crime counts
within each agency for each year an agency reported 12 months of NIBRS data. Ibid.
278 This included murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and larceny/theft.





rate. On average, the NIBRS violent crime rate was higher than the UCR violent crime rate279 by 280
less than 1%, and the NIBRS property crime rate was higher than the UCR property crime rate
by slightly more than 2%. However, the difference between the NIBRS rate and the UCR rate
varied depending on the crime. For murder, the NIBRS and UCR rates were the same. For rape,
robbery, and aggravated assault, the difference between the NIBRS and UCR rates was, on
average, less than 1%. NIBRS larceny/theft rates were, on average, higher than UCR larceny/theft
rates by about 3%, and NIBRS motor vehicle theft rates were higher than UCR theft rates by
about 4.5%.
BJS also individually evaluated each case to see how the NIBRS crime rates differed from the
UCR crime rates. As shown in Table 1, in 97% of the cases, the difference between the NIBRS
crime rate and the UCR crime rate for violent crimes was 5.5% or less. By comparison, the
percentage of cases where there was a 5.5% or less difference between the NIBRS crime rate and
the UCR crime was smaller (90% overall) for property offenses, which is not surprising given
that most property offenses would not be reported under the UCR if they were committed in
concert with a violent offense.
Table 1. Number and Percentage of Cases in Which NIBRS Crime Rates Differ from
UCR Crime Rates by 5.5% or Less
Percentage of
Type of Offense Number of Cases All Cases
All Index Offenses 3,661 90%
Violent Offenses 3,937 97%
Murder 4,068 100%
Rape 3,957 97%
Robbery 3,954 97%
Aggravated Assault 3,970 98%
Property Offenses 3,643 90%
Burglary 3,9597%
Motor Vehicle Theft 3,234 80%
Larceny/Theft 3,569 88%
Source: Ramona R. Rantala, Effects of NIBRS on Crime Statistics, NCJ 178890, July 2000, U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 3.
BJS reported that the distribution of rate changes for all index offenses showed that 92.5% of the 281
cases had a rate difference of -0.5% to 15.5%. Almost 48% of the cases had a rate difference
between -0.5% to 0.5% for index crimes, and 39% of the cases had no difference between the
NIBRS rates and the UCR rates. For violent crime, the distribution of rate changes showed that

279 This included murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
280 This included burglary, motor vehicle theft, and larceny/theft.
281 NIBRS extends the hotel rule to temporary rental storage units, which means that under NIBRS, burglary rates can
appear to decrease because multiple burglaries of temporary rental storage units would be reported as one burglary
rather than multiple burglaries (as they would be under the UCR). Hence, the NIBRS index and property crime rates
can be lower than the UCR crime rates. Ibid., p. 5.





98.9% of the cases had a rate difference between 0% and 15.5%, 84.3% of cases had a rate
difference between 0% and 0.5%, and 82.2% of the cases had no difference. For property crime,
91.7% of the cases had a rate difference between -0.5% and 15.5%, 48% of the cases had a rate
difference between -0.5% and 0.5%, and 40.1% of the cases had no difference.
Overall, the data show that the transition to NIBRS can increase the reported crime rate. In most
instances, the increase in the crime rate will be small, and property crimes, rather than violent
crimes, are more likely to increase. However, there are instances where the increase in reported
crime rates can be more than 15.5%. BJS reports that jurisdictions with little crime tend to show
exaggerated changes in their crime rates when they switch from the UCR to the NIBRS. Hence,
most of the drastic changes in reported crime rates likely came from jurisdictions that did not
report a lot of crime to begin with.
If or when the FBI chooses to publish Crime in the United States using NIBRS data, it may
influence the way Congress uses crimes statistics to develop policy and allocate funding. As
shown above, the change from the UCR to the NIBRS may make it appear like the crime rate in
some states, counties, and cities has increased. Congress might want to be aware of the impact
that the change to NIBRS could have on the reported crime rate before deciding whether to
allocate more funding to jurisdictions that showed an increased crime rate. Also, the formula for
the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program uses UCR violent crime 282
data to allocate funding to state and local governments. One policy option for Congress would
be to change the JAG formula to incorporate NIBRS data. Another policy option would be to
leave the JAG formula as it currently is and require the FBI to modify each state’s NIBRS data to
produce summary UCR data.
The sample size used in the NCS/NCVS has decreased since it was first conducted in the early

1970s. In June 1984, the NCS’s sample size was cut from the original sample size of 72,000 283


households to 59,000 households. Additional cuts to the sample size were instituted in 1992 (a 284

10% reduction), 1996 (a 12% reduction), and 2002 (a 4% reduction). All decreases in the 285


sample size were done to reduce costs.
Even with the NCVS’s decreasing sample size, the size of the sample is still much larger than
most other surveys conducted in the United States. However, as one researcher warned, decreases
in the sample size can affect the ability of the NCVS data to produce reliable annual measures 286
and changes in annual rates of statistically rare forms of victimization (such as rape). As the 287
size of the sample decreases, the standard error associated with the estimate of the
victimization statistic can increase, which could make it harder to detect statistically significant

282 For more information on JAG, see CRS Report RS22416, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
Program: Legislative and Funding History, by Nathan James.
283 M.R. Rand, The National Crime Victimization Survey: 32 Years of Measuring Crime in the United States, p. 12.
284 Ibid.
285 Ibid.
286 J. Lauritsen, “Social and Scientific Influences on the Measurement of Criminal Victimization,” p. 249.
287 The standard error of a survey estimate is a measure of the variation among the estimates from all possible samples.
Therefore, it is a measure of the precision (reliability) with which a particular estimate approximates the average result
of all possible samples.





changes in the annual victimization rates or differences in the victimization rates of two different
subgroups of people. For example, if a decrease in sample size results in an increased standard
error for the estimation of assault victimizations, researchers might not be able to determine
whether a change in reported assault victimizations reflects an actual change in nationwide
assault victimizations or simply statistical variation.
Congress may want to consider whether to provide additional funding to BJS to allow it to
expand the sample size of the NCVS. Additional funding could allow BJS to expand the sample
size to what it was in the 1970s, thereby allowing for more accuracy in estimating national
victimization rates.







State UCR Status as of
November 2004 State NIBRS Status as of August 2007
Has a Number of
State Agencies Percentage of Percentage of
UCR Mandatory NIBRS Reporting Population Crime
State Program Reportinga Status NIBRS Data Represented Represented
Alabama Yes Yes Developingb 1 2% 2%
Alaska Yes No No Plans
Arizona Yes No Certified 5 3% 1%
Arkansas Yes No Certified 247 78% 66%
California Yes Yes Testing
Colorado Yes Yes Certified 236 85% 81%
Connecticut Yes Yes Certified 93 67% 40%
Delaware Yes Yes Certified 69 100% 100%
District of c
Columbia Yes No Developing 1 N/A N/A
Florida Yes Yes No Plans
Georgia Yes Yes No Plansd 1 0.01% 0.02%
Hawaii Yes No Developing
Idaho Yes No Certified 142 100% 100%
Illinois Yes Yes Developinge 1 4% 6%
Indiana No No Testing
Iowa Yes Yes Certified 248 100% 100%
Kansas Yes Yes Certified 424 90% 72%
Kentucky Yes No Certified 27 6% 8%
Louisiana Yes No Certified 28 9% 8%
Maine Yes Yes Certified 15 14% 11%
Maryland Yes No Developing
Massachusetts Yes No Certified 267 76% 69%
Michigan Yes Yes Certified 785 100% 100%
Minnesota Yes Yes Developing
Mississippi No No No Plans
Missouri Yes No Certified 4 0.3% 0.08%
Montana Yes No Certified 111 100% 100%
Nebraska Yes Yes Certified 105 36% 21%
Nevada Yes Yes No Plans





State UCR Status as of
November 2004 State NIBRS Status as of August 2007
Has a Number of
State Agencies Percentage of Percentage of
UCR Mandatory aNIBRS Reporting Population Crime
State Program Reporting Status NIBRS Data Represented Represented
New
Hampshire Yes No Certified 220 83% 85%
New Jersey Yes Yes Testing
New Mexico No No Testing
New York Yes Yes Testing
North
Carolina Yes No Testing
North Dakota Yes No Certified 112 96% 94%
Ohio No No Certified 514 70% 70%
Oklahoma Yes Yes Testing
Oregon Yes Yes Certified 74 29% 27%
Pennsylvania Yes No Testing
Rhode Island Yes No Certified 59 100% 100%
South
Carolina Yes Yes Certified 513 100% 100%
South Dakota Yes No Certified 140 90% 98%
Tennessee Yes No Certified 575 100% 100%
Texas Yes No Certified 89 20% 15%
Utah Yes No Certified 91 79% 80%
Vermont Yes Yes Certified 85 100% 100%
Virginia Yes Yes Certified 438 100% 100%
Washington Yes No Certified 3 1% 0.04%
West Virginia Yes Yes Certified 505 100% 100%
Wisconsin Yes Yes Certified 25 17% 30%
Wyoming Yes Yes No Plans
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Justice
Research and Statistics Association, IBR Resource Center.
Notes: “Certified” means the state submits NIBRS production data which are officially accepted by the FBI.
“Testing” means the state submits test data from various agencies to the FBI. “Developing” means the
state/agency is in the process of designing and implementing various levels of data collection. “No Plans” means
that the state has indicated that there are no formal plans or current interest in participating in NIBRS.
a. States that have mandatory UCR reporting for local law enforcement agencies have passed state laws that
require local law enforcement agencies to report UCR data. Law enforcement agencies in these states are
not required by federal law to report UCR data.
b. Alabama does not have a FBI certified NIBRS program, but one agency in the state has been certified to
submit NIBRS data directly to the FBI.





c. The District of Columbia does not have a FBI certified NIBRS program, but the Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority Police have been certified to submit NIBRS data directly to the FBI.
d. Georgia does not have a FBI certified NIBRS program, but one agency in the state has been certified to
submit NIBRS data directly to the FBI.
e. Illinois does not have a FBI certified NIBRS program, but one agency in the state has been certified to
submit NIBRS data directly to the FBI.






The FBI collects data on both the number of offenses known to police and the number of arrests
made for all Part I offenses. The FBI collects data on the number of arrests made for all Part II
offenses. The offenses listed under the “Part I Offenses” heading are ranked according to the
UCR’s hierarchy rule.
• Criminal Homicide
• Forcible Rape
• Robbery
• Aggravated Assault
• Burglary
• Larceny-theft (except motor vehicle theft)
• Motor Vehicle Theft
• Arson
• Other Assaults
• Forgery and Counterfeiting
• Fraud
• Embezzlement
• Stolen Property: Buying, Receiving, or Possessing
• Vandalism
• Weapons: Carrying, Possessing, etc.
• Prostitution and Commercialized Vice
• Sex Offenses
• Drug Abuse Violations
• Gambling
• Offenses Against the Family and Children
• Driving Under the Influence
• Liquor Laws

288 Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook.





• Drunkenness
• Disorderly Conduct
• Vagrancy
• All Other Offenses
• Suspicion
• Curfew and Loitering Laws (Persons under 18)
• Runaways (Persons under 18)






1. Criminal Homicide
a. Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter
b. Manslaughter by Negligence
2. Forcible Rape
a. Rape by Force
b. Attempts to Commit Rape by Force
3. Robbery
a. Firearm
b. Knife or Cutting Instrument
c. Other Dangerous Weapon
d. Strong-arm—Hands, Fists, Feet, etc.
4. Aggravated Assault
a. Firearm
b. Knife or Cutting Instrument
c. Other Dangerous Weapon
d. Strong-arm—Hands, Fists, Feet, etc.
5. Burglary
a. Forcible Entry
b. Unlawful Entry—No Force
c. Attempted Forcible Entry

6. Larceny-theft (except Motor Vehicle Theft)


7. Motor Vehicle Theft
a. Autos

289 Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook.





b. Trucks and Buses
c. Other Vehicles
8. Arson
a.-g. Structural
h.-i. Mobile
j. Other






1. ORI number291


2. Incident number
3. Incident date/hour
4. Cleared exceptionally
5. Exceptional clearance date
[1. ORI number]
[2. Incident number]
6. UCR offense code
7. Offense attempted/completed
8. Offender(s) suspected of using
8A. Bias motivation
9. Location type
10. Number of premises entered
11. Method of entry
12. Type of criminal activity/gang information
13. Type of weapon/force involved
[1. ORI number]

290 Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Incident-Based Reporting System,
Volume 1: Data Collection Guidelines.
291 The FBI identifies each law enforcement agency that submits crime data with an Originating Agency Identifier
(ORI) number. Each reporting agency has a unique ORI number.





[2. Incident number]

14. Type property loss/etc.


15. Property description
16. Value of property
17. Date recovered
18. Number of stolen motor vehicles
19. Number of recovered motor vehicles
20. Suspected drug type
21. Estimated drug quantity
22. Type drug measurement
[1. ORI number]
[2. Incident number]
23. Victim (sequence) number

24. Victim connected to UCR offense code(s)


25. Type of victim

26. Age (of victim)


27. Sex (of victim)


28. Race (of victim)


29. Ethnicity (of victim)


30. Resident status (of victim)


31. Aggravated assault/homicide circumstances
32. Additional justifiable homicide circumstances
33. Type injury
34. Offender number(s) to be related

35. Relationship(s) of victim to offender(s)





[1. ORI number]
[2. Incident number]
36. Offender (sequence) number

37. Age (of offender)


38. Sex (of offender)


39. Race (of offender)


[1. ORI number]
[2. Incident number]
40. Arrestee (sequence) number
41. Arrest (transaction) number
42. Arrest date
43. Type of arrest
44. Multiple Arrestee Segments Indicator
45. UCR arrest offense code
46. Arrestee was armed with

47. Age (of arrestee)


48. Sex (of arrestee)


49. Race (of arrestee)


50. Ethnicity (of arrestee)


51. Resident status (of arrestee)


52. Disposition of arrestee under 18







Source: Michael G. Maxfield, “The National Incident-Based Reporting System: Research and Policy
Applications,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, vol. 15, no. 2 (1999).







1. Arson
2. Assault Offenses
• Aggravated Assault
• Simple Assault
• Intimidation
3. Bribery
4. Burglary/Breaking and Entering
5. Counterfeiting/Forgery
6. Destruction/Damage/Vandalism of Property
7. Drug/Narcotic Offenses
• Drug/Narcotic Violations
• Drug Equipment Violations
8. Embezzlement
9. Extortion/Blackmail
10. Fraud Offenses
• False Pretenses/Swindle/Confidence Game
• Credit Card/Automated Teller Machine Fraud
• Impersonation
• Welfare Fraud
• Wire Fraud
11. Gambling Offenses
• Betting/Wagering

292 Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Incident-Based Reporting System,
Volume 1: Data Collection Guidelines.





• Operating/Promoting/Assisting Gambling
• Gambling Equipment Violations
• Sports Tampering
12. Homicide Offenses
• Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter
• Negligent Manslaughter
• Justifiable Homicide
13. Kidnapping/Abduction
14. Larceny/Theft Offenses
• Pocket Picking
• Purse-snatching
• Shoplifting
• Theft from Building
• Theft from Coin-operated Machine or Device
• Theft from Motor Vehicle
• Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts or Accessories
• All Other Larceny
15. Motor Vehicle Theft
16. Pornography/Obscene Materials
17. Prostitution Offenses
• Prostitution
• Assisting or Promoting Prostitution
18. Robbery
19. Sex Offenses, Forcible
• Forcible Rape
• Forcible Sodomy
• Sexual Assault with an Object
• Forcible Fondling
20. Sex Offenses, Nonforcible
• Incest





• Statutory Rape

21. Stolen Property Offenses (receiving, etc.)


22. Weapons Laws Violations
1. Bad Checks
2. Curfew/Loitering/Vagrancy Violations
3. Disorderly Conduct
4. Driving Under the Influence
5. Drunkenness
6. Family Offenses, Nonviolent
7. Liquor Law Violations
8. Peeping Tom
9. Runaway
10. Trespass of Real Property

11. All Other Offenses






(a.) Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter: the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human
being by another. Deaths caused by negligence, attempts to kill, assaults to kill, suicides, and
accidental deaths are excluded. Justifiable homicides are classified separately and the definition is
limited to: (1) the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty; or (2) the
killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen. ( b.) Manslaughter by
negligence: the killing of another person through gross negligence. Deaths of persons due to their
own negligence, accidental deaths not resulting from gross negligence, and traffic fatalities are
not included in the category “Manslaughter by negligence.”
The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Rapes by force and attempts or
assaults to rape, regardless of the age of the victim, are included. Statutory offenses (no force
used—victim under age of consent) are excluded.
The taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person
or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear.
An unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated
bodily injury. This type of assault usually is accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means
likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Simple assaults are excluded.
The unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or a theft. Attempted forcible entry is
included.
The unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession or
constructive possession of another. Examples are thefts of bicycles, motor vehicle parts and
accessories, shoplifting, pocket-picking, or the stealing of any property or article that is not taken

293 Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook.





by force and violence or by fraud. Attempted larcenies are included. Embezzlement, confidence
games, forgery, check fraud, etc. are excluded.
The theft or attempted theft of a motor vehicle. A motor vehicle is self-propelled and runs on land
surface and not on rails. Motorboats, construction equipment, airplanes, and farming equipment
are specifically excluded from this category.
Any willful or malicious burning or attempt to burn, with or without intent to defraud, a dwelling
house, public building, motor vehicle or aircraft, personal property of another, etc.
Assaults and attempted assaults which are not of an aggravated nature and do not result in serious
injury to the victim. Stalking, intimidation, coercion, and hazing are included.
The altering, copying, or imitating of something, without authority or right, with the intent to
deceive or defraud by passing the copy or thing altered or imitated as that which is original or
genuine; or the selling, buying, or possession of an altered, copied, or imitated thing with the
intent to deceive or defraud. Attempts are included.
The intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing another person or other entity
in reliance upon it to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right. Fraudulent
conversion and obtaining of money or property by false pretenses. Confidence games and bad
checks, except forgeries and counterfeiting, are included.
The unlawful misappropriation or misapplication by an offender to his/her own use or purpose of
money, property, or some other thing of value entrusted to his/her care, custody, or control.
Buying, receiving, possessing, selling, concealing, or transporting any property with the
knowledge that it has been unlawfully taken, as by burglary, embezzlement, fraud, larceny,
robbery, etc. Attempts are included.





To willfully or maliciously destroy, injure, disfigure, or deface any public or private property, real
or personal, without the consent of the owner or person having custody or control by cutting,
tearing, breaking, marking, painting, drawing, covering with filth, or any other such means as
may be specified by local law. Attempts are included.
The violation of laws or ordinances prohibiting the manufacture, sale, purchase, transportation,
possession, concealment, or use of firearms, cutting instruments, explosives, incendiary devices,
or other deadly weapons. Attempts are included.
The unlawful promotion of or participation in sexual activities for profit, including attempts. To
solicit customers or transport persons for prostitution purposes; to own, manage, or operate a
dwelling or other establishment for the purpose of providing a place where prostitution is
performed; or to otherwise assist or promote prostitution.
Offenses against chastity, common decency, morals, and the like. Incest, indecent exposure, and
statutory rape are included. Attempts are included.
The violation of laws prohibiting the production, distribution, and/or use of certain controlled
substances. The unlawful cultivation, manufacture, distribution, sale, purchase, use, possession,
transportation, or importation of any controlled drug or narcotic substance. Arrests for violations
of state and local laws, specifically those relating to the unlawful possession, sale, use, growing,
manufacturing, and making of narcotic drugs. The following drug categories are specified: opium
or cocaine and their derivatives (morphine, heroin, codeine); marijuana; synthetic narcotics—
manufactured narcotics that can cause true addiction (demerol, methadone); and dangerous
nonnarcotic drugs (barbiturates, benzedrine).
To unlawfully bet or wager money or something else of value; assist, promote, or operate a game
of chance for money or some other stake; possess or transmit wagering information; manufacture,
sell, purchase, possess, or transport gambling equipment, devices, or goods; or tamper with the
outcome of a sporting event or contest to gain a gambling advantage.
Unlawful nonviolent acts by a family member (or legal guardian) that threaten the physical,
mental, or economic well-being or morals of another family member and that are not classifiable
as other offenses, such as Assault or Sex Offenses. Attempts are included.





Driving or operating a motor vehicle or common carrier while mentally or physically impaired as
the result of consuming an alcoholic beverage or using a drug or narcotic.
The violation of state or local laws or ordinances prohibiting the manufacture, sale, purchase,
transportation, possession, or use of alcoholic beverages, not including driving under the
influence and drunkenness. Federal violations are excluded.
To drink alcoholic beverages to the extent that one’s mental faculties and physical coordination
are substantially impaired. Driving under the influence is excluded.
Any behavior that tends to disturb the public peace or decorum, scandalize the community, or
shock the public sense of morality.
The violation of a court order, regulation, ordinance, or law requiring the withdrawal of persons
from the streets or other specified areas; prohibiting persons from remaining in an area or place in
an idle or aimless manner; or prohibiting persons from going from place to place without visible
means of support.
All violations of state or local laws not specifically identified as Part I or Part II offenses, except
traffic violations.
Arrested for no specific offense and released without formal charges being placed.
Violations by juveniles of local curfew or loitering ordinances.
Limited to juveniles taken into protective custody under the provisions of local statutes.






To unlawfully and intentionally damage or attempt to damage any real or personal property by
fire or incendiary device.
An unlawful attack by one person upon another.
An unlawful attack by one person upon another wherein the offender uses a weapon or displays it
in a threatening manner, or the victim suffers obvious severe or aggravated bodily injury
involving apparent broken bones, loss of teeth, possible internal injury, severe laceration, or loss
of consciousness.
An unlawful physical attack by one person upon another where neither the offender displays a
weapon, nor the victim suffers obvious severe or aggravated bodily injury involving apparent
broken bones, loss of teeth, possible internal injury, severe laceration, or loss of consciousness.
To unlawfully place another person in reasonable fear of bodily harm through the use of
threatening words and/or other conduct but without displaying a weapon or subjecting the victim
to actual physical attack.
The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of anything of value (i.e., a bribe, gratuity, or
kickback) to sway the judgment or action of a person in a position of trust or influence.
The unlawful entry into a building or other structure with the intent to commit a felony or a theft.

294 Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Incident-Based Reporting System,
Volume 1: Data Collection Guidelines.





The altering, copying, or imitation of something, without authority or right, with the intent to
deceive or defraud by passing the copy or thing altered or imitated as that which is original or
genuine or the selling, buying, or possession of an altered, copied, or imitated thing with the
intent to deceive or defraud.
To willfully or maliciously destroy, damage, deface, or otherwise injure real or personal property
without the consent of the owner or the person having custody or control of it.
The violation of laws prohibiting the production, distribution, and/or use of certain controlled
substances and the equipment or devices utilized in their preparation and/or use.
The unlawful cultivation, manufacture, distribution, sale, purchase, use, possession,
transportation, or importation of any controlled drug or narcotic substance.
The unlawful manufacture, sale, purchase, possession, or transportation of equipment or devices
utilized in preparing and/or using drugs or narcotics.
The unlawful misappropriation by an offender to his/her own use or purpose of money, property,
or some other thing of value entrusted to his/her care, custody, or control.
To unlawfully obtain money, property, or any other thing of value, either tangible or intangible,
through the use or threat of force, misuse of authority, threat of criminal prosecution, threat of
destruction of reputation or social standing, or through other coercive means.
The intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing another person or other entity
in reliance upon it to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.
The intentional misrepresentation of existing fact or condition or the use of some other deceptive
scheme or device to obtain money, goods, or other things of value.





The unlawful use of a credit (or debit) card or automatic teller machine for fraudulent purposes.
Falsely representing one’s identity or position and acting in the character or position thus
unlawfully assumed to deceive others and thereby gain a profit or advantage, enjoy some right or
privilege, or subject another person or entity to an expense, charge, or liability that would not
have otherwise been incurred.
The use of deceitful statements, practices, or devices to unlawfully obtain welfare benefits.
The use of an electric or electronic communications facility to intentionally transmit a false
and/or deceptive message in furtherance of a fraudulent activity.
To unlawfully bet or wager money or something else of value; assist, promote, or operate a game
of chance for money or some other stake; possess or transmit wagering information; manufacture,
sell, purchase, possess, or transport gambling equipment, devices, or goods; or tamper with the
outcome of a sporting event or contest to gain a gambling advantage.
To unlawfully stake money or something else of value on the happening of an uncertain event or
on the ascertainment of a fact in dispute.
To unlawfully operate, promote, or assist in the operation of a game of chance, lottery, or other
gambling activity.
To unlawfully manufacture, sell, buy, possess, or transport equipment, devices, and/or goods used
for gambling purposes.
To unlawfully alter, meddle in, or otherwise interfere with a sporting contest or event for the
purpose of gaining a gambling advantage.





The killing of one human being by another.
The willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.
The killing of another person through negligence.
The killing of a perpetrator of a serious criminal offense by a peace officer in the line of duty, or
the killing, during the commission of a serious criminal offense, of the perpetrator by a private
individual.
The unlawful seizure, transportation, and/or detention of a person against his/her will or of a
minor without the consent of his/her custodial parent(s) or legal guardian.
The unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession or
constructive possession of another person.
The theft of articles from another person’s physical possession by stealth where the victim usually
does not become immediately aware of the theft.
The grabbing or snatching of a purse, handbag, etc., from the physical possession of another
person.
The theft by someone other than an employee of the victim of goods or merchandise exposed for
sale.





A theft from within a building which is either open to the general public or to which the offender
has legal access.
A theft from a machine or device that is operated or activated by the use of coins.
The theft of articles from a motor vehicle, locked or unlocked.
The theft of any part or accessory affixed to the interior or exterior of a motor vehicle in a manner
which would make the item an attachment of the vehicle or necessary for its operation.
All thefts that do not fit any of the definitions of the specific subcategories of Larceny/Theft listed
above.
The theft of a motor vehicle.
The violation of laws or ordinances prohibiting the manufacture, publishing, sale, purchase, or
possession of sexually explicit material (e.g., literature or photographs).
To unlawfully engage in or promote sexual activities for profit.
To unlawfully engage in sexual relations for profit.
To solicit customers or transport persons for prostitution purposes; to own, manage, or operate a
dwelling or other establishment for the purpose of providing a place where prostitution is
performed; or to otherwise assist or promote prostitution.





The taking or attempting to take anything of value under confrontational circumstances from the
control, custody, or care of another person by force or threat of force or violence and/or by
putting the victim in fear of immediate harm.
Any sexual act directed against another person, forcibly and/or against that person’s will or not
forcibly or against the person’s will in instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent.
The carnal knowledge of a person, forcibly and/or against that person’s will or not forcibly or
against the person’s will in instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of
his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity.
Oral or anal sexual intercourse with another person, forcibly and/or against that person’s will or
not forcibly or against the person’s will in instances where the victim is incapable of giving
consent because of his/her youth or because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical
incapacity.
To use an object or instrument to unlawfully penetrate, however slightly, the genital or anal
opening of the body of another person, forcibly and/or against that person’s will or not forcibly or
against the person’s will in instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of
his/her youth or because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity.
The touching of the private body parts of another person for the purpose of sexual gratification,
forcibly and/or against that person’s will or not forcibly or against the person’s will in instances
where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her youth or because of his/her
temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity.
Unlawful, nonforcible sexual intercourse.
Nonforcible sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within the degrees
wherein marriage is prohibited by law.





Nonforcible sexual intercourse with a person who is under the statutory age of consent.
Receiving, buying, selling, possessing, concealing, or transporting any property with the
knowledge that it has been unlawfully taken, as by Burglary, Embezzlement, Fraud, Larceny,
Robbery, etc.
The violation of laws or ordinances prohibiting the manufacture, sale, purchase, transportation,
possession, concealment, or use of firearms, cutting instruments, explosives, incendiary devices,
or other deadly weapons.
Knowingly and intentionally writing and/or negotiating checks drawn against insufficient or
nonexistent funds.
The violation of a court order, regulation, ordinance, or law requiring the withdrawal of persons
from the streets or other specified areas; prohibiting persons from remaining in an area or place in
an idle or aimless manner; or prohibiting persons from going from place to place without visible
means of support.
Any behavior that tends to disturb the public peace or decorum, scandalize the community, or
shock the public sense of morality.
Driving or operating a motor vehicle or common carrier while mentally or physically impaired as
the result of consuming an alcoholic beverage or using a drug or narcotic.
To drink alcoholic beverages to the extent that one’s mental faculties and physical coordination
are substantially impaired.





Unlawful, nonviolent acts by a family member (or legal guardian) that threaten the physical,
mental, or economic well-being or morals of another family member and that are not classifiable
as other offenses, such as Assault, Incest, Statutory Rape, etc.
The violation of laws or ordinances prohibiting the manufacture, sale, purchase, transportation,
possession, or use of alcoholic beverages.
To secretly look through a window, doorway, keyhole, or other aperture for the purpose of
voyeurism.
A person under 18 years of age who has left home without the permission of his/her parent(s) or
legal guardian.
To unlawfully enter land, a dwelling, or other real property.
All crimes that are not Group “A” offenses and not included in one of the specifically named
Group “B” crime categories listed previously.







Number of Households Household Number of Persons Response Rate for
Year Interviewed Response Rate Interviewed Persons
1996 45,000 93% 85,330 91%
1997 43,000 95% 79,470 90%
1998 43,000 94% 78,900 89%
1999 43,000 93% 77,750 89%
2000 43,000 93% 79,710 90%
2001 44,000 93% 79,950 89%
2002 42,000 92% 76,050 87%
2003 42,000 92% 74,520 86%
2004 42,000 91% 74,500 86%
2005 38,600 91% 67,000 84%
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization
in the United States, 2005 Statistical Tables, National Crime Victimization Survey, NCJ 215244, December 2006.
Nathan James Logan Rishard Council
Analyst in Crime Policy
njames@crs.loc.gov, 7-0264