|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
Surveying Victims:
Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
Panel to Review the Programs of the Bureau of Justice Statistics
Robert M. Groves and Daniel L. Cork, Editors
Committee on National Statistics
Committee on Law and Justice
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu
OCR for page R2
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
The project that is the subject of this report was supported by contract no. SES-0453930 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Justice. Support of the work of the Committee on National Statistics is provided by a consortium of federal agencies through a grant from the National Science Foundation (Number SBR-0112521). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-11598-8
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-11598-1
Additional copies of this report are available from the
National Academies Press,
500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001; (202) 334-3096; Internet, http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Research Council (2008). Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey. Panel to Review the Programs of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Robert M. Groves and Daniel L. Cork, eds. Committee on National Statistics and Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
OCR for page R3
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R5
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
PANEL TO REVIEW THE PROGRAMS OF THE BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
ROBERT M. GROVES (Chair),
Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, and Joint Program in Survey Methodology, University of Maryland
WILLIAM G. BARRON, JR., Consultant,
Princeton University
WILLIAM CLEMENTS,
School of Graduate Studies and Department of Criminal Justice, Norwich University, and Vermont Center for Justice Research
PAMELA K. LATTIMORE,*
RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
JANET L. LAURITSEN,
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri–St. Louis
COLIN LOFTIN,
School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, State University of New York
JAMES P. LYNCH,
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
RUTH D. PETERSON,
Department of Sociology, Ohio State University
TRIVELLORE E. RAGHUNATHAN,
Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, and Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, and Joint Program in Survey Methodology, University of Maryland
STEVEN R. SCHLESINGER,
Statistics Division, Administrative Office of the United States Courts
WESLEY G. SKOGAN,
Department of Political Science and Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University
BRUCE D. SPENCER,
Department of Statistics and Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University
BRUCE WESTERN,
Department of Sociology, Harvard University
DANIEL L. CORK, Study Director
CAROL V. PETRIE, Senior Program Officer
AGNES E. GASKIN, Senior Program Assistant
*
Resigned from the panel April 2, 2007.
OCR for page R6
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL STATISTICS 2008
WILLIAM F. EDDY (Chair),
Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
KATHARINE G. ABRAHAM,
Department of Economics and Joint Program in Survey Methodology, University of Maryland
WILLIAM DUMOUCHEL,
Lincoln Technologies, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts
JOHN C. HALTIWANGER,
Department of Economics, University of Maryland
V. JOSEPH HOTZ,
Department of Economics, Duke University
KAREN KAFADAR,
Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, and Department of Statistics, Indiana University, Bloomington
DOUGLAS S. MASSEY,
Department of Sociology, Princeton University
SALLY MORTON,
Statistics and Epidemiology, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
VIJAY NAIR,
Department of Statistics and Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan
JOSEPH NEWHOUSE,
Division of Health Policy Research and Education, Harvard University
SAMUEL H. PRESTON,
Population Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania
KENNETH PREWITT,
School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University
LOUISE RYAN,
Department of Biostatistics, Harvard University
ROGER TOURANGEAU,
Joint Program in Survey Methodology, University of Maryland, and Survey Research Center, University of Michigan
ALAN ZASLAVSKY,
Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School
CONSTANCE F. CITRO, Director
OCR for page R7
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE 2008
JAMES Q. WILSON (Chair),
Emeritus, University of California, Los Angeles
PHILIP J. COOK (Vice Chair),
Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University
DAVID H. BAYLEY,
School of Criminal Justice, University of Albany, State University of New York
RICHARD J. BONNIE,
Institute of Law, Psychiatry, and Public Policy, University of Virginia Law School
MARTHA CRENSHAW,
Department of Political Science, Wesleyan University
ROBERT D. CRUTCHFIELD,
Department of Sociology, University of Washington
JOHN J. DIIULIO, JR.,
Institute of Government, University of Pennsylvania
STEVEN N. DURLAUF,
Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin–Madison
JOHN A. FEREJOHN,
Hoover Institution, Stanford University
ARTHUR S. GOLDBERGER,
Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin–Madison
BRUCE HOFFMAN,
Washington Office, RAND Corporation
ROBERT L. JOHNSON,
Pediatric and Clinical Psychiatry, and
Director of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine,
New Jersey Medical School
JOHN H. LAUB,
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland
TRACEY L. MEARES,
School of Law, University of Chicago
TERRIE E. MOFFITT,
Institute of Psychiatry, University of London
MARK H. MOORE,
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
RUTH PETERSON,
Department of Sociology, Ohio State University
RICHARD ROSENFELD,
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri–St. Louis
ROBERT J. SAMPSON,
Department of Sociology, Harvard University
JEREMY TRAVIS,
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
CHRISTY VISHER,
Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute
CAROL PETRIE, Director
OCR for page R8
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R9
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
Acknowledgments
THE PANEL to Review the Programs of the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) is pleased to submit this interim report on options for conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The work that leads to such a report always represents a collectivity—a devoted and talented staff of the National Research Council (NRC) and a set of volunteers, both panel members and those who met with the panel. Finally, the agency seeking advice from CNSTAT is key to the success of the endeavor.
The staff of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has been exceptionally receptive to our external review of the agency’s programs. Directed by Jeffrey Sedgwick, BJS has been generous in providing information and materials for the panel’s consideration. Deputy director Maureen Henneberg has provided considerable assistance as the lead liaison between BJS and the panel, and fellow deputy director Allen Beck gave greatly of his time and expertise in interacting with the panel. Patrick Campbell, special assistant to the director, also participated in the public sessions of the panel’s meetings. Michael Rand, chief of victimization statistics, deserves particular credit for leading a thorough and extremely useful review of the NCVS at the panel’s first meeting. More than just cooperation is notable; in its meetings with the BJS staff, the panel observed clear devotion among the BJS staff to the quality and efficiency of the agency’s statistical activities and a common purpose of serving the country well through its activities.
We greatly appreciate the work of the Justice Research and Statistics Association; its invitation to panel staff to attend the association’s annual meeting in Denver in October 2006 was helpful in structuring the panel’s work. Joan Weiss, executive director of the association, provided helpful comments and suggestions as the panel began its work.
In addition to the BJS staff, we gratefully acknowledge the other expert
OCR for page R10
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
speakers who contributed to our plenary meetings: Kim English, research director, Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety; Mark Epley, senior counsel to the deputy attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice; Pat Flanagan, assistant division chief, Demographic Statistical Methods Division, U.S. Census Bureau; David Hagy, deputy assistant attorney general for policy coordination, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice; Douglas Hoffman, director, Center for Research, Evaluation, and Statistical Analysis, Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency; Howard Hogan, associate director for demographic programs, U.S. Census Bureau; Krista Jansson, Home Office, United Kingdom; Ruth Ann Killion, chief, Demographic Statistical Methods Division, U.S. Census Bureau; Cheryl Landman, chief, Demographic Surveys Division, U.S. Census Bureau; Marilyn Monahan, chief of NCVS Branch, Demographic Surveys Division, U.S. Census Bureau; Jon Simmons, head of research analysis and statistics, Crime Reduction and Community Safety Group, Home Office, United Kingdom; and Philip Stevenson, statistical analysis center director, Arizona Criminal Justice Commission.
We extend our appreciation to directors of state statistical analysis centers for their participation in an informal survey about the use of victimization data in the states. This survey was led by panel member William Clements, who went far beyond the norm in his volunteering for such labor.
The study director of the panel was Daniel Cork, whose ability to absorb reams of technical, administrative, and organizational information about BJS and the Department of Justice earned the admiration of all panel members. His wisdom in assembling and integrating the writing of panel members and in structuring and writing the report was notable. The panel’s work is conducted in cooperation with the NRC’s Committee on Law and Justice (CLAJ). As senior program officer to this panel, CLAJ director Carol Petrie helped the panel integrate its work with prior studies and activities of the NRC concerning the Department of Justice. Agnes Gaskin, the senior program assistant, made sure meetings were organized and conducted in the professional manner that CNSTAT always achieves.
The Survey Research Center of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan hosted a deliberative session of the panel at Ann Arbor in June 2007. Deborah Serafin, Rose Myers, and Kelly Smid handled the arrangements for the panel with grace and efficiency.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the Report Review Committee of the National Research Council (NRC). The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge.
OCR for page R11
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Betsy Martin, retired, U.S. Bureau of the Census; Pat Mayhew, Crime and Justice Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand; David McDowall, School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, State University of New York; Henry N. Pontell, Department of Criminology, Law and Society and School of Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine; Callie Marie Rennison, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri–St. Louis; James F. Short, Sociology Department, Washington State University; and Alan M. Zaslavsky, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of the report was overseen by Philip J. Cook, Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University. Appointed by the NRC, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of the report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring panel and the institution.
Robert M. Groves, Chair
Panel to Review the Programs of the Bureau of Justice Statistics
OCR for page R12
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R13
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
Contents
Executive Summary
1
1
Introduction
15
1–A Charge to the Panel
22
1–B Report Contents
24
2
Goals of the National Crime Victimization Survey
25
2–A Historical Goal Statements of the NCVS
26
2–B Data on Crimes and Victims
32
2–C National Benchmark: NCVS and the Uniform Crime Reports
33
2–D Analytic Flexibility
35
2–E Topical Flexibility: NCVS Supplements
36
2–F Legal Mandates
37
3
Current Demands and Constraints on the National Crime Victimization Survey
41
3–A Challenges to Surveys of the American Public
42
3–A.1 The Decline in Response Rates
42
3–A.2 The Rise in Survey Costs
46
3–A.3 The Linkage Between Response Rates and Nonresponse Error
46
3–B Challenges of Self-Response in Measuring Victimization
47
3–B.1 Cognitive Challenges: Telescoping and Forgetting
47
3–B.2 Measuring Hard-to-Measure Crimes
49
3–C Flexibility in Content and Methodology
52
3–C.1 Is the NCVS Flexible Regarding Changes in Victimization?
52
OCR for page R14
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
3–D Constituencies and Uses: State Statistical Analysis Centers
55
3–D.1 SAC Network
56
3–D.2 State Role for National-Level Data
57
3–D.3 Need for Finer Level Estimates
58
3–E Valuing Victimization Information: Comparing the Cost of Victimization Measurement with Benchmarks
63
3–E.1 The Cost of Crime
64
3–E.2 Comparison with Other Federal Surveys
67
3–E.3 International Expenditures
68
3–F Issues Related to the Coexistence of the NCVS and the UCR
70
3–F.1 Do Police Record Reports Reflect Victimization Trends?
70
3–F.2 Independence of the NCVS and the UCR
75
3–G Assessment
77
4
Matching Design Features to Desired Goals
81
4–A Short-Term Fixes: Cost Reduction Strategies and Their Implications
82
4–B Alternatives to the Current Design in the Long Term
86
4–B.1 Characteristics of Possible Design Packages
87
4–B.2 Survey Design Packages for Comparison
92
4–C Assessments of Design Features and Packages
101
4–C.1 Length of Reference Period
107
4–C.2 Role of Supplements
110
4–C.3 Supporting Subnational Estimates
111
4–C.4 Efficiency in Sample Design
114
4–C.5 Other Improvements
115
5
Decision-Making Process for a New Victimization Measurement System
117
5–A Bolstering Quality and Building Constituencies
117
5–B Data Collection Agent for the NCVS
122
References
127
Appendixes
143
A Findings and Recommendations
145
B Principal Findings and Recommendations of the National Research Council (1976b) Study
149
B–1 Findings
149
B–2 Recommendations
150
OCR for page R15
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
C Procedures and Operations of the National Crime Victimization Survey
153
C–1 Sample Design and Size
153
C–1.a Sample Construction
153
C–1.b Person-Level Eligibility for Inclusion in the NCVS
155
C–1.c Sample Size Over Time
155
C–2 Rotating Panel Design
157
C–2.a Reference Period
157
C–2.b Mode of Survey Contact Over Repeated Interviews
159
C–2.c Bounding
160
C–3 Structure of the NCVS Instrument and Interview
161
C–3.a Household and Individual Respondents
162
C–3.b Control Card
162
C–3.c Screening Questions (NCVS-1)
163
C–3.d Incident Report (NCVS-2)
166
C–3.e Attrition in the NCVS
167
C–4 Supplements to the NCVS
167
D The Uniform Crime Reporting Program
171
D–1 Summary Reporting System
171
D–1.a Index Crimes
171
D–1.b Hierarchy Rule
173
D–1.c Supplemental Reports
175
D–2 National Incident-Based Reporting System
176
E Other Victimization Surveys: International and U.S. State and Local Experience
177
E–1 British Crime Survey
179
E–1.a Sample Design
180
E–1.b Supplements in the BCS
180
E–1.c Reviews of British Crime Statistics
181
E–2 International Crime Victimization Survey
185
E–3 Victimization Surveys as Part of a Broader Social Survey: Canada and Australia
186
E–4 State and Local Victimization Surveys
188
E–4.a Alaska
188
E–4.b Illinois
188
E–4.c Maine
189
E–4.d Minnesota
189
E–4.e Utah
189
E–4.f Wyoming
190
F Biographical Sketches of Panel Members and Staff
191
OCR for page R16
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R17
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
List of Figures
1-1
Bureau of Justice Statistics budget requests and final total appropriations, 1981–2006, and National Crime Victimization Survey data collection costs, 1990–2006
21
3-1
Noninterview and refusal rates, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1992–2005
43
3-2
National Crime Victimization Survey and Uniform Crime Reports estimates of serious violent crimes, 1973–2005
72
C-1
Year-to-year change in NCVS violent crime victimization rate, 1993–2005
156
OCR for page R18
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R19
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
List of Tables
3-1
Rape and Assault Rates, National Crime Victimization Survey and National Violence Against Women Survey, 1995
50
3-2
Estimates of the Average Economic Loss Associated with Criminal Victimization
66
3-3
Comparative Expenditures on Victimization Surveys, United States and England and Wales
69
4-1
Short-Term Changes to the NCVS to Achieve Cost Reductions
84
4-2
Current and Possible Alternative Designs for the NCVS
94
4-3
Goals of the NCVS and Alternatives to the Current Designs
102
C-1
Number of Households and Persons Interviewed by Year, 1996–2005
156
C-2
Month of Incident by Month of Interview in the Current NCVS Sample Design
158
C-3
Number of Interviews Completed by NCVS Sample Households, 1995–1999
167
D-1
National Data Sources Related to Crime Victimization in the United States
172
E-1
Design Features of Nation-Specific Victimization Surveys
178
OCR for page R20
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
This page intentionally left blank.
OCR for page R21
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
List of Boxes
1-1
Major Steps in the Development of the National Crime Victimization Survey
17
1-2
Notable Reductions in the National Crime Victimization Survey
20
3-1
Value of Information from a Decision-Making Point of View
64
4-1
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
98
4-2
Texas Crime Poll
100
E-1
Recommendations of the United Kingdom Statistics Commission (2006)
182
E-2
Selected Recommendations of the Smith (2006) Independent Review of British Crime Statistics
183
OCR for page R22
Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey
This page intentionally left blank.
