U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
BureauBureau of Justice Statistics

September 2020, NCJ 255113

Rachel E. Morgan, Ph.D., and Jennifer L. Truman, Ph.D., BJS StatisticiansAfter rising from 1.1 million in 2015 to 1.4
million in 2018, the number of persons
who were victims of violent crime
excluding simple assault dropped to 1.2 million
in 2019. This is the first statistically significant
decrease in the number of persons who werevictims of violent crime excluding simple assault
since 2015, and it corresponds with a decline in

the number of victims of rape or sexual assault
from 2018 to 2019. Based on the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS), the nation's
largest crime survey, the portion of U.S. residents
age 12 or older who were victims of one or more
violent crimes excluding simple assault declined
from 0.50% (about 1 in 200 persons) in 2018 to
0.44% (about 1 in 230 persons) in 2019, a 12%
decrease (figure 1).

Bul l etin

Criminal Victimization, 2019

FIGURE 1
Percent of U.S. residents age 12 or older who were victims of violent crime excluding simple assault

1993-2019
Percent
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
’93 ’95’00’05

2015-2019

’10

’15

’19

Percent
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0

’15

’16

’17

’18

’19

Note: Estimates include 95% confidence intervals. See table 18 for definitions and appendix table 1 for estimates and standard errors.
Estimates for 2006 should not be compared to other years and are excluded from the 1993-2019 figure.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993-2019.

HIGHLIGHTS
 The rate of violent crime excluding simple assault

declined 15% from 2018 to 2019, from 8.6 to 7.3
victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older.

 Among females, the rate of violent victimization

excluding simple assault fell 27% from 2018
to 2019.

 There were 880,000 fewer victims of serious

crimes (generally felonies) in 2019 than in 2018,
a 19% drop.

 From 2018 to 2019, 29% fewer black persons

and 22% fewer white persons were victims ofserious crimes.

 The rate of violent victimization in urban areas—

based on the NCVS’s new classifications of urban,
suburban, and rural areas—declined 20% from2018 to 2019.

 Based on the 2019 survey, less than half (41%) ofviolent victimizations were reported to police.

 The percentage of violent victimizations reported

to police was lower for white victims (37%) thanfor black (49%) or Hispanic victims (49%).

 The portion of violent incidents involving black

offenders (25%) was 2.3 times the portion
involving black victims (11%), while the portion
involving Asian offenders (1.0%) was 0.4 times
the portion involving Asian victims (2.3%).

 The rate of property crime declined 6% from2018 (108.2 victimizations per 1,000 households)
to 2019 (101.4 per 1,000).

 The percentage of households that were

burglarized declined to the lowest level since the
NCVS was redesigned in 1993.
Y E A R S O F S T AT I

S T I CS

The percentage of households that experienced burglary(0.82%), which is unlawful or forcible entry or attempted
entry of places in connection with a completed or
attempted theft, was the lowest since the NCVS was
redesigned in 1993. After peaking in 1994 (2.89%), thistype of crime has generally declined over time, hitting a
new low in 2019 (figure 2).1 The burglary prevalence rate
fell 23% from 2018 to 2019.
The NCVS is a self-reported survey administeredannually from January 1 to December 31. Annual NCVS
estimates are based on the number and characteristics
of crimes respondents experienced during the prior 6months, not including the month in which they wereinterviewed. Therefore, the 2019 survey covers crimes
experienced from July 1, 2018 to November 30, 2019,and March 15, 2019 is the middle of the reference period.
Crimes are classified by the year of the survey and not by
the year of the crime.
NCVS data can be used to produce—
 Prevalence estimates: The number or percentage of

unique persons who were crime victims, or of unique
households that experienced crime.

 Victimization estimates: The total number of times

that people or households were victimized by crime.
For personal crimes, the number of victimizations
is the number of victims of that crime. Each crime
against a household is counted as having a single
victim—the affected household.

FIGURE 2
Percent of U.S. households who were victims of burglary,
1993-2019
Percent
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

’93 ’95

’00

’05

’10

’15

’19

Note: Estimates include 95% confidence intervals. Burglary is the unlawful
or forcible entry or attempted entry of places, including a permanent
residence, other residence (e.g., a hotel room or vacation residence), or
other structure (e.g., a garage or shed) where there was a completed
or attempted theft. See appendix table 2 for estimates and standard
errors. Estimates for 2006 should not be compared to other years and are
excluded from this figure (see Criminal Victimization, 2007 (NCJ 224390,
BJS, December 2008)).
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
1993-2019.

 Incident estimates: The number of specific criminal

acts involving one or more victims.

(See Measurement of crime in the National Crime
Victimization Survey, page 29.)
1In this report, significance is reported at both the 90% and

95% confidence levels. See figures and tables for testing on
specific findings.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 20202

Victimization estimates
Victimizations reflect the total number of times thatpeople or households were victimized by crime.
From 1993 to 2019, the rate of violent victimization
excluding simple assault declined 75%, from 29.1 to
7.3 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older(figure 3).2 (Simple assault is the category of violent
victimization captured by the NCVS that is least likely tobe prosecuted as a felony.) Similarly, the rate of violent
victimization reported to police, excluding simple
assault, declined 77% during this period, from 14.9 to
3.4 victimizations reported to police per 1,000 persons
age 12 or older.

FIGURE 3
Rate of violent victimization excluding simple assault
and rate of violent victimization reported to police,
excluding simple assault, 1993-2019
Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older
35
30
25
Violent victimizations, excluding simple assault

20
15
10

The rate of violent victimization excluding simple
assault decreased from 2018 to 20195

After increasing 27% from 2015 to 2018 (from 6.8 to 8.6
victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older), therate of violent victimization excluding simple assault
declined 15% in 2019 (to 7.3 per 1,000) (table 1). Thisdecrease was driven partly by a decline in rape or sexualassault victimizations, which declined from 2.7 per 1,000
persons age 12 or older in 2018 to 1.7 per 1,000 in 2019.

0Violent victimizations reported to police, excluding simple assault’93 ’95

’00

’05

’10

’15

’19

Note: Estimates include 95% confidence intervals. See appendix table 3 forestimates and standard errors. Estimates for 2006 should not be comparedto other years and are excluded from this figure (see Criminal Victimization,2007 (NCJ 224390, BJS, December 2008)).
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
1993-2019.

2Violent crime excluding simple assault was called serious violent

crime in NCVS reports prior to Criminal Victimization, 2018.

TablE 1
Number and rate of violent victimizations, by type of crime, 2015-2019
2015

Type of violent crime
Violent crimeb
Rape/sexual assaultc
Robbery
Assault
Aggravated assault
Simple assault
Violent crime excluding
simple assaultd

2016

2017

Rate perNumber 1,000a
5,006,620 ‡ 18.6
431,840
1.6
578,580
2.1
3,996,200 † 14.8 ‡
816,760 ‡ 3.0
3,179,440 ‡ 11.8

Rate perNumber 1,000a
5,353,820 19.7
298,410 ‡ 1.1 ‡458,8101.7
4,596,600 16.9
1,040,580
3.8
3,556,020 13.1

Number
5,612,670
393,980
613,840
4,604,850
993,170
3,611,680

Rate per1,000a
20.6
1.4
2.3
16.9
3.6
13.3

1,827,170

1,797,790

2,000,990

7.3

6.8

6.6

2018

Rate perNumber 1,000a
6,385,520 23.2
734,630 † 2.7 †
573,100
2.1
5,077,790 18.4
1,058,040
3.8
4,019,750 14.6

2019*
Rate perNumber 1,000a
5,813,410
21.0
459,3101.7
534,4201.9
4,819,680
17.4
1,019,490
3.7
3,800,190
13.7

2,365,770 †

2,013,220

8.6 †

7.3

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. Violent-crime categories include rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple
assault, and they include threatened, attempted, and completed occurrences of those crimes. Year-to-year statistically significant differences may varyfrom those previously reported. Previously, BJS created standard errors and presented testing for statistically significant differences among National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS) estimates in this table using generalized variance function parameters, while this table uses the Balanced Repeated Replication
method. See Methodology for more information on the differences between these methods of variance estimation. See appendix table 5 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Difference with comparison year is significant at the 95% confidence level.
‡Difference with comparison year is significant at the 90% confidence level.
aRate is per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. See appendix table 34 for population numbers.
bExcludes homicide because the NCVS is based on interviews with victims.
cSee Methodology for details on the measurement of rape or sexual assault in the NCVS.
dIncludes rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault; this category was called serious violent crime prior to Criminal Victimization, 2018.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015-2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 20203

From 2018 to 2019, there was no statistically significant
change in the rate of total violent victimization, which
includes simple assault. Based on the 2019 survey, about
65% of total violent victimizations were simple assault,
with the remaining 35% being rape or sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated assault. There were no statisticallysignificant changes in the rates of robbery, aggravatedassault, or simple assault from 2018 to 2019.

Rates of property victimization decreased from 2018
to 2019
The 2019 survey found that an estimated 12.8 million
U.S. households experienced one or more property
victimizations, which include burglaries, residential
trespassing, motor-vehicle thefts, and other thefts(table 2). After remaining relatively stable from 2017(108.4 victimizations per 1,000 households) to 2018(108.2 per 1,000), the property-crime victimization

TablE 2
Number and rate of property victimizations, by type of crime, 2015-2019
Type of property crime
Total
Burglary/trespassingb
Burglaryc
Trespassingd
Motor-vehicle theft
Other thefte2015
Rate perNumber 1,000a
14,611,040 110.7 †
2,904,570 22.0 †2,020,730 15.3 †
883,850
6.7 ‡
564,160
4.3
11,142,310 84.4

2016
Rate perNumber 1,000a
15,815,310 118.6 †3,160,450 23.7 †2,205,180 16.5 †955,270
7.2 †
618,330
4.6
12,036,530 90.3 †2017

Rate perNumber 1,000a
13,340,220 108.4 †2,538,170 † 20.6 †1,688,890
13.7 †
849,280 ‡6.9 †516,810
4.2
10,285,240
83.6

2018

Rate perNumber 1,000a
13,502,840 † 108.2 †2,639,620 † 21.1 †
1,867,620 † 15.0 †772,000
6.2
534,0104.3
10,329,210
82.7

2019*
Rate perNumber 1,000a
12,818,000 101.4
2,178,400
17.2
1,484,730
11.7
693,670
5.5
495,670
3.9
10,143,930
80.2

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. Categories include threatened, attempted, and completed crimes. The number of property crimes
should not be compared from 2017, 2018, or 2019 to 2016 or 2015, as the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) household weighting adjustment
was updated for 2017 onward, which decreased the number of estimated households by about 8%. Property crime rates are unaffected by this change. See
Methodology for details. Year-to-year statistically significant differences may vary from those previously reported. Previously, BJS created standard errors
and presented testing for statistically significant differences among NCVS estimates in this table using generalized variance function parameters, while thistable uses the Balanced Repeated Replication method. See Methodology for more information. See appendix table 6 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Difference with comparison year is significant at the 95% confidence level.
‡Difference with comparison year is significant at the 90% confidence level.
aRate is per 1,000 households. See appendix table 35 for number of households.
bCalled household burglary prior to Criminal Victimization, 2018. Includes unlawful or forcible entry or attempted entry of places, including a permanent
residence, other residence (e.g., a hotel room or vacation residence), or other structure (e.g., a garage or shed), but does not include trespassing on land.
cIncludes only crimes where the offender committed or attempted a theft. Estimates differ from those previously published in the Criminal Victimization,2018 report because a coding error that affected the generation of those earlier estimates has been corrected.
dIncludes crimes where the offender did not commit or attempt a theft. Does not include trespassing on land. Estimates differ from those previously
published in the Criminal Victimization, 2018 report because a coding error that affected the generation of those earlier estimates has been corrected.
eIncludes other unlawful taking or attempted unlawful taking of property or cash without personal contact with the victim. Incidents involving theft ofproperty from within the same household would classify as theft if the offender has a legal right to be in the house (such as a maid, delivery person, or
guest). If the offender has no legal right to be in the house, the incident would classify as a burglary.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015-2019.

NCVS methods of variance estimation
For surveys with complex sample designs, such as the
NCVS, several methods can be used to estimate themagnitude of sampling error associated with an estimate.
In previous reports, BJS has used both generalized
variance function (GVF) parameters and direct-varianceestimation for generating standard errors and testingstatistically significant differences between NCVS
estimates. Compared to GVFs, direct-variance estimationis generally considered more accurate in approximating
the true variance.
This year’s bulletin presents tables 1 and 2 using theBalanced Repeated Replication (BRR) method, a form of

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

direct-variance estimation, and continues to present othervictimization and incidence estimates using GVFs (except
for totals in tables 4, 9, 24, and 25 that are also presented
in tables 1 and 2, and statistics in table 12 that are basedon the new classification of urban, suburban, and rural
areas). The Taylor Series Linearization (TSL) method,another form of direct-variance estimation, continues
to be used to generate standard errors for prevalence
estimates. BJS has an active research program on directvariance estimation that seeks to improve the quality
and accuracy of NCVS estimates. See Methodology formore details.

4

rate declined 6% from 2018 (108.2 per 1,000) to 2019
(101.4 per 1,000). This decline was partly due to a 22%
decrease in burglary (15.0 to 11.7 burglaries per 1,000
households). As with the prevalence of burglary, this was
the lowest observed rate of burglary victimization since
the NCVS was redesigned in 1993.
There were nearly 1.2 million domestic-violence
victimizations
The rate of domestic violence, which includes a subset ofviolent victimizations that were committed by intimate
partners or family members, was 4.2 victimizations
per 1,000 persons age 12 or older, based on the 2019
survey (table 3). This was not a statistically significant
change from the rate in 2018 (4.8 per 1,000). There werealso no statistically significant changes in the rates of
intimate-partner violence, stranger violence, violent
crime involving injury, and violent crime involving aweapon, from 2018 to 2019.
The rate of completed violent victimization
decreased from 2018 to 2019
The NCVS measures completed, attempted, andthreatened violent victimizations experienced by persons
age 12 or older. From 2018 to 2019, the rate of completed
violent victimizations decreased from 6.9 victimizations
per 1,000 persons to 5.5 per 1,000 (table 4). There was no
statistically significant change in the rate of attempted or
threatened violent victimization from 2018 to 2019.

TablE 3
Number and rate of violent victimizations, by selectedcharacteristics of violent crime, 2018 and 2019

TablE 4Rate of completed, attempted, and threatened violent
victimizations, 2015-2019

2018
Selected characteristics ofRate perviolent crime
Number 1,000a
Domestic violenceb
1,333,050 4.8
Intimate partner violencec 847,230 3.1
Stranger violenced
2,493,750 9.1
Violent crime involving injury 1,449,530 5.3
Violent crime involving aweapon1,329,700 4.8

Violent victimizations
TotalaCompleted
Attempted
Threatened2019*
Rate perNumber 1,000a
1,164,540 4.2
695,060 2.5
2,254,740 8.1
1,265,680 4.6
1,119,060

4.0

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. Violent-crime
categories include rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, andsimple assault. They also include threatened, attempted, and completed
occurrences of those crimes. Other violent-crime categories in this table,
including domestic violence and violent crime involving injury, are notmutually exclusive from these categories or from each other. See appendix
table 7 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
aRate is tper 1,000 persons age 12 or older. See appendix table 34 forpopulation numbers.
bIncludes the subset of violent victimizations that were committed byintimate partners or family members.
cIncludes the subset of domestic-violence victimizations that werecommitted by intimate partners, which include current or former spouses,
boyfriends, or girlfriends.
dIncludes the subset of violent victimizations that were committed bysomeone unknown to the victim.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
2018 and 2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

2015
18.6
6.0
6.4
6.1 †

2016
19.7
5.1
6.0
8.5

2017
20.6
5.6
6.8
8.2

2018 2019*
23.2
21.0
6.9 ‡ 5.5
7.2
7.0
9.2
8.5

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. Rate is per 1,000
persons age 12 or older. See appendix table 34 for population numbers.
Violent-victimization categories include rape or sexual assault, robbery,
aggravated assault, and simple assault. See appendix table 8 forstandard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Difference with comparison year is significant at the 95%
confidence level.
‡Difference with comparison year is significant at the 90%
confidence level.
aStatistically significant differences for the total victimization rates arepresented using the Balanced Repeated Replication method. Generalized
variance function parameters were used to calculate statistically significant
differences for the rest of the table.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
2015-2019.

5

The Uniform Crime Reporting program and the National Crime Victimization
Survey together provide a complementary picture of crime in the U.S.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS) measures crime reported
and not reported to police. The Uniform Crime Reporting(UCR) program, administered by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI), measures only crime recordedby police.
In 2018, the UCR reported that 3.7 total violent crimes(including murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape,robbery, and aggravated assault) per 1,000 residents and22.0 property crimes (including burglary andmotor-vehicle theft) per 1,000 residents were known to
law enforcement (table 5). The 2018 NCVS estimatedthat 4.3 violent crimes excluding simple assault per 1,000
persons age 12 or older, and 36.9 property crimes per
1,000 households, were reported to law enforcement. The
2019 NCVS estimated that 3.4 violent crimes excluding
simple assault per 1,000 persons age 12 or older, and33.0 property crimes per 1,000 households, were reported
to law enforcement.3
Because the NCVS and the UCR measure an overlapping,but not identical, set of offenses and use different
approaches in measuring them, complete congruity
should not be expected between estimates from these
two sources. Restricting the NCVS to violent crime
reported to police, and excluding simple assault, keeps
the measures as similar as possible. However, significant
methodological and definitional differences remain
between how these violent crimes are measured in the
NCVS and the UCR:
 The UCR includes murder, non-negligent manslaughter,and commercial crimes (including burglary ofcommercial establishments), while the NCVS excludes
those crime types.

 The UCR excludes sexual assault, which the

NCVS includes.4

 The UCR property-crime rates are per person, while the

NCVS's are per household. (There were 2.2 persons age
12 or older per household in 2019.) Moreover, because
the number of households may not grow at the samerate each year as the total population, trend data for
rates of property crimes measured by the two programs
may not be entirely comparable.

TablE 5Rates of crime reported to police in the Uniform
Crime Reporting program and in the National Crime
Victimization Survey, 2018 and 2019
Type of crime
Violent crime excluding
simple assault
MurderRape/sexual assaultb
Robbery
Aggravated assault

Property crime
Burglaryc
Motor-vehicle theft

Rate per 1,000 persons
2018 UCR rate per age 12 or older
1,000 residentsa 2018 NCVS 2019 NCVS
3.69
0.05
0.43
0.86
2.47

4.29
~
0.66
1.30
2.32

3.38
~
0.56
0.90
1.92

2018 UCR rate per Rate per 1,000 households
1,000 residentsa 2018 NCVS 2019 NCVS
21.99
36.89
33.00
3.76
7.11
6.03
2.29
3.36
3.12

Note: National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and Uniform Crime
Reporting (UCR) program crime rates are calculated differently.
UCR crime rates are normally reported per 100,000 persons but wererecalculated for this report to align with the reporting of NCVS crime
rates. See appendix table 9 for standard errors.
~Not applicable.
aIncludes crimes against populations not included in the NCVS: persons
age 11 or younger, persons who are homeless, persons who are
institutionalized, and crimes against commercial establishments.
bThe NCVS estimate includes sexual assault; the UCR does not. The UCR
estimate is based on its revised definition of rape. See Methodology fordetails on the measurement of rape or sexual assault in the NCVS.
cThe UCR defines burglary as forcible entry, unlawful entry where noforce is used, or attempted forcible entry of a structure to commit afelony or theft. The NCVS defines burglary as the unlawful or forcible
entry or attempted entry of places, including a permanent residence,other residence (e.g., a hotel room or vacation residence), or otherstructure (e.g., a garage or shed), where there was a completed or
attempted theft. NCVS estimates differ from those previously publishedin the Criminal Victimization, 2018 report because a coding error that
affected the generation of those earlier estimates has been corrected.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
2018 and 2019; and Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the UnitedStates, 2018, https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-theu.s.-2018/topic-pages/tables/table-1.

32019 UCR data had not been publicly released at the time thisreport was published.

4Sexual assault includes a range of victimizations and is separate

from rape or attempted rape. Sexual assault includes attacks or
threatened attacks involving unwanted sexual contact between
victim and offender, with or without force; grabbing or fondling;
and verbal threats.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

Continued on next page

6

The Uniform Crime Reporting program and the National Crime Victimization
Survey together provide a complementary picture of crime in the U.S.
(continued)
 NCVS estimates are based on interviews with anationally representative sample of persons in U.S.
households. UCR estimates are based on counts ofcrimes recorded by law enforcement agencies and areweighted to compensate for incomplete reporting.

 The NCVS does not measure crimes against persons

who are homeless or who live in institutions (e.g.,nursing homes and correctional institutions) or on
military bases. Also, it does not measure crimes againstchildren age 11 or younger. The UCR measures crimes
against all U.S. residents, including crimes againstchildren age 11 or younger. In some states mandatory

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

reporting laws require that persons report certain
crimes against youth. Due to these factors, the age
distribution of crimes measured in the UCR differs fromthat of the NCVS.
Taken together, these two measures of crime provide
a more comprehensive picture of crime in the U.S. For
additional information about the differences between the
NCVS and UCR, see The Nation’s Two Crime Measures(NCJ 246832, BJS, September 2014).

7

About 2 out of 5 violent victimizations were reported
to police in 2019

managers), or police may have been at the scene of theincident.

The NCVS provides statistics on crimes reported andnot reported to police and on the reasons why a crime
was not reported to police. Victims may not report acrime for a variety of reasons, including fear of reprisal
or getting the offender in trouble, believing that police
would not or could not do anything to help, andbelieving the crime to be a personal issue or too trivial
to report. Reporting to police may occur during or
immediately following a criminal incident or at a later
date. Police may be notified by the victim, a third party(including witnesses, other victims, household members,
or other officials, such as school officials or workplace

Based on the 2019 survey, 41% of violent victimizations
were reported to police, which was not a statisticallysignificant change from 2018 (43%) (table 6). About athird (33%) of property victimizations were reported topolice in 2019. There were some statistically significant
changes from 2018 to 2019 by type of crime reported topolice. The percentages of robbery (from 63% to 47%)and other theft (from 29% to 27%) reported to police
declined during this period, while the percentage of
intimate partner violence reported to police increased,from 45% to 58%.

TablE 6Percent and rate of victimizations reported to police, by type of crime, 2018 and 2019
Type of crime
Violent crimeb
Rape/sexual assaultc
Robbery
Assault
Aggravated assault
Simple assault
Violent crime excluding simple assaultd
Selected characteristics of violent crime
Domestic violencee
Intimate partner violencef
Stranger violenceg
Violent crime involving injury
Violent crime involving a weapon
Property crime
Burglary/trespassingh
Burglaryi
Trespassingj
Motor-vehicle theft
Other theftk

Percent of victimizations reported to police
2018
2019*
42.6%
40.9%
24.9
33.9
62.6 †
46.6
43.0
40.9
60.5
52.1
38.4
37.9
49.9%
46.5%
47.0%
45.0 †
44.5
54.3
60.3
34.1%
46.6
47.5
44.5
78.6
28.6 ‡

52.2%
58.4
39.9
49.5
52.4
32.5%
48.5
51.4
42.2
79.5
26.8

Rate of victimizations reported to police per 1,000a
2018
2019*
9.9
8.6
0.7
0.6
1.3
0.9
7.9
7.1
2.3
1.9
5.6
5.2
4.3
3.4
2.3
1.4
4.0
2.9
2.9 ‡
36.9 †
9.9 †
7.1 ‡
2.8
3.4
23.7 †

2.2
1.5
3.3
2.3
2.1
33.0
8.3
6.0
2.3
3.1
21.5

Note: Violent-crime categories include rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault, and they include threatened, attempted, andcompleted occurrences of those crimes. Other violent-crime categories in this table, including domestic violence and violent crime involving injury, are notmutually exclusive from these categories or from each other. See appendix table 10 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Difference with comparison year is significant at the 95% confidence level.
‡Difference with comparison year is significant at the 90% confidence level.
aRates are per 1,000 persons age 12 or older for violent crime reported to police and per 1,000 households for property crime reported to police. See
appendix table 34 for population numbers and appendix table 35 for number of households.
bExcludes homicide because the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is based on interviews with victims.
cSee Methodology for details on the measurement of rape or sexual assault in the NCVS.
dIncludes rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault; this category was called serious violent crime prior to Criminal Victimization, 2018.
eIncludes the subset of violent victimizations that were committed by intimate partners or family members.
fIncludes the subset of domestic-violence victimizations that were committed by intimate partners, which include current or former spouses, boyfriends,
or girlfriends.
gIncludes the subset of violent victimizations that were committed by someone unknown to the victim.
hCalled household burglary prior to Criminal Victimization, 2018. Includes unlawful or forcible entry or attempted entry of places, including a permanent
residence, other residence (e.g., a hotel room or vacation residence), or other structure (e.g., a garage or shed), but does not include trespassing on land.
iIncludes only crimes where the offender committed or attempted a theft. Estimates differ from those previously published in the Criminal Victimization,2018 report because a coding error that affected the generation of those earlier estimates has been corrected.
jIncludes crimes where the offender did not commit or attempt a theft. Does not include trespassing on land. Estimates differ from those previously
published in the Criminal Victimization, 2018 report because a coding error that affected the generation of those earlier estimates has been corrected.
kIncludes the taking or attempted unlawful taking of property or cash without personal contact with the victim. Incidents involving theft of property
from within the same household would classify as theft if the offender has a legal right to be in the house (such as a maid, delivery person, or guest). If theoffender has no legal right to be in the house, the incident would classify as a burglary.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2018 and 2019.

The rate of unreported violent crime increased from2015 to 2019

Assistance from a victim-service agency was received
for 8% of violent victimizations

From 2018 to 2019, there were no statistically significant
changes in the rate of reported or unreported violent
crime (whether completed, attempted, or threatened)(table 7). While the rate of total violent crime (whether
completed, attempted, or threatened) reported to police
was 8.6 victimizations reported per 1,000 persons age 12
or older in both 2015 and 2019, the rate of unreported
violent crime increased from 9.5 per 1,000 persons in2015 to 12.1 per 1,000 in 2019. During this same period,
the rate of both reported (from 2.2 per 1,000 to 3.1 per
1,000) and unreported (from 3.6 per 1,000 to 5.3 per
1,000) threatened crime increased.

Victim-service agencies are public or privateorganizations that provide help to victims. Based on the2019 survey, assistance from a victim-service agency wasreceived in 8% of violent victimizations (table 8). This
was a decline from the percentage in 2018 (11%). The
percentage of violent victimizations committed by an
intimate partner for which victims received assistancefrom a victim-service agency increased from 18% in 2018
to 26% in 2019.

TablE 7
Rate of violent victimization reported and not reported to police, by completed, attempted, and threatened crimes,
2015-2019
Violent crime
Total
Completed
Attempted
Threatened

2015
8.6
3.3
3.1
2.2 ‡

Rate of reported crime per 1,000a
2016
2017
2018
8.6
9.2
9.9
2.5
2.8
3.3
2.6
2.9
3.2
3.6
3.5
3.4

2019*
8.6
2.5
2.9
3.1

2015
9.5 †
2.6
3.3
3.6 †

Rate of unreported crime per 1,000a
2016
2017
2018
10.8
10.9
12.9
2.6
2.6
3.5
3.3
3.8
3.8
4.9
4.5
5.6

2019*
12.1
2.8
4.0
5.3

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding and missing data. Violent-crime categories include rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault,
and simple assault. Each year between 2015 and 2019, whether the crime was reported to police or not was unknown at a rate of 0.3 to 0.5 victimizations
per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. See appendix table 11 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Difference with comparison year is significant at the 95% confidence level.
‡Difference with comparison year is significant at the 90% confidence level.
aRate is per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. See appendix table 34 for population numbers.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015-2019.

TablE 8Percent of violent victimizations for which victims received
assistance from a victim-service agency, by type of crime, 2018and 2019
Type of crime
Violent crimea
Violent crime excluding simple assaultb
Simple assault
Intimate partner violencec
Violent crime involving injury
Violent crime involving a weapon

2018
10.6% †
12.8
9.4 †
18.1% ‡
14.7%
11.2%

2019*
7.7%
10.8
6.0
26.1%
17.9%
7.1%

Note: See appendix table 12 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Difference with comparison year is significant at the 95% confidence level.
‡Difference with comparison year is significant at the 90% confidence level.
aIncludes rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.
Includes threatened, attempted, and completed occurrences of those crimes. Excludes
homicide because the National Crime Victimization Survey is based on interviews
with victims.
bIncludes rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault; this category wascalled serious violent crime prior to Criminal Victimization, 2018.
cIncludes the subset of domestic-violence victimizations that were committed byintimate partners, which include current or former spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2018 and 2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 20209

Rates of violent victimization decreased across somedemographic characteristics from 2018 to 2019
From 2018 to 2019, the rate of violent victimization
decreased from 24.7 victimizations per 1,000 white
persons age 12 or older to 21.0 per 1,000 (table 9).
Among Asians, the rate of violent victimization declined
from 16.2 per 1,000 in 2018 to 7.5 per 1,000 in 2019.
During this same period, the rate of violent victimization
also decreased for persons ages 25 to 34 (from 31.8 to25.0 victimizations per 1,000) and ages 35 to 49 from(25.2 to 19.5 per 1,000). Among divorced persons, therate of violent victimization decreased from 39.1 per
1,000 in 2018 to 28.5 per 1,000 in 2019.
Among females, the rate of violent victimization
excluding simple assault decreased from 9.6
victimizations per 1,000 females age 12 or older in 2018
to 7.0 per 1,000 in 2019. From 2018 to 2019, the rate ofviolent crime excluding simple assault also decreased for
persons ages 35 to 49 (from 9.8 to 6.7 victimizations per
1,000). For those living in households where income wasless than $25,000 a year, the rate decreased from 19.0 to
14.2 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older.
In the same period, the rate of violent crime excluding
simple assault for those living in households earning
more than $200,000 a year increased from 3.0 to 7.0
per 1,000.

Table 9Rate of violent victimization, by type of crime anddemographic characteristics of victims, 2018 and 2019
Victim demographic
characteristic
TotalcSex
Male
FemaleRace/ethnicity
WhitedBlackdHispanic
AsiandOtherd,e
Age
12-17
18-24
25-34
35-49
50-64
65 or older
Marital status
Never married
MarriedWidow/widower
Divorced
Separated
Household income
Less than $25,000$25,000-$49,999$50,000-$99,999$100,000-$199,999$200,000 or more

Total violent
victimizationa
2018
2019*
23.2
21.0

Violent victimization
excluding simple
assaultb
2018
2019*
8.6 †
7.3

22.1
24.3

21.2
20.8

7.5
9.6 †

7.5
7.0

24.7 ‡
20.4
18.6
16.2 †
49.2

21.0
18.7
21.3
7.5
66.3

8.2
10.0
8.5
5.6 †
20.5

6.5
7.0
10.2
1.9 !
20.9

34.2
35.9
31.8 ‡
25.2 ‡
18.3
6.5

35.2
37.2
25.0
19.5
18.9
6.0

10.1
16.3
11.3
9.8 ‡
6.4
2.3

11.0
16.0
8.9
6.7
5.6
1.9

33.5
12.1
12.5
39.1 †
58.2

31.2
11.5
10.7
28.5
64.1

12.9
4.1
4.3
14.8
20.8

11.9
3.0
4.9
10.7
19.5

40.8
23.5
16.5
19.2
16.3

37.8
19.7
16.6
16.2
18.0

19.0 ‡
9.3
4.7
5.8
3.0 †

14.2
7.5
5.5
3.9
7.0

Note: Rates are per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. Includes threatened,attempted, and completed occurrences of those crimes. See appendix
table 34 for population numbers and appendix table 13 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Difference with comparison year is significant at the 95% confidence level.
‡Difference with comparison year is significant at the 90%
confidence level.
! Interpret estimate with caution. Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample
cases or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.
aIncludes rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple
assault. Excludes homicide because the National Crime Victimization
Survey is based on interviews with victims.
bIncludes rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault; thiscategory was called serious violent crime prior to Criminal
Victimization, 2018.
cStatistically significant differences for the total victimization rates arepresented using the Balanced Repeated Replication method. Generalized
variance function parameters were used to calculate statistically significant
differences for the rest of the table.
dExcludes persons of Hispanic origin (e.g., “white” refers to non-Hispanic
whites and “black” refers to non-Hispanic blacks).
eIncludes Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, American Indiansand Alaska Natives, and persons of two or more races.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
2018 and 2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

10

The percentage of violent victimizations reported topolice was higher for females than for males
Based on the 2019 survey, the percentage of violent
victimizations reported to police was higher for females(46%) than for males (36%) (table 10). This difference
can largely be attributed to reporting of simple assaults,
as the percentages of violent victimizations reported
to police, excluding simple assault, were similar for
females (47%) and males (46%). The percentage ofviolent victimizations reported to police was lower
for white persons (37%) than for black persons (49%)
and Hispanics (49%). Among different age groups, thepercentage of violent victimizations reported to police,
excluding simple assault, was lower for persons ages
18 to 24 (36%) than for persons ages 25 to 34 (60%),
50 to 64 (52%), or 65 or older (61%). The percentageof violent crime reported to police was lower for those
who had never been married (35%) than for married(45%), divorced (46%), or separated (62%) persons. The
percentage of violent victimizations reported to police,
excluding simple assault, was lowest for those living inhouseholds earning more than $200,000 a year (13%).

Table 10Percent and rate of violent victimizations reported topolice, by type of crime and demographic characteristics
of victims, 2019

Victim demographic
characteristic
Total
Sex
Male*
FemaleRace/ethnicity
White*bBlackb
Hispanic
AsianbOtherb,c
Age
12-17
18-24*
25-34
35-49
50-64
65 or older
Marital status
Never married*
MarriedWidow/widower
Divorced
Separated
Household income
Less than $25,000$25,000-$49,999$50,000-$99,999*$100,000-$199,999$200,000 or more

Total violent
victimizations
reported to policea
Rate per
Percent 1,000c
40.9%
8.6

Violent victimizations
reported to police,
excluding simple
assaulta
Rate per
Percent 1,000c
46.5%
3.4

35.7%
45.9 †

7.5
9.6

46.4%
46.6

3.5
3.3

37.0%
49.2 †
48.8 †
47.9
39.8

7.8
9.2
10.4
3.6 †
26.4 †

46.9%
52.1
48.7
42.9 !
27.3 †

3.0
3.7
5.0 †
0.8 † !
5.7

24.0% †
37.9
46.4
44.4
47.1 ‡
41.9

8.4 †
14.1
11.6
8.6 †
8.9 †
2.5 †

37.4%
36.4
60.2 †
42.2
52.5 †
61.0 †

4.1
5.8
5.3
2.8 †
2.9 †
1.1 †

34.8%
45.4 †
47.3
46.2 †
61.7 †

10.9
5.2 †
5.0 †
13.2
39.6 †

42.3%
49.8
63.9 ‡
49.7
60.9 ‡

5.0
1.5 †
3.1
5.3
11.9 ‡

41.8%
44.7
43.1
33.0 ‡
29.5 †

15.8 †
8.8
7.2
5.3
5.3

46.8%
57.4 ‡
44.5
43.1
13.4 †

6.6 †
4.3 †
2.4
1.7
0.9 †

Note: Violent-crime categories include rape or sexual assault, robbery,
aggravated assault, and simple assault, and they include threatened,attempted, and completed occurrences of those crimes. See appendix
table 14 for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
†Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%
confidence level.
‡Difference with comparison group is significant at the 90%
confidence level.
! Interpret estimate with caution. Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample
cases or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.
aRates are per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. See appendix table 34 forpopulation numbers.
bExcludes persons of Hispanic origin (e.g., “white” refers to non-Hispanic
whites and “black” refers to non-Hispanic blacks).
cIncludes Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, American Indiansand Alaska Natives, and persons of two or more races.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization
Survey, 2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 202011

Classification of urban, suburban, and rural areas in the National Crime
Victimization Survey
By Jeffrey H. Anderson, Ph.D., BJS Director
This year, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) provides
new classifications of urban, suburban, and rural areas
for the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), withthe goal of presenting a more accurate picture of where
criminal victimizations occur.
Historically, the NCVS has classified areas as urban,
suburban, or rural based on the following definitions: Urban: within a principal city of a Metropolitan

Statistical Area (MSA) Suburban: within an MSA but not within a principal cityof the MSA

 Rural: outside of an MSA

These definitions are straightforward, but they suffer fromtwo main shortcomings:
1. Metropolitan statistical areas are based on entire
counties, and counties almost always contain both ruraland non-rural areas. Yet the NCVS’s historical definitionsclassify each county as being either entirely rural (if notpart of an MSA) or entirely non-rural (if part of an MSA).
For example, California’s San Bernardino County, which
includes much of the Mojave Desert and covers more than
twice as much land as the state of Maryland, is classified
as containing no rural areas under the NCVS’s historicaldefinitions. This is because San Bernardino County is partof the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA, and the
NCVS’s historical definitions do not classify any part of an
MSA as being rural. On the other hand, Colorado’s La Plata
County, home of Durango, is classified under the historicaldefinitions as being entirely rural, because it is not part ofan MSA. This is true even though the Census Bureau says
that, as of 2010, 40% of La Plata County’s population lived
in non-rural areas.
Similarly, Casmalia, Calif. had a 2010 population of 138
people and is surrounded by undeveloped land. Because
it is located within a county (Santa Barbara) that isdesignated as an MSA (the Santa Maria-Santa Barbara
MSA), the NCVS’s historical definitions classify Casmalia
as suburban. Meanwhile, Bozeman, Mont., with a 2010
population of 37,280—270 times that of Casmalia—isclassified by the NCVS’s historical definitions as rural,
because it is located in a county that is not part of an MSA.
2. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
designates principal cities (of which there are anywherefrom 1 to nearly 20 in a given MSA) as being among“the more significant places in each Metropolitan andMicropolitan Statistical Area…in terms of populationand employment.” The principal city designation is notnecessarily indicative of urban status, nor is it intended
C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

to be. Yet the NCVS’s historical definitions classify all
principal cities of MSAs as urban, and all other places as
not urban.
As a result, Union City, N.J., located just across the
Hudson River from Midtown Manhattan, is classified by
the NCVS’s historical definitions as suburban, due to its
not being defined as a principal city. Union City had a2010 population density of 51,918 people per squaremile, more than three times the population density of
San Francisco (17,180). Meanwhile, Rome, N.Y., which
had a 2010 population density of 451 people per square
mile—less than 1% that of Union City—is classified by thehistorical definitions as urban. The same is true for Yuma,
Ariz., Hilton Head Island, S.C., and Foley, Ala. None ofthese had a population density in 2010 that was even 2%
that of Union City, yet all are classified as urban under the
NCVS’s historical definitions, while Union City is classified
as suburban.
These are not isolated examples. Weighted housing-unit
density (discussed more below) is essentially a measureof how closely people live to one another. Based on the2010 Census of Population and Housing and 2013 OMB
principal-city designations, 506 of the 674 principal cities
in the United States (75%) had weighted housing-unit
densities below that of the U.S. as a whole. In other words,
three-quarters of the places classified by the historicaldefinitions as urban were less densely developed than theareas where most U.S. residents lived.
A new definition:
BJS’s new NCVS definition of urban is based on the notionthat urban places are those that are densely populated,
are at the center of a major metropolitan area, or somecombination of these. BJS’s specific criteria is that a placeis urban if it is— The main city or Census-designated place (i.e., the firstplace listed) in a 500,000-person (Census-designated)“urbanized area,” with a weighted housing-unit density
within its city limits of at least 3,000 housing units
per square mile. In other words, the primary city in alarge “urbanized area” qualifies as urban if it meetsthe weighted-housing-unit-density threshold of 3,000
housing units per square mile. (The overall weighted
housing-unit density for the U.S. is 2,396, based on the2010 Census.)

 A named city or Census-designated place in a

500,000-person (Census-designated) “urbanized area,”
with a weighted housing-unit density of at least 4,000
housing units per square mile within its city limits. In

Continued on next page
12

Classification of urban, suburban, and rural areas in the National Crime
Victimization Survey (continued)
other words, a city that is prominent enough to be
included by the Census Bureau in the name of a large“urbanized area” (for example, Long Beach in the Los
Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim urbanized area) qualifies
as urban if it meets the weighted-housing-unit-density
threshold of 4,000 housing units per square mile.
 Any city or Census-designated place with a populationof at least 50,000 and a weighted housing-unit densityof at least 5,000 housing units per square mile.

 Any city or Census-designated place with a populationof at least 10,000 and a weighted housing-unit densityof at least 10,000 housing units per square mile.

The Census Bureau’s “urbanized areas” referenced inthis definition are similar to OMB’s metropolitan areas,
but they delineate areas of substantial population rather
than utilizing entire counties. The weighted housing-unit
density referenced in this definition is discussed in greater
detail below.
In addition to developing this definition of urban, BJS has
adopted the Census Bureau’s definition of rural to replace
the historical NCVS definition of rural. The Census Bureau
provides specific, carefully drawn boundaries around“urban areas” (both larger “urbanized areas” and smaller“urban clusters”) using set criteria, classifying everythingoutside of those boundaries as rural.
BJS classifies areas that are neither urban nor rural
as suburban. In comparison to places that are urban,
suburban areas are characterized by lower density, alarger ratio of single-family homes to apartments, andlayouts based principally on automobile transportation.
Some suburban areas, those that might be thoughtof as “suburbia proper,” do not have their own urban
centers but are located near a separate urban city. Other
suburban areas are cities or towns that have urban
centers, but those centers have smaller populations thantheir surrounding suburban areas, so the bulk of the city’s
population lives in suburban areas. (Cities are the smallest
geographical designations that can realistically be usedin classifying areas as urban.) In short, suburban areas area mix of “suburbia proper,” towns, and some generally
smaller cities that are more suburban than urban.
BJS uses weighted housing-unit density in its new
NCVS definitions because that measure provides abetter indication of the degree of urban density thanconventional population density does. Conventional
population density is derived by dividing population byland area, and it measures how densely populated a given
area of land is. As of the 2010 Census, the U.S. as a whole
had a conventional population density of 87 people persquare mile; however, most U.S. residents do not live inareas where there are only 87 people per square mile. TheC R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

experience of most U.S. residents is more fully captured
by weighted population density, which is essentially ameasure of how densely populated an area is from theperspective of those who live in it.
Weighted housing-unit density is similar to weighted
population density, with the difference being that thelatter focuses on population and the former on housing
units. In comparing weighted housing-unit density toweighted population density, John R. Ottensmann writes,“Housing units better represent the physical pattern ofurban development, as they are relatively fixed.”5
Housing-unit density is the number of housing units
per square mile in a given area. Weighted housing-unit
density, under BJS’s approach, is the weighted average ofthe housing densities for all census tracts in an area, withthe tracts weighted by their number of housing units.
For ease of explanation, imagine an area with only two
census tracts. One tract has 2,000 housing units, covers
2 square miles, and thus has a housing-unit density of
1,000 housing units per square mile. The other tract has
6,000 housing units, covers 1 square mile, and thus hasa housing-unit density of 6,000 housing units per square
mile. The area’s weighted housing-unit density is theweighted average of these two tract-level housing-unit
densities, or (1,000*2,000+6,000*6,000)/8,000 = 4,750.
Otherwise put, the weighted housing-unit density isbased one-quarter on the first tract’s density (because
it contains one-quarter of the housing units) and threequarters on the second tract’s density.
Weighted housing-unit density identifies urban places
much more clearly than conventional population density
does. Among places with populations of at least 10,000
people in 2010, Chicago rises from #71 in conventional
population density to #16 in weighted housing-unit
density, New Orleans from #2,212 to #190, and Urban
Honolulu from #474 to #13. Meanwhile, Passaic, N.J. falls
from #7 in conventional population density to #45 inweighted housing-unit density, while Santa Ana, Calif. falls
from #67 to #237 (moving from 4 places above Chicago to
221 places below).
Comparing the old and new definitions:
Both the old and new NCVS definitions, as would be
expected, classify New York’s five boroughs as urban (NewYork City’s weighted housing-unit density is a nationleading 29,345 housing units per square mile), and theyboth add Jersey City, N.J. (weighted housing-unit density
5John R. Ottensmann. “On Population-Weighted

Density.” February 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/322992771_On_Population-Weighted_Density.

Continued on next page13

Classification of urban, suburban, and rural areas in the National Crime
Victimization Survey (continued)(25,870); West New York (21,763); Union City, N.J. (20,477);
Cliffside Park, N.J. (12,001); Mount Vernon, N.Y. (8,811);
East Orange, N.J. (8,763); Bayonne, N.J. (8,263); Yonkers,
N.Y. (7,930); Elizabeth, N.J. (7,468); Passaic, N.J. (7,424); andPaterson, N.J. (6,739).

of 13,837 housing units per square mile), Newark, N.J.
(8,788), and White Plains, N.Y. (5,671). The old definition
also includes New Brunswick, N.J. (4,908) and Lakewood,
N.J. (2,106).
The new definition reclassifies Lakewood and New
Brunswick as suburban (although just a 2% increase in
New Brunswick’s weighted housing-unit density would
qualify it as urban) and adds the following places asurban: Guttenberg, N.J. (weighted housing-unit densityof 29,171 housing units per square mile); Hoboken, N.J.

As the accompanying map of the Washington, D.C.
area (figure 4) shows, both the old and new definitions
include Washington, D.C. (weighted housing-unit densityof 10,115 housing units per square mile), Arlington,
Va. (10,485), Alexandria, Va. (7,714), and Silver Spring,Md. (6,135), as urban places. The new definitions do
not classify anywhere else in the D.C. area as urban. The
old definitions added as urban Bethesda, Md. (4,325),
Gaithersburg, Md. (2,836), Reston, Va. (2,543), Rockville,
Md. (2,534), and Frederick, Md. (2,235), all of which the
new definitions classify as suburban.

FIGURE 4
Washington, D.C. MSA, by old and new classification
Old classification
Urban
Suburban

New classification
Urban
Suburban
Rural

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
2019; and 2010 Census of Population and Housing and 2013 OMB
Metropolitan Statistical Area designations.

The new definitions more closely fit U.S. residents’ own
sense of where they live, as reflected in the American
Housing Survey (AHS). For each of five metropolitan or
micropolitan area designations, the following table andfigure show how most AHS respondents in 2017 classified
where they lived (and what percentage of respondents
gave that classification), what percentage of people would
be classified that same way by the new and old NCVS
definitions, and the difference between the AHS result
and the new and old NCVS results (table 11, figure 5).
As table 11 shows, 58% of AHS respondents who lived
in the biggest principal city of an MSA said that they
lived in an urban place. Forty-three percent of themwould be classified as living in an urban place by the new
NCVS definitions, a difference of 15 percentage points(58% versus 43%) from the portion of AHS respondents
who gave that answer. In comparison, 100% of those

Table 11
U.S. residents’ sense of where they live, per the American Housing Survey

Part of MSA/micro area lived inBiggest principal city of MSA
Other principal city of MSA
In MSA but not principal city
In micropolitan area
Outside of metro/micro area
AverageaAmerican Housing Survey.

Most common
classification by
AHS respondentsa
58% urban
67% suburban
64% suburban
52% rural
70% rural~

Percent classified same way as
most common AHS classification
New NCVS
Old NCVS
definitions
definitions
43%
100%
88
0
79
100
48
100
75
100
~
~

Difference (in percentage points)
New NCVS vs. AHS Old NCVS vs. AHS
15
42
21
67
15
36
4
48
5
30
12
45

~Not applicable.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019; 2010 Census of Population and Housing and 2013 OMB Metropolitan
Statistical Area designations; and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Housing Survey, 2017.

Continued on next pageC R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 202014

Classification of urban, suburban, and rural areas in the National Crime
Victimization Survey (continued)
respondents would be classified as living in an urban
place by the old NCVS definitions, a difference of 42
percentage points (58% vs. 100%) from the portion of
AHS respondents who gave that answer. While AHS
respondents’ answers about where they live are notnecessarily dispositive, the new NCVS definitions fare far
better than the old ones versus the AHS in every category,by a margin of at least 21 percentage points per category
and an average margin of 33 points per category.
Under the new definitions, 12% of the population lives
in urban areas, 69% in suburban areas, and 19% in rural
areas, compared to 33% in urban areas, 53% in suburban
areas, and 14% in rural areas under the old definitions(table 31). Of the main cities in the 15 largest MSAs in
the U.S., the new definitions classify 13 as urban. The twoclassified as suburban—Phoenix, Ariz. and Riverside,
Calif.—had 2010 weighted housing-unit densities belowthat of the U.S. as a whole.
According to the historical NCVS definitions, by far themost urban region in the country is the West, followedby the South (using the Census Bureau's regionalclassifications). Under the new definitions, the Northeast
is by far the most urban region, followed in order by theWest, Midwest, and South. The most suburban region
according to the old definitions is the Northeast. Under
the new definitions, the West is the most suburban region,
with the Northeast being the least suburban region.
A complete list of places classified as urban under the new
NCVS definitions is provided at the back of this report(appendix table 36).

FIGURE 5
Location-of-residence classification, by source of classification
Percent

American Housing Survey respondent classification

100

Urban
Suburban
Rural

80
60
40
20
0

Biggest principal city of MSA

Other principal city of MSA

In MSA but not principal city

In micropolitan area

Outside of metro/micro area

In micropolitan area

Outside of metro/micro area

In micropolitan area

Outside of metro/micro area

New NCVS definitions

100
80
60
40
20
0

Biggest principal city of MSA

Other principal city of MSA

In MSA but not principal city

Old NCVS definitions

100
80
60
40
20
0

Biggest principal city of MSA

Other principal city of MSA

In MSA but not principal city

Note: See appendix table 4 for estimates.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American
Housing Survey, 2017; and 2010 Census of Population and Housing and 2013 OMB Metropolitan Statistical Area designations.

The rate of violent victimization in urban areas,
based on the new classifications of urban, suburban,
and rural areas, declined from 2018 to 2019rural (from 80.3 to 68.1 per 1,000) areas. There was no
statistically significant change in the rate of property
crime in urban areas.

From 2018 to 2019, the rate of violent victimization in
urban areas declined from 26.5 victimizations per 1,000
persons age 12 or older to 21.1 per 1,000 (table 12) basedon the NCVS's new classifications of urban, suburban,
and rural areas (see text box on pp. 12-15). Excluding
simple assault, the rate of violent victimization in urban
areas fell from 12.2 victimizations per 1,000 persons age
12 or older in 2018 to 8.0 per 1,000 in 2019. There wereno statistically significant changes in the rates of violent
victimization, or of violent victimization excluding
simple assault, in suburban or rural areas from 2018
to 2019. The rate of property victimization, however,declined from 2018 to 2019 in both suburban (from108.6 to 100.8 victimizations per 1,000 households) andBased on the new definitions, the 2019 rate of violent
victimization in urban areas (21.1 per 1,000 persons
age 12 or older) and suburban areas (22.3 per 1,000)
was higher than the rate in rural areas (16.3 per
1,000). There was no statistically significant difference
between the rates of violent victimization in urban andsuburban areas, and there were no statistically significant
differences in the rates of violent victimization excluding
simple assault across urban, suburban, and rural areas.
The rate of property victimization in urban areas(153.0 per 1,000 households) was higher than the rate
in suburban (100.8 per 1,000) and rural areas (68.1 per
1,000). The rate of property victimization in suburban
areas was also higher than the rate in rural areas.

TablE 12Rate of victimization, by type of crime and location of residence, 2018 and 2019

Location of residencee
New definition
UrbanfSuburbang
RuralhOld definition
UrbaniSuburbanj
RuralkViolent crimeb
2018
2019*

Rate per 1,000a
Violent crime excluding
simple assaultc
2018
2019*

Property crimed
2018
2019*

26.5 ‡
23.8
18.9

21.1
22.3
16.3

12.2 †
8.6
6.3

8.0
7.6
5.6

146.9
108.6 †
80.3 †

153.0
100.8
68.1

28.9
18.6
26.9

26.0
16.5
26.3

12.2
6.1
9.6

9.5
5.7
7.7

142.9
86.7 †
101.7 ‡

144.4
74.9
92.1

Note: Statistically significant differences for the new definition rates are presented using the Balanced Repeated
Replication method of direct estimation. Statistically significant differences for the old definition rates are presented
using generalized variance function parameters. See appendix table 15 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Difference with comparison year is significant at the 95% confidence level.
‡Difference with comparison year is significant at the 90% confidence level.
aRate is per 1,000 persons age 12 or older for violent crime and per 1,000 households for property crime. See table
31 for populations.
bIncludes rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. Excludes homicide because the
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is based on interviews with victims.
cIncludes rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault; this category was called serious violent crime prior
to Criminal Victimization, 2018.
dIncludes burglary, residential trespassing, motor-vehicle theft, and other theft.
eSee Classification of urban, suburban, and rural areas in the National Crime Victimization Survey on pp. 12-15 andMethodology for details on the measurement of location of residence in the NCVS.
fAll census blocks within cities or Census-designated places that meet certain criteria based on their populationand density. See Classification of urban, suburban, and rural areas in the National Crime Victimization Survey on
pp. 12-15 and appendix table 36.
gAll other census blocks not classified as urban or rural.
hAll census blocks not in Census Bureau-defined urbanized areas or urban clusters.
iWithin the principal city of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).
jWithin an MSA but not in a principal city of the MSA.
kNot within an MSA.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2018 and 2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 202016

population. The offender-to-population ratio showsthat the percentage of violent incidents involving maleoffenders (75%) was about 1.5 times greater than thepercentage of males represented in the population (49%),
whereas the percentage of violent incidents involving
female offenders (21%) was 0.4 times the percentage offemales in the population (51%).

Incidents estimates
An incident is a specific criminal act involving one ormore victims.6 In 2019, there were 5.4 million total
violent incidents involving victims age 12 or older(table 13).
Patterns varied in the demographic characteristics ofvictims and offenders involved in violent incidents, as
perceived by the victims. Based on the 2019 survey, thevictim-to-population ratio of 1.0 for both males andfemales shows that the percentage of violent incidents
involving male (49%) or female (51%) victims wasequal to males’ (49%) or females’ (51%) share of the

The victim-to-population ratio varied by race. The
percentage of violent incidents involving white (62%)
or black (11%) victims was similar to the population
percentages of white (62%) or black (12%) persons.
Likewise, about 17% of violent incidents involved
Hispanic victims, which was equal to the representationof Hispanics in the population (17%). A smaller
percentage of violent incidents involved Asian victims(2%) than the share of Asians in the population (6%).

6Tables 13 through 17 present incident-level data on victims andoffenders. Offender characteristics in the NCVS are based on victims’
perceptions of offenders.

Table 13
Percent and number of violent incidents, by total population and victim and offender demographic characteristics, 2019
Number ofviolent incidents
Populationa Offenderb Victim
276,872,470 5,440,680 5,440,680

Demographic characteristic
Total
Sex
Male
134,693,660
Female142,178,810
Both male and female offenders~
Race/ethnicity
Whitec171,423,480
Blackc33,397,100
Hispanicd
47,890,870
17,401,410
AsiancOtherc,e
6,759,600
Multiple offenders of various racesc~
Age
11 or youngerf~
12-17
24,941,440
18-29
52,798,870
30 or older
199,132,160
Multiple offenders of various ages~

Percent ofviolent incidents
Percent of
populationa* Offenderb Victim
100%
100%
100%

Ratio of percentages
Offender Offender to Victim toto victim population population
1.0
1.0
1.0

3,806,570 2,668,600
1,085,550 2,772,070
182,030
~

48.6%
51.4
~

75.0% †
21.4†
3.6

49.0%
51.0
~

1.5
0.4
~

1.5
0.4
~

1.0
1.0
~

2,289,390 3,379,920
1,140,470 582,650
853,990 926,650
44,520 123,400
208,170 428,050
27,720 !
~

61.9%
12.1
17.3
6.3
2.4
~

50.2% †
25.0 †
18.7
1.0 †
4.6 †
0.6 !

62.1%
10.7
17.0
2.3 †
7.9 †
~

0.8
2.3
1.1
0.4
0.6
~

0.8
2.1
1.1
0.2
1.9
~

1.0
0.9
1.0
0.4
3.2
~

94,230~723,630 800,300
1,348,610 1,617,860
2,323,940 3,022,520
157,390
~

~
9.0%
19.1
71.9
~

2.0%
15.6 †
29.0 †
50.0 †
3.4~
14.7% †
29.7 †
55.6 †
~

~
1.1
1.0
0.9
~

~
1.7
1.5
0.7
~

~
1.6
1.6
0.8
~

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding and missing data for offender characteristics. An incident is a specific criminal act involving one or more
victims. Offender characteristics are based on victims’ perceptions of offenders. See appendix table 16 for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
†Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.
! Interpret with caution. Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.
~Not applicable.
aThe National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) population represents persons age 12 or older living in non-institutionalized residential settings in the U.S.
bIncludes those incidents in which the perceived offender characteristics were reported. The sex of the offender was unknown in 7% of incidents, therace or ethnicity of the offender was unknown in 16% of incidents, and the age of the offender was unknown in 15% of incidents.
cExcludes persons of Hispanic origin (e.g., “white” refers to non-Hispanic whites and “black” refers to non-Hispanic blacks).
dIf the victim perceived any of the offenders in a multiple offender incident to be of Hispanic origin, they are classified as Hispanic.
eIncludes Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and persons of two or more races.
fWhile the NCVS does not survey victims age 11 or younger, victims may report the offender to be age 11 or younger.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 202017

Based on victims’ perceptions of the offenders, theoffender-to-population ratio shows that the percentageof violent incidents involving black offenders (25%) was
2.1 times the percentage of black persons (12%) in the
population. The percentage of violent incidents involving
white offenders (50%) was about four-fifths (0.8 times)
the percentage of whites (62%) in the population,
while the percentage of violent incidents involving
Hispanic offenders (19%) was similar to the percentageof Hispanics in the population (17%). The percentageof violent incidents involving Asian offenders (1%) was
about one-fifth (0.2 times) the percentage of Asians in
the population (6%). The percentage of violent incidents
involving offenders of other races (Native Hawaiians andOther Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Alaska
Natives, and persons of two or more races) was about
double (1.9 times) the collective percentage of those racesin the population.
The offender-to-victim ratio shows that the percentageof violent incidents involving black offenders (25%)
was over twice (2.3 times) the percentage of incidents
committed against black victims (11%). In contrast, thepercentage of incidents involving white offenders (50%)
was four-fifths (0.8 times) the percentage of incidents
committed against white victims (62%), while thepercentage involving Asian offenders was two-fifths (0.4
times) the percentage committed against Asian victims.
Persons ages 12 to 17 were more than 1.5 times more
likely to be offenders (16%) or victims (15%) in violent
incidents than their percentage of the population (9%).
Those between the ages of 18 to 29 showed a similar
pattern. Those age 30 or older were less likely to be

offenders (50%) or victims (56%) than their percentageof the population (72%).
Females were offenders in a greater percentage of violent
incidents committed against females (28%) than against
males (14%) (table 14). Males were offenders in a greater
percentage of violent incidents committed against males(82%) than against females (69%).
Based on victims’ perceptions, about 1.7 million violent
incidents in 2019 were committed against white persons
by offenders who were white, 346,260 violent incidents
were committed against black persons by offenders
who were black, and 334,600 violent incidents werecommitted against Hispanic persons by offenders who
were Hispanic (table 15). There were 5.3 times as many
Table 14
Percent of violent incidents, by victim and offendersex, 2019
Victim sex
Total
Male*
FemaleNumber ofviolent incidents
5,074,160
2,410,380
2,663,770

Offender sex

Total
100%
100%
100%

Both male
Male Female and female
75.0% † 21.4% † 3.6%
82.1
14.5
3.5
68.6 † 27.7 †3.7

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. An incident is a
specific criminal act involving one or more victims. Offender sex is basedon victims’ perceptions of offenders. Includes those incidents in which
the perceived sex of the offender was reported. The sex of the offender
was unknown in 7% of incidents, which is why the number of incidents
reported here is only 93% as high as in table 13. See appendix table 17 forstandard errors.
*Comparison group.
†Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%
confidence level.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019.

Table 15
Number of violent incidents, by victim and offender race or ethnicity, 2019
Victim race/ethnicity
WhiteaBlackaHispanic

Number ofviolent incidents
2,796,710
494,610774,310Whitea1,722,230*
89,980 †170,840 †Offender race/ethnicity
BlackaHispanicb
472,570 †463,520 †346,260*
43,730 †249,030
334,600*

Othera,c
138,380 †
14,640 † !
19,840 †Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. An incident is a specific criminal act involving one or more victims. Offender race or ethnicity is basedon victims’ perceptions of offenders. Includes those violent incidents in which the perceived offender race or ethnicity was reported. Offender race or
ethnicity was unknown in 16% of violent incidents, which is why the number of incidents reported here is only 84% as high as in table 13. See appendix
table 18 for standard errors.
*Comparison groups are intraracial victim and offender percentages (white-on-white, black-on-black, and Hispanic-on-Hispanic).
†Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.
! Interpret with caution. Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.
aExcludes persons of Hispanic origin (e.g., “white” refers to non-Hispanic whites and “black” refers to non-Hispanic blacks).
bIf the victim perceived any of the offenders in a multiple offender incident to be of Hispanic origin, they are classified as Hispanic.
cIncludes Asians, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Alaska Natives, persons of two or more races, and multiple offenders ofvarious races.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 202018

violent incidents committed by black offenders against
white victims (472,570) as were committed by whiteoffenders against black victims (89,980).
The largest percentage of violent incidents committed
against white, black, and Hispanic victims werecommitted by someone of the same race or ethnicity(table 16). Offenders were white in 62% of violent
incidents committed against white victims, black in
70% of incidents committed against black victims, andHispanic in 43% of incidents committed against
Hispanic victims.

Sixty-two percent of violent incidents committed against
white victims were perceived to be committed by whiteoffenders, the same portion (62%) of the total U.S.
population age 12 or older that was white (table 17).
Among black victims, the percentage of violent incidents
perceived to be committed by black offenders (70%) was
5.8 times higher than the percentage of black persons in
the population (12%). The percentage of violent incidents
committed against Hispanic victims by Hispanic
offenders (43%) was 2.5 times higher than the percentageof Hispanics in the population (17%).

Table 16
Percent of violent incidents, by victim and offender race or ethnicity, 2019
Victim race/
ethnicity
WhiteaBlackaHispanic

Number ofviolent incidents
2,796,710
494,610774,310

Total
100%
100%
100%

Whitea
61.6%*
18.2 †
22.1 †

Offender race/ethnicity
Blacka
16.9% †
70.0*
32.2 ‡

Hispanicb
16.6% †
8.8 †
43.2*

Othera,c
4.9% †
3.0 † !
2.6 †Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. An incident is a specific criminal act involving one or more victims. Offender race or ethnicity isbased on victims’ perceptions of offenders. Includes those violent incidents in which the perceived offender race or ethnicity was reported. Offender
race or ethnicity was unknown in 16% of violent incidents, which is why the number of incidents reported here is only 84% as high as in table 13. See
appendix table 19 for standard errors.
*Comparison groups are intraracial victim and offender percentages (white-on-white, black-on-black, and Hispanic-on-Hispanic).
†Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.
‡Difference with comparison group is significant at the 90% confidence level.
! Interpret with caution. Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.
aExcludes persons of Hispanic origin (e.g., “white” refers to non-Hispanic whites and “black” refers to non-Hispanic blacks).
bIf the victim perceived any of the offenders in a multiple offender incident to be of Hispanic origin, they are classified as Hispanic.
cIncludes Asians, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Alaska Natives, persons of two or more races, and multiple offendersof various races.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019.

Table 17
Percent of violent incidents and percent of the U.S. population, by victim and offender race or ethnicity, 2019

Victim race/
ethnicity
WhitedBlackdHispanic

Percent of violent incidents
committed by offenders
Of the same Of anotherTotal race/ethnicity race/ethnicity
100%
61.6%
38.4%
100%
70.0 †
30.0 †
100%
43.2 †
56.8 †

Percent of the populationa
Of the same Of anotherTotal race/ethnicity* race/ethnicity*
100%
61.9%
38.1%
100%
12.1
87.9
100%
17.3
82.7

Ratio of percentages
Offender of same Offender of anotherrace/ethnicity torace/ethnicity topopulation of same population of anotherrace/ethnicityc
race/ethnicityb
1.0
1.0
5.8
0.3
2.5
0.7

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. An incident is a specific criminal act involving one or more victims. Offender race or ethnicity is basedon victims’ perceptions of offenders. Includes those violent incidents in which the perceived offender race or ethnicity was reported. Offender race or
ethnicity was unknown in 16% of violent incidents. See appendix table 20 for standard errors.
*Comparisons are between the percentage of the U.S. population of the same race or ethnicity and the percentage of violent incidents committed by
offenders of the same race or ethnicity, and between the percentage of the U.S. population of another race or ethnicity and the percentage of violent
incidents committed by offenders of another race or ethnicity.
†Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.
aThe National Crime Victimization Survey population represents persons age 12 or older living in non-institutionalized residential settings in the U.S.
bThe percentage of incidents committed by offenders of the same race or ethnicity of the victim divided by the percentage of the U.S. population of thesame race or ethnicity.
cThe percentage of incidents committed by offenders of another race or ethnicity divided by the percentage of the U.S. population of anotherrace or ethnicity.
dExcludes persons of Hispanic origin (e.g., “white” refers to non-Hispanic whites and “black” refers to non-Hispanic blacks).
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 202019

Prevalence estimateschange in the percentage of persons who experienced
robbery, aggravated assault, or simple assault.

The percentage of persons who experienced violent
crime excluding simple assault declined from 2018
to 2019

After increasing 22% from 2015 (0.41%) to 2018 (0.50%),
the percentage of U.S. residents age 12 or older who
were victims of violent crime excluding simple assault
decreased 12% (to 0.44%) in 2019. The number ofvictims of violent crime excluding simple assault fell
from 1.4 million in 2018 to 1.2 million persons age 12 orolder in 2019. This was largely driven by a decrease in thenumber of victims of rape or sexual assault.

Prevalence reflects the number or percentage of
unique persons who were crime victims, or of unique
households that experienced crime. Based on the 2019
survey, 1.10% of all persons age 12 or older experienced
one or more violent victimizations, which was not a
statistically significant change from the percentage
in 2018 (1.18%) but was higher than in 2015 (0.98%)(table 18). The percentage of persons who experienced
rape or sexual assault declined from 0.13% in 2018 to
0.08% in 2019, but there was not a statistically significant

Prevalence rates declined from 2018 to 2019 for selectedcharacteristics of violent crime. The percentage of
persons who were victims of domestic violence declined(from 0.23% to 0.19%), as did the percentage of persons
who experienced violent crime involving injury (from0.31% to 0.27%).

Table 18
Number and percent of persons who were victims of violent crime, by type of crime, 2015-2019
Type of crime
Total violent crimec
Rape/sexual assaultd
Robbery
Assault
Aggravated assault
Simple assault

2015
2,650,670†
204,000
375,280
2,175,520 †
560,720 †1,690,190 †Number of victimsa
2016
2017
2018
2019*
2,882,320
3,106,340 3,254,250
3,059,060
162,940
208,960
347,090 †
212,230
312,310
402,430
363,210
337,720
2,497,500
2,595,780 2,668,820
2,586,170
680,770646,540694,260
697,190
1,903,860
2,024,880 2,058,870
1,965,410

2015
0.98% †
0.08
0.14
0.81 †
0.21 ‡
0.63 ‡

Percent of personsb
2016
2017
2018
1.06%
1.14%
1.18%
0.06
0.08
0.13 †
0.11
0.15
0.13
0.92
0.95
0.97
0.25
0.24
0.25
0.70
0.74
0.75

2019*
1.10%
0.08
0.12
0.93
0.25
0.71

Violent crime excluding
simple assaulte

1,099,400

1,123,190

1,225,800

1,367,270 ‡ 1,216,400

0.41%

0.41%

0.45%

0.50% ‡

0.44%

514,350

559,820

636,540 †521,870

0.18%

0.19%

0.21%

0.23% †

0.19%

273,890
1,276,710

308,560
1,370,020

368,980
1,411,500

310,320
1,393,650

0.12
0.41 †

0.10
0.47

0.11
0.50

0.13
0.51

0.11
0.50

663,920

722,560

841,280

735,430

0.29

0.24

0.27

0.31 ‡

0.27

767,320776,770

838,630

788,920

0.24 ‡

0.28

0.29

0.30

0.28

Selected characteristics
of violent crime
Domestic violencef
493,310Intimate partner
violenceg
310,090
1,117,340 †Stranger violenceh
Violent crime involving
injury778,300
Violent crime involving
a weapon
644,370 †Note: Details may not sum to totals because a person may experience multiple types of crime. Violent-crime categories include rape or sexual assault,
robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault, and they include threatened, attempted, and completed occurrences of those crimes. Other violent-crime
categories in this table, including domestic violence and violent crime involving injury, are not mutually exclusive from these categories or from each other.
See appendix table 34 for population numbers and appendix table 21 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Difference with comparison year is significant at the 95% confidence level.
‡Difference with comparison year is significant at the 90% confidence level.
aNumber of persons age 12 or older who experienced at least one violent victimization during the year.
bPercentage of persons age 12 or older who experienced at least one violent victimization during the year.
cExcludes homicide because the National Crime Victimization Survey is based on interviews with victims.
dSee Methodology for details on the measurement of rape or sexual assault in the NCVS.
eIncludes rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault; this category was called serious violent crime prior to Criminal Victimization, 2018.
fIncludes the subset of violent victimizations that were committed by intimate partners or family members.
gIncludes the subset of domestic-violence victimizations that were committed by intimate partners, which include current or former spouses, boyfriends,
or girlfriends.
hIncludes the subset of violent victimizations that were committed by someone unknown to the victim.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015-2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 202020

Between 2018 and 2019, the number of white or
Asian violent-crime victims decreased, and thenumber of Hispanic victims increased
Based on the 2019 survey, an estimated 1.17% of males(1.6 million) and 1.04% of females (1.5 million) were thevictim of at least one violent crime (table 19). Prevalence
rates decreased for some demographic groups from 2018
to 2019. The percentage of females who were victims ofviolent crime decreased from 1.16% in 2018 to 1.04%
in 2019. The percentage of whites who were victims
decreased from 1.19% in 2018 to 1.07% in 2019, and thepercentage of Asians who were victims declined from
0.67% to 0.42% during this time period. From 2018 to
2019, the prevalence of violent victimization declined
for persons ages 35 to 49 (from 1.27% to 1.06%). The
prevalence of violent victimization also decreased among
persons who were divorced (from 1.81% to 1.54%) or
were widows or widowers (from 0.93% to 0.60%).
From 2018 to 2019, the portion of Hispanic persons
who were victims of violent crime increased from 1.05%
to 1.28%. There were no other statistically significant
increases in the prevalence of violent victimization bydemographic groups from 2018 to 2019.
The percentage and number of households thatexperienced property crime decreased from 2018
to 2019
The 2019 survey found that 6.76% of all households(8.5 million) experienced one or more property
victimizations, down from 7.27% (9.1 million) in 2018(table 20). This decline was driven in part by a decreasein the rate of burglary. The percentage of households
experiencing burglary decreased from 1.07% in 2018
to 0.82% in 2019, a decline of 23%. The prevalence of
motor-vehicle theft remained relatively stable from 2018
to 2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

Table 19
Number and percent of persons who were victims ofviolent crime, by demographic characteristics of victims,
2018 and 2019
Victimdemographic
characteristic
Total
Sex
Male
FemaleRace/ethnicity
WhitecBlackcHispanic
AsiancOtherc,d
Age
12-17
18-24
25-34
35-49
50-64
65 or older
Marital status
Never married
MarriedWidow/
widowerDivorced
Separated

Number of victimsa
2018
2019*
3,254,250
3,059,060

Percent of personsb
2018
2019*
1.18%
1.10%

1,615,610
1,579,530
1,638,640 ‡ 1,479,540

1.21%
1.16 ‡

1.17%
1.04

2,047,640 † 1,836,520
416,850
367,030
493,520 ‡
610,690
115,510 ‡73,870180,730
170,950

1.19% †
1.26
1.05 ‡
0.67 †
2.79

1.07%
1.10
1.28
0.42
2.53

377,420484,710684,250
779,070 †
675,580
253,230

400,830
504,420
677,100
651,210612,010
213,490

1.51%
1.62
1.52
1.27 †
1.07
0.49

1.61%
1.70
1.50
1.06
0.98
0.40

1,572,480
899,040

1,567,440
820,940

1.62%
0.70

1.60%
0.63

140,520 †495,460 ‡
137,51090,700417,300
156,050

0.93 †
1.81 ‡
2.68

0.60
1.54
3.14

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding and missing data.
Violent-crime categories include rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravatedassault, and simple assault, and they include threatened, attempted,
and completed occurrences of those crimes. See appendix table 34 forpopulation numbers and appendix table 22 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Difference with comparison year is significant at the 95% confidence level.
‡Difference with comparison year is significant at the 90% confidence level.
aNumber of persons age 12 or older who experienced at least one violent
victimization during the year.
bPercentage of persons age 12 or older who experienced at least one violent
victimization during the year.
cExcludes persons of Hispanic origin (e.g., “white” refers to non-Hispanic
whites and “black” refers to non-Hispanic blacks).
dIncludes Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, American Indiansand Alaska Natives, and persons of two or more races.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
2018 and 2019.

21

Table 20
Number and percent of households victimized, by type of property crime, 2015-2019
Type of property crime
Total
Burglary/trespassingc
Burglaryd
Trespassinge
Motor-vehicle theft
Other theftf

2015
10,030,510
2,175,380
1,562,130
707,910465,650
7,941,030

Number of households victimizeda
2016
2017
2018
9,825,060
9,145,690 † 9,080,490 †2,037,320
1,842,730 † 1,851,420 †
1,455,720
1,273,410 † 1,333,600 †
671,650
639,620 †585,190
470,880
438,860
424,360
7,803,350
7,330,960 ‡ 7,261,840

2019*
8,545,770
1,537,190
1,040,730
530,440
411,140
6,991,800

Percent of households victimizedb
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019*
7.60% † 7.37% † 7.43% † 7.27% † 6.76%
1.65% † 1.53% † 1.50% † 1.48% † 1.22%
1.18 †
1.09 †
1.03 †
1.07 † 0.82
0.54 †
0.50 †
0.52 †
0.47
0.42
0.35%
0.35%
0.36%
0.34% 0.33%
6.02% † 5.85% † 5.96% † 5.82% † 5.53%

Note: Details may not sum to totals because a household may experience multiple types of crime. The number of property crimes should not be comparedfrom 2017, 2018, or 2019 to 2016 or 2015, as the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) household weighting adjustment was updated for 2017
onward, which decreased the number of estimated households by about 8%. Property crime rates are unaffected by this change. See Methodology fordetails. See appendix table 35 for number of households and appendix table 23 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Difference with comparison year is significant at the 95% confidence level.
‡Difference with comparison year is significant at the 90% confidence level.
aNumber of households that experienced at least one property victimization during the year.
bPercentage of households that experienced at least one property victimization during the year.
cCalled household burglary prior to Criminal Victimization, 2018. Includes unlawful or forcible entry or attempted entry of places, including a permanent
residence, other residence (e.g., a hotel room or vacation residence), or other structure (e.g., a garage or shed), but does not include trespassing on land.
dIncludes only crimes where the offender committed or attempted a theft. Estimates differ from those previously published in the Criminal
Victimization, 2018 report because a coding error that affected the generation of those earlier estimates has been corrected.
eIncludes crimes where the offender did not commit or attempt a theft. Does not include trespassing on land. Estimates differ from those previously
published in the Criminal Victimization, 2018 report because a coding error that affected the generation of those earlier estimates has been corrected.
fIncludes the taking or attempted unlawful taking of property or cash without personal contact with the victim. Incidents involving theft of property fromwithin the same household would classify as theft if the offender has a legal right to be in the house (such as a maid, delivery person, or guest). If theoffender has no legal right to be in the house, the incident would classify as a burglary.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015-2019.

Prevalence of serious crime
Tables 21 and 22 in this report present a person-based
prevalence measure to show the number and percentageof persons who were victims of a serious crime. Thismeasure includes serious violent and serious property
crimes combined into one statistic. Crimes included in thismeasure are those for which offenders can generally becharged with a felony offense.
Serious violent crime includes— Rape or sexual assault: completed or attempted rape,completed sexual assault with serious or minor injuries,
and completed forced sexual assault without injury

 Robbery: completed or attempted robbery
 Aggravated assault: completed aggravated assault

with injury, and attempted or threatened aggravatedassault with a weapon.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

Serious property crime includes—
 Completed burglary: unlawful or forcible entry

into places, including a permanent residence, otherresidence (e.g., a hotel room or vacation residence), or
other structure (e.g., a garage or shed), and involving atheft or attempted theft Completed motor-vehicle theft.

The measure of serious crime attributes a completed
burglary victimization to each person age 12 or older inthe household, and it attributes completed motor-vehicle
theft to persons age 12 or older in the household when
they were the person responding to the survey on behalfof the household (the household reference person) or
were related to the household reference person.

22

The percentage of persons who were victims ofserious crime decreased from 2018 to 2019
There were 880,000 fewer victims of serious crimes in2019 than in 2018, a 19% drop (table 21). Serious crimes
are those for which an offender can generally be charged
with a felony offense. Based on the 2019 survey, 1.36% of
persons age 12 or older (3.8 million) experienced at least
one serious crime, down from 1.68% (4.6 million) in
2018. The decline in serious crime was driven primarily
by a decrease in serious property crime, especially adecline in completed burglary. The percentage of persons
age 12 or older who were victims of serious property

crime declined from 1.25% in 2018 to 0.96% in 2019. The
percentage of persons age 12 or older who were victimsof completed burglary declined from 0.98% in 2018 to
0.73% in 2019.
From 2018 to 2019, the percentage of persons age 12
or older who were victims of completed or attempted
rape or of completed sexual assault with injury orforce declined from 0.09% to 0.06%, a drop of morethan 85,000 victims. There were no other statisticallysignificant changes in serious violent crime from 2018
to 2019.

Table 21
Number and percent of persons who were victims of serious crime, 2015-2019
Type of crime
Total serious crimec
Serious violent crimed
Rape/sexual assault
excl. threats andno-force contact
Robbery
Aggravated assault
Serious property crimee
Completed burglary
Completedmotor-vehicle theft2015
4,793,040 †1,063,530

Number of victimsa
2016
2017
2018
4,708,410 † 4,529,520 † 4,636,730 †
1,092,700
1,170,460
1,277,820

2019*
3,756,490
1,173,030

Percent of personsb
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019*
1.78% † 1.73% † 1.66% † 1.68% † 1.36%
0.39%
0.40%
0.43%
0.46%
0.42%

164,880
375,280
560,720 †3,824,550 †3,083,640 †

131,760
312,310680,770
3,693,820 †
2,973,890 †

144,280
402,430
646,540
3,452,530 †
2,736,910 †

254,320 †363,210694,260
3,443,770 †
2,691,120 †

168,860
337,720
697,190
2,662,370
2,016,280

0.06
0.14
0.21 ‡
1.42% †
1.14 †

0.05
0.11
0.25
1.36% †
1.09 †

0.05
0.15
0.24
1.27% †
1.00 †

0.09 †
0.13
0.25
1.25% †
0.98 †

0.06
0.12
0.25
0.96%
0.73

801,770

802,270

746,630

794,040

663,430

0.30

0.29

0.27

0.29

0.24

Note: Details may not sum to totals because a person may experience multiple types of crime. See appendix table 24 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Difference with comparison year is significant at the 95% confidence level.
‡Difference with comparison year is significant at the 90% confidence level.
aNumber of persons age 12 or older who experienced at least one serious crime during the year.
bPercentage of persons age 12 or older who experienced at least one serious crime during the year.
cIncludes persons who were a victim of a serious violent crime or whose household experienced a completed burglary or completed motor-vehicle theft.
For these crimes, offenders can generally be charged with a felony offense.
dIncludes completed rape or attempted rape, sexual assault with serious or minor injuries, completed forced sexual assault without injury, completed or
attempted robbery, completed aggravated assault with injury, and attempted or threatened aggravated assault with a weapon. Excludes simple assault,
threatened rape or sexual assault, and unwanted sexual contact (not rape) without force.
eIncludes completed burglary and completed motor-vehicle theft. Completed burglary includes unlawful or forcible entry of places, including a permanent
residence, other residence (e.g., a hotel room or vacation residence), or other structure (e.g., a garage or shed), and involving a theft or attempted theft.
Excludes attempted burglary, residential trespassing, and all other property crimes. This measure attributes a burglary victimization to each person age
12 or older in the household. Completed motor-vehicle-theft victimizations were attributed to persons only when they were age 12 or older and were thereference person for their household or were related to the reference person.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015-2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 202023

From 2018 to 2019, the percentage of whites andblacks who were victims of serious crime decreased
Based on the 2019 survey, 1.44% of males (1.9 million
males) and 1.28% of females (1.8 million females) werevictims of serious crime (table 22), which represented adecline from 2018 for both sexes. In 2019, the prevalenceof serious crime was higher for males than for females.
The percentage of white persons age 12 or older who
experienced serious crime declined from 1.57% in2018 to 1.23% in 2019. The percentage of black persons
declined from 2.21% to 1.57%. The percentage of
Hispanics who were victims of serious crime in 2019(1.70%) was higher than the percentage of whites (1.23%)
or Asians (0.79%).
The prevalence of serious crime decreased from 2018
to 2019 among persons ages 12 to 17 (from 1.95% to1.46%), 35 to 49 (from 1.82% to 1.30%), 50 to 64 (from1.60% to 1.23%), and 65 or older (from 1.26% to 1.00%).
In 2019, the percentage of persons ages 18 to 24 (1.84%)
who experienced serious crime was higher than thepercentage of persons ages 35 to 49 (1.30%), 50 to 64(1.23%), and 65 or older (1.00%).
Never-married persons, married persons, widows
or widowers, and divorced persons all experienced
declines in serious crime from 2018 to 2019. In 2019,
the prevalence of serious crime for married persons(1.04%) was lower than the prevalence for never-married(1.62%), divorced (1.84%), or separated (2.58%) persons.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

Table 22
Number and percent of persons who were victims ofserious crime, by demographic characteristics of victims,
2018 and 2019
VictimNumber of victimsa
demographic
characteristic
2018
2019*
Total
4,636,730 † 3,756,490
SexMale
2,307,130 † 1,935,310
Female2,329,600 † 1,821,170
Race/ethnicity
2,687,680 † 2,103,410
Whitec732,020 †522,790
BlackcHispanic
889,800
815,790
Asianc124,380
136,990
Otherc,d202,860
177,510Age
12-17
485,480 ‡364,230
18-24
553,530
545,930
25-34
831,150
746,950
35-49
1,115,800 †
798,51050-64
1,004,830 †
769,84065 or older
645,940 ‡531,020
Marital status
Never married 1,920,450 † 1,584,980
Married
1,585,130 † 1,353,800
Widow/widower 297,020 †
183,680
Divorced
652,090 †
501,530
Separated
170,380
128,320

Percent of personsb
2018
2019*
1.68% †
1.36%
1.72% †
1.65 †

1.44%
1.28

1.57% †
2.21 †
1.89
0.72
3.13

1.23%
1.57
1.70
0.79
2.63

1.95% †
1.86
1.85
1.82 †
1.60 †
1.26 †

1.46%
1.84
1.65
1.30
1.23
1.00

1.98% †
1.23 †
1.96 †
2.38 †
3.32

1.62%
1.04
1.21
1.84
2.58

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding and missing data.
Serious crimes are those that are generally prosecuted as felonies; theseinclude most completed or attempted violent crimes apart from simple
assault, and completed burglaries and motor-vehicle thefts. See Prevalenceof serious crime text box for more information, page 22). See appendix table
25 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
†Difference with comparison year is significant at the 95% confidence level.
‡Difference with comparison year is significant at the 90% confidence level.
aNumber of persons age 12 or older who experienced at least one serious
victimization during the year.
bPercentage of persons age 12 or older who experienced at least one
serious victimization during the year.
cExcludes persons of Hispanic origin (e.g., “white” refers to non-Hispanic
whites and “black” refers to non-Hispanic blacks).
dIncludes Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, American Indiansand Alaska Natives, and persons of two or more races.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
2018 and 2019.

24

Additional NCVS estimates
Additional NCVS victimization or incident estimates are included in tables 23 through 30.
Table 23
Percent of violent victimizations reported to police, by completed, attempted, and threatened crimes, 2015-2019
Violent crime
Total
Completed
Attempted
Threatened

2015
46.5%
55.6 ‡
47.6
36.6

2016
43.9%
48.8
42.9
41.6

2017
44.9%
50.4
42.5
43.0

2018
42.6%
47.5
44.8
37.3

2019*
40.9%
46.3
41.8
36.6

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. Violent-crime categories include rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple
assault. See appendix table 26 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
‡Difference with comparison year is significant at the 90% confidence level.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015-2019.

Table 24
Number and rate of violent victimizations, by victim’s
veteran and citizenship status, 2018 and 20192018
Victim veteran andRate percitizenship status
Number 1,000a
Total violent victimizationsb 6,385,520 23.2
Veteran statusc
Veterand378,300 20.7
Non-veterane
5,115,180 22.2
Citizenship status
U.S. citizen
6,163,570 23.9
U.S.-born citizenf
5,900,190 25.1
Naturalized U.S. citizen
263,380 11.6
Non-U.S. citizen
196,350 12.5
U.S.-bornf
Foreign-borng

5,900,190 25.1
459,730 11.9

2019*
Rate perNumber 1,000a
5,813,410 21.0
347,370
4,525,550

19.0
19.5

5,499,420
5,296,270
203,150
267,700

21.2
22.4
8.8
17.7

5,296,270
470,850

22.4
12.3

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding and missing data. See
appendix table 27 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
aRate is per 1,000 persons age 12 or older.
bIncludes rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple
assault. Includes threatened, attempted, and completed occurrences of
those crimes. Statistically significant differences for the total victimization
numbers and rates are presented using the Balanced Repeated Replication
method. Generalized variance function parameters were used to calculate
statistically significant differences for the rest of the table.
cIncludes persons age 18 or older.
dVeterans include persons currently or previously on active duty. Because
the NCVS is a household-based survey and active-duty military personnel
are more likely to be out of the household at the time of data collection,
most veterans in the sample are former active-duty military personnel.
eNon-veterans are persons who never served in the U.S. Armed Forces or
who completed training in the Reserves or National Guard only.
fPersons born in the U.S., in a U.S. territory, or abroad to U.S. parents.
gNaturalized U.S. citizens or non-U.S. citizens.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
2018 and 2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

Table 25
Firearm violence, 2018 and 20192018
Total violent incidentsa
5,954,090
Firearm incidents
427,730
Total violent victimizationsb
6,385,520
Firearm victimizations
470,840
Rate of firearm victimizationc
1.7
Firearm victimizations reported to police
Number
310,310Percent of all firearm victimizations
65.9%

2019*
5,440,680
440,830
5,813,410
481,950
1.7
290,790
60.3%

Note: Includes violent crimes in which the offender possessed, showed, orused a firearm. See appendix table 28 for standard errors.
*Comparison year.
aAn incident is a specific criminal act involving one or more victims.
bEach victimization represents one person involved in an incident.
Statistically significant differences for the total violent victimization
numbers are presented using the Balanced Repeated Replication
method. Generalized variance function parameters were used to calculate
statistically significant differences for the rest of the table.
cRate is per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. See appendix table 34 forpopulation numbers.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
2018 and 2019.

25

Table 26
Percent and number of violent incidents excluding simple assault, by total population and victim and offenderdemographic characteristics, 2019
Demographic characteristic
Populationa
Total
276,872,470
Sex
Male
134,693,660
Female142,178,810
Both male and female offenders~
Race/ethnicity
Whitec171,423,480
33,397,100
BlackcHispanicd
47,890,870
Asianc17,401,410
6,759,600
Otherc,eMultiple offenders of various
racesc~Age
11 or youngerf~
12-17
24,941,440
18-29
52,798,870
30 or older
199,132,160
Multiple offenders of various
ages~

Number ofviolent incidents
Offenderb Victim
1,871,370 1,871,370
1,467,020
224,500
52,070Percent ofviolent incidents
Percent of
population*a Offenderb Victim
100%
100%
100%

Ratio of percentages
Offender Offender to Victim toto victim population population
1.0
1.0
1.0

934,150
937,220
~

48.6%
51.4
~

84.1% †
12.9 †
3.0

49.9%
50.1
~

1.7
0.3
~

1.7
0.3
~

1.0
1.0
~

769,430 1,045,300
399,860 225,130
371,010 432,770
8,750 !
33,200 !
48,580 134,960

61.9%
12.1
17.3
6.3
2.4

47.7% †
24.8 †
23.0 †
0.5 † !
3.0

55.9%
12.0
23.1 †
1.8 † !
7.2 †

0.9
2.1
1.0
0.3
0.4

0.8
2.1
1.3
0.1
1.2

0.9
1.0
1.3
0.3
3.0

~

~

1.0 !

~

~

~

~

11,890 !
~214,650 240,970
556,840 608,640
739,660 1,021,760

~
9.0%
19.1
71.9

0.7% !
13.5 †
35.1 †
46.6 †~
12.9%
32.5 †
54.6 †

~
1.1
1.1
0.9

~
1.5
1.8
0.6

~
1.4
1.7
0.8

~

4.0

~

~

~

~

16,680 !

63,000~Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding and missing data for offender characteristics. An incident is a specific criminal act involving one ormore victims. Offender characteristics are based on victims’ perceptions of offenders. See appendix table 29 for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
†Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.
! Interpret with caution. Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.
~Not applicable.
aThe National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) population represents persons age 12 or older living in non-institutionalized residential settings in the U.S.
bIncludes those incidents in which the perceived offender characteristics were reported. The sex of the offender was unknown in 7% of incidents, therace or ethnicity of the offender was unknown in 14% of incidents, and the age of the offender was unknown in 15% of incidents.
cExcludes persons of Hispanic origin (e.g., “white” refers to non-Hispanic whites and “black” refers to non-Hispanic blacks).
dIf the victim perceived any of the offenders in a multiple offender incident to be of Hispanic origin, they are classified as Hispanic.
eIncludes Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and persons of two or more races.
fWhile the NCVS does not survey victims age 11 or younger, victims may report the offender to be age 11 or younger.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019.

Table 27
Percent of violent incidents excluding simple assault, by
victim and offender sex, 2019
Victim sex
Total
Male*
FemaleNumber ofviolent incidents
1,743,590
837,110
906,480

Offender sex

Total
100%
100%
100%

Both male
Male Female and female
84.1% 12.9%
3.0%
87.7
9.1
3.3
80.9
16.4 †
2.7

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. An incident is a
specific criminal act involving one or more victims. Offender sex is basedon victims’ perceptions of offenders. Includes those incidents in which theperceived sex of the offender was reported. The sex of the offender was
unknown in 7% of incidents which is why the number of incidents is only
93% as high as in table 26. See appendix table 30 for standard errors.
*Comparison group.
†Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95%
confidence level.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 202026

Table 28
Number of violent incidents excluding simple assault, by victim and offender race or ethnicity, 2019
Victim race/ethnicity
WhiteaBlackaHispanic

Number ofviolent incidents
937,010
183,660
356,470

Whitea595,770*
17,690 † !
78,950 †Offender race/ethnicity
BlackaHispanicb
127,350 †
181,040 †
143,090*
15,840 † !
99,070167,610*

Othera,c
32,850 †7,040 † !
10,850 † !

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. An incident is a specific criminal act involving one or more victims. Offender raceor ethnicity is based on victims’ perceptions of offenders. Includes those violent incidents in which the perceived offender race or
ethnicity was reported. Offender race or ethnicity was unknown in 14% of violent incidents excluding simple assault which is why the
number of incidents is only 86% as high as in table 26. See appendix table 31 for standard errors.
*Comparison groups are intraracial victim and offender percentages (white-on-white, black-on-black, or Hispanic-on-Hispanic).
†Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.
! Interpret with caution. Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.
aExcludes persons of Hispanic origin (e.g., “white” refers to non-Hispanic whites and “black” refers to non-Hispanic blacks).
bIf the victim perceived any of the offenders in a multiple offender incident to be of Hispanic origin, they are classified as Hispanic.
cIncludes Asians, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and persons of two or
more races.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019.

Table 29
Percent of violent incidents excluding simple assault, by victim and offender race or ethnicity, 2019
Victim race/ethnicity
WhiteaBlackaHispanic

Number ofviolent incidents
937,010
183,660
356,470

Total
100%
100%
100%

Whitea
63.6%*
9.6 † !
22.1 †

Offender race/ethnicity
BlackaHispanicb
13.6% †
19.3% †
77.9*
8.6 † !
27.8 †
47.0*

Othera,c
3.5% †
3.8 † !
3.0 † !

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. An incident is a specific criminal act involving one or more victims. Offender raceor ethnicity is based on victims’ perceptions of offenders. Includes those violent incidents in which the perceived offender race or
ethnicity was reported. Offender race or ethnicity was unknown in 14% of violent incidents excluding simple assault which is why the
number of incidents is only 86% as high as in table 26. See appendix table 32 for standard errors.
*Comparison groups are intraracial victim and offender percentages (white-on-white, black-on-black, or Hispanic-on-Hispanic).
†Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.
! Interpret with caution. Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.
aExcludes persons of Hispanic origin (e.g., “white” refers to non-Hispanic whites and “black” refers to non-Hispanic blacks).
bIf the victim perceived any of the offenders in a multiple offender incident to be of Hispanic origin, they are classified as Hispanic.
cIncludes Asians, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and persons of two or more races.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 202027

Table 30
Percent of violent incidents excluding simple assault and percent of the U.S. population, by victim and offender race or
ethnicity, 2019

Victim race/
ethnicity
WhitedBlackdHispanic

Percent of violent incidents
committed by offenders
Of the same Of anotherTotal race/ethnicity race/ethnicity
100%
63.6%
36.4%
100%
77.9 †
22.1 †
100%
47.0 †
53.0 †

Percent of the U.S. populationa
Of the same
Of anotherTotal race/ethnicity* race/ethnicity*
100%
61.9%
38.1%
100%
12.1
87.9
100%
17.3
82.7

Ratio of percentages
Offender of same Offender of anotherrace/ethnicity torace/ethnicity topopulation of same population of anotherrace/ethnicityc
race/ethnicityb
1.0
1.0
6.5
0.3
2.7
0.6

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. An incident is a specific criminal act involving one or more victims. Offender race or ethnicity is basedon victims’ perceptions of offenders. Includes those violent incidents in which the perceived offender race or ethnicity was reported. Offender race or
ethnicity was unknown in 14% of violent incidents excluding simple assault. See appendix table 33 for standard errors.
*Comparisons are between the percentage of the U.S. population of the same race or ethnicity and the percentage of violent incidents committed by
offenders of the same race or ethnicity, and between the percentage of the U.S. population of another race or ethnicity and the percentage of violent
incidents committed by offenders of another race or ethnicity.
†Difference with comparison group is significant at the 95% confidence level.
aThe National Crime Victimization Survey population represents persons age 12 or older living in non-institutionalized residential settings in the U.S.
bThe percentage of incidents committed by offenders of the same race or ethnicity of the victim divided by the percentage of the U.S. population of thesame race or ethnicity.
cThe percentage of incidents committed by offenders of another race or ethnicity divided by the percentage of the U.S. population of anotherrace or ethnicity.
dExcludes persons of Hispanic origin (e.g., “white” refers to non-Hispanic whites and “black” refers to non-Hispanic blacks).
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 202028

Methodology
Survey coverage
The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS) is an annual datacollection carried out by the U.S. Census Bureau. The
NCVS is a self-reported survey that is administeredannually from January 1 to December 31. Annual NCVS
estimates are based on the number and characteristics
of crimes respondents experienced during the prior 6months, not including the month in which they wereinterviewed. Therefore, the 2019 survey covers crimes
experienced from July 1, 2018 to November 30, 2019,and March 15, 2019 is the middle of the reference period.
Crimes are classified by the year of the survey and not by
the year of the crime.
The NCVS is administered to persons age 12 orolder from a nationally representative sample of U.S.
households. It collects information on nonfatal personal
crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated andsimple assault, and personal larceny (purse-snatchingand pick-pocketing) and household property crimes(burglary/trespassing, motor-vehicle theft, and othertypes of theft). The survey collects information on
threatened, attempted, and completed crimes. It collects
data both on crimes reported and not reported topolice. Unless specified otherwise, estimates in thisreport include threatened, attempted, and completed
crimes. In addition to providing annual level and change
estimates on criminal victimization, the NCVS is theprimary source of information on the nature of criminal
victimization incidents.
Survey respondents provide information about
themselves (including age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital
status, educational level, and income) and whether theyexperienced a victimization. For each victimization
incident, respondents report information about theoffender (including age, sex, race, ethnicity, and victimoffender relationship), characteristics of the crime(including time and place of occurrence, use of weapons,nature of injury, and economic consequences), whether
the crime was reported to police, reasons the crime wasor was not reported, and experiences with the criminal
justice system.
Household information, including household-level
demographics (e.g., income) and property victimizationscommitted against the household (e.g., burglary/C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

trespassing), is typically collected from the reference
person. The reference person is any responsible
adult member of the household who is not likely topermanently leave the household. Because an owner orrenter of the sampled housing unit is normally the most
responsible and knowledgeable household member, thisperson is generally designated as the reference person
and household respondent. However, a household
respondent does not have to be one of the household
members who owns or rents the unit.
In the NCVS, a household is defined as a group of
persons who all reside at a sampled address. Persons
are considered household members when the sampled
address is their usual place of residence at the time of
the interview and when they have no primary place ofresidence elsewhere. Once selected, households remainin the sample for 3½ years, and eligible persons in thesehouseholds are interviewed every 6 months, either inperson or over the phone, for a total of seven interviews.
First interviews are typically conducted in person, withsubsequent interviews conducted either in person orby phone. New households rotate into the sample on
an ongoing basis to replace outgoing households thathave been in the sample for the full 3½-year period.
The sample includes persons living in group quarters,such as dormitories, rooming houses, and religiousgroup dwellings, and excludes persons living on militarybases or in institutional settings such as correctional or
hospital facilities.
Measurement of crime in the National Crime
Victimization Survey
BJS presents data from the NCVS on victimization,
incident, and prevalence rates. Victimization rates
measure the extent to which violent and property
victimizations occur in a specified population during
a specified time. Victimization numbers show thetotal number of times that people or households are
victimized by crime. For crimes affecting persons, NCVS
victimization rates are estimated by dividing the numberof victimizations that occur during a specified time (T)by the population at risk for those victimizations andmultiplying the rate by 1,000.

Victimization rate T =Number ofvictimizations experienced
by a specified population T
Number of unique persons(or households) in thespecified population T

× 1,000

29

For victimization rates, each victimization represents
one person (for personal crimes) or one household(for property crimes) affected by a crime.7 Every
victimization experienced by a person or household
during the year is counted. For example, if one person
experiences two violent crimes during the year, bothare counted in the victimization rate. If one household
experiences two property crimes, both are counted in thevictimization rate. Victimization estimates are presented
in figure 3, tables 1 through 10, table 12, and tables 23
through 25 in this report.
Incident rates are another measure of crime. The numberof incidents is the number of specific criminal acts
involving one or more victims. If every victimization
had one victim, the number of incidents would be thesame as the number of victimizations. If there was morethan one victim, the incident estimate is adjusted tocompensate for the possibility that the incident could bereported several times by multiple victims and thus beover-counted. For example, if two people were robbed
during the same incident, this crime would be counted as
one incident and two victimizations. Incident estimates
are presented in tables 13 through 17, and tables 25
through 30 in this report.
A third measure, reflecting a population’s risk ofexperiencing one or more criminal victimizations, isprevalence rates. Like victimization rates, prevalence
rates describe the level of victimization, but the latter are
based on the number of unique persons or households
in the population experiencing at least one victimization
during a specified time. The key distinction between
a victimization and prevalence rate is whether thenumerator consists of the number of victimizations or
the number of unique victims. For example, a person
who experienced two robberies within the past year
would be counted twice in the victimization rate but
only once in the prevalence rate. Prevalence rates are
estimated by dividing the number of unique victims or
victimized households in the specified population by the
total number of persons or households in the populationand multiplying the rate by 100, yielding the percentageof the population victimized at least once in a period.
7In the NCVS, personal crimes are personal larceny (purse-snatchingand pick-pocketing) and violent victimizations (rape or sexualassault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault). Homicide is
not included because the NCVS is based on interviews with victims.
Property crimes are burglary, residential trespassing, motor-vehicle
theft, and other theft.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

Prevalence rate T =Number of unique victims(or victimized households)
in a specified population T
Number of unique persons(or households) in thespecified population T

× 100

Prevalence rates are presented in figures 1 and 2, andtables 18 through 22 in this report. Prevalence rates
for property crimes can be produced at the householdor person levels by adjusting the numerators anddenominators to reflect households or persons. Table
20 presents property-crime prevalence rates at thehousehold level, and table 21 presents serious propertycrime prevalence rates at the personal level.
For more information about measuring prevalence in the
NCVS, see Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCJ 241656, BJS,
September 2013).
Non-response and weighting adjustments
The 2019 NCVS data file includes 155,076 householdinterviews. Overall, 71% of eligible households
completed interviews. Within participating households,
interviews with 249,008 persons were completed in
2019, representing an 83% response rate among eligible
persons from responding households.
Victimizations that occurred outside of the U.S. were
excluded from this report. In 2019, about 1% of theunweighted victimizations occurred outside of the U.S.
NCVS data are weighted to produce annual estimatesof victimization for persons age 12 or older living in
U.S. households. Because the NCVS relies on a sample
rather than a census of the entire U.S. population,weights are designed to adjust to known population
totals and to compensate for survey non-response andother aspects of the complex sample design.
NCVS data files include person, household,victimization, and incident weights. Person weights
provide an estimate of the population represented byeach person in the sample. Household weights provide
an estimate of the household population represented byeach household in the sample. After proper adjustment,
both person and household weights are also typicallyused to form the denominator in calculations ofcrime rates. For personal crimes, the incident weight30

is derived by dividing the person weight of a victimby the total number of persons victimized during an
incident, as reported by the respondent. For property
crimes measured at the household level, the incident
weight and the household weight are the same, because
the victim of a property crime is considered to be thehousehold as a whole. The incident weight is mostfrequently used to calculate estimates of offenders’ andvictims’ demographics.
Victimization weights used in this report account for
the number of persons victimized during an incident
and for high-frequency repeat-victimizations (i.e.,series victimizations). Series victimizations are similarin type to one another but occur with such frequency
that a victim is unable to recall each individual event or
describe each event in detail. Survey procedures allow
NCVS interviewers to identify and classify these similar
victimizations as series victimizations and to collectdetailed information on only the most recent incident in
the series.
The weighting counts series victimizations as the actual
number of victimizations reported by the victim,
up to a maximum of 10. Doing so produces morereliable estimates of crime levels than counting such
victimizations only once, while the cap at 10 minimizes
the effect of extreme outliers on rates. According to the2019 data, series victimizations accounted for 1.4% of
all victimizations and 3.1% of all violent victimizations.
Additional information on the enumeration of series
victimizations is detailed in the report Methods forCounting High-Frequency Repeat Victimizations in the
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCJ 237308, BJS,
April 2012).
Changes to the household weighting adjustment
in 2017
The 2017 NCVS weights included a new adjustmentthat modified household weights to reflect independent
housing-unit totals available internally at the U.S.
Census Bureau. This new adjustment was applied only
to household weights for housing units and does notaffect person weights. Historically, the household weights
were adjusted to reflect independent totals for the person
population. This new weighting adjustment improves on
the prior one and better aligns the number of estimatedhouseholds in the NCVS with other Census householdsurvey estimates.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

Due to this new adjustment, the 2017 NCVS estimate
for the number of households was about 8% lower thanthe 2016 NCVS estimate. As a result, the estimate of
the number of households affected by property crime
was also about 8% lower. When making comparisonsof property crime at the household level between 2017and prior years, compare victimization or prevalence
rates. Rates are unaffected by this change in weighting
methodology because both the numerator anddenominator are equally affected. Comparisons of thenumber of households that were victimized between
2017 and prior years are inappropriate due to this change
in weighting methodology. Property crime measured at
the person level is unaffected by the change (as presented
in measures of serious crime). For more information
on weighting in the NCVS, see the Non-response andweighting adjustments section in this methodology andNational Crime Victimization Survey, 2016 TechnicalDocumentation (NCJ 251442, BJS, December 2017).
Changes to the classification of urban, suburban, andrural areas
Beginning in 2019, the NCVS employed a new method
for classifying geographical areas (see Classification ofurban, suburban, and rural areas in the National Crime
Victimization Survey on pp. 12-15). All census blocks
not in urbanized areas or urbanized clusters, as definedby the Census Bureau, are classified as rural, consistent
with the Census Bureau’s definition of rural. Census
blocks within cities or Census-designated places thatmeet certain criteria based on population and density areclassified as urban (see appendix table 36), while all othercensus blocks in urbanized areas or urban clusters areclassified as suburban.
Classifications of urban places are based on population
size, weighted housing-unit density, and the Census
Bureau’s designations of urbanized areas and urban
clusters, using data from the 2010 Census. Housing-unit
density is the number of housing units per square mile ina given area. Weighted housing-unit density, under BJS’s
approach, is the weighted average of the housing-unit
densities for all census tracts in an area, with the tracts
weighted by their number of housing units. Housing-unit
addresses are converted into geographical coordinates
through a process called geocoding. Housing units thatcannot be geocoded are imputed. For more information
on imputation procedures, see National Crime
Victimization Survey, 2016 Technical Documentation(NCJ 251442, BJS, December 2017).

31

Table 31 shows the 2019 U.S. resident population for
those age 12 or older and the number of households ineach category (urban, suburban, rural) under both the
new and historical classifications. About one-third of the
U.S. resident population age 12 or older were classified as
residing in an urban area under the historical definition,compared to about one-eighth under the new definition.
The percentage of the resident population classified as
residing in a suburban area shifted from 53% to 69%,
while the percentage classified as rural shifted from 14%
to 19%. Similar shifts in the number of households wereobserved under the new classification.
Standard error computations
When national estimates are derived from a sample, aswith the NCVS, caution must be used when comparing
one estimate to another or when comparing estimatesover time. Although one estimate may be larger thananother, estimates based on a sample have some degreeof sampling error. The sampling error of an estimate
depends on several factors, including the amount ofvariation in the responses and the size of the sample.
When the sampling error around an estimate is taken
into account, estimates that appear different may not be
statistically significant.

Table 31
Population and number of households, by old and new
definition of location of residence, 2019
Location of residence
Total U.S. resident
population age 12
or olderUrban
Suburban
Rural

Old definition
Number Percent

New definition
Number Percent

276,900,000 100%
92,450,000 33
146,700,000 53
37,720,000 14

276,900,000 100%
33,910,000 12
190,800,000 69
52,160,000 19

Number of households
Urban
SuburbanRural

126,400,000 100%
43,770,000 35
65,000,000 51
17,660,000 14

126,400,000 100%
15,900,000 13
87,410,000 69
23,130,000 18

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
2019; and 2010 Census of Population and Housing and 2013 OMB
Metropolitan Statistical Area designations.

One measure of the sampling error associated withan estimate is the standard error. The standard error
may vary from one estimate to the next. Generally, anestimate with a smaller standard error provides a morereliable approximation of the true value than an estimate
with a larger standard error. Estimates with relatively
large standard errors have less precision and reliability
and should be interpreted with caution.
For complex sample designs, there are several methods
that can be used to generate standard errors arounda point estimate (e.g., numbers, percentages, andrates). In this report, generalized variance function(GVF) parameters and direct-variance estimation
were used for variance estimation. Parameters areproduced for GVFs that compute the variance of any
crime estimate based on the value of that crime estimate.
The GVF parameters are generated by fitting estimates
and their relative variance to a regression model, using
an iterative weighted least-squares procedure where
the weight is the inverse of the square of the predicted
relative variance. Compared to GVFs, direct-varianceestimation is generally considered more accurate inapproximating the true variance. In an effort to improve
the quality and accurancy of NCVS estimates, BJS useddirect-variance estimation instead of GVFs for tables 1
C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 202032

and 2 (and for totals in tables 4, 9, 24, and 25 that are alsopresented in tables 1 and 2, and statistics in table 12 thatare based on the new classification of urban, suburban,
and rural areas).
To generate standard errors around the victimization
estimates found in tables 1 and 2 (and totals in tables 4, 9,
24, and 25, and statistics in table 12 that are based on the
new classification of urban, suburban, and rural areas),
BJS used a specialized version of Balanced Repeated
Replication (BRR) estimation using Fay’s method.8
BRR estimation is a type of direct-replication-varianceestimation. Under replicate-variance-estimation, a setof replicate weights (e.g., the NCVS typically has a set
consisting of 160 replicate weights) is used to capture thesampling variance. Fay’s method is utilized for surveys
that have rare outcomes in which the entire sample isnecessary to properly estimate the variance. The standard
error estimates for tables 1 and 2 (and totals in tables 4,
9, 24, and 25), estimated using BRR, differ from thosepreviously reported in prior Criminal Victimization
bulletins, which used GVF parameters. Year-to-year
statistically significant differences may also vary fromthose previously reported. See table 32 for comparisonsof significance testing between the two methods for 2014,2015, 2016, and 2017 compared to 2018, as previously
reported in Criminal Victimization, 2018 (NCJ 253043,
BJS, September 2019).
The U.S. Census Bureau produces GVF parametersfor BJS, which account for aspects of the NCVS’s
complex sample design and represent the curve fitted
to a selection of individual standard errors, using a
specialized version of BRR based on Fay’s method. GVFs
express the variance as a function of the expected valueof the survey estimate.9 For more information on GVFs,
see National Crime Victimization Survey, 2016 TechnicalDocumentation (NCJ 251442, BJS, December 2017).
Besides tables 1 and 2 (and totals in tables 4, 9, 24, and25, and statistics in table 12 that are based on the newclassification of urban, suburban, and rural areas), allstandard errors for victimization and incident estimatesin this report were generated using GVFs.
8Fay, R. E. (1989). Theory and Application of Replicate Weighting for

Variance Calculations. In Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods
Section, American Statistical Association, 212-217.

9Wolter, K. M. (1984). An Investigation of Some Estimators of

Variance for Systematic Sampling. Journal of the American Statistical
Association 79, 781-790.

10Woodruff, R. S. (1971). A Simple Method for Approximating
the Variance of a Complicated Estimate. Journal of the American
Statistical Association 66, 411-414.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

Table 32
Significant differences in the rate of victimizations,by variance-estimation method and type of crime,
2014-2017 versus 2018
2014
2015
2016
2017 2018*
Type of crime
GVF BRR GVF BRR GVF BRR GVF BRR GVF BRR
Violent crime‡ ‡ † † ††~ ~Rape/sexual assault† † † † †† † † ~ ~Robbery~ ~Assault† †~ ~Aggravated assault†~ ~Simple assault
‡
† ‡
~ ~
Violent crime excluding
† † †
†
† ~ ~
simple assault
Property crime
Burglary/trespassing
Burglary
Trespassing
Motor-vehicle theft
Other theft

†

†

†

‡

†

†

†
†

†
‡

†

†

~
~
~
~
~
~

~
~
~
~
~
~

Note: In this report, standard error estimates for tables 1 and 2 werecomputed using Balanced Repeated Replication, while estimates reported
in prior Criminal Victimization bulletins used generalized-variance function
parameters. Year-to-year statistically significant differences vary by method
in some cases, as shown in this table.
*Comparison year.
†Difference with comparison year is significant at the 95%
confidence level.
‡Difference with comparison year is significant at the 90%
confidence level.
~Not applicable as 2018 is the comparison year.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
2014-2018.

To generate standard errors around prevalence estimates,
BJS used BRR and Taylor Series Linearization (TSL)
methods. The TSL method directly estimates variances
through a linearized function by combining varianceestimates from the stratum and primary sampling units(PSUs) used to sample households and persons.10 In
the NCVS, the design parameters used for computing
TSL variances are PSUEDOSTRATA (stratum) and
HALFSAMPLE (PSU).These design parameters areavailable for all years except the first half of 1993 andall of 2016; therefore, BRR methods were used for 2016prevalence estimates.
Direct-variance estimation—BRR and TSL—is generally
considered more accurate, in terms of how closely thevariance estimate approximates the true variance, than
GVFs. With direct-variance estimation, each estimate is
generated based on the outcome being estimated rather
than being generated based on a generalized function.

33

BJS conducted statistical tests to determine whether
differences in estimated numbers, percentages, andrates in this report were statistically significant once
sampling error was taken into account. Using statisticalanalysis programs developed specifically for the NCVS,
all comparisons in the text were tested for significance.
The primary test procedure was the Student’s t-statistic,
which tests the difference between two sample estimates.
Findings described in this report as increases ordecreases passed a test at either the 0.05 level (95%
confidence level) or 0.10 level (90% confidence level) of
significance. Figures and tables in this report should bereferenced for testing on specific findings.
Estimates and standard errors of the estimates provided
in this report may be used to generate a confidence
interval around the estimate as a measure of the marginof error. The following example illustrates how standard
errors may be used to generate confidence intervals:
Based on the 2019 NCVS, the rate of violent
victimization reported to police, excluding simple
assault, in 2019 was 3.4 victimizations per 1,000
persons age 12 or older (see appendix table 3).
Using the GVFs, BJS determined that the estimatedvictimization rate has a standard error of 0.38 (seeappendix table 3). A confidence interval around theestimate is generated by multiplying the standard
error by ±1.96 (the t-score of a normal, two-tailed
distribution that excludes 2.5% at either end of the
distribution). Therefore, the 95% confidence intervalaround the 3.4 estimate from 2019 is 3.4 ± (0.38 x1.96) or (2.63 to 4.13). In other words, if BJS used thesame sampling method to select different samples
and computed an interval estimate for each sample,
it would expect the true population parameter (rateof violent victimization) to fall within the interval
estimates 95% of the time.
For this report, BJS also calculated a coefficient ofvariation (CV) for all estimates, representing the ratioof the standard error to the estimate. CVs (not shownin tables) provide another measure of reliability and ameans for comparing the precision of estimates acrossmeasures with differing levels or metrics.
Revised 2016 data file
For 2016, BJS greatly increased the NCVS sample size tofacilitate the ability to produce state-level victimization
estimates for the 22 most populous states. At thesame time, the sample was adjusted to reflect the U.S.
population counts in the 2010 decennial census. TheseC R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020changes resulted in a historically large number of newhouseholds and first-time interviews in the first half of2016 and produced challenges in comparing 2016 results
to prior data years.
Working with the U.S. Census Bureau, BJS subsequently
devised the methodology that was used to create therevised 2016 NCVS data file. The result was revised
criminal victimization estimates that were nationally
representative for 2016 and could be compared withprior and future years. See National Crime Victimization
Survey revised 2016 estimates text box (pp. 3-4) andMethodology (pp. 15-18) in Criminal Victimization, 2016:
Revised (NCJ 252121, BJS, October 2018), for more
information.
NCVS measurement of rape or sexual assault
The NCVS uses a two-stage measurement approach inthe screening and classification of criminal victimization,
including rape or sexual assault. In the first stage ofscreening, survey respondents are administered a seriesof short-cue screening questions designed to help
respondents think about different experiences they may
have had during the reference period. (See NCVS-1 athttps://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ncvs15_bsq.pdf)
This design improves respondents’ recall of events,
particularly for incidents that may not immediately cometo mind as crimes, such as those committed by family
members and acquaintances. Respondents who answer
affirmatively to any of the short-cue screening items aresubsequently administered a crime incident report (CIR)
designed to classify incidents into specific crime types.
(See NCVS-2 at https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/
ncvs15_cir.pdf)
First stage of measurement. Two short-cue
screening questions are specifically designed to target
sexual victimization:
1. Other than any incidents already mentioned,
has anyone attacked or threatened you in any ofthese ways—
a. with any weapon, such as a gun or knife
b. with anything like a baseball bat, frying pan,scissors, or stickc. by something thrown, such as a rock or bottle
d. by grabbing, punching, or choking
e. any rape, attempted rape, or other types ofsexual attack34

f. any face-to-face threatsg. any attack or threat or use of force by anyone atall? Please mention it even if you are not certain
it was a crime.
2. Incidents involving forced or unwanted sexual acts areoften difficult to talk about. Other than any incidents
already mentioned, have you been forced or coerced toengage in unwanted sexual activity by—a. someone you did not know

Classification of rape and sexual assault in the National
Crime Victimization Survey
MeasureCompleted rape
Attempted rape
Threatened rape
Sexual assault

b. a casual acquaintancec. someone you know well?
Respondents may screen into a CIR if they respondaffirmatively to another short-cue screening question.
For instance, a separate screening question cues
respondents to think of attacks or threats that took
place in specific locations, such as at home, work, orschool. Respondents who recall a sexual victimizationthat occurred at home, work, or school and answer
affirmatively would be administered a CIR even if they
did not respond affirmatively to the screening question
targeting sexual victimization.
Second stage of measurement. The CIR is used to collectinformation on the attributes of each incident. The key
attributes of sexual violence that are used to classify avictimization as a rape or sexual assault are the type ofattack and physical injury suffered. Victims are asked if“the offender hit you, knock[ed] you down, or actuallyattack[ed] you in any way”; if “the offender TR[IED]
to attack you”; or if “the offender THREATEN[ED]you with harm in any way?” The survey participant isclassified as a victim of rape or sexual assault if he or she
responds affirmatively to one of these three questions
and then responds that the completed, attempted, or
threatened attack was— rape attempted rape sexual assault other than rape or attempted rape verbal threat of rape verbal threat of sexual assault other than rape unwanted sexual contact with force (e.g., grabbing

or fondling) unwanted sexual contact without force (e.g., grabbing

or fondling).

If the victim selects one of the following response options
to describe the attack, he or she is also classified as a
C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

Element of sexual violenceType of attack = rape
Type of injury = rape
Type of attack = attempted rape
Type of injury = attempted rape
Type of threat = verbal threat of rape with weapon
Type of attempted attack/threat = verbal threat of rape
Type of attack = sexual assault other than rape or
attempted rape
Type of injury = sexual assault other than rape or
attempted rape
Type of attempted attack/threat = unwanted sexual
contact with force
Type of attempted attack/threat = unwanted sexual
contact without force
Type of attempted attack/threat = verbal threat ofsexual assault other than rape

Note: Victim is determined to be present in all measures of rape andsexual assault.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization
Survey, 2019.

victim of rape or sexual assault if the injuries suffered as aresult of the incident are described as—
 rape attempted rape sexual assault other than rape or attempted rape.

Coercion. The CIR does not ask respondents if
psychological coercion was used, nor make any explicit
reference to the victim being unable to provide consent(e.g., in incidents involving drugs or alcohol use). One
screening question targeted to rape and sexual assault
asks respondents if force or coercion was used to initiate
unwanted sexual activity.
The final classification of incidents by the CIR results inthe following definitions of rape and sexual assault usedin the NCVS:
Rape. Coerced or forced sexual intercourse. Forced
sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal, or oral
penetration by the offender(s). This category could
include incidents where the penetration was from aforeign object such as a bottle. It includes attempted
rape, threatened rape, male and female victims, and bothheterosexual and same-sex incidents.
Sexual assault. A wide range of victimizations, separate
from rape, attempted rape, or threatened rape. These
crimes include attacks or threatened attacks involving
unwanted sexual contact between the victim andoffender. Sexual assaults may or may not involve force
and include such things as grabbing or fondling.
35

A

Year
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019

Number of persons
Estimate
Standard error
2,654,090
50,781
2,965,900
90,2912,514,400
83,061
2,278,270
82,4982,306,400
100,289
2,022,980
104,805
1,821,830
70,205
1,622,850
82,634
1,448,910
76,78561,3501,222,940
1,277,400
67,957
1,276,560
77,1711,238,410
70,482--1,210,660
69,266
1,210,980
64,122
1,107,630
63,144
1,094,280
74,952
1,205,460
60,8581,271,770
74,512
1,145,350
56,413
1,235,290
66,223
1,099,400
60,817
1,123,190
78,8871,225,800
57,7381,367,270
65,626
1,216,400
59,953

Percent of persons
Estimate
1.26%
1.39
1.17
1.05
1.05
0.91
0.81
0.72
0.63
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.51
-0.48
0.48
0.44
0.43
0.47
0.49
0.43
0.46
0.41
0.41
0.45
0.50
0.44

Standard error
0.023%
0.040
0.036
0.035
0.040
0.043
0.032
0.035
0.032
0.025
0.025
0.031
0.027
-0.028
0.026
0.024
0.029
0.022
0.027
0.021
0.025
0.023
0.029
0.021
0.023
0.021

95% confidence interval
Lower boundUpper bound1.213%
1.305%
1.315
1.472
1.101
1.242
0.981
1.121
0.972
1.132
0.830
1.002
0.751
0.876
0.650
0.787
0.571
0.699
0.481
0.580
0.486
0.586
0.471
0.592
0.455
0.563
--0.431
0.542
0.431
0.534
0.391
0.486
0.374
0.488
0.427
0.513
0.434
0.542
0.394
0.476
0.417
0.515
0.365
0.455
0.356
0.469
0.410
0.493
0.453
0.545
0.399
0.483

--Estimates for 2006 should not be compared to other years and are excluded from this table. See Criminal Victimization, 2007 (NCJ 224390, BJS, December2008) for more information on changes to the 2006 National Crime Victimization Survey.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993-2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

36

APPENDIX TABLE 2
Estimates and standard errors for figure 2: Percent of U.S. households who were victims of burglary, 1993-2019
Year
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019

Number of households
Estimate
Standard error
1,282,240
47,291
2,908,560
82,5502,699,990
90,7092,516,680
82,5602,491,980
99,083
2,236,960
88,836
1,984,120
86,325
1,901,640
83,087
1,782,480
80,301
1,787,400
74,716
1,953,040
86,638
1,895,120
84,424
1,982,230
97,844--1,737,940
75,913
1,694,440
76,9601,809,050
84,1591,775,970
72,335
1,797,370
74,8091,976,440
82,245
1,775,400
79,872
1,638,920
66,013
1,562,130
74,217
1,455,720
57,417
1,273,410
58,7601,333,600
58,052
1,040,730
50,120Estimate
2.57%
2.89
2.66
2.45
2.40
2.12
1.85
1.76
1.63
1.62
1.71
1.64
1.69
-1.45
1.40
1.48
1.45
1.46
1.57
1.39
1.27
1.18
1.09
1.03
1.07
0.82

Percent of households
95% confidence intervalStandard error
Lower boundUpper bound0.087%
2.406%
2.748%
0.074
2.749
3.042
0.082
2.503
2.827
0.073
2.311
2.598
0.078
2.247
2.555
0.070
1.990
2.267
0.073
1.714
2.000
0.070
1.622
1.899
0.062
1.509
1.753
0.062
1.503
1.746
0.070
1.578
1.856
0.071
1.502
1.784
0.080
1.541
1.859
---0.060
1.340
1.578
0.061
1.284
1.524
0.066
1.353
1.616
0.057
1.338
1.561
0.055
1.356
1.574
0.065
1.446
1.703
0.061
1.276
1.517
0.051
1.169
1.371
0.055
1.080
1.297
0.043
1.007
1.176
0.047
0.947
1.131
0.046
0.982
1.163
0.039
0.750
0.903

--Estimates for 2006 should not be compared to other years and are excluded from this table. See Criminal Victimization, 2007 (NCJ 224390, BJS, December2008) for more information on changes to the 2006 National Crime Victimization Survey.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993-2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

37

APPENDIX TABLE 3
Estimates and standard errors for figure 3: Rate of violent victimization excluding simple assault and rate of violent
victimization reported to police, excluding simple assault, 1993-2019

Year
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019

Violent victimizations, excluding simple assault
Rate per 1,000
95% confidence interval
persons age 12
or olderStandard error Lower bound Upper bound
29.1
1.57
26.00
32.15
27.0
1.35
24.39
29.68
22.4
1.14
20.12
24.59
21.8
1.26
19.34
24.30
21.1
1.39
18.38
23.81
16.6
1.16
14.32
18.85
15.9
1.13
13.69
18.12
12.4
0.93
10.60
14.24
11.0
0.79
9.47
12.59
10.0
0.92
8.16
11.76
10.0
0.78
8.49
11.53
10.80
9.5
0.67
8.16
9.2
0.76
7.74
10.73
----9.0
0.72
7.55
10.37
7.9
0.74
6.47
9.38
7.8
0.64
6.51
9.00
6.6
0.68
5.29
7.95
7.2
0.63
5.96
8.44
8.0
0.58
6.81
9.10
7.3
0.72
5.92
8.76
7.7
0.65
6.39
8.92
6.8
0.60
5.61
7.95
6.6
0.47
5.68
7.53
7.3
0.53
6.30
8.39
8.6
0.66
7.30
9.89
7.3
0.57
6.16
8.38

Violent victimizations reported to police, excluding simple assault
Rate per 1,000
95% confidence interval
persons age 12
or olderStandard error Lower bound Upper bound
14.9
1.17
12.58
17.15
13.4
0.92
11.64
15.23
11.1
0.82
9.53
12.77
10.1
0.84
8.45
11.75
11.5
1.01
9.50
13.45
9.1
0.83
7.50
10.74
8.0
0.79
6.48
9.56
6.4
0.68
5.11
7.78
6.3
0.61
5.15
7.54
6.4
0.73
5.02
7.88
5.8
0.62
4.62
7.07
6.0
0.56
4.86
7.05
5.4
0.59
4.29
6.61
----5.0
0.58
3.88
6.16
4.4
0.54
3.38
5.51
3.8
0.54
2.79
4.89
3.8
0.52
2.79
4.81
4.4
0.51
3.41
5.41
4.3
0.45
3.44
5.22
4.5
0.59
3.33
5.62
4.3
0.50
3.29
5.24
3.7
0.47
2.80
4.65
3.5
0.37
2.78
4.23
3.8
0.39
3.02
4.53
4.3
0.46
3.39
5.19
3.4
0.38
2.63
4.13

--Estimates for 2006 should not be compared to other years and are excluded from this table. See Criminal Victimization, 2007 (NCJ 224390, BJS, December2008) for more information on changes to the 2006 National Crime Victimization Survey.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993-2019.

APPENDIX TABLE 4
Estimates for figure 5: Location of residence classification, by source of classification
Location of residence
Biggest principal city of MSA
Other principal city of MSA
In MSA but not principal city
In micropolitan area
Outside of metro/micro area

AHS respondent classification
Urban Suburban Rural
58%
40%
2%
31
67
2
14
64
22
20
29
52
13
17
70

New NCVS definition
Urban Suburban Rural
43%
56%
1%
11
88
1
2
79
19
0
52
48
0
25
75

Old NCVS definition
Urban Suburban Rural
100%
0%
0%
100
0
0
0
100
0
0
0
100
0
0
100

Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019; Housing and Urban Development, American Housing
Survey, 2017; and 2010 Census of Population and Housing and 2013 OMB Metropolitan Statistical Area designations.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

38

APPENDIX TABLE 5
Standard errors for table 1: Number and rate of violent victimizations, by type of crime, 2015-2019
Type of violent crime
Violent crime
Rape/sexual assault
Robbery
Assault
Aggravated assault
Simple assault
Violent crime excluding simple assault

2015
Rate perNumber 1,000
301,600 1.12
79,793 0.30
70,612 0.26
253,031 0.94
76,662 0.28
241,182 0.89
145,446 0.54

2016
Rate perNumber 1,000
244,399 0.90
54,696 0.20
45,806 0.17
226,970 0.83
83,790 0.31
198,828 0.73
107,838 0.40

2017
Rate perNumber 1,000
252,760 0.93
63,031 0.23
71,490 0.26
228,155 0.84
73,874 0.27
215,126 0.79
118,460 0.44

2018
Rate perNumber 1,000
343,745 1.25
76,473 0.28
61,685 0.22
317,637 1.15
69,272 0.25
316,022 1.15
126,295 0.46

2019
Rate perNumber 1,000
295,287 1.07
70,656 0.26
61,708 0.22
264,712 0.96
87,553 0.32
246,234 0.89
128,935 0.47

Note: Standard errors were calculated using the Balanced Repeated Replication method of direct estimation.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015-2019.

APPENDIX TABLE 6
Standard errors for table 2: Number and rate of property victimizations, by type of crime, 2015-2019
2015
Rate perType of property crime Number 1,000
Total
382,579
2.96
Burglary/trespassing 119,068
0.92
Burglary
96,4240.74
Trespassing
63,9060.49
Motor-vehicle theft
54,762
0.41
Other theft
309,048
2.38

2016
Rate perNumber 1,000
367,255
2.72
131,5230.98
115,0210.86
72,8740.54
61,9850.47
291,599
2.17

2017
Rate perNumber 1,000
247,507
1.97
107,144
0.88
79,2600.65
61,1710.50
38,0670.31
199,547
1.58

2018
Rate perNumber 1,000
246,035
1.90
111,336
0.89
93,1320.75
43,7380.35
0.32
40,105
202,949
1.56

2019
Rate perNumber 1,000
256,412
1.96
96,4710.76
86,8220.68
51,3880.40
42,8720.34
221,561
1.70

Note: Standard errors were calculated using the Balanced Repeated Replication method of direct estimation.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015-2019.

APPENDIX TABLE 7
Standard errors for table 3: Number and rate of violent victimizations,by selected characteristics of violent crime, 2018 and 2019
Selected characteristics of violent crime
Domestic violence
Intimate partner violence
Stranger violence
Violent crime involving injury
Violent crime involving a weapon

2018
Rate perNumber 1,000
137,389
0.50
100,4360.36
212,208
0.77
145,604
0.53
137,150
0.50

2019
Rate perNumber 1,000
122,641 0.44
86,483 0.31
192,610 0.70
129,796 0.47
119,364 0.43

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2018 and 2019.

APPENDIX TABLE 8Standard errors for table 4: Rate of completed, attempted, and threatened
violent victimizations, 2015-2019
Violent victimizations
TotalaCompleted
Attempted
Threatened

2015
1.12
0.55
0.58
0.56

2016
0.90
0.40
0.44
0.55

2017
0.93
0.45
0.51
0.57

2018
1.25
0.57
0.58
0.69

2019
1.07
0.47
0.55
0.63

aStandard errors for the total victimization rates were calculated using the Balanced Repeated
Replication method of direct estimation. Generalized variance function parameters were used to
calculate standard errors for the rest of the table.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015-2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

39

APPENDIX TABLE 9Standard errors for table 5: Rates of crime reported topolice in the Uniform Crime Reporting program and in
the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2018 and 2019
Type of crime
Violent crime excluding
simple assault
MurderRape/sexual assault
Robbery
Aggravated assault

Property crime
BurglaryaMotor-vehicle theft

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older
2018 NCVS
2019 NCVS
0.460
~
0.130
0.200
0.300

0.382
~
0.117
0.158
0.261

Rate per 1,000 households
2018 NCVS
2019 NCVS
1.110
1.111
0.444
0.422
0.300
0.292

~Not applicable.
aStandard errors differ from those previously published in the Criminal
Victimization, 2018 report because a coding error that affected thegeneration of those earlier estimates has been corrected.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
2018 and 2019.

APPENDIX TABLE 10
Standard errors for table 6: Percent and rate of victimizations reported to police, by type of crime, 2018 and 2019
Type of crime
Violent crime
Rape/sexual assault
Robbery
Assault
Aggravated assault
Simple assault

Percent of victimizations reported
to police
2018
2019
2.26%
2.26%
3.73
5.12
4.96
5.22
2.42
2.39
4.06
4.17
2.52
2.52

Rate of victimizations reported topolice per 1,000
2018
2019
0.82
0.72
0.13
0.12
0.20
0.16
0.70
0.63
0.30
0.26
0.55
0.51

Violent crime excluding simple assault

3.14%

3.26%

0.46

0.38

Selected characteristics of violent crime
Domestic violence
Intimate partner violence
Stranger violence
Violent crime involving injury
Violent crime involving a weapon

3.75%
4.33
3.03
3.69
3.77

3.98%
4.76
3.04
3.85
4.04

0.30
0.21
0.44
0.35
0.35

0.29
0.22
0.37
0.29
0.28

Property crime
Burglary/trespassing
Burglarya
Trespassinga
Motor-vehicle theft
Other theft

0.81%
1.76
2.07
3.10
3.07
0.86

0.86%
2.00
2.38
3.33
3.22
0.89

1.11
0.53
0.44
0.27
0.30
0.87

1.11
0.51
0.42
0.25
0.29
0.87

aStandard errors differ from those previously published in the Criminal Victimization, 2018 report because a coding error that affected thegeneration of those earlier estimates has been corrected.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2018 and 2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

40

APPENDIX TABLE 11
Standard errors for table 7: Rate of violent victimization reported and not reported to police, by completed,attempted, and threatened crimes, 2015-2019
Violent crime
Total
Completed
Attempted
Threatened

2015
0.84
0.44
0.41
0.34

Rate of reported crime per 1,000
2016
2017
2018
0.68
0.71
0.82
0.29
0.32
0.38
0.30
0.32
0.38
0.37
0.37
0.39

2019
0.72
0.32
0.35
0.36

2015
0.89
0.37
0.43
0.46

Rate of unreported crime per 1,000
2016
2017
2018
0.79
0.79
0.98
0.30
0.31
0.40
0.36
0.39
0.42
0.46
0.43
0.55

2019
0.91
0.34
0.43
0.52

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015-2019.

APPENDIX TABLE 12
Standard errors for table 8: Percent of violent
victimizations for which victims received assistance froma victim-service agency, by type of crime, 2018 and 2019
Type of crime
Violent crime
Violent crime excluding simple assault
Simple assault
Intimate partner violence
Violent crime involving injury
Violent crime involving a weapon

2018
1.17%
1.79
1.26
3.06%
2.28%
2.03%

2019
0.99%
1.74
1.00
3.97%
2.69%
1.74%

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
2018 and 2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

41

APPENDIX TABLE 13
Standard errors for table 9: Rate of violent victimization,by type of crime and demographic characteristics ofvictims, 2018 and 2019

APPENDIX TABLE 14
Standard errors for table 10: Percent and rate of violent
victimizations reported to police, by type of crime anddemographic characteristics of victims, 2019

Violent victimization
excluding simple
assault
2018
2019
0.46
0.47

Violent victimization
excluding simple
assault reported topoliceRate per
Percent 1,000
3.26%
0.38

Victim demographic
characteristic
TotalaSex
Male
FemaleRace/ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Other
Age
12-17
18-24
25-34
35-49
50-64
65 or older
Marital status
Never married
MarriedWidow/widower
Divorced
Separated
Household income
Less than $25,000$25,000-$49,999$50,000-$99,999$100,000-$199,999$200,000 or more

Total violent
victimization
2018
2019
1.25
1.07
1.74
1.83

1.64
1.60

0.83
0.97

0.82
0.77

1.76
2.49
2.10
2.64
7.33

1.52
2.32
2.25
1.63
8.66

0.82
1.56
1.25
1.33
4.26

0.69
1.24
1.39
0.72
4.31

3.80
3.72
3.05
2.38
1.91
1.01

3.82
3.75
2.55
1.97
1.92
0.95

1.72
2.22
1.53
1.26
0.94
0.51

1.82
2.18
1.30
0.98
0.86
0.46

2.53
1.17
2.32
4.03
8.76

2.34
1.10
2.13
3.25
9.43

1.33
0.56
1.19
2.14
4.66

1.23
0.45
1.32
1.74
4.64

3.46
2.18
1.59
2.14
2.74

3.28
1.92
1.57
1.83
2.79

2.09
1.16
0.68
0.97
0.95

1.74
1.01
0.75
0.73
1.54

aStandard errors for the total victimization rates were calculated using theBalanced Repeated Replication method of direct estimation. Generalized
variance function parameters were used to calculate standard errors forthe rest of the table.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
2018 and 2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

Total violent victimization
reported to police
Victim demographic
Rate percharacteristic
Percent
1,000
Total
2.26%
0.72
Sex
Male
2.72%
0.82
Female2.87
0.95
Race/ethnicity
White
2.55%
0.78
Black
4.96
1.47
Hispanic
4.15
1.41
Asian
9.14
1.04
Other
5.41
4.98
Age
12-17
3.52%
1.54
18-24
3.83
2.01
25-34
3.97
1.54
35-49
3.86
1.15
50-64
3.92
1.17
65 or older
6.27
0.55
Marital status
Never married
2.63%
1.16
Married3.59
0.65
Widow/widower
8.35
1.34
Divorced
4.54
1.98
Separated
6.31
7.09
Household income
Less than $25,000
3.33%
1.86
$25,000-$49,999
3.71
1.13
$50,000-$99,999
3.54
0.90
$100,000-$199,999 4.04
0.89$200,000 or more
5.62
1.30

4.13%
4.15

0.49
0.46

4.00%
7.24
5.42
16.20
7.66

0.41
0.82
0.88
0.44
1.99

6.45%
5.17
5.80
5.65
6.18
10.13

0.98
1.15
0.93
0.56
0.57
0.34

3.86%
5.96
11.31
6.63
10.22

0.69
0.28
1.01
1.12
3.46

4.80%
5.33
5.30
7.49
5.98

1.06
0.70
0.44
0.43
0.47

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization
Survey, 2019.

42

APPENDIX TABLE 15
Standard errors for table 12: Rate of victimization, by type of crime and location ofresidence, 2018 and 2019

Location of residence
New definition
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Old definition
Urban
Suburban
Rural

Violent crime
2018
2019

Rate per 1,000
Violent crime excluding
simple assault
2018
2019

Property crime
2018
2019

2.44
1.47
2.64

2.03
1.30
2.08

1.53
0.57
0.73

1.06
0.60
1.20

6.19
2.50
4.62

7.66
2.32
4.08

2.33
1.51
2.86

2.10
1.35
2.79

1.30
0.71
1.45

1.08
0.66
1.26

3.53
2.33
4.31

3.76
2.29
4.70

Note: Standard errors for estimates using the new definition of location of residence were calculated using theBalanced Repeated Replication method of direct estimation. Standard errors for estimates using the old definition oflocation of residence were calculated using generalized variance function parameters.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2018 and 2019; and 2010 Census ofPopulation and Housing and 2013 OMB Metropolitan Statistical Area designations.

aPPENDIX TablE 16
Standard errors for table 13: Percent and number of violent incidents, by total population and victim and offenderdemographic characteristics, 2019
Number ofviolent incidents
Demographic characteristic Offender Victim
Total
305,087 305,087
Sex
Male
275,778 216,194
Female116,923 221,906
Both male and female
offenders
35,760~Race/ethnicity
White
194,634 254,209
Black
120,91276,823
Hispanic
99,372 105,019
Asian
14,867
27,907
Other
38,99162,544Multiple offenders ofvarious races
11,207~Age
11 or younger
23,555~12-17
88,861
95,106
18-29
135,533 153,467
30 or older
196,642 235,462
Multiple offenders ofvarious ages
32,576~Percent of violent incidents
OffenderVictim
95% confidence interval
95% confidence intervalStandard error Lower bound Upper bound Standard error Lower bound Upper bound
~
~
~
~
~
~
2.22%
1.82

70.68%
17.83

79.36%
24.96

2.39%
2.40

44.36%
46.24

53.74%
55.66

0.66

2.29

4.89

~

~

~

2.53%
2.02
1.76
0.32
0.80

45.20%
21.02
15.26
0.35
3.00

55.12%
28.95
22.16
1.60
6.12

2.38%
1.23
1.58
0.49
1.03

57.45%
8.30
13.93
1.30
5.85

66.79%
13.12
20.14
3.23
9.89

0.24

0.13

1.08

~

~

~

0.49%
1.59
2.15
2.52

1.07%
12.45
24.81
45.07

2.98%
18.69
33.22
54.93

~
1.47%
2.06
2.41

~
11.84%
25.69
50.83

~
17.58%
33.78
60.28

0.66

2.09

4.68

~

~

~

~Not applicable.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

43

APPENDIX TABLE 17
Standard errors for table 14: Percent of violent
incidents, by victim and offender sex, 2019
Victim sex
Total
Male
FemaleNumber ofviolent incidents
291,164
201,626
215,926

APPENDIX TABLE 18
Standard errors for table 15: Number of violent incidents,
by victim and offender race or ethnicity, 2019

Offender sex
Both male
Male Female and female
2.22% 1.82%
0.62%
2.50
1.92
0.86
2.88
2.52
0.86

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization
Survey, 2019.

Offender race/ethnicity
Victim race/ Number of
ethnicity
violent incidents WhiteBlack Hispanic Other
White
223,256
160,168 66,797 65,942 30,010
Black68,85622,886 54,360 14,707
7,734
Hispanic
93,01034,331 43,801 53,147
9,216
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019.

APPENDIX TABLE 19
Standard errors for table 16: Percent of violent incidents, by victim and offender
race or ethnicity, 2019
Victim race/
ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic

Number ofviolent incidents
223,256
68,856
93,010

White
2.94%
3.87
3.55

Offender race/ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
1.97%
1.95%
5.08
2.71
4.13
4.49

Other
1.00%
1.51
1.15

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019.

APPENDIX TABLE 20
Standard errors for table 17: Percent of violent incidents and percent of the U.S.
population, by victim race or ethnicity, 2019

Victim race/
ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic

Percent of violent incidents committed by offenders
Of the same race/ethnicity
Of another race/ethnicity
95%
confidence
interval
95% confidence intervalStandard
Standard
error
Lower bound Upper bounderror
Lower bound Upper bound
2.94%
55.82%
67.34%
2.80%
32.93%
43.90%
5.08
60.05
79.96
4.77
20.64
39.35
4.49
34.41
52.01
4.59
47.79
65.79

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

44

APPENDIX TABLE 21
Standard errors for table 18: Number and percent of persons who were victims of violent crime, by type of crime,
2015-2019
Number of victims
2017
2018
105,403
106,453
18,642
33,61934,67130,657
97,14792,852
43,542
43,726
83,931
89,167

2019
101,966
22,48230,947
94,11846,54978,6552015
0.041%
0.010
0.014
0.037
0.016
0.032

Percent of persons
2016
2017
2018
0.036% 0.038% 0.037%
0.008
0.007
0.012
0.010
0.013
0.011
0.034
0.035
0.033
0.018
0.016
0.016
0.029
0.031
0.032

2019
0.036%
0.008
0.011
0.033
0.017
0.028

65,62659,9530.023%

0.022%

0.021%

0.023%

0.021%

36,762

44,97336,5830.016%

0.013%

0.013%

0.016%

0.013%

25,97665,33827,56971,40433,58770,402

28,984
69,343

0.013
0.025

0.010
0.024

0.010
0.027

0.012
0.025

0.010
0.025

55,235

48,732

41,37947,60649,955

0.020

0.018

0.015

0.017

0.018

42,10150,71050,00646,48550,036

0.016

0.019

0.018

0.017

0.018

Type of crime
Total violent crime
Rape/sexual assault
Robbery
Assault
Aggravated assault
Simple assault

2015
115,649
27,82836,761103,997
42,626
89,125

2016
98,61022,99028,20692,48150,02078,887

Violent crime excluding
simple assault

60,81759,66657,73842,86935,89935,432
67,176

Selected characteristics
of violent crime
Domestic violence
Intimate partner
violence
Stranger violence
Violent crime involving
injuryViolent crime involving
a weapon

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015-2019.

APPENDIX TABLE 22
Standard errors for table 19: Number and percent of persons who
were victims of violent crime, by demographic characteristics ofvictims, 2018 and 2019
Victim demographic
characteristic
Total
Sex
Male
FemaleRace/ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Other
Age
12-17
18-24
25-34
35-49
50-64
65 or older
Marital status
Never married
MarriedWidow/widower
Divorced
Separated

Number of victims
2018
2019
106,453
101,966

Percent of persons
2018
2019
0.037%
0.036%

65,16275,56073,17963,3670.047%
0.053

0.054%
0.044

85,11240,446
39,611
16,80622,28069,55934,92849,06915,64522,7610.047%
0.121
0.082
0.094
0.321

0.040%
0.105
0.100
0.088
0.308

35,62841,447
48,17242,044
41,86024,64440,242
41,15747,31943,25642,167
20,5890.143%
0.136
0.106
0.067
0.065
0.047

0.162%
0.134
0.099
0.068
0.068
0.039

71,57850,693
21,43532,60818,12470,92048,375
15,213
27,233
19,3340.074%
0.038
0.137
0.116
0.340

0.070%
0.037
0.099
0.100
0.369

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2018and 2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

45

APPENDIX TABLE 23
Standard errors for table 20: Number and percent of households victimized, by type of property crime, 2015-2019
Type of property crime
Total
Burglary/trespassing
Burglarya
Trespassinga
Motor-vehicle theft
Other theft2015
253,856
89,612
74,217
51,20837,269214,688

Number of households victimized
2016
2017
2018
188,207
166,394
169,072
64,41367,513
66,27057,41758,76058,05237,262
32,63830,96037,80931,18829,684
160,814
148,890
153,3232019
163,275
61,06650,12032,80630,870147,4432015
0.167%
0.065%
0.055
0.038
0.028%
0.144%

Percent of households victimized
2016
2017
2018
2019
0.141% 0.124% 0.119% 0.118%
0.048% 0.053% 0.051% 0.047%
0.043
0.047
0.046
0.039
0.028
0.026
0.024
0.026
0.028% 0.025% 0.024% 0.024%
0.120% 0.112% 0.113% 0.108%

aStandard errors differ from those previously published in the Criminal Victimization, 2018 report because a coding error that affected the generation of

those earlier estimates has been corrected.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015-2019.

APPENDIX TABLE 24
Standard errors for table 21: Number and percent of persons who were victims of serious crime, 2015-2019
Type of crime
Total serious crime
Serious violent crime
Rape/sexual assault
excl. threats andno-force contact
Robbery
Aggravated assault
Serious property crime
Completed burglary
Completedmotor-vehicle theft

Number of victims
2017
2018
182,207
185,193
56,69460,8102015
186,600
60,607

2016
178,870
58,12526,07736,761
42,626179,271
163,829

20,02028,20650,020165,105
142,340

16,051
34,67143,542
178,302
151,871

83,19387,68880,923

2019
129,133
58,2502015
0.065%
0.023%

Percent of persons
2016
2017
2018
0.066% 0.065% 0.064%
0.021% 0.021% 0.022%

2019
0.045%
0.021%

27,52930,65743,726168,239
145,855

19,39330,94746,549108,924
95,962

0.010
0.014
0.016
0.063%
0.058

0.007
0.010
0.018
0.061%
0.052

0.006
0.013
0.016
0.064%
0.055

0.010
0.011
0.016
0.059%
0.052

0.007
0.011
0.017
0.039%
0.034

93,98665,282

0.030

0.032

0.030

0.034

0.024

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015-2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

46

APPENDIX TABLE 25
Standard errors for table 22: Number and percent of persons who
were victims of serious crime, by demographic characteristics ofvictims, 2018 and 2019
Victim demographic
characteristic
Total
Sex
Male
FemaleRace/ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Other
Age
12-17
18-24
25-34
35-49
50-64
65 or older
Marital status
Never married
MarriedWidow/widower
Divorced
Separated

Number of victims
2018
2019
185,193
129,133

Percent of persons
2018
2019
0.064%
0.045%

111,655
97,91379,791
74,9600.079%
0.066

0.059%
0.051

126,137
69,20988,937
16,23529,983

98,22350,412
64,83334,37723,7390.069%
0.201
0.181
0.092
0.450

0.054%
0.149
0.131
0.198
0.318

51,15742,98362,05071,12063,881
44,03936,181
47,61353,20647,45849,22939,206

0.198%
0.141
0.132
0.108
0.101
0.083

0.144%
0.156
0.116
0.076
0.077
0.074

101,533
83,12627,54645,501
22,90073,59075,31020,61136,142
17,7310.101%
0.062
0.178
0.157
0.431

0.074%
0.057
0.135
0.128
0.348

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2018and 2019.

APPENDIX TABLE 26
Standard errors for table 23: Percent of violent victimizations reported to police, by completed, attempted, andthreatened crimes, 2015-2019
Violent crime
Total
Completed
Attempted
Threatened

2015
2.79%
4.08
3.94
3.76

2016
2.22%
3.52
3.26
2.87

2017
2.18%
3.43
3.11
2.94

2018
2.26%
3.35
3.27
2.88

2019
2.26%
3.58
3.23
2.92

Note: Standard errors differ from those previously published in the Criminal Victimization, 2018 report because a coding error that affected the generationof those earlier estimates has been corrected.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015-2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

47

APPENDIX TABLE 27
Standard errors for table 24: Number and rate of violent
victimizations, by victim’s veteran and citizenship status,
2018 and 2019

APPENDIX TABLE 28
Standard errors for table 25: Firearm violence, 2018and 2019

2018
Victim veteran andRate percitizenship status
Number 1,000
Total violent victimizationsa 343,745 1.25
Veteran status
Veteran
57,883 3.03
Non-veteran
349,032 1.51
Citizenship status
U.S. citizen
396,806 1.54
U.S.-born citizen
385,079 1.63
Naturalized U.S. citizen
45,358 1.93
Non-U.S. citizen
37,295 2.30

Total violent incidents
Firearm incidents
Total violent victimizationsa
Firearm victimizations
Rate of firearm victimization
Firearm victimizations reported to police
Number
Percent

U.S.-born
Foreign-born

385,079
66,071

1.63
1.67

2019
Rate perNumber 1,000
295,287 1.07
54,474
310,441

2.86
1.33

354,632
345,644
38,38245,915

1.36
1.45
1.62
2.93

345,644
66,635

1.45
1.69

2018
341,91462,909343,745
67,1550.24

2019305,087
63,778295,287
67,6760.24

50,636
5.23%

48,467
5.42%

aStandard errors for the total violent victimization numbers were
calculated using the Balanced Repeated Replication method of direct
estimation. Generalized variance function parameters were used to
calculate standard errors for the rest of the table.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
2018 and 2019.

aStandard errors for the total victimization numbers and rates were
calculated using the Balanced Repeated Replication method of direct
estimation. Generalized variance function parameters were used to
calculate standard errors for the rest of the table.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
2018 and 2019.

APPENDIX TABLE 29
Standard errors for table 26: Percent and number of violent incidents excluding simple assault, by total population andvictim and offender demographic characteristics, 2019
Number ofviolent incidents
Demographic characteristic Offender Victim
Total
149,288 149,288
SexMale
143,543 105,593
Female40,946 105,828
Both male and female
offenders
16,345~
Race/ethnicity
White
92,614 113,960
Black
59,782
41,021
Hispanic
56,89363,002
Asian
5,780
12,472
Other
15,671
29,537
Multiple offenders ofvarious races
8,338
~
Age
11 or younger
6,871
~
12-17
39,77342,87318-29
74,527
79,10330 or older
90,182 112,212
Multiple offenders ofvarious ages
18,361~

Percent of violent incidents
OffenderVictim
95% confidence interval
95% confidence intervalStandard error Lower bound Upper bound Standard error Lower bound Upper bound
~
~
~
~
~
~
2.65%
2.02

78.94%
8.91

89.33%
16.84

3.37%
3.38

43.30%
43.47

56.53%
56.70

0.90

1.23

4.74

~

~

~

3.53%
2.86
2.77
0.35
0.93

40.75%
19.16
17.56
0.00
1.19

54.58%
30.38
28.41
1.24
4.83

3.39%
1.90
2.64
0.65
1.44

49.22%
8.30
17.96
0.51
4.40

62.50%
15.76
28.29
3.04
10.03

0.51

0.04

2.03

~

~

~

0.43%
2.15
3.29
3.54

0.00%
9.32
28.65
39.70

1.59%
17.75
41.56
53.57

~
1.97%
3.03
3.39

~
9.01%
26.58
47.96

~
16.74%
38.46
61.24

1.09

1.83

6.12

~

~

~

~Not applicable.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

48

APPENDIX TABLE 30
Standard errors for table 27: Percent of violent incidents
excluding simple assault, by victim and offender sex,
2019
Victim sex
Total
Male
FemaleNumber ofviolent incidents
142,416
98,039103,465

Offender sex
Male
2.41%
3.07
3.55

Female
1.90%
2.22
2.92

Both maleand female
0.87%
1.27
1.12

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019.

APPENDIX TABLE 31
Standard errors for table 28: Number of violent incidents excluding simple
assault, by victim and offender race or ethnicity, 2019
Victim race/ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic

Number ofviolent incidents
105,81235,96555,411

White
77,977
8,625
21,100

Offender race/ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
28,46935,63430,6558,094
24,30433,914Other
12,393
5,118
6,522

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019.

aPPENDIX TablE 32
Standard errors for table 29: Percent of violent incidents excluding simple assault, by
victim and offender race or ethnicity, 2019
Victim race/ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic

Number ofviolent incidents
105,81235,96555,411

White
4.21%
4.30
4.81

Offender race/ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
2.62%
3.11%
6.77
4.07
5.27
6.09

Other
1.26%
2.68
1.77

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019.

APPENDIX TABLE 33
Standard errors for table 30: Percent of violent incidents excluding simple assault and percentof the U.S. population, by victim and offender race or ethnicity, 2019

Victim race/
ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic

Percent of violent incidents committed by offenders
Of the same race/ethnicity
Of another race/ethnicity
95% confidence interval
95% confidence intervalStandard error Lower bound Upper boundStandard error Lower bound Upper bound
4.21%
55.34%
71.83%
4.01%
28.55%
44.28%
6.77
64.64
91.18
6.31
9.71
34.47
6.09
35.08
58.96
6.14
40.95
65.01

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

49

APPENDIX TABLE 34
Population size for persons age 12 or older, by demographic characteristics, 20152019
Demographic characteristic
Total persons age 12 or older
Sex
Male
FemaleRace/ethnicity
WhiteaBlackaHispanic
AsianaOthera,b
Age
12-17
18-24
25-34
35-49
50-64
65 or older
Marital statusc
Never married
MarriedWidow/widower
Divorced
Separated

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
269,526,470 272,204,190 272,468,480 275,325,390 276,872,470
131,173,670 132,525,350 132,432,710 133,907,490 134,693,660
138,352,800 139,678,840 140,035,770 141,417,890 142,178,810
173,043,610 172,882,890 171,454,370 171,493,180 171,423,480
33,242,330 33,623,820 32,699,520 33,132,390 33,397,100
43,314,490 44,470,950 45,481,910 46,997,610 47,890,870
14,663,500 15,719,020 16,582,080 17,228,930 17,401,410
5,262,540
5,507,510
6,250,600
6,473,280
6,759,600
24,826,110
30,504,250
43,693,960
60,928,420
63,004,570
46,569,150

25,043,610
30,301,000
44,303,050
61,158,070
63,332,410
48,066,050

24,911,170
29,883,550
44,327,500
60,878,870
62,955,630
49,511,760

24,917,160
29,838,720
44,946,880
61,429,050
62,940,810
51,252,780

24,941,440
29,646,500
45,289,720
61,483,410
62,643,880
52,867,520

93,289,060 95,415,230 96,211,120 97,152,920 97,943,560
127,167,850 127,704,070 127,923,650 128,744,200 129,699,090
14,779,490 15,053,020 14,832,940 15,166,010 15,160,640
27,084,680 27,189,410 26,776,250 27,360,570 27,184,390
5,124,520
5,022,050
4,937,290
5,129,600
4,970,250

aExcludes persons of Hispanic origin (e.g., “white” refers to non-Hispanic whites and “black” refers to non-

Hispanic blacks).

bIncludes Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and persons of

two or more races.

cDoes not sum to total due to missing data.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015-2019.

A
Total

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
131,962,260 133,365,270 123,085,790 124,824,660 126,433,890

Note: The 8% decline in the household population from 2016 to 2017 is due to an
adjustment that modified the household weights, not to a decline in number ofhouseholds. See Methodology for details.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2015-2019.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 2020

50

aPPENDIX TablE 36 a aND bUrban places under new NCVS definition
Table 36A: Urban places under the new NCVS definition that are listed in the name of a 500,000-person, Censusdesignated urbanized area
City or Census-designatedplace (CDP)
New York, N.Y.
San Francisco, Calif.
Urban Honolulu CDP, Hawaii
Boston, Mass.
Chicago, Ill.
Washington, D.C.
Miami, Fla.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Newark, N.J.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Long Beach, Calif.
Seattle, Wash.
Oakland, Calif.
Baltimore, Md.
Hartford, Conn.
Minneapolis, Minn.
Bridgeport, Conn.
Providence, R.I.
Buffalo, N.Y.
Albany, N.Y.
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Milwaukee, Wis.
Denver, Colo.
Stamford, Conn.
Allentown, Pa.
New Haven, Conn.
New Orleans, La.
San Diego, Calif.
Portland, Ore.
St. Louis, Mo.
Rochester, N.Y.
Cleveland, Ohio
Dallas, Texas
Salt Lake City, Utah
San Jose, Calif.
Detroit, Mich.
Atlanta, Ga.
Cincinnati, Ohio
Concord, Calif.
Houston, Texas

Weighted
housing-unit
density persquare mile
29,345
17,316
13,756
12,708
11,429
10,115
9,887
9,706
8,788
6,961
6,882
6,798
6,778
6,251
5,304
4,942
4,874
4,790
4,658
4,584
4,560
4,503
4,457
4,444
4,397
4,331
4,139
4,091
3,924
3,909
3,891
3,726
3,628
3,351
3,261
3,223
3,166
3,120
3,068
3,006

2010
Land area
population (square miles)
8,175,133
303
805,23547
337,256
61
617,59448
2,695,598
228
601,72361
36
399,457
1,526,006
134
277,140
24
3,792,621
469
462,25750
608,660
84
390,72456
620,961
81
124,77517382,578
54
144,22916
178,04218
261,31040
97,85621
305,704
55
594,833
96
600,158
153
122,64338
118,03218
129,77919
343,829169
1,307,402
325
583,776133
62
319,294
210,56536
396,81578
1,197,816
341
186,440
111
945,942
177
713,777139
420,003133
296,94378
122,06731
2,099,451
600

Urbanized area
Urbanized area
population
New York–Newark, N.Y.–N.J.–Conn.
18,351,295
San Francisco–Oakland, Calif.
3,281,212
Urban Honolulu, Hawaii
802,459
Boston, Mass.–N.H.–R.I.
4,181,019
Chicago, Ill.–Ind.
8,608,208
Washington, D.C.–Va.–Md.
4,586,770
Miami, Fla.
5,502,379
Philadelphia, Pa.–N.J.–Del.–Md.
5,441,567
New York–Newark, N.Y.–N.J.–Conn.
18,351,295
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, Calif.
12,150,996
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, Calif.
12,150,996
Seattle, Wash.
3,059,393
San Francisco–Oakland, Calif.
3,281,212
Baltimore, Md.
2,203,663
Hartford, Conn.
924,859
Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minn.–Wis.
2,650,890
Bridgeport–Stamford, Conn.–N.Y.
923,311
Providence, R.I.–Mass.
1,190,956
Buffalo, N.Y.
935,906
Albany–Schenectady, N.Y.
594,962
Pittsburgh, Pa.
1,733,853
Milwaukee, Wis.
1,376,476
Denver–Aurora, Colo.
2,374,203
Bridgeport–Stamford, Conn.–N.Y.
923,311
Allentown, Pa.–N.J.
664,651
New Haven, Conn.
562,839
New Orleans, La.
899,703
San Diego, Calif.
2,956,746
Portland, Ore.–Wash.
1,849,898
St. Louis, Mo.–Ill.
2,150,706
Rochester, N.Y.
720,572
Cleveland, Ohio
1,780,673
Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, Texas
5,121,892
Salt Lake City–West Valley City, Utah
1,021,243
San Jose, Calif.
1,664,496
Detroit, Mich.
3,734,090
Atlanta, Ga.
4,515,419
Cincinnati, Ohio–Ky.–Ind.
1,624,827
Concord, Calif.
615,968
Houston, Texas
4,944,332

Criteria by which a place was classified as urban (coding at right):
The main city (or Census-designated place) in a 500,000-person urbanized area, with a weighted housing-unit density of 3,000+ per square mile within
the city limits.
A named city (or Census-designated place) in a 500,000-person urbanized area, with a weighted housing-unit density of 4,000+ per square mile within
the city limits.
A city (or Census-designated place) with a population of 50,000+ and a weighted housing-unit density of 5,000+ per square mile within thecity limits.
A city (or Census-designated place) with a population of 10,000+ and a weighted housing-unit density of 10,000+ per square mile within the city limits.
Note: A place’s boundaries may not be entirely contained within the urbanized area listed.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019; and 2010 Census of Population and Housing and Census designations ofurbanized areas.

C R I M I N A L V I C T I M I Z AT I O N , 2019 | S E P T E M B E R 202051

Table 36B: Other urban places under the new NCVS definition, by Census-designated urbanized area
City or Census-designatedplace (CDP)
Guttenberg, N.J.
Hoboken, N.J.
West New York, N.J.
Union City, N.J.
Jersey City, N.J.
Cliffside Park, N.J.
Mount Vernon, N.Y.
East Orange, N.J.
Bayonne, N.J.
Yonkers, N.Y.
Elizabeth, N.J.
Passaic, N.J.
Paterson, N.J.
White Plains, N.Y.
West Hollywood, Calif.
Santa Monica, Calif.
Hawthorne, Calif.
Huntington Park, Calif.
Glendale, Calif.
Inglewood, Calif.
Redondo Beach, Calif.
Oak Park, Ill.
Berwyn, Ill.
Evanston, Ill.
Sunny Isles Beach, Fla.
Miami Beach, Fla.
Hallandale Beach, Fla.
Aventura, Fla.
Key Biscayne, Fla.
Fountainebleau CDP, Fla.
Hialeah, Fla.
Hollywood, Fla.
Wilmington, Del.
Arlington CDP, Va.
Huntington CDP, Va.
Alexandria, Va.
Silver Spring CDP, Md.
Cambridge, Mass.
Somerville, Mass.
Brookline CDP, Mass.
Lynn, Mass.
Malden, Mass.
Berkeley, Calif.
Daly City, Calif.
Lakewood, Ohio
Waimalu CDP, Hawaii
Lancaster, Pa.
Trenton, N.J.
Reading, Pa.

Weighted
housing-unit
density persquare mile
29,17125,87021,763
20,477
13,837
12,001
8,811
8,763
8,263
7,930
7,468
7,424
6,739
5,671
14,343
8,296
7,930
6,260
6,103
5,640
5,583
6,920
5,863
5,553
22,233
17,063
15,332
14,553
11,252
7,023
5,267
5,009
5,919
10,485
10,4307,714
6,135
10,377
9,770
8,403
5,985
5,432
7,377
5,435
7,079
11,402
6,078
5,264
6,326

2010
Land area
population (square miles)
11,1760.2
50,005
1
49,7081
66,455
1
247,597
15
23,594
1
67,292
4
64,2704
63,024
6
195,97618
124,969
12
69,781
3
146,1998
56,853
10
34,3992
89,736
8
84,293
6
58,114
3
191,71930
109,673
966,7486
551,87856,657
4
74,486
8
20,832
1
87,7798
37,113
4
35,762
3
12,344
1
59,764
4
224,66921
140,76827
70,851
11
207,627
26
11,267
1
139,966
15
71,452
8
105,162675,754
4
58,732
7
90,32911
59,4505
112,580
10
101,123
8
52,131
6
13,7302
59,322
7
84,9138
88,082
10

Urbanized area
Urbanized area
population
New York–Newark, N.Y.–N.J.–Conn.
18,351,295
New York–Newark, N.Y.–N.J.–Conn.
18,351,295
New York–Newark, N.Y.–N.J.–Conn.
18,351,295
New York–Newark, N.Y.–N.J.–Conn.
18,351,295
New York–Newark, N.Y.–N.J.–Conn.
18,351,295
New York–Newark, N.Y.–N.J.–Conn.
18,351,295
18,351,295
New York–Newark, N.Y.–N.J.–Conn.
New York–Newark, N.Y.–N.J.–Conn.
18,351,295
New York–Newark, N.Y.–N.J.–Conn.
18,351,295
New York–Newark, N.Y.–N.J.–Conn.
18,351,295
New York–Newark, N.Y.–N.J.–Conn.
18,351,295
New York–Newark, N.Y.–N.J.–Conn.
18,351,295
New York–Newark, N.Y.–N.J.–Conn.
18,351,295
New York–Newark, N.Y.–N.J.–Conn.
18,351,295
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, Calif. 12,150,996
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, Calif. 12,150,996
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, Calif. 12,150,996
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, Calif. 12,150,996
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, Calif. 12,150,996
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, Calif. 12,150,996
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, Calif. 12,150,996
Chicago, Ill.–Ind.
8,608,208
Chicago, Ill.–Ind.
8,608,208
Chicago, Ill.–Ind.
8,608,208
Miami, Fla.
5,502,379
Miami, Fla.
5,502,379
Miami, Fla.
5,502,379
Miami, Fla.
5,502,379
Miami, Fla.
5,502,379
Miami, Fla.
5,502,379
Miami, Fla.
5,502,379
Miami, Fla.
5,502,379
Philadelphia, Pa.–N.J.–Del.–Md.
5,441,567
Washington, D.C.–Va.–Md.
4,586,770
Washington, D.C.–Va.–Md.
4,586,770
Washington, D.C.–Va.–Md.
4,586,770
Washington, D.C.–Va.–Md.
4,586,770
Boston, Mass.–N.H.–R.I.
4,181,019
Boston, Mass.–N.H.–R.I.
4,181,019
Boston, Mass.–N.H.–R.I.
4,181,019
Boston, Mass.–N.H.–R.I.
4,181,019
Boston, Mass.–N.H.–R.I.
4,181,019
San Francisco–Oakland, Calif.
3,281,212
San Francisco–Oakland, Calif.
3,281,212
Cleveland, Ohio
1,780,673
Urban Honolulu, Hawaii
802,459
Lancaster, Pa.
402,004
Trenton, N.J.
296,668
Reading, Pa.
266,254

Criteria by which a place was classified as urban (coding at right):
The main city (or Census-designated place) in a 500,000-person urbanized area, with a weighted housing-unit density of 3,000+ per square mile within
the city limits.
A named city (or Census-designated place) in a 500,000-person urbanized area, with a weighted housing-unit density of 4,000+ per square mile within
the city limits.
A city (or Census-designated place) with a population of 50,000+ and a weighted housing-unit density of 5,000+ per square mile within thecity limits.
A city (or Census-designated place) with a population of 10,000+ and a weighted housing-unit density of 10,000+ per square mile within the city limits.
Note: A place’s boundaries may not be entirely contained within the urbanized area listed.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2019; and 2010 Census of Population and Housing and Census designations ofurbanized areas.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is theprincipal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal
victimization, criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime,
and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state,tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable
statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports
improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, andparticipates with national and international organizations to develop andrecommend national standards for justice statistics. Jeffrey H. Anderson isthe director.
This report was written by Rachel E. Morgan and Jennifer L. Truman. Erika
Harrell and Alexandra Thompson verified the report. Amy Lauger also
contributed to verification.
Theodore Robinson edited and produced this report. Edrienne Su andCarrie Epps-Carey provided editorial and design assistance.
September 2020, NCJ 255113

Y E A R S O F S T AT I

S T I CS

Office of Justice Programs
Building Solutions • Supporting Communities • Advancing Justicewww.ojp.gov