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

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Special Report
September 2010, NCJ 227379

National Crime Victimization Survey

Victimization During Household Burglary
Shannan Catalano, Ph.D.,
BJS StatisticianAn estimated 3.7 million householdburglaries occ urred each year on
average from 2003 to 2007. In about
28% of these burglaries, a household member
was present during the burglary. In 7% of allhousehold burglaries, a household member
experienced some form of violent victimization(figure 1).
These estimates of burglary are based on arevised definition of burglary from the standard
classification in the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS). Historically,
burglary is classified as a property crime except
when someone is home during the burglary anda household member is attacked or threatened.
When someone is home during a burglary andexperiences violence, NCVS classification rules
categorize the victimization as a personal (rape/
sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated andsimple assault) rather than a property crime(household burglary, theft, and motor vehicle
theft). In this report, the definition of householdbu rg lar y include s bu rg lar ies in w h ich ahousehold member was a victim of a violent
crime (see Methodology).

Figure 1.
Number and percent distribution of household burglaries, 2003–2007

All householdburglaries
3,713,000

27.6%Household member
present

Householdmember victim
of violent crime

72.4%Household member
not present

Victim of
26% violent
crime

All household 7.2%
burglaries
3,713,000

No violence
Unknown offenderHouseholdmember victim
of violent crime
266,560

27.5%
Offender wasa stranger

65.1%
Offender was
not a stranger

7.4%

Highlights• An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on
average from 2003 to 2007.
• A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.
• Simple assault (15%) was the most common form of violence
when a resident was home and violence occurred. Robbery(7%) and rape (3%) were less likely to occur when a household
member was present and violence occurred.
• Offenders were known to their victims in 65% of violent burglaries; offenders were strangers in 28%.

• Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violenceoccurred during a burglary while a resident was present. About
12% of all households violently burglarized while someone washome faced an offender armed with a firearm.
• Households residing in single family units and higher density
structures of 10 or more units were least likely to be burglarized(8 per 1,000 households) while a household member was present.
• Serious injury accounted for 9% and minor injury accounted
for 36% of injuries sustained by household members who werehome and experienced violence during a completed burglary.

For a list of publications in this series go to http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245

“Home invasion” has been used widely to describe an array of victimizations“Home invasion” has been used broadly to describe any crimecommitted by an individual unlawfully entering a residence
while someone is home. More narrowly, home invasion has
been used to describe a situation where an offender forcibly
enters an occupied residence with the specific intent ofrobbing or violently harming those inside.
The limited numbers of states incorporating the term “homeinvasion” into their state statutes include the intent on the partof the offender in their definition. In part, these statutes havedefined intent as—• A person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling with
the intent of committing a violent crime;• A person knowingly enters the dwelling place of anotherwith the knowledge or expectation that someone (one ormore persons) is present;• The unauthorized entering of any inhabited dwelling orother structure belonging to another with the intent to use
force or violence upon the person of another.

Public perception and media reports of homeinvasion do not necessarily include intent
Public perception and media reports of home invasion do notnecessarily include intent on the part of the offender.
Situations reported by the media as home invasion include—• An offender forcibly enters a home to rob the household ofspecific items, including cash, drugs, or other items— specific households or residents may become a target either to“settle a score” or because residents are perceived as vulnerable, such as persons with disabilities and the elderly.
• An offender enters a residence falsely believing no one ishome and a confrontation occurs between the resident andthe offender.

• A household member returns home while a burglary is inprogress and a confrontation occurs between the household
member and the offender.

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
estimates of nonfatal crimes and theconsequences to victims do not include offendermotivation
The NCVS provides estimates of nonfatal violent and property
crime and the consequences to victims. If a victim suffers
violence during a burglar y, NCVS classification rules
categorize the victimization as a personal rather than aproperty crime. Some of these burglaries measured by thesurvey may fall under the broad definition of home invasion.
Between 2003 and 2007—• A household member was home in 28% of the 3.7 million
average annual burglaries that occurred between 2003 and2007 (table 1).
• In nonviolent burglaries, household members knew theoffender in 30% of the burglaries taking place while someone was home; the offender was a stranger in 24%. The
identity of the offender was unknown in 46% of burglaries.
• On average, household members became victims of violent
crimes in about 266,560 burglaries annually. Offenders
known to their victims accounted for 65% of these burglaries; strangers accounted for 28%.
Because the NCVS does not determine offender motivation forentering an occupied household, the survey cannot address themore stringent application of the term “home invasion” that
includes offender intent. Additionally, the NCVS does notdistinguish between a household member who is present when
the of fender gains entr y and one who arrived home
unexpectedly while the burglary was in progress.

Table 1.
Household burglaries, by type, 2003–2007
Type of burglary
Household burglary
Completed
Forcible entry
Unlawful entry
Attempted forcible entry

Average annual
number of burglaries
3,713,000
3,083,750
1,134,230
1,949,520
629,250

Percent of burglaries
HouseholdHousehold member
member present
experienced violence
27.6 %
7.2 %
26.7 %
8.0 %
15.5
4.9
33.3
9.7
32.0 %
3.4 %Note: Percent present is calculated as the number of households in which someone was home during aburglary (N=1,025,520) divided by the number of household burglaries (N=3,713,000). Percent experiencing violence is calculated as the number of households experiencing violence (N=266,560) divided by the
number of household burglaries (N=3,713,000).

Figure 2.

2

Victimization During Household BurglaryFindings include household characteristics
of burglaries of both occupied andunoccupied residences

Figure 2.
Household burglary, 2000-2007
Rate

The findings on household burglary in thisreport are presented in three parts. Household
characteristics of burglaries of both occupied(household member present) and unoccupied(household member not present) residences are
examined in Tables 1 through 4. Burglary
characteristics of occupied households, such as
method of entr y and type of damage, areexamined in Tables 5 through 14. Characteristics
of violence during household burglaries that took
place while someone was home are examined inTables 15 through 20.

Percent
Percent of violent household burglary

Violence during household burglaries
remained stable from 2000 to 2007
Between 2000 and 2007 the rate of householdburglary of unoccupied households declined from25.8 to 21.2 victimizations per 1,000 households(figure 2). In contrast, the rate of householdburglary when someone was home remained
stable between 2000 (8.5 per 1,000 households)
and 2007 (8.3 per 1,000 households. The
percentage of these burglaries that included
violence remained stable between 2000 (6.3%) and2005 (5.7%). Between 2005 and 2007, however,there is some indication of an increase in thepercentage of violent burglaries from 5.7% to 7.7%.

Households composed of single femaleswith children had the highest rates ofburglary while someone was present
Households composed of married couples
without children experienced the lowest rates ofboth types of burglary—when no one was home
(14 per 1,000 households) and while a household
member was present (4 per 1,000 households)(table 2). Households composed of single males
were more likely than those composed of single
females to experience a burglary while no one
was home. However, households composed ofsingle males and single females were equally
likely to experience a burglar y while theresidence was occupied.
Single heads of households—male (59 per 1,000
households) and female (54 per 1,000
households)—living with children experienced
the highest rates of burglary while no household
member was present. Households composed ofsingle females with children had the highest rateof burglary while someone was home (22 per
1,000 households). There was no consistentpattern in the risk of being present during a*See Criminal Victimization, 2006—Technical Notes, BJS Web, 12 December 2007.

Table 2.
Average annual household burglary, by household composition and head ofhousehold characteristics, 2003–2007

Characteristics
Household composition
Households without children
Married couples
Single maleSingle female
Households with children
Two-parent
Single maleSingle female
OtheraRace of head of householdb
White
Black
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian Pacific Islander
More than one race
Hispanic/Latino origin head of household
Hispanic or Latino
Non-Hispanic or Latino
Age of head of household
12-19
20-34
35-49
50-64
65 or older

Rate per 1,000 households
Average annual
number ofHousehold member Householdhouseholds
not present
member present
58,104,000
26,018,350
14,219,630
17,866,020
29,405,670
22,395,420
1,041,190
5,969,060
29,365,170
116,874,850
96,089,150
14,556,460
671,650
4,546,100
1,011,500
116,248,780
12,335,710
103,913,070
116,874,850
1,085,100
26,609,020
36,445,680
29,341,680
23,393,370

17.3
13.5
24.6
17.1
28.2
19.9
58.7
54.1
29.0
23.0
21.6
32.5
57.0
12.6
45.4
23.0
26.4
22.6
23.0
58.8
30.2
32.4
19.9
12.2

5.8
3.7
6.9
8.0
10.5
7.2
13.7
22.3
12.9
8.8
8.5
10.3
19.6
5.2
18.1
8.8
11.9
8.4
8.8
26.9
11.2
12.9
7.0
4.8

aIncludes a combination of children, adult relatives, and other adults not related to household members
living together. The NCVS is unable to disentangle these more complex household structures involving
common law marriages, domestic partnerships, and alternative familial living arrangements.
b

Head of household is a classification defining one and only one person residing in each housing unit as
the head. It implies that the person is either the homeowner (or in the process of buying the unit) or the
person responsible for renting the unit. The head of household must be age 18 or older with two exceptions: all household members are under age 18 or the head of household is under age 18 and married tosomeone age 18 or older.

September 20103

burglary between households composed ofsingle males with children and other householdcompositions.

Households having an American Indian or
Alaska Native head of household (57 per 1,000
households) experienced higher rates of burglary
when no one was home than any other race.

Table 3.
Average annual household burglary, by household income and ownership,
2003–2007
Rate per 1,000 households

Characteristics
Household income
Less than $7,500$7,500 to $14,999$15,000 to $24,999$25,000 to $34,999$35,000 to $49,999$50,000 to $74,999$75,000 or more
Home ownership
Own
Rent

Average annual
number ofhouseholds

Household member
not present

Household member
present

4,992,420
8,294,260
11,407,660
11,074,270
14,045,700
15,364,730
21,336,190

47.2
34.3
29.4
23.8
23.9
18.6
16.8

18.5
15.9
11.7
10.0
9.0
7.0
5.7

80,230,680
35,012,820

18.9
33.5

6.7
13.9

Table 4.
Average annual household burglary, by type of housing and number of units inthe structure, 2003–2007
Housing structure
Type of housing
House or apartment
Hotel, motel, or rooming
house
Mobile home
Student quarters
Other unitsa
Number of unitsb
1
2
3
4
5-9
10 or moreGroup quarters unit

Average annual
number of households

Rate per 1,000 households
Household member Household member
not present
present

110,403,770

22.1

8.5

127,160
5,656,090
453,450
234,380

36.5 ^
32.4
4.3
3.6

3.1^
11.1
1.3 ^
2.9

79,766,660
5,638,510
1,602,980
3,462,380
5,950,620
14,415,580
408,570

22.1
31.3
26.0
28.7
25.1
19.7
41.4

7.9
13.0
15.8
13.5
10.4
8.3
29.3

^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
aIncludes residences that are temporarily unoccupied, quarters that are not a house such as a condo or
duplex, temporary living quarters, and general quarters.
b

A housing unit is a group of rooms or a single room occupied as separate living quarters or intended
for occupancy as separate living quarters. To be considered separate living quarters, the occupant must
live and eat separately from all other persons on the property and have direct access to their living quarters from the outside or through a common hall or lobby.

4

Residences with an American Indian or
Alaska Native head of household
experienced higher rates of burglary

Victimization During Household Burglary

A slightly different pattern in the likelihood ofexperiencing a burglar y was obser ved forh ou s e h o l d s v i c t i m i z e d w h i l e o c c u pi e d .
Residences having an American Indian, Alaska
Native, or a person of more than one race as thehead of household were equally likely to be homeduring a burglary.
Households with a white head of household were
somewhat less likely than those with a blackhead of household to experience a burglary
while a household member was present. Asianand Pacific Islander head of households were theleast likely to be present during a burglary.

Households with a head of household ages
12 to 19 had the highest rates of burglary;ages 65 or older had the lowest rates
Burglary rates declined for households withheads of households in older age groups.
Households with a head of household age 65 orolder had the lowest rates of burglary—12 per
1,000 households while no one was home and 5
per 1,000 households while the residence was
occupied. Households with a head of householdage 12 to 19 had the highest rates ofburglary—59 per 1,000 households when no one
was present and 27 per 1,000 households while
the residence was occupied.

Higher income households experienced
lower rates of burglary
Rates of household burglary were generally
lower for higher income households than lower
income households (table 3).
Across all categories, the risk of burglary was
higher for households living in rental properties.
Ho u s e h o l d s l i v i n g i n r e nt a l p r o p e r t i e sexperienced higher rates of burglary when no
one was home and while the residence was
occupied than those who owned or were in theprocess of buying their homes.

Single-unit housing and housing with 10 ormore units were least likely to be
burglarized while someone was home
Household members living in mobile homes (32per 1,000 households) were more likely thanthose living in any other type of housing toexperience a burglary while no one was home,with one exception—hotels, motels, androoming houses. Households living in mobile
homes were equally likely as those staying in a
hotel, motel, or rooming house to experience aburglary while no one was present (table 4).
Households residing in houses or apartmentcomplexes (9 per 1,000 households) were
somewhat less likely than those living in mobile
h om e s ( 1 1 p e r 1 , 0 0 0 h ou s e h o l d s ) t o b eburglarized while someone was home.
There was no consistent pattern in the risk ofexperiencing a burglary when no one was homeby the number of units in a housing structure.
However, a pattern was obser ved when ahousehold member was home. Households
residing in single-family units and households
residing in higher density structures consistingof 10 or more units (8 per 1,000 households)
generally had lower rates of household burglary
while a household member was present.

Damaging or removing a door was themost common type of entry in forcible andattempted forcible entry burglaries
Removing or damaging a window screen during
a forcible entry was equally likely to occur
whether the residence was occupied (11%) or
unoccupied (9%) (table 5). In comparison,tampering with a door handle was less likely tooccur while a household member was present(20%) than when no one was home (26%).

Attempted forcible entry burglaries differedsomewhat from forcible burglaries. Damaging or
removing window screens were an equally likely
method of an attempted entry by an offender tooccupied (22%) or unoccupied (18%) residences(table 6). However, burglars were more likely toattempt to enter a household by tampering withdoor handles or locks when household members
were not in the residence (30%) than while theresidence was occupied (19%).

Table 5.
Method of entry and type of damage in completed household burglary involving
forcible entry, 2003–2007
Household member not present
Method of entry and
Average annual
type of damage
number
Percent
Window
462,430
48.8 %
Pane damaged or removed
284,340
30.0
Screen damaged or removed
83,2508.8
Lock damaged or unlocked
71,720
7.6
Other damage*23,1202.4
Door696,29073.4 %
Damaged or removed
412,860
43.5
Screen damaged or removed
15,8001.7
Handle/lock removed or
tampered
242,660
25.6
Other damage*24,970
2.6
Other entry*
13,060
1.4 %Household member present
Average annual
number
Percent
80,67047.0 %
47,36027.6
19,380
11.3
9,780
5.7
4,150
2.4 ^
120,800
70.4 %
76,050
44.3
6,970
4.1
33,700
4,080
4,420

19.6
2.4 ^
2.6 %^

Note: Forcible entry is a completed burglary in which force, such as breaking a window or slashing adoor screen, is used to gain entry to a residence. Percentages will not add to 100 because households
may report more than one type of damage.
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
*Other unspecified entry or damage.

Table 6.
Method of entry and type of damage in attempted household burglary involving
forcible entry, 2003–2007
Method of entry andtype of damage
Window
Pane damaged, broken,
removed, or cracked
Screen damaged or
removedLock damaged or
tampered
Other damage*
Door
Damaged or removed
Screen damaged or
removedHandle/lock removed or
tampered
Other damage*
Other entry*

Household member not present
Household member present
Average annual
Average annual
number
Percent
number
Percent
187,800
44.1 %
105,550
56.1 %
85,92020.2

46,65024.8

75,44017.7

40,46021.5

17,0909,350
316,890
159,8104.0
2.2
74.5 %
37.6

7,940
10,500108,080
56,270

4.2
5.6
57.5 %
29.9

16,450

3.9

9,570

5.1

125,550
15,080
5,100

29.5
3.5
1.2 %^

35,340
6,900
3,340

18.8
3.7
1.8 %^

Note: Attempted forcible entry is a burglary in which force was used in an unsuccessful attempt togain entry to a residence. Percentages will not add to 100 because households may report more than
one type of damage.
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
*Other unspecified entry or damage.

September 20105

Table 7.
Method of entry in household burglary involving unlawful entry, by presence ofhousehold member, 2003–2007
Method of entry
Total
Someone let the offender in
Offender pushed way inside
Open door or window
Unlocked door or window
Had key
Picked lock or window
Unknown means throughlocked door or window
By other means
Don't know

Household member not present
Average annual
number
Percent
1,217,030
100.0 %
19,960
1.6 %
2,750
0.2 ^
209,43017.2
481,230
39.5
95,7407.9
49,6004.1
64,340260,870
33,110

5.3
21.4
2.7

Household member present
Average annual
number
Percent
623,520100.0 %
109,81017.6 %
73,79011.8
168,560
27.0
174,760
28.0
22,4903.6
14,0202.2
10,72038,890
10,480

1.7
6.2
1.7

Note: Unlawful entry is a completed burglary committed by someone having no legal right to be on thepremises even though no force was used to gain entry. An offender may gain access to a residence whenhousehold members are not present by being let in by an individual not living in the household, such asa visiting guest, housekeeper, or repair person. Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.

Table 8.
Victim activity during household burglaries, by presence of household member,
2003–2007
Type of activity
Total
Working or on duty
On the way to or from work
On the way to or from school
On the way to or from otherplace
Shopping/errands
Attending school
Leisure activity away fromhome
Sleeping
Activities at home
Other activity*
Don't know

Household member not present
Average annual
number
Percent
2,612,060
100.0 %
656,180
25.1 %
38,4601.5
36,8401.4

Household member present
Average annual
number
Percent
1,024,230
100.0 %
38,4703.8 %14,160
1.4
1,630
0.2

53,990176,280
39,860

2.1
6.7
1.5

9,000
16,980
1,560

0.9
1.7
0.2

607,640
144,370
80,190167,380
610,870

23.3
5.5
3.1
6.4
23.4

48,120389,880
450,910
26,59026,920

4.7
38.1
44.0
2.6
2.6

Note: Respondents may report at home activities when someone other than a household member is in
the residence at the time of the burglary. Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.
*The other activity category is specified when it is not clear what the respondent was doing or where therespondent was at the time of the victimization. Examples include the respondent was in the hospital or
taking care of a sick friend.

Table 9.
Time of occurrence of household burglaries, by presence of household member,
2003–2007

Time of day
Total
Daytime (6 am - 6 pm)
Nighttime (6 pm - 6 am)
Don't know time of day

6

Household member not present
Average annual
number
Percent
2,683,270
100.0 %
1,159,450
43.2 %
697,940
26.0
825,88030.8

Victimization During Household Burglary

Household member present
Average annual
number
Percent
1,021,430
100.0 %
336,340
32.9 %
626,150
61.3
58,940
5.8

Offenders used an open door or window togain unlawful entry in 17% of unoccupied
residences
In 40% of unlawful entries to unoccupied
residences, offenders gained access through an
unlocked door or window (table 7). A smaller
percentage (5%) of unlawful entries while no one
was home was through a locked door or windowby unknown means; 8% of offenders used a key
to the residence to gain access.
For households occupied at the time of theburglary, offenders were equally likely to gain
unlawful entr y through an open (27%) or
unlocked (28%) door or window. Respondents in
18% of burglaries of occupied residences statedthat someone inside the home let the offender in;
12% stated that someone inside opened the door
and the offender pushed their way in. Nearly 4%
stated that the offender had a key to theresidence and used the key to gain access.

Household members were at work during aquarter of burglaries that took place while
no one was home
In households in which no one was home about
a quarter stated that household members were atwork when the burglary occurred (table 8). A
similar percentage (23%) of households wereaway from their residences and engaged inleisure activities when the burglary took place.
Victims in 38% of households burglarized whilesomeone was home were asleep at the time of theburglary while 44% of households stated thathousehold members were engaged in otheractivities in the home when the offender gained
entry to the residence.
Households burglaries that occurred when no
one was home were more likely to occur between
the daytime hours of 6 am and 6 pm (43%) thanbetween the hours of 6 pm to 6 am (26%) (table
9). Conversely, a household member was more
likely to be present during a nighttime burglary(61%) than during one that occurred between
the daytime hours of 6 am and 6 pm (33%).

With the exception cash, items were more
likely to be stolen when residents were nothome at the time of a burglary
Purses, wallets, credit cards (29%), electronics(33%), and personal items (31%) made up alarger percentage of items stolen curing aburglary that occurred when no one was homecompared to burglaries that took place when ahousehold member was present (table 10).
Firearms were stolen in 4% of burglaries ofunoccupied households. Cash was equally likely
to be stolen regardless of whether a household
was o c c upie d or u no c c upie d du r ing t hehousehold burglar y. Fifty-five percent ofhouseholds burglarized while a resident washome, stated that no items were taken during theburglar y compared to 25% of households
burglarized while no one was home.

Households burglarized while no one washome were more likely to suffer greater
economic losses
Households burglarized while no one was homewere more likely to suffer greater economic
losses than those burglarized while occupied(table 11). Thirty p ercent of hous eholds
burglarized while no one was home had stolen
items valued at more than $1,000; 17% ofburglaries with household members present
ex p er i enc e d t he f ts of $ 1, 00 0 or g re ater.
Households burglarized while a household
member was present were more likely to suffer
losses of less than $250, compared to othercategories.

About three-quarters of all householdburglaries by forcible entry while no one
was home were reported to the police
The percentages of burglaries reported to thepolice, forcible, unlawful, and attempted forcible
entr y burglaries were equally likely to bereported regardless of whether a household
member was home at the time of the burglary(table 12). However, differences were observed
among forcible entr y, unlawful entr y, andattempted forcible entry in the percentages ofburglaries by household members being present
and household members not being present.
For households burglarized while no one was home,forcible entry burglaries (73%) were more likely to bereported to the police than unlawful (41%) or

attempted forcible (41%) entry burglaries. More than
three-quarters (78%) of households with memberspresent during a forcible burglary reported the crime,
52% reported unlawful burglary, and 62% reported
attempted forcible entry. These differences were notstatistically significant.

Table 10.
Type of items taken, 2003–2007

Type of item
No items taken
Cash
Purse, wallet, credit cards
Electronics
Jewelry, watches, keys
Personal itemsa
Household itemsb
Firearms
Food/liquor
Other items taken

Household member not present
Average annual
number
Percent
676,360
25.2 %
147,410
5.5
774,61028.8
876,65032.6
355,430
13.2
823,89030.7
597,890
22.2
94,9603.5
92,4603.4
178,260
6.6

Household member present
Average annual
number
Percent
566,300
55.2 %
58,5905.7
106,700
10.4
131,460
12.8
54,0805.3
164,190
16.0
86,340
8.4
7,630
0.7
14,3301.4
31,7703.1

Note: Totals may exceed 100% because households may report more than one item stolen.
aIncludes stamps, coin collections, recreational equipment, clothing, luggage, bicycles or bicycle parts,
and animals or livestock.
b

Includes silver, china, tools, machinery, and farm or garden produce.

Table 11.
Economic loss in household burglaries where property was stolen, 2003-2007
Household member not present
Average annual
Property value
number
Percent
Total
2,011,130
100.0 %
No property loss
20,7001.0 %Less than $10
26,520
1.3$10 to $49
145,130
7.2$50 to $249
496,530
24.7$250 to $999
535,11026.6$1,000 or more
601,860
29.9
Monetary value not Known
185,280
9.2

Household member present
Average annual
number
Percent
459,230
100.0 %
6,690
1.5 %
8,720
1.9
53,72011.7
140,61030.6
114,370
24.9
79,57017.3.
55,54012.1

Note: Includes cash and non-cash property. Households may report both cash and non-cash losses.
Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Table 12.
Household burglary reported to police, by type of entry, 2003–2007
Type of burglary
All burglary
Completed burglary
Forcible entry
Unlawful entry
Attempted forcible entry

Percent of household burglaries while—
Member not present
Member present
52.4 %
58.6 %
54.5 %
57.8 %
73.1
78.2
40.8
52.2
40.8 %
62.2 %

September 20107

Table 13.
Reasons for not reporting household burglary to police, by presence ofhousehold member, 2003–2007
ReasonNot important enough to report
Minor crime
Not clear a crime occurred
Inconvenient
Private or personal matter
Police could not help
Could not identify offender/lack of proof
No insurance, loss less than deductible
Could not recover or identify property
Police would not help
Police ineffectiveness
Police biased
Police would not bother
Crime was discovered too late
Reasons related to the offenderChild offenderProtect offender
Afraid of reprisal
Offender was a police officer
Other reasons
Don't know why I did not report it
Other reason given
Other reason not listed
Total not reported

Percent of reasons for not reporting when—
Member not present
Member present
29.5
4.4
5.3
7.5

28.6
5.9
4.5
17.6

17.9
4.3
8.5

14.6
3.1
4.1

6.8
1.5
14.6
10.1

4.6
2.6
13.1
6.4

1.8
2.3
0.9
0.1 ^

2.7
4.5
6.1
--

1.5
0.1 ^
11.5
1,181,990

1.4
0.3 ^
12.1
396,170

Note: Percent may exceed 100% because households may report more than one reason for not reportingto the police.
--No cases were present for this category.
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases. Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Table 14.
Household burglary of occupied residences, by victim-offender relationship,
2003–2007
Relationship
Total
Offender known to the victim
Intimates (current or former)
Relatives/known
acquaintances
Strangers
Unknown offenderb

All burglary
1,025,520
29.5 %
10.6

Completeda
824,32033.5 %
11.9

Type of burglary
Attempted forcible entry
201,200
13.1 %
5.0

18.9
24.2
46.3

21.6
24.1
42.4

8.0
24.5
62.4

Note: Totals may exceed 100% because estimates include multiple offenders. Percentages are calculated
as the number of households victimized by each victim offender category divided by the number ofhouseholds burglaries in which someone was present.
aIncludes forcible entry and unlawful entry without force.

bSurvey respondents may not have been able to provide information on the offender because therespondents were not the household members present during the burglary, or the respondents may nothave been able to see the offender clearly because of dim lighting (darkness), concealed identity, or otherreasons.

8

Victimization During Household Burglary

For households burglarized while residents were
not present, the most common reasons for notreporting the victimization to the police werethat the burglary was considered a minor crime(30%), the resident could not identify theoffender or the resident lacked proof (18%), thepolice would not bother investigating the crime(15%), or that the crime was discovered too late(10%) (table 13).

Offenders were known to their victims in athird of households burglarized when ahousehold member was present
Offenders were known to their victims in about athird of the 1 million average annual burglaries
from 2003 to 2007 that took place with ahousehold member present (table 14). About aquarter of households with a member present
during a completed rather than an attemptedburglary stated that the offender was a stranger;
42% stated that the offender was unknown.
Households were less likely to know the offenderin attempted forcible entry burglaries. The
offender was known to household members inabout 13% of households that experienced an
attempted forcible entry; the relationship to theoffender was unknown in 62% of these entries.

Violence during the course of a burglary
may be examined by two different means
The general risk of violence may be examined asa percentage of all household burglaries ofresidences that were occupied (household
member present) and unoccupied (household
member not present) during the burglary. The
specific risk of violence may be examined as apercentage of the number of burglaries with ahousehold member present during the course of
the burglary (see Methodology).

An assault occurred in 5% off all householdburglaries
In 7% of all household burglaries, someone washome at the time and experienced a violent
victimization (figure 1, table 15). This translates
to about 266,560 household burglaries out of
about 3.7 million taking place each year on
average.

Simple assault (15%) was the mostcommon form of violence during a completed burglary when a resident was home

Table 15.
Type of violence that occurred during household burglaries, by type of burglary,
2003–2007
Type of violence
Total
Rape/sexual assault
Robbery
Assault
Aggravated assault
Simple assault
Average annual number ofburglaries

All burglary
7.2 %
0.6 %
1.6 %
5.0 %
1.3
3.7

Type and percent of burglaries
Completed*
Attempted forcible entry
8.0 %
3.4 %
0.7 %
-- %
1.9 %
0.3 %
5.3 %
3.1 %
1.3
1.1
4.0
2.0

3,713,000

3,083,750

629,250

A household member was present in roughly 1
million burglaries from 2003 to 2007. Of thesehouseholds, 26% (or 266,560) experienced someform of a violent victimization during theburglary (figure 1, table 16).

Note: Estimates may not add to total due to rounding. Percentages are calculated as the number ofhouseholds in which someone experienced a violent crime during a household burglary divided by
the number of household burglaries.
--No cases were present for this category.
*Includes forcible entry and unlawful entry without force.

The type of violence against household memberspresent at the time of a burglary varied byburglary category. Simple assault was the mostcommon form of violence experienced byhousehold members present during completed(15%) and attempted (6%) burglaries. Robbery
was more likely to occur when a burglary wascompleted rather than attempted. A robbery
occ urred in 7% of completed burglaries,
compared to 1% of attempted forcible entries. An
aggravated assault against a household member
was equally likely to occur during a completed or
an attempted burglary. A rape or sexual assault
occurred in about 3% of households
experiencing a completed burglary.

Table 16.

Residents present during a burglary wereequally likely to be victimized by an
intimate partner (current or former) as
they were by a stranger
One or more household members knew theoffenders in some manner in 65% of the 266,560
burglaries that took place while someone waspresent and experienced violence (table 17).
Overall, household members knew
approximately a third of these offenders as
intimates (current or former) (31%), or relatives,

Type of violence that occurred during household burglaries when someone washome, by type of burglary, 2003–2007
Type of violence
Total
Rape/sexual assault
Robbery
Assault
Aggravated assault
Simple assault
Total average annual number ofburglaries of occupied residences

All burglary
26.0 %
2.2 %5.8 %18.0 %
4.6
13.3

Completed*29.7 %
2.7 %7.0 %20.0 %
4.9
15.1

1,025,520

Type of burglary
Attempted forcible entry
10.6 %
-- %
0.9 %
9.7 %
3.4
6.3

824,320

201,200

Note: Percentages are calculated as the number of households that experienced a violent crime divided
by the number of burglaries in which households were occupied.
--No cases were present for this category.
*Includes forcible entry and unlawful entry without force.

Table 17.
Victim-offender relationship in violent household burglary, 2003–2007
Relationship
Victim knew offender
Intimates (current or former)
Relatives/known acquaintances
Strangers
Unknown offenderb
Total average number of burglaries
where someone experienced violence

All burglary
65.1 %
31.1
34.0
27.5
7.4

Completeda
66.2 %
31.5
34.7
26.5
7.3

266,560

245,180

Type of burglary
Attempted forcible entry
51.7 %
26.3
25.5
39.7
8.5
21,380Note: Percentages are calculated as the number of households victimized by each victim offender
relationship category divided by the number of violent household burglaries.
aIncludes forcible entry and unlawful entry without force.

bSurvey respondents may not have been able to provide information on the offender because therespondents were not the household members present during the burglary.

September 20109

well-known individuals, or household
acquaintances (34%). A stranger perpetrated theviolence in 28% of households burglarized whilesomeone was home and violence occurred.
Findings for completed burglaries were similar
to those for all burglaries. Household members

Table 18.
Presence of weapon in violent household burglary, by type of burglary,
2003–2007
Type of weapon
No weapon present
Weapon present
Firearm
Sharp weapon
Other weapon type
Do not know if offender had weapon
Total average number of burglaries where
someone experienced violence

All burglary
60.5 %
30.1 %
12.4
10.6
7.2
9.3 %
266,560

Type of burglary
Completed* Attempted forcible entry
62.6 %
37.6 %
29.5 %
37.7 %
12.5
10.8 ^
10.1
16.3 ^
6.8 ^
10.6 ^
8.0 %
24.7 %^
245,180

21,380^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
*Includes forcible entry and unlawful entry without force.

Table 19.
Presence of weapons in violent household burglary committed by a stranger, by
type of burglary, 2003–2007
Type of weapon
No weapon present
Weapon present
Firearm
Sharp weapon
Other weapon type
Do not know if offender had weapon
Total

All burglary
40.2 %
45.5 %
23.3
15.8
6.5 *
14.2 %
73,360Type of burglary
Completed* Attempted forcible entry
40.2 %
40.2 %
46.6 %
37.4 %^
25.5
6.2 ^
13.8
31.2 ^
7.3 *-13.2 %*
22.3 %^
64,8608,500^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
--No cases were present for this category.
*Includes forcible entry and unlawful entry without force.

Table 20.
Injury in violent household burglary, by type of burglary, 2003–2007
Type of injury
Not injured
InjuredSerious injury
Minor injury
Rape/sexual assault without otherinjuries
Total

All burglary
55.7 %
44.3 %
8.5
33.4
2.4 ^
266,160--No cases were present for this category.
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
*Includes forcible entry and unlawful entry without force.

10

Victimization During Household Burglary

Type of burglary
Completed* Attempted forcible entry
52.5 %
92.3 %
47.5 %
7.7 %
9.2
-35.6
7.7 ^
2.6 ^
244,780-21,380knew offenders in some manner in two-thirds ofcompleted burglaries involving violence. Despite
the apparent differences between victimoffender relationships, when violence occurred
during a completed household burg lar y,
individuals present were equally likely to be
victimized by an intimate partner (current orformer) (32%) as they were by a stranger (27%).
Victims in violent burglaries were equally likely
to report knowing the offender in some mannerin an attempted forcible burglary as they were toreport the offender as a stranger.

Thirty percent of individuals experiencing
violence during a completed burglary faced
an armed offender
Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed whenburglarizing a home while residents were present
and violence occurred (table 18). Household
members faced an offender with a firearm inabout 12% of all households burglarized whilesomeone was home and violence occurred.
Household members present during a completed
burglar y were less likely to face an armed
offender (30%) than an unarmed offender(63%). Those present and violently victimized
during an attempted forcible entry were equally
likely to face an armed or an unarmed offender(38%). Offenders were armed with a firearm in
23% of burglaries in households (73,000 on
average) burglarized by a stranger where
violence occurred (table 19).

Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Supplementary
Homicide Reports,
2003-2007
According to the FBI’s Supplementar y
Homicide Reports, 430 burglary-related
homicides occurred between 2003 and 2007
on average annually. This number translates
to less than 1% of all homicides during that
period.
Between 2003 and 2007, approximately 2.1
million household burglaries were reported to
the FBI each year on average. Householdburglaries ending in homicide made up
0.004% of all burglaries during that period.

Household members were injured inalmost half of all completed burglaries
involving violence

Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR),
which are collected by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI).

Household members were more likely to be
injured during a completed burglary (48%) thanan attempted forcible entry burglary (8%) whena household member was present and violenceoccurred (table 20). Serious injury accounted for
9% and minor injury accounted for 36% of
injuries sustained by household members who
were home and experienced a violent crime
during a completed burglary. Most household
members who were present during a violent
burglary (92%) were not injured.

Definition of household burglary in the NCVS

Methodology
Data sources
The National Crime Victimization Sur vey(NCVS) gathers data on crimes against persons
ages 12 or older and their households, reported
and not reported to the police, from a nationally
representative sample of U.S. households. The
survey provides information about victims (age,gender, race, Hispanic origin, marital status,
income, and educat ion le vel), of fenders(genders, race, approximate age, and victimoffender relationship), and the nature of thecrime (time and place of occurrence, use of
weapons, nature of injur y, and economic
consequences). Between 2003 and 2007, 40,320
households were inter viewed annually on
average with a 91% household response rate.
Except for data on homicides, all estimatespresented in this report were generated from theN C VS . For m ore i n f or m at i on on N C VS
Methodology, see the Methodology section of
Criminal Victimization Statistical Tables on the
BJS Web site. Homicide data are from the
Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) to the

The legal definition for “household burglary”
may vary among jurisdictions. For the NCVS,
household burglary is defined as the entry or
attempted entry to a residence or adjacentstructure when a person has no right to be there.
This crime usually, but not always, involves theft.
Forcible entry is a completed burglary in which
force, such as breaking a window or slashing adoor screen, was used to gain entry to theresidence. Unlawful entr y is a completed
burglary committed by someone having no legal
right to be on the premises even though no force
was used to gain entry. Attempted forcible entry
is a burglary in which force was used in an
unsuccessful attempt to gain entry.
Missing data in the National Crime
Victimization Survey
As with any data collection, in the NCVS missing
data vary by survey item. The impact of missing
data depends on the specific survey item under
examination. In Victimization During Household
Burglary, there was no missing data associatedwith any of the burglar y or violent crime
estimates that occurred when residents were
present in the household. In contrast, thevariable 'Household Income' is consistently
characterized by high levels of missing data due
to reluctance on the part of survey respondents
to disclose their income. In this report, 22% ofincome data was missing for hous eholds
victimized while no one was home and 20% forhouseholds that were victimized while someone
was present in the household.

Appendix Table 1.
Standard errors and confidence intervals for key estimates in victimization during householdburglary.
95%-confidence interval
Characteristic
Household member present

Estimate
27.6 %One standard error
1.72 %

Lower

Upper

24.23 %

30.97 %

Percent violent of all household burglary

7.2

0.94

5.37

9.03

Percent violent of occupied household burglary

26.0

2.98

20.17

31.83

Note: Standard errors were calculated using programs developed by the Census Bureau to calculate NCVS general varianceparameters.

September 201011

This report, Victimization During Household
Burglary, differs from other NCVS reports inthat a different coding approach was constructedto combine burglaries where a household
member was present and experienced a violent
crime with burglaries that took place while noone was home. Presenting the analyses in thism a n n e r a l l ow s fo r a c omp ar i s on o f t h echaracteristics of present and non-present
burglaries and the examination of the coo c c u r re n c e of a re s i d e nt’s pre s e n c e a n dsubsequent victimization. As a result, estimatespresented in this report are not comparable tovictimization estimates of burglary or personal
crime contained in other NCVS reports. Thisapproach was used previously in Household
Burglary, 1985 (NCJ 96021).
Household member is defined as a household
member if the individual is using the sample
address as his or her usual place of residence att h e t i m e o f t h e i nt e r v i e w o r i s s t a y i n g
temporarily at the sample address at the time of
the interview and does not have a usual place ofresidence elsewhere.
Household burglary with household member notpresent is defined as any household burglary (asclassified in this report) that is committed whilea residence is not occupied by any household
members.
Household burglary with a household member
present is defined as any household burglarycommitted while one or more household
members are present in the household.

12

Victimization During Household Burglary

Violent household burglary is defined as any
household burglary committed while one ormore household members are present andviolence occurs between the offender andhousehold members.
General and specific risk
The estimates of risk in this report use measuresthat may include multiple victimizations perhousehold, and as such do not represent a truerisk measure bas ed on the prevalence ofvictimizations in the population. However, thetwo estimates are close.
For example, in 2005, approximately 2.5% ofhouseholds experienced a household burglary
victimization (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/
pub/pdf/cnh05.pdf ) while the current report
estimates a rate of 3.2 household burglaries per
100 households (32 per 1,000 households),
including ones in which violence occurred.
Standard error computations
Comparisons of percentages and rates were
tested to determine if observed differences were
statistically significant. Differences described as
higher, lower, or different passed a test at the 0.05
level of statistical significance (95%-confidence
level). Differences described as somewhat,lightly, or marginally passed a test at the 0.10level of statistical significance (90%-confidence
level). Caution is required when comparing
estimates not explicitly discussed in the report.
Estimates based on 10 or fewer cases have highrelative standard errors. Care should be taken
when comparing these estimates to otherestimates, especially when both are based on 10
or fewer sample cases.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics*NCJ~227379*

PRESORTED STANDARDPOSTAGE & FEES PAID
DOJ/BJS
Permit No. G-91

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of
the U.S. Department of Justice. James P. Lynch is director.
This Special Report was written by Shannan Catalano,
Ph.D. Alexia Cooper verified the report.
Georgette Walsh and Jill Duncan edited the report, Tina
Dorsey produced the report, and Jayne Robinson prepared
the report for final printing under the supervision of Doris
J. James.
September 2010, NCJ 227379

13

Victimization During Household Burglary

This report in portable document format and in ASCII and its
related statistical data and tables are available at the BJS World
Wide Web Internet site: <http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/
index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2172>.

Office of Justice Programs
Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov