U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Special Report

November 2014 ncj 248384

Household Poverty and Nonfatal 

Violent Victimization, 2008–2012

Erika Harrell, Ph.D., and Lynn Langton, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians, Marcus Berzofsky, Dr.P.H., Lance Couzens, and 

Hope Smiley-McDonald, Ph.D., RTI International

For the period 2008–12, persons living in poor 

households at or below the Federal Poverty Level 

(FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the 

rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income 

households (16.9 per 1,000) (figure 1). The percentage of 

persons reporting violence to police was also higher among 

households at or below the FPL. More than half of victims 

of violence from poor households (51%) reported the 

victimization to police, compared to 45% of victims from 

high-income households.

This report uses data from the National Crime Victimization 

Survey (NCVS) to describe the nature of nonfatal violence 

against persons age 12 or older living in households 

defined by their percentage above, at, or below the FPL, as 

measured by the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (see Methodology). The report shows how race 

and Hispanic origin, location of residence, and poverty are 

related to violent victimization and the reporting of violent 

victimization to police. Throughout the report, the terms at 

or below the FPL, poor, low income, mid-income, and high 

income are used to describe household poverty levels. At 

or below the FPL or poor refers to persons in households 

at 0% to 100% of the FPL. Low income refers to persons 

Highlights

This report describes the relationship between nonfatal violent 

victimization and household poverty level as measured by the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Data are from 

the National Crime Victimization Survey. In 2008–12—

 Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty 

Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the 

rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income 

households (16.9 per 1,000).

 Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence 

involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons 

above the FPL (0.8–2.5 per 1,000).

 The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest 

rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites 

and blacks. However, the rate of violent victimization for 

Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels.

 Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence 

compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks 

(43.4 per 1,000).

 Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had 

violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in 

rural areas (38.8 per 1,000).

 Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence 

similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).

 Violence against persons in poor (51%) and low-income 

(50%) households was more likely to be reported to police 

than violence against persons in mid- (43%) and highincome (45%) households.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Poor Low income Mid-income High income

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older

Figure 1

Rate of violent victimization, by household poverty level, 

2008–2012

Note: Poor refers to households at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). 

Low income refers to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income refers 

to households at 201% to 400% of the FPL. High income refers to households at 

401% or higher than the FPL. See table 1 for estimates and appendix table 1 for 

standard errors.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012. 
Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014 2

in households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income 

refers to persons in households at 201% to 400% of the 

FPL. High income refers to persons in households at 401% 

or higher than the FPL. The FPL is generally considered 

a more robust measure of economic status than income 

alone because it takes into account the size of the household 

(see Methodology).

The trend estimates presented in this report are based on 

2-year rolling averages centered on the most recent year. For 

example, estimates reported for 2010 represent the average 

estimates for 2009 and 2010. Other tables focus on the 

5-year aggregate period from 2008 through 2012, referred to 

throughout the report as 2008–12. Both approaches—using 

rolling averages and aggregating multiple years of data—

increase the reliability and stability of estimates and facilitate 

comparisons of detailed victimization characteristics.

Persons in poor households consistently had the 

highest rates of violent victimization 

Each year from 2009 to 2012, persons living in poor 

households had a higher rate of nonfatal violent 

victimization compared to persons in households above 

the FPL (figure 2). However, trends in the rate of violent 

victimization varied across poverty levels. The rate of violent 

victimization for poor persons decreased from 43.1 per 

1,000 in 2009 to 34.9 per 1,000 in 2010 and 34.4 per 1,000 

in 2011. In 2012, it increased to a rate similar to that in 2009 

(41.9 per 1,000). For low-income persons, the rate remained 

relatively flat during the study period. For mid-income 

persons, the rate declined slightly from 2009 to 2012. For 

high-income persons, the rate of violence declined from 

2009 (16.2 per 1,000) to 2010 (13.6 per 1,000); by 2012, the 

rate was higher than it had been in 2009 (19.6 per 1,000).

In 2009, high-income persons had the lowest rate of violent 

victimization, compared to persons in all other poverty levels. 

By 2012, mid-income persons (19.1 per 1,000) and highincome persons (19.6 per 1,000) had similar rates of violent 

victimization—both of which were lower than the rates for 

low-income persons (27.6 per 1,000) and those at or below the 

FPL (41.9 per 1,000). 

Persons in poor households had more than triple 

the rate of serious violence compared to persons in 

high-income households

In 2008–12, the rate of violent victimization was highest 

for persons in poor households (39.8 per 1,000) and lowest 

for persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000) 

(table 1). This pattern was consistent across all types of 

violent crime.

Table 1

Average annual number and rate of violent victimization, by poverty level and type of crime, 2008–2012

All poverty levels Poor Low income Mid-income High income

Type of crime Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate

Total violent crime 5,930,800 23.1 1,383,700 39.8 1,385,700 26.5 1,597,800 20.8 1,563,600 16.9

Serious violent crime 1,920,600 7.5 526,900 15.2 467,800 9.0 506,800 6.6 419,100 4.5

Rape/sexual assault 303,000 1.2 75,300 2.2 63,300 1.2 104,800 1.4 59,500 0.6

Robbery 636,500 2.5 190,800 5.5 157,900 3.0 137,100 1.8 150,700 1.6

Aggravated assault 981,100 3.8 260,700 7.5 246,600 4.7 264,900 3.4 208,900 2.3

Simple assault 4,010,200 15.6 856,800 24.7 917,800 17.6 1,091,000 14.2 1,144,600 12.4

Note: Average annual number rounded to the nearest 100. Victimization rates are per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. Poor refers to households at 0% to 100% of the 

Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Low income refers to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income refers to households at 201% to 400% of the FPL. High income 

refers to households at 401% or higher than the FPL. See appendix table 1 for standard errors. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

0

10

20

30

40

50

High income

Mid income

Low income

Poor

2009 2010 2011 2012

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older

Figure 2

Rate of violent victimization, by poverty level, 2009–2012

Note: Based on 2-year rolling averages centered on most recent year. Poor refers 

to households at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Low income refers 

to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income refers to households at 

201% to 400% of the FPL. High income refers to households at 401% or higher than 

the FPL. See appendix table 2 for estimates and standard errors.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012. 
Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014 3

Across all poverty levels, serious violence (rape or sexual 

assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) accounted for 

less than half of violent victimizations. However, serious 

violence accounted for a greater percentage of violence 

among persons in poor households (38%) than those in 

high-income households (27%) (not shown in table).

Stranger violence was more common for persons 

living in poor households

In 2008–12, persons in poor households had higher rates of 

stranger (12.3 per 1,000) and nonstranger (24.2 per 1,000) 

violence compared to persons at all other poverty levels 

(table 2). The rate of intimate partner violence for persons 

in poor households (8.1 per 1,000) was almost double the 

rate for low-income persons (4.3 per 1,000) and almost four 

times the rate for high-income persons (2.1 per 1,000).

Table 2

Rate of violent victimization, by victim–offender 

relationship and poverty level, 2008–2012

Victim–offender relationship

All 

poverty 

levels Poor

Low 

income

MidincomeHigh

income

Total 23.1 39.8 26.5 20.8 16.9

Nonstranger 12.4 24.2 15.3 10.1 8.1

Intimate partner 3.6 8.1 4.3 2.8 2.1

Other relative 1.6 3.4 2.4 1.2 0.9

Friend/acquaintance 7.1 12.7 8.6 6.1 5.1

Stranger 8.6 12.3 9.1 8.4 7.0

Unknown 1.3 2.2 1.3 1.3 0.9

Note: Victimization rates are per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. Poor refers to 

households at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Low income refers 

to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income refers to households at 

201% to 400% of the FPL. High income refers to households at 401% or higher 

than the FPL. See appendix table 3 for standard errors.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Rates of violent victimization by poverty level and income categories were closely 

aligned

The main measure of poverty for this report is a household’s 

percentage above, at, or below the Federal Poverty Level 

(FPL). Prior Bureau of Justice Statistics reports have examined 

the relationship between annual household income and 

victimization. However, annual household income may be a 

misleading indicator of household wealth or poverty because 

it does not take into account the number of persons in the 

household. Using annual household income, household 

size, and the U.S. Federal Poverty Guidelines established 

by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, this 

report classifies persons according to how their annual 

household income and household size compare to the FPL 

(see Methodology).

Although poverty level is a more robust measure than income 

alone, similar patterns in the relationship between wealth and 

victimization were observed regardless of whether income or 

poverty was used. Persons in households in the lowest income 

bracket (less than $15,000) (40.6 per 1,000) and persons in 

poor households (39.8 per 1,000) had similar rates of violent 

victimization, and both groups had the highest rates of violent 

victimization (figure 3). Regardless of the measure used, the 

rate of violence decreased as households moved above the 

FPL or income level increased. 

Annual household income or poverty level

0 10 20 30 40 50

Poor

Less than $15,000

Low income

$15,000–$24,999

Mid-income

$25,000–$74,999

High income

$75,000 or more

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older

Figure 3

Rate of violent victimization, by poverty level and annual 

household income, 2008–2012

Note: Poor refers to househholds at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty 

Level (FPL). Low income refers to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. 

Mid-income refers to households at 201% to 400% of the FPL. High income 

refers to households at 401% or higher than the FPL. See appendix table 4 for 

estimates and standard errors.

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

2008–2012.
Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014 4

Persons in poor and in low-income households had higher 

rates of violence by nonstrangers than strangers. For persons 

in these households, about 60% of violent victimizations 

were committed by someone known to the victim (not 

shown in table). In comparison, among persons in mid- and 

high-income households, less than half of victimizations 

were committed by a nonstranger. Among high-income 

households, there was no statistically significant difference in 

the rates of violence by strangers and nonstrangers.

Persons in poor households had the highest rate of 

violence involving a weapon 

In 2008–12, persons in poor households had a higher rate of 

violent victimization involving a weapon (9.6 per 1,000) and 

a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) 

compared to persons above the FPL (table 3). The rate of 

violence involving a weapon decreased as households moved 

away from the FPL. For example, persons in high-income 

households had the lowest rates of weapon (2.8 per 1,000) 

and firearm (0.8 per 1,000) violence among all poverty levels.

At each poverty level, the percentage of violence in which 

the offender had a weapon was lower than the percentage 

not involving a weapon. However, for persons in poor 

households, a greater percentage of violent victimizations 

involved a weapon (24%) compared to the percentage for 

persons in high-income households (16%) (not shown 

in table).

Poor whites and blacks had higher rates of violent 

victimization than poor Hispanics

The overall pattern of persons in poor households having the 

highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both 

non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks (figure 4). 

The rate of violent victimization was 46.4 per 1,000 for poor 

whites and 43.4 per 1,000 for poor blacks. For both groups, 

persons in high-income households had the lowest rates of 

violence. However, this pattern did not hold for Hispanics. 

In 2008–12, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics 

did not vary significantly across poverty levels.

At each of the poverty levels measured, there was no 

statistically significant difference between whites and blacks 

in the rate of violent victimization. Among persons in midand high-income households, the rates of violence were 

similar for whites, blacks, and Hispanics. However, poor 

whites and blacks had higher rates of victimization than 

poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000). Poor Hispanics had similar 

rates of violence as blacks living in high-income households 

(22.7 per 1,000).

Table 3

Rate of violent victimization, by presence of a weapon and 

poverty level, 2008–2012

Type of weapon

All 

poverty 

levels Poor

Low 

income

MidincomeHigh 

income

Total 23.1 39.8 26.5 20.8 16.9

No weapon 16.8 27.2 19.2 15.3 12.8

Weapon 4.7 9.6 5.8 4.1 2.8

Firearm 1.7 3.5 2.5 1.3 0.8

Non-firearm 3.1 6.1 3.3 2.9 1.9

Do not know if

 weapon present 1.6 3.0 1.5 1.4 1.4

Note: Victimization rates are per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. Poor refers to 

households at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Low income refers 

to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income refers to households at 

201% to 400% of the FPL. High income refers to households at 401% or higher 

than the FPL. See appendix table 5 for standard errors.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Hispanic/Latino

Black/African American

White

Poor Low income Mid-income High income

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older

Figure 4

Rate of violent victimization by poverty level and race or 

Hispanic origin, 2008–2012 

Note: Poor refers to households at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). 

Low income refers to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income refers 

to households at 201% to 400% of the FPL. High income refers to households 

at 401% or higher than the FPL. Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, 

unless specified. See appendix table 6 for estimates and standard errors.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.
Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014 5

Regardless of location of residence, persons in 

poor households had the highest rates of violent 

victimization

Regardless of whether households were in urban, suburban, 

or rural areas, persons in poor households had the highest 

rates of violence (figure 5). In urban (19.9 per 1,000) and 

suburban (16.1 per 1,000) areas, persons in high-income 

households had the lowest rates, while in rural areas, rates 

were similar for persons in mid- (15.2 per 1,000) and 

high- (13.3 per 1,000) income households. 

Among persons in poor households, the rates of violence 

were similar in urban (43.9 per 1,000) and rural (38.8 per 

1,000) areas. However, among low-, mid-, and high-income 

households, rates of violent victimization were higher in 

urban areas than in rural areas. For low- and mid-income 

households, urban areas had the highest rates of violence. 

Among high-income households, there was no statistically 

significant difference in the rates of violence in urban 

(19.9 per 1,000) and suburban (16.1 per 1,000) areas.

In 2008–12, poor whites (56.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks 

(51.3 per 1,000) in urban households had higher rates 

of violence than persons in all other types of households 

(figure 6). High-income blacks in urban areas (30.1 

per 1,000) had similar rates of violence as poor blacks 

in suburban (35.8 per 1,000) and rural (30.1 per 1,000) 

households.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Rural

Suburban Urban

Poor Low income Mid-income High income

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older

Figure 5

Rate of violent victimization, by poverty level and location of 

residence, 2008–2012

Note: Poor refers to households at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). 

Low income refers to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income refers 

to households at 201% to 400% of the FPL. High income refers to households 

at 401% or higher than the FPL. See appendix table 7 for estimates and 

standard errors.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Poor Low income Mid-income High income

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older Urban

Hispanic/Latino

Black/African American

White

Figure 6

Rate of violent victimization, by poverty level, race or 

Hispanic origin, and location of residence, 2008–2012 

Note: Poor refers to households at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). 

Low income refers to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income refers 

to households at 201% to 400% of the FPL. High income refers to households 

at 401% or higher than the FPL. Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, 

unless specified. See appendix table 8 for estimates and standard errors.

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or 

coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Poor Low income Mid-income High income

Suburban

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Poor Low income Mid-income High income

Rural

!

!

!

!
Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014 6

Violence against persons in poor and low-income 

households was more likely to be reported to 

police than violence against persons in mid- and 

high- income households

In 2008–12, about half of violent victimizations against 

persons in poor households (51%) and in low-income 

households (50%) were reported to police. In comparison, 

43% of victimizations against persons in mid-income 

households and 45% of victimizations against persons 

in high-income households were reported (table 4). The 

percentage of serious violence reported to police did not 

vary significantly by poverty level. 

At all poverty levels, a greater percentage of serious violence 

than simple assault was reported to police. However, the 

percentage of serious violence reported to police among 

persons in mid- (53%) and high- (52%) income households 

was not significantly different from the percentage of simple 

assault reported by persons in poor households (46%). 

Among blacks, the percentage of violent 

victimizations reported to police did not vary by 

poverty level

The pattern of lower reporting of violence among mid- and 

high-income households held true for whites but not for 

blacks or Hispanics (figure 7). Among blacks, there was no 

significant variation across poverty levels in the percentage 

of violent victimizations reported to police. Among 

Hispanics, a lower percentage of violence against persons 

in mid-income households (36%) than those in either 

poor (50%) or low-income (50%) households was reported 

to police.

Except for mid-income households, there was no statistically 

significant difference in the percentage of violence against 

whites, blacks, and Hispanics reported to police at all 

poverty levels. Among mid-income households, a higher 

percentage of violence against blacks (53%) than against 

Hispanics (36%) was reported to police. 

Table 4

Violence reported to police, by type of crime and poverty 

level, 2008–2012

Poverty level

Total violent 

crime

Serious violent 

crime

Simple 

assault

Total 46.9% 55.7% 42.7% 

Poor 50.6% 58.2% 45.9% 

Low income 50.0 59.1 45.4

Mid-income 43.1 52.8 38.7

High income 44.7 52.3 42.0

Note: Poor refers to households at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). 

Low income refers to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income refers 

to households at 201% to 400% of the FPL. High income refers to households at 

401% or higher than the FPL. See appendix table 9 for standard errors.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Hispanic/Latino

Black/African American

White

Poor Low income Mid-income High income

Percent

Figure 7

Violent victimization reported to police by poverty level and 

race or Hispanic origin, 2008–2012

Note: Poor refers to households at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty 

Level (FPL). Low income refers to households at 101% to 200% 

of the FPL. Mid-income refers to households at 201% to 400% of 

the FPL. High income refers to households at 401% or higher than 

the FPL. Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, unless specified. See 

appendix table 10 for estimates and standard errors. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.
Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014 7

The overall pattern of lower reporting among high-income 

households generally held true in urban areas but not in 

rural or suburban areas. In urban areas, violence against 

persons in high-income households (43%) was less likely 

to be reported to police than violence against persons in 

households at lower poverty levels (figure 8). In comparison, 

in rural areas, violence against victims in high-income 

households (64%) was more likely to be reported to police 

than violence against those in households at other poverty 

levels. In suburban areas, there was no statistically significant 

difference in the percentage of violence reported to police by 

victims in poor (47%) and high-income (43%) households.

Among persons in poor households and in low- and 

mid-income households, there was no statistically significant 

difference in the percentage of violence reported to police 

in urban, suburban, and rural areas. Among persons 

in high-income households, the percentage of violence 

reported to police in rural areas (64%) was higher than 

the percentage reported in urban (43%) and suburban 

(43%) areas. 0

20

40

60

80

100

Rural

Suburban

Urban

Poor Low income Mid-income High income

Percent

Figure 8

Violent victimization reported to police, by poverty level and 

location of residence, 2008–2012

Note: Poor refers to households at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). 

Low income refers to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income refers 

to households at 201% to 400% of the FPL. High income refers to households at 

401% or higher than the FPL. See appendix table 11 for estimates and standard 

errors. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.
Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014 8

Among white and Hispanic households in urban areas, 

there was no variation in reporting to police across poverty 

levels (figure 9). However, among black households in urban 

areas, a lower percentage of violence against persons in 

high-income households (36%) was reported to police than 

violence against all other persons. Among black and white 

suburban households, there was no statistically significant 

difference between low- and high-income households in 

the percentage of reported victimizations. In rural areas, the 

percentage of reported violence varied across poverty levels 

for blacks and whites but not for Hispanics. 

Across all poverty levels in urban areas, there was no 

statistically significant difference in the percentage of 

violence against whites, blacks, and Hispanics reported to 

police. Among persons in poor households in suburban and 

rural areas, there was no statistically significant difference 

in the percentage of violence against whites, blacks, and 

Hispanics reported to police. However, among high-income 

households in suburban and rural areas, a greater percentage 

of violence against blacks was reported to police than 

violence against whites. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Hispanic/Latino

Black/African American

White

Poor Low income Mid-income High income

Percent Urban

Figure 9

Violent victimization reported to police, by poverty level, 

race or Hispanic origin, and location of residence, 2008–2012

Note: Poor refers to households at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). 

Low income refers to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income refers 

to households at 201% to 400% of the FPL. High income refers to households 

at 401% or higher than the FPL. Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, 

unless specified. See appendix table 12 for estimates and standard errors. 

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or 

coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Suburban

0

20

40

60

80

100

Poor Low income Mid-income High income

Rural

0

20

40

60

80

100

Poor Low income Mid-income High income

!

!

!

!

!
Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014 9

Characteristics of persons in households at each poverty level

In 2008–12, 14% of persons lived in poor households. Based 

on the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ classification, over a third 

(36%) of persons were in households at 401% or higher than 

the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), classified as high-income 

households (table 5).

A greater percentage of females (55%) than males (45%) 

lived in poor households, and males accounted for half of 

persons in high-income households (51%). While whites 

accounted for 68% of all persons nationwide, they were 

disproportionately represented in high-income households 

(78%) and underrepresented among poor households (49%). 

In comparison, blacks and Hispanics accounted for 20% to 

25% of persons in poor households, and each accounted for 

8% of persons in high-income households.

A greater percentage of persons in poor households (42%) 

lived in urban areas compared to persons in high-income 

households (29%). Likewise, a disproportionately high 

percentage of persons in high-income households resided 

in suburban areas (59%) compared to the national average 

(52%). There was little variation across regions of the country 

in the distribution of persons at different poverty levels. 

There was a close relationship between income and poverty 

as demonstrated by the income distribution of households 

at different poverty levels. In 2008–12, 73% of persons in 

poor households had an annual household income of less 

than $15,000. Among low- (59%) and mid- (88%) income 

households, the majority of persons fell in the $25,000 to 

$74,999 income bracket. For high-income households, 80% of 

persons had a household income of $75,000 or higher. 

Table 5

Characteristics of persons in households, by poverty level, 2008–2012

Characteristic Total Poor Low income Mid-income High income

Total 100% 13.6% 20.4% 30.0% 36.1%

Sex 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Male 48.8 45.0 47.0 49.2 50.9

Female 51.2 55.0 53.0 50.8 49.1

Race/Hispanic origina

White 67.6% 48.6% 57.1% 70.4% 78.2%

Black/African American 11.8 19.7 14.6 11.3 7.8

Hispanic/Latino 14.3 24.7 21.8 12.6 7.6

Otherb 6.3 7.0 6.5 5.8 6.4

Location of residence

Urban 32.0% 41.6% 33.7% 29.5% 29.5%

Suburban 51.9 38.5 46.1 53.3 59.2

Rural 16.1 20.0 20.2 17.2 11.4

Region

Northeast 18.5% 16.2% 15.9% 17.9% 21.4%

Midwest 22.8 22.7 22.7 23.5 22.3

South 35.7 38.9 37.8 35.9 33.2

West 22.9 22.2 23.6 22.7 23.1

Annual household income

Less than $15,000 11.2% 72.6% 6.7% -- --

$15,000–$24,999 10.8 22.7 34.1 2.7% --

$25,000–$74,999 46.1 4.7 59.0 88.0 19.5%

$75,000 or more 31.9 -- -- 9.3 80.5

Note: Poor refers to households at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Low income refers to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income refers 

to households at 201% to 400% of the FPL. High income refers to households at 401% or higher than the FPL. See appendix table 13 for standard errors. .

aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, unless specified.

bIncludes persons identified as American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander; and persons of two or more races.

--Less than 0.5%.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012. 
Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014 10

Methodology

Survey coverage

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is 

an annual data collection conducted by the U.S. Census 

Bureau for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The 

NCVS is a self-report survey in which interviewed 

persons are asked about the number and characteristics of 

victimizations experienced during the prior 6 months. It 

collects information on nonfatal personal crimes (rape or 

sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and 

personal larceny) and household property crimes (burglary, 

motor vehicle theft, and other theft) both reported and not 

reported to police. In addition to providing annual level and 

change estimates on criminal victimization, the NCVS is 

the primary source of information on the nature of criminal 

victimization incidents.

Survey respondents provide information about themselves 

(e.g., age, sex, race and Hispanic origin, marital status, 

education level, and income) and whether they experienced 

a victimization. For each victimization incident, the NCVS 

collects information about the offender (e.g., age, sex, race 

and Hispanic origin, and victim-offender 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 was or was not reported, and victims’ 

experiences with the criminal justice system.

The NCVS is administered to persons age 12 or older from 

a nationally representative sample of households in the 

United States. The NCVS defines a household as a group of 

members 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 usual place of residence elsewhere. Once 

selected, households remain in the sample for 3 years, and 

eligible persons in these households are interviewed every 

6 months either in person or over the phone for a total of 

seven interviews.

Generally, all first interviews are conducted in person; 

subsequent interviews are conducted either in person or 

by phone. New households rotate into the sample on an 

ongoing basis to replace outgoing households that have been 

in the sample for the 3-year period. The sample includes 

persons living in group quarters, such as dormitories, 

rooming houses, and religious group dwellings, and excludes 

persons living in military barracks and institutional settings, 

such as correctional or hospital facilities, and persons who 

are homeless.

Nonresponse and weighting adjustments

In 2012, 92,390 households and 162,940 persons age 12 

or older were interviewed for the NCVS. Each household 

was interviewed twice during the year. The response rate 

was 84% for households and 88% for eligible persons. 

Victimizations that occurred outside of the United States 

were excluded from this report. In 2012, less than 1% of the 

unweighted victimizations occurred outside of the United 

States and were excluded from the analyses.

Estimates in this report use data from the 2008 to 2012 

NCVS data files, weighted to produce annual estimates 

of 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 inflate sample point estimates to known 

population totals and to compensate for survey nonresponse 

and other aspects of the sample design.

NCVS data files include both person and household weights. 

Person weights provide an estimate of the population 

represented by each person in the sample. Household 

weights provide an estimate of the U.S. household 

population represented by each household in the sample. 

After proper adjustment, both household and person 

weights are also typically used to form the denominator in 

calculations of crime rates.

Victimization weights used in this analysis account 

for the number of persons present during an incident 

and for high-frequency repeat victimizations (or series 

victimizations). Series victimizations are similar in type 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 

collect detailed information on only the most recent incident 

in the series.

The weight counts series incidents as the actual number of 

incidents reported by the victim, up to a maximum of 10 

incidents. Including series victimizations in national rates 

results in large increases in the level of violent victimization; 

however, trends in violence are generally similar regardless 

of whether series victimizations are included. In 2012, series 

incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 

4% of all violent victimizations. Weighting series incidents 

as the number of incidents up to a maximum of 10 incidents 

produces more reliable estimates of crime levels, while the 

cap at 10 minimizes the effect of extreme outliers on the 

rates. Additional information on the series enumeration is 

provided in the report Methods for Counting High-Frequency 

Repeat Victimizations in the National Crime Victimization 

Survey (NCJ 237308, BJS web) April 2012.
Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014 11

Standard error computations

When national estimates are derived from a sample, as 

with the NCVS, caution must be used when comparing 

one estimate to another or when comparing estimates over 

time. Although one estimate may be larger than another, 

estimates based on a sample have some degree of sampling 

error. The sampling error of an estimate depends on several 

factors, including the amount of variation in the responses 

and the size of the sample. When the sampling error around 

an estimate is taken into account, the estimates that appear 

different may not be statistically different.

One measure of the sampling error associated with an 

estimate is the standard error. The standard error can vary 

from one estimate to the next. Generally, an estimate with a 

small standard error provides a more reliable approximation 

of the true value than an estimate with a large standard error. 

Estimates with relatively large standard errors are associated 

with less precision and reliability and should be interpreted 

with caution.

To generate standard errors around numbers and estimates 

from the NCVS, Taylor Series Linearization (TSL) was used. 

TSL is a design-based approach that takes into account 

aspects of the NCVS complex sample design by specifying 

the selection method used, the stratification, and the 

primary sampling units. 

Previous NCVS special reports and bulletins relied on 

a generalized variance function (GVF) provided by the 

U.S. Census Bureau. A comparison of how TSL performs 

compared to the GVFs is documented by Williams et al.1

The comparison shows that TSL estimates of the standard 

errors provide less variability than the GVF. 

BJS conducted tests to determine whether differences in 

estimated numbers and percentages in this report were 

statistically significant once sampling error was taken into 

account. Using statistical programs developed specifically 

for the NCVS, all comparisons in the text were tested 

for significance. The primary test procedure used was 

Student’s t-statistic, which tests the difference between two 

sample estimates. To ensure that the observed differences 

between estimates were larger than might be expected due 

to sampling variation, the significance level was set at the 

95% confidence level in most cases. In a few instances, the 

significance level was set at 90%. Caution must be taken 

when comparing estimates not explicitly discussed in 

this report.

Data users can use the estimates and the standard errors of 

the estimates provided in this report to generate a confidence 

interval around each estimate as a measure of the margin of 

error. The following example illustrates how standard errors 

can be used to generate confidence intervals:

1Williams, R., Heller, D., Couzens, L., Shook-Sa, B., Berzofsky, M., 

Smiley-McDonald, H. & Krebs, C. (In press). Evaluation of Direct Variance 

Estimation, Estimate Reliability and Confidence Intervals for the National 

Crime Victimization Survey.

In 2008–12, there were 24.2 violent victimizations per 

1,000 persons committed by a nonstranger among 

persons in poor households (see table 2). Using TSL, 

BJS determined that the estimate has a standard error 

of 1.6 violent victimizations per 1,000 persons (see 

appendix table 3). A confidence interval around the 

estimate was generated by multiplying the standard 

errors by ±1.96 (the t-score of a normal, two-tailed 

distribution that excludes 2.5% at either end of the 

distribution). Thus, the confidence interval around the 

24.2 violent victimizations per 1,000 persons estimate is 

equal to 24.2 ± 1.6 X 1.96 (or 21.1 violent victimizations 

per 1,000 persons to 27.3 violent victimizations per 

1,000 persons). In other words, if different samples 

using the same procedures were taken from the U.S. 

population in 2008–12, 95% of the time the rate of 

violent victimizations committed by a nonstranger 

among persons in poor households would fall between 

21.1 and 27.3. 

In this report, BJS also calculated a coefficient of variation 

(CV) for all estimates, representing the ratio of the standard 

error to the estimate. CVs provide a measure of reliability 

and a means for comparing the precision of estimates across 

measures with differing levels or metrics. In cases where the 

CV was greater than 50%, or the unweighted sample had 

10 or fewer cases, the estimate was noted with a “!” symbol 

(interpret data with caution; estimate is based on 10 or fewer 

sample cases, or coefficient of variation exceeds 50%).

Many of the variables examined in this report may be related 

to one another and to other variables not included in the 

analyses. Complex relationships among variables in this 

report were not fully explored and warrant more extensive 

analysis. Readers are cautioned not to draw causal inferences 

based on the results presented.

Measuring household income as a percentage of the 

Federal Poverty Level 

The main measure of poverty for this report is household 

income as a percentage above, at, or below the Federal 

Poverty Level (FPL). The NCVS asks the reference person 

of a household about the household’s income level during 

the first interview and every odd-numbered interview after 

that. When household income is not asked, the income from 

the previous interview is carried forward. When included, 

respondents are asked to choose a household income from 

1 of 14 categories (the highest category is an income of 

$75,000 or more). 

A household’s income may be a misleading indicator of a 

household’s wealth because it does not take into account 

the number of persons in the household. A household’s 

income as it relates to the poverty level is a better measure 

of overall wealth because it takes into account family size. In 

the United States, poverty is defined by one of two measures: 

the poverty threshold and the poverty guideline. The poverty 
Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014 12

threshold is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau and is used 

for all statistical measures of poverty in the United States. It 

is the same in all 50 states and varies by family size, number 

of children, number of adults (one or two), and whether the 

reference person in the household is elderly. 

The poverty guideline is defined by the U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and is used to 

determine eligibility for many federal and state programs. 

It is defined the same for the contiguous 48 states and 

Washington, DC, but is different in Alaska and Hawaii and 

varies by family size. Both measures change each year as 

dictated by the federal agency that oversees them. More 

information on the two measures and how they differ can be 

found here: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm.

The measure used by the NCVS is the poverty guideline. 

The poverty guideline can be operationalized more easily 

than the poverty threshold and it is commonly referred to 

as the Federal Poverty Level (or FPL). While the poverty 

threshold is used for official statistics from the U.S. Census 

Bureau, given the information on household composition 

available in the NCVS, it is more cumbersome to implement. 

Furthermore, an analysis of the two measures found that 

a household’s resulting percentage of the FPL did not vary 

much between the two measures. One drawback to the 

poverty guideline is that it is different in Alaska and Hawaii 

relative to the rest of the United States and households in 

these two states cannot be identified on the NCVS public 

use file. Therefore, households in these two states may not 

have a proper percentage of the FPL assigned. However, the 

number of households in the NCVS sample in these two 

states is small. As a result, the impact of not differentiating 

the poverty level in these states is negligible. 

To determine a household’s income as a percentage of the 

FPL, two pieces of information are needed: a household’s 

income and the number of people in the household.

Determining a household’s income

As described earlier, a question about household income 

is asked during every other interview and households 

are asked to indicate a range for their income rather than 

a specific amount. These procedures are intended to 

minimize the burden and intrusiveness respondents may 

feel about providing their income. However, even with 

these procedures, an average of 31% of households during 

the study period of 2008–12 (a range between 28.4% and 

32.4%) did not provide a household income when asked. To 

effectively analyze criminal victimization by poverty status, 

household income needed to be imputed when a household 

did not provide a value. As detailed in Berzofsky et al., a 

household’s missing income category was imputed using 

a hot deck approach that relied on one of two methods, 

depending on the household’s previous income response 

status.2 When a household provided a household income 

category in a previous interview, the previous income 

value was used to predict the household’s current income 

level. When a household had never provided a household 

income value, the distribution of household income among 

respondents from the interview period of interest was used 

to predict the household’s current income level. Because 

these procedures require linking households across their 

interview waves, the imputation process could only be 

implemented starting in 2008. In 2006, the scrambled 

control numbers the U.S. Census Bureau uses to identify 

households were changed to account for the phase-in of 

the 2000 Census primary sampling units. Therefore, 2007 

was used as a base year from which households in existing 

sample rotation groups could be linked in 2008 and beyond. 

Even with a household income assigned to all respondents, 

the income categories used in the NCVS do not map well 

to percentages of the FPL for two primary reasons. The FPL 

changes each year based on the DHHS recommendations, 

while the NCVS income categories are fixed and are the 

same each year. In addition, the FPL varies based on the 

number of persons in the household, while the NCVS 

household income categories are the same regardless of 

the number of persons in the household. Therefore, to 

determine a household’s income as a percentage of the FPL, 

a precise income dollar amount needs to be interpolated 

based on a household’s assigned income category. This 

process was done in four broad steps:

1. Stratification classes were formed based on characteristics 

highly correlated to a household’s income. For this 

analysis period, a household reference person’s 

race and age categories were used to form income 

stratification classes.

2. The distribution of income was determined within 

each stratum. Using the cumulative distribution of 

the income categories and assuming a log-normal 

distribution, a grid search was used to find the optimal 

mean and standard deviation for income across all 

persons in the specified stratum. 

3. The range for each income category was determined.

For a particular stratum and income category, using 

the log-normal distribution, the percentile range 

between the upper and lower bound for a category was 

determined. 

2Berzofsky, M., Smiley-McDonald, H., Moore, A. & Krebs, C. (In press). 

Measuring Socioeconomic Status (SES) in the NCVS: Background, Options 

and Recommendations.
Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014 13

4. An interpolated income value was assigned to each 

household. Given an optimal log-normal distribution 

and the inter-percentile range for an income category 

in which a household resides, and using a random 

uniform variate between the upper and lower bounds, 

an interpolated log-income value was selected. The 

exponentiated log-income value was the interpolated 

income for a household.

Determining a household’s income as a percentage of 

the FPL

Using the interpolated household income and the number of 

persons in the household, the percentage of the FPL for the 

household was calculated as—

where FPLyi was the FPL in year y for i persons living in the 

household. 

Validating method for determining the percentage of 

the FPL

After applying the above-described procedures to assign 

each household a percentage of the FPL value, the 

distribution of the percentage of the FPL was validated 

to ensure that the distribution used in this analysis 

comported with other federal benchmark surveys. The 

Current Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement (CPS-ASEC) provided a benchmark estimate of 

the distribution of a household’s percentage of the FPL for 

all persons, including by the race or ethnicity category (see 

table number POV05 on https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/

poverty/data/incpovhlth/2012/index.html). The validation 

process found that for all years from 2008 to 2012, the overall 

distribution of the percentage of the FPL in the NCVS and 

the distributions for all race or ethnicity categories (i.e., 

non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, and 

non-Hispanic Asian) were similar to the distribution found 

in the CPS-ASEC. 

PCT_FPL = HH_INC X 100

FPLyi
Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014 14

Appendix table 1

Standard errors for table 1: Average annual number and rate of violent victimization, by poverty level and type of crime, 

2008–2012

All poverty levels Poor Low income Mid-income High income

Type of crime Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate

Total violent crime 208,600 0.7 77,400 2.1 73,600 1.3 83,400 1.0 84,100 0.8

Serious violent crime 82,500 0.3 38,500 1.1 29,500 0.5 40,500 0.5 32,100 0.3

Rape/sexual assault 38,800 0.1 10,900 0.3 13,200 0.2 24,300 0.3 13,400 0.1

Robbery 40,600 0.2 19,200 0.5 12,600 0.2 16,500 0.2 20,400 0.2

Aggravated assault 42,200 0.2 23,400 0.7 20,500 0.4 21,800 0.3 18,700 0.2

Simple assault 162,600 0.6 54,000 1.5 59,800 1.1 66,100 0.8 74,900 0.8

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Appendix table 2

Estimates and standard errors for figure 2: Rate of violent victimization, by poverty level, 2009–2012

Poor Low income Mid-income High income

Year Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error

2009 43.1 3.6 27.2 1.9 23.1 1.7 16.2 1.0

2010 34.9 2.9 24.1 1.9 20.9 1.8 13.6 1.1

2011 34.4 2.2 25.2 1.8 18.5 1.4 15.2 1.4

2012 41.9 2.6 27.6 1.8 19.1 1.2 19.6 1.7

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Appendix table 3

Standard errors for table 2: Rate of violent victimization, by 

victim–offender relationship and poverty level, 2008–2012

Victim-offender relationship

All 

poverty 

levels Poor

Low 

income

Mid 

income

High 

income

Total 0.7 2.1 1.3 1.0 0.8

Nonstranger 0.5 1.6 1.0 0.7 0.6

Intimate partner 0.2 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.3

Other relative 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2

Friend/acquaintance 0.4 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.5

Stranger 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.5

Unknown 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Appendix table 4

Estimates and standard errors for figure 3: Rate of violent 

victimization, by poverty level and annual household 

income, 2008–2012

Characteristic Estimate Standard error

Annual household income

Less than $15,000 40.6 2.2

$15,000–$24,999 29.1 1.8

$25,000–$74,999 20.9 0.9

$75,000 or more 18.1 1.0

Poverty level

Poor 39.8 2.1

Low income 26.5 1.3

Mid-income 20.8 1.0

High income 16.9 0.8

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Appendix table 5

Standard errors for table 3: Rate of violent victimization, by 

presence of a weapon and poverty level, 2008–2012

Type of weapon

All 

poverty 

levels Poor

Low 

income

MidincomeHigh 

income

Total 0.7 2.1 1.3 1.0 0.8

No weapon 0.6 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.8

Weapon 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.2

Firearm 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1

Non-firearm 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2

Do not know if

 weapon present 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.
Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014 15

Appendix table 6

Estimates and standard errors for figure 4: Rate of violent victimization, by poverty level and race or Hispanic origin, 2008–2012

Poor Low income Mid-income High income

Race/Hispanic origin Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error

White 46.4 3.2 27.7 1.8 20.3 1.2 16.4 0.9

Black/African American 43.4 3.8 27.5 2.6 24.7 2.9 22.7 5.1

Hispanic/Latino 25.3 2.6 21.2 1.9 20.6 2.4 19.3 3.4

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Appendix table 7

Estimates and standard errors for figure 5: Rate of violent victimization, by poverty level and location of residence, 2008–2012

Poor Low income Mid-income High income

Location of residence Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error

Urban 43.9 2.8 31.9 1.9 26.2 1.9 19.9 1.5

Suburban 35.9 3.4 24.5 2.0 19.6 1.4 16.1 1.2

Rural 38.8 3.9 22.2 2.9 15.2 1.7 13.3 2.2

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Appendix table 8

Estimates and standard errors for figure 6: Rate of violent victimization, by poverty level, race or Hispanic origin, and location 

of residence, 2008–2012

Poor Low income Mid-income High income

Location of residence Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error

Urban

White 56.4 5.3 36.6 3.7 23.1 1.8 19.7 1.8

Black/African American 51.3 5.5 32.2 3.7 34.3 5.3 30.1 6.8

Hispanic/Latino 27.8 3.8 24.4 2.9 26.1 4.4 17.3 2.3

Suburban

White 41.4 4.7 26.7 2.7 21.0 1.8 15.7 1.1

Black/African American 35.8 6.9 21.9 3.5 18.0 3.1 18.8 8.4

Hispanic/Latino 23.7 3.6 18.7 3.0 15.5 2.6 21.4 6.0

Rural

White 43.5 5.5 22.1 3.4 15.1 1.9 13.6 2.4

Black/African American 30.1 5.9 25.2 7.9 8.8 ! 3.8 5.9 ! 2.9

Hispanic/Latino 18.7 3.0 16.9 3.6 26.3 ! 14.2 11.8 ! 5.8

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Appendix table 9

Standard errors for table 4: Violence reported to police, by 

type of crime and poverty level, 2008–2012

Poverty level

Total violent 

crime

Serious violent 

crime

Simple 

assault

Total 1.1% 1.6% 1.4% 

Poor 2.0% 3.0% 2.5% 

Low income 2.1 2.9 2.6

Mid-income 1.8 3.4 2.4

High income 2.3 3.5 3.0

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.
Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014 16

Appendix table 10

Estimates and standard errors for figure 7: Violent victimization reported to police, by poverty level and race or Hispanic 

origin, 2008–2012

Poor Low income Mid-income High income

Race/Hispanic origin Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error

White 51.7% 3.1% 48.1% 2.9% 42.7% 2.4% 44.0% 2.4%

Black/African American 52.8 3.5 59.4 4.9 53.2 4.8 51.3 11.8

Hispanic/Latino 50.4 4.9 49.8 4.2 35.7 4.6 44.8 8.3

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Appendix table 11

Estimates and standard errors for figure 8: Violent victimization reported to police, by poverty level and location of residence, 

2008–2012

Poor Low income Mid-income High income

Location of residence Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error

Urban 51.2% 2.6% 52.3% 3.0% 45.8% 3.0% 43.1% 3.2%

Suburban 47.4 4.1 47.8 3.1 41.2 2.8 42.7 3.3

Rural 55.0 4.2 50.1 5.8 43.0 4.7 64.0 5.1

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Appendix table 12

Estimates and standard errors for figure 9: Violent victimization reported to police, by poverty level, race or Hispanic origin, 

and location of residence, 2008–2012

Poor Low income Mid-income High income

Location of residence Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error Estimate Standard error

Urban

White 51.9% 4.3% 49.2% 4.7% 46.7% 3.7% 43.0% 4.0%

Black/African American 51.2 4.0 56.8 6.3 52.7 6.3 35.5 8.7

Hispanic/Latino 53.7 6.9 49.8 5.8 39.0 7.2 52.1 5.3

Suburban

White 47.6% 5.4% 44.9% 3.8% 41.1% 3.5% 40.7% 3.3%

Black/African American 57.0 9.5 69.6 6.6 50.8 8.7 71.7 15.1

Hispanic/Latino 45.5 7.0 50.6 6.3 31.3 5.5 39.9 12.3

Rural

White 57.0% 5.1% 53.4% 7.0% 41.6% 5.0% 64.5% 5.7%

Black/African American 53.0 9.0 46.8 15.5 82.6 ! 12.1 79.4 ! 19.1

Hispanic/Latino 48.7 ! 11.2 44.7 10.3 35.6 ! 10.9 56.9 ! 17.8

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.
Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014 17

Appendix table 13

Standard errors for table 5: Characteristics of persons in 

households, by poverty level, 2008–2012

Characteristic Total Poor

Low 

income 

MidincomeHigh 

income

Total -- 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3%

Sex

Male 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

Female 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1

Race/Hispanic origin

White 0.6% 1.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4%

Black/African American 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3

Hispanic/Latino 0.5 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.2

Other 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2

Location of residence

Urban 0.9% 1.3% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8%

Suburban 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0

Rural 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.0

Region

Northeast 0.4% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5%

Midwest 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7

South 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6

West 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6

Annual household income

Less than $15,000 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% -- --

$15,000–$24,999 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1% --

$25,000–$74,999 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2%

$75,000 or more 0.3 -- -- 0.2 0.2

--Less than 0.5%.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012. 
Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principal 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 and valid 

statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports improvements to state and 

local criminal justice information systems, and participates with national and international 

organizations to develop and recommend national standards for justice statistics. William J. 

Sabol is acting director.

This report was written by Erika Harrell and Lynn Langton, BJS Statisticians, and Marcus 

Berzofsky, Lance Couzens, and Hope Smiley-McDonald, RTI International. Jessica Stroop of 

BJS and Marcus Berzofsky, Lance Couzens, Bonnie Shook-Sa, and Hope Smiley-McDonald of 

RTI International verified the report.

Irene Cooperman and Morgan Young edited the report. Barbara Quinn produced the report.

November 2014, NCJ 248384