u.s. Department of Justice 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

w, ""4#& •• 

The effect of crime is not limited to 

its immediate victims. The families of 

the victims suffer along with them, 

sharing their pain, hardship, sense of 

violation, and the aftermath of fear 

that crime can cause. This report 

explores a new way of looking at persons affected by crime, a measure of 

how many Americans-victims and the 

people who live with them-are touched 

each year by crime. 

More than 24 million hOUseholds--

almost a third of the households in the 

Nation-were touched by crime in 

1980. A similar proportion of households has been victimized by crime in 

each of the 6 years, 1975-80, for which 

the meaSUre has been calculated. The 

percent of households touched by crime 

has remained basically stable over the 

past 6 years, not only for crime as a 

whole but for individual types of crime 

as well. In fact, there was a slight 

decrease-from 32.0 to 30.0 percentbetween 1975 and 1980 in the overall 

percentage (figure n. This decrease 

Huu,eilolds llJUl'l!e,l lJy crl!Ill', 

I ~75-au 

1~75 

!:~:l:~:l:::l:::::~:::~:~:~:~:~:~:::::::l:1:~:::::::::~:~:\:1:~:1:~:t:::l:::::::::1:::~:~1:1:\:\:~:t::l:j:l:1:!:1:!:!:1:1:1:1:1:~ 

1976 

M:l:;:Wl:l:l:i:l:lt:l:l:l:1:l:1:::::i:i:i:i:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~ 

1977 

@~:::::::::i:;:i:::l:::::::::::::j:i:::i:::j:tl:::i:i:i~:::::::::::::::::::::::l::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::;::::::1 

1978 

!:l:i:i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::!::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::i:::i:t:@ 

1979 

~:::::::::::::::::::;:;f:::::::::::::::::::::;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::;:;:;:;:l:::;:l:l:;:::;:::::i:l:l:l:;:W:::::1:1:1 

1980 

o 4 8 I:! 16 2U 24 i8 ~2 

Percent 

Figure I 

; 

; 

, 

lence of Crime 

March 1981, NCJ-75905 

Households touched by crime is a new 

statistical indicator measuring the 

pervasiveness of crime. It was developed from preliminary estimates from 

the National Crime Survey (NC'S). 

Measuring Crime, February 1981, 

de~cribes the NC'S and the crimes on 

which the indicator is based: rape, 

robbery, assault, personal and 

household larceny, burglary, and motor 

vehicle theft. C:opies are available 

from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

Washington, D.C:. 20531. 

Benjamin H. Renshaw III 

Acting Director 

does not mean there were fewer 

crimes. (;rime measured by the 

National Crime Survey (NCS) has risen 

every year since the survey started, but 

the proportion of American households 

that experienced this crime has remained about the same. 

The pattern that emerges from an 

examination of 6 years of data for the 

Household, touched by crime, H175-80 

new "households-touched-by-crime" 

indicator is one of pervasiv'eness and 

consistency. A large minority of American households experiences crime each 

year, although most of them experience 

it in a nonviolent form. There is great 

stability in the patterns from year to 

year, while the trend for the period as a 

whole seems to be downward. Race 

appears to have less to do with exposure 

to crime than does income or place of 

residence. A rural residence does appear to afford some protection against 

both crimes of violence and crimes of 

theft, but it is clear that all Americans 

are at risk to an extent previously 

unknown. 

Detailed findings 

Most households touched bv crime are 

victims of larceny (theft). N"CS classifies larcenies into two types: household and personal. A household theft 

occurs when something is taken from 

the home or immediate vicinity by 

someone with the right to be there, 

such as a babysitter or domestic. A 

personal larceny may be pocket picking 

Number /lnd percent distribution by type I.lf CrIme 

1975 1976 1977 1\178 1979 1980 

Pereent of houspil')lds touched by: 

All crimes 32.0 31.5 31.3 31.3 ;)1.3 30.0 

Rape ll.2 0') o .) 0.2 0.2 Q.2 

Robbery 1.4 I') 1.2 I.l l.2 1.2 

Assault 4.5 4.4 4.7 4.6 4.8 4.4 

Pf';rsonallarceny 16.4 10.2 16.3 16.2 15.·1 14.2 

Burglary 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.0 

Household larceny 10.2 10.3 10.2 9.9 10.8 10.4 

Motor vehicle theft 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.6 

Households touched by crime 

( thousands)* 2:3,377 23,504 23,741 24,277 24,730 24,222 

Houscholds in U.S. (thousands) 73,123 14,528 75,9IJ4 77,578 78,964 80,622 

NOTE: Detail does not add to total because *These figures may not compute to 

of overlap in households touched by different percents shown because of rounding. 

crimes (see text). 
Percent o(households touched by crime, 

by type of crime, 1975-80 

20 r 

15 r-Il ~ .~~~~~ ;lll~ m 

10 lS '-

o - .:::::: 0;.;:;; ~ Household crimes 

Figure 2 

III 

~:f :~:~: I :::::: ;;:::~ 

Personal crimes 

or purse snatching (personal larceny 

with contact) or the theft of a personal 

object from the office or some other 

place away from home (personal larceny 

without contact). In 1980, 14 percent of 

all households had an individual member 

victimized by a crime of theft (figure 

2); 10 percent of all households were 

victimized by household theft. 

In almost all households touched by 

personal theft, the theft was personal 

larceny without contact. In each year 

from 1975 through 1980, pocket picking 

and purse snatching touched less than 

1 percent of American households. 

The only crime less prevalent than 

pocket picking and purse snatching 

was rape, which affected 2 out of each 

1,000 households (0.2 percent) each year. 

Robbery struck just about 1 percent 

of American families annually in the 

1975-80 period, while a household member was the victim of assault in less 

than 5 percent of all households during 

these years. Further, there was very 

little overlap among these crimes. An 

average of only 3 out of 1,000 households (0.3 percent) was touched by more 

than one of the three violent crimes 

(rape, robbery, or assault). 

Among household crimes, burglary 

was not as prevalent as household theft, 

while motor vehicle theft was not as 

prevalent as burglary. Around 10 percent of American households were 

touched by household theft in each of 

the 6 years, 7 percent by burglary, but 

less than 2 percent by auto theft. 

There was some indication that relatively more black households than white 

were victimized by crime during the 

6-year period, but the differences were 

very small (figures 3 and 4). In general, 

41 

II~ 

Iilll 1975 

§ 1976 

roo 1977 

rm 1978 

m 1979 

• 1980 

I

:::::: I':~;' ~ III III I 

Crimes of personal theft Crimes of violence 

Personal crimes 

the percentages for both groups hovered 

around 30 throughout 1975-80. Black 

households were slightly more likely to 

have been burglarized or to have had a 

member victimized by violent crime. 

White households, on the other hand, 

were slightly more likely to have had a 

member who had been a victim of personallarceny without contact. On the 

whole, however, black and white patterns were remarkably similar. This 

also held true for the small number of 

households composed of other racial 

groups. 

Income of households appears to have 

very little to do with the likelihood of 

their experiencing violent crime or burglary. However, the higher the income, 

the more likely households are to experience other crimes of theft. This is 

Percent of households touched by crime, 

by race, 1975-80 

35 -

10 

O'-.::::~~ 

Figure 3 

7576 77 7~; 79 80 

White 

2 

r:::::>!< 

" ... 

75 76 77 78 79 80 

Black 

III M 

especially true for personal theft without contact, which touched only 

9 percent of households with incomes 

below $7,500, but 21 percent of households where family income is over 

$25,000. 

Households in standard metropolitan 

statistical areas (SMSA's) are more 

likely to be touched by crime than those 

in small towns and rural areas. l 

Whether located in the central city or 

in the suburbs, lout of every 3 metropolitan households is likely to be touched 

by crime during the year, compared to 1 

out of 4 households in small towns or 

rural areas. This pattern holds for all 

types of crimes. 

There is some indication that centralcity households are more subject to the 

household cri mes-burglary, household 

larceny, and motor vehicle theft-than 

their suburban counterparts. In terms 

of personal crimes, whether violent 

crime or theft, suburban dwellers lose 

their advantage and are touched by 

crime as often. as their urban countergarts. One likely explanation for this is 

that the geographic range of the daily 

activities of urban and suburban 

individuals may overlap considerably 

even though their homes are at some 

distance from one another. 

The indicator 

The Bureau of Justice Statistics 

developed the indicator, households 

touched by crime, in an attempt to 

answer the question lIWhat proportion of 

the American people is affected by 

crime?lI This indicator measures the 

impact of crime throughout the Nation 

by estimating the number (and percent) 

of households that were victims of 

burglary or theft, or in which individual 

household members were victims of a 

crime of violence or theft during the 

year. The household was chosen as the 

unit of analysis because the entire 

household is affected when an individual is the victim of a crime: by the 

injury, the economic loss, the inconvenience, and the feeling of vulnerability. 

Other measures of crime are in the 

form of volume or rates. Statistics on 

the volume of crime have limited usefulness, unless the size of the population 

base is taken into account. Ratesexpressed in the National Crime Survey 

as crimes per 1,000 households or 

crimes per 1,000 persons-automatically 

correct for different population sizes 

IAn SMSA generally is made up of a core city or cities with a combined population of 50,000 or more inhabitants and the surrounding county or counties 

that share certain metropolitan characteristics. 
... tww .• 

but they do not show whether a given 

level of crime within a given population 

is widely spread or highly concentrated. 

A comparable situation exists in 

health statistics~ Neither the number 

of colds in a single year (volume) nor 

the number of colds per 1,000 persons 

(rate) tells us anything about the 

number of persons who had colds, since 

we don't know how many people had 

several colds or how many people went 

through the year with no colds at all. 

To carry the analogy a little further, 

one household may go through the year 

with all of its members in the best of 

health. In another household, one 

person may have had a couple of colds; 

another~ the flu; and still another, 

the measles. If we were measurin~ 

households experiencing illness, the 

second household would be counted only 

once, even though several of its members were ill and one was ill more than 

once. If we were measuring separately 

all households experiencing colds, all 

households experiencing the flu, and all 

households experiencing the measles, 

the second household would be cOlin ted 

once in each group. 

So it is with the measurement of 

households experiencing crime. For 

Selected characteristics 

of households touched by crime 

1980 

Race of head of household 

~~ 

White 

Black 

~~~~ 

~I 

Other 

Family income 

~~ 

Low 

~ 

Middle 

~ 

High 

Location or household 

~~ 

Urban 

~~ 

Suburban 

Rural 

~$~ 

I I I I I I I I 

0 5 10 1$ 20 25 30 35 

Percent 

Figure 4 

I 

40 

each type of crime examined, a household is counted only once regardless of 

how many times that household was 

victimizect'. For example, if a household 

was burglarized twice and one of its 

members was robbed once during the 

year, it is counted once for households 

touched by burglary even though it was 

victimized twice by burglary. It is also 

counted once for house~olds touched by 

robbery. Finally, it is counted once in 

the overall measure, households touched 

by crime. For instance, the householdstouched-by-<!rime estimate for 1980 

(30%) is less than the sum of the estimate for households touched by 

personal cri m es (18 %) and the esti ma te 

for households touched by household 

crimes (17%), because 5 percent of the 

households in the U.S. were victimized 

by both personal and household crimes 

(figure 5). Similarly, because almost 

2 percent of U.S. households were 

touched both by personal crimes of 

theft and by crimes of violence, the 

sum of households touched by crimes of 

theft (14 %) and households touched by 

crimes of violence (6%) exceeds the 

estimate of households touched by 

personal crime (18%) (figure 6). 

Further refinements of the indicator 

will allow examination of the number of 

households subjected to a crime of violence or theft more than once in a 

single year, as well as the number of 

households touched more than once by 

the same crime in the same year. We 

will also be able to measure exposure to 

crime by family size and for singleperson households. 

Eventually we may be able to learn 

how often a household is touched by 

crime during a longer period of time. 

For example, how many of the households among the 30 percent touched by 

crime in 1980 were al,so among those 

touched by crime in 1979 and in previous years? Is a household touched by 

a crime of violence more than once in a 

single year likely to have several members who were victims or one member 

who was victimized several times? The 

answers to these and other Questions 

about the prevalence of cri.me should do 

much to tell us how crime is distributed 

among its victims. 

The methodology 

All data in The Prevalence of Crime 

are from the National Crime Survey. 

The Bureau of Justice Statistics contracts with the U.S. Bureau of the 

Census to collect and compile the 

survey data. The estimates are preliminary because final data for 1980 were 

not available when this report was 

3 

Percent of households touched by crime, 

by type of crime, 1980 

~ Household crimes 2!!.!l 

~ Personal crimes ~ 

~ Both household and personal crimes 

All hOllseholds touched by cl'ime 

By household crimes 

By personal crimes 

o 5 10 15 20 25 

Percent 

Figure 5 

eM 

30 

prepared. Past experience with 

victimization data indicates that the 

procedure used for calculating preliminary estimates introduces l'elatively 

little error into the estimation process. 

However, based on our experience, 

preliminary estimates will tend to 

understate any unusual changes in the 

incidence of crime that take place late 

in the year. 

As "households" is used throughout 

this bulletin, it is the technical equivalent of "residence" or "occupied living 

quarters II because no attempt was made 

to locate a household that moved during 

the course of an interview period. Instead, the household that replaced it at 

the same address was interviewed for 

Percent of households touched 

by personal crime, 

by type of crime, 1980 

--------------~ 

~ Violent crime 2!!.!l 

~ Personal theft 2!!.!l 

m Both violent crime and personal theft 

All households touched by personal cl'i me 

By violent crime 

By personal theft 

-

o 3 6 9 12 15 

Percent 

Figure 6 

18 
.'.,,' !In ., 

the remainder of the year. Biases 

produced by households moving during 

the year affect the estimates to a 

minor degree since only about 20 

percent of all households move during a 

typical year. The term "family" has 

been used as synonymous with IIhousehold." Actually, 75 percent of all 

households are families, 22 percent are 

individuals living alone, and 3 percent 

are groups of unrelated individuals. 

Because the estimates in The Prevalence of Crime are derived from sample 

survey data, they are subject to sampling variation. 2 The special techniques 

2Details of the N CS sample deSign, the 

customary estimation procedure for victimization 

rates and counts, and standard error computation 

may be found in appendix III of the report Criminal 

Victimization in the United States, 1978, available 

from BJS. 

7E rs 

used to derive these estimates produce 

standard errors about 8 percent higher 

than those for a victimization estimate 

with the same base and rate. Estimates 

of households touched by crime are also 

subject to respondent errors. Examples 

are crimes that are forgotten or withheld from the interviewer and therefore 

cannot contribute to the estimates of 

residences touched by crime. In 

general, respondent errors tend to understate the actual number of households 

touched by crime. 3 

The Bureau of Justice Statistics plans 

to publish households-touched-by-crime 

3A more detailed description of the procedures 

used to estimate households touched by crime 

appears in an unpublished memorandum prepared by 

the U.S. Bureau of the Census, which collects and 

compiles the NCS data. The memorandum is 

available on request from I:lJS. 

4 r = .t:p* -

statistics on a regulat' basis. This indicator, in combination with the traditional 

measures of volume and rate, should 

enhance the ability of both policymakers and the public to assess the 

dangers crime poses to our society. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletins 

are prepal'ed and written by the staff 

of the Bureau. The idea was originated by Carol B. Kalish, who maintains 

editorial oversight. Marilyn Marbrook, 

head of the Bureau publications unit, 

administers production. Although 

several staff members made sUbstantial contributions to The Prevalence of 

Crime, Michael R. Rand is the princi~ 

pal author. Special tabUlations were prepared at the U.S. Bureau of the 

Census. 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFnCE 1981 0 - 3~~-99j. I~L 3 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Washington, D.C. 20531 

Bulletin 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

Postage and Fees Paid 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Jus 436 

..