I 

I 

I 

i 

I

I) .. 

, 

'-. 

1 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Elderly VictiIns 

By Ronet Bachman, Ph.D. 

BJS Statistician 

Persons age 65 or older are the least likely 

of all age groups in the Nation to experience either lethal or non-lethal forms of 

criminal victimization. Data from the 

National Crime Victimization Survey 

(NCVS) of the Bureau of Justice Statistics 

(BJS) and from the Comparative Homicide 

File (CHF) are used in this report to give a 

detailed accounting of criminal victimization 

•

Of the elderly. Although older persons 

were found to be less likely to experience a 

criminal victimization than younger people, 

they were more likely to suffer the more 

harmful consequences of a victimization 

such as sustaining injury or requiring 

medical care. 

Some of the major findings in this report 

include: 

• The elderly were significantly less likely 

than younger age groups to become the 

victims of virtually all types of crime. For 

example, persons age 65 or older comprise about 14% of persons aged 12 or 

older in this sample btlt less than 2% 

of all victimizations. 

.. Elderly robbery victims were more likely 

than younger victims to face multiple 

offenders and also more likely to face 

offenders armed with guns. 

• Elderly victims of violent crime were more 

likely than other victims to report that their 

assailants were strangers. Consistent with 

this, it was also found that among victims 

•

?f homicide the elderly were more likely to 

. be killed by a stranger during the commission of a felony; younger individuals were 

more likely to be killed by someone known 

to them in a conflict situation such as an 

argument or fight. 

The elderly comprise the fastest 

growing segment of the U.S. population, 

and their protection and well being are 

a high priority in our society. Violent 

crime victimization, which challenges 

residents of all ages, may hold especially serious physical consequences 

for the elderly. 

This report uses the most recent data 

from the National Crime Victimization 

Survey (NCVS) and the Comparative 

Homicide File to examine the characteristics of crime against the elderly. 

The central conclusion is that a~hough 

the elderly are less likely than those 

who are younger to sustain a victimization by crime, they are more likely-

• Elderly victims of violent crime were 

significantly more likely to be victimized 

at or near their home than victims under 

the age of 65. 

• Elderly victims of violent crime were less 

likely to use measures of self-protection 

compared to victims under the age of 65. 

• Elderly victims of all forms of crime, 

including crimes of violence, crimes of 

theft, and household crime, were signficantly more likely to report their victimizations to the police compared to victims 

under the age of 65. 

.. When the elderly were divided Into two 

groups - age 65 to 74 and age 75 or older 

- the older group was generally found to 

have had lower rates of crime victimization. 

---------------------------------------

NCJRS 

DEC 4: 1992 

ACQUiSITIONS 

October 1992 

when victlmized- to be harmed by 

strangers and to sustain grievous Injuries. Estimated homicide rates bear 

out similar conclusions about the elderly 

and their vulnerability to crime. 

The NCVS establishes in this report, as 

in many others, its central importance in 

identifying the facts about crime victimization. Based on interviews with almost 

50,000 households every 6 months, the 

continuous survey provides valuable, 

up-to-date knowledge essential for 

sound policies. 

Steven D. Dillingham, Ph. D., LL. M. 

Director 

• Among the elderly, certain groups were 

generally more likely to experience a crime 

than others: males, blacks, divorced or 

separated persons, urban resldems, and 

renters. Those elderly in the lowest income categories were more likely to 

experience a crime of violence but less 

likely to experience a crifTle of theft than 

those with higher household incomes. 

Lifestyle and vulnerability 

The lifestyle of a group may affect its 

vulnerability to certain crimes. In general, 

compared to younger persons, the elderly 

are more likely to live alone and to stay at 

home because they are less likely to work 

full time or regularly participate in activities 

after dark. These characteristics or routines may contribute to the elderly having a 

lower likelihood of assault or robbery by a 
relative or acquaintance. Because of this 

lower risk of victimization by nonstrangers, 

elderly victims of violent crime are proportionately more likely than victims in other 

age groups to be victimized by strangers. 

Victimization rates 

For virtually all crimes, the elderly were 

significantly less likely than younger age 

groups to be victimized (table 1). Those 

individuals in the youngest age group of 12 

to 24 consistently had the highest victimization ratE)S across all types of crime, 

while those 65 years of age or older 

generally had the lowest. The overall 

victimization rate for crimes of violence 

was nearly 16 times higher for persons 

under age 25 than 10r persons over age 

Victimization rates tor personal 

crimes ot violence and theft, 

persons age 65 or older, 1973-90 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

o 

1973 

Figuro 1 

65 (64.6 versus 4 victimizations per 1,000 1979 1984 1990 

persons in each age group). Similarly, the 

robbery rate for those under 25 was nearly 

6 times higher than for those age 65 or 

older. 

age groups. This was true for all forms of 

household crime, including burglary, 

household larceny, and motor vehicle theft. 

• Household crime victimizations showed 

a pattern similar to personal crime victimizations. Those persons over the age of 

65 were significantly less likely to become 

victims of household crime than younger 

• Personal larceny with contact (such as 

purse snatching and pocket picking), did 

not reflect this pattern. Those who were 65 

or older were about as likely as those 

Table 1. Average annual victimization rates, by age of victim 

and typo of crime, 1987-90 

Number of victimizations eer 1,000 ~rsons or households 

650r 

12-24 25-49 50-64 older 

Crimes of violence 64.6 27.2 8.5 4.0 

Rape 1.5 .6 .1' .9' 

Robbery 10.0 5.3 2.4 1.5 

Assault 53.1 21.2 5.9 2.3 

Aggravated 18.4 7.5 2.2 1.1 

Simple 34.6 13.7 3.7 1.3 

Crimes of theft 112.7 71.2 38.3 19.5 

Personal larceny 

with contact 3.6 2.4 2.2 2.6 

Personal larceny 

without contact 109.0 68.8 36.1 16.9 

Average annual 

population 45,983,893 92,550,343 32,787,706 28,577,225 

HousehOld crimes" 309.3 200.2 133.0 78.5 

Burglary 121.3 66.6 43.3 32.4 

Household larceny 153.4 111.9 73.3 39.5 

Motorvehicle theft 34.6 21.7 16.4 6.6 

Average annual number 

of households 6,534,240 48,597,483 19,026,720 19,803,345 

Nota: The victimization rate is the annual average of the number of victimizations for 1987-90 

per 1,000 persons in each age group. Detail may not add to total bacause of rounding. 

'Estimated is based on 10 or fewer sample cases. 

"Household crimes are categorized by age of head of household. 

2 

Victimization rates for household 

crimes, head of households 

age 65 or older, 1973·90 

150 

100 

o 

1973 1979 1984 

Figure 2 

1990 

under age 65 to be victims of personal 

larceny which involved contact. 

Trends 

Crime victimization rates among the elderly 

have generally been declining during the 

1980's. Both personal and household 

1990 victimization rates for those age 

• 

65 or older were significantly lower than • 

earlier highs. 

• Violent crime victimizations against the 

elderly were highest in 1974 (9 per 1,000 

persons over 65) and reached a low rate 

in 1990 of 3.5. This 1990 rate was 61 % 

lower than the high recorded in 1974 

(figure 1). 

• Theft victimizations experienced by the 

elderly peaked in 1976 with a rate of 26 

and were lowest in 1988 with a rate of 

18.3. While rates of theft victimization 

appeared to be increasing since 1988, this 

increase was not significant. Theft 

victimization rates in 1990 were still about 

22% lower than those witnessed during the 

mid-1970's. 

• Household crimes against the elderly 

jumped to a high in 1981 of 123 per 1,000 

households with heads over the age of 65 

(figure 2). Since that time, however, 

household victimizations against the elderly 

have been decreasing and reached the low 

rate of 75 in 1990. 

• 
Characteristics of crimes 

against the elderly 

• The NCVS data have consistently demon-

"'!! strated that the elderly have a lower 

probability of becoming victims of crime 

than do younger people. However, of the 

crimes they do experience, the elderly 

appear to be particularly susceptible to 

crimes motivated by economic gain such 

as robbery, personal and household 

larceny, and burglary. For example, those 

under age 65 were almost four times more 

likely to be victimized by an assault than by 

robbery, whereas for those 65 or older, the 

likelihood of assault was 1112 times that of 

robbery. Like the general population, the 

elderly are most susceptible to household 

crimes and least susceptible to crimes of 

violence. For specific crimes of violence, 

however, differences by age can be found. 

Among the elderly, the victimization rates 

for assault and robbery are not significantly 

different. For the younger age groups, 

however, assault rates are much higher 

than robbery rates. Almost 38% of violent 

crime victimizations against the elderly 

were robberies, while robberies accounted 

for only 15% of violent victimizations 

against those under age 25 and for 20% 

• against all persons. under age 65. 

• 

A pattern of age-related differences also 

exists for homicides. Most homicide 

victims age 65 or older were killed during 

the commission of another felony, like a 

robbery, and victimization rates for the 

elderly were equivalent for homicides 

committed by relatives, acquaintances, 

and strangers (tables 16 and 17). By 

contrast, younger homicide victims were 

more likely to be killed by an acquaintance 

and to die during events such as a fight 

rather than to fall victim to a stranger 

during the commission of another crime. 

Table 2. Perceived presence of weapons 

In violent crimes, by age of victim, 

1987-90 

Unarmed offenders 

Armed offenders 

Type of weapon used 

Guns 

Knives or sharp 

instruments 

Blunt objects 

Otherweapons 

Percentofviolent 

crime victims 

Onder 650;:-

65 older 

65% 62% 

35 38 

36% 41% 

30 29 

19 18 

15 12 

------ --- --- -- ---------

Weapons 

About the same percentage of elderly 

victims of violent crimes (38%) as younger 

victims (35%) perceived their assailants 

using weapons (table 2). For those victims 

who believed their assailants were armed, 

however, elderly victims were somewhat 

more likely than younger victims to face 

offenders armed with guns (41 % versus 

36%). Offenders wielding weapons like 

knives or blunt objects victimized about the 

same percentage of violent crime victims 

age 65 or older as those who were 

younger. 

Crimes by strangers 

While victims of violent crime, regardless 

of age, were more likely to be victimized 

by strangers than by acquaintances or 

relatives, robbery victims age 65 or older 

were more likely than other victims to have 

been robbed by a stranger (83% versus 

74%) (table 3). This was not true of assault victims. The percentage of assaults 

committed by strangers was not significantly different between elderly victims 

and their younger counterparts. 

Crimes occurring at home 

Elderly violent crime victims were almost 

twice as likely as younger victims to be 

victimized at or near their home (table 4). 

For example, elderly robbery victims were 

53% more likely to be victimized in their 

own home and more than twice as likely to 

be victimized near their home than were 

younger victims of robbery. This was true 

for assault as well. This finding may reflect 

the lifestyle differences discussed earlier. 

Table3. Relationship of offenders to victims of violent crime 

by age of victim and type of crime, 1987-90 

Percent of violent crime victims whose offenders were: 

Relationship 

Relatives Acquaintances Strangers notascertained 

Crimes of violence 

Under65 8% 33% 56% 3% 

650rolder 8 20 64 8 

Robbery 

Under65 5 17 74 4 

650rolder 3 5 83 9 

Assault 

Under 65 9 36 52 3 

650rolder 13 32 47 a 

Table4. Place of occurrence of crimes of violence, by age of victim 

and type of crime, 1987-90 

Place of occurrence 

In commercial 

At Near Onthe or public ElseTotal home home street establishment where 

Crimes of vIolence 

Under65 100% 14% 11% 39% 21% 15% 

650rolder 100 25 25 31 9 10 

Robbery 

Under65 100 13 9 52 16 10 

650rolder 100 20 <:1 37 13 10 

Assault 

Under 65 100 14 12 36 21 15 

650rolder 100 27 29 27 7 10 

3 
Injury and medical care 

While about the same percentage of 

violent crime victims age 65 or older (33%) 

as those under age 65 (31%) were injured, 

some evidence Indicates that older victims 

received more serious Injuries (table 5). Of 

those victims who were Injured, 9% of the 

elderly reported serious injury such as 

broken bones and Internal Injuries, compared to 5% of those under age 65. In 

addition, 14% of elderly victims who were 

Injured needed hospital care compared to 

8% of younger victims. 

Self-protection 

Elderly victims of violent crime were less 

likely to take self-protective action than 

were younger victims (table 6). Violent 

crime victims under the age of 65 took 

Table 5. InJuries, medical treatment, and 

hospital care received by violent crime 

victims, by age of victim, 1987-90 

Outcome 

Injured 

Serious 

Minor 

Percent of violent 

crime victims 

Under 650r 

65 older 

31% 

5 

26 

33% 

9 

24 

Received medical care 15 19 

Hospital care 8 14 

Note: Serious injuries are broken bones, loss of 

teeth, Internal injuries, loss of consciousness, rape 

or attempted rape Injuries, or undetermined 

injuries requiring 2 or more days of hospitalization. 

Minor injuries are bruises, black eyes, cuts, 

scratches, swelling, or undetermined injuries 

requiring less ,"1an 2 days of hospitalization. 

Table 6, Self-protectlve measures taken 

In violent crimes, by age of victim, 

1987-90 

Percent of violent 

crime victims 

Under 650r 

65 older 

Did not take any action 27% 42% 

Tooksome form 01 action 73 58 

Type 01 action taken 

Physical action, including 

attacking offendEJrwith 

weapon, chasing offender, 

or physically resisting 34 23 

Nonphysical action, including arguing or reasoning 

with offender, screaming, 

or running away 39 34 

self-protective action 73% of the time, 

compared to 58% for those victims age 65 

or over. Moreover, of those crime victims 

who took self-protective measures, the 

elderly were less likely than their younger 

counterparts to use physical action such 

as attacking or chasing the offender or 

physically resisting in some other way. 

Police reporting 

In general, elderly victims of violent and 

theft crimes were more likely to report their 

victimization to the police compared to 

younger victims (table 7). Seven out of ten 

elderly victims of robbery reported their 

victimization to the police, compared to just 

over 5 out of 10 robbery victims under age 

65. There was no measurable difference, 

however, between the police reporting 

behavior of younger and elderly aggravated assault victims or victims of 

household crimes. 

Table7. Reporting to the police, by age 

of victim and type of crime. 1987-90 

Crimes of violence 

Under65 

650rolder 

Robbery 

Under65 

650rolder 

Aggravaled assault 

Under65 

650rolder 

Simple assault 

Under65 

650rolder 

Crimes of theft 

Under65 

650rolder 

Personal larceny 

with contact 

Under65 

650rolder 

Personal larceny 

without contact 

Under65 

650rolder 

Household crimes 

Under65 

650rolder 

Burglary 

Under65 

650rolder 

Household larceny 

Under65 

650rolder 

Motorvehicle theft 

Under65 

650rolder 

4 

Percent 01 

victimizations 

reported 

to police 

47% 

60 

53 

70 

57 

56 

40 

51 

28% 

34 

33 

46 

28 

32 

41% 

41 

52 

50 

27 

27 

75 

79 

Single versus multiple offenders 

Elderly robbery victims were more likely to • 

be victimized by multiple offenders, 

compared to their younger counterparts !7 

who were more likely to be victimized by 

single offenders (table 8). The reverse 

was true for aggravated assautts; younger 

aggravated assault victims were more 

likely to report more than one offender 

compared to elderly aggravated assault 

victims. Among simple assault victims, 

the same percentage of both age groups80% - reported lone offenders. 

Table 8. Number of offenders perceived 

In crimes of violence. by age of 

victim and type of crime, 1987-90 

Percent 01 violent 

crime victimizations 

Single Multiple Don't 

offender offenders know 

Crimes of violence 

Under65 73% 26% 1% 

650rolder 65 32 3 

Robbery 

Under65 54 44 2 

650rolder 46 50 4 

Aggravated 

assault 

Under65 69 29 2 

65 or older 72 20 8 

Simple assault 

Under65 80 19 1 

650rolder 80 16 4 

• 
Characteristics of elderly victims 

The overall patterns of elderly crime 

• 

\victimization were similar to those found 

for the population in general with regard to 

demographic characteristics such as sex, 

race, and marital status. 

• For crimes of violence and household 

crimes, elderly males were generally more 

likely to have higher victimization rates 

than elderly females {table 9). Elderly 

women, however, were more likely to be 

victims of personallarC6:1Y with contact 

such as purse snatching. 

• Elderly blacks were more likely than 

elderly whites to be the victims of crimes 

of violence and household crimes. 

Blacks also had higher rates of victimization than whites for the specific crimes 

of robbery, personal larceny with contact, 

burglary, household larceny, and motor 

vehicle theft. However, rates of personal 

larceny which did not Involve contact were 

greater for white residents than comparable rates experienced by black residents. 

• Generally, elderly persons who were 

either separated or divorced had the highest rates of victimization for all types of 

crime compared to any other marital status 

category. Elderly victims in the other marital status groups experienced about the 

same number of household victimizations 

per 1,000 households. However, among 

those age 65 or older, married persons 

were victimized by crimes of violence and 

Table 9. Average annual victimization rates of persons age 65 or older, by sex, 

race, and marital status and by type of crime, 1987-90 

Numberofvictimizations eer 1 ,000 eersons or households 

Marital status 

crimes of theft at higher rates than either 

persons who had never married or persons 

who were widowed . 

Elderly residents residing In cities had the 

highest rates of victimization for all types 

of crime, compared to either suburban or 

rural elderly (table 10). The suburban and 

rural elderly experienced about the same 

rates of crimes of violence, but suburban 

elderly experienced higher rates of 

personal theft- both with and without 

contact. However, rural elderly were more 

likely to experience household crimes in 

general and burglary in particular, compared to those elderly residing in suburban 

areas. 

Sex Race Never Divorced! 

• 

Male Female White Black married Widowed Married 

Crimes of violence 4.9 3.4 3.6 7.6 3.0 4.2 7.6 

Robbery 2.0 1.2 1.2 4.4 1.2 1.7 5.1 

Aggravated assault 1.4 .8 1.1 1.4 .8 .9 1.5 

Simple assault 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.4 .9 1.4 .7 

Crimes of theft 19.8 19.4 19.5 19.6 18.2 4.2 26.3 

Personal larceny 

with contact 1.8 3.2 2.3 5.7 1.8 2.9 6.1 

Personal larceny 

without contact 17.9 16.2 17.2 13.9 16.4 15.1 20.2 

Household crimes' 82.2 74.3 70.9 154.1 77.6 75.1 71.1 

Burglary 32.8 31.9 29.1 63.8 28.7 33.7 35.2 

Household larceny 41.6 37.1 36.5 71.9 41.6 35.7 34.1 

Motorvehicle theft 7.7 5.2 5.3 18.3 7.2 5.7 1.8 

'Household crimes are categorized by sex, race, and marital status of head of household. 

Table 10. Average annual victimization rates of persons age 65 or over, by location 

of residence, home ownership, and type of crime, 1987-90 

Number of victimizations 

eer 1 ,000 eersons or households 

Locali~ of residence Tenure 

City Suburb Rural Own Rent 

Crimes of violence 7.1 2.9 2.2 3.1 7.7 

Robbery 3.5 .9 .4 1.1 3.6 

Aggravated assault 1.4 .8 1.0 1.0 1.6 

Simple assault 1.9 1.1 .7 1.0 2.2 

Crimes of theft 26.4 19.6 11.4 17.8 26.7 

Personal larceny with contact 6.5 1.2 .4 1.9 5.5 

Personal larceny without contact 19.9 18.4 10.9 16.0 21.1 

HousehOld crimes 112.6 61.2 64.5 82.0 66.8 

Burglary 42.4 25.6 30.7 33.6 28.3 

Household larceny 57.3 31.2 31.3 42.1 30.9 

Motor vehicle theft 12.8 4.3 2.5 6.2 7.5 

5 

seearated 

11.3 

1.7 

4.8 

4.4 

35.4 

6.4 

30.0 

110.4 

46.3 

37.8 

10.5 

L-_____________________________________ ___ _ ____ __ __ ___ __ __ _ __ 
Measurable differences In the rates of 

victimization distinguished homeowners 

from renters (table 10). In general, 

elderly renters were significantly more 

likely to experience all forms of personal 

crime including robbery, simple assault, 

Table 11. Average annual victimization rates of persons age 65 or older, 

by family Income and type of crime, 1987-90 

Number of victimizations f!er 1,000 ~rsons or households 

Less than $7,500- $15,000- $25,000 

$7,500 14,999 24,999 ormore 

Crimes of violence 12.0 8.4 6.5 6.1 

Robbery 4.4 2.6 1.5 3.9 

Aggravated assault 3.4 3.3 1.5 .6 

Simple assault 3.9 2.3 3.3 1.5 

Crimes of theft 29.1 30.4 40.3 60.8 

Personal larceny 

with contact 7.1 4.2 5.7 4.3 

Personal larceny 

without contact 22.0 26.2 34.6 56.5 

Household crimes 76.3 70.2 81.3 96.0 

Burglary 37.9 29.3 30.7 34.2 

Household larceny 35.1 35.0 43.0 51.6 

Motorvehicle theft 3.3 5.8 7.5 10.2 

Note: Because the distribution of Income was less variable for the elderly, the income categories 

In this table are somewhat different than those reported In other NCVS publications. It should also 

be remembered that this measure represents only annual family income, not total assets. 

Table 12. Avel'age annual victimization rales, 

by age of victim and type of crime, 1987-90 

Crimes of violence 

Rape 

Robbery 

Assault 

Aggravated 

Simple 

Crimes of theft 

Personal larceny 

with contact 

Personal larceny 

without contact 

Average annual 

population 

HousehOld crimes· 

Burglary 

Household larceny 

Motor vehicle theft 

Average annual numNumber of victimizations per 1 ,000 

persons or 

households 

750r 

65-74 older 

4.7 3.0 

.1 * .1 * 

1.5 1.6 

3.0 1.3 

1.3 .7 

1.7 .6 

22.9 14.2 

2.5 2.8 

20.4 11.1 

17,774,054 11,351,210 

85.4 68.9 

33.7 30.5 

43.2 34.4 

8.4 4.0 

berof households 11,557,918 8,245,427 

Note: The victimization rates are the annual average 

of the number of victimizations for 1967-90 per 1,000 

persons or households in that age group. Detail may 

not add to total because of rounding. 

• Estimate is based on about 10 or fewer cases. 

'Household crimes are categorized by age of head 

of household. 

6 

and both types of personal theft. However, 

elderly homeowners were more likely than 

renters to become victims of household 

crime. 

The elderly with incomes under $7,500, 

were generally more likely to experience 

crimes of violence than those elderly with 

higher family incomes (table 11). Conversely, those elderly with the highest 

family income ($25,000 or more) were 

more likely to experience a personal crime 

of theft or a household crime. 

Many of the demographic variables discussed above are related to each other. 

For example, an individual's education is 

almost certainly related to his or her 

Income. In addition, Income may also be 

related to marital status and to place of 

residence, which, In turn, affects vulnerability to crime. 

Victimization rates for those 

age 75 or older 

A variety of differences in victimization 

patterns occurs when the elderly age 

group is divided into two groups: 65 to 74 

and 75 or older. A number of factors that 

NCVS does not measure- such as 

lifestyle, mobility, and ability to recall the • 

details of a vlctimization- may be related 

to these differences. 

Overall, those 75 or older experienced 

lower rates of victimization for crimes of 

violence, crimes of theft, and household 

crimes compared to those between the 

ages 65 and 74. There were no significant 

differences, however, between these two 

age groups for the specific victimization 

rates of robbery, aggravated assault, 

personal larceny with contact, and burglary 

(table 12). 

Persons under age 75 experienced higher 

rates of victimization than persons age 75 

or older, regardless of sex, race, marital 

status, or family income. When examined 

within demographic categories, rates for 

persons 75 or older generally reflected 

patterns observed for persons age 65 to 

74. For example, males age 75 or older 

were more likely to experience crimes of 

violence and household crimes than 

females. However, females age 75 or 

older were just as likely as therr male 

counterparts to experience a personal theft 

(table 13). • 
-

• Black Individuals age 75 or older had 

an increased risk of being the victims of 

violent and household crime, but the same 

•

iSk as whites of experiencing a personal 

heft. 

• Similar to those between the ages of 65 

and 74, those age 75 or older were more 

likely to be the victims of all types of crime 

if they Were divorced or separated than if 

they were married or widowed. 

* 

• Similar to the population under age 75, 

among the elderly age 75 or older, those 

who had lower family Incomes were more 

likely than persons with higher Incomes to 

experience a crime of violence and less 

likely to experience both personal theft and 

household crime. 

• For the more serious injuries, the 

percentage of violent crime victims In both 

the older age groups were not significantly 

Table 13. Average annual victimization rates of persons age 65 to 74 and 75 or older 

for crimes of violence, crimes of theft, and household crimes 

Numberofvictimizations ~er 1,000 ~ersons or households 

Crimes of violence Crimes of theft Household crimes 

65-74 75+ 65-74 75+ 65-74 75+ 

Sex 

Male 5.2 4.4 22.4 14.8 86.9 73.1 

Female 4.2 2.2 23.4 13.9 82.9 65.6 

Race 

White 4.2 2.6 23.1 14.2 77.6 61.4 

Black 13.9 6.5 36.7 16.1 156.8 149.6 

Marital status 

Married 3.3 2.2 20.5 12.9 82.7 66.5 

Widowed 5.6 3.1 24.6 13.0 83.3 68.5 

Never married 8.1 7.0 30.8 20.2 73.3 67.7 

Divorced/separated 13.1 6.2 34.9 36.5 116.6 92.2 

Family Income 

Less than $7.500 9.7 3.3 19.1 12.0 83.3 70.7 

$7,500-$14,999 4.5 4.1 18.2 12.0 49.4 64.6 

$15,000-$24,999 3.6 2.2 21.1 15.9 86.5 70.6 

$25,000 or over 3.2 1.7 30.6 20.9 78.5 78.6 

SA"i 

different. Thirteen percent of violent crime 

victims between the ages of 65 and 74 and 

those age 75 or older were hospitalized for 

at least 2 days because of their Injuries. 

• The piaces where elderly victims were 

likely to experience violent crime varied for 

the two age groups: 65 to 74 and 75 or 

older. For the overall category of violent 

crimes and for the specific crimes of robbery and assault, victims age 75 or older 

were more likely to be victimized at home 

than elsewhere, while those between the 

ages of 65 and 74 were more likely to be 

victimized on the street (table 15). A 

higher percentage of those age 75 or older 

were victims of violent crime In commercial 

or public establishments, compared to 

those age 65 to 74. 

Homicide victimizations 

The patterns observed in rates of homicide 

victimization across the age groups were 

similar to those found for crime victimization in general. The elderly were significantly less likely to become the victims of 

homicide than were those In the youngest 

age groups. Characteristics of elderly 

homicide victimization resembled those of 

victimization of the elderly in general as 

well. 

Table 14. Inlurles. medical treatment. and Table 15. Place where violent crime occurred. by age of victim 

hospital care recalved by violent crime and type of crime. 1987-90 

Victims, by age of victim, 1987-90 

Percent of victims of violent crime 

Percent of victims In commerof violent crime On cial or public 

Outcome of 750r At Near the establish- Elsevictimization 65-74 older Total home home street ment where 

Injured 33% 37% Crimes of violence 

Serious 8 11 65-74 100% 22% 29% 33% 8% 9% 

Minor 25 26 750rolder 100 33 28 25 14 11 

Robbery 

Received medical care 19 18 65-74 100 14 27 40 7 12 

Hospital CCire 13 13 750rolder 100 29 13 31 21 6 

Assault 

65-74 100 24 30 29 15 8 

750rolder 100 37 23 17 6 17 

• 

7 

.~--.------. 
The 91derly were as likely to be killed by an 

acquaintance or a relative as they were to 

be killed by a stranger (table 16). In contrast, persons in younger age cohorts were 

more likely to be killed by an acquaintance 

than either a relative or a stranger. 

Of those elderly killed, proportionately 

more were likely to be killed during a felony 

situation, compared to victims In younger 

age groups for whom homicide victimIzation was more likely to occur during 

an argument or fight (table 17). 

Striking similarities can be observed when 

homicide victimization patterns amorg the 

elderly are compared to the non-lethal 

c:rlme victimization patterns of the elderly. 

Elderly victims of crime are particularly VUlnerable to violent crime committed by a 

stranger for economic gain. 

Table 16. Average annual homicide 

rates, by age of Victim and vlctlml 

offender relationship, 1980-87 

Age 

0-34 

35-54 

55-64 

65+ 

Average annual number of homicides per 1 00,000 persons when the 

victim/offender relationship was: 

Family Acguaintance Stranger 

2.5 7.2. 2.8 

2.0 4.0 1.7 

1.9 2.6 1.5 

1.0 1.1 1.0 

Table 17. Average ,nnual homicide 

rates, by age of victim and 

precipitating circumstances, 1980-87 

Age 

0-34 

35-54 

55-64 

65+ 

Average anllual number of homicides per 1 00,000 persons where 

the incident occurred in: 

Conflict Felony Other 

5.9 .7 2.4 

6.5 .7 2.5 

2.1 1.5 .8 

.9 1.7 .6 

All conclusions about crime against the 

elderly should be interpreted against a 

background of relatively low victimization 

rates. Although the elderly were more 

likely to be killed by strangers than by 

someone whom they knew, they were less 

likely to be killed by strangers than were 

other U.S. residents. Part of the reason 

that the elderly had the lowest rate of 

criminal victimization of all age groups may 

come from their way of life. For example, 

as the elderly are more likely to live alone 

as widows or widowers, they have reduced 

contacts with acquaintances and relatives 

who account for many of the victimizations 

of younger people. 

Methodology 

The tables in this report include National 

Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data 

from 1987 to 1990. The NCVS obtains 

Information about crimes, including 

incidents not reported to the police, from 

a continuous, nationally representative 

sample of households in the United States. 

This includes persons living in group 

quarters, such as dormitories, rooming 

houses, and religious group dwellings. 

Groups not included were crew members 

of merchant vessels, Armed Forces 

personnel living In military barracks, and 

institutionalized persons, such as 

correctional facility InmAtes. Similarly, U.S. 

citizens residing abroad and foreign visitors 

to this country were excluded. With these 

exceptions, Individuals age 12 or older 

living in units designated for the sample 

were eligible to be interviewed. The NCVS 

measures crimes of violence (rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple 

assault), crimes of theft (personal larceny 

with and without contact), and household 

crimes (burglary, household larceny, and 

motor vehicle theft). The survey does not 

include murder, kidnaping, commercial 

crimes, and Incidents that the victim may 

not recognize as crimes, such as fraud or 

con games. 

Age 

Because there are no universally recognized criteria for defining elderly, the cutoff 

at age 65 was used to be consistent with 

past public policy and research. Also 

Included In this report, however, are comparisons of those age 65 to 74 with those 

8 

In th~ older age category of 75 or older. 

It shOUld be remembered that institutionalized elderly were excluded from this 

sample. 

Calculation of rates 

The rates In this report are annual average 

rates for 1987-90. The numerator (x) of a 

given rate Is the sum of the crimes that 

occurred each year from 1987 through 

1990 for each respective age group; the 

denominator (y) Is the sum of the annual 

population totals for these same years and 

age groups. 

Application of standard errors 

The results presented in this report were 

tested to determine whether or not the 

observed differences between groups were 

statistically significant. Most comparisons 

passed a hypothesis test at the .05 level of 

statistical significance (or the 95 percent 

confidence level) meaning that the estimated difference between comparisons 

was greater than twice the standard error 

of that difference. However, some comparisons were significant at the 90 percent 

confidence level only. These comparisons 

are qualified by phrases such as "some-

• 

what" or "some evidence of a difference." • 

Comparisons which failed the 90% hypothesis test were not considered statlsticall~1 

significant and, therefore, were not discussed in this report. 

Even though the data in this report were 

collected over several years, some estimates were based on a relatively small 

number of sample cases, particularly for 

those 75-')r-older victims in certain demographic groups. The data tables note 

when estimates are based on 10 or fewer 

sample cases. Because standard errors 

cannot be accurately computed for such 

estimates, it is inadvisable to compare 

them to other estimates. Further, caution 

should be used when comparing estimates 

not discussed in the text, since seemingly 

large differences may not be statistically 

significant at the 95 percent or even the 90 

percent confidence level. 

• 
I 

I 

, 

I 

I 

L 

Homicide rates 

•

The homicide rates in this report are from 

he Comparative Homicide File (CHF) for 

~.. 1980-87.* The CHF was computed from 

the Supplemental Homicide Report data 

tapes provided by the FBI. Using 

weighting and adjustment procedures, 

relationship by event-specific homicide 

rates were calculated as follows: 

((liP) X 100,000)/8 

where I = the total number of weighted and 

adjusted Incidents of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter of a specific type 

for each age group and P = the total 

population of each age group. The division 

by eight Indicates that the rates were 

calculated over the entire 1980-87 time 

period and then reexpressed on a per year 

basis. Because homicide, particularly 

among older individuals, is a relatively rare 

event, this procedure was used to reduce 

the Influence of random aberrations iii 

year-to-year estimates, in addition to the 

possible unreliability of rates basI!Jd on low 

frequencies. 

References 

•

Williams, K.R. and R. Flewelling, "Family, 

acquaintance, and stranger homicide: 

Anernative procedures for rate 

calculations," Crim,lno/ogy (1987) 25:543· 

560. 

Williams, K.R. and R. Flewelling, "The 

social production of crimina! homicide: A 

comparative study of disaggrega!so rates 

in American cities," American Sociological 

Review (1989) 53:421-431. 

'The CHF was developed at the University of New 

Hampshire unde» a grant from the National Institute of 

Justice #851 JCCb030. For more detailed information on 

rate calculation procedures see Williams and Flewelling 

(1987, 1988). 

The Bureau of Justice Statistics Is a 

component of the Office of Justice 

Programs which also includes the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance, the 

National Institute of Justice, the Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, and the Office of Victims 

of Crime. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletins 

are prepared by BJS staff. This 

report was prepared and written by 

Ronet Bachman with assistance from 

Marshall M. DeBerry, Jr., under the 

supervision of Patsy A. Klaus. Tina 

Dorsey was the production editor and 

prepared the final version of this 

report. Jayne Pugh produced the 

version for printing under the supervision of Marilyn Marbrook. Editorial 

assistance was offered by Tom 

Hester, Steven K. Smith, and 

Lawrence A. Greenfeld. 

October 1992, NCJ-138330 

-tr u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1Ii'd2 _ 3 4 2 _ 4 7 1 I 6 0 0 2 2 

9 
Selected Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Publications on CD-ROM 

The National Economic, Social, and Environmental Data Bank (NESE-DB) CD-ROM, 

produced by the U.S. Department of Commerce, is a comprehensive electronic information source focusing on the U.S. economy, society, and environment. 

NESE-DB presents the full text of many of the Federal Government's most popular 

publications on CD-ROM, including The Economic Report of the President, Toxics in 

the Community, Health Statistics U.S., and Digest of Educational Statistics. The following publications from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (8JS) are also included: 

• Criminal Victimization in the U.S., 1990 (text and tables) 

• Capital Punishment, 1990 (text) 

• Crime and the Nation's Households, 1990 (text) 

• Drugs and Jail Inmates, 1989 (text) 

• Felony Sentences in State Courts, 1988 

(text) 

• Female Victims of Violent Crime (text) 

• Jaillnmates, 1990 (text) 

• Prisoners in 1990 (text) 

• Profile of Jail Inmates (text) 

• Probation and Parole, 1990 (text) 

• School Crime (text) 

• Women in Prison (text) 

The CD-ROM includes ASCII text, Lotus 

tables, and updated Browse software. It can be used on any 

IBM-compatible PC with at least 640K of memory, an ISO 9660 

(standard) CD-ROM reader, and Microsoft CD-ROM extensions 

(version 2.0 or higher). 

The NESE-DB CD-ROM can be purchased from the BJS Clearinghouse for $15. For 

more information, call1-BOO-732-3277. 

To order your copy of the NESE-DB CD-ROM, please send a check or money order for $15 made out to the BJS Clearinghouse to P.O. Box 

6000, 2B, Rockville, MD 20850. 

You may also purchase the CD-ROM by using VISA.or MasterCard. Please include type of card, card numbar, card holder's name and 

address, and expiration date for processing. 

Credit Card Type and Number ___________ _ Expiration Date _____ _ 

Name and Address of Card Holder _____________________ _ 
Bureau of Justice Statistics 

reports 

See order form on last page 

~evised November 1992) 

.all toll-free 800-732-3277 to order BJS 

reports, to be added to one of the BJS 

mailing lists, or to speak to a reference 

specialist in statistics at the Bureau of 

Justice St1tistics Clearinghouse, 

National CI ;rninal Justice Reference 

Service, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20850. 

For drugs and crime data, call the Drugs 

& Crime Data Center & Clearinghouse, 

1600 Research Blvd., Rockville, MD 

20850, toll-free 800-666-3332. 

BJS maintains these mailing lists: 

• Law enforcement reports 

• Drugs and crime data 

• Justice expenditure and employment 

• National Crime Victimization Survey 

• Corrections 

• Courts 

• Privacy and security of criminal histories 

and criminal justice information policy 

• Federal statistics 

• BJS bulletins and special reports 

• Sourcebook of Criminal Justice 

Statistics (annual) 

Single copies of reports are free; use 

NCJ number to order. Postage and 

handling are charged for bulk orders 

of single reports. For single copies of 

multiple titles, up to 10 titles are free; 

11-40 titles $10; more than 40, $20; 

libraries call for special rates. 

Public-use tapes of BJS data sets 

and other criminal justice data are 

available from the National ArchivE' 

of Ciiminal Justice Data (formerly 

CJAIN), P.O. Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 

48106 (toll-free 800-999-0960). 

•

atiOnal Crime Victimization 

urvey 

Criminal victimization In the U.S.: 

1990 (final), NCJ-134126, 2/92 

1973-88 trends, NCJ-129392, 7/91 

1989 (final), NCJ-129391, 6/91 

Crime victimization In city, suburban, 

and rural areas, NCJ.-: 35943, 6/92 

School crime, NCJ-131645, 9/91 

Teenage victims, NCJ-128129, 5/91 

Female victims of violent crime, 

NCJ-126826,l/91 

The Nation's two crime measures: Uniform 

Crime Reports and the National Crime 

Survey, NCJ-122705, 4/90 

Redesign of the National Crime Survey, 

NCJ-111457,3/89 

The seasonality of crime victimization, 

NCJ-l11033, 6/88 

BJSbullelins 

Criminal Victimization 1991, NCJ-136947, 

10/92 

Crime and the Nation's households, 1990, 

NCJd 36950, 7/92 

The crime of rape, NCJ-96777, 3/85 

Household burglary, NCJ-96021, 1/85 

Measuring crime, NCJ-75710, 2/81 

BJS special reports 

Elderly victims, NCJ-138330, 10/92 

Handgun crime victims, NCJ-123559, 7/90 

Black victims, NCJ-122562, 4/90 

Hispanic Victims, NCJ-120507, 1/90 

The redesigned National Crime Survey: 

Selected new data, NCJ-114746, 1/89 

Motor vehicle theft, NCJ-l09978, 3/88 

Elderly victims, NCJ-l07676, 11/87 

Violent crime trends, NCJ-l07217, 11/87 

Robbery victims, NCJ-l04638, 4/87 

Violent crime by strangers and nonstrangers, NCJ-l03702, 1/87 

Preventing domestic violence against 

women, NCJ-l02037, 8/86 

Crime prevention measures, NCJ-l00438, 

•

3/86 

The use of weapons In committing 

crimes, NCJ-99643, 1/86 

Reporting crimes to the police, 

NCJ-99432, 12/85 

The economic cost of crime to victims, 

NCJ-93450, 4/84 

BJS technical reports 

New directions for NCS, NCJ-115571, 3/89 

Series crimes: Report of a field test, 

NCJ·l04615,4/87 

Crime and older Americans Information 

package, NCJ-l04569, 5/87, $10 

Victimization and fear of crime: World 

perspectives, NCJ-93872, 1/85, $9.15 

The National Crime Survey: Working papers, 

Current and historical perspectives, vol. I, 

NCJ-75374,8/82 

Methodology studies, vol. II, 

NCJ-90307, 12/84 

Corrections 

BJS bulletins and special reports 

Capital punishment 1991, NCJ-136946, 

10/92 

Drug enforcement and treatment in 

prisons, 1990, NCJ-134724, 7/92 

Prisoners In 1991, NCJ-134729, 5/92 

Women In prison, NCJ·127991, 4/91 

Violent State prison Inmates and their 

Victims, NCJ·124133, 7/90 

Prison rule violators, NCJ·120344, 12/89 

Recidivism of prisoners released In '1983, 

NCJ·116261,4/89 . 

Drug use and crime: State prison Inmate 

survey, 1986, NCJ-111940, 7/88 

Time served in pr.lson and on parole, 1984, 

NCJ-l08544,l2/87 

Profile of State prison Inmates, 1986, 

NCJ·109926,l/88 

Imprisonment In four countries, 

NCJ·l03967,2/87 

Populatioli density In State prisons, 

NCJ-l03204,12/86 

Prisoners at midyear 1992 (press release), 

NCJ-138541,10/92 

Correctional populations in the United 

States: 

1990, NCJ-134946, 7/92 

1989, NCJ-130445, 10/91 

Census of State and Federal correctional 

facilities, 1990, NCJ·137003, 6/92 

Prisons and prisoners in the United States, 

NCJ·137002, 4/92 

National Corrections Reporting Program: 

1989, NCJ-138222, 11/92 

1988, NCJ·134929, 4/92 

1987, NCJ-134928, 4/92 

1986, NCJ·132291, 2/92 

State and Federal Institutions, 1926-86; 

Race of prisoners admitted, NCJ-125618, 

6/91 

Historical statistics on prisoners, 

NCJ-ll1098,6/88 

Census of jails and survey 

of jail inmates 

BJS bulletins and special reports 

Drunk driving: 1989 Survey of Inmates 

of Local Jails, NCJ-134728, 9/92 

Jail Inmates, 1991, NCJ-134726, 6/92 

Women In Jail, 1989, NCJ-134732, 3/92 

Drugs and jail Inmates, NCJ·130836, 8/91 

Jail Inmates, 1990, NCJ·129756, 6191 

Profile of jail Inmates, 1989, 

NCJ-129097,4/91 

Jail Inmates, 1989, NCJ-123264, 6/90 

Population density In local Jails, 1988, 

NCJ-122299,3/90 

Census of local Jails, 1988, 

NCJ·121101,2/90 

Census of local Jails, 1988: 

Summary and methodology, vol. I, 

NCJ-127992,3/91 

Data for Individual Jails In the Northeast, 

Midwest, South, West, vols. II-V, 

NCJ-130759-130762,9/91 

Census of local Jails, 1983: Selected 

findings, methodology, summary tables, 

vol. V, NCJ-112795, 11/88 

Probation and parole 

BJS bulletins and special reports 

Probation and parole: 

1990, NCJ·133285, 11/91 

1989, NCJ·125833, 11/90 

Recidivism of young parolees, 

NCJ·l04916,5/87 

Juvenile corrections 

Children In custody: Census of public and 

private Juvenile detention, correctional, 

and shelter facilities, 1975·85, NCJ-114065, 

6/89 

Survey of youth In custody, 1987 (special 

report), NC,J·113365, 9/88 

Expenditure and employment 

Justice expenditure and employment: 

1990 (BJS bulletin), NCJ-135777, 9/92 

1988 (full report), NCJ·125619, 8/91 

Extracts, 1984, '85, '86, NCJ-124139, 8191 

Justice variable pass·through data, 1990: 

Anti·drug abuse formula grants (BJS 

technical report), NCJ-133018, 3/92 

Courts 

BJSbulletins 

Prosecutors In State courts, 1990, 

NCJ·134500, 3/92 

Pretrial release of felony defendants, 1988, 

NCJ·127202,2191 

Felony sentences in State courts, 1988, 

NCJ·126923, 12/90 

Criminal defense for the poor, 1986, 

NCJ·112919,9/88 

State felony cou,ts and felony laws, 

NCJ-l06273,8/87 

The growth of appeals: 1973·93 trends, 

NCJ-96381, 2/85 

BJS special reports 

Recidivism of felons on probation, 

1986·89, NCJ·134177, 2192 

Felony case processing In State courts, 

1986, NCJ-121753, 2/90 

National Judicial Reporting Program, 1988, 

NCJ·135945,11/92 

The prosecution of felony arrests: 

1988, NCJ·130914, 2/92 

1987, NCJ-124140, 9/90 

Felons sentllnced to probation in State 

courts, 1986. NCJ·124944, 11/90 

;:elony defendants In large urban counties, 

1988, NCJ-122385, 4/90 

Profile of felons convicted in State courts, 

1986, NCJ·120021, 1/90 

Felony laws of 50 States and the District of 

Columbla,1986, NCJ·l05066, 2/88, $14.60 

State court model statistical dictionary: 

Supplement, NCJ·98326, 9/85 

1 st edition, NCJ·62320, 9/80 

Privacy and security 

Criminal justice Information policy: 

Report of the National Task Force on 

Criminal History Record Dlspos!tloli 

Reporting, NCJ-135836, 6/92 

Attorney General's program for Improving 

the Nation's criminal history records: 

BJS Implementation status report, 

NCJ·134722, 3/92 

Identifying felons who attempt to 

purchase firearms, NCJ·128131, 3/91, 

$9.90 

Assessing completeness and accuracy of 

criminal history record Information: 

Audit guide, NCJ·133651. 2/92 

Forensic DNA analysis: Issues, 

NCJ-128567,6/91 

Statutes requiring use of criminal history 

record Information, NCJ·129896, 6/91 

Survey of criminal history Information 

systems, NCJ·125620, 3/91 

Original records of entry, NCJ-125626, 

12190 

Strategies for Improving data quality, 

NCJ-115339.5189 

Public access to criminal history record 

Information, NCJ-111458, 11/88 

Juvenile records and recordkeeplng 

systems, NCJ·112815,11/88 

Automated fingerprint Identification 

systems: Technology and policy Issues, 

NCJ-l 04342, 4/87 

Criminal Justice "hot" fliIlS, NCJ·l01850, 

12186 

BJS/SEARCH conference proceedings: 

National conference on Improving the 

quality of criminal history Information: 

NCJ·133532, 2/92 

Criminal justice In the 1990's: The future 

of Information management, 

NCJ·121697, 5/90. $7.70 

Juvenile and adult records: One system, 

one record? NCJ-114947, 1/90 

Open vs. confidential records, 

NCJ·113560.1/88 

Compendium of State privacy and security 

legislation: 

1992. NCJ·137058, 7/92 

1992 full report (1. 500pp, microfiche $2. 

call for hard-COpy price), 7/92 

Computer crime 

Electronic fund transfer systems fraud, 

NCJ-l00461,4186 

Expert witness manual, NCJ·77927, 9/81, 

$11.50 

Law Enforcement Management 

and Administrative Statistics 

LEMAS, 1990: Data for Individual agencies 

with 100 or more officers. NCJ·134436. 

9/92 

BJS bulletins and special reporls 

Drug enforcement by police and sheriffs' 

departments, 1990, NCJ-134505, 5/92 

State and local police departments, 1990. 

NCJ·133284,12/91 

Sheriffs' departments, 1990, NCJ·133283. 

12/91 

Police departments in large cities, 1987. 

NCJ·119220. 8/89 

Profile of State and local law enforcement 

agencies, 1987, NCJ-113949, 3/89 

Drugs & crime: 800·666·3332 

Dru,;s and crime facts: 

1991, NCJ·134371, 9/92 

1990. NCJ-128662, 8/91 

State drug resources: 1992 national 

directory, NCJ·134375, 5/92 

Catalog of selected Federal publications 

on Illegal drug and alcohol abuse, 

NCJ·1325g2,10/91 

Federal drug data for national policy, 

NCJ·122715,4/90 

Federal justice statistics 

Federal criminal case processing, 1980·90, 

with preliminary data for 1991, 

NCJ-136945, 9192 

Compendium of Federal justice statistics: 

1989, NCJ·134730, 5/92 

1988, NCJ·130474, 1/92 

The Federal civil justice system (8JS 

bulletin), NCJ·104769, 8187 

Federal offenses and offenders 

BJS special reports 

Federal sentencing in transition, 1986·90, 

NCJ-134727,6/92 

Immigration offenses, NCJ-124546, 8/90 

Federal criminal cases, 1980·87, 

NCJ·118311,7/89 

Drug law violators, 1980-86, NCJ-111763, 

6/88 

Pretrial release and detention: The Ball 

Reform Act of 1984, NCJ·l09929. 2188 

General 

BJS bulletins and special reports 

Patterns of robbery and burglary 

in 9 States, 1984·88. NCJ·137368. 11/92 

Forgery and fraud-related offenses 

in 6 States, 1983·88, NCJ-132445, 1/92 

BJS telephone contacts, '91, NCJ·130133, 

7/91 

Tracking offenders, 1988, NCJ-129861. 6/91 

International crime rates. NCJ·'ll 0776, 5/88 

BJS national update; 

Oct. '92, NCJ-138540, 9/92 

July '92, NCJ-137059, 7/92 

April '92, NCJ·135722, 4/92 

Jan. '92, NCJ-133097, 12191 

Sourcebook of criminal justic~ statistics, 

1991, NCJ·137369, 9/92 

State justice sourcebook of statistics and 

research. NCJ·137991, 9/92 

BJS application information, FY 1992 

programs, NCJ·134644, 3/92 

Perestroika and the Procuracy: The changIng role of the prosecutor's office in the 

former USSR (BJS discussion paper). 

NCJ'134501,3/92 

Violent crime In the United States, 

NCJ·127855,3/91 

BJS data report, 1989, NCJ·121514. 1/91 

Publications of BJS, 1985·89: 

Microfiche library, PR030014, 5/90. $190 

Bibliography, TB003OO13, 5/90, $17.50 

Publications of BJS, 1971-84; 

Microfiche library. PR030012, 10/86, $203 

Bibliography. TB030012, 10/86, $17.50 

1990 directory of automated criminal justice 

information systems, Vol. 1, Corrections, 

$10.60; 2, Courts, $11.50; 3, Law enforce· 

ment, Iree; 4, Probation and parole, $11.50; 

5, Prosecution, $11.50; NCJ·122226-30, 

5/90 

Report to the Nation on crime and iustice: 

Second edillon, NCJ·l05506. 6/88 

Technical appendix. NCJ·112011, 8/88 

See order form 

on last page 
III. moa Mit ··pa 

Please put me on the mailing list forO Law enforcement reports-national 

data on State and local police and 

sheriffs' departments, operations, 

equipment, personnel, salaries, 

spending, policies, programs 

o Federal statistics-data describing 

Federal case processing, from 

investigation through prosecution, 

adjudication, and corrections 

o Drugs and crime-sentenc.ing and 

time served by drug offenders, drug 

use at time of crime by jail inmates 

and State prisoners, and other quality 

data on drugs, crime, and law 

enforcement 

o Justice expenditure & employmentannual spending and staffing by 

Federal, State, and local governments 

and by function (police, courts, 

corrections, etc.) 

To be added to any BJS 

mailing list, please copy 

or cut out this page, fill 

in, fold, stamp, and mail 

to the Justice Sta.tistics 

Clearinghouse/NCJRS. 

You will receive an annual 

renewal card. If you do not 

return it, we must drop you 

from the mailing list. 

p 

o Privacy and security of criminal 

history data and information policynew legislation; maintaining and 

releasing intelligence and investigative 

records; data quality issues 

o BJS bulletins and special reportstimely reports of the most current 

justice data in all BJS data series 

o Prosecution and adjudication in 

State courts-case processing from 

prosecution through court disposition, 

State felony laws, felony sentencing, 

public defenders, pretrial release 

o Corrections reports-results of 

sample surveys and censuses of jails, 

prisons, parole, probation, and other 

corrections data 

Name: 

Title: 

Organization: 

Street or box: 

City, State, Zip: 

Daytime phone number: 

Criminal justice interest: 

To order copies of recent 

BJS reports, check here 0 

and circle items you want 

to receive on other side 

Put your organization 

and title here if you 

used home address above: 

of this sheet. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Washington, D.C. 20531 

Special 

Report 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

o National Crime Victimization 

Survey-the only ongoing national 

survey of crime victimization • 

o Sourcebook of Criminal Justice 

Statistics (annual)-broad-based data 

from 150 + sources with addresses; 

400 + tables, figures, index, annotated 

bibliography 

o BJS National Update-a quarterly 

summary of new BJS data, programs, 

and information services and products 

o Send me a sign up form for NIJ Catalog, 

free 6 times a year, which abstracts 

private and government criminal justice 

publications 

BULK RATE 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

DOJ/BJS 

Permit No. G-91 

• 

•