U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

BJS

Special Report

AUGUST 2014 NCJ 246311

The NCVS collects information on nonfatal crimes reported 

and not reported to police against persons age 12 or older 

from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. 

The 2007 to 2010 NCVS data contain geographic codes for 

states, metropolitan areas, counties, and census tracts based 

on the respondents’ place of residence. The 4 years of data 

were pooled to increase the sample size to produce reliable 

estimates for the area comparison analysis.

U.S. Hispanic population has grown 246% over the 

past 30 years 

Since 1980, the number of Hispanics in the United States 

has grown from a small proportion of the population to 

the largest minority group in the country.2 The Hispanic 

2Starting in 1980, the U.S. Census Bureau began using only selfidentification to enumerate the Hispanic population. (See Gibson, 

Campbell, and Kay Jung (2002). Historical Census Statistics on Population 

Totals by Race, 1970 to 1990, and by Hispanic Origin, 1970 to 1990, for 

the United States, Regions, Divisions, and States. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Census Bureau.)

HIGHLIGHTS

This report describes violent victimization rates by victims’ 

race and ethnicity within four types of Hispanic areas using 

National Crime Victimization Survey data from 2007 to 2010. 

Hispanic areas are classified based on their historical Hispanic 

population and the growth in their Hispanic population 

between 1980 and 2010: (1) established slow-growth areas, 

(2) established fast-growth areas, (3) new Hispanic areas, and 

(4) small Hispanic areas.

 From 1980 to 2010, the Hispanic population increased 246%, 

compared to 44% for non-Hispanic blacks and 9% for nonHispanic whites.

 From 2007 to 2010, new Hispanic areas had a lower 

overall rate of violent victimization compared to small 

Hispanic areas that had relatively little growth in 

Hispanic populations.

 Unlike blacks and whites, Hispanics experienced higher rates 

of violent victimization in new Hispanic metropolitan areas 

(26 per 1,000) than in other areas (16 to 20 per 1,000).

 Hispanics ages 18 to 34 exhibited the largest variation in 

victimization rates by type of area. Those in new Hispanic 

areas experienced violence at higher rates than those in 

established and small Hispanic areas.

 Among all age groups, new Hispanic areas did not show 

statistically significant higher rates of violent victimization 

for non-Hispanic white and black residents.

 Blacks experienced higher rates of violent victimization in 

small Hispanic metropolitan areas (50 per 1,000) than in new 

Hispanic areas (27 per 1,000). 

 For whites, the overall rate of violent victimization was 

lower in established slow-growth areas, while the other 

areas showed no significant differences in the overall rate of 

violent victimization.

Violent Victimization in New and 

Established Hispanic Areas, 2007–2010

Min Xie, Ph.D., University of Maryland at College Park, and Michael Planty, Ph.D., Bureau of Justice Statistics

Hispanic populations in many U.S. communities 

experienced rapid growth during the past 

3 decades.1 Before 1980, most Hispanics lived in the 

Southwest and in New York, Florida, and Illinois. From 1980 

to 2010, the number of Hispanics living outside of these 

areas increased from 2.7 million to 13.5 million. Meanwhile, 

from 2007 to 2010, the overall rate of violence in new 

Hispanic areas exhibited no statistically significant difference 

from that in established Hispanic areas.

This report is based on data from the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics’ (BJS) area-identified National Crime Victimization 

Survey (NCVS). It examines violent victimization (rape 

or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple 

assault) among blacks, whites, and Hispanics in four 

types of Hispanic areas: (1) established slow-growth areas, 

(2) established fast-growth areas, (3) new Hispanic areas, 

and (4) small Hispanic areas.

1Massey, Douglas S (Ed.) (2008). New Faces in New Places: The Changing 

Geography of American Immigration. New York: Russell Sage.
VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION IN NEW AND ESTABLISHED HISPANIC AREAS, 2007–2010 | AUGUST 2014 2

growth rate from 1980 to 2010 (246%) exceeded the rates for 

non-Hispanic blacks (44%) and non-Hispanic whites (9%) 

(figure 1).

A typology was used to define established and new Hispanic 

areas based on historical and recent Hispanic population 

counts.3 The typology classified 363 metropolitan areas and 

3,103 counties in the 48 contiguous states and the District of 

Columbia into four categories according to their Hispanic 

base population in 1980 and the growth in their Hispanic 

population from 1980 to 2010. Established Hispanic areas 

were metropolitan areas or counties in which the Hispanic 

base population exceeded the national average of 6.4% in 

1980. These areas were further divided into two groups (i.e., 

slow or fast growth) depending on whether the growth in 

their Hispanic population lagged or exceeded the national 

average growth rate of 246% between 1980 and 2010. 

3Suro, Roberto, and Audrey Singer (2002). Latino Growth in Metropolitan 

America: Changing Patterns, New Locations. Washington, DC: Brookings 

Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and the Pew 

Hispanic Center.

Figure 2

Residential patterns of Hispanics in metropolitan areas, 1980–2010

(a) Established slow-growth Hispanic areas (b) Established fast-growth Hispanic areas 

(c) New Hispanic areas (d) Small Hispanic areas

Note: Metropolitan areas are the unit of analysis. The 2010 metropolitan area definition as delineated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was 

applied consistently to data from each decade. 75 Fed. Reg. 123 (June 28, 2010).

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing,1980–2010.

Figure 1

U.S. population growth, 1980–2010

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Other*

Non-Hispanic Black

Non-Hispanic White

Hispanic

Total U.S. Population

1980 1990 2000 2010

Persons (in millions)

*Includes all other racial/ethnic groups.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 

Census of Population and Housing, 1980–2010.
VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION IN NEW AND ESTABLISHED HISPANIC AREAS, 2007–2010 | AUGUST 2014 3

Small Hispanic areas were those in which the Hispanic 

base population and growth rate were both lower than the 

national average. New Hispanic areas began with a small, 

lower than average percentage of Hispanics, but the growth 

in their Hispanic population exceeded the national average. 

Using the typology, two maps showing Hispanic residential 

patterns were developed: one for metropolitan areas and one 

for counties (figures 2 and 3). Analyses of the metropolitan 

areas and counties are presented separately throughout this 

report. Together, they provide a comprehensive overview of 

Hispanic settlement patterns.

Figure 3

Residential patterns of Hispanics in counties, 1980–2010

(a) Established slow-growth Hispanic areas (b) Established fast-growth Hispanic areas

(c) New Hispanic areas (d) Small Hispanic areas

Note: Counties are the unit of analysis.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing,1980–2010.
Table 1

Size of Hispanic population, by type of metropolitan area, 1980 and 2010

1980 2010

Type of metropolitan area

Total U.S. 

population

Number of 

Hispanics

Percent of total 

population

Total U.S. 

population

Number of 

Hispanics

Percent of total 

population

Established slow-growth Hispanic areas 45,447,787 8,130,958 18% 59,298,550 19,741,227 33%

Established fast-growth Hispanic areas 22,024,642 3,143,542 14 45,182,944 15,108,700 33

New Hispanic areas 82,372,426 1,440,032 2 119,627,201 10,304,860 9

Small Hispanic areas 32,112,144 553,186 2 32,777,459 1,446,716 4

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing,1980–2010.

Table 2 

Size of Hispanic population, by type of county, 1980 and 2010

1980 2010

Type of county

Total U.S. 

population

Number of 

Hispanics

Percent of total 

population

Total U.S. 

population

Number of 

Hispanics

Percent of total 

population

Established slow-growth Hispanic areas 38,009,051 8,879,651 23% 48,868,759 19,536,325 40%

Established fast-growth Hispanic areas 20,750,566 2,819,823 14 41,242,198 13,960,435 34

New Hispanic areas 112,373,549 1,946,279 2 162,690,441 14,604,559 9

Small Hispanic areas 54,046,097 882,159 2 53,817,719 2,209,968 4

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing,1980–2010.

Table 3

Hispanic and overall population growth, by type of metropolitan area, 1980–2010

1980 to 2010 population growth in—

Type of metropolitan area

Total U.S. population 

(percent change)

Hispanic population 

(percent change)

Hispanics as a percent 

of overall growth*

Established slow-growth Hispanic areas 30% 143% 84%

Established fast-growth Hispanic areas 105 381 52

New Hispanic areas 45 616 24

Small Hispanic areas 2 162 134

*The percentage of the overall population growth that is due to the growth in the Hispanic popuation.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing,1980–2010.

Table 4

Hispanic and overall population growth, by type of county, 1980–2010

1980 to 2010 population growth in—

Type of county

Total U.S. population 

(percent change)

Hispanic population 

(percent change)

Hispanics as a percent 

of overall growth* 

Established slow-growth Hispanic areas 29% 120% 98%

Established fast-growth Hispanic areas 99 395 54

New Hispanic areas 45 650 25

Small Hispanic areas -0.4 151 ~

~Not applicable.

*The percentage of the overall population growth that is due to the growth in the Hispanic popuation.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing,1980–2010.

Established slow-growth areas contained the major 

immigration gateways (e.g., Los Angeles, New York City, 

and Chicago) and the major metropolitan areas in the 

Southwest (e.g., California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, 

and Colorado) where Hispanic communities developed 

largely along the U.S.-Mexico border. These areas extended 

beyond the metropolitan regions to neighboring nonmetro counties, and they formed a continuing strip from 

Texas to Colorado while covering large proportions 

of Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, and Wyoming. With the 

exception of counties near Chicago, New York, and Miami, 

established Hispanic communities traditionally were 

concentrated in the Southwest and neighboring states. 

More than 8 million Hispanics lived in these areas in 

1980, and the number grew to nearly 20 million in 2010 

(tables 1 and 2). Overall, the number of Hispanics grew 

by 143% in established Hispanic metropolitan areas and 

by 120% in established Hispanic counties (tables 3 and 4). 

The growth rates in established slow-growth Hispanic 

metropolitan areas and counties were lower than those of 

the other area types; however, Hispanics still accounted 

for a substantial portion of the overall population growth 

in these areas. The total population grew by about 30% in 

these areas from 1980 to 2010, with Hispanics accounting 

for 84% of the growth in metropolitan areas and 98% of the 

growth in counties. 
VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION IN NEW AND ESTABLISHED HISPANIC AREAS, 2007–2010 | AUGUST 2014 5

Established fast-growth Hispanic areas contained 

metropolitan areas and counties that mainly served as 

secondary destinations for Hispanics passing through 

major immigration gateways. With the exception of a few 

metropolitan areas (e.g., Phoenix, Las Vegas, Denver, and 

Miami), the communities in this category were largely 

clustered in California and Texas, with a few scattered 

around the edge of the more established Hispanic areas. 

Slightly more than 3 million Hispanics lived in these 

metropolitan areas in 1980, representing 20% of Hispanics 

in the United States. Established fast-growth Hispanic 

areas saw an increase of close to 400% in their Hispanic 

population, as nearly 30% of Hispanics lived in these areas 

in 2010. The population growth in these areas showed a 

different pattern than in other area types: the increase in the 

Hispanic population accounted for slightly more than 50% 

of the areas’ overall population growth. (Compared with the 

more established Hispanic areas, the growth in the Hispanic 

population in these secondary destinations represented a 

more generalized population expansion among all groups.) 

New Hispanic areas contained a large number of 

metropolitan areas and counties outside of the traditional 

Hispanic gateways. These areas varied in the opportunities 

they provided for new Hispanic residents. For example, 

food-processing industries in the Midwest created a demand 

for labor that was associated with an influx of Hispanics.4

In the meantime, areas in the Southeast, mid-Atlantic, 

Northeast, and north-Pacific regions experienced rapid 

development in technology, information, and financial 

sectors, which resulted in the expansion of local labor 

markets.5 The expansion and restructuring of the service 

economy, manufacturing industry, and construction 

4Leach, Mark A., and Frank D. Bean (2008). The structure and dynamics of 

Mexican migration to New Destinations in the United States. In Douglas 

S. Massey (Ed.), New Faces in New Places: The Changing Geography of 

American Immigration. New York: Russell Sage.

5Carnoy, Martin (2000). Sustaining the New Economy: Work, Family, 

and Community in the Information Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

University Press.

industry was associated with the increased presence of 

Hispanics in many locales where there had been little 

previous Hispanic migration.6 In these new Hispanic areas, 

the increase in the Hispanic population accounted for only 

a small proportion (about 25%) of the overall population 

growth. This pattern is not surprising because the growing 

economies and relatively low costs of living in many new 

Hispanic areas made them attractive for both Hispanic and 

non-Hispanic populations. 

Small Hispanic areas contained metropolitan areas and 

counties in the South (mainly in Louisiana, Mississippi, 

and Alabama), Midwest, northeastern postindustrial rust 

belt region, and mountain states (mainly in Montana and 

Wyoming). Less than 5% of the U.S. Hispanic population 

lived in these areas in 2010. In addition to showing a limited 

growth in the Hispanic population, these areas showed 

a slow (or lack of) growth in the population of the other 

racial and ethnic groups. The total population of this area 

type remained essentially unchanged from 1980 to 2010. 

When examined individually, half of the metropolitan areas 

and counties in this category (e.g., Detroit, Pittsburgh, 

and Buffalo) experienced population loss during the 30-

year period. Without the small increase in the Hispanic 

population, this area type would have shown a greater loss 

in population. In many cases, a sluggish economy and fewer 

employment opportunities were related to the slow rate of 

growth among Hispanics and other population groups in 

these areas.7

6Parrado, Emilio A., and William Kandel (2008). New Hispanic migrant 

destinations: A tale of two industries. In Douglas S. Massey (Ed.), New Faces 

in New Places: The Changing Geography of American Immigration. New 

York: Russell Sage.

7Beauregard, Robert A (2009). Urban population loss in historical 

perspective: United States, 1820–2000. Environment and Planning

A41: 514–528.
VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION IN NEW AND ESTABLISHED HISPANIC AREAS, 2007–2010 | AUGUST 2014 6

* The percentage of the population in poverty.

** The percentage of the civilian labor force unemployed.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2006–2010.

Figure 4

Socioeconomic characteristics, by type of metropolitan area, 2006–2010

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Small Hispanic areas New Hispanic areas Established

fast-growth

Hispanic areas

Established

slow-growth

Hispanic areas

Per capita income

Minimum

Maximum

0

10

20

30

40

Maximum

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Minimum

Small Hispanic areas New Hispanic areas Established

fast-growth

Hispanic areas

Established

slow-growth

Hispanic areas

Percent

0

5

10

15

Maximum

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Minimum

Small Hispanic areas New Hispanic areas Established

fast-growth

Hispanic areas

Established

slow-growth

Hispanic areas

Percent

0

5

10

15

Maximum

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Small Hispanic areas New Hispanic areas Established

fast-growth

Hispanic areas

Established

slow-growth

Hispanic areas

Percent

Minimum

(a) Per capita income in 2010 inflation-adjusted dollars

(c) Unemployment rate**

(b) Poverty rate*

(d) Female heads of households with children

Continued on next page

Social and organizational context of Hispanic areas

Study of the socioeconomic and organizational structures 

of the areas in the National Crime Victimization Survey 

sample adds context to the understanding of life in 

different communities. The areas’ income, poverty rate, 

unemployment rate, and percentage of female heads of 

households with children were charted using the American 

Community Survey 5-year estimates from 2006 to 2010 

(figures 4 and 5). Although there was substantial overlap in 

socioeconomic characteristics among area types, new 

Hispanic areas had relatively high measures of economic 

wealth compared to small Hispanic areas. In both 

counties and metropolitan areas, new Hispanic areas 

showed higher incomes and lower rates of poverty, 

unemployment, and family disruption compared to small 

Hispanic areas as shown by the median values of the social 

indicators. This pattern was expected as new Hispanic 

areas were typically formed on the foundation of better 

economic opportunities.
VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION IN NEW AND ESTABLISHED HISPANIC AREAS, 2007–2010 | AUGUST 2014 7

Figure 5

Socioeconomic characteristics, by type of county, 2006–2010

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Minimum

Small Hispanic areas New Hispanic areas Established

fast-growth

Hispanic areas

Established

slow-growth

Hispanic areas

Per capita income

Maximum

0

10

20

30

40

Maximum

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Minimum

Small Hispanic areas New Hispanic areas Established

fast-growth

Hispanic areas

Established

slow-growth

Hispanic areas

Percent

0

5

10

15

20

Maximum

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Minimum

Small Hispanic areas New Hispanic areas Established

fast-growth

Hispanic areas

Established

slow-growth

Hispanic areas

Percent

0

5

10

15

20 Maximum

75th percentile

Median

Minimum

25th percentile

Small Hispanic areas New Hispanic areas Established

fast-growth

Hispanic areas

Established

slow-growth

Hispanic areas

Percent

(a) Per capita income in 2010 inflation-adjusted dollars

(c) Unemployment rate**

(b) Poverty rate*

(d) Female heads of households with children

* The percentage of the population in poverty.

** The percentage of the civilian labor force unemployed.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2006–2010.

Social and organizational context of Hispanic areas (continued)

Continued on next page
VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION IN NEW AND ESTABLISHED HISPANIC AREAS, 2007–2010 | AUGUST 2014 8

Figure 6

Service and organizational structures, by type of metropolitan area, 2006

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Maximum

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Small Hispanic areas New Hispanic areas Established

fast-growth

Hispanic areas

Established

slow-growth

Hispanic areas

Per 1,000 residents

Minimum

0

5

10

15

20

Maximum

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Minimum

Small Hispanic areas New Hispanic areas Established

fast-growth

Hispanic areas

Established

slow-growth

Hispanic areas

Per 1,000 residents

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Maximum

Small Hispanic areas New Hispanic areas Established

fast-growth

Hispanic areas

Established

slow-growth

Hispanic areas

Per 1,000 residents

Minimum

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

0

5

10

15

20

Maximum

75th percentile

Median

Small Hispanic areas New Hispanic areas Established

fast-growth

Hispanic areas

Established

slow-growth

Hispanic areas

Per 1,000 residents

25th percentile

Minimum

(a) Full-time sworn police officers

(c) Civic and social organization employees*

(b) Social service workers

(d) Religious organization employees

*The North American Indiustry classification system (NAICS) defines civic and social organization (NAICS code 8134) as establishments primarly engaged in 

promoting the civic and social interests of their members.

Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2004 and 2008; and U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2006.

Social and organizational context of Hispanic areas (continued)

Continued on next page

In 2006, each area’s organizational structures were charted 

(per 1,000 residents) for numbers of police, social service 

workers, civic and social organization employees, and 

religious organization employees (figures 6 and 7). When 

expressed on a per 1,000 resident basis, these represent 

measures of a community’s formal and informal social 

control and support networks.8 In 2006, there were 

8Xie, Min, Janet L. Lauritsen, and Karen Heimer (2012). Intimate partner 

violence in U.S. metropolitan areas: The contextual influences of police 

and social services. Criminology 50: 961–992.

modest differences in organizational structures between 

new and small Hispanic areas, except there were fewer 

social service workers in new Hispanic areas than in small 

Hispanic areas. When compared with established Hispanic 

areas, new Hispanic areas had a relatively large number 

of employees for both civic and social organizations and 

religious organizations.
VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION IN NEW AND ESTABLISHED HISPANIC AREAS, 2007–2010 | AUGUST 2014 9

Figure 7

Service and organizational structures, by type of county, 2006

0

5

10

15

Maximum

75th percentile

Median

25th percentile

Minimum

Small Hispanic areas New Hispanic areas Established

fast-growth

Hispanic areas

Established

slow-growth

Hispanic areas

Per 1,000 residents

0

5

10

15

20

25

Maximum

Median

25th percentile

Small Hispanic areas New Hispanic areas Established

fast-growth

Hispanic areas

Established

slow-growth

Hispanic areas

Per 1,000 residents

75th percentile

Minimum

0

2

4

6

8

Maximum

75th percentile

Median

Small Hispanic areas New Hispanic areas Established

fast-growth

Hispanic areas

Established

slow-growth

Hispanic areas

Per 1,000 residents

Minimum 25th percentile 0

10

20

30

40

Maximum

75th percentile

Median

Small Hispanic areas New Hispanic areas Established

fast-growth

Hispanic areas

Established

slow-growth

Hispanic areas

Per 1,000 residents

Minimum

25th percentile

(a) Full-time sworn police officers

(c) Civic and social organization employees*

(b) Social service workers

(d) Religious organization employees

*The North American Indiustry classification system (NAICS) defines civic and social organization (NAICS code 8134) as establishments primarly engaged in 

promoting the civic and social interests of their members.

Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2004 and 2008; and U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2006.

Social and organizational context of Hispanic areas (continued)
VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION IN NEW AND ESTABLISHED HISPANIC AREAS, 2007–2010 | AUGUST 2014 10

Table 5

Nonfatal violent victimization, by race and ethnicity and type of metropolitan area, 2007–2010

Total Hispanic Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black

Type of metropolitan area 

Number of 

victimizations

Rate per 

1,000

Number of 

victimizations

Rate per 

1,000

Number of 

victimizations

Rate per 

1,000

Number of 

victimizations

Rate per 

1,000

Total 19,996,956 23.6 2,668,965 20.5 12,984,478 23.3 3,252,340 31.2

Established slow-growth 

 Hispanic areas 3,140,870 17.0 983,294 18.4 1,444,573 16.2 456,775 22.3

Established fast-growth 

 Hispanic areas 3,383,681 24.6 837,457 19.6 1,942,876 27.3 493,219 35.6

New Hispanic areas 9,834,177 24.3 774,485 26.2 7,114,319 23.4 1,409,896 27.1

Small Hispanic areas 3,638,228 30.7 73,728 16.4 2,482,711 26.9 892,450 49.5

Note: The analysis is restricted to the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia. Based on persons age 12 or older. See appendix table 3 for standard errors.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007–2010.

Table 6

Nonfatal violent victimization, by race and ethnicity and type of county, 2007–2010

Total Hispanic Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black

Type of county 

Number of 

victimizations

Rate per 

1,000

Number of 

victimizations

Rate per 

1,000

Number of 

victimizations

Rate per 

1,000

Number of 

victimizations

Rate per 

1,000

Total 23,473,683 23.4 2,834,950 20.3 15,890,780 23.1 3,499,958 29.9

Established slow-growth 

 Hispanic areas 2,791,312 19.7 986,136 19.3 1,104,722 19.7 470,885 26.0

Established fast-growth 

 Hispanic areas 2,679,349 21.8 614,487 16.3 1,538,956 24.0 416,589 38.6

New Hispanic areas 12,848,104 23.8 1,094,810 24.7 9,596,039 23.4 1,463,742 25.4

Small Hispanic areas 5,154,916 25.9 139,516 21.0 3,651,063 23.3 1,148,742 37.6

Note: The analysis is restricted to the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia. Based on persons age 12 or older. See appendix table 4 for standard errors.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007–2010.

New Hispanic areas had a lower rate of violent 

victimization compared to small Hispanic areas that 

had little growth in Hispanic populations

The rate of nonfatal violence was approximately 24 violent 

crimes per 1,000 persons for new Hispanic metropolitan 

areas when all racial and ethnic groups were combined, 

which was close to the average for all metropolitan areas 

(table 5). The violence rate was lower in established slowgrowth Hispanic areas (approximately 17 violent crimes 

per 1,000 persons), and higher in small Hispanic areas 

where there was little growth in Hispanic populations 

(about 31 violent crimes per 1,000 persons). The county 

level showed a similar pattern, although the difference in 

victimization between the new and small Hispanic areas 

was not statistically significant at the county level (table 6). 

Overall, when all racial and ethnic groups were combined, 

new Hispanic areas did not show a higher rate of violent 

victimization than the U.S. total population. Instead, small 

Hispanic areas tended to show higher rates of violence. 

Hispanics in new Hispanic areas experienced higher 

rates of violent victimization compared to other 

Hispanic areas

Hispanics, whites, and blacks showed some similarity 

with the overall patterns of violence; however, important 

differences existed between groups. For whites, the rate 

of violence for those living in established slow-growth 

Hispanic metropolitan areas (16 per 1,000) was lower than 

in other areas (23 to 27 per 1,000) (table 5). The three 

areas (established fast-growth, new, and small Hispanic 

metropolitan areas) exhibited no significant differences 

between victimization rates for whites. A similar pattern was 

observed for whites at the county level (table 6).

Blacks in small Hispanic metropolitan areas experienced 

violence at higher rates (50 per 1,000) than blacks in new 

Hispanic areas (27 per 1,000) and accounted for the higher 

overall rates of violence in small Hispanic areas. Blacks 

also had relatively higher risks of violent victimization 

in established fast-growth Hispanic metropolitan areas 

(36 per 1,000). New Hispanic areas were not high-risk areas 

for blacks. At the county level, black victimization patterns 

were similar to the metropolitan areas.
Table 8

Age-adjusted nonfatal violent victimization rates, by race and ethnicity and type of county, 2007–2010

Victim race/ethnicity and type of county

Age-adjusted 

rate per 1,000

Age-specific rate per 1,000

12–17 18–24 25–34 35–49 50 or older

Hispanic 17.5 40.1 32.8 16.4 14.2 8.5

Established slow-growth Hispanic areas 17.3 45.1 20.5 20.1 13.5 9.4

Established fast-growth Hispanic areas 14.5 36.7 23.6 8.2 12.8 9.1

New Hispanic areas 19.9 37.1 53.6 18.8 16.3 6.4

Small Hispanic areas 18.3! 41.7 ! 29.0 22.4! 14.6! 8.5!

Non-Hispanic white 25.4 47.5 44.3 33.7 24.2 8.9

Established slow-growth Hispanic areas 22.3 47.5 46.1 20.1 20.2 9.2

Established fast-growth Hispanic areas 26.6 63.9 38.8 33.5 21.4 11.7

New Hispanic areas 25.6 49.6 39.8 35.1 24.5 9.4

Small Hispanic areas 25.9 36.7 57.7 35.4 26.1 6.6

Non-Hispanic black 28.4 58.4 41.1 39.9 24.6 12.2

Established slow-growth Hispanic areas 25.4 46.9 34.3 36.4 23.4 11.9

Established fast-growth Hispanic areas 36.4 46.5 88.4 32.8 40.5 13.6

New Hispanic areas 23.6 53.5 36.1 27.9 21.4 9.7

Small Hispanic areas 36.5 79.1 37.4 69.6 25.5 15.9

Note: The analysis is restricted to the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia. Based on persons age 12 or older. See appendix table 6 for standard errors.

! Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation exceeds 50%.

*Rates were adjusted using direct standardization with the 2000 U.S. Standard Population. See Methodology. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007–2010.

Table 7

Age-adjusted nonfatal violent victimization rates, by race and ethnicity and type of metropolitan area, 2007–2010

Victim race/ethnicity and type 

of metropolitan area

Age-adjusted 

rate per 1,000*

Age-specific rate per 1,000

12–17 18–24 25–34 35–49 50 or older

Hispanic 17.6 41.5 32.4 16.9 14.2 8.3

Established slow-growth Hispanic areas 16.5 34.5 19.8 18.7 16.3 8.9

Established fast-growth Hispanic areas 16.9 55.0 29.3 11.4 11.7 8.0

New Hispanic areas 20.9 37.1 57.0 22.1 14.7 8.0

Small Hispanic areas 13.0! 33.6 ! 31.3! 12.7 ! 9.5 ! 3.5!

Non-Hispanic white 25.4 47.9 42.5 33.9 23.8 9.7

Established slow-growth Hispanic areas 18.3 37.8 36.8 21.9 14.8 6.9

Established fast-growth Hispanic areas 30.5 74.1 40.9 39.6 26.8 12.0

New Hispanic areas 25.2 46.5 38.1 34.4 24.3 10.3

Small Hispanic areas 29.3 43.7 62.3 38.6 29.2 9.0

Non-Hispanic black 29.5 59.7 42.4 42.8 25.2 12.8

Established slow-growth Hispanic areas 21.5 46.4 41.7 23.8 17.5 8.9

Established fast-growth Hispanic areas 33.7 33.9 62.4 37.6 43.7 13.2

New Hispanic areas 25.5 53.5 38.3 35.5 21.9 10.5

Small Hispanic areas 46.7 110.0 38.5 90.3 29.0 23.4

Note: The analysis is restricted to the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia. Based on persons age 12 or older. See appendix table 5 for standard errors.

! Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation exceeds 50%.

*Rates were adjusted using direct standardization with the 2000 U.S. Standard Population. See Methodology. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007–2010.

Compared to whites and blacks, victimization rates for 

Hispanics showed a different pattern. Hispanics in new 

Hispanic metropolitan areas experienced higher rates of 

violent victimization (26 per 1,000) than those in established 

areas, regardless of their Hispanic growth rates. The 

differences were more pronounced in metropolitan areas 

than in counties. The victimization rate for Hispanics was 

also higher in new Hispanic metropolitan areas (26 per 

1,000) than in small Hispanic areas (16 per 1,000), although 

the difference was only marginally statistically significant 

at the metropolitan area level (p < .10) and not statistically 

significant at the county level. Overall, the pattern of 

victimization for Hispanics was unique in that those living in 

new Hispanic areas experienced more violent victimization 

compared to other areas. 

Young Hispanics accounted for the higher rates of 

violent victimization in new Hispanic areas

Since Hispanics in new Hispanic areas have a younger 

age profile and younger age is associated with higher 

victimization rates, violent victimization rates were adjusted 

by age, and the comparison between area types accounted 

for the age differences. The age-adjusted victimization rates 

were calculated using a standard age distribution based on 

the U.S. population in 2000 (tables 7 and 8).
VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION IN NEW AND ESTABLISHED HISPANIC AREAS, 2007–2010 | AUGUST 2014 12

Figure 8

Age-specific violent victimization rates, by race and ethnicity and type of metropolitan area, 2007–2010

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Established fast growth

Established 

slow growth

New Hispanic areas

Small Hispanic areas

12–17 18–24 25–34 35–49 50+

Rate per 1,000 persons

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Established fast growth

Established slow growth

New Hispanic areas

Small Hispanic areas

12–17 18–24 25–34 35–49 50 or older

Rate per 1,000 persons

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Established 

fast growth

Established slow growth

New Hispanic areas

Small Hispanic areas 

12–17 18–24 25–34 35–49 50 or older

Rate per 1,000 persons

(a) Hispanic (b) Non-Hispanic white (c) Non-Hispanic black

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007–2010.

Figure 9

Age-specific violent victimization rates, by race and ethnicity and type of county, 2007–2010

0

20

40

60

80

100

Established 

fast growth

Established 

slow growth

New Hispanic county

Small Hispanic county

12–17 18–24 25–34 35–49 50 or older

Rate per 1,000 persons

0

20

40

60

80

100

Established fast growth

Established slow growth

New Hispanic county

Small Hispanic county

12–17 18–24 25–34 35–49 50 or older

Rate per 1,000 persons

0

20

40

60

80

100

Established fast growth

Established 

slow growth

New Hispanic county

Small Hispanic county

12–17 18–24 25–34 35–49 50 or older

Rate per 1,000 persons

(a) Hispanic (b) Non-Hispanic white (c) Non-Hispanic black

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007–2010.

The age-adjusted victimization rates showed that the risk of 

violent victimization appeared to be higher for Hispanics in 

new Hispanic metropolitan areas (21 per 1,000), although 

the differences were not statistically significant (table 7). 

However, the age-specific victimization rates showed that the 

differences in victimization between new Hispanic areas and 

other area types were the largest for Hispanics ages 18 to 24, 

followed by those ages 25 to 34. Among Hispanics ages 18 to 

24, those in new Hispanic areas had higher rates of violent 

victimization than those in established and small Hispanic 

areas (figures 8a and 9a). Among those ages 25 to 34, the 

rate of violent victimization was higher in new Hispanic 

areas than in established fast-growth areas. For Hispanics 

in other age groups, the apparent difference in violent 

victimization was not statistically significant across area 

types. Overall, the victimization of young adult Hispanics 

ages 18 to 34 was the main reason Hispanics showed higher 

rates of violent victimization in new Hispanic areas than in 

other area types. 

In comparison, new Hispanic areas did not present elevated 

risks of violent victimization for non-Hispanic whites and 

blacks, and the pattern was consistent across all age groups 

(figures 8b, 8c, 9b, and 9c). For example, small Hispanic 

areas were the sites of the highest victimization rate for 

whites ages 18 to 24, whereas the rate of violent victimization 

was significantly lower in new Hispanic areas for whites in 

this age group. Blacks also showed higher rates of violent 

victimization in small Hispanic areas compared with 

new Hispanic areas, and the differences were statistically 

significant for most age groups (i.e., ages 12 to 17, ages 

25 to 34, and age 50 or older).
VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION IN NEW AND ESTABLISHED HISPANIC AREAS, 2007–2010 | AUGUST 2014 13

Methodology

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is a 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 past 6 months. The NCVS collects information 

on nonfatal personal crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery, 

aggravated assault, and simple assault) and property crimes 

(burglary, larceny-theft, arson, 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 (such as age, sex, race and ethnicity, marital 

status, education level, and income) and whether they 

experienced victimization. For each victimization incident, 

information is collected about the offender (such as age, 

race and ethnicity, sex, 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 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 for a total of seven interviews. 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 the homeless. (For more information, 

see Survey Methodology for Criminal Victimization in the 

United States, 2008, NCJ 231173, BJS web, May 2011.) 

This report uses the geographic micro-data restricteduse files from 2007 to 2010 to identify specific counties 

and metropolitan statistical areas. From 2007 to 2010, 

the NCVS conducted more than 130,000 interviews each 

year, providing sufficient observations for each area type 

(appendix tables 1 and 2). For all years, the number of 

Hispanic respondents was relatively small in each Hispanic 

area type. The data were pooled across the 4-year period to 

increase the reliability of the violent victimization estimates.

Weighting adjustments for estimating personal 

victimization 

NCVS data files are 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. 

The NCVS data files include both household and person 

weights. Household weights provide an estimate of the 

total U.S. household population. Person weights provide an 

estimate of the population represented by each person in the 

sample. Person weights are most frequently used to compute 

estimates of criminal victimizations of persons in the total 

population. After proper adjustment, both household and 

person weights are also 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 repeat 

victims of series incidents. The weight counts series incidents 

as the actual number of incidents reported by the victim, 

up to a maximum of 10 incidents. Series victimizations are 

similar in type but occur with such frequency that a victim 

is unable to recall each individual event or to 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. In 2011, about 3% 

of all victimizations were series incidents. Weighting series 

incidents as the number of incidents up to a maximum of 

10 produces more reliable estimates of crime levels, while 

the cap at 10 minimizes the effect of extreme outliers on the 

rates. For more information on the series enumeration, see 

Methods for Counting High-Frequency Repeat Victimizations 

in the National Crime Victimization Survey, NCJ 237308, 

BJS web, April 2012. 

Standard error computations 

When national estimates are derived from a sample, as 

is the case with the NCVS, caution must be taken when 

comparing one estimate to another estimate 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, the size of the sample, and the 

size of the subgroup for which the estimate is computed. 

When the sampling error around the estimates is taken into 

consideration, the estimates that appear different may not be 

statistically different.
VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION IN NEW AND ESTABLISHED HISPANIC AREAS, 2007–2010 | AUGUST 2014 14

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. In general, for a given metric, 

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. 

In order to generate standard errors around estimates 

from the NCVS, the Census Bureau produced generalized 

variance function (GVF) parameters for BJS. The GVFs take 

into account aspects of the NCVS complex sample design 

and represent the curve fitted to a selection of individual 

standard errors based on the Jackknife Repeated Replication 

technique. The GVF parameters were used to generate 

standard errors for each point estimate (such as counts, 

percentages, and rates) in the report. For average annual 

estimates, standard errors were based on the ratio of the 

sums of victimizations and respondents across years. 

In this report, BJS conducted tests to determine whether 

differences in estimated numbers and percentages 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, BJS set the significance level at the 95% 

confidence level. 

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 to compare 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 based on 10 or fewer 

sample cases, or the 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 were not 

fully explored in this report and warrant more extensive 

analysis. Causal inferences should not be made based on the 

results presented.

Direct standardization with the 2000 U.S. Standard 

Population9

The method used to generate age-adjusted rates of 

violent victimization presented in this report was direct 

standardization with the 2000 U.S. Standard Population 

from the Decennial Census as the standard population. Ageadjusted standardization eliminates the problem of different 

age distributions between and within groups. Because crime 

rates vary by age, direct standardization produces ageadjusted rates that would occur if both populations had the 

same age distribution as the standard population. 

The 2000 U.S. Standard Population was created by the U.S. 

Census Bureau Population Projection Program (http://www.

census.gov/population/projections/), which uses data from 

the Current Population Survey. To calculate age groups 

using the 2000 U.S. Standard Population, populations of 

single years of age were obtained for persons age 12 or older 

from the Census P25–1130 (http://www.census.gov/prod/1/

pop/p25-1130.pdf) series estimates of the 2000 populations 

generated by the U. S. Census Bureau Population Projection 

Program. These single-year populations for persons age 

12 or older were then summed to create the following age 

groups: ages 12 to 17, 18 to 24, 25 to 34, 35 to 49, and 50 or 

older. In this report, the total standard population refers to 

the 2000 U.S. Standard Population age 12 or older.

The violent victimization rate, age-adjusted using direct 

standardization with the 2000 U.S. Standard Population 

(Rd) is calculated as—

Rd = Σ (wa * ra) 

where

Rd = age-adjusted rate of violent victimization of 

the population of interest calculated using direct 

standardization 

wa = weight calculated from the 2000 U.S. Standard 

Population for age group a 

r

a = unadjusted rate of violent victimization for age 

group a. 

The weight (wa) for age group a is calculated as— 

wa = na / N

where

wa = weight calculated from the 2000 U.S. Standard 

Population for age group a 

na = number of persons in age group a in the 2000 U.S. 

Standard Population 

N = total number of persons in the 2000 U.S. 

Standard Population.

9For more information on direct standardization, see Curtin, L.R. 

& Klein, R.J. (1995). Direct standardization (age-adjusted death 

rates). Healthy People 2000: Statistical Notes, 6 Revised. Available at 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statnt/statnt06rv.pdf
VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION IN NEW AND ESTABLISHED HISPANIC AREAS, 2007–2010 | AUGUST 2014 15

Standard error computations and statistical 

significance for age-adjusted rates10

Due to the complexity in generating age-adjusted rates of 

violent crime, other methods were used to compute standard 

errors and determine statistical significance. For each 

age-adjusted rate, variances were computed for each age 

group-specific rate using information from the generalized 

variance function (GVF) parameters that the Census Bureau 

produced for the NCVS. For each age group, the variance 

was multiplied by the squared weight for that particular age 

10For more information on computing standard errors for age-adjusted rates, 

see Anderson, R.N., & Rosenberg, H.M. (1998). Age Standardization of Death 

Rates: Implementation of the Year 2000 Standard. National Vital Statistics 

Reports, 47 (3). Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr47/

nvs47_03.pdf.

group in the 2000 U.S. Standard Population. The result was 

then summed across all age groups to produce the variance 

for the age-adjusted rate. The square root of this variance 

was taken to produce the standard error of the age-adjusted 

rate. To calculate statistical significance among two age 

adjusted rates, the standard errors were computed for each 

rate. Next, the estimated standard error for the difference 

of the two rates was calculated. This was done by taking the 

square root of the sum of each rate’s squared standard error 

(that is, Se1

2 + Se22). The absolute difference in the rates was 

divided by the estimated standard error for the difference to 

generate a t-statistic. If the t-statistic was greater than 1.96, 

the difference was statistically significant. If it was equal to 

or less than 1.96, the difference between the two rates was 

not statistically significant.
VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION IN NEW AND ESTABLISHED HISPANIC AREAS, 2007–2010 | AUGUST 2014 16

Appendix table 1

NCVS interviews, by type of metropolitan area, 2007–2010

Number of metropolitan 

areas in— Persons interviewed in— Interviews by race/ethnicity (2007–2010)

Type of metropolitan area U.S. NCVS 2007 2008 2009 2010 Hispanic White* Black*

Total 363 150 119,632 110,280 113,499 121,479 68,176 317,192 51,759

Established slow-growth Hispanic areas 33 14 25,078 22,798 23,891 26,219 27,606 50,223 9,254

Established fast-growth Hispanic areas 32 15 19,517 17,535 18,234 19,247 22,529 40,290 6,707

New Hispanic areas 218 89 57,646 53,998 55,369 58,999 15,672 173,735 26,761

Small Hispanic areas 80 32 17,391 15,949 16,005 17,014 2,369 52,944 9,037

Note: The analysis is restricted to the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia.

*Excludes persons of Hispanic origin.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007–2010.

Appendix table 2

NCVS interviews, by type of county, 2007–2010

Number of counties in— Persons interviewed in— Interviews by race/ethnicity (2007–2010)

Type of county U.S. NCVS 2007 2008 2009 2010 Hispanic White* Black*

Total 3,103 626 145,137 133,108 136,322 145,379 73,509 398,148 57,613

Established slow-growth Hispanic areas 260 40 19,375 17,561 18,247 20,161 26,790 31,797 8,317

Established fast-growth Hispanic areas 80 34 17,400 15,320 16,142 17,219 19,445 36,205 5,128

New Hispanic areas 1,677 410 77,892 72,711 74,457 79,164 23,672 237,475 29,069

Small Hispanic areas 1,086 142 30,470 27,516 27,476 28,835 3,602 92,671 15,099

Note: The analysis is restricted to the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia.

*Excludes persons of Hispanic origin.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007–2010.

Appendix table 3

Standard errors for table 5: Nonfatal violent victimization, by race and ethnicity and type of metropolitan area, 2007–2010

Total Hispanic Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black

Type of metropolitan area 

Number of 

victimizations

Rate per 

1,000

Number of 

victimizations

Rate per 

1,000

Number of 

victimizations

Rate per 

1,000

Number of 

victimizations

Rate per 

1,000

Total 568,558 0.7 166,680 1.3 436,118 0.8 187,575 1.7

Established slow-growth Hispanic areas 183,697 1 92,960 1.7 116,108 1.3 60,254 2.9

Established fast-growth Hispanic areas 192,082 1.4 84,804 1.9 138,111 1.9 62,892 4.4

New Hispanic areas 367,621 0.9 81,112 2.7 301,432 1 114,478 2.1

Small Hispanic areas 200,638 1.6 22,441 4.9 159,661 1.7 87,940 4.7

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007–2010.

Appendix table 4

Standard errors for table 6: Nonfatal violent victimization, by race and ethnicity and type of county, 2007–2010

Total Hispanic Non-Hispanic white Non-Hispanic black

Type of county

Number of 

victimizations

Rate per 

1,000

Number of 

victimizations

Rate per 

1,000

Number of 

victimizations

Rate per 

1,000

Number of 

victimizations

Rate per 

1,000

Total 627,068 0.6 172,784 1.2 493,785 0.7 196,019 1.6

Established slow-growth Hispanic areas 171,192 1.2 93,114 1.8 99,398 1.7 61,285 3.3

Established fast-growth Hispanic areas 167,066 1.3 71,152 1.9 120,473 1.8 57,243 5.1

New Hispanic areas 433,295 0.8 98,883 2.2 362,126 0.9 117,003 2

Small Hispanic areas 247,684 1.2 31,511 4.7 201,064 1.3 101,664 3.2

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007–2010.
VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION IN NEW AND ESTABLISHED HISPANIC AREAS, 2007–2010 | AUGUST 2014 17

Appendix table 5

Standard errors for table 7: Age-adjusted nonfatal violent victimization rates, by race and ethnicity and type of metropolitan 

area, 2007–2010

Victim and metropolitan characteristics

Age-adjusted 

rate per 1,000

Age-specific rate per 1,000

12–17 18–24 25–34 35–49 50 or older

Hispanic 1.0 4.2 3.4 2.1 1.8 1.5

Established slow-growth Hispanic areas 1.5 5.6 4.0 3.5 2.9 2.3

Established fast-growth Hispanic areas 1.6 8.1 5.4 2.8 2.6 2.5

New Hispanic areas 2.1 7.8 8.6 4.5 3.6 3.2

Small Hispanic areas 4.0 19.3 14.8 8.6 7.4 4.9

Non-Hispanic White 0.7 3.1 2.6 2.0 1.3 0.6

Established slow-growth Hispanic areas 1.3 6.2 5.6 3.6 2.2 1.2

Established fast-growth Hispanic areas 1.9 9.9 6.5 5.2 3.3 1.7

New Hispanic areas 0.9 3.9 3.2 2.6 1.7 0.9

Small Hispanic areas 1.6 6.2 6.8 4.8 3.2 1.3

Non-Hispanic Black 1.5 5.9 4.8 4.3 2.7 1.8

Established slow-growth Hispanic areas 2.6 11.1 10.4 6.7 4.6 3.0

Established fast-growth Hispanic areas 3.9 11.4 14.4 9.8 8.7 4.8

New Hispanic areas 1.8 7.5 6.3 5.3 3.4 2.2

Small Hispanic areas 4.1 17.4 10.0 13.9 6.7 5.3

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007–2010.

Appendix table 6

Standard errors for table 8: Age-adjusted nonfatal violent victimization rates, by race and ethnicity and type of county, 

2007–2010

Victim and county characteristics

Age-adjusted 

rate per 1,000

Age-specific rate per 1,000

12–17 18–24 25–34 35–49 50 or older

Hispanic 1.0 4.0 3.3 2.0 1.7 1.5

Established slow-growth Hispanic areas 1.5 6.7 4.2 3.8 2.7 2.3

Established fast-growth Hispanic areas 1.6 6.8 5.1 2.5 2.9 2.9

New Hispanic areas 1.7 6.4 7.1 3.5 3.1 2.4

Small Hispanic areas 4.1 17.4 12.5 9.9 7.5 6.0 

Non-Hispanic white 0.6 2.8 2.5 1.9 1.2 0.6

Established slow-growth Hispanic areas 1.8 9.4 7.6 4.1 3.2 1.6

Established fast-growth Hispanic areas 1.8 9.4 6.6 5.1 3.1 1.8

New Hispanic areas 0.8 3.5 2.9 2.3 1.5 0.7

Small Hispanic areas 1.2 4.4 5.3 3.6 2.4 0.9

Non-Hispanic black 1.3 5.5 4.5 3.9 2.5 1.6

Established slow-growth Hispanic areas 3.0 12.0 10.2 8.7 5.7 3.7

Established fast-growth Hispanic areas 4.6 14.8 19.6 10.6 9.4 5.4

New Hispanic areas 1.7 7.1 5.8 4.4 3.2 2.0

Small Hispanic areas 2.8 12.0 7.8 9.8 4.9 3.3

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2007–2010.
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 Min Xie, Ph.D., University of Maryland at College 

Park, and Michael Planty, Ph.D., Bureau of Justice Statistics. Britney Mason, 

BJS intern, verified the report.

This report was funded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Department of Justice, Award No. 2012-R2-CX-0017. It also received 

funding from the American Society of Criminology (ASC) through the ASC 

and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Collaborative Research Program for 

Young Scholars in 2013. The findings and conclusions of this report are those of 

the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the funding agencies.

Jill Thomas and Vanessa Curto edited the report. Barbara Quinn produced 

the report.

August 2014, NCJ 246311