By Charles Kindermann, Ph.D.

Bureau of Justice Statistics

James Lynch, Ph.D.

American University

David Cantor, Ph.D.

Westat

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)  a major source of the

Nation’s statistics on criminal victimization  has undergone an extensive

redesign. A collaborative effort on this

redesign among several institutions

and agencies, including the Bureau of

Justice Statistics and the Bureau of the

Census, began in the late 1970's and 

focused principally on improving the

accuracy and utility of crime

measurement. 

In 1992 the long-planned redesign of

the survey was introduced for half of

the sample in such a way that comparisons could be made. This report

analyzes the differences in estimates

from the two designs. 

In the discussion that follows, the survey prior to the redesign is referred to

as the National Crime Survey (NCS),

and that after the redesign is referred

to as the National Crime Victimization

Survey (NCVS).

Improving the NCS

The NCS, 1973-92, and the NCVS,

1992 to the present, have each year

collected crime victimization information from a sample of about 100,000

individuals living in about 50,000

households. For the NCS the victimizations were categorized as personal

crimes of violence (rape, robbery, and

assault), personal crimes of theft, and

household crimes (burglary, household

larceny, and motor vehicle theft).

In the mid-1970's the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the NCS.1

 

While the survey was found to be an

effective instrument for measuring

crime, reviewers identified aspects of

the methodology and scope of the

NCS that could be improved. The 

Bureau of Justice Statistics

National Crime Victimization Survey 

Rape

Robbery

Aggravated assault

Simple assault

Burglary

Motor vehicle theft

Theft

0 50 100 150 200 250

Rate of victimization per 1,000 persons or households

Violent and property crimes

measured by the National Crime Victimization Survey

Post-redesign (NCVS)

Pre-redesign (NCS)

Redesigned interviewing procedures produced higher crime rates 

for rape (157%), assaults (57%), burglary (20%), and theft (27%) 

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Effects of the Redesign

on Victimization Estimates

April 1997 NCJ-164381

1

Panel for the Evaluation of Crime Surveys, Bettye K. Eidson Penick, ed., Surveying Crime,

Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1976.
Academy proposed that researchers

investigate the following:

 an enhanced screening section that

would better stimulate respondents’ 

recall of victimizations, thus reducing 

underreporting due to forgotten

incidents

 screening questions that would

sharpen the concepts of criminal 

victimization and diminish the effects

of subjective interpretations of the 

survey questions

 additional questions on the nature

and consequences of victimizations

that would yield useful data for

analysis.

In response, BJS sponsored a research consortium whose purpose was

to investigate the issues raised in the

review and to make recommendations

that would improve the accuracy and

utility of the NCVS. The redesign consortium completed its work in 1985.2

More recently, the issue of specifically

improving the measurement of sex

crimes and domestic violence resulted

in the formation of a special committee

associated with the American Statistical Association’s Committee on Law

and Justice Statistics. The special

committee developed enhanced questions and clarification queries on rape,

sexual assault, and domestic violence

to get better estimates of these crimes

that are difficult to measure. The Bureau of the Census subjected the

changes recommended by the special

committee, as well as those of the redesign consortium, to additional testing. Modifications proving successful

in this testing were introduced into the

survey.

From January 1992 through June

1993, the full NCS-NCVS sample was

divided into two parts. Half of the

sample was administered the NCVS

method, and the other half, the NCS

method. This overlap procedure was

designed to permit the continuous publication of estimates of the year-toyear change in crime rates with comparable data while the new design was

introduced. The procedure was also

intended to provide measurable differences between the halves (table 1).

Effects of the new design 

on estimates of crime rates

In general the redesigned procedures

achieved their intended effect of producing higher estimates of crime rates

than had the previously used procedures. Estimated rates for the following categories were higher: personal

crimes (44% higher), crimes of violence (49%), rapes (157%), assaults

(57%), property crimes (23%), burglaries (20%), and thefts (27%). A statistically significant difference could not

be found for robbery, personal theft,

and motor vehicle theft.

The increase in estimates of crimes of

violence largely reflected the increase

in assault estimates, especially those

for simple assaults, which account for

58% of all violent crimes. Simple assaults, the less serious of the assault

categories, are committed by persons

without a weapon and result in either

no injury or a minor injury.

Effects of the new design 

for different types of events

The new method results in higher estimates of violent crime rates regardless

of the attribute of crime events examined (table 2). However, the new

2 Effects of the Redesign on Victimization Estimates

Table 1. Comparison of estimated

NCS and NCVS victimization rates,

1992

Number of victimizations per 

1,000 persons or households

Postredesign

NCVS

Preredesign

NCS

NCVS/

NCS

ratio

Personal crimes 49.6 34.4 1.44I

Crimes of violence 47.8 32.1 1.49I

Rape 1.8 .7 2.57I

Robbery 6.1 5.9 1.03

Assault 40.0 25.5 1.57I

Aggravated 11.1 9.0 1.23I

Simple 28.9 16.5 1.75I

Personal theft 1.8 2.4 .75

Property crimes 325.3 264.5 1.23I

Household burglary 58.6 48.9 1.20I

Household theft 248.2 195.5 1.27I

Motor vehicle theft 18.5 20.1 .92

I

The ratio of the NCVS to the NCS estimates

was statistically significant at the 90-percent

level of confidence.

Table 2. Effects of the redesign on victimization rates, by selected attributes 

of crime events for total violent and total household crime, 1992

Total violent crime Total household crime

Estimated rates

per 1,000 persons NCVS/

NCS

ratio

Standard 

error (SE)

of the ratio

Estimated rates 

per 1,000 households NCVS/

NCS

ratio

Standard 

error (SE)

Attribute of the ratio

Post-redesign

NCVS

Pre-redesign

NCS

Post-redesign

NCVS

Pre-redesign

NCS

Victim-offender relationship

Stranger 26.5 19.5 1.4 I 0.09 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nonstranger 22.5 12.8 1.8 I 0.13 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Completed 15.8 11.7 1.4I 0.11 297.2 234.7 1.3I 0.03

Attempted 33.5 20.4 1.6I 0.11 28.1 29.8 .9 0.07

Crime reporting to police

Reported 21.0 16.0 1.3I 0.10 110.0 96.0 1.1I 0.05

Not reported 27.5 15.7 1.8I 0.12 212.8 165.1 1.3I 0.04

. . .Not applicable.

I

The ratio of the NCVS to the NCS estimates was statistically 

significant at the 90-percent level of confidence.

2

New Directions for the National Crime Survey,

BJS Technical Report, NCJ-115571, March 1989.
method has a larger impact on the 

estimates for nonstranger and 

attempted crimes and crimes not reported to the police than on stranger,

completed, and reported crime. The

new screening strategy was designed

to elicit reports of crime for these categories that were felt to be underreported and appears to have had that

effect. 

For household crimes, the new method

results in higher estimates of rates for

completed crimes and for crimes either reported or unreported to the police, but the magnitude of the redesign

effect is smaller than for violent crime.

Nonetheless, the changes that were

made to the screening section to improve recounting to interviewers appear to have had some effect.

Effects of the redesign within

categories of victims

Ratios of rates from the new method 

to rates from the old method for selected population groups help to determine if the redesign had a differential

effect on population subgroups (tables

3 and 4). To test if there are differential effects, the differences between

the ratios were computed and tested

for statistical significance. Those that

tested significant at the 0.90 confidence level are discussed below. 

The number of respondents who provided data for each particular subgroup varied greatly, depending on the

size of the subpopulation. Care should

taken, therefore, in interpreting the difference in the ratios without considering the standard error of the ratio.

Those ratios that appear to be large

may be based on a relatively small

number of cases. For example, the

standard error for the ratio for households with a head age 12 to 17 

is relatively large (SE=2.72 for total

household crime), especially for

crimes with low prevalence, such as

household theft (SE=4.78). (For standard errors, see Appendix tables 2 

and 3 on page 7.)

In general the redesign had the effect

of increasing the number of crimes

counted by the survey. In most cases

violent crime rates had higher estimates for all groups of respondents

when the new methods were used.

This was especially true for simple 

assaults for which nearly every

 The Effects of the Redesign on Victimization Estimates 3

Table 3. Ratios of NCVS rates to NCS rates for violent crimes,

by selected victim characteristics, 1992

Ratio of the rates from after the redesign 

to the rates before the redesign

Victim

characteristic

Total violent 

crimea Robbery

 Assault 

Aggravated Simple

Personal

theft

Age

12-17 1.6I 1.3 1.1 1.9I 1.2

18-24 1.3I .9 1.1 1.5I 1.5

25-34 1.6I 1.0 1.4 1.8I .4I

35-44 1.8I .8 1.2 2.7I .6I

45-64 1.6I 1.1 2.0I 1.6I 1.1

65 or older 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.0 .9

Race

 White 1.6I 1.0 1.3I 1.9I .8

 Black 1.2 1.0 .8 1.7I .6I

 Other 2.2I 1.9 2.7 1.9 1.1

Household income

0-$14,999 1.4I 1.2 1.1 1.5I .7I

$15,000-$34,999 1.9I 1.1 1.2 1.8I .9

$35,000-$49,999 1.8I .9 1.5 2.4I .4I

$50,000 or over 1.9I .9 1.8I 2.4I 1.2

Sex

Male 1.5I 1.0 1.3I 2.0I .8

Female 1.6I 1.1 1.1 1.7I .7I

Locality

Urban 1.4I 1.0 1.2 1.8I .6I

Suburban 1.7I 1.2 1.4I 2.0I 1.0

Rural 1.5I 1.2 1.0 1.7I 1.1

Note: The standard errors of the estimated ratios are presented on page 7.

I

The ratio of the NCVS to the NCS estimates was statistically significant 

at the 90-percent level of confidence. 

a

Because of an insufficient number of cases, rape is not shown separately 

but is included in total violent crime. 

Table 4. Ratios of NCVS rates to NCS rates

for household crimes, by selected victim 

characteristics, 1992

Ratio of the rates from after the redesign to the rates before the redesign

Victimized 

household

characteristic

Total 

household crime Burglary

Household

theft

Motor 

vehicle

theft

Age of head 

of household

12-17 3.4 2.3 3.9 . . .

18-24 1.0 .9 1.0 .8

25-34 1.2I 1.1 1.2I .9

35-44 1.2I 1.2 1.3I 1.2

45-64 1.4I 1.5I 1.4I .8

65 or older 1.2I 1.4I 1.2I .8

Race of head

of household

 White 1.2I 1.1I 1.3I .9

 Black 1.3I 1.4I 1.3I .9

 Other 1.2I 1.4 1.3I .5I

Household

income

0-$14,999 1.2I 1.2I 1.2I .8I

$15,000-$34,999 1.2I 1.1 1.2I .9

$35,000-$49,999 1.4I 1.4I 1.5I 1.0

$50,000 or over 1.3I 1.2 1.3I 1.2

Sex of head 

of household

Male 1.2I 1.1I 1.3I .9I

Female 1.2I 1.3I 1.2I 1.1

Locality

Urban 1.2I 1.3I 1.2I .9

Suburban 1.3I 1.2I 1.3I 1.0

Rural 1.2I 1.2 1.4I 1.2

Note: The standard errors of the estimated ratios are 

presented on page 7.

. . .Not applicable.

I

The ratio of the NCVS to the NCS estimates was statistically significant at the 90-percent level of confidence.
population subgroup that was examined had higher rates when the new

method was employed. There was virtually no difference between the new

and the old method for robbery for any

of the subgroups examined.

For crimes of violence, the new 

procedures increased victim 

recounting more for 

 whites than for blacks

 other racial groups than 

for blacks

 persons age 33 to 44 than 

for persons 18 to 24 and 

for persons age 65 or older

 persons with household incomes

$15,000 or more than for 

persons with household incomes

below $15,000

 suburban residents than 

for urban residents.

For robbery and personal theft, the 

effects of the new procedures did not

differ across types of respondents.

For aggravated assault, the new procedures increased victim recounting

more for whites than for blacks. 

For simple assault, the increases in

victim recall with the new design were

greater for 

 persons age 35 to 44 than for

persons of other ages

 persons age 12 to 17 than for

persons age 65 or older

 persons with household incomes

$15,000 or more than for persons

with household incomes below

$15,000.

 

In general, except for motor vehicle

theft, the new methods had the effect

of increasing the number of household

crimes recounted to survey interviewers for every group of respondents.

Again, all of the following differences

in the effect of the new design between respondent groups are statistically significant at the 0.90 level. 

The new procedures increased 

recounting more for 

 suburban residents than 

for urban residents (total 

household crime) 

 blacks than for whites (burglary).

For household larceny and motor vehicle theft, the new procedures had no

differential effect across any of the

categories in the variables examined.

The general pattern of the effects 

of the new design on the recounting 

to the interviewers by different groups

of respondents was to increase 

recounting more for traditionally lowvictimization groups than for traditionally high-victimization groups. The

one exception was the increased recounting of burglary by black victims.

Although the recounting of victimization has increased for virtually all

groups, these increases were greater

for whites than for blacks, for higherincome rather than lower-income

groups, and for the middle aged, as

opposed to the young or very old.

Understanding the effects 

of design changes

The changes made in the crime survey

were designed to encourage more

complete recall and recounting of

crime events.3

 Development work

done before the redesign indicated

that a substantial proportion of crimes

were not recounted in the survey for a

number of reasons.4

In some cases, the screening interview

did not provide enough cues to stimulate respondents to recall and recount

eligible events. In others, respondents

were uncertain whether they should 

recount incidents that, although they

had all the elements of a crime, did 

not conform to the stereotype of crime.

Crimes committed by family members,

for example, fall into this gray area.

On the basis of this information,

changes were made in the screening

interview to provide more cues and to

clarify that gray-area events should be

recounted. (See the Appendix for the

altered screener questions, page 6.)

Other development work indicated that

Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) encouraged the recounting of victimization, presumably

because of the enhanced administrative control over the interview

process.5

 CATI ensures that interviewers deliver the cues prescribed in the

screening interviews. The proportion

of the sample interviewed with CATI

also increased.

In light of these changes in the design,

it is understandable that respondents,

in general, recounted more victimizations in the new design than the old.

They were given a larger number of

cues to assist in the recall and

recounting of eligible crime events.

CATI also provided greater control

over the interview process to ensure

that every respondent received all of

the additional guidance and cues. It is

less clear why these changes in survey

design would increase in varying

amounts the recounting of some

crimes by some groups of respondents, and not others.

Gray-area events: Incidents failing

to fit popular conceptions of crime

One reason for the differential effects

of the new survey procedures across

types of events and respondents may

be the nature of the cues added to the

screening interview. Particular attention was given to cueing for nonstereotypic crimes, such as those that

involve offenders who are not strangers. There was good reason to believe

that these types of events were not recounted in the old design. The additional cues for recall of these types of

events could have produced greater

reporting of these crimes. 

4 Effects of the Redesign on Victimization Estimates

3

For a discussion of redesign effects not considered in this report, see Michael Rand and Bruce

Taylor, "The National Crime Victimization Survey

Redesign: New Understandings of Victimization

Dynamics and Measurement," Orlando, FL: Annual meetings of the American Statistical Association, August 13-17, 1995.

4

Albert D. Biderman, et al., Final Report of Research and Development for the Redesign of the

National Crime Survey, Washington, DC: Bureau

of Social Science Research, Inc., 1986.

5

David Hubble and B.E. Wilder, "Preliminary Results from the National Crime Survey CATI Experiment," New Orleans, LA: Proceedings of the

American Statistical Association, Survey Methods

Section, August 22-25,1988.
This explanation for the differential recounting of events is consistent with

the differences in the patterns of recounting observed in the overlap

sample.

The effect of the new design was

greater, for example, for crimes involving nonstrangers than for those involving strangers. Increases with the

new design were greater for attempted

than for completed crimes. The new

design increased recounting less for

stereotypic crimes like robbery than it

did for the more ambiguous crimes like

assault, for which inclusion of grayarea events is more of an question.

The increased cueing for gray-area

events and the subsequent higher

rates of recounting in the new design

may also explain the apparent differences in the effect of the design for

different types of respondents. The 

increases in recounting for the new 

design may be less for young black respondents, for example, than for other

age and racial groups because more of

the violence that afflicts them involves

robbery or some equally unambiguous

crime than is the case for young white

respondents. The appropriateness of

such explanations for the differences

in the effect of the design for different

types of respondents can only be determined with further analysis.

The observed differences between the

old and the new design suggest that

the changes in the design had the desired effects. The recounting of victimizations to interviewers increased

generally. The new design increased

the recounting of events reported to

the police as well as those not reported

to the police. Increases with the new

design were greater, however, for

gray-area events than for more stereotypic crimes. Recounting also increased, with a few exceptions, more

for respondents with traditionally lower

rates of victimization than it did for

those with traditionally higher rates.

Sources

Biderman, Albert D., David Cantor,

James P. Lynch, and Elizabeth Martin.

Final Report of Research and

Development for the Redesign of the

National Crime Survey. Washington,

DC: Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc., 1986. 

BJS. New Directions for the National

Crime Survey. BJS Technical Report,

NCJ-115571, March 1989.

Groves, Robert M. and W.L. Nicholls.

"The Status of Computer Assisted 

Telephone Interviewing: Part II-Data

Quality Issues." Journal of Official Statistics. Vol. 2, No. 2, 1986, p.117-134. 

Hubble, David. "The National Crime

Victimization Survey Redesign: New

Questionnaire and Procedures Development and Phase-In Methodology."

Orlando, FL: Annual meetings of the

American Statistical Association, 1995.

Hubble, David. "National Crime 

Survey's New Questionnaire Phase-in:

Preliminary Results." Tucson AZ: 

International Conference on Measurement Errors in Surveys, November

11-14, 1990.

Hubble, David and B.E. Wilder.

"Preliminary Results from the

National Crime Survey CATI Experiment." New Orleans, LA: Proceedings

of the American Statistical Association:

Survey Methods Section, August

22-25, 1988.

Martin, Elizabeth with Robert M.

Groves, Jay Matlin, and Carolyn

Miller. Report on the Development of

Alternative Screening Procedures for

the National Crime Survey. Washington, DC: Bureau of Social Science 

Research, Inc., 1986.

Panel for the Evaluation of Crime 

Surveys, B. K. E. Penick, ed. 

Surveying Crime. Washington,

DC: National Academy of Sciences,

1976.

Persley, Carolyn. "The National Crime

Victimization Survey Redesign: Measuring the Impact of New Methods." 

Orlando, FL: Annual meetings of the

American Statistical Association,

August 13-17, 1995. 

Rand, Michael and Bruce Taylor. 

"The National Crime Victimization 

Survey Redesign: New Understandings of Victimization Dynamics and

Measurement." Orlando, FL: Annual

meetings of the American Statistical

Association, August 13-17, 1995.

 The Effects of the Redesign on Victimization Estimates 5

The Bureau of Justice Statistics 

is the statistical agency of the 

U.S. Department of Justice.

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. is director.

BJS Technical Reports provide detailed explanations of statistical issues concerning data collection and

analysis. Usually the findings from

the data described are reported in

BJS Bulletins or Special Reports.

This report was written by Charles

Kindermann of BJS, James Lynch 

of American University, and David

Cantor of Westat. Tom Hester, BJS,

edited and produced the report. Marilyn Marbrook, assisted by Yvonne

Boston and Jayne Robinson, supervised final publication.

April 1997 NCJ-164381

Publication series information

This report belongs to the BJS Technical Report series. The previous

last publication in the series was Using NIBRS Data to Analyze Violent

Crime (October 1993, NCJ-144785). 

This report is associated with two

others in a set devoted to the National Crime Victimization Survey:

the Bulletin series, Criminal Victimization, 1994-95 (NCJ-162032) and

the Special Report series, Criminal

Victimization, 1973-95

(NCJ-163069).

Readers who want additional data,

analyses, and graphs about criminal

victimization in the United States

should access the BJS Internet Web

site: 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ 
6 Effects of the Redesign on Victimization Estimates

Appendix 1. Comparisons of NCVS and NCS crime

screener questions

New (NCVS, beginning January 1992)

1. Has anyone attacked or threatened you in any

 of these ways 

 a. With any weapon, for instance, a gun or knife  

 b. With anything like a baseball bat, frying pan, scissors, 

 or stick 

 c. By something thrown, such as a rock or bottle 

 d. Include any grabbing, punching, or choking,

 e. Any rape, attempted rape or other type 

 of sexual assault 

 f. Any face to face threats 

 OR 

 g. Any attack or threat or use of force by anyone at all? 

 Please mention it even if you were not certain it was 

 a crime.

2. Incidents involving forced or unwanted sexual acts are

 often difficult to talk about. Have you been forced or 

 coerced to engage in unwanted sexual activity by 

 a. Someone you didn't know before 

 b. A casual acquaintance OR 

 c. Someone you know well.

Old (NCS, 1972-92)

1. Did anyone take something directly from you 

 by using force, such as by a stickup, mugging,

 or threat?

2. Did anyone TRY to rob you by using force

 or threatening to harm you?

3. Did anyone beat you up, attack you, or hit you

 with something, such as a rock or bottle?

4. Were you knifed, shot at, or attacked with some 

 other weapon by anyone at all?

5. Did anyone THREATEN to beat you up or

 THREATEN you with a knife, gun, or some other 

 weapon, NOT including telephone threats?

6. Did anyone TRY to attack you in some other way?

1. Were you attacked or threatened OR did you have

 something stolen from you 

 a. At home including the porch or yard  b. At or near a friend's relative's, or neighbor's home  c. At work or school  d. In place such as a storage shed or laundry room,

 a shopping mall, restaurant, bank or airport  e. While riding in any vehicle  f. On the street or in a parking lot  g. At such places as a party, theater, gym, picnic area,

 bowling lanes, or while fishing or hunting.

 OR

 h. Did anyone ATTEMPT to attack or attempt to steal

 anything belonging to you from any of these places?

2. People often don't think of incidents committed by 

 someone they know. Did you have something stolen 

 from you OR were you attacked or threatened by 

 a. Someone at work or school  b. A neighbor or friend  c. A relative or family member  d. Any other person you've met or known?

3. Did you call the police to report something that

 happened to YOU which you thought was a crime?

4. Did anything happen to you which you thought

 was a crime, but did NOT report to the police?

1. Was anything stolen from you while you were away

 from home, for instance, at work, in a theater or

 restaurant, or while traveling. 

2. Did you call the police to report something that

 happened to YOU that you thought was a crime?

3. Did anything happen to YOU that you thought

 was a crime, but did NOT report to the police?
 The Effects of the Redesign on Victimization Estimates 7

Appendix table 2. Standard errors of the estimated ratios NCVS/NCS, 

presented in table 3, page 3 

Standard errors of the estimated ratios NCVS/NCS

Victim

characteristic

Total

violent crime Robbery

 Assault 

 Aggravated Simple 

Personal

theft

Age

 12-17 0.14 0.26 0.18 0.22 0.42

 18-24 0.11 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.45

 25-34 0.15 0.19 0.23 0.22 0.16

 35-44 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.41 0.21

 45-64 0.22 0.30 0.52 0.30 0.39

 65+ 0.29 0.58 0.51 0.42 0.35

Race

 White 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15

 Black 0.12 0.17 0.14 0.28 0.20

 Other 0.48 0.88 1.17 0.56 0.73

Household income

 0-14,999 0.12 0.19 0.16 0.17 0.19

 15,000-34,999 0.15 0.20 0.18 0.19 0.27

 35,000-49,999 0.22 0.24 0.33 0.37 0.19

 50,000+ 0.22 0.24 0.37 0.35 0.38

Sex

 Male 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.18 0.20

 Female 0.12 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.15

Locality

 Urban 0.11 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.14

 Suburban 0.14 0.20 0.19 0.20 0.23

 Rural 0.16 0.37 0.19 0.22 0.60

Appendix table 3. Standard errors of the estimated ratios NCVS/NCS, 

presented in table 4, page 3 

Standard errors of the estimated ratios NCVS/NCS

Victim household

characteristic

Total

household crime Burglary

Household

larceny

Motor 

vehicle theft

Age of head

 12-17 2.72 2.74 4.78 . . .

 18-24 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.16

 25-34 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.12

 35-44 0.05 0.11 0.06 0.17

 45-64 0.06 0.14 0.07 0.12

 65+ 0.09 0.19 0.11 0.19

Race of head

of household

 White 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.09

 Black 0.06 0.16 0.08 0.14

 Other 0.12 0.35 0.15 0.17

Household income

 0-14,999 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.11

 15,000-34,999 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.12

 35,000-49,999 0.07 0.20 0.09 0.18

 50,000+ 0.06 0.14 0.06 0.21

Sex of head

of household 

 Male 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.09

 Female 0.04 0.10 0.05 0.13

Locality

 Urban 0.04 0.10 0.07 0.10

 Suburban 0.05 0.09 0.08 0.12

 Rural 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.31