U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

BJS

Special Report

SEPTEMBER 2014 NCJ 247076

HIGHLIGHTS

This report describes the relationship between violent 

victimization and the victim’s experience of socio-emotional 

problems, defined as high levels of emotional distress, 

increased relationship problems, or disruptions at school or 

work. Data are from the National Crime Victimization Survey.

 Overall, 68% of victims of serious violence experienced 

socio-emotional problems as a result of their victimization.

 Regardless of the type of violence experienced, a greater 

percentage of victims of intimate partner violence than 

stranger violence experienced socio-emotional problems.

 Twelve percent of victims who experienced socio-emotional 

problems received victim services, compared to 5% of 

victims reporting no socio-emotional problems. 

 More than a third of victims reporting severe distress and 

nearly half of those with moderate distress did not report to 

the police or receive any assistance from victim services.

 About three-quarters of victims of rape or sexual assault 

(75%), robbery (74%), violence involving a firearm (74%), 

and violence resulting in medical treatment for injuries 

(77%) experienced socio-emotional problems.

 A greater percentage of female than male victims 

experienced socio-emotional problems, regardless of the 

type of violence or victim–offender relationship.

 The majority (91%) of violent crime victims with socioemotional problems experienced one or more emotional 

symptoms for a month or more. Most (61%) experienced 

one or more physical symptoms for a month or more.

Socio-emotional Impact of 

Violent Crime

Lynn Langton, Ph.D., and Jennifer Truman, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians

I

n 2009–12, 68% of victims of serious violent crime—rape 

or sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated assault—reported 

experiencing socio-emotional problems as a result of their 

victimization. For this report, socio-emotional problems are 

defined as the experience of one or more of the following: feelings 

of moderate to severe distress; significant problems with work 

or school, such as trouble with a boss, coworkers, or peers; or 

significant problems with family members or friends, including 

more arguments than before the victimization, an inability to trust, 

or not feeling as close after the victimization.

Victims who experienced severe distress as a result of a violent 

victimization were more likely to report the crime to police and 

receive victim services than victims with no distress or mild distress 

(figure 1). About 12% of severely distressed victims reported the 

crime to police and received victim services, compared to 1% of 

victims with no distress. However, more than a third of victims 

reporting severe distress and nearly half of those with moderate 

distress did not report to the police or receive any assistance 

from victim service providers. In addition, 50% of victims who 

experienced severe distress and reported to police did not receive 

victim services. It is not known if they were directed to or offered 

these services.

Figure 1

Violent crime victims who reported the crime to 

police or received victim services, by level of distress 

experienced, 2009–2012

0

20

40

60

80

Both

Received victim services

Reported to police

No police or victim services

No distress Mild distress Moderate distress Severe distress

Percent

!

Note: See appendix table 9 for estimates and standard errors. Excludes 

victimizations in which the level of distress was unknown.

! Interpret with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or 

the coeffient of variation is greater than 50%.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization 

Survey, 2009–2012.
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 2

This report presents findings on the relationship between 

the characteristics of violent incidents and victims and the 

experience of socio-emotional problems. In addition to 

physical injury and financial loss, victims might experience 

high levels of emotional distress, increased relationship 

problems, and significant disruptions and problems at 

school or work. The report also examines certain helpseeking behaviors of victims suffering from socio-emotional 

problems as a result of violent victimization.

Data are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) 

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). 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. 

Questions pertaining to the socio-emotional consequences 

of victimization were first added to the survey in July 2008. 

This report aggregates data during the 4-year period 

from 2009 to 2012, referred to throughout the report as 

2009–12. Aggregating data increases the reliability and 

stability of estimates and facilitates comparisons of detailed 

victimization characteristics.

Measures of socio-emotional problems

For this report, socio-emotional problems are defined as the 

experience of moderate to severe distress, problems with work 

or school, problems in relationships with family or friends, or a 

combination of the three. (See Methodology for wording of the 

three questions included in the measure of socio-emotional 

problems.) Although these measures can be examined 

individually and are presented separately in appendix tables 1, 

3, 5, and 7, the three measures are strongly associated (p < .01). 

Among violent crime victims who experienced relationship 

problems or problems with work or school, 80% also reported 

moderate to severe distress (figure 2). Among those who 

experienced both relationship and work or school problems, 

nearly 90% reported feeling moderate to severe distress. 

Because of the strong relationship between these three 

variables, for much of the report they are combined and 

examined as one measure of whether the victim experienced 

any socio-emotional problems. 

Figure 2

Level of distress experienced by violent crime victims, 

by type of problems experienced as a result of the 

victimization, 2009–2012

Note: Excludes victimizations in which the level of distress was unknown.

See appendix table 10 for estimates and standard errors.

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

2009–2012.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Neither Severe Moderate Mild No

Both 

Problems with

 work/school

Relationship

problems

Percent
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 3

About 70% of rape or sexual assault and robbery 

victims experienced moderate to severe distress 

resulting from their victimization

In 2009–12, a greater proportion of rape or sexual assault 

(71%) and robbery (70%) victims experienced moderate to 

severe distress, compared to victims of aggravated (57%) 

and simple (46%) assault (figure 3). Among victims of 

rape or sexual assault (46%) and robbery (42%), the largest 

proportion reported experiencing severe distress. About 1 in 

10 rape or sexual assault (11%) and robbery (11%) victims 

reported no distress as a result of the victimization. These 

incidents include both threats or attempts and completed 

crimes. In general, victims of completed crimes experienced 

more moderate to severe distress than victims of attempted 

or threatened crimes (See appendix table 11).

More serious violent victimizations committed by an 

intimate partner (60%) or relative (65%) resulted in 

severe distress than those committed by a stranger (31%) 

The relationship between the victim and offender is related 

to whether a victim experiences socio-emotional problems. 

In 2009–12, nearly twice the proportion of victims of serious 

violence—rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated 

assault—committed by an intimate (60%) and a relative 

(65%) indicated that their victimization was severely 

distressing, compared to victims of serious violence by a 

known offender (36%) and a stranger (31%) (figure 4). 

About 17% of serious violence committed by a stranger and 

7% of victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) felt no 

distress as a result of their victimization.

Figure 3

Level of distress experienced by violent crime victims, by 

type of crime, 2009–2012

Note: Excludes victimizations in which the level of distress was unknown.

See appendix table 11 for estimates and standard errors.

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

2009–2012.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Severe Moderate Mild No Simple

 assault

Aggravated assault

Robbery

Rape or sexual

 assault

Percent

Figure 4

Level of distress experienced by serious violent crime 

victims, by victim–offender relationship, 2009–2012

Note: Excludes victimizations in which the level of distress was unknown and the 

victim–offender relationship was unknown. See appendix table 12 for estimates 

and standard errors. 

! Interpret with caution. Based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coeffient of 

variation is greater than 50%.

aIncludes victimizations committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends, 

and girlfriends.

bIncludes victimizations committed by family members (excluding intimate 

partners).

cIncludes victimizations committed by close friends or other acquaintances. 

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

2009–2012.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Stranger Severe Moderate Mild No

Other

 knownc

Relativeb

Intimate

partnera

Percent

!
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 4

Table 1

Physical and emotional symptoms suffered by violent crime victims who experienced socio-emotional problems as a result 

of the victimization, by type of crime and victim–offender relationship, 2009–2012

Type of crime Victim–offender relationship

Symptom Total violence Serious violence Simple assault Intimate partnera Other knownb Stranger

Emotional 91% 96% 87% 92% 91% 89%

Worried or anxious 72 78 67 79 73 65

Angry 70 76 67 72 72 68

Unsafe 65 73 60 69 63 66

Violated 61 69 56 72 57 57

Vulnerable 60 64 58 69 58 57

Distrustful 56 66 50 60 57 52

Sad or depressed 53 58 50 72 54 37

Other 12 13 12 13 11 14

Physical 61% 67% 57% 74% 61% 53%

Trouble sleeping 47 51 44 61 45 38

Fatigue 34 36 33 52 33 24

Upset stomach 31 32 30 46 29 22

Muscle tension 31 34 28 39 31 25

Headaches 30 37 25 40 31 22

Problems with eating/drinking 27 33 23 43 26 16

High blood pressure 15 16 15 18 17 11

Other 9 12 7 12 8 8

Note: Includes victims who experienced symptoms for a month or more. Victims who did not report experiencing socio-emotional problems (one or more of the 

following: moderate to severe distress, problems with family or friend releationships, or problems at work or shool) were not asked about physical and emotional 

symtoms and were excluded from the analysis. Excludes victimizations in which the level of distress was unknown. See appendix table 13 for standard errors. 

aIncludes victimizations committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends.

bIncludes victimizations committed by family members (excluding intimate partners), close friends, or other acquaintances. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2009–2012.

Physical and emotional symptoms associated with socio-emotional problems

A victim with socio-emotional problems may experience a 

range of emotional and physical symptoms. The majority 

of violent crime victims with socio-emotional problems 

experienced one or more emotional symptoms (91%) and 

one or more physical symptoms (61%) for at least a month 

(table 1). Among all victims of violent crime, the two most 

widely experienced emotional symptoms were feeling worried 

or anxious (72%) and feeling angry (70%) for a month or more. 

The most common physical consequence of experiencing 

socio-emotional problems was having trouble sleeping for a 

month or more (47%). Victims of serious violence with socioemotional problems were more likely to experience one or 

more emotional and physical symptoms than victims of simple 

assault with socio-emotional problems.

The percentage of victims who experienced one or more 

emotional symptoms for at least a month resulting from the 

socio-emotional problems did not vary with victim–offender 

relationship. However, a greater percentage of IPV victims 

(74%) experienced one or more physical symptoms as a result 

of the socio-emotional problems, compared to victims of 

violence committed by a known offender (61%) or a stranger 

(53%). Regardless of the victim–offender relationship, feeling 

worried or anxious, feeling angry, and having trouble sleeping 

were among the most common emotional and physical 

symptoms. 
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 5

Table 2

Victims who experienced socio-emotional problems as 

a result of the violent victimization, by type of crime and 

victim–offender relationship, 2009–2012

Type of violent crime 

Total 

violence

Intimate 

partnera Other knownb Stranger

Total 57% 85% 60% 43%

Serious violence 68% 84% 75% 59%

Rape or sexual assault 75 84 79 67

Robbery 74 82 88 66

Aggravated assault 62 84 66 53

Simple assault 51% 85% 54% 34%

Violence involving a weapon 64% 84% 68% 59%

Firearm 74 88 76 71

Violence involving an injury 71% 88% 72% 59%

Medical treatment received 77 95 77 73

Note: Socio-emotional problems are defined as the experience of one or more 

of the following: moderate to severe distress, problems with family or friend 

relationships, or problems at work or school as a result of the victimization. 

Excludes victimizations in which the level of distress was unknown and the 

victim–offender relationship was unknown. See appendix table 1 for more detail 

on the level of distress experienced by type of crime. See appendix table 14 for 

standard errors. 

aIncludes victimizations committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends, or 

girlfriends.

bIncludes victimizations committed by family members (excluding intimate 

partners), close friends, or other acquaintances. 

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

2009–2012.

Table 3

Victims who did and did not experience socio-emotional 

problems as a result of the violent victimization, by type of 

violent crime, 2009–2012

Type of violent crime Total

No socioemotional 

problems

Socioemotional 

problems

Serious 100% 32% 68%

Rape or sexual assault 100% 25 75

With injury 100% 10 ! 90

With weapon 100% 41 ! 59 !

Both injury and weapon 100% 35 ! 65

Without injury or weapon 100% 30 70

Robbery 100% 26 74

With injury 100% 30 70

With weapon 100% 24 76

Both injury and weapon 100% 15 85

Without injury or weapon 100% 30 70

Aggravated assault 100% 38 62

With injury 100% 17 83

With weapon 100% 45 55

Both injury and weapon 100% 31 69

Simple assault 100% 49% 51%

Note: Socio-emotional problems are defined as the experience of one or more 

of the following: moderate to severe distress, problems with family or friend 

relationships, or problems at work or school as a result of the victimization. 

Excludes victimizations in which the level of distress was unknown. See appendix 

table 15 for standard errors.

! Interpret with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the 

coefficient of variation is greater than 50%. 

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

2009–2012.

About 85% of victims of simple assault by an intimate 

partner experienced socio-emotional problems

For the remainder of this report, victims are characterized as 

having socio-emotional problems if they experienced one or 

more of the following: moderate to severe distress, problems 

with family or friend relationships, or problems at work or 

school as a result of the victimization. In 2009–12, 57% of all 

violent crime victims experienced socio-emotional problems 

as a result of the victimization (table 2). About threequarters of victims of rape or sexual assault (75%), robbery 

(74%), violence involving a firearm (74%), and violence 

resulting in medical treatment for injuries (77%) reported 

socio-emotional problems. In comparison, about half of 

victims of simple assault (51%), which does not involve 

serious physical injuries or a weapon, experienced socioemotional problems from the victimization. 

Across all types of violence, more than 80% of IPV victims 

reported socio-emotional problems. Regardless of the type 

of violence, a greater percentage of IPV victims than victims 

of violence committed by a stranger experienced socioemotional problems. For instance, about 85% of victims of 

simple assault committed by an intimate partner experienced 

socio-emotional problems, compared to 34% of victims of 

simple assault committed by a stranger. Among the more 

serious types of violence, a higher percentage of victims of 

violence committed by a stranger experienced problems 

than victims of simple assault committed by a stranger. More 

than 70% of victims of violence committed by a stranger 

involving a firearm (71%) or resulting in medical treatment 

for injuries (73%) experienced socio-emotional problems. 

However, these percentages were still lower than the 88% of 

IPV victimizations involving a firearm and the 95% of IPV 

victimizations involving medical treatment for injuries that 

resulted in socio-emotional problems. 

Presence of a weapon or an injury during serious 

violence was not consistently associated with more 

socio-emotional problems

A higher percentage of victims of robbery involving both 

an injury and weapon (85%) experienced socio-emotional 

problems, compared to victims of robbery that did not 

involve an injury or weapon (70%) (table 3). However, when 

the robbery involved a weapon or injury but not both, there 

was no significant difference in the percentage of victims 

with socio-emotional problems, compared to victims of 

robbery involving no weapon or injury.
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 6

Table 4

Victims who experienced socio-emotional problems as a 

result of violent crime victimization, by location of crime and 

victim–offender relationship, 2009–2012

Location

Total 

violence 

Intimate 

partnera Other knownb Stranger

Total violence 57% 85% 60% 43%

Victim’s home or lodging 80 87 73 77

Near victim’s home 67 76 70 60

In, at, or near a friend, neighbor, 

 or relative’s home 63 80 65 50

Commercial place, parking lot, 

 or other public area 47 88 57 40

Schoolc 49 -- 53 40

Other location 30 96 ! 35 23

Note: Socio-emotional problems are defined as the experience of one or more 

of the following: moderate to severe distress, problems with family or friend 

relationships, or problems at work or school as a result of the victimization. 

Excludes victimizations in which the level of distress was unknown and the 

victim–offender relationship was unknown. See appendix table 1 for more detail 

on the level of distress experienced, by location of crime. See appendix table 16 

for standard errors. 

! Interpret with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the 

coefficient of variation is greater than 50%. 

--Less than 0.5%.

aIncludes victimizations committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends, or 

girlfriends.

bIncludes victimizations committed by family members (excluding intimate 

partners), close friends, or other acquaintences. 

cIncludes inside a school building or on school property.

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

2009–2012.

This pattern was not consistent for aggravated assault or 

rape or sexual assault. About 70% of victims of aggravated 

assault involving both an injury and weapon reported socioemotional problems. When the aggravated assault involved 

an injury but not a weapon, 83% of victims experienced 

socio-emotional problems. Additionally, there was no 

significant difference in the percentage of victims with socioemotional problems among those who experienced rape or 

sexual assault involving both an injury and weapon (65%) or 

neither an injury nor a weapon (70%). 

More victims reported socio-emotional problems 

when violence occurred at the victim’s home than at 

other locations 

Where the violent victimization occurred also affected 

the likelihood of a victim experiencing socio-emotional 

problems. Overall, a greater percentage of victims who were 

victimized at their home (80%) reported socio-emotional 

problems than victims of violence in other locations 

(table 4). The relationship between the location of the 

crime and the experience of socio-emotional problems 

varied depending on the relationship between the victim 

and offender. Among victims of violence committed by a 

stranger, a greater percentage experienced socio-emotional 

problems when the incident took place at their home (77%), 

compared to incidents that occurred in other locations 

(23% to 60%). In comparison, a similar percentage of IPV 

victims reported socio-emotional problems regardless of 

whether the violence occurred at the victim’s home (87%), 

at the home of a friend or relative (80%), or in a commercial 

or public place (88%). Violence in the home was more 

distressing when the offender was an intimate partner 

(87%), compared to a stranger (77%). This relationship held 

for other location types, including at the home of a friend or 

relative or in a commercial or public place. 
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 7

Table 5

Violent crime victims who experienced socio-emotional problems and reported the crime to police or received victim services, 

by victim–offender relationship, 2009–2012

Total violence Intimate partnera Other knownb Stranger

No socioemotional 

problems

Socioemotional 

problems

No socioemotional 

problems

Socioemotional 

problems

No socioemotional 

problems

Socioemotional 

problems

No socioemotional 

problems

Socioemotional 

problems

Total violence 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Reported to police 38 54 55 60 32 46 40 59

Received victim services 5 12 10 25 7 12 3 4

Neither 61 42 45 32 66 49 58 41

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to a portion of victims who both reported to police and received victim services. Socio-emotional problems are defined as the 

experience of one or more of the following: moderate to severe distress, problems with family or friend relationships, or problems at work or school as a result of the 

victimization. Excludes victimizations in which the level of distress was unknown and the victim–offender relationship was unknown. See appendix table 3 for more 

detail on the level of distress by the types of services received. See appendix table 17 for standard errors. 

aIncludes victimizations committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends.

bIncludes victimizations committed by family members (excluding intimate partners), close friends, or other acquaintances. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2009–2012.

12% of victims who experienced socio-emotional 

problems received assistance from a victim service 

provider

Experiencing socio-emotional problems may impact 

whether a victim chooses to seek formal help, such as 

reporting to police or receiving victim services. While 

a victim’s experience of socio-emotional problems may 

have been impacted by reporting to police, engaging in 

the criminal justice system, or seeking victim services, 

the questions used in this report were intended to capture 

the response to the victimization rather than to these 

other sources.

Overall, a greater percentage of victims of violence who 

experienced socio-emotional problems (54%) reported their 

victimization to police than victims who did not experience 

socio-emotional problems (38%) (table 5). This was true 

for victims of violence committed by other known offenders 

and strangers. Among IPV victims, a similar percentage who 

did (60%) and did not (55%) experience socio-emotional 

problems reported the victimization to police.

A greater percentage of victims of violence who experienced 

socio-emotional problems (12%) received assistance 

from victim services than victims who did not experience 

problems (5%). This relationship held for victims of violence 

by intimate partners and other known offenders. More 

than 40% of victims of overall violence (42%) and violence 

by other known offenders (49%) and strangers (41%) who 

experienced socio-emotional problems did not report 

their victimization to the police or receive assistance from 

victim services.
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 8

Table 6

Characteristics of violent crime victims who experienced socio-emotional problems as a result of the victimization, by type of 

crime, 2009–2012

Total violence

Serious violence

Victim characteristic Total Rape or sexual assault Robbery Aggravated assault Simple assault

Sex

Male 44% 58% 49% 69% 52% 36%

Female 72 79 81 81 76 68

Race/Hispanic origin

Whitea 57% 69% 79% 74% 62% 53%

Blacka 58 70 68 82 61 49

Hispanic 54 65 61 64 67 48

Othera,b 56 64 69 ! 71 58 50

Age

12–17 51% 66% 65% 74% 61% 45%

18–34 53 66 75 72 60 46

35–54 62 70 79 74 65 58

55 or older 66 75 78 79 70 63

Marital status

Single, never married 53% 66% 70% 70% 61% 46%

Married 55 65 87 71 56 52

Widowed 74 91 # ! 92 86 ! 64

Divorced or separated 67 77 79 82 72 62

Education

Less than high school 58% 72% 55% 78% 72% 51%

High school degree or equivalent 57 68 76 75 62 50

College degree 57 67 79 72 60 52

Note: Socio-emotional problems are defined as the experience of one or more of the following: moderate to severe distress, problems with family or friend relationships, 

or problems at work or school as a result of the victimization. See appendix table 5 for more detail on the level of distress experienced, by victim characteristics. Excludes 

victimizations in which the level of distress was unknown. See appendix table 18 for standard errors. 

# Rounds to 100%.

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

aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. 

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

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2009–2012.

More females than males experienced socio-emotional 

problems as a result of their victimization

Regardless of the type of violent crime experienced, a greater 

percentage of females than males reported socio-emotional 

problems (table 6). Overall, 72% of female victims of violent 

crime experienced socio-emotional problems, compared 

to 44% of male victims. Among victims of serious violence, 

79% of females and 58% of males experienced socioemotional problems.

Marital status appeared to be related to experiences of socioemotional problems among victims of total violence and 

serious violence. More victims of all violent crime who were 

widowed (74%) or divorced or separated (67%) experienced 

socio-emotional problems than those who were never 

married (53%) or married (55%). This pattern also held for 

victims of serious violent crime. However, when marital 

status was included in a multivariate model controlling for 

other victim and incident characteristics, the relationship 

between marital status and socio-emotional problems was 

no longer significant (see table 10).

The victim’s age was associated with the experience of 

socio-emotional problems for certain types of crime. A 

greater percentage of all simple assault victims ages 35 to 54 

(58%) and 55 or older (63%) experienced socio-emotional 

problems, compared to victims ages 12 to 17 (45%) and 

ages 18 to 34 (46%). A similar percentage of serious violence 

victims ages 12 to 17 (66%), ages 18 to 34 (66%), and ages 

35 to 54 (70%) experienced socio-emotional problems. 

In general, race or Hispanic origin and education level 

was not consistently associated with whether a victim 

experienced socio-emotional problems. A similar percentage 

of non-Hispanic whites (57%), non-Hispanic blacks (58%), 

Hispanics (54%), and other races (56%) experienced socioemotional problems as a result of their violent victimization. 

Likewise, no differences were detected in the percentage 

of victims of violence who experienced socio-emotional 

problems by level of education. For example, 58% of victims 

of violent crime with an education level of less than high 

school experienced socio-emotional problems, compared to 

57% of victims with a high school or college degree. 
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 9

Table 7

Characteristics of violent crime victims who experienced 

socio-emotional problems as a result of the victimization, by 

victim–offender relationship, 2009–2012

Victim characteristic

Intimate 

partnera Other knownb Stranger

Sex

Male 70% 51% 35%

Female 88 69 61

Race/Hispanic origin

Whitec 87% 61% 41%

Blackc 80 59 49

Hispanic 73 62 44

Otherc,d 86 58 47

Age

12–17 # ! 55% 41%

18–34 81% 54 41

35–54 89 68 44

55 or older 90 75 53

Marital status

Single, never married 81% 56% 43%

Married 80 66 42

Widowed # ! 86 58

Divorced or separated 89 64 47

Education

Less than high school # 58% 50%

High school degree or equivalent 79% 59 45

College degree 88 63 41

Note: Socio-emotional problems are defined as the experience of one or more 

of the following: moderate to severe distress, problems with family or friend 

relationships, or problems at work or school as a result of the victimization. 

Excludes victimizations in which the level of distress was unknown and the 

victim–offender relationship was unknown. See appendix table 19 for standard 

errors. 

# Rounds to 100%.

! Interpret with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the 

coefficient of variation is greater than 50%. 

aIncludes victimizations committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends, or 

girlfriends.

bIncludes victimizations committed by family members (excluding intimate 

partners), close friends, or other acquaintances.

cExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. 

dIncludes American Indian, Alaska Native, Hawaiian, Asian, other Pacific Islander, 

and persons of two or more races. 

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

2009–2012.

Females experienced more socio-emotional problems 

than males regardless of the victim–offender 

relationship 

Whether the offender was an intimate partner, someone 

else known to the victim, or a stranger, a greater percentage 

of female than male victims experienced socio-emotional 

problems as a result of their victimization (table 7). For both 

males and females, a greater proportion reported socioemotional problems when the offender was an intimate 

partner rather than a known offender or stranger.

Older victims were also more likely to experience socioemotional problems than younger victims, regardless of 

the victim–offender relationship. In 2009–12, a greater 

percentage of IPV victims ages 35 to 54 (89%) experienced 

socio-emotional problems than those ages 18 to 34 (81%). 

Among victims of violent crime by known offenders, 

persons ages 35 to 54 (68%) and age 55 or older (75%) 

experienced more socio-emotional problems than persons 

ages 12 to 17 (55%) and ages 18 to 34 (54%). For victims of 

violent crime by strangers, a greater percentage of victims 

age 55 or older (53%) experienced socio-emotional problems 

than victims ages 12 to 17 (41%) and ages 18 to 34 (41%).

Marital status appeared to be related to experiencing 

socio-emotional problems among victims of violence by 

intimate partners and other known offenders. For instance, 

more victims of IPV who were divorced or separated 

(89%) experienced socio-emotional problems as a result of 

their victimization than victims who were never married 

(81%). However, when marital status was included in a 

multivariate model controlling for other victim and incident 

characteristics, victim-offender relationship was significantly 

related to socio-emotional problems while marital status was 

not (see table 10).

The proportion of victims who experienced socio-emotional 

problems also varied by level of education among IPV 

victims. A greater percentage of IPV victims with a college 

education experienced socio-emotional problems (88%) 

than IPV victims with a high school education (79%). 

Among victims of violence committed by a stranger, 

a slightly greater percentage of victims with less than a 

high school education (50%) experienced socio-emotional 

problems than those with a college education (41%). 

However, similar percentages of victims of violence by other 

known offenders experienced socio-emotional problems, 

regardless of their level of education.

Regardless of the relationship between victim and offender, 

the proportion of violent crime victims who experienced 

socio-emotional problems did not vary by the race or 

Hispanic origin of the victim. Among IPV victims, whites 

(87%), blacks (80%), and other races (86%) experienced 

similar proportions of socio-emotional problems. Victims of 

violent crime by other known offenders experienced similar 

amounts of socio-emotional problems, regardless of their 

race or Hispanic origin. 
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 10

Table 8

Household characteristics of violent crime victims who experienced socio-emotional problems as a result of the victimization, 

by type of crime, 2009–2012

Household characteristic Total violence

Serious violence

Total Rape or sexual assault Robbery Aggravated assault Simple assault

Composition

Single male

No children 45% 58% 19% ! 67% 58% 38%

With children 47 54 59! # ! 31 ! 44

Single female

No children 79 81 85 92 69 62

With children 67 78 87 83 72 79

Marrieda

No children 56 68 87 68 61 51

With children 53 62 68 70 58 50

Otherb 55 67 75 70 63 48

Income

$24,999 or less 65% 72% 65% 80% 67% 60%

$25,000–49,999 54 65 80 71 60 48

$50,000–74,999 52 67 82 68 53 45

$75,000 or more 49 58 83 57 53 45

Unknown 58 73 75 76 69 52

Location of residence

Urban 57% 69% 76% 74% 63% 50%

Suburban 56 67 78 72 59 50

Rural 62 69 60 79 68 59

Note: Socio-emotional problems are defined as the experience of one or more of the following: moderate to severe distress, problems with family or friend relationships, 

or problems at work or school as a result of the victimization. Excludes victimizations in which the level of distress was unknown. See appendix table 7 for more detail on 

the level of distress, by household characteristics. See appendix table 20 for standard errors. 

# Rounds to 100%.

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

aIncludes a married couple living with no other adults.

bIncludes both single and married adults living with other adults (relatives or nonrelatives), both with and without children.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2009–2012.

Victims who lived in households headed by a single 

female experienced more socio-emotional problems 

than victims living in other households 

Characteristics such as household composition, income, and 

location of residence may be related to a victim experiencing 

socio-emotional problems. A greater percentage of victims 

of violent crime who lived in households headed by a 

single female with (67%) and without children (79%) 

experienced socio-emotional problems than those who 

lived in households headed by a single male with (47%) 

and without children (45%) (table 8). This relationship also 

held true for victims of both serious violence and simple 

assault. Households headed by married adults with (53%) 

and without children (56%) experienced similar proportions 

of socio-emotional problems as a result of their violent 

victimization. The same occurred for victims of both serious 

violence and simple assault.

For victims of serious violent crime, a greater percentage 

of persons with an income of $24,999 or less experienced 

socio-emotional problems (72%) than persons with an 

income of $75,000 or more (58%). Among victims of simple 

assault, a greater percentage of persons with an income of 

$24,999 or less experienced socio-emotional problems (60%) 

than those with greater incomes (45% to 52%). 

Generally, no statistical differences were detected by 

location of residence as to whether victims of violent crime 

experienced socio-emotional problems. A similar percentage 

of persons living in urban areas (57%) experienced socioemotional problems, compared to those living in suburban 

areas (56%) and those living in rural areas (62%). However, 

a smaller percentage of victims of simple assault living in 

urban (50%) and suburban (50%) areas experienced socioemotional problems than victims living in rural areas (59%).
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 11

Table 9

Household characteristics of violent crime victims who 

experienced socio-emotional problems as a result of the 

victimization, by victim–offender relationship, 2009–2012

Household characteristic Intimate partnera Other knownb Stranger

Composition

Single male

No children 66% 52% 38%

With children 95 33 ! 37 !

Single female

No children 94 75 76

With children 87 59 56

Marriedc

No children 91 69 39

With children 70 57 46

Otherd 85 61 39

Income

$24,999 or less 84% 65% 55%

$25,000–49,999 83 62 38

$50,000–74,999 84 59 40

$75,000 or more 96 52 35

Unknown 82 59 46

Location of residence

Urban 83% 59% 46%

Suburban 86 62 39

Rural 85 59 51

Note: Socio-emotional problems are defined as the experience of one or more 

of the following: moderate to severe distress, problems with family or friend 

relationships, or problems at work or school as a result of the victimization. 

Excludes victimizations in which the level of distress was unknown and the 

victim–offender relationship was unknown. See appendix table 21 for standard 

errors. 

! Interpret with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the 

coefficient of variation is greater than 50%. 

aIncludes victimizations committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends, or 

girlfriends.

bIncludes victimizations committed by family members (excluding intimate 

partners), close friends, or other acquaintances.

cIncludes a married couple living with no other adults.

dIncludes both single and married adults living with other adults (relatives or 

nonrelatives), both with and without children.

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

2009–2012.

About 9 in 10 IPV victims who lived in households 

headed by single females experienced socioemotional problems

A similar percentage of victims of IPV who lived in 

households headed by single females both with (87%) and 

without children (94%) and by single males with children 

(95%) experienced socio-emotional problems (table 9). 

These percentages were greater than IPV victims who lived 

in households headed by single males without children 

(66%). IPV victims who lived in households headed by 

married adults with no children (91%) experienced a greater 

percentage of socio-emotional problems than those who 

lived in households with children (70%). For victims of 

violent crime by a known offender, a greater percentage of 

persons who lived in households headed by a single female 

without children (75%) experienced socio-emotional 

problems than those living in households headed by a 

single male without children (52%). Households headed 

by married adults without children (69%) experienced 

more socio-emotional problems than those with children 

(57%) when the violent victimization was committed by a 

known offender. Among victims of violence by strangers, 

persons who lived in households headed by single females 

experienced greater socio-emotional problems than 

households headed by males. 

Income was associated with the experience of socioemotional problems among IPV victims, and violence by 

other known offenders and strangers. IPV victims who had 

an income of $75,000 or more experienced more socioemotional problems (96%), compared to IPV victims in 

other income brackets. For victims of violent crime by a 

known offender, a greater percentage of persons with an 

income of $24,999 or less experienced socio-emotional 

problems (65%) than persons with an income of $75,000 or 

more (52%). Among victims of violent crime by a stranger, a 

greater percentage of persons with an income of $24,999 or 

less experienced socio-emotional problems (55%) than those 

with greater incomes. 

In general, no differences were detected in the proportion 

of victims who experienced socio-emotional problems by 

victim–offender relationship and location of residence. 

A similar percentage of IPV victims living in urban areas 

experienced socio-emotional problems (83%), compared 

to those living in suburban (86%) and rural areas (85%). 

As with IPV , victims of violence by other known offenders 

experienced similar proportions of socio-emotional 

problems, regardless of their location of residence. However, 

among victims of violence by strangers, a smaller percentage 

of victims living in suburban areas (39%) experienced socioemotional problems than victims in rural areas (51%).
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 12

After controlling for other variables, IPV victims were 

five times more likely to experience socio-emotional 

problems than victims of violence by strangers

To assess the unique contribution of incident and victim 

characteristics to the probability of experiencing socioemotional problems, a logistic regression analysis was 

used. The analysis produced estimates of the association 

between each independent variable (the victim and incident 

characteristics) and the dependent variable (the likelihood 

of experiencing socio-emotional problems) after accounting 

for other variables in the model. See Methodology for more 

information about logistic regression techniques.

In general, the logistic regression analysis revealed similar 

patterns in the probability of a victim experiencing socioemotional problems as shown in the tables discussed in 

this report. Among the variables examined, the victim–

offender relationship—specifically victimization by an 

intimate partner—had the greatest relative impact on the 

likelihood of experiencing socio-emotional problems 

(table 10). IPV victims were more than five times more 

likely to experience socio-emotional problems than victims 

of violence committed by a stranger (odds ratio 5.4). Victims 

of violence by other known offenders were two times more 

likely to experience socio-emotional problems than victims 

of violence committed by a stranger (2.0). 

Characteristics of the violent incident also had an impact on 

the likelihood of experiencing socio-emotional problems. 

Victims of robbery were 2.7 times more likely to experience 

socio-emotional problems than victims of simple assault. 

Victims who suffered an injury during the victimization 

were two times more likely to experience socio-emotional 

problems than victims who were not injured. When a 

weapon was present, victims were 1.7 times more likely to 

experience socio-emotional problems than when a weapon 

was not involved. 

After accounting for characteristics of the incident and 

victim–offender relationship, certain victim characteristics 

were also still related to the experience of socio-emotional 

problems. Female victims were about 2.6 times more 

likely than males to experience socio-emotional problems. 

Victims ages 35 to 54 (1.5) and age 55 or older (2.1) were 

significantly more likely than victims ages 12 to 17 to 

experience socio-emotional problems. Other characteristics, 

such as race, marital status, and education, had little 

independent impact on the probability of experiencing 

socio-emotional problems.

Table 10

Logistic regression analysis of the effect of victim 

characteristics, type of crime, and victim–offender 

relationship on the probability of victims experiencing 

socio-emotional problems, 2009–2012

Odds ratioa

First model Final model

Victim characteristic

Femaleb 2.5† 2.6 †

Blackc 0.8 ~

Other racec 1.0 ~

Hispanicc 0.9 ~

Ages 18–34d 0.9 ~

Ages 35–54d 1.5† 1.5 †

Age 55 or olderd 1.9† 2.1 †

Marriede 1.0 ~

Widowede 1.1 ~

Divorced or separatede 1.0 ~

Less than high school degreef 1.5 ~

High school degree or equivalentf 0.9 ~

Type of crime

Rape or sexual assaultg 1.8† ~

Robberyg 3.3† 2.7 † 

Aggravated assaultg 1.5 ~

Victim–offender relationship

Intimate partnerh 5.9† 5.4 †

Other knownh 2.0† 2.0 †

Incident characteristics

Series victimizationi 0.8 ~

Injuryj 1.8† 2.0 †

Weapon presentk 1.2 1.7 †

Do not know if weapon presentk 1.7† 1.7 †

Note: Socio-emotional problems are defined as the experience of one or more 

of the following: moderate to severe distress, problems with family or friend 

relationships, or problems at work or school as a result of the victimization. 

Estimates represent the probability of that a victim with a particular characteristic 

has experienced socio-emotional problems conditional on the victim having 

the mean value for all other predictors in the model. See appendix table 22 for 

coefficients and standard errors. 

†Significant at 95%.

~Characteristics deleted from model when Wald statistic was not significant at 

the 95%-confidence level.

aAn odds ratio greater than 1 indicates that the variable is associated with an 

increased likelihood that the victim experienced socio-emotional problems. 

Variables with larger odds ratios have a larger effect on the probability of 

experiencing socio-emotional problems than variables with smaller odds ratios.

bCompared to males.

cCompared to whites.

dCompared to ages 12 to 17.

eCompared to never married.

f

Compared to college education.

gCompared to simple assault.

hCompared to stranger.

i

Compared to nonseries victimization. High frequency repeat victimizations (or 

series victimizations) are six or more similar but separate victimizations that occur 

with such frequency that the victim is unable to recall each individual event or 

describe each event in detail.

j

Compared to no injury.

kCompared to no weapon present. 

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

2009–2012.
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 13

Methodology

Survey coverage 

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is an 

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

for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NCVS is a selfreport survey in which interviewed persons are asked about 

the number and characteristics of victimizations experienced 

during the prior 6 months. It collects information on nonfatal 

personal crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated 

and simple assault, and personal larceny) and household 

property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other 

theft) both reported and not reported to police. 

In addition to providing annual level and change estimates 

on criminal victimization, the NCVS is the primary source of 

information on the nature of criminal victimization incidents. 

Survey respondents provide information about themselves 

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

education level, and income) and whether they experienced 

a victimization. For each victimization incident, the NCVS 

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

Hispanic origin, 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 victims’ 

experiences with the criminal justice system. 

The NCVS is administered to persons age 12 or older from 

a nationally representative sample of households in the 

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

members who all reside at a sampled address. Persons are 

considered household members when the sampled address 

is their usual place of residence at the time of the interview 

and when they have no usual place of residence elsewhere. 

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

and eligible persons in these households are interviewed 

every 6 months either in person or over the phone for a 

total of seven interviews. Generally, all first interviews are 

conducted in person. New households rotate into the sample 

on an ongoing basis to replace outgoing households that have 

been in 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 individuals who 

are homeless.

Nonresponse and weighting adjustments 

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

or older were interviewed for the NCVS. Each household 

was interviewed twice during the year. The response rate 

was 87% for households and 87% for eligible persons. 

Victimizations that occurred outside of the United States 

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

unweighted victimizations occurred outside of the United 

States and were excluded from the analyses. Estimates in 

this report use data from the 1993 to 2012 NCVS data files, 

weighted to produce annual estimates of victimization for 

persons age 12 or older living in U.S. households. Since the 

NCVS relies on a sample rather than a census of the entire 

U.S. population, weights are designed to inflate sample point 

estimates to known population totals and to compensate for 

survey nonresponse and other aspects of the sample design.

NCVS data files include both person and household weights. 

Person weights provide an estimate of the population 

represented by each person in the sample. Household 

weights provide an estimate of the U.S. household 

population represented by each household in the sample. 

After proper adjustment, both household and person 

weights are also typically used to form the denominator in 

calculations of crime rates. 

Victimization weights used in this analysis account for the 

number of persons present during an incident and for high 

frequency repeat victimizations (or series victimizations). 

Series victimizations are similar in type but occur with such 

frequency that a victim is unable to recall each individual 

event or describe each event in detail. Survey procedures 

allow NCVS interviewers to identify and classify these 

similar victimizations as series victimizations and to collect 

detailed information on only the most recent incident 

in the series. The weight counts series incidents as the 

actual number of incidents reported by the victim, up to a 

maximum of 10 incidents. Including series victimizations in 

national rates results in large increases in the level of violent 

victimization; however, trends in violence are generally 

similar regardless of whether series victimizations are 

included. In 2012, series incidents accounted for about 1% 

of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations. 

Weighting series incidents as the number of incidents up to 

a maximum of 10 incidents produces more reliable estimates 

of crime levels, while the cap at 10 minimizes the effect of 

extreme outliers on the rates. Additional information on 

the series enumeration is provided in the report Methods 

for Counting High Frequency Repeat Victimizations in the 

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCJ 237308, BJS web, 

April 2012).
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 14

Table 11

Characteristics of incidents and victims who were and were 

not administered NCVS distress questions, 2009–2012

Characteristic

Distress questions 

not administered

Distress questions 

administered

Type of violence 100% 100%

Rape or sexual assault 2 5 †

Robbery 10 11 

Aggravated assault 17 17 

Simple assault 71 67 

Victim–offender relationship

Intimate partner 10 % 16 % †

Relative 3 8 †

Other known 27 32 ‡

Stranger 21 41 †

Unknown 38 3 †

Sex

Male 51 % 53 %

Female 49 47 

Race/Hispanic origin

Whitea 59 % 65 % ‡

Blacka 21 15 †

Hispanic 14 14 

Othera,b 5 6 

Age

12–17 17 % 17 %

18–34 43 42 

35–54 32 31 

55 or older 9 11 

Income

$24,999 or less 18 % 28 % †

$25,000–49,999 20 19 

$50,000–74,999 14 12 

$75,000 or more 16 17 

Unknown 32 24 †

Location of residence

Urban 32 % 42 % †

Suburban 54 45 †

Rural 15 14 

Note: See appendix table 23 for standard errors. 

† Indicates the difference between groups was significant at p <.05.

‡ Indicates the difference between groups was significant at p <.1.

aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. 

bIncludes American Indian, Alaska Native, Hawaiian, Asian, other Pacific Islander, 

and persons of two or more races. 

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

2009–2012.

Items used to measure socio-emotional problems

For this report, three NCVS questions were used as a 

measure of socio-emotional problems. Socio-emotional 

problems were defined as the experience of one or more 

of the following: feelings of moderate to severe distress; 

significant problems with work or school, such as trouble 

with a boss, coworkers, or peers; or significant problems with 

family members or friends, including more arguments than 

before the victimization, an inability to trust, or not feeling 

as close after the victimization. The specific NCVS questions 

that went into this measure were: 

 Being a victim of crime affects people in different ways. 

Next I would like to ask you some questions about how 

being a crime victim may have affected you. Did being a 

victim of this crime lead you to have significant problems 

with your job or schoolwork, or trouble with your boss, 

coworkers, or peers?

 Did being a victim of this crime lead you to have 

significant problems with family members or friends, 

including getting into more arguments or fights than you 

did before, not feeling you could trust them as much, or 

not feeling as close to them as you did before?

 How distressing was being a victim of this crime to you? 

Was it not at all distressing, mildly distressing, moderately 

distressing, or severely distressing?

Item nonresponse on questions about socio-emotional 

problems 

In 2009–12, about 14% of violent crime victims were not 

administered the questions related to socio-emotional 

problems and were excluded from the report analyses. 

These victimizations were originally classified as property 

crimes, which are eliminated from the section on socioemotional problems by design, but were later reclassified 

as violent victimizations when it became apparent that the 

victim was present during the incident. A comparison of the 

characteristics of violent crime victims who were and were 

not administered the socio-emotional problems questions 

was conducted to assess whether significant differences exist 

between the two groups (table 11). 

Although there were some differences between the groups, 

the analysis did not show evidence that inclusion of the 

victims who did not receive the questions would significantly 

impact the findings. Among the differences identified, a 

greater percentage of victims excluded from the analysis 

were black (21%) and from suburban areas (54%), compared 

to victims who were included in the analysis. There also 

appeared to be variations in the victim–offender relationship 

and income distributions, but these were due to differences 

in the percentage of unknown information between the two 

groups. Unless all members of the excluded group responded 

to the questions in the same way—a highly improbably 

scenario—the within group patterns of distress would not 

change significantly. 
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 15

Figure 5

Recency of interview, by level of distress reported, 

2009–2012

Note: See appendix table 24 for estimates and standard errors.

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

2009–2012.

0 20 40 60 80 100

5 months or more Severe Moderate Mild No

4 months to less

 than 5 months

3 months to less

 than 4 months

2 months to less

 than 3 months 

1 month to less

 than 2 months

Less than 1 month

Percent

Standard error computations 

When national estimates are derived from a sample, as 

with the NCVS, caution must be used when comparing 

one estimate to another or when comparing estimates over 

time. Although one estimate may be larger than another, 

estimates based on a sample have some degree of sampling 

error. The sampling error of an estimate depends on several 

factors, including the amount of variation in the responses 

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

an estimate is taken into account, the estimates that appear 

different may not be statistically different. 

One measure of the sampling error associated with an 

estimate is the standard error. The standard error can vary 

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

small standard error provides a more reliable approximation 

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

Estimates with relatively large standard errors are associated 

with less precision and reliability and should be interpreted 

with caution. 

To generate standard errors around numbers and estimates 

from the NCVS, the Census Bureau produced generalized 

variance function (GVF) parameters for BJS. GVFs 

account for 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 this report. 

BJS conducted tests to determine whether differences in 

estimated numbers and percentages in this report were 

statistically significant once sampling error was taken into 

account. Using statistical programs developed specifically 

for the NCVS, all comparisons in the text were tested 

for significance. Student’s t-statistic was the primary 

test procedure, which tests the difference between two 

sample estimates.

Data users can use the estimates and the standard errors of 

the estimates provided in this report to generate a confidence 

interval around the estimate as a measure of the margin of 

error. The following example illustrates how standard errors 

can be used to generate confidence intervals:

In 2009–12, according to the NCVS, 57% of victims of 

violent crime experienced socio-emotional problems 

as a result of the victimization (see table 2). Using 

GVFs, it was determined that the estimated percentage 

has a standard error of 1.6 (see appendix table 14). A 

confidence interval around the estimate was generated 

by multiplying the standard errors by ±1.96 (the t-score 

of a normal, two- tailed distribution that excludes 2.5% 

at either end of the distribution). Therefore, the 95% 

confidence interval around the 57% estimate from 2012 is 

57 ± (1.6 X 1.96) or (54 to 60). 

In others words, if different samples using the same 

procedures were taken from the U.S. population in 2009–12, 

95% of the time 54% to 60% of all violent victims would 

report experiencing socio-emotional problems. In this 

report, BJS also calculated a coefficient of variation (CV) 

for all estimates, representing the ratio of the standard error 

to the estimate. CVs provide a measure of reliability and 

a means for comparing the precision of estimates across 

measures with differing levels or metrics. In cases where the 

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

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

(Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or 

fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater 

than 50%.)

Impact of interview recency on level of distress

The time elapsed from the victimization to the NCVS 

interview may be associated with the level of distress that a 

victim reported. To examine this, the distribution of level of 

distress was examined for victimizations that occurred less 

than 1 month to 5 months or more prior to the interview. 

The level of distress reported by victims did not appear to be 

related to the recency of the interview (figure 5). A similar 

percentage of victims of violent incidents reported moderate 

to severe distress regardless of the number of months from 

the victimization to the interview. For example, 26% of 

victims who were interviewed less than 1 month after 

their victimization reported severe distress, compared 

to 28% of victims who were interviewed 5 months after 

their victimization.
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 16

Logistic regression statistical techniques

The analyses conducted in table 10 employed the technique 

of logistic regression for categorical binary outcomes, 

which produces coefficients estimating the relationship 

between independent variables on the probability of the 

dependent outcome. In this case, logistic regression was 

used to determine what characteristics are statistically 

significant for predicting a dichotomous outcome, a victim 

experiencing socio-emotional problems or not experiencing 

socio-emotional problems, and if these relationships persist 

after controlling for other characteristics. The selected victim 

and incident characteristics examined were sex, race and 

Hispanic origin, age, marital status, education level, type of 

crime (e.g., serious violence or simple assault), and victim–

offender relationship. A logistic model was iteratively run 

under a backwards selection technique until only predictors 

that were significant at the 95% level of confidence remained. 

The coefficients produced were transformed into an odds 

ratio to show the effect of a change in a given independent 

variable. The odds ratio compared whether the probability 

that a victim experienced socio-emotional problems was the 

same for two groups (e.g. males and females) conditional on 

the victim having the mean value of all other predictors in 

the model. The formula for calculating an odds ratio is—

exp (B)

where exp equals the base of the natural logarithm e 

(a constant equal to 2.71828) and B equals the logistic 

regression coefficient for a given independent variable. An 

odds ratio greater than 1 indicates that the characteristic 

is associated with an increased likelihood that the victim 

experienced socio-emotional problems. Characteristics with 

larger odds ratios have a larger effect on the probability of 

experiencing socio-emotional problems than characteristics 

with smaller odds ratios. For example, in appendix table 22, 

the coefficient for serious violence is 0.9. The exponentiated 

logistic regression coefficient of 0.9 produces an odds ratio 

of 2.5. The odds ratio of 2.5 for serious violence is the ratio 

of the odds of victims of serious violence experiencing socioemotional problems to the odds of a victim of simple assault 

(the reference or comparison group), after accounting for 

the effect of all of the other predictor variables in the model. 

That is, the odds ratio of 2.5 indicates that the odds of a 

victim of serious violence experiencing socio-emotional 

problems is 2.5 times higher than a victim of simple assault 

(the comparison group). 

The logistic regression analyses were conducted with SPSS 

Complex Samples using weighted data and accounting for 

the NCVS complex sample design. Prior to conducting the 

regression analyses, all variables were tested to ensure that 

multicollinearity was not a problem for the models. The 

variances and standard errors were then computed using the 

Taylor Series Linearization method. Wald F-statistics were 

calculated to test for statistical significance of the effects of 

each victim and incident characteristic. The Wald F-statistics 

were used to test the null hypothesis that all regression 

coefficients are equal to zero for each characteristics (i.e., 

the probability of experiencing socio-emotional problems is 

the same across all categories of the selected characteristics), 

conditional on all other victim or incident characteristics 

being including in the model. 
Appendix table 1

Level of distress, relationship problems, and school or work problems experienced by violent crime victims, by type of crime 

and incident characteristics, 2009–2012

Family/friend 

relationship 

problemsa Work/school problemsb Type of violent crime

Distress

Total No Mild Moderate Severe

Total 100% 19% 28% 23% 29% 21% 18%

Serious violence 100% 13% 23% 25% 39% 25% 23%

Rape or sexual assault 100 11 18 26 46 37 38

Robbery 100 11 19 28 42 30 20

Aggravated assault 100 15 28 22 35 18 19

Simple assault 100% 22% 31% 22% 24% 19% 15%

Domestic violencec 100% 6% 18% 23% 53% 45% 26%

Intimate partner violenced 100 5 14 25 56 44 31

Stranger violence 100% 28% 31% 21% 19% 8% 10%

Violence involving a weapon 100% 15% 26% 22% 37% 21% 20%

Firearm 100 9 22 24 44 25 23

Violence involving an injury 100% 12% 22% 24% 42% 28% 23%

Formal medical treatment received 100 9 18 24 49 32 27

Location of victimization

Victim’s home or lodging 100% 7% 19% 21% 52% 42% 23%

Near victim’s home 100 14 23 23 40 21 16

In, at, or near a friend, neighbor, or relative’s home 100 17 29 24 29 29 16

Commercial place, parking lot, or other public area 100 27 29 23 21 11 15

Schoold 100 19 39 31 10 18 25

Other location 100 32 41 17 10 7 10

Note: See appendix table 2 for standard errors. 

aIncludes victims reporting significant problems with family members or friends, including getting into more arguments or fights than before, not feeling able to trust 

them as much, or not feeling as close to them as before the crime.

bIncludes victims reporting significant problems with job or school, such as trouble with a boss, coworker, or peer. 

cIncludes victimization committed by intimate partners (current or former spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends) and family members.

dIncludes victimization committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2009–2012.

Appendix table 2

Standard errors for appendix table 1: Level of distress, relationship problems, and school or work problems experienced by 

violent crime victims, by type of crime and incident characteristics, 2009–2012

Type of violent crime

Family/friend 

relationship 

problems

Work/school 

problems

Distress

No Mild Moderate Severe

Total 1.1% 1.3% 1.2% 1.3% 1.1% 1.0%

Serious violence 1.3% 1.7% 1.7% 2.0% 1.7% 1.7%

Rape or sexual assault 2.2 2.7 3.2 3.8 3.7 3.7

Robbery 1.7 2.3 2.7 3.1 2.8 2.4

Aggravated assault 1.7 2.3 2.1 2.5 1.9 1.9

Simple assault 1.3% 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.0%

Domestic violence 1.4% 2.5% 2.9% 3.6% 3.6% 3.0%

Intimate partner violence 1.0 1.7 2.3 2.8 2.7 2.5

Stranger violence 1.7% 1.8% 1.5% 1.4% 0.9% 1.0%

Violence involving a weapon 1.6% 2.1% 1.9% 2.4% 1.9% 1.9%

Firearm 1.9 2.9 3.0 3.7 3.1 3.0

Violence involving an injury 1.3% 1.8% 1.8% 2.2% 2.0% 1.8%

Formal medical treatment received 1.5 2.1 2.4 3.0 2.7 2.6

Location of victimization

Victim’s home or lodging 1.0% 1.8% 1.9% 2.5% 2.4% 1.9%

Near victim’s home 1.7 2.2 2.2 2.7 2.1 1.8

In, at, or near a friend, neighbor, or relative’s home 2.4 3.1 2.8 3.1 3.1 2.4

Commercial place, parking lot, or other public area 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.4

School 2.2 2.9 2.7 1.6 2.1 2.4

Other location 2.9 3.1 2.2 1.6 1.3 1.6

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2009–2012.
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 18

Appendix table 3

Level of distress, relationship problems, and school or work problems experienced by violent crime victims, by whether victim 

reported to police or received victim services, 2009–2012

Help-seeking behavior

Family/friend 

relationship 

problemsa Work/school problemsb

Distress

Total No Mild Moderate Severe

Total 100% 19% 28% 23% 29% 21% 18%

Reported to police 100% 17 24 24 35 20 17

Received victim services 100% 6 ! 21 33 40 44 33

Both 100% 4 20 16 60 44 32

Neither 100% 24 33 23 20 18 15

Note: Details may not sum to total due to missing responses. See appendix table 4 for standard errors. 

aIncludes victims reporting significant problems with family members or friends, including getting into more arguments or fights than before, not feeling able to trust 

them as much, or not feeling as close to them as before the crime.

bIncludes victims reporting significant problems with job or school, such as trouble with a boss, coworker, or peer. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2009–2012.

Appendix table 4

Standard errors for appendix table 3: Level of distress, relationship problems, and school or work problems experienced by 

violent crime victims, by whether victim reported to police or received victim services, 2009–2012

Help-seeking behavior

Family/friend 

relationship 

problems

Work/school 

problems

Distress

No Mild Moderate Severe

Total 1.1% 1.3% 1.2% 1.3% 1.1% 1.0%

Reported to police 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.3

Received victim services 2.2 ! 3.9 4.6 4.9 5.0 4.6

Both 1.3 2.9 2.7 4.0 3.9 3.6

Neither 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2009–2012.
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 19

Appendix table 5

Level of distress, relationship problems, and school or work problems experienced by violent crime victims, by victim 

characteristics, 2009–2012

Victim characteristic

Family/friend 

relationship 

problemsa Work/school problemsb

Distress

Total No Mild Moderate Severe

Sex

Male 100% 29% 32% 20% 18% 13% 12%

Female 100% 8 24 26 41 30 24

Race/Hispanic origin

White 100% 19% 28% 24% 29% 22% 18%

Black 100% 20 27 21 31 23 16

Hispanic 100% 20 32 21 27 18 18

Other 100% 24 26 20 30 22 20

Age

12–17 100% 21% 36% 27% 16% 19% 23%

18–34 100% 21 31 22 26 21 17

35–54 100% 17 23 22 37 23 16

55 or older 100% 15 22 26 37 21 12

Marital status

Single, never married 100% 20% 33% 24% 23% 20% 18%

Married 100% 20 28 26 25 18 11

Widowed 100% 14 ! 13 18 55 29 24

Divorced or separated 100% 18 19 19 45 28 22

Education

Less than high school 100% 18% 33% 30% 18% 22% 26%

High school degree or equivalent 100% 19 28 21 31 22 16

College degree 100% 20 27 23 30 21 16

Note: See appendix table 6 for standard errors. 

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

aIncludes victims reporting significant problems with family members or friends, including getting into more arguments or fights than before, not feeling able to trust 

them as much, or not feeling as close to them as before the crime.

bIncludes victims reporting significant problems with job or school, such as trouble with a boss, coworker, or peer. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2009–2012.
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 20

Appendix table 6

Standard errors for appendix table 5: Level of distress, relationship problems, and school or work problems experienced by 

violent crime victims, by victim characteristics, 2009–2012

Victim characteristic

Family/friend 

relationship 

problems

Work/school 

problems

Distress

No Mild Moderate Severe

Sex

Male 1.6% 1.7% 1.4% 1.3% 1.1% 1.0%

Female 0.9 1.5 1.6 1.9 1.7 1.5

Race/Hispanic origin

White 1.2% 1.5% 1.4% 1.5% 1.3% 1.2%

Black 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.5 2.2 1.9

Hispanic 2.1 2.6 2.2 2.4 2.0 2.0

Other 3.1 3.2 2.9 3.4 3.0 2.9

Age

12–17 2.0% 2.5% 2.3% 1.8% 1.9% 2.2%

18–34 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.4

35–54 1.5 1.7 1.7 2.1 1.7 1.5

55 or older 2.1 2.5 2.6 3.0 2.4 1.8

Marital status

Single, never married 1.3% 1.7% 1.5% 1.5% 1.3% 1.3%

Married 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.3

Widowed 4.4 4.3 4.9 6.8 6.0 5.6

Divorced or separated 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.5 2.1 1.9

Education

Less than high school 2.1% 2.7% 2.6% 2.1% 2.3% 2.5%

High school degree or equivalent 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.3

College degree 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.3

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2009–2012.
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 21

Appendix table 7

Level of distress, relationship problems, and school or work problems experienced by violent crime victims, by household 

characteristics, 2009–2012

Family/friend 

relationship 

problemsa Work/school problemsb Household characteristic

Distress

Total No Mild Moderate Severe

Composition

Single male

No children 100% 32% 27% 16% 24% 15% 12%

With children 100% 30 26 19 25 25 20

Single female

No children 100% 5% 21% 23% 50% 31% 24%

With children 100% 10 27 24 39 29 25

Marriedc

No children 100% 21% 25% 24% 30% 17% 9%

With children 100% 21 32 26 21 17 14

Otherd 100% 20 30 23 26 21 18

Income

$24,999 or less 100% 16% 24% 23% 36% 28% 19%

$25,000-49,999 100% 23 28 23 26 19 17

$50,000–74,999 100% 19 33 27 21 15 18

$75,000 or more 100% 23 31 27 18 17 16

Unknown 100% 18 29 19 34 22 18

Location of residence

Urban 100% 19% 28% 22% 30% 20% 16%

Suburban 100% 20 29 23 27 19 19

Rural 100% 16 28 24 31 31 18

Note: See appendix table 8 for standard errors.

aIncludes victims reporting significant problems with family members or friends, including getting into more arguments or fights than before, not feeling able to trust 

them as much, or not feeling as close to them as before the crime.

bIncludes victims reporting significant problems with job or school, such as trouble with a boss, coworker, or peer. 

cIncludes a married couple living with no other adults.

dIncludes both single and married adults living with other adults (relatives or nonrelatives), both with and without children.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2009–2012.
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 22

Appendix table 8

Standard errors for appendix 7: Level of distress, relationship problems, and school or work problems experienced by violent 

crime victims, by household characteristics, 2009–2012

Family/friend 

relationship 

problems

Work/school 

Household characteristic problems

Distress

No Mild Moderate Severe

Composition

Single male

No children 3.0% 2.8% 2.2% 2.7% 2.1% 1.9%

With children 5.4 5.1 4.5 5.1 5.1 4.6

Single female

No children 1.3% 2.8% 2.9% 3.7% 3.3% 2.9%

With children 1.5 2.5 2.4 2.8 2.5 2.4

Married adults

No children 2.7% 2.9% 2.9% 3.1% 2.4% 1.8%

With children 2.1 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.7

Other 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.4

Income

$24,999 or less 1.5% 1.8% 1.8% 2.1% 1.9% 1.6%

$25,000–49,999 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.1 1.9 1.8

$50,000–74,999 2.2 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.0 2.2

$75,000 or more 2.1 2.4 2.3 1.9 1.8 1.8

Unknown 1.7 2.1 1.7 2.2 1.8 1.7

Location of residence

Urban 1.4% 1.7% 1.5% 1.8% 1.5% 1.3%

Suburban 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.4

Rural 2.0 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.0

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2009–2012.
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 23

Appendix table 9

Estimates and standard errors for figure 1: Violent crime victims who reported the crime to police or received victim services, 

by level of distress experienced, 2009–2012

Estimates Standard errors

No 

distress

Mild 

distress

Moderate 

distress

Severe 

distress

No 

distress

Mild 

distress

Moderate 

distress

Severe 

distress

No police or victim services 62% 59% 49% 34% 2.6% 2.3% 2.4% 2.1%

Reported to police 36 35 42 50 2.4 2.1 2.4 2.3

Received victim services 1 ! 2 4 4 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.7

Both 1 4 4 12 0.4 0.7 0.7 1.3

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

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2009–2012. 

Appendix table 10

Estimates and standard errors for figure 2: Level of distress experienced by violent crime victims, by type of problems 

experienced as a result of the victimization, 2009–2012

Estimates Standard errors

Total 

No 

distress

Mild 

distress 

Moderate 

distress

Severe 

distress

No 

distress

Mild 

distress 

Moderate 

distress

Severe 

distress

Relationship problems 100% 3% 18% 29% 51% 0.8% 2.2% 2.7% 3.1%

Problems with work/school 100% 3 16 38 42 1.0 2.4 3.4 3.5

Both 100% 4 8 23 65 1.0 1.5 2.6 3.2

Neither 100% 26 34 21 19 1.4 1.6 1.2 1.2

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2009–2012.

Appendix table 11

Estimates and standard errors for figure 3: Level of distress experienced by violent crime victims, by type of crime, 2009–2012

Estimates Standard errors

Total

No 

distress

Mild 

distress

Moderate 

distress

Severe 

distress

No 

distress

Mild 

distress

Moderate 

distress

Severe 

distress

Totala

Rape or sexual assault 100% 11% 18% 25% 46% 2.2% 2.7% 3.2% 3.8%

Robbery 100% 11 18 28 42 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.1

Aggravated assault 100% 15 28 22 35 1.7 2.3 2.1 2.5

Simple assault 100% 22 31 22 24 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.3

Completedb

Rape or sexual assault 100% 10% ! 21% 24% 43% 2.6% 3.7% 4.0% 4.7%

Robbery 100% 9 16 25 50 1.7 2.4 2.9 3.6

Aggravated assault 100% 8 23 22 46 1.8 2.9 2.9 3.6

Simple assault 100% 18 32 24 25 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.6

Note: Excludes victimizations in which the level of distress was unknown. 

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

aIncludes both threats or attempts and completed crimes.

bIncludes only completed crimes.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2009-2012

Appendix table 12

Estimates and standard errors for figure 4: Level of distress experienced by serious violent crime victims, by victim–offender 

relationship, 2009–2012

Estimates Standard errors 

Type of violent crime Total

No 

distress

Mild 

distress

Moderate 

distress

Severe 

distress

No 

distress

Mild 

distress

Moderate 

distress

Severe 

distress

Intimate partner 100% 7% 15% 19% 60% 1.8% 2.7% 3.1% 4.2%

Relative 100% 4 ! 11 20 65 2.0 3.4 4.5 5.7

Other known 100% 11 24 29 36 1.8 2.6 2.8 3.1

Stranger 100% 17 27 25 31 1.9 2.4 2.3 2.5

Note: Excludes between 7% and 12% of victimizations in which the level of distress was unknown. 

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

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2009–2012.
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 24

Appendix table 13

Standard errors for table 1: Physical and emotional symptoms suffered by violent crime victims who experienced socioemotional problems as a result of the victimization, by type of crime and victim–offender relationship, 2009–2012

Type of crime Victim–offender relationship

Symptom Total violence Serious violence Simple assault Intimate partner Other known Stranger

Emotional 1.1% 1.0% 1.5% 1.7% 1.4% 1.7%

Worried or anxious 1.7 2.1 2.0 2.5 2.2 2.6

Angry 1.7 2.2 2.0 2.7 2.3 2.6

Unsafe 1.8 2.3 2.0 2.8 2.4 2.6

Violated 1.8 2.3 2.1 2.7 2.4 2.7

Vulnerable 1.8 2.4 2.1 2.8 2.4 2.7

Distrustful 1.8 2.4 2.0 2.9 2.4 2.7

Sad or depressed 1.8 2.4 2.0 2.7 2.4 2.5

Other 1.0 1.4 1.1 1.8 1.3 1.7

Physical 1.8% 2.4% 2.1% 2.7% 2.4% 2.7%

Trouble sleeping 1.8 2.4 2.0 2.9 2.4 2.5

Fatigue 1.7 2.3 1.8 3.0 2.2 2.1

Upset stomach 1.6 2.2 1.8 2.9 2.1 2.1

Muscle tension 1.6 2.2 1.7 2.8 2.1 2.2

Headaches 1.6 2.3 1.6 2.8 2.1 2.1

Problems with eating/drinking 1.5 2.2 1.6 2.9 2.0 1.8

High blood pressure 1.1 1.6 1.3 2.0 1.6 1.4

Other 0.9 1.4 0.9 1.7 1.1 1.2

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2009–2012.

Appendix table 14

Standard errors for table 2: Victims who experienced socioemotional problems as a result of the violent victimization, 

by type of crime and victim–offender relationship, 

2009–2012

Type of violent crime 

Total 

violence

Intimate 

partner

Other 

known Stranger

Total 1.6% 2.1% 2.0% 2.0%

Serious violence 2.1% 3.2% 2.7% 2.8%

Rape or sexual assault 3.4 5.2 4.1 7.3

Robbery 2.9 6.0 3.4 3.8

Aggravated assault 2.7 4.1 3.8 3.5

Simple assault 1.7% 2.2% 2.2% 2.0%

Violence involving a weapon 2.5% 4.1% 3.6% 3.2%

Firearm 3.4 6.1 5.8 4.2

Violence involving an injury 2.2% 2.5% 2.9% 3.3%

Medical treatment received 2.6 2.5 3.8 4.0

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

2009–2012.

Appendix table 15

Standard errors for table 3: Victims who did and did not 

experience socio-emotional problems as a result of the 

violent victimization, by type of crime, 2009–2012

Type of violent crime

No socio-emotional 

problems

Socio-emotional 

problems

Serious violence 1.9% 2.1%

Rape or sexual assault 3.2 3.4

With injury 3.2 3.6

With weapon 10.1 10.2

Both injury and weapon 9.0 9.2

Without injury or weapon 4.6 4.9

Robbery 2.6 2.9

With injury 4.8 5.0

With weapon 4.2 4.5

Both injury and weapon 4.5 4.9

Without injury or weapon 4.2 4.4

Aggravated assault 2.5 2.7

With injury 4.4 4.8

With weapon 3.2 3.2

Both injury and weapon 3.7 4.0

Simple assault 1.7% 1.7%

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

2009–2012.
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 25

Appendix table 16

Standard errors for table 4: Victims who experienced 

socio-emotional problems as a result of violent crime 

victimization, by location of crime and victim–offender 

relationship, 2009–2012

Location

Total 

violence

Intimate 

partner

Other 

known Stranger

Total violence 1.6% 2.1% 2.0% 2.0%

Victim’s home or lodging 2.1 2.3 3.1 5.0

Near victim’s home 2.7 4.8 3.5 3.9

In, at, or near a friend, neighbor, 

 or relative’s home 3.5 6.1 4.3 5.7

Commerical place, parking lot, 

 or other public area 2.2 4.5 3.6 2.4

School 3.0 ~ 3.5 4.6

Other location 2.8 5.8 4.2 3.2

~Not applicable.

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

2009–2012.

Appendix table 17

Standard errors for table 5: Violent crime victims who experienced socio-emotional problems and reported the crime to police 

or received victim services, by victim–offender relationship, 2009–2012

Total violence Intimate partner Other known Stranger

No socioemotional 

problems

Socioemotional 

problems

No socioemotional 

problems

Socioemotional 

problems

No socioemotional 

problems

Socioemotional 

problems

No socioemotional 

problems

Socioemotional 

problems

Reported to police 1.9% 1.8% 5.6% 2.9% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.7%

Received victim services 0.6 1.0 3.0 2.4 1.2 1.3 0.6 0.8

Neither 2.0 1.8 5.5 2.7 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.6

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2009–2012.
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 26

Appendix table 18

Standard errors for table 6: Characteristics of violent crime victims who experienced socio-emotional problems as a result of 

the victimization, by type of crime, 2009–2012

Serious violence

Victim characteristic Total violence Total Rape or sexual assault Robbery Aggravated assault Simple assault

Sex

Male 1.8% 2.7% 7.7% 3.6% 3.3% 1.9%

Female 1.8 2.3 3.4 3.6 3.2 2.0

Race/Hispanic origin

White 1.8% 2.5% 3.7% 3.6% 3.2% 1.9%

Black 2.9 3.6 9.2 4.4 4.8 3.3

Hispanic 2.9 4.0 9.2 6.0 5.2 3.2

Other 3.9 5.4 10.0 8.6 7.1 4.5

Age

12–17 2.7% 4.0% 8.2% 5.6% 5.4% 2.9%

18–34 2.0 2.7 4.5 4.0 3.5 2.2

35–54 2.2 3.0 5.1 4.5 4.0 2.4

55 or older 3.1 4.5 9.6 6.0 6.5 3.3

Marital status

Single, never married 1.9% 2.5% 4.5% 3.6% 3.2% 2.0%

Married 2.4 3.6 5.2 5.6 4.6 2.6

Widowed 6.1 6.1 ~ 6.8 13.4 7.5

Divorced or separated 2.4 3.2 5.6 4.5 4.5 2.7

Education

Less than high school 3.0% 4.2% 9.1% 5.7% 5.6% 3.3%

High school degree or equivalent 2.1 2.7 5.3 3.8 3.5 2.2

College degree 2.0 2.7 4.0 4.2 3.6 2.1

~Not applicable.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2009–2012.
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 27

Appendix table 19

Standard errors for table 7: Characteristics of violent crime 

victims who experienced socio-emotional problems as a 

result of the victimization, by victim–offender relationship, 

2009–2012

Victim characteristic

Intimate 

partner

Other 

known Stranger

Sex

Male 4.8% 2.6% 2.1%

Female 2.0 2.4 2.9

Race/Hispanic origin

White 2.2% 2.3% 2.3%

Black 4.4 4.0 4.0

Hispanic 6.0 4.2 3.7

Other 6.8 5.8 5.0

Age

12–17 ~ 3.2% 3.9%

18–34 2.9% 2.9 2.6

35–54 2.5 3.1 3.0

55 or older 5.5 3.7 4.4

Marital status

Single, never married 3.1% 2.5% 2.4%

Married 4.7 3.2 3.0

Widowed ~ 6.4 10.0

Divorced or separated 2.4 3.6 3.7

Education

Less than high school ~ 3.5% 4.7%

High school degree or equivalent 3.3% 2.8 2.7

College degree 2.3 2.7 2.5

~Not applicable.

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

2009–2012.

Appendix table 20

Standard errors for table 8: Household characteristics of violent crime victims who experienced socio-emotional problems as a 

result of the victimization, by type of crime, 2009–2012

Serious violence

Household characteristics Total violence Total Rape or sexual assault Robbery Aggravated assault Simple assault

Composition

Single male

No children 3.3% 4.8% 9.9% 6.7% 6.2% 3.5%

With children 6.1 9.3 23.1 ~ 10.7 6.8

Single female

No children 3.1 4.2 6.2 4.8 7.1 4.1

With children 2.8 3.6 5.2 5.4 5.1 2.8

Married

No children 3.6 5.6 8.1 8.9 7.7 3.8

With children 2.8 4.4 7.9 7.9 5.4 3.0

Other 2.0 2.7 4.9 3.8 3.5 2.1

Income

$24,999 or less 2.2% 2.9% 5.8% 3.7% 3.9% 2.6%

$25,000–49,999 2.6 3.7 7.1 6.2 4.4 2.8

$50,000–74,999 3.1 4.4 5.2 8.0 6.5 3.3

$75,000 or more 2.7 4.3 7.2 6.9 5.5 2.8

Unknown 2.4 3.3 6.8 4.5 4.6 2.6

Location of residence

Urban 2.0% 2.7% 5.2% 3.6% 3.5% 2.2%

Suburban 2.0 2.8 4.1 4.1 3.7 2.1

Rural 2.9 4.4 8.7 7.0 5.5 3.1

~Not applicable. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2009–2012.
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 28

Appendix table 21

Standard errors for table 9: Household characteristics of 

violent crime victims who experienced socio-emotional 

problems as a result of the victimization, by victim–offender 

relationship, 2009–2012

Household characteristic

Intimate 

partner Other known Stranger

Composition

Single male

No children 7.8% 4.9% 4.1%

With children 5.3 9.4 7.7

Single female

No children 3.1 4.4 5.0

With children 3.0 4.1 5.0

Married

No children 6.9 4.6 4.5

With children 7.3 3.6 3.8

Other 2.8 2.7 2.5

Income

$24,999 or less 3.1% 2.9% 3.3%

$25,000–49,999 4.2 3.6 3.3

$50,000–74,999 5.3 4.4 3.9

$75,000 or more 2.4 3.9 3.2

Unknown 3.5 3.3 3.4

Location of residence

Urban 2.9% 2.9% 2.6%

Suburban 2.8 2.6 2.6

Rural 4.0 3.7 4.8

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

2009–2012.

Appendix table 22

Coefficients and standard errors for table 10: Logistic 

regression analysis of the effect of victim characteristics, 

type of crime, and victim–offender relationship on the 

probability of victims experiencing socio-emotional 

problems, 2009–2012

First model Final model

B

Standard 

error B

Standard 

error

Victim characteristic

Female 0.93 0.10 0.97 0.10

Black -0.19 0.15 ~ ~

Other race -0.02 0.22 ~ ~

Hispanic -0.08 0.17 ~ ~

Ages 18–34 -0.13 0.15 ~ ~

Ages 35–54 0.37 0.16 0.42 0.11

Age 55 or older 0.66 0.18 0.76 0.13

Married -0.05 0.13 ~ ~

Widowed 0.13 0.33 ~ ~

Divorced or separated -0.03 0.14 ~ ~

Less than high school degree 0.41 0.26 ~ ~

High school degree or equivalent -0.07 0.11 ~ ~

Type of crime

Rape or sexual assault 0.59 0.28 ~ ~

Robbery 1.20 0.21 0.99 0.15

Aggravated assault 0.44 0.25 ~ ~

Victim–offender relationship

Intimate partner 1.77 0.19 1.69 0.19

Other known 0.71 0.11 0.72 0.11

Incident characteristics

Series victimization -0.23 0.18 ~ ~

Injury 0.60 0.13 0.67 0.12

Weapon present 0.20 0.24 0.54 0.13

Do not know if weapon present 0.55 0.20 0.54 0.18

~Characteristics deleted from model when Wald statistic was not significant at 

the 95%-confidence level.

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

2009–2012.
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF VIOLENT CRIME | SEPTEMBER 2014 29

Appendix table 24

Estimates and standard errors for figure 5: Recency of interview, by level of distress reported, 2009–2012

Estimates Standard errors 

Total 

No 

distress

Mild 

distress

Moderate 

distress

Severe 

distress 

No 

distress

Mild 

distress

Moderate 

distress

Severe 

distress 

Less than a month 100% 21% 28% 25% 26% 1.9% 2.1% 2.0% 2.1%

1 month 100% 17 31 24 28 1.9 2.5 2.3 2.4

2 months 100% 16 26 25 33 1.8 2.3 2.3 2.5

3 months 100% 18 29 24 29 2.2 2.7 2.5 2.7

4 months 100% 21 31 17 31 2.2 2.6 2.0 2.6

5 months 100% 22 27 24 28 1.8 2.0 1.9 2.1

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2009–2012.

Appendix table 23

Standard errors for table 11: Characteristics of incidents and 

victims who were and were not administered NCVS distress 

questions, 2009–2012

Characteristic

Distress questions 

not administered

Distress questions 

administered

Type of violence

Rape or sexual assault 0.3% 1.0%

Robbery 0.8 1.5

Aggravated assault 1.0 1.9

Simple assault 1.4 2.6

Victim–offender relationship

Intimate partner 0.7% 1.8%

Relative 0.4 1.2

Other known 1.3 2.5

Stranger 1.1 2.7

Sex

Male 1.6% 2.8%

Female 1.5 2.8

Race/Hispanic origin

White 1.6% 2.7%

Black 1.1 1.7

Hispanic 0.9 1.7

Other 0.5 1.1

Age

12–17 1.0% 1.9%

18–34 1.5 2.7

35–54 1.4 2.4

55 or older 0.7 1.5

Income

$24,999 or less 1.0% 2.4%

$25,000–49,999 1.1 2.0

$50,000–74,999 0.9 1.5

$75,000 or more 1.0 1.9

Unknown 1.4 2.2

Location of residence

Urban 1.4% 2.7%

Suburban 1.6 2.7

Rural 0.9 1.7

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

2008–2012
Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

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

agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization, criminal offenders, victims 

of crime, correlates of crime, and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the 

federal, state, tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable and 

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

to state and local criminal justice information systems, and participates with national 

and international organizations to develop and recommend national standards for justice 

statistics. William J. Sabol is acting director.

This report was written by Lynn Langton and Jennifer Truman. Sofi Sinozich and Erika 

Harrell verified the report.

Lockheed Martin and Jill Thomas edited the report. Barbara Quinn produced the report.

September 2014, NCJ 247076