U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

BJS

Special Report

JUNE 2013 NCJ 241754

Household Burglary, 1994-2011

Jennifer Hardison Walters, M.S.W., Andrew Moore, M.Stat., and Marcus Berzofsky, Dr.P.H., RTI International

Lynn Langton, Ph.D., BJS Statistician

I

n 2011, U.S. households experienced 

about 3,394,700 burglary victimizations, 

a decline from 6,353,700 in 1994. The 

rate of burglary (attempted forcible entry, 

completed forcible entry, and completed 

unlawful entry) decreased 56% from 1994 

to 2011, from 63.4 to 27.6 victimizations per 

1,000 U.S. households (figure 1). Although 

declines in the rate of completed burglary 

were consistent across most characteristics 

of U.S. households, the greatest declines 

occurred among households in urban areas 

(down 63%), those headed by Hispanics 

(down 67%), and those with an income of 

$75,000 or more (down 74%). From 1994 

to 2011, the largest proportion of burglaries 

involved completed unlawful entries, in which 

someone with no legal right to be in the 

residence entered without use of force. (See 

Measuring burglary in the NCVS on page 3 for 

additional definitions of burglary.)

HIGHLIGHTS

 The rate of household burglary decreased 56% from 

1994 to 2011, from a peak of 63.4 victimizations per 1,000 

U.S. households in 1994 to 27.6 victimizations per 1,000 

households in 2011.

 From 1994 to 2011, the rate of completed burglary 

decreased by at least half across households headed by 

persons of all races and Hispanic origin.

 Among all completed burglaries, those involving the theft 

of an electronic device or household appliance increased 

from 28% in 2001 to 34% in 2011.

 In 2011, 58% of completed burglaries were reported to 

police, compared to 51% in 1994.

 Among completed burglaries reported to police, a similar 

percentage resulted in an arrest in 1994 (8%) and 2011 (10%).

 From 1994 to 2011, the median dollar value of items and 

cash stolen during completed burglaries increased 54%, 

from $389 to $600 per year.

 In 2011, 35% of burglarized households that lost $1,000 or 

more reported the victimization to an insurance company, 

while less than 5% of burglarized households that lost $1 to 

$499 reported the crime to insurance. 

 From 1994 to 2011, households with an income of $14,999 

or less were victimized at a higher rate than households 

with higher incomes.

Figure 1

Rate of household burglary, by type, 1994–2011

Note: Based on 2-year rolling averages centered on the most recent year. See appendix table 1 for 

population and victimization estimates. See appendix table 2 for standard errors.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2011.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Total household burglaries

Completed unlawful entry

Completed 

forcible entry

Attempted forcible entry

'94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11

Rate per 1,000 households
HOUSEHOLD BURGLARY, 1994–2011 | JUNE 2013 2

The data in this report were drawn from the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey 

(NCVS). The NCVS collects information on nonfatal crimes 

reported and not reported to the police from a nationally 

representative sample of U.S. households. Interviews are 

conducted every 6 months over 3 years, with the first 

interview conducted in person and the follow-up interviews 

conducted either in person or by phone.

The NCVS produces national estimates of rates and levels 

of violent and property crime victimization, as well as 

information on the characteristics of crimes and victims 

and the consequences of victimization. This report presents 

aggregate estimates of household burglary victimization, 

with household victimization as the basic unit of analysis.

The remainder of this report focuses on completed 

burglaries. Trend estimates are based on 2-year rolling 

averages centered on the most recent year. Other tables 

present data from 3 years: 1994, 2001, and 2011, which 

also represent the average estimates for the 2-year period 

ending that year. For example, estimates reported for 

2011 represent the average estimates for 2010 and 2011. 

Presenting estimates based on two years of data improves 

the reliability and stability of comparisons over time and 

between subgroups. For additional estimates not included 

in this report, see the NCVS Victimization Analysis Tool 

(NVAT) on the BJS website.

A third of completed burglaries involved the theft of 

an electronic device or household appliance in 2011

Household burglary usually involved theft, and there was 

relative stability in the percentage of completed burglaries 

that involved the theft of different types of items (table 1). 

For instance, the percentage of completed burglaries in 

which cash, checks, a purse or wallet, credit cards, or bank 

cards were stolen was relatively stable between 1994 (15%), 

2001 (18%) and 2011 (17%). From 1994 to 2011, the largest 

percentage of completed burglary consistently involved 

the theft of personal items (such as clothing, furs, luggage, 

briefcases, jewelry, watches, and keys) and electronics or 

household appliances (including TVs, DVD players, and 

protable electronic devices).

Table 1

Items taken during completed household burglaries, by type of item, 1994, 2001, and 2011

1994 2001 2011

Stolen item Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total completed burglaries 5,261,200 100% 3,067,800 100% 2,845,500 100% 

Cash/checks, credit/bank cards, purses/wallets 786,600 15.0% 553,200 18.0% 482,200 16.9% 

Motor vehicles 33,400 0.6 33,400 1.1 38,600 1.4

Motor vehicle parts/accessories, gasoline/oil 217,300 4.1 130,800 4.3 128,500 4.5

Bicycles or parts, toys, recreation/sport equipment 698,600 13.3 382,700 12.5 246,500 8.7

Household appliances/portable electronicsa 1,433,900 27.3 844,400 27.5 978,700 34.4

Household furnishings/collectionsb 359,000 6.8 225,300 7.3 179,100 6.3

Personal portable objectsc 1,482,600 28.2 905,400 29.5 885,200 31.1

Firearms 161,000 3.1 116,500 3.8 81,900 2.9

Tools/miscellaneous equipment 776,500 14.8 448,200 14.6 462,100 16.2

Farm/garden produce, food/liquor 272,900 5.2 169,700 5.5 129,200 4.5

Animals 21,700 0.4 2,800 0.1 ! 3,500 0.1 !

Other 322,300 6.1 173,500 5.7 86,000 3.0

Unknown 11,000 0.2 ! 7,400 0.2 ! 7,300 0.3 !

Note: Estimates based on 2-year averages centered on the most recent year. Number of victimizations and percentages do not sum to total because respondents could 

provide multiple responses. See appendix table 3 for standard errors. 

aIncludes TVs, DVD players, other.

bIncludes silver, china, art objects, stamps or coins, and other.

cIncludes clothing, furs, luggage, briefcases, jewelry, watches, keys, and other.

! 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, 1993–2011.
HOUSEHOLD BURGLARY, 1994–2011 | JUNE 2013 3

There was one exception to the stability in the type of items 

stolen during household burglaries from 2001 to 2011. 

The percentage of burglaries that involved the theft of a 

portable electronic device or household appliance increased 

from 28% to 34%. In comparison, during this same period, 

the percentage of completed burglaries that involved the 

theft of a bicycle, bicycle parts, or recreational or sporting 

equipment declined from 13% to 9%.

From 1994 to 2011, the median dollar value of 

items and cash stolen during completed burglaries 

increased 54%

From 1994 to 2011, between 68% and 81% of burglarized 

households experienced losses of $1 or more as a result of 

the victimization (appendix table 4). Among households that 

lost $1 or more during completed burglaries, the median 

dollar value (inflation adjusted to 2011 dollars) of items and 

cash stolen increased 54%, from $389 in 1994 to $600 in 

2011 (figure 2).

1 The median dollar value of stolen goods 

ranged from a low of $366 in 2004 to a high of $618 in 2010, 

representing a 69% difference. In 2011, the average dollar 

loss among the 73% of burglarized households that lost 

$1 or more was about $2,116. (See Methodology for more 

information on inflation adjustment.)

1Amount of loss was unknown for a small percentage of households, which 

may result in an underestimation of loss.

Figure 2

Dollar value of items and cash stolen during completed 

household burglaries resulting in loss of $1 or more, 

1994–2011

Note: Estimates based on 2-year rolling averages centered on the most recent 

year. Amount of loss was unknown for a small percentage of households, which 

may result in an underestimation of loss. Estimates adjusted to 2011 dollars using 

the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) adjustment factor. See 

appendix table 4 for estimates and standard errors. 

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

1993–2011.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Mean

Median

'94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11

Dollar value ($)

Measuring burglary in the NCVS

Burglary is the illegal entry or attempted entry of a 

residence that occurs when the person entering has no 

legal right to be present. The entry may be by force or 

without force. Burglary includes illegal entry of a garage, 

shed, or any other structure on the property’s premises, as 

well as a hotel or vacation residence.

Attempted forcible entry—Force is used in an attempt to 

gain entry to a residence.

Attempted unlawful entry—No force is involved in an 

attempt to gain entry. An example is jiggling a door knob 

to see if the door is unlocked. The NCVS does not collect 

information about attempted unlawful entry.

Completed forcible entry—Force is used to successfully 

gain entry to a residence. Examples include breaking a 

window or slashing a screen.

Completed unlawful entry—No force is used but the 

residence is entered by someone having no legal right to 

be on the premises. Examples include entering through an 

unlocked door or an open window.

Completed burglary—Includes completed forcible entries 

and completed unlawful entries. Completed burglaries do 

not necessarily involve stolen or damaged property.
HOUSEHOLD BURGLARY, 1994–2011 | JUNE 2013 4

Completed burglaries that were reported to police 

increased from 51% in 1994 to 58% in 2011

From 1994 to 2001, the percentage of completed burglaries 

reported to police was relatively stable at about 50% 

(table 2). However, the percentage of completed burglaries 

reported to police increased from 52% in 2001 to 58% 

in 2011.

Of the 1.6 million burglaries reported to police in 2011, 

the police came when notified in 85% of victimizations, 

an increase from 78% in 1994. The percentage of reported 

burglary victimizations in which the police did not go to the 

residence declined from 16% in 1994 to 10% in 2011.

From 1994 to 2011, about 10% of reported burglaries 

resulted in an arrest

Among victimizations in which the police were notified and 

responded, a greater percentage involved the police taking 

a report, gathering evidence, or promising investigation 

or surveillance in 2011 compared to 1994. For example, 

in 1994, the police took a report in 84% of the completed 

burglary victimizations to which they responded, compared 

to 91% in 2011. Of the victimizations in which police came 

when notified or the victim went to the police, the police 

promised to investigate or conduct surveillance in about 

25% of the victimizations in 2011, compared to 13% in 

1994. Among completed burglaries reported to police, the 

percentage that resulted in an arrest at the scene remained 

relatively stable between 2% and 4% during the period. In 

addition, the percentage of reported burglaries that resulted 

in an arrest at any time in the investigation also remained 

relatively stable at about 10% in 1994, 2001, and 2011.

Table 2

Police response to completed household burglary victimizations, 1994, 2001, and 2011

1994 2001 2011

Type of response Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total victimizations reported to police 2,659,200 50.9% 1,576,200 51.8% 1,619,500 57.7% 

Police came when notifieda

Yes 2,085,800 78.4% 1,285,200 81.5% 1,372,900 84.8% 

No 420,500 15.8 169,000 10.7 157,800 9.7

Victim went to police 45,700 1.7% 63,900 4.1% 29,200 1.8%

Initial police responseb

Took report 1,789,100 83.9% 1,168,300 86.6% 1,268,700 90.5%

Questioned witnesses/searched scene 1,200,400 56.3 770,600 57.1 840,100 59.9

Took evidence 477,800 22.4 314,800 23.3 425,600 30.4

Promised to investigate/conduct surveillance 272,800 12.8 284,400 21.1 343,700 24.5

Made arrest at scene 36,100 1.7 36,600 2.7 52,800 3.8

Other 194,400 9.1 98,000 7.3 44,200 3.1

Don’t know 58,900 2.8 11,200 0.8 ! 49,400 3.5

Any arrestc

Yes 220,300 8.3% 167,300 10.6% 159,000 9.8% 

No 2,416,600 90.9 1,403,600 89.1 1,432,800 88.6

Don’t know 21,300 0.8 4,200 0.3 ! 26,300 1.6

Note: Estimates based on 2-year averages centered on the most recent year. See appendix table 5 for standard errors.

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

aIncludes victimizations reported to police. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to a small proportion of individuals who reported that they were unsure if police 

came when notified.

bIncludes victimizations reported to police in which the police came when notified or victim went to police.

cIncludes victimizations reported to police.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2011.
HOUSEHOLD BURGLARY, 1994–2011 | JUNE 2013 5

When analyzed by amount of loss from cash stolen and items 

stolen or damaged, the percentage that was reported to police 

remained relatively stable from 1994 to 2011 (figure 3). In 

1994, 2001, and 2011, the highest percentage of burglaries 

reported to police was among victimizations that resulted in 

losses of $1,000 or more. In 2011, 83% of completed burglaries 

that resulted in losses of $1,000 or more were reported to 

police, compared to 68% with losses of $500 to $999, and 38% 

with losses of $1 to $499.

Of completed burglaries that resulted in monetary 

loss, the percentage reported to insurance companies 

increased as the total amount of loss increased

Each year from 1994 to 2011, the percentage of completed 

burglaries reported to insurance companies rose in 

accordance with the total amount of loss sustained during 

the burglary, with the exception of burglaries resulting in no 

loss (figure 4). Households that lost $1,000 were more likely 

to report the loss to an insurance company than households 

that lost $500 to $999, and households that lost $500 to $999 

were more likely to report the loss than households that lost 

$1 to $499. From 1994 to 2011, less than 4% of burglaries 

resulting in no loss were reported to insurance companies. 

In 2011, 35% of burglarized households with losses of 

$1,000 or more reported the loss to an insurance company, 

compared to 10% of households that lost $500 to $999 and 

3% that lost $1 to $499.

Reports to insurance companies by burglary victims who 

experienced a loss of $1,000 or more declined from 1994 

(41%) to 2003 (33%), and then remained relatively stable 

through 2011. Among burglarized households that lost $500 

to $999, the percentage that reported the loss to an insurance 

company also declined, from 22% in 1994 to 10% in 2011.

Figure 3

Completed household burglaries reported to police, by 

amount of loss, 1994–2011

Note: Estimates based on 2-year rolling averages centered on the most recent 

year. Amount of loss includes the value of stolen items, damaged items, and 

stolen cash. Amount of loss was unknown for a small percentage of households, 

which may result in an underestimation of loss. Estimates adjusted to 2011 

dollars using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) 

adjustment factor. See appendix table 6 for estimates and standard errors. 

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

1993–2011.

0

20

40

60

80

100

$1,000 or more

$500 to $999

$1 to $499

No loss

'94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11

Percent

Figure 4

Completed household burglaries reported to insurance 

companies, by amount of loss, 1994–2011

Note: Estimates based on 2-year rolling averages centered on the most recent 

year. Amount of loss includes the value of stolen items, damaged items, and 

stolen cash. Amount of loss was unknown for a small percentage of households, 

which may result in an underestimation of loss. Estimates adjusted to 2011 

dollars using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) 

adjustment factor. See appendix table 7 for estimates and standard errors.

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

1993–2011.

0

10

20

30

40

50

$1,000 or more

$500 to $999

$1 to $499 No loss

'94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11

Percent
HOUSEHOLD BURGLARY, 1994–2011 | JUNE 2013 6

Among completed burglaries that were reported to 

the police, the percentage that were also reported to 

insurance companies increased with the amount of loss

In 1994, 2001, and 2011, burglarized households were more 

likely to file a claim with an insurance company when the 

victimization was reported to the police (table 3). Among 

households that reported a completed burglary to police, the 

percentage that also reported the victimization to insurance 

companies increased as the amount of loss increased. 

In 2011, 7% of households reported a loss of $1 to $499, 

compared to 14% when the household experienced a loss of 

$500 to $999, and 42% when the household experienced a 

loss of $1,000 or more.

Households that did not report a completed burglary to 

police were unlikely to report the burglary to an insurance 

company, regardless of the amount of loss. In 1994, 2001, 

and 2011, less than 5% of burglarized households that 

did not report the incident to police reported it to an 

insurance company.

Table 3

Completed burglaries reported and not reported to police and an insurance company, by amount of loss, 1994, 2001, 

and 2011

No loss $1 to $499 $500 to $999 $1,000 or more

Reported to police

Reported to insurance

1994 3.2% 10.9% 32.9% 48.9% 

2001 4.7 ! 8.8 23.5 51.3

2011 4.7 ! 6.9 14.1 42.0

Not reported to insurance

1994 96.8 89.1 67.1 51.1

2001 95.3 91.2 76.5 48.7

2011 95.3 93.1 85.9 58.0

Not reported to police

Reported to insurance

1994 --% ! 1.0% 3.6% ! 4.0% !

2001 0.4 ! 0.4 ! 1.7 ! 3.9 !

2011 -- ! 1.1 ! -- ! 2.0 !

Not reported to insurance

1994 100 99.0 96.4 96.0

2001 99.6 99.6 98.3 96.1

2011 100 98.9 100 98.0

Note: Estimates based on 2-year rolling averages centered on the most recent year. See appendix table 8 for standard errors.

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

-- Less than 0.05%.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2011. 
HOUSEHOLD BURGLARY, 1994–2011 | JUNE 2013 7

From 1994 to 2011, the rate of completed burglary 

decreased by at least half across households headed 

by persons of all races and Hispanic origin

From 1994 to 2011, the rate of completed burglary decreased 

by at least half across households headed by persons of all 

races and Hispanic origin (table 4). During this period, 

completed burglaries decreased 57% among households 

headed by a white non-Hispanic person (from 48.3 to 

20.8 victimizations per 1,000 households) and 52% among 

households headed by a black non-Hispanic person (from 

67.3 to 32.2 victimizations per 1,000 households). The greatest 

decline (67%) in the rate of burglary victimization was among 

households headed by a Hispanic person, (from 76.0 to 24.9 

victimizations per 1,000 households). In 2011, households in 

which the head of household was a non-Hispanic American 

Indian or Alaskan Native (59.8 per 1,000 households) or two 

or more races (80.5 per 1,000 households) were victimized 

at a higher rate than households headed by a person of any 

other race.

Burglary rates also declined by at least 50% for households 

headed by persons of all age groups. In 2011, households 

headed by a person age 19 or younger had the highest rate of 

victimization (49.7 per 1,000 households) compared to any 

other age group.

Table 4

Households that experienced completed burglary, by head of household characteristics, 1994, 2001, and 2011

1994 2001 2011

Characteristic Number Ratea Number Ratea Number Ratea

Race/Hispanic origin

Whiteb 3,776,300 48.3 2,090,900 25.7 1,785,900 20.8

Blackb 788,400 67.3 548,000 41.1 504,600 32.2

Hispanic/Latino 530,400 76.0 315,200 32.5 353,300 24.9

Asian/Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islanderb 73,700 31.8 64,100 19.4 72,600 14.4

American Indian/Alaskan Nativeb 73,500 137.9 40,100 79.2 38,400 59.8

Two or more racesb ~ ~ ~ ~ 90,600 80.5

Age

19 or younger 171,900 179.9 112,000 106.8 62,400 49.7

20–29 1,027,500 69.4 590,400 39.6 503,300 30.4

30–49 2,559,400 58.4 1,437,800 30.8 1,172,900 25.8

50–64 813,200 41.6 534,400 21.8 686,900 20.1

65 or older 689,100 32.8 393,100 18.0 420,000 16.4

Marital status

Married 2,300,200 42.0 1,290,900 22.4 1,036,000 16.6

Single 1,144,100 67.2 801,900 39.2 752,200 28.4

Separated/divorced 1,365,800 82.9 725,200 39.5 778,700 36.4

Widowed 421,200 36.9 236,200 20.5 250,000 22.3

Household composition

Two or more adults 3,069,600 47.5 1,914,100 26.4 1,688,200 21.0

Without children 1,670,500 44.1 1,000,600 24.1 988,700 19.9

With children 1,399,200 52.4 913,500 29.4 699,500 22.6

One male adult 756,200 59.4 451,300 32.9 458,400 26.8

Without children 565,800 52.3 385,700 30.4 418,600 26.1

With children 190,400 99.0 65,600 62.5 39,700 36.8

One female adult 1,430,600 63.3 702,400 30.9 698,900 27.6

Without children 594,800 40.1 354,500 21.0 420,200 21.5

With children 835,800 107.9 347,900 59.3 278,700 48.7

Note. Estimates based on 2-year averages centered on the most recent year. See appendix table 9 for standard errors. 

~ Not applicable.

aPer 1,000 households.

bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2011.
HOUSEHOLD BURGLARY, 1994–2011 | JUNE 2013 8

Among various types of household composition, households 

composed of married couples experienced the greatest 

decrease (60%) in burglary victimizations from 1994 (42 per 

1,000 households) to 2011 (16.6 per 1,000 households). In 

2011, households composed of two or more adults (21.0 

per 1,000) had a lower rate of burglary than households 

comprised of a single male (26.8 per 1,000) or female (27.6 

per 1,000) adult.

Households with an income of $14,999 or less were 

victimized at a higher rate than households with 

higher incomes

Regardless of residence location, the rate of completed 

burglaries decreased from 1994 to 2011 (table 5). The largest 

decline (63%) was found among households in urban areas, 

as the rate declined from 70.9 to 26.3 burglaries per 1,000 

households from 1994 to 2011. During the same period, 

burglaries in suburban areas declined 51% (from 40.4 to 19.8 

per 1,000 households), and burglaries in rural areas declined 

48% (from 52.5 to 27.2 per 1,000 households). While 

households in urban areas had the highest rate of burglary in 

1994, households in urban areas and rural areas had similar 

rates of burglary in 2011. Both rates remained higher than 

the rate of burglary in suburban areas in 2011.

From 1994 to 2011, the rate of completed burglaries 

decreased in households of all income levels. The greatest 

decline (74%) occurred in households earning $75,000 or 

more, from 48.2 per 1,000 households in 1994 to 12.7 per 

1,000 households in 2011.

Table 5

Households that experienced completed burglary, by household characteristics, 1994, 2001, and 2011

Characteristic

1994 2001 2011

Number Rate* Number Rate* Number Rate*

Location of residence

Urban 2,196,800 70.9 1,206,200 36.4 1,083,100 26.3

Suburban 1,888,900 40.4 1,288,700 23.6 1,227,200 19.8

Rural 1,175,500 52.5 572,900 27.1 535,300 27.2

Income

$14,999 or less 1,810,500 71.1 698,600 44.4 520,800 45.1

$15,000–34,999 1,502,600 49.4 787,500 30.8 609,600 29.7

$35,000–49,999 644,300 45.2 364,900 25.0 300,400 22.4

$50,000–74,999 438,200 40.7 304,900 20.9 243,200 16.6

$75,000 or more 340,200 48.2 383,400 23.8 299,600 12.7

Unknown 525,300 43.1 528,600 23.6 871,900 22.2

Ownership status

Rented 2443800 67.9 1,326,800 37.2 1,352,500 32.7

Owned 2,817,400 43.9 1,741,000 23.7 1,493,000 18.3

Note: Estimates based on 2-year averages centered on the most recent year. See appendix table 10 for standard errors.

*Per 1,000 households.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2011.
HOUSEHOLD BURGLARY, 1994–2011 | JUNE 2013 9

In 1994, 2001, and 2011, households with an income 

of $14,999 or less were victimized at a higher rate than 

households with higher incomes. In 2011, households with 

an income of $14,999 or less experienced a burglary rate 

of 45.1 per 1,000 households, compared to 29.7 per 1,000 

households earning $15,000 to $34,999, and 12.7 per 1,000 

households earning $75,000 or more.

Consistent across all three years, households that were 

renting the residence were burglarized at a higher rate 

than households that owned the residence. In 2011, the 

rate of completed burglary was 18.3 per 1,000 households 

that owned the property and 32.7 per 1,000 households 

that rented.

Burglary rates by household structural characteristics, 2004–2011

Several structural characteristics of residences 

were also associated with variations in household 

burglary rates (table 6). In the 2004–11 period, 

residences located in gated or walled communities 

(20.1 burglaries per 1,000 households) were 

burglarized at a lower rate than residences not 

located in gated or walled communities (24.9 

per 1,000 households). Similarly, residences 

with restricted access, such as apartment or 

condominium buildings with a doorman or 

reception desk were burglarized at a lower rate 

(22.3 burglaries per 1,000 households) than 

those without restricted access (24.7 per 1,000 

households).

Table 6

Households that experienced completed burglary, by 

household structural characteristics, 2004–2011

Average annual number Rate*

Direct outside access

Yes 2,732,600 24.7

No 175,500 23.3

Don’t know 1,500 9.8 !

Gated/walled community

Yes 164,400 20.1

No 2,751,200 24.9

Restricted access

Yes 200,800 22.3

No 2,712,000 24.7

Note: Data for gated/walled community and restricted access were available 

beginning in 2004. See appendix table 11 for standard errors. 

*Per 1,000 households. 

! 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, 2004–2011. 
HOUSEHOLD BURGLARY, 1994–2011 | JUNE 2013 10

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. The NCVS 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 (such as age, sex, race and ethnicity, marital 

status, education level, and income) and whether they 

experienced victimization. The survey collects information 

for each victimization incident, including data about the 

offender (such as age, race and ethnicity, sex, and victimoffender relationship), characteristics of the crime (including 

time and place of occurrence, use of weapons, nature of 

injury, and economic consequences), whether the crime 

was reported to police, reasons the crime was or was not 

reported, and experiences with the criminal justice system.

Trained interviewers administer the NCVS 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 that is their usual place of residence at the 

time of the interview and when they have no other usual 

place of residence. Once selected, households remain in the 

sample for 3 years, and eligible persons in the households are 

interviewed every 6 months for a total of seven interviews. 

New households rotate into the sample on an ongoing basis 

to replace outgoing households that have been in the sample 

for the 3-year period. The sample includes persons living 

in group quarters, such as dormitories, rooming houses, 

and religious group dwellings. Persons living in military 

barracks and institutional settings, such as correctional or 

hospital facilities, and the homeless are excluded from the 

sample. (For more information, see the Survey Methodology

in Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2008, NCJ 

231173, BJS website, May 2011.)

In 2011, 79,800 households were interviewed for the NCVS, 

representing a 90% household response rate. Victimizations 

that occurred outside of the United States were excluded 

from this report. 

Weighting adjustments for estimating household 

victimization

Estimates in this report use data from the 1993 to 2011 

NCVS data files. These files can be weighted to produce 

annual estimates of victimization for persons age 12 or older 

living in U.S. households. Because the NCVS relies on a 

sample rather than a census of the entire U.S. population, 

weights are designed to inflate sample point estimates to 

known population totals and to compensate for survey 

nonresponse and other aspects of the sample design.

The NCVS data files include both 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 total U.S. 

household population. Both household and person weights, 

after proper adjustment, are also typically used to form the 

denominator in calculations of crime rates.

Household weights used in this analysis account for repeat 

victims of series incidents. The weight counts series incidents 

as the actual number of incidents reported by the household, 

up to a maximum of 10 incidents. Series victimizations are 

similar in type but occur with such frequency that a victim 

is unable to recall each individual event or describe each 

event in detail. Survey procedures allow NCVS interviewers 

to identify and classify these similar victimizations as series 

victimizations and to collect detailed information on only 

the most recent incident in the series. In 2011, about 3% 

of all victimizations were series incidents. Weighting series 

incidents as the number of incidents up to a maximum 

of 10 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 detailed in the report Methods for Counting 

High Frequency Repeat Victimizations in the National Crime 

Victimization Survey, NCJ 237308, BJS website, April 2012.

Trend estimates are based on 2-year rolling averages 

centered on the most recent year. Other tables present data 

from 3 years: 1994, 2001, and 2011, which also represent 

the average estimates from the 2-year period ending that 

year. For example, estimates reported for 2011 represent 

the average estimates for 2010 and 2011. These methods 

of analysis improve the reliability and stability of estimate 

comparisons over time.

Standard error computations

When national estimates are derived from a sample, as is the 

case with the NCVS, caution must be taken when comparing 

one estimate to another or when comparing estimates over 

time. Although one estimate may be larger than another, 

estimates based on a sample have some degree of sampling 

error. The sampling error of an estimate depends on several 

factors, including the amount of variation in the responses, 

the size of the sample, and the size of the subgroup for which 
HOUSEHOLD BURGLARY, 1994–2011 | JUNE 2013 11

the estimate is computed. When the sampling error around 

the estimates is taken into consideration, the estimates that 

appear different may not be statistically different.

One measure of the sampling error associated with an 

estimate is the standard error. The standard error can vary 

from one estimate to the next. In general, for a given metric, 

an estimate with a smaller standard error provides a more 

reliable approximation of the true value than an estimate 

with a larger standard error. Estimates with relatively large 

standard errors are associated with less precision and 

reliability and should be interpreted with caution.

In order to generate standard errors around numbers and 

estimates from the NCVS, the Census Bureau produces 

generalized variance function (GVF) parameters for BJS. 

The GVFs take into account aspects of the NCVS complex 

sample design and represent the curve fitted to a selection of 

individual standard errors based on the Jackknife Repeated 

Replication technique. The GVF parameters were used in the 

report to generate standard errors for each point estimate 

(such as counts, percentages, and rates).

BJS conducted tests to determine whether differences 

in estimated numbers and percentages were statistically 

significant once sampling error was taken into account. 

Using statistical programs developed specifically for 

the NCVS, all comparisons in the text were tested for 

significance. The primary test procedure used was Student’s 

t-statistic, which tests the difference between two sample 

estimates. To ensure that the observed differences between 

estimates were larger than might be expected due to 

sampling variation, the significance level was set at the 95% 

confidence level.

Data users can use the estimates and the standard errors of 

the estimates provided in this report to generate a confidence 

interval around each estimate as a measure of the margin of 

error. The following example illustrates how standard errors 

can be used to generate confidence intervals:

According to the NCVS, from 2010 to 2011, there were 

26.3 completed burglaries per 1,000 households in urban 

areas (see table 5). Using the GVFs, BJS determined 

that the estimate has a standard error of 1.2 completed 

burglaries per 1,000 households (see appendix table 10). 

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 confidence 

interval around the 26.3 completed burglaries per 1,000 

households estimate is equal to 26.3 ± 1.2 X 1.96 (or 

24.0 completed burglaries per 1,000 households to 28.7 

completed burglaries per 1,000 households). In other 

words, if different samples using the same procedures 

were taken from the U.S. population during the period 

from 2010 to 2011, 95% of the time the rate of completed 

burglaries in urban areas would fall between 24.0 

and 28.7.

In this report, BJS also calculated a coefficient of variation 

(CV) for all estimates, representing the ratio of the standard 

error to the estimate. CVs provide a measure of reliability 

and a means to compare the precision of estimates across 

measures with differing levels or metrics. In cases where the 

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

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

(interpret data with caution; estimate is based on 10 or fewer 

sample cases, or the coefficient of variation exceeds 50%).

Many of the variables examined in this report may be related 

to one another and to other variables not included in the 

analyses. Complex relationships among variables in this 

report were not fully explored and warrant more extensive 

analysis. Readers are cautioned not to draw causal inferences 

based on the results presented.

Adjusting for inflation

All dollar values in the report are presented in constant 2011 

dollars. Estimates were adjusted for 2011 inflation using the 

consumer price index for all consumers (CPI-U) adjustment 

factor. The CPI-U is the broadest and most comprehensive 

consumer price index (www.bls.gov).

Methodological changes to the NCVS in 2006

Methodological changes implemented in 2006 may have 

affected the crime estimates for that year to such an extent 

that they are not comparable to estimates from other 

years. Evaluation of 2007 and later data from the NCVS 

conducted by BJS and the Census Bureau found a high 

degree of confidence that estimates for 2007, 2008, 2009, 

2010, and 2011 are consistent with and comparable to 

estimates for 2005 and previous years. The reports, Criminal 

Victimization, 2006, NCJ 219413, December 2007; Criminal 

Victimization, 2007, NCJ 224390, December 2008; Criminal 

Victimization, 2008, NCJ 227777, September 2009; Criminal 

Victimization, 2009, NCJ 231327, October 2010; Criminal 

Victimization, 2010, NCJ 235508, September 2011; and 

Criminal Victimization, 2011, NCJ 239437, October 2012, are 

available on the BJS website.

Although caution is warranted when comparing data from 

2006 to other years, the use of 2-year rolling averages in this 

report diminishes the potential variation between 2006 and 

other years. In general, findings do not change significantly if 

the year 2006 is excluded from the analyses.
HOUSEHOLD BURGLARY, 1994–2011 | JUNE 2013 12

Appendix table 1

Household burglary, by type, 1994–2011

Attempted 

forcible entry

Completed 

forcible entry

Completed 

unlawful entry

Total household 

burglariesa Completed household burglariesb

Year Total households Number Ratec Number Ratec Number Ratec Number Ratec Number Ratec

1994 100,157,000 1,092,500 10.9 1,920,000 19.2 3,341,200 33.4 6,353,700 63.4 5,261,200 52.5

1995 101,036,400 927,900 9.2 1,809,600 17.9 3,188,900 31.6 5,926,400 58.7 4,998,500 49.5

1996 102,101,200 825,100 8.1 1,672,600 16.4 2,977,400 29.2 5,475,100 53.6 4,650,000 45.5

1997 103,343,100 817,700 7.9 1,611,500 15.6 2,802,000 27.1 5,231,100 50.6 4,413,500 42.7

1998 104,655,800 750,100 7.2 1,503,400 14.4 2,523,400 24.1 4,776,900 45.6 4,026,800 38.5

1999 106,241,200 716,400 6.7 1,324,700 12.5 2,273,300 21.4 4,314,500 40.6 3,598,100 33.9

2000 107,756,300 618,400 5.7 1,161,700 10.8 2,134,800 19.8 3,914,900 36.3 3,296,600 30.6

2001 108,960,700 493,600 4.5 1,109,100 10.2 1,958,700 18.0 3,561,400 32.7 3,067,800 28.2

2002 109,946,100 455,700 4.1 1,090,900 9.9 1,781,400 16.2 3,328,100 30.3 2,872,400 26.1

2003 112,230,400 521,800 4.6 1,111,000 9.9 1,817,500 16.2 3,450,200 30.7 2,928,500 26.1

2004 114,956,200 551,800 4.8 1,175,800 10.2 1,896,000 16.5 3,623,600 31.5 3,071,800 26.7

2005 116,437,700 544,000 4.7 1,155,300 9.9 1,892,400 16.3 3,591,700 30.8 3,047,700 26.2

2006 117,479,100 677,200 5.8 1,154,900 9.8 1,898,000 16.2 3,730,000 31.8 3,052,800 26.0

2007 118,681,000 744,400 6.3 1,231,900 10.4 1,747,300 14.7 3,723,700 31.4 2,979,200 25.1

2008 120,322,300 655,100 5.4 1,270,900 10.6 1,595,200 13.3 3,521,200 29.3 2,866,100 23.8

2009 121,734,400 568,500 4.7 1,226,700 10.1 1,645,500 13.5 3,440,700 28.3 2,872,200 23.6

2010 122,606,400 524,600 4.3 1,191,700 9.7 1,577,400 12.9 3,293,700 26.9 2,769,100 22.6

2011 122,961,900 549,200 4.5 1,226,700 10.0 1,618,800 13.2 3,394,700 27.6 2,845,500 23.1

Note: Estimates based on 2-year rolling averages centered on the most recent year. See appendix table 2 for standard errors. 

aIncludes attempted forcible entry, completed forcible entry, and completed unlawful entry.

bIncludes completed forcible entry and completed unlawful entry.

cPer 1,000 households.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2011.

Appendix table 2

Standard errors for figure 1: Rate of household burglary, by type, 1994–2011

Attempted 

forcible entry

Completed 

forcible entry

Completed 

unlawful entry

Total household 

burglaries

Completed household 

burglaries

Year Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate

1994 61,136 0.5 87,819 0.7 121,316 0.9 187,574 1.4 164,046 1.2

1995 48,534 0.4 74,040 0.5 103,001 0.8 156,923 1.2 138,836 1.0

1996 45,182 0.3 70,149 0.5 98,503 0.7 147,230 1.1 131,316 1.0

1997 47,438 0.3 74,124 0.5 104,065 0.7 162,780 1.1 143,052 1.0

1998 47,172 0.3 74,755 0.5 102,941 0.7 163,234 1.1 143,176 1.0

1999 47,994 0.3 65,543 0.5 106,646 0.7 149,697 1.0 137,017 1.0

2000 41,938 0.3 61,348 0.4 102,112 0.7 155,240 1.1 139,706 1.0

2001 36,437 0.3 60,673 0.4 93,588 0.7 138,958 1.0 125,036 0.9

2002 32,840 0.2 58,744 0.4 84,737 0.6 121,355 0.8 113,380 0.8

2003 42,238 0.3 63,464 0.4 91,901 0.6 131,167 0.9 121,902 0.8

2004 42,082 0.3 65,435 0.4 88,215 0.6 131,777 0.9 121,795 0.8

2005 39,732 0.3 76,426 0.5 90,732 0.6 138,880 0.9 127,656 0.8

2006 51,111 0.3 67,394 0.4 96,834 0.6 136,817 0.9 120,530 0.8

2007 58,057 0.4 72,372 0.5 91,750 0.6 132,400 0.8 118,020 0.7

2008 48,450 0.3 76,734 0.5 76,330 0.5 131,622 0.8 112,479 0.7

2009 46,879 0.3 71,737 0.4 92,094 0.6 148,647 0.9 131,309 0.8

2010 37,669 0.2 65,251 0.4 78,194 0.5 119,163 0.7 106,838 0.7

2011 40,306 0.2 66,974 0.4 82,221 0.5 124,403 0.8 114,519 0.7

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2011.
HOUSEHOLD BURGLARY, 1994–2011 | JUNE 2013 13

Appendix table 3

Standard errors for table 1: Items taken during completed household burglaries, by type of item, 1994, 2001, and 2011

1994 2001 2011

Stolen item Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total completed burglaries 177,703 ~% 136,079 ~% 119,117 ~% 

Cash/checks, credit/bank cards, purses/wallets 58,999 0.7% 46,131 1.0% 43,522 1.0% 

Motor vehicles 10,935 0.1 9,426 0.2 11,317 0.3

Motor vehicle parts/accessories, gasoline/oil 29,198 0.4 19,929 0.5 21,275 0.5

Bicycles or parts, toys, recreation/sport equipment 55,221 0.7 37,017 0.8 30,171 0.7

Household appliances/electronics 82,852 0.9 59,707 1.1 64,607 1.3

Household furnishings/collections 38,290 0.5 27,165 0.6 25,403 0.6

Personal items 84,452 1.0 62,334 1.2 61,054 1.3

Firearms 24,874 0.3 18,679 0.4 16,769 0.4

Tools/miscellaneous equipment 58,578 0.7 40,661 0.9 42,513 1.0

Farm/garden produce, food/liquor 33,002 0.4 23,094 0.5 21,339 0.5

Animals 8,745 0.1 2,564 0.1 ! 3,337 0.1 !

Other 36,111 0.5 23,389 0.5 17,206 0.4

Unknown 6,185 0.1 ! 4,255 0.1 ! 4,815 0.1!

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

~Not applicable.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2011. 

Appendix table 4

Estimates and standard errors for figure 2: Dollar value of items and cash stolen during completed household burglaries 

resulting in loss of $1 or more, 1994–2011

Estimates Standard errors

Year Median Mean

Percent of victimized households 

with loss of $1 or more Mean

Percent of victimized households 

with loss of $1 or more

1994 389 1,672 76% 2,384 1.0%

1995 379 1,612 76 2,045 0.8

1996 402 1,681 77 2,066 0.9

1997 420 1,866 77 2,253 0.9

1998 413 1,947 78 2,302 1.0

1999 413 1,851 79 2,346 1.1

2000 405 1,604 79 2,229 1.2

2001 444 1,515 78 1,892 1.2

2002 500 1,754 77 2,046 1.1

2003 406 1,829 78 2,391 1.2

2004 366 1,902 78 2,462 1.2

2005 368 2,166 81 2,714 1.2

2006 460 2,317 79 2,704 1.2

2007 541 2,344 73 2,767 1.2

2008 522 2,425 69 2,571 1.3

2009 522 2,596 68 3,142 1.5

2010 618 2,588 71 2,786 1.3

2011 600 2,116 73 2,571 1.2

Note: Estimates based on 2-year rolling averages centered on the most recent year. Estimates adjusted for 2011 inflation using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban 

Consumers (CPI-U) adjustment factor. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2011.
HOUSEHOLD BURGLARY, 1994–2011 | JUNE 2013 14

Appendix table 5

Standard errors for table 2: Police responses to completed household burglary victimizations, 1994, 2001, and 2011

1994 2001 2011

Type of response Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total victimizations reported to police 118,482 1.1% 88,319 1.3% 86,033 1.4% 

Police came when notified

Yes 102,829 1.2% 77,591 1.4% 78,280 1.3% 

No 41,738 1.0 23,039 1.0 23,737 1.0

Victim went to police 12,850 0.3 13,398 0.6 9,801 0.4

Initial police response

Took report 94,090 1.2 73,073 1.3 74,839 1.1

Questioned witnesses/searched scene 74,870 1.6 56,438 1.8 59,285 1.9

Took evidence 44,762 1.3 32,996 1.5 40,629 1.7

Promised to investigate/promised surveillance 32,996 1.0 31,094 1.4 36,141 1.6

Made arrest at scene 11,379 0.4% 9,910 0.5% 13,322 0.7% 

Other 27,504 0.9 16,964 0.9 12,137 0.6

Don’t know 14,657 0.5 5,299 0.3! 12,863 0.6

Any arrest

Yes 29,410 0.8% 22,909 1.0% 23,830 1.0% 

No 112,033 0.9 82,038 1.1 80,211 1.1

Don’t know 8,664 0.2 3,188 0.1 ! 9,277 0.4

! 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, 1993–2011.

Appendix table 6

Estimates and standard errors for figure 3: Completed household burglaries reported to police, by amount of loss, 1994–2011

Estimates Standard errors 

Year No loss $1 to $499 $500 to $999 $1,000 or more No loss $1 to $499 $500 to $999 $1,000 or more

1994 47% 33% 64% 82% 2.2% 1.4% 2.7% 1.6% 

1995 48 33 58 84 2.0 1.3 2.5 1.4

1996 44 34 56 85 2.0 1.3 2.6 1.4

1997 44 34 62 86 2.2 1.4 2.7 1.4

1998 44 32 64 83 2.4 1.5 2.9 1.6

1999 44 32 59 77 2.7 1.6 3.2 1.9

2000 49 34 53 78 3.0 1.8 3.2 2.1

2001 46 37 55 80 2.6 1.8 3.0 1.9

2002 47 42 60 81 2.6 1.9 3.1 1.8

2003 51 44 59 83 3.0 2.0 3.6 1.9

2004 50 42 63 83 2.9 1.9 3.7 1.9

2005 53 40 64 83 3.4 2.0 3.6 2.0

2006 46 40 59 80 3.0 1.9 3.3 2.0

2007 45 36 56 80 2.6 2.0 3.7 2.0

2008 50 34 59 83 2.5 1.9 3.6 1.8

2009 45 39 62 84 2.9 2.4 4.0 2.0

2010 42 42 65 85 2.6 2.1 3.3 1.7

2011 47 38 68 83 2.7 2.1 3.4 1.7

Note: Estimates based on 2-year rolling averages centered on the most recent year. Amount of loss includes the value of stolen items, damaged items, and stolen cash. 

Estimates adjusted for 2011 inflation using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) adjustment factor. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2011.
HOUSEHOLD BURGLARY, 1994–2011 | JUNE 2013 15

Appendix table 7

Estimates and standard errors for figure 4: Completed household burglaries reported to insurance companies, by amount of 

loss, 1994–2011

Estimates Standard errors 

Year No loss $1 to $499 $500 to $999 $1,000 or more No loss $1 to $499 $500 to $999 $1,000 or more

1994 1.5% 4.2% 22.4% 40.6% 0.5% 0.6% 2.3% 2.0% 

1995 1.5 3.9 19.8 40.6 0.5 0.5 2.0 1.8

1996 2.3 4.0 15.2 43.3 0.6 0.5 1.8 1.9

1997 2.2 4.0 12.7 44.7 0.6 0.5 1.8 2.0

1998 2.8 2.8 13.5 41.5 0.8 0.5 2.0 2.1

1999 3.4 2.4 16.4 38.7 0.9 0.5 2.3 2.2

2000 1.3 ! 3.1 13.9 42.6 0.6 ! 0.6 2.2 2.5

2001 2.3 ! 3.4 13.6 41.9 0.7 ! 0.6 2.0 2.3

2002 3.5 4.9 15.5 37.6 0.9 0.8 2.2 2.2

2003 1.4 ! 5.2 10.8 33.0 0.7 ! 0.8 2.2 2.4

2004 0.7 ! 3.9 8.2 32.2 0.5 ! 0.7 2.0 2.4

2005 3.4 ! 3.6 8.5 36.7 1.2 ! 0.7 2.0 2.5

2006 2.9 ! 5.0 9.5 36.3 1.0 ! 0.8 1.9 2.4

2007 0.9 ! 6.1 11.7 34.6 0.5 ! 1.0 2.4 2.4

2008 2.6 ! 4.5 12.3 34.6 0.8! 0.8 2.4 2.3

2009 2.8 2.8 9.4 37.2 0.9 0.7 2.3 2.6

2010 2.2 ! 3.5 7.6 37.8 0.8! 0.8 1.8 2.2

2011 2.3 ! 3.3 9.6 35.1 0.8! 0.7 2.1 2.2

Note: Estimates based on 2-year rolling averages centered on the most recent year. Amount of loss includes the value of stolen items, damaged items, and stolen cash. 

Estimates adjusted for 2011 inflation using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) adjustment factor. 

! 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, 1993–2011.

Appendix table 8

Standard errors for table 3: Completed burglaries reported and not reported to police and an insurance company, by amount 

of loss, 1994, 2001, and 2011

No loss $1 to $499 $500 to $999 $1,000 or more

Reported to police

Reported to insurance

1994 1.1% 1.5% 3.3% 2.3% 

2001 1.5 ! 1.6 3.3 2.6

2011 1.7 ! 1.7 3.0 2.5

Not reported to insurance

1994 1.1 1.6 3.3 2.3

2001 1.7 1.7 3.4 2.6

2011 1.8 1.8 3.1 2.5

Not reported to police

Reported to insurance

1994 ~% ! 0.3% 1.7% ! 1.7% !

2001 0.4 ! 0.2 ! 1.0 ! 1.8 !

2011 ~ ! 0.5 ! ~ ! 1.5 !

Not reported to insurance

1994 0.0 0.4 1.8 1.8

2001 0.4 0.3 1.1 1.9

2011 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.5

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

~Not applicable.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2011. 
HOUSEHOLD BURGLARY, 1994–2011 | JUNE 2013 16

Appendix table 9

Standard errors for table 4: Households that experienced completed burglary, by head of household characteristics, 1994, 

2001, and 2011

1994 2001 2011

Characteristic Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate

Race/Hispanic origin

White 145,739 1.3 105,904 1.0 90,999 0.8

Black 59,078 3.5 45,871 2.5 44,629 2.0

Hispanic/Latino 47,409 4.7 33,018 2.4 36,690 1.9

Asian/Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 16,475 5.0 13,422 2.9 15,739 2.2

American Indian/Alaskan Native 16,459 20.3 10,406 14.0 11,295 12.1

Two or more races ~ ~ ~ ~ 17,686 10.7

Age

19 or younger 25,761 17.3 18,273 11.7 14,540 8.0

20–29 68,557 3.2 47,983 2.3 44,566 1.9

30–49 115,858 1.9 83,301 1.3 71,573 1.2

50–64 60,110 2.2 45,179 1.3 52,967 1.1

65 or older 54,803 1.9 37,612 1.3 40,334 1.1

Marital status

Married 108,852 1.4 77,810 1.0 66,717 0.8

Single 72,856 3.0 57,838 2.0 55,721 1.5

Separated/divorced 80,581 3.4 54,376 2.1 56,815 1.9

Widowed 41,776 2.6 27,919 1.8 30,397 1.9

Household composition

Two or more adults 128,916 1.4 100,029 1.0 88,107 0.8

 Without children 90,441 1.7 66,327 1.2 64,979 1.0

 With children 81,699 2.2 62,679 1.5 53,505 1.3

One male adult 57,716 3.2 40,828 2.1 42,325 1.8

 Without children 49,129 3.2 37,187 2.1 40,265 1.8

 With children 27,206 9.6 13,595 9.0 11,490 7.4

One female adult 82,744 2.6 53,323 1.7 53,480 1.5

Without children 50,507 2.4 35,380 1.5 40,348 1.5

 With children 61,039 5.3 34,990 4.2 32,244 4.0

~ Not applicable.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2011.
HOUSEHOLD BURGLARY, 1994–2011 | JUNE 2013 17

Appendix table 10

Standard errors for table 5: Households that experienced 

completed burglary, by household characteristics, 1994, 

2001, and 2011

1994 2001 2011

Characteristic Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate

Location of residence

Urban 105,974 2.4 74,554 1.6 68,414 1.2

Suburban 97,085 1.5 77,723 1.0 73,437 0.9

Rural 73,983 2.3 47,114 1.6 46,109 1.7

Income

$14,999 or less 94,735 2.6 53,149 2.4 45,413 2.8

$15,000–34,999 85,105 2.0 57,196 1.6 49,557 1.7

$35,000–49,999 52,795 2.6 35,988 1.8 33,587 1.8

$50,000–74,999 42,690 2.8 32,381 1.6 29,949 1.5

$75,000 or more 37,184 3.7 37,055 1.7 33,537 1.0

Unknown 47,159 2.7 44,882 1.5 60,536 1.1

Ownership status

Rented 112,767 2.2 79,167 1.6 77,617 1.4

Owned 122,571 1.4 94,117 0.9 82,120 0.7

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

1993–2011. 

Appendix table 11

Standard errors for table 6: Households that experienced 

completed burglary, by household structural characteristics, 

2004–2011

Average annual number Rate

Direct outside access

Yes 108,235 0.4

No 24,937 1.2

Don’t know 2,206 5.1 !

Gated/walled community

Yes 24,107 1.1

No 108,637 0.4

Restricted access

Yes 26,751 1.1

No 107,787 0.4

! 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, 

2004–2011. 
NCJ241754

Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistics agency of the U.S. Department of 

Justice. William J. Sabol is acting director.

This report was written by Jennifer Hardison Walters, M.S.W., Andrew Moore, 

M.Stat., and Marcus Berzofsky, Dr.P.H. of RTI International, and Lynn Langton, Ph.D. 

of BJS. RTI International verified the report.

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

report under the supervision of Doris J. James.

June 2013, NCJ 241754