Redesigning	the	National	Crime	

Victimization	Survey	

Michael R. Rand

U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics

michael.rand@usdoj.gov 

Prepared for presentation at the Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology Research

Conference, Washington, D.C., November 2‐4, 2009. The views expressed in this paper are

those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Bureau of Justice Statistics

or the U.S. Department of Justice.
Redesigning the National Crime Victimization Survey 

Introduction 

In 2008 the Bureau of Justice Statistics initiated a program to evaluate and redesign the 

methodology used to conduct the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). This 

program was implemented both because the survey was undergoing a crisis related to the 

release of estimates for 2006, and in response to recommendations from a review of the 

survey by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies. 

The problems associated with the release of the 2006 NCVS estimates had both long term 

and short term causes. In response to flat funding over many years, the survey’s sample 

had been reduced a number of times. These reductions, combined with declining crime 

rates experienced during the 1990’s had, by 2003, impaired the survey’s ability to meet 

its key objective of measuring a five percent year to year change in the violent crime rate. 

In 2006, the Census Bureau introduced a redesigned sample based on the 2000 decennial 

Census using a truncated procedure required by funding limitations at the same time the 

survey was transitioning from a primarily paper and pencil instrument to a fully 

automated computer assisted interviewing design. As a result, the year to year changes in 

victimization rates measured by the NCVS in 2006 was judged to be too extreme to have 

resulted from actual fluctuations in crime and were deemed to have been impacted by the 

methodological changes implemented during the year. (Rand and Catalano, 2007) 

The current NCVS reevaluation and redesign program is, in 2009, still in its early stages. 

This paper discusses the program’s goals and expected results, as well as the research 

projects currently underway or planned. The first sections of the paper provide a short 

review of the survey’s history and current methodology. 

Survey origins and design 

Over the past three decades, the National Crime Victimization Survey has become the 

nation’s primary source of information on the frequency, characteristics, and 

consequences of criminal victimization. Conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, the NCVS has been instrumental in helping to shape the national understanding 

of the nature and extent of crime. 

The NCVS was implemented (as the National Crime Survey or NCS) in 1972 in response 

to a perceived need for more comprehensive information about the extent and nature of 

crime in the United States. In reaction to rising crime levels in our nation’s cities, 

President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 convened the President’s Commission on Law 

Enforcement and the Administration of Justice to examine the root causes and 

characteristics of crime in the United States and to recommend policies and programs to 

address what was seen to be a growing problem. The Commission found that the FBI’s 

Uniform Crime Reporting Program, (UCR) based on crimes reported to law enforcement 

agencies, and then the only program measuring the extent of crime in the nation, did not 

collect sufficient information to evaluate the extent and nature of the crime that was 

2 
occurring. The UCR obtained, (and still does so today,) information only on crimes 

reported to police, and obtained little information characteristics of crimes and crime 

victims or the impact of crime on victims. 

To remedy this information void, the Commission developed pilot studies to explore the 

viability of using sample surveys to obtain data on crime, including that not reported to 

police. These initial experiments produced useful results, and the Commission 

recommended that a national victimization survey be implemented (President’s 

Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, 1967). 

The new survey program had three components; a national sample, a commercial survey, 

and a central cities component conducted in selected large cities across the nation. The 

primary objective of the new National Crime Survey Program was “to measure the 

annual change in crime incidents for a limited set of major crimes and to characterize 

some of the socio-economic aspects of both the reported events and their victims” 

(Kindermann, 1975.) The national household victimization survey produced estimates of 

threatened, attempted, and completed rape, assault, robbery, aggravated assault, simple 

assault, personal theft, burglary, property theft and motor vehicle theft committed against 

people age 12 and older and their households. 

Although it underwent a redesign in 1992, the basic design of the survey has remained 

constant through its almost four decades of existence. As it has been since its inception, 

the NCVS is conducted for BJS by the U.S. Census Bureau. In 2008, interviews were 

completed with about 78,000 persons age 12 and older in about 42,000 housing units 

throughout the United States and the District of Columbia selected using a stratified, 

multi-stage cluster design. The sample excludes persons who are crews of vessels, in 

institutions, members of the armed forces living in military barracks, and the homeless. 

Self-report interviews are conducted at six month intervals with all residents in sample 

households age 12 or older for a total of seven interviews over a 3 year period. If the 

residents of the sample address move out, interviews are conducted with whoever moves 

into the sample address. 

The NCVS interview is conducted using two primary instruments: a crime screening 

questionnaire and an incident report. The screening questionnaire contains a number of 

questions designed to ascertain whether the respondent was a victim of a measured 

offense during the previous six months. One household member is asked questions about 

crimes against the household such as burglary and motor vehicle theft. For every incident 

uncovered by the screening questionnaire, an incident report form is filled. The incident 

form gathers information on a broad range of subjects such as the circumstances of the 

incident, the victim, the offender, and consequences of the victimization. 

Within three years of the implementation of the NCS, the Law Enforcement Assistance 

Administration (LEAA), BJS’s predecessor’s parent agency, contracted with the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) to evaluate the entire program. The resulting report, 

Surveying Crime, published in 1976, recommended a number of changes to the program: 

3 
 

 Eliminate the survey’s commercial and central cities components 

 Revise the crime screening questions to improve prompting respondents’ 

memories 

 Add questions to allow examination of ecological factors and lifestyle activities 

associated with crime victimization 

 Add questions about crime preventive or protective measures taken by 

respondents (Penick and Owens, 1976) 

Acting on these recommendations, BJS commenced a long term plan to redesign the 

survey. After an extensive research process, some revisions, deemed non-rate affecting, 

were implemented in 1986. Revisions to the survey’s screening questions, because they 

would impact the amount and nature of the offenses measured by the survey were 

implemented in 1992. The revised crime screening questions were designed to better 

assist respondents in remembering events they had experienced by adding specific cues 

and prompts, targeting some offenses such as violence by intimates and rape, and varying 

the frames of reference (e.g. acts, locales and relationship to offenders). The redesign also 

added sexual assault other than rape as an offense measured by the survey. The new 

screen questions were implemented in half the survey’s sample for 18 months beginning 

in January 1992. The remaining half sample was enumerated using the old methodology, 

thereby enabling an evaluation of the impact of the new screening questions.

1 

The redesigned screening questions had a differential impact on each survey measured 

type of crime. For robbery, burglary, and motor vehicle theft, there was little or no 

difference between the estimates from the old and new methodologies. The rates of every 

other measured offense increased in the redesigned survey, and increases were greatest 

for difficult to measure offenses such as rape and domestic violence. 

Because post-redesign estimates were obtained using a different screening process, they 

were considered to be not comparable to those of the earlier survey. The survey was 

renamed the National Crime Victimization Survey at about the time the redesign was 

implemented. 

The improvements made during the 1992 redesign have enabled the survey to become the 

benchmark for victimization estimates in the United States. The improved screening 

protocols and other methodological changes implemented in the redesign addressed a 

number of problems that had been identified in the NCS and the questions added to the 

incident report expanded the information the survey could produce on the nature and 

consequences of crime victimization. 

However, from its earliest days, the NCS/NCVS has had an uneven funding history. Even 

as BJS was planning the survey redesign, funding shortfalls required changes in a variety 

of survey protocols such as increased use of telephone interviewing. In 1992, while the 

1 For information about the 1992 NCVS redesign see Kindermann et al. (1997) and Rand et al. (1997), 

available on the BJS website at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/erve.pdf and 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv73_95.pdf respectively. 

4 
 

redesigned survey was being introduced in half the survey=s sample, further cost saving 

measures were taken; including a 10% sample reduction. 

Funding issues, declining crime rates and impact on survey estimates 

Since the 1992 redesign, budget shortfalls have required additional cutbacks to survey 

protocols and reductions in sample. The implementation of a new sample based on the 

2000 decennial census was accomplished in 2006 a year late using a truncated procedure 

because of insufficient funding to accomplish it on schedule using the methods used in 

previous sample redesigns. The truncated implementation was one of the factors that 

caused the temporary break in series in 2006 and is discussed in more detail below. 

Overall, since 1985 the survey’s sample has been reduced 4 times. The number of 

interviewed households in 2008, 42,000, is about 3/5 the number interviewed during 

1972, the NCS’s first year (figure 1). The number of interviewed persons in 2005 was 

about 42% of the number interviewed in 1972. The greater decrease in the number of 

interviewed persons is the result of declines in household sizes and increases in the 

personal non-interview rate. (The sharp, temporary, decline in interviewed households 

and persons in 1992 reflects the half sample implementation to bridge the old and new 

designs.) 

<Figure 1, NCVS Interviewed households and persons, 1973-2008 about here> 

At the same time that funding shortfalls were requiring reductions in sample, the nation’s 

victimization rates were declining. Between 1993 and 2003, the violent crime rate fell by 

55% and the property crime rate decreased by 49%. While certainly good news for the 

nation, the lower victimization estimates, compounded by the sample cuts, greatly 

diminished the survey’s ability to measure year to year changes in the violent crime rate; 

one of the NCVS’s core objectives. To counter the declining precision, BJS began in 

2003 to report short term changes in crime using two year average annual victimization 

estimates. For example, Criminal Victimization 2005, released by BJS in September 

2006 provided comparisons of average annual rates for 2004-2005 to those of 2002-2003. 

(Catalano, 2006) 

Issues associated with 2006 NCVS estimates 

As discussed above, methodological changes implemented into the NCVS in 2006 caused 

changes in the survey estimates of crime that could not be attributed to actual changes in 

the amount of crime. The changes were: 

 Introduction of a new sample based on the 2000 Decennial Census. 

 A change in the way that data from households in the sample for the first time was 

used, and 

5 
 

 Replacing paper and pencil interviewing with computer assisted interviewing 

(CAPI). 

The introduction of the new NCVS sample historically has occurred every decade 

subsequent to the decennial Census. However, the new sample introduction in 2006 was 

done in a truncated manner because funding was not available to implement the sample in 

the same way as in the past. For the three previous NCVS sample redesigns, the first 

interviews at the new households were not used to produce estimates, but were used, as 

was the procedure for all first time interviews, to “bound” subsequent interviews. 

Bounding is a technique for anchoring events in time. The survey asks respondents to 

recall crimes that they have experienced during the 6 months prior to the interview. 

People often tend, however, to misremember when events occur, generally assigning 

them to the more recent past than they actually occurred. This “telescoping,” as it is 

called, can result in overestimates of crime if such crimes are measured as occurring 

during the survey’s reference period when they actually occurred prior to it. The 

bounding procedure was designed to eliminate the impact of such telescoping. 

In 2006, however, BJS did not have the approximately $2 million required to interview 

the large number of incoming households introduced by the sample redesign solely to 

bound future interviews as had been done in the past. To reduce the cost of introducing 

the sample design, an alternative procedure was developed. Adjustment factors based on 

a ratio of time in sample one crime rates to those of time in sample two through seven 

households based on 2005 data were created to eliminate the impact of the overestimates 

in victimization estimates resulting from including first time interviews. Analysis of this 

adjustment method for 2005 demonstrated a close fit to actual victimization rates for the 

year. 

Under this truncated sample redesign plan, the new sample was introduced in January 

2006. In July 2006, the survey was converted from a primarily paper and pencil survey 

to an automated computer assisted interviewing environment (CAPI)2

. This automation 

was necessitated because the Census Bureau was discontinuing support for the systems 

required to process the keyed survey data. 

The unanticipated consequences of the methodological changes to the survey were that 

the overall violent crime rate in 2006 was about 16% higher than the previous year’s rate. 

Moreover, the increases were largely in rural areas, those areas most impacted by the 

introduction of the new sample. While the violent crime rate in urban areas increased by 

4% and that in suburban areas increased by 5%, the rate in rural areas jumped by 62%. 

As a result, the estimates for 2006 were considered to be a break in the longitudinal 

NCVS series and not comparable to earlier estimates. (Rand and Catalano, 2007) 

While the weighting adjustment was designed to counter the anticipated impact of using 

first time interviews in the production of estimates, funds were not available to 

2 For ease of reference, the acronym CAPI is used here to refer to all automated interviewing for the NCVS, 

which is conducted both in person and by telephone from interviewers’ homes. 

6 
 

implement the conversion to CAPI in a way that would enable estimating its impact on 

survey estimates. 

The impact of the third methodological change, the sample redesign, was not anticipated. 

It had been expected that the implementation of the sample redesign would be largely 

non-rate affecting, meaning that the incoming sample was expected to resemble the 

outgoing sample sufficiently that there would not be a statistically significant difference 

in the measures of crime from the two samples. 

Unfortunately, the changes were not implemented in a manner which facilitates 

identifying and quantifying the effects on the estimates. While an extensive review of the 

data by BJS and the Census Bureau could not isolate the factors causing the anomalous 

results, the review concluded that the likely causes were associated with the affects of 

new interviewers in areas in which the new sample was introduced. (Rand and Catalano, 

2007) 

This finding was supported by the 2007 survey estimates which say the measured crime 

rates returned to about the levels experienced in 2005. Further analyses of the data 

support this view. (Rand, 2008) 

Other challenges facing the survey 

In 2009 the NCVS faces a number of challenges in addition to the problems associated 

with survey funding and the 2006 estimates. One is the increasing difficulty of 

conducting interviews in the twenty first century, with the competing demands for time 

people face and a general decline in public willingness to participate in polls and surveys. 

For the NCVS, the non-response rates highest for young non-white youth, the population 

subgroup with the highest victimization rate. Table 1 presents the 2005 person nonresponse rates by respondent age as well as by race and ethnicity for the 12-19 population 

subgroup. 

<Table 1. NCVS Non-response rates, about here> 

In recent years the survey has increasingly been asked to take on additional roles; to 

provide information for specific populations such as juveniles, the elderly and people 

with disabilities, as well as to provide information on an expanding number of topics, 

such as stalking and identity theft. While the increase in scope has strengthened support 

for it as a useful tool for measuring the extent and impact of crime, the added questions 

have increased the burden on respondents. 

7 
Decision to redesign the survey 

The problems associated with the 2006 estimates arose because the survey’s resources 

were no longer sufficient to both collect the data and maintain the precision of the 

survey’s estimates and the quality of the data. BJS determined that to continue the 

NCVS in a climate of fiscal austerity required that it be reconstituted to reduce the percase cost of collecting the data. Even before the issues with the 2006 estimates arose BJS 

was assessing the survey’s future, inviting the National Research Council to evaluate its 

programs, with a particular focus on the NCVS. The charge to the NRC Panel to review 

the programs of the Bureau of Justice Statistics included the following: “A focus of the 

panel’s work will be to consider alternative options for conducting the National Crime 

Victimization Survey, which is the largest BJS program.” (National Research Council, 

2008) 

The panel’s review of the NCVS, found that “As currently configured and funded, the 

NCVS is not achieving and cannot achieve legislatively mandated goal to ‘collect and 

analyze data that will serve as a continuous and comparable national social indication of 

the prevalence, incidence, rates, extent, distribution, and attributes of crime ...’ (42 

U.S.C. 3732(c)3))” (National Research Council, 2008). In all, the panel made 20 

recommendations for evaluating and restoring the capabilities of the survey to achieve its 

mandated goals and improving its ability to measure the extent and nature of crime in the 

United States. 

The panel’s recommendations addressed every aspect of the survey’s methodology as 

well as the support required to maintain a major statistical program. Its first 

recommendation was that “BJS must ensure that the nation has quality annual estimates 

of levels and changes in criminal victimization.” Its second, was “Congress and the 

administration should ensure that BJS has a budget that is adequate to field a survey that 

satisfies the goal in [the first recommendation].” 

Somewhat ironically, but to a large degree because of the problems with the 2006 NCVS 

estimates, funding support for the survey began to improve in 2007. BJS met with staff 

from the Office for Management and Budget to discuss how to restore the survey’s ability 

to address its original objectives as well as to begin to remodel the survey to address new 

and emerging efforts. The renewed budgetary support from the Department of Justice, 

the Office of Management and Budget and the Congress grew from the realization that 

the survey, a valuable resource for assessing the extent of crime and its impact on 

victims, was in jeopardy and required restoration in order to maintain its viability. 

Redesign Goals 

While the initial goal of the redesign is to improve the cost efficiency of the NCVS in 

order to restore its ability to meet key goals and to maintain this ability for the 

foreseeable future, additional goals have been identified to strengthen stakeholder support 

8 
for the survey. Primary among these is the expressed need to produce subnational 

estimates of victimization. 

Through 2007 and 2008, the goals for a redesigned NCVS continued to be discussed and 

developed. These goals are: 

 Improve the precision and cost efficiency of the design to produce national-level 

estimates of the number of victimizations, victimization rates, and year-to-year 

changes in violent victimization rates. 

 Enhance the flexibility of the design and operations to allow BJS to modify the 

program to study emerging issues. 

 Modify the structure of the design to permit subnational (i.e. state, city or MSA) 

estimates of victimization. 

BJS also has identified a number of data quality goals to be incorporated into the survey: 

 Develop a program of ongoing methodological research to enable incorporating 

new procedures 

 Reestablish quality control protocols that were diminished for budgetary reasons. 

 Improve the “paradata” collected about survey administration. 

Overall Research/Implementation Plan 

BJS foresees the redesign of the NCVS to be a five year project encompassing 

methodological research and implementation of the redesigned survey with the 

redesigned survey implemented beginning in 2013. The time span for the project is 

dependent largely on obtaining the funding for the research and implementation 

activities. It is estimated that the research will cost between $10 million and $15 per year 

for fiscal years 2010 through 2012. Implementation costs are estimated at between $20 

and $28 million through FY 2013. Financial support for the survey indicates that this 

program is attainable. FY 2009 funding for the survey rose from $18 million to $26 

million. Support currently appears to exist for continued base survey funding at this level 

with an additional $15 million per year to fund the redesign research. Depending on the 

scope of methodological changes made to the survey, it is possible that the 

implementation may encompass implementation of various aspects of the redesign over a 

number of years. 

The framework or blueprint for the redesign is the 2008 NRC report. While the 

discussion and recommendations in the report speak to aspects of BJS’s program and 

process for redesigning the survey, the NRC panel did not attempt to identify exactly 

what structure the redesigned survey should take. The panel did identify a number of key 

goals that would be important for a future victimization survey to achieve. These goals 

included: 

 Provide a national measure of crime independent of police measures. 

 Provide contextual and etiological information about crime victimization. 

9 
 Enable addressing emerging crime problems. 

 Provide detail for States and localities. 

 Provide information beyond crime rates. 

 Enable timely publication of estimates. 

 Provide estimates for hard to measure crimes. 

The panel also presented ten alternative survey designs that could address the various 

current and future objectives of the NCVS. The designs include features that address key 

survey goals. Importantly, none of the potential designs was capable of addressing all of 

the key goals listed above. Six of the potential designs would fulfill what can be 

expected to continue to be one of the survey’s primary goals; providing a national 

measure of crime independent of police measures. These six designs, in addition to the 

current design, include core-supplement designs, a design modeled on the British Crime 

Survey, and designs with local area sample boosts. 

Whichever design is ultimately selected for the redesigned victimization survey, a great 

deal of research is required in order to determine which design best meets the required 

goals of the survey at a sustainable funding level. However, the decision as to which 

design meets the most critical survey needs cannot be made until some key aspects of the 

current design are evaluated. These include: 

 Sample design. Should the survey continue to utilize an address frame, or should 

it utilize a telephone or other frame? If an address frame, can it be stratified more 

efficiently to reduce sampling variance? 

 Survey reference period. Among all the victimization surveys conducted across 

the globe, the NCVS is the only one that utilizes a 6 month reference period. 

Most utilize a one year reference period. 

 Mode of interview. Currently about 30 percent of all NCVS interviews are 

conducted by personal visit. In order to reduce costs, it will be necessary to 

reduce or eliminate such interviews because of their expense. Alternatives 

include telephone interviews or modes of self administration such as mail or web 

based systems. 

 Lack of capability to produce subnational estimates. Estimates for cities or states 

can be produced either by direct estimation or modeling. 

In addition, the survey has some unique elements that require review to determine how 

they will be impacted by any future survey design. The redesign effort will include 

research to determine whether protocols in place can be improved. These elements 

include: 

 The survey measures relatively rare events, requiring a large sample to enable 

measuring offenses against subpopulations. 

 The survey focuses on the experiences of juveniles as well as adults. This will 

require review of informed-consent protocols to be used in the future. 

 The survey’s panel design, which has both positive and negative impacts on 

survey cost and estimates. 

10 
 Many of the topics covered by the survey are sensitive and protocols must be 

incorporated to protect respondents against both physical and emotional trauma. 

 The survey must be designed to obtain information from a diverse population, 

including non-English speaking people in the United States. 

 The survey requires respondents to remember details of events that may have 

occurred months prior to the interview. 

Initial Research Projects 

The initial research has focused primarily on improving the precision of the survey’s 

estimates, the cost efficiency of the survey design, and the need to produce estimates for 

cities and/or states. 

The first project, begun in 2007, anticipated an NRC panel recommendation to produce 

small area estimates. A contract was awarded to Westat to assess the feasibility of 

producing subnational, i.e. state or local, estimates from the NCVS. The specific goals of 

this study were to examine the expected utility of area specific victimization estimates 

from the NCVS; identify options for redesigning or augmenting the existing sampling 

protocols and data collection methods to produce such estimates; examine potential costs 

of each option and the complexities of implementation; and determine what future 

research should be done on the development and testing of one or more designs for 

changing the NCVS to obtain area specific estimates. 

This project is not concentrating on a particular level of geography because the decision 

about whether the NCVS can produce state or city or MSA level estimates will depend on 

both the production costs as well as the level of detail desired. Westat is examining 

direct estimates as well as model based or indirect estimates for generating local area 

estimates. 

In March 2008, BJS put out a solicitation for research projects in four areas: sample 

design, interview mode, reference period, and non-response bias. Each of the projects, 

in addition to completing research in the areas covered, includes a review of the relevant 

survey literature. A sixth project initiated in 2009, which will evaluate the survey’s crime 

screening questionnaires, grew out of issues identified with the crime screening questions 

used to identify whether respondents had been victims of crime. 

Each of these projects is discussed below: 

Sample Design 

The sample design project, like each of the four projects in the solicitation, addressed a 

recommendation of the CNSTAT panel. The goals of the sample design project are to 

evaluate what variables on the sampling frame could be used to reduce sample variance 

while maintaining a representative sample; determine what sample variables could be 

11 
used to reduce standard errors, and to evaluate over-sampling strategies which could be 

implemented to improve estimate precision. 

The premise of this project, which was awarded to Westat, was primarily to determine 

how to reduce the variances associated with the current sample design. Reductions in 

these variances would improve the precision of the survey’s estimates, even if no other 

changes were made to the survey, helping to mitigate the long term erosion of precision 

the survey has experienced. 

Survey Mode 

For the second study area, examination of data collection modes, two projects were 

initiated and awarded to Westat and RTI. The goal of these projects is to evaluate the use 

of less expensive modes of interview in order to reduce the cost per case for completing 

NCVS interviews. Currently, while all interviews are computer assisted, about 30% are 

completed in personal visit interviews, and the remainder are completed by telephone 

calls initiated from interviewers’ homes. In person interviews are extremely expensive, 

because of the travel time and mileage costs incurred by interviewers. Telephone 

interviews are much less costly, but are still more expensive per case than some self 

administered modes. These projects are assessing whether such self administered survey 

modes could be viable for a complex survey such as the NCVS. 

The primary mode being tested by Westat is interactive voice response (IVR.) RTI is 

examining the feasibility of web-based interviews. Both projects include CAPI/CATI 

control groups to enable comparison across interview mode treatments. In addition, both 

projects may also explore the impact of incentives on response rates. The primary 

research questions being addressed in these studies is the impact that self-administered 

modes have on response rates and the degree of difficulty that is required to get 

respondents to complete interviews using these modes for a survey asking about crimes 

the respondents have experienced. 

Reference Period 

The goal of the reference period research project is to examine the feasibility of using a 

12 month rather than a 6 month reference period for the survey. Prior research has 

determined that longer survey reference periods are associated with increases in memory 

lapses associated with both remembering the occurrence of events as well as accurately 

recalling the details of events including when they actually occurred. This project, which 

was awarded to NORC, rather than attempting to replicate such studies is intended to 

develop mechanisms for improving respondent recall of victimization experiences over a 

12 month period. In addition, the project also is exploring means for mitigating the 

increases in burden imposed by remembering events across a longer period, and 

developing a plan for expediting the publication of findings. In the current survey, the 

last interviews that obtain information about crimes occurring in a year take place in June 

of the year following; (June interviews ask about crimes occurring during the period 

December of the reference year through May of the following year.) With a 12 month 

12 
reference period, the last interviews are not completed until December of the year 

following the reference year, during which data are collected about crimes occurring 

from December of the reference year through November of the following year. 

For the project, NORC is developing two forms of memory aids to assist respondents in 

recalling and accurately placing events in time: Enhanced Contextual Priming (ECP) and 

an Event History Calendar (EHC). The ECP portion will add contextual cues, prompts 

and additional introductory language to assist in recall. The EHC portion is a calendar 

that will be filled out prior to the crime screening questions to help respondents 

remember when events occurred. 

Non-response bias 

The goal of the Non-Response Bias study, awarded to NORC, is to conduct a variety of 

non-response bias analyses on the NCVS. The NCVS, like most household surveys in 

the U.S., suffers from declining response rates. In 1993, the household and person-level 

response rates were 93% and 91% respectively. By 2006, the rates had declined to 91% 

and 86% respectively. Analysis of possible non-response bias is important for the NCVS 

because the groups with the highest within unit nonresponse are also the groups with the 

highest victimization rates. 

NORC will also develop recommendations for weighting adjustments or imputation 

procedures to mitigate the impact of survey nonresponse bias on survey estimates, as well 

as develop recommendations for oversampling some populations or developing protocols 

for strategic efforts to minimize non-response. 

Screener research 

An additional project was initiated in 2009 in response to perceived issues with the way 

the current screening questions are being asked by survey interviewers. The crime 

screening questions are the heart of the NCVS, as they determine the number, rates, and 

scope of the crimes measured by the survey. The questions used to identify crimes 

committed against the survey’s respondents have been in use since the survey’s first 

redesign in 1992. These questions were developed to provide a more complete and 

accurate accounting of the crimes in scope for the survey than did the survey’s original 

questions. 

Analyses of time stamps (available since the survey was automated in 2006) indicate that 

many interviewers are routinely not taking sufficient time to ask the full battery of 

questions. Lack of such data for paper and pencil interviews prohibits examining whether 

this issue has existed for the survey’s history or is a new phenomenon. Regardless, if 

interviewers are either not asking the full battery of questions or truncating the questions 

they do ask, it is possible that respondents may not be prompted to relate all the crimes 

they have experienced during the survey’s reference period. 

13 
The objective of this study is to undertake a comprehensive analysis of the current and 

pre-redesign crime screening questions to inform future questionnaire redesign efforts by 

providing a fuller understanding of how the survey’s crime screening process has 

operated. 

Other activities 

An important part of BJS’s research program is meeting with stakeholders to determine 

how information collected in a victimization survey can best serve their needs. In 2009, a 

meeting was held with representatives of Statistical Analysis Centers; state agencies that 

collect, analyze, and disseminate justice data. BJS is planning additional meetings in 

2009 and 2010 with representatives from law enforcement agencies, federal agencies and 

the academic research community. 

BJS has also met with representatives from the Federal Committee on Statistical Methods 

and staff from other federal agencies that conduct major household surveys to understand 

how they have redesigned surveys. 

Next Steps 

Because the goal is to restore the survey’s ability to meet its mandated purposes and 

explore ways to augment its utility, activities are underway to explore enhancing the 

precision and quality of the data produced by the current survey. BJS is working with the 

Census Bureau to explore the feasibility of reintroducing sample that had been removed 

in previous years, to reintroduce and enhance some of the quality control measures that 

had been cut and to develop the survey’s paradata about the data collection process. 

In FY2010 BJS will extend the examination of subnational estimates, explore different 

sampling strategies as well as begin examination of the incident report questionnaire used 

to record the information about crimes uncovered by the survey’s crime screening 

questions. The subnational study would evaluate whether the national sample could be 

boosted using a lower cost methodology to produce estimates for states or localities. One 

strategy being considered for testing this would be to conduct a truncated version of the 

NCVS in a set of localities (i.e. a shorter questionnaire, and a less expensive mode of 

interview,) and collect administrative data for the areas (such as UCR counts of crimes) 

and evaluate whether the data from the truncated survey in conjunction with the 

administrative data can predict the estimates from the full survey. The results from this 

study would help determine the feasibility of utilizing a multi-frame approach to product 

both national and subnational estimates of the extent, nature and consequences of crime 

victimization. 

In following years, BJS will be working to finalize planning, testing and initial 

implantation of a new survey, including identifying the contractor for data collection and 

processing, designing the sample, re-authoring the instrument for CAPI, and pilot testing. 

The ultimate goal is to implement the redesigned survey in FY 2013 or FY 2014. It is not 

14 
clear yet whether the implementation will include a bridge between the old and new 

surveys. 

Almost forty years ago, in 1972 the new National Crime Survey was a groundbreaking 

enterprise. Twenty years later the redesigned National Crime Victimization Survey was 

considered a state of the art victimization survey. It is BJS’s intention that the current 

efforts will result in a survey with a methodology that restores it to a high level of esteem 

and respect; one that meets its mandated objectives and is sustainable for the decades that 

follow. 

References 

Catalano, S. (2006) Criminal Victimization 2005. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Washington D.C. NCJ-214644. 

Kindermann, C. (1975) Internal LEAA memorandum. As published in Penick, B. & 

Owens, M. (1976). Surveying crime. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 

 Kindermann, C., Lynch, J., Cantor, D. (1997). Effects of the Redesign on Victimization 

Estimates. Technical Report. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington D.C. NCJ-164381. 

National Research Council (2008). Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the 

National Crime Victimization Survey. Panel to Review the Programs of the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics. Groves, R. & Cork, D.L. eds. Committee on National Statistics and 

Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and 

Education. Washington D.C. The National Academies Press. 

Penick, B. & Owens, M. (1976). Surveying crime. Washington, D.C.: National Academy 

Press. 

President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. (1967). 

The Challenge of Crime in A Free Society. U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Washington, D.C. 

Rand, M. (2008). Criminal Victimization 2007. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Washington D.C. NCJ-224390. 

Rand, M. & Catalano S. (2007). Criminal Victimization 2006. U.S. Bureau of Justice 

Statistics. Washington D.C. NCJ-219413. 

Rand, M., Lynch, J., Cantor, D. (1997). Criminal Victimization, 1972-95, Special Report. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington D.C. NCJ-163069 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1 

Table 1. NCVS nonresponse rates for selected demographic groups, 2005 

Overall: 15.7% Among 12-19 year olds 

12-15: 29.0% White male: 31.3% 

16-19: 32.4% Black male: 38.6% 

20-24: 22.0% Other race male: 28.4% 

25-34: 14.6% Hispanic male: 26.8% 

35-49: 14.2% White female: 30.7% 

50-64: 11.7% Black female: 32.6% 

65+ 8.9% Other race female: 28.1% 

Hispanic female: 24.6% 

16