Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:02:34.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Series Victimizations and Divergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2009

Mike Planty
Affiliation:
Senior Research Scientist, RTI International.
James P. Lynch
Affiliation:
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York
Lynn A. Addington
Affiliation:
American University, Washington DC
Get access

Summary

Divergence between annual estimates of crime produced by the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) may be explained, in part, by the way criminal events are classified and counted. One important type of criminal phenomenon, the repeat victim, poses a particularly challenging problem for victimization surveys. Although the definition has been operationalized in a variety of ways, the common denominator in these various definitions is one common factor: a person experiences more than one victimization in a given time period (Farrell, 1995; Pease, 1998). This is important because, unlike official police records that are often produced immediately after or within a few days of a criminal offense, the NCVS “survey method is heavily dependent upon the ability and motivation of the respondent to remember events and report them in the interview situation” (Biderman et al., 1967). Although recall accuracy is a cognitive task for all victims to some degree, it is especially difficult for the repeat victim. They must not only remember and report details of numerous crime events, but they also must not confuse aspects of different events and even treat continuous events as if they were discrete. This is a considerable burden.

To accommodate the high-volume or chronic victim who could report dozens if not hundreds of victimizations, the NCVS developed a process that classifies six or more “similar” victimizations as a series incident (see Chapter 2, this volume).

Type
Chapter
Information
Understanding Crime Statistics
Revisiting the Divergence of the NCVS and the UCR
, pp. 156 - 182
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, D., Chenery, S., & Pease, K. (1995). Biting back: Tackling repeat burglary and car crime (Crime Detection and Prevention Series, Paper 58). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Biderman, A. D. (1980). “Notes on measurement by crime victimization surveys.” In Fienberg, S. E. & Reiss, A. J. Jr. (Eds.), Indicators of crime and criminal justice: Quantitative studies (NCJ-62349). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, pp. 29–32.Google Scholar
Biderman, A. D., Johnson, L. A., McIntyre, J., & Weir, A. W. (1967). Report on a pilot study in the District of Columbia on victimization and attitudes toward law enforcement, President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (Field Surveys I). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Biderman, A. D., & Lynch, J. (1991). Understanding crime incidence statistics: Why the UCR diverges from the NCS. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biderman, A. D., & Reiss, A. J. (1967). “On exploring the ‘dark figure’ of crime.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 374:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridgeman, C., & Hobbs, L. (1997). Preventing repeat victimisation: The police officer's guide. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Buzawa, E., & Austin, T. (1993). “Determining police response to domestic violence victims: The role of victim preference.” American Behavioral Scientist 36:610–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chenery, S., Ellingworth, D., Tseloni, A., & Pease, K. (1996). “Crimes which repeat: Undigested evidence from the British Crime Survey 1992.” International Journal of Risk, Security & Crime Prevention 1:207–216.Google Scholar
Chu, A., Eisenhower, D., Hay, M., Morganstein, D., Neter, J., & Waksberg, J. (1992). “Measuring the recall error in self-reported fishing and hunting activities.” Journal of Official Statistics 8:19–39.Google Scholar
Czaja, R., Blair, J., Bickart, B., & Eastman, E. (1994). “Respondent strategies for recall of crime victimization incidents.” Journal of Official Statistics 10:257–276.Google Scholar
Dodge, R. W. (1984). “Series victimization – what is to be done?” In Lehnen, R. G. & Skogan, W. G. (Eds.), National Crime Survey: Working papers, volume II: Methodological studies (NCJ-90307). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Dodge, R. W. (1987). Series crimes: Report of a field test (Bureau of Justice Statistics Technical Report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Ellingworth, D., Farrell, G., & Pease, K. (1995). “A victim is a victim: Chronic victimisation in four sweeps of the British Crime Survey.” British Journal of Criminology 35:360–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, G. (1995). “Preventing repeat victimization.” In Tonry, M. & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.), Crime and justice: Building a safer society (Vol. 19, 469–534). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Farrell, G., & Pease, K. (1993). Once bitten, twice bitten: Repeat victimisation and its implications for crime prevention (Home Office Crime Prevention Unit Series, No. 46). London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Farrell, G., & Pease, K. (2003). “Measuring and interpreting repeat victimization using police data: A study of burglaries in Charlotte, North Carolina.” Crime Prevention Studies 16:269–285.Google Scholar
Farrell, G., & Sousa, W. (2001). “Repeat victimization and ‘hot spots’: The overlap and its implications for crime prevention and problem-oriented policing.” Crime Prevention Studies 12:221–240.Google Scholar
Farrell, G., Tseloni, A., & Pease, K. (2005). “Repeat victimization in the ICVS and NCVS.” Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal 7:7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fienberg, S. E., & Reiss, A. J. (1980). Indicators of crime and criminal justice: Quantitative studies (NCJ-62349). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Gondolf, E., & McFerron, R. (1989). “Handling battering men: Police action in wife abuse cases.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, 16:429–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, T., & Rennison, C. (2003, March). Reporting crime to the police, 1992–2000. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathiowetz, N. (2000, October). “The effects of length of recall on the quality of survey data.” Invited paper, Fourth Conference on Methodological Issues in Official Statistics, Stockholm, Sweden.
Pease, K. (1998). Repeat victimisation: Taking stock (Crime Prevention and Detection Paper 90). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Pease, K., & Laycock, G. (1996). Reducing the heat on hot victims. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Penick, B., & Owens, M. (1976). Surveying crime.Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Planty, M. (2004). The role of repeat victimization in the production of national annual estimates of violence. Unpublished manuscript prepared for the American Statistical Association and Bureau of Justice Statistics Research Grants Program.Google Scholar
Reiss, A. J. (1986). “Official and survey crime statistics.” In Fattah, E. A. (Ed.), From crime policy to victim policy: Reorienting the justice system (pp. 53–79). New York: MacMillian Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rennison, C. (2002). Criminal victimization 2001: Changes 2000–2001 with trends 1993–2001. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Shenk, F., & McInerney, W. (1981). “Analytic limitations of the National Crime Survey.” In Lehnen, R. G. & Skogan, W. G., The National Crime Survey: Working papers, volume I: Current and historical perspectives (NCJ-75374). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Sherman, L., Gartin, P., & Buerger, M. (1989). “Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place.” Criminology 27: 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, L., & Rogan, D. (1995). “Gun violence: ‘Hot spots’ patrol in Kansas City.” Justice Quarterly 12:673–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, L., & Weisburd, D. (1995). “General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime hot spots: A randomized controlled trial.” Justice Quarterly 12:625–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skogan, W. (1976). “Citizen reporting of crime: Some national panel data.” Criminology 13:535–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skogan, W. (1981). Issues in the measurement of victimization. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Trickett, A., Osborn, D., Seymour, J., & Pease, K. (1992). “What is different about high crime areas?” British Journal of Criminology 32:81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×