Second Major Redesign of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

• Author: Lynn Langton,James P. Lynch,Michael Planty
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12335
• Date: 01 November 2017
• Published date: 01 November 2017

RESEARCH ARTICLE

REDESIGN OF THE NCVS

Second Major Redesign of the National

Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

Lynn Langton

Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice

Michael Planty

RTI, International

JamesP.Lynch

University of Maryland

Research Summary

Since 1973, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) has served as a key

source of data on the level and nature of crime and its consequences. To keep pace with

the changing landscape of crime, as well as with the technological advances in survey

research, occasional “redesigns” of the survey are necessary to modernize and improve

the utility of data collected.

Policy Implications

This article describes recent and ongoing efforts to redesign (a) the NCVS survey

instruments to reflect the changing demographics of victims, emerging crime types, and

timely issues related to victimization risk and victim responses to crime and (b) the

NCVS sample to generate state and local estimates of crime. The implications of these

improvements for researchers and policy makers are discussed.

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is a major source of crime statis-

tics and of data for the analysis of victimization risk, consequences of victimization,

and responses to crime.1The survey has been ongoing since 1973, resulting in a

Direct correspondence to James P. Lynch, University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal

Justice, 2220 Samuel J. LeFrak Hall, 7251 Preinkert Drive, College Park, MD 20742 (e-mail: jlynch14@umd.edu).

1. The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent the official views or position of the

U.S. Department of Justice.

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12335 C2017 American Society of Criminology 1049

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 16 rIssue 4

Research Article Redesign of the NCVS

long series of annual estimates of crime through use of its reasonably consistent methodology

(Baumer and Lauritsen, 2010; Biderman and Lynch, 1991; Lynch, 1990). As such, we are

provided with an important picture of long- and short-term changes in the crime problem

and society’s responses to it. At the same time, the survey has been continuously changed

to keep pace with fluctuations in budgets, demands for information, and emerging tech-

nology. Episodically, resources have become available to undertake more extensive research

and development for the survey and to make changes that cannot be accommodated within

typical budget constraints. The ideas and information generated during these “redesigns”

result in changes to the design and content of the survey that are gradually introduced into

the survey over several years to preserve the quality of the data and the time series, as well as

to keep the survey abreast of changes in crime and reactions to crime. This article begins by

briefly discussing the contributions of prior NCVS redesigns before focusing on the latest

redesign of the survey and the benefits that these changes bring for crime statistics, as well

as for the analysis of victimization risk and responses to victimization.

Unique Contribution of Victimization Surveys to Crime Statistics

The demand for and the value of victimization surveys resides in their independence from

official police statistics, the ability to capture the hidden or “dark figure” of unreported

crime, and the fact that they are a unique source of information on rarely reported incident

outcomes. The victim’s perspective is free from the social and bureaucratic filters affecting

official records (Biderman and Reiss, 1967). Furthermore, although 18,000 local law en-

forcement agencies attend to local laws and policies in recording crimes, national surveys

allow for greater standardization of data collection. Theoretically, the NCVS records and

classifies a victim who experiences a violent assault with a weapon by a 17-year-old in the

same manner regardless of whether the victim resides in Syracuse, St. Louis, or San Diego.

In addition, crime surveys offer comparable data on victims and nonvictims that facilitates

risk analysis, whereas police administrative records by themselves do not.

The hidden figure of crime not reported to the police severely limits the use of police

statistics for understanding the magnitude of crime, and introduces a potential distortion

into our understanding of who is at risk for victimization. This hidden figure constitutes

a substantial proportion of crime, particularly among many of the crimes of most concern

to the public. Overall, approximately half of serious violent crime—rape, robbery, and

aggravated assault—goes unreported to law enforcement with just 1 in 3 rape victims,

2 in 3 intimate partner victims, and 2 in 3 victims of firearm violence reporting their

victimizations (Planty and Truman, 2013; Truman and Langton, 2015). Additionally,

certain victims may be less likely to report to police. The gay and lesbian community,

undocumented residents, and other vulnerable populations, for example, may be less likely

to seek help after an experience out of fear of retribution. This selectivity can bias the

description and understanding of these crime events.

1050 Criminology & Public Policy