Measuring Crime Victimization - PTV Chapter 2 PDF

Chapter 2 Measuring Crime Victimization – What The Data Tells Us Objectives Upon completion of this chapter, you will be able to: • understand different measurements of crime victimization, • think critically about differences in measures and conceptualization of the victmization in official and...

Chapter 2 Measuring Crime Victimization – What The Data Tells Us Objectives Upon completion of this chapter, you will be able to: • understand different measurements of crime victimization, • think critically about differences in measures and conceptualization of the victmization in official and unofficial statistics, and • discuss the intersection of data, politics, and media and how it influences public perception of crime and fear of victimization. Introduction Believe it or not, we all utilize statistics on a daily basis. However, the data we often use and interpret in victimology and crime victimization come from many different sources, including news media and governmental officials. In fact, the common perception about crime and deviance, offenders and their victims, is largely shaped by the news and popular media. The proliferation of technology in our daily lives, such as the increasing use of surveillance cameras in public spaces, provides the media with an unprecedented access to images of crimes as they happen. The media also provides the public a frontrow seat to the criminal justice system when cameras are allowed in the courtroom. While this has helped to increase the public’s awareness about crime and victims’ experiences, the stories we hear from the popular media, as well as from our elected officials, do not always present an objective portrait of crime or victimization. Both the 23 popular media and politicians are very selective about what crime victimization stories they highlight, typically focusing on only those crimes that are currently viewed as a threat to law, order, morality, and social control. Consequently, they socially construct the image and magnitude of the crime problems and victimization for the general public. Yet, the data derived from governmental agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) arrest data, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Surveys (NCVS), as well as other unofficial surveys do not always align with what popular media and elected officials are telling us. So, it is critical for the public to educate themselves by reviewing actual crime and victimization data to get a more accurate picture. This chapter provides the reader with an overview of crime and victimization statistics drawn from official data and national surveys, covering a wide-range of types of crime and demographics. The chapter is divided into two sections. The first part provides an overview of how crime victimization is measured in the United States, and examines what the data from each source seems to tell us about the crime rate, the scale of victimization, and its trends over time. It highlights some of the differences in measures and conceptualization of the offenses in official and unofficial statistics, and points out their limitations. The second section examines the intersection of politics, media, and data; and, discusses how politicians and popular media’s portrayal of crime statistics and/or victims’ stories can affect the public’s attitudes towards victims, as well as increase their fear of crime. Measuring Crime and Crime Victimization 24 What is crime and crime victimization? How is crime measured? How much crime is committed in different geographical locations and over what time? What approaches and methods are available for measuring crime and crime victimization? These and other questions must be asked to gain information about crime prevalence, crime victims, and consequences of crime; and enable us to compare crime and victimization rates over time and across different jurisdictions. One of the starting points for those who are interested in the measurement of crime and crime victimization involves defining the phenomena. Without a specific definition of crime, a precise measurement of crime and crime victimization is impossible. In general terms, the legal definition of crime is any wrongdoing classified by the state or federal government as a violation against a public law. In reality, however, the legal definition of crime has proven to be more fluid. Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and sometimes change over time causing some behaviors to become a part of our legal statutes and language, while others are eliminated from a legal lexicon. Hence, many scholars argue that crime is a socially constructed phenomenon and is created by social forces in society that may change our responses to such behavior. This malleable nature of the legal definitions of crime may lead to an unrealistic picture of the scope, nature, and causes of crime. Thus, the change in what constitutes a crime has an impact on our perception of the crime rate and scale of crime victimization. While it is almost impossible to accurately measure the scope and change in crime, some national programs have been developed to track the extent of crime and crime victimization over the time and place. 25 Uniform Crime Report The gathering of police arrest data into a centralized data system managed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation is referred to as the Uniform Crime Report (UCR). The UCR was initiated in 1930 as a uniform way to collect, publish, and house crime data for law enforcement administration and management. Today, over 16,000 city, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies (99 percent of all law enforcement agencies in the U.S.) voluntarily participate in the program each year (FBI, 2018). The UCR collects official crime data on crimes reported to the police, as well as arrests, and then categorizes it into two parts. Part I, often referred to as the Index Offenses, is comprised of eight serious crimes: homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larcenytheft, motor vehicle theft, and arson (FBI, 2018). Part II offenses of the UCR include data for 21 additional types of offenses, and are comprised of low-level offenses, including: simple assault, forgery and counterfeiting, curfew offenses and loitering, embezzlement, disorderly conduct, driving under the influence, drug offenses, fraud, gambling, liquor offenses, offenses against the family, prostitution, public drunkenness, runaways, sex offenses, stolen property, vandalism, vagrancy, and weapons offenses. The UCR statistics are reported in two main formats: crime volume and crime rate. Crime volume is a simple way to report a count of the number of crimes that occurred and is known to law enforcement agencies in a specific jurisdiction in any given year. Crime rate is a relative number, and is generally reported in terms of rates per 100,000 people in the population. The crime rate is often used for comparison among jurisdictions even though the FBI warns against comparing crime rates and ranking jurisdictions into “safe” and “unsafe” categories. Other factors such as poverty, 26 urbanization, and population density, unemployment, and other social and economic factors may influence law enforcement agencies and consequently influence the crime rate. One of the benefits of the UCR is that researchers are able to use the data to identify patterns and trends in crime over time, as well as across jurisdictions. For example, as illustrated by Figure 1, one can quickly discern that the majority of crimes reported to law enforcement involve property crimes, and that overall, crime has been largely declining for the past 15 years. Looking more closely at the data, however, we can see two notable trends. First, the number of property crimes reported to the police have consistently dropped every year, for the past five years (see Figure 2). However, a different trend is observed with violent crime. As illustrated in Figure 3, the number of violent crimes reported to the police actually started to increase in 2015, and then began to decline in 2017. Some of the reasons offered for the temporary rise in violent crime is believed to be attributed to the spike in homicides in a handful of large cities (e.g., Chicago, Baltimore, St. Louis, etc.), as well to what some researchers have asserted is a “crisis in police legitimacy,” particularly among disadvantaged minority communities following a number of high-profile police brutality and use-of-force cases (Lartey & Li, 2019). Thus, individuals who fall victim to a violent crime in such communities may be more reluctant to report such incidents to the police. Fortunately, the number of violent crimes have once again dropped for the past two years, and researchers have noted that current levels of violent crime are more than 50% lower than since their peak in the 1990s (Lartey & Li, 2019). 27 Figure 1. [ INSERT FIGURE - Part I OFFENSES REPORTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2000-2018 ] Figure 2. [ INSERT FIGURE – PROPERTY CRIMES REPORTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, FIVE YEAR TREND] Figure 3. [ INSERT FIGURE – VIOLENT CRIMES REPORTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, FIVE YEAR TREND] Other notable patterns emerge when examining the data for the most recent year. In 2018, a total of 8,402,881 serious crimes were reported to law enforcement, of which approximately 86% (n = 7,196,045) were for a property crime and 14% (n = 1,206,836) were for a violent crime (FBI, 2018). Thus, approximately six times as many property crimes were reported to the police than violent crimes. The majority of the property crimes reported were for larceny-theft (see Figure 4). In fact, the number of larceny-thefts reported to police were four times greater than all of the violent crimes combined. Yet, it is violent crime that receives the greatest amount of attention. While the public’s greatest concern center around the most serious types of violent crime (e.g., homicide, rape), both are relatively rare events. As illustrated by Figure 4, the overwhelming majority of 28 violent crimes reported to police involve aggravated assault, followed by robbery. Homicides in fact make up only 1% of all violent crimes. Figure 4. [ INSERT FIGURE – CRIMES REPORTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, BY TYPE AND PERCENTAGE, 2018 ] While rape made up approximately 10% of all violent crimes reported to police in 2018, this number needs more careful attention. In 2013, the Department of Justice amended the definition of rape for the UCR. For the previous eighty years, rape was defined as the “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” Advocates, victims and their supporters, as well as many law enforcement officials argued for decades that such a definition artificially suppressed the statistics because it only included female victims, required the use of force in the commission of the act, and only vaginal pentration (FBI, 2014). Thus, it excluded a long list of other sexual offenses that would defined as a serious felony in most other jurisdictions, as well as male victims. Finally, in 2013, the definition was amended to now state, “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim” (FBI, 2014). Consequently, since the adoption of the new definition, the number of rapes reported in the UCR have increased by roughly one-third each year (see Figure 5). Figure 5. 29 [ INSERT FIGURE – IMPACT OF CHANGE OF RAPE DEFINITION ] The FBI also releases a few supplemental reports each year that focus on specific crimes – a supplemental homicide report, a report on the number of law enforcement officers killed and assaulted, the number of reported hate crimes, and the national incident based reporting system. In 2009, Congress passed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which in part mandated the FBI to begin tracking the number of hate crimes commited by or directed against juveniles (FBI, 2018). Victims of hate crimes are targeted for either their race or ethnicity, their sexual orientation, their religious affiliation, or physical and/or mental disabilities. These incidents can involve crimes against persons (e.g., assault, homicide), crimes against property (e.g., vandalism, arson, etc.), or both. In 2013, the FBI expanded the data to include victims over the age of 18, and has released a report annually since then. In 2018, personal attacks motivated by bias or prejudice reached an all-time high FBI, 2018). A total of 7,120 incidents of hate crimes were reported involving 8,819 victims (see Figure 6.). The overwhelming majority of these incidents were single-bias (e.g, only one type of victim was the focus of the crime) and the majority were based on racial or ethnic bias. Approximately 1 out of every 2 of the victims of these types of hate crimes were Black (see Figure 7), and White victims were the next largest group. However, another group that has been targeted at increasing rate in the past few years are Hispanics and Latinos. Figure 6. 30 [ INSERT FIGURE 6 – NUMBER OF HATE CRIMES REPORTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, 2018 ] Figure 7. [ INSERT FIGURE 7 – NUMBER OF HATE CRIMES REPORTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, 2018 ] The second most prevalent type of hate crime reported to law enforcement were for religious bias. In 2018, a total of 1,617 victims were targeted because of their religious affiliation (see Figure 8). In 2018, the religious group most often targeted were Jewish victims, with approximately four times as many incidents recorded among this group as for the second most populous group, Muslims. Unfortunately, these numbers are a reflection of a broader, more disturbing trend. Law enforcement officials have noted the number of anti-Semitic hate crimes in the nation’s three largest cities (e.g., New York, Los Angelos, Chicago) were poised to reach their highest level in 2019. Figure 8 [ INSERT FIGURE 8 – NUMBER OF HATE CRIMES REPORTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, BY RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION, 2018 ] Muslims have also been disproportionately victimized by hate crimes. This pattern is markedly different from what researchers observed in the immediate aftermath following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, when there were 93 reported hate 31 crimes against Muslims. While those numbers dropped precipitously in the years that followed, they spiked again in 2016 to 127 and have been trending upwards since (Kishi, 2017). The third most prevalent hate crime reported to law enforcement involved individuals who were targeted because of either their sexual orientation or gender identity. In 2018, a total of 1,634 victims experienced this type of hate crime (see Figure 9). Over 50% of these victims were gay males. Lesbian women and transgender individuals experienced similar rates of victimization. Interestingly, the second most prevalent incident reported to law enforcement involved a group of LGBTQ individuals. Figure 9. [ INSERT FIGURE 9 – HATE CRIMES REPORTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, BY SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY, 2018 ] National Incident Based Reporting System Although the UCR provides law enforcement and the public with the largest measure of official crime statistics annually, it is not without significant limitations. First, and foremost, it only includes those crimes that are reported to law enforcement. Many crimes, particularly inter-personal crimes, are never reported. Many victims of domestic violence, child abuse, elder abuse, and sexual assault never come forward because they may be struggling with feelings of shame, or they may fear retailiation from their abuser, or both. Thus, the estimates of these crimes have historically been artificially low. Another limitation is that the UCR utilizes a method of reporting in which only the most 32 serious offense is reported for each crime incident (e.g., ‘hierarchy rule’). For example, if during the commission of a robbery, the victim is murdered, only the homicide would be recorded for the UCR. This is problematic because often, multiple offenses are committed simultaneously, thus the less serious crimes will not be reflected in the data. Finally, the UCR presents a fairly narrow scope of crime, as a limited number of offenses are included and measured for Part I and Part II. To improve the overall quality of crime data by law enforcement, the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the FBI sponsored a study of the UCR Program in 1982 with the objective of revising it to meet law enforcement needs into the 21st century (FBI, n.d.). Over the next five years, the agencies worked collaboratively to redesign how crime data would be recorded and reported by law enforcement. These efforts led to more comprehensive and detailed crime statistics being collected on each reported crime incident, and the official launch of the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). NIBRS differs significantly from the UCR in a number of ways. Currently, under the summary system for the UCR, law enforcement authorities aggregate the number of incidents by offense type monthly and report these totals to the FBI. Under incidentbased reporting, agencies provide an individual record for each crime reported. Another significant difference between the two systems is the scope of offenses it collects information on. Currently, the UCR collects offense information on the eight Part I crimes of homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson; and arrest data for 21 additional crime categories (lower-level offenses). Under NIBRS, law enforcement authorities provide information to the FBI on 33 each criminal incident involving 52 specific offenses, including the 8 Part I crimes, and 10 additional offenses for which only arrest data is provided. Each offense is classified into one of three categories: crimes against persons, crimes against property, or crimes against society (FBI, 2012).1 And finally, and arguably, the greatest difference between NIBRS and the UCR is the level of detail it collects about each incident. For each incident, NIBRS includes incident date and time, whether reported offenses were attempted or completed, expanded victim types, relationships of victims to offenders and offenses, demographic details, location data, property descriptions, drug types and quantities, the offender’s suspected use of drugs or alcohol, the involvement of gang activity, and whether a computer was used in the commission of the crime (FBI, n.d.). Thus, it is able to provide law enforcement with more information about circumstances and context for each crime incident. In 2018, approximately 44% of the law enforcement agencies that participated in the UCR program submitted data to NIBRS (FBI, n.d.). These agencies reported 5.4 million incidents, which included 6 million criminal offenses and approximately 4.5 million victims (FBI, 2018). Sixty-one percent of the incidents involved property crimes, 23% involved crimes against persons, and 16% involved crimes against society (e.g., animal cruelty, gambling, prostitution, etc.). Over one-half of the victims were female, and approximately one-quarter of the victims were betweeen the ages of 21-30. Most notably, over 50% of the victims knew at least one of their offenders, and 24% of the 1 Crimes against persons involve victims who are always indivdiuals; crimes against property are intended to obtain money or property; and, crimes against society represent society’s prohibition against engaging in certain types of activity; they are typically victimless crimes in which property is not the object (FBI, 2012). 34 victims were related to their perpetrator. Nearly two-thirds of the perpetrators identified by the victim were male, and the majority (42%) of perpetrators were between the ages of 16-30 (FBI, 2018). The benefit to this level of detail about each incident is that provides law enforcement with greater context to specific crime problems (e.g., sex offenses, identity theft, drug offenses, etc.), and allows them to see many more facets of crime, and the relationships and connections between those facets. Armed with such information, law enforcement can better define the resources it needs to fight crime, as well as use those resources in the most efficient and effective manner. Therefore, to aid law enforcement agencies in this endeavor, the FBI has committed to the nationwide implementation of NIBRS by 2021 and discontinuing the UCR program (FBI, n.d.). National Crime Victimization Survey The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) was introduced in 1973 as an attempt to address the limitations of the UCR data, and is the primary source of national crime victimization data (National Crime Victims’ Rights Week [NCVRW], 2017). Every year, household survey data is collected by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Interviews are conducted either in person or over the telephone. In 2018, approximately 151,000 households were randomly selected, and each individual living in the home who is over the age of twelve was interviewed (Morgan & Oudekerk, 2019). Overall, 73% of eligible households completed an interview, and 82% of the eligible persons within the household (n = 35 242,928) completed an interview. These participants will remain in the sample for three years, and be re-interviewed every six months (NCVRW, 2017). The interviews rely on self-reported victimization of: aggravated and simple assault, robbery, rape, sexual assault, household burglary, trespassing, theft, and motor vehicle theft (NCVRW, 2017), and gathers information on crimes both reported and not reported to law enforcement, and describes the reasons victims gave for reporting or not reporting; and includes questions about the victim’s experiences with the criminal justice system. The NCVS also collects demographic information about both victims and offenders (e.g., age, sex, race/ethnicity, marital status, income, relationship between victim and offender), as well as details about the incident, including time and place, use of weapons, nature of injury, and economic impact. In addition, the NCVS will periodically collect supplementary information about specific crimes, such as stalking and school crime, and release it with its annual report (NCVRW, 2017). In 2018, a total of 19,888,360 victimizations were reported in the NCVS, of which 68% involved a property crime and 32% involved a violent crime (see Figure 6).2 Over three-quarters of the property crimes reported were for theft (n = 10,329,210). Approximately 3.3 million individuals age 12 and older reported 6.4 million violent crimes, of which 63% were a victim of simple assault (see Figure 7). Figure 10. 2 Approximately 9 million households reported 13.5 million incidents of property victimization. The NCVS does not include a count of the number of individuals who were a victim of a property crime, as it does with violent crime. Rather, if any respondent states they had been a victim of a property offense in the prior year, the incident is classified as a crime againstthe entire household (Morgan & Oudekerk, 2019). 36 [ INSERT FIGURE – NUMBER OF PROPERTY V. VIOLENT CRIMES, 2018 ] Figure 11. [ INSERT FIGURE – NUMBER OF VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME, BY TYPE ] Unfortunately, 1.3 million individuals were a victim of a serious violent crime in 2018. Over 50% were a victim of aggravated assault, over one-quarter were a victim of robbery, and approximately one-fifth were a victim of either a rape or sexual assault3 (see Figure 8). While the majority of these victims were adults over the age of 25, nearly onequarter of the victims were between the ages of 12-24 (Morgan & Oudekerk, 2019). And, only 43% of the indivduals who were a vicim of a violent crime reported the crime to law enforcement (Morgan & Oudekerk, 2019). Figure 12. [ INSERT FIGURE – PERCENTAGE OF PERSONS WHO WERE VICTIMS OF SERIOUS VIOLENT CRIME] When comparing these figures to those reported in the UCR, a stark difference emerges between the two measures. Far more incidents occurred than were actually reported to law enforcement. In terms of property offenses, nearly twice as many were 3 In addition to rape and attempted rape, the NCVS also asks respondents if they had been a victim of a sexual assault, which includes attacks or threatened attacks, involving unwanted sexual contact between the victim and offender. Sexual assault may or may not include the use of force (Morgan & Oudekerk, 2019). 37 reported in the NCVS (13,582,840) than in the UCR (7,196,045). Similar discrepancies can be observed for residential burglaries (NCVS: 1,724,720 v. UCR: 1,230,149), however, a greater number of motor vehicle thefts were reported in the UCR (748,841) than in the NCVS (534,010) (see Figure 9). Figure 13. [ INSERT FIGURE – NUMBER OF PROPERTY VICTIMIZATIONS, BY TYPE OF CRIME, UCR V. NCVS ] Similar patterns are observed with violent crimes. In every instance, more violent crimes are reported in the NCVS than in the UCR. As illustrated in Figure 10, nearly five times as many rapes and twice as many robberies were reported in the NCVS than in the UCR. While the number of aggravated assaults reported in the NCVS similarly exceed what was reported in the UCR, the disparity between the two numbers is not as significant. These differences, however, may be somewhat distorted due to the lack of continuity between the two measures. Figure 14. [ INSERT FIGURE – NUMBER OF VIOLENT VICTIMIZATIONS, BY TYPE OF CRIME, UCR V. NCVS, 2018] One of the major reasons for such differences is that the NCVS reports both crimes that are and are not reported to law enforcement, whereas the UCR is based exclusively on crimes known to law enforcement. Moreover, both measures do not 38 collect data on the same crimes. The UCR includes murder, non-negligent manslaughter, and commercial crimes (including burglary of commercial establishments), while the NCVS excludes these crimes; and the NCVS includes sexual assault while the UCR does not (Morgan & Ouderkerk, 2019). The NCVS’ estimates are also based on interviews with persons from a nationally representative sample, whereas the UCR’s estimates are based on counts of crimes reported by law enforcement. And finally, the NCVS uses different definitions of certain crimes. For example, the UCR defines burglary as the unlawful entry or attempted entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft. The NCVS, not wanting to ask victims to ascertain offender motives, defines burglary as the entry or attempted entry of a residence by a person who had no right to be there (FBI, 2017). And, as noted previously, the NCVS includes sexual assault along with rape and attempted rape, which the UCR excludes. While the NCVS has successfully addressed several weaknesses of the UCR and helped shine a light on the ‘dark figure of crime’ researchers often talk about, it too has several limitations. First, the NCVS does not measure crimes against children 11 and younger, nor does it measure crimes against persons who are homeless, incarcerated, or in a health care facility; all of which, are highly vulnerable populations for victimization. It also does include households on military bases. And similar to the UCR, the NCVS does not include victimization data due to white-collar and corporate crimes. To address these limitations, the NCVS is currently undergoing a major redesign (NCVRW, 2017). Over the next few years, it hopes to provide sub-national estimates so researchers will be able to compare victimization estimates across the 22 largest states. It is also working to moderninize the socio-demographic information it collects from participants to reflect 39 victimization by sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, and citizenship; and, expand the information collected about formal and informal help-seeking behavior, issues related to fear of crime, and perceptions of neighborhood disorder and police performance. And finally, it is going to expand the type of crimes collected in the survey to include stalking and fraud. National Intimate Partner & Sexual Violence Survey In 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published the first National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NIPSV) to better describe and monitor the magnitude of intimate partner violence (IPV)4 in the United States (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 2010). It is now an ongoing, nationally representative telephone survey that collects detailed information on IPV, sexual violence, and stalking victimization of adult men and women ages 18 and older in the U.S; and, collects data on past-year and lifetime experiences for each type of violence and asks respondents about the impact of their experiences (e.g., type of injury suffered, being fearful or concerned for one’s safety, if experienced any symptoms of PTSD, missing days of school or work, etc.) (CDC, 2010).5 The estimates presented in the 2015 report are based on a total of 10,081 completed interviews. 4 NISVS defines initimate partner violence to include physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression (including coercive tactics) by a current or former intimate partner (e.g., romantic or sexual partner) (CDC, 2010). 5 In addition to its standard report, the CDC has also released special and supplemental reports to the NIPSVS on victimization by sexual orientation, and the consequence of IPV on health outcomes and impact on public health and social services. 40 Lifetime and one-year estimates for IPV, SV, and stalking are alarmingly high for adults in the United States, with IPV alone affecting more than 12 million people each year (CDC, 2018). As illustrated in Figures 11, women are disproportionately affected by IPV, SV, and stalking when compared to men. Over the course of their lifetime, approximately 44 million women were victims of intimate partner violence, over 52 million were victims of some form of contact sexual violence, and approximately 19 million were victims of stalking. Men also experienced high rates of IPV, SV, and stalking over the course of their lifetime. According to the 2015 data, 1 out of every 10 men have been a victim of IPV, 1 out of 14 had experienced a completed or attempted rape, and 1 out of 17 had been stalked during his lifetime (see Figures 12 and 13) Figure 15. [ INSERT FIGURE – PREVALENCE OF IPV, SV, AND STALKING OVER LIFETIME, BY GENDER] Figure 16. [ INSERT FIGURE – PREVALENCE OF IPV IN LIFETIME BY GENDER ] Figure 13 [INSERT FIGURE – PREVALENCE OF SV IN LIFETIME BY GENDER] 41 Unfortunately, the data also revealed that majority of this victimization starts early in life (CDC, 2018). Among female victims of IPV, nearly 26% reported that they first experienced this type of violence before the age of 18; and, approximately 15% of male victims of IPV reported to have experienced this type of violence for the first time prior to the age of 18 (CDC, 2018). More disturbing patterns emerge from the data when examinning age of onset for sexual violence. Among female victims of completed or attempted rape, over 43% reported that it first occurred prior to the age of 18, and approximately 13% reported that it first occurred at the age of 10 or younger (CDC, 2018). Similar patterns are found among male victims of completed or attempted rape. Approximately 51% reported that it first occurred prior to the age of 18, and approximately 26% reported that it first occurred at the age of 10 or younger (CDC, 2018). While the NIPSVS is considered to be one of the most comprehensive sources of information on intimate partner violence and sexual violence, it does have a few limitations. First, since it is a telephone-based survey in which participants are selected by random-digit dialing, not everyone who was called agreed to participate. For this most recent survey, only about 1 in every 4 individuals contacted by phone agreed to participate (CDC, 2018). While this reflects a low response rate, nearly 90% of those who agreed to participate completed the survey. Second, the NISVS is designed as a household survey, similar to the NCVS; therefore, individuals who are institutionalized, residing in shelters, or living on military bases are excluded. Third, given the reliance on self-reports, the estimates presented are likely to be underestimates of the true prevalend of IPV, SV, and stalking. Many victims choose not to disclose these types of experiences 42 out of fear, shame, or stigma. Others may not be able to recall accurately incidents from their past. And finally, the survey can not capture every type of victimization. For example, the questions about unwanted sexual experiences does not include noncontact unwanted sexual experiences (e.g., sexual harassment). National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence In 2007, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, launched a national survey to document the incidence and prevalence of children’s exposure to violence, with particular attention to domestic and community violence (Crimes Against Children Research Center (CACRC), n.d.). In addition to measuring the incidence and prevalence of children’s exposure to violence in the United States, the survey collects data on the rates of exposure by demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, age, family structure), the characteristics of each incident (e.g., severity of event, child’s relationship to perpetrator), the co-occuring nature or ‘clustering’ of violence exposure, the impact of varying levels and types of violence exposure on a child’s mental health, the extent to which children disclose incidents of violence to different individuals, and the nature and source of assistance or treatment the child received (CACRC, n.d). Phone interviews are conducted with a nationally representative sample of 4,500 households with children ages birth to 17.6 One target child is randomly selected from each eligible household, and permission is secured from the child’s caregiver. If the child 6 To capture more high-risk children, households from high-risk communities are oversampled (CACRC, n.d.) 43 selected is younger than 10, a proxy interview is conducted with the adult in the household who is most familiar with the child’s activities. Interviews are conducted in both English and Spanish. In 2014, nearly 2 out of 3 children under the age of 17 were exposed to violence within the past year, either directly (as victims) or indirectly (as witnesses) (Child Trends Data Bank, 2016). As illustrated in Figure 13, over the course of their lifetime, 50% of children had been physically assaulted, 25% suffered some form of maltreatment, 8% had been sexually assaulted, 38% had witnessed violence in their homes and communities, and 20% had witnessed an incident of IPV by a family member. The researchers also found that children who were exposed to one type of violence were significantly at higher-risk of experiencing other types of violence, illustrating the potential for chronic exposure to violence for many of these youth (Child Trends Data Bank, 2016) Figure 17. [ INSERT FIGURE – CHILDREN’S LIFETIME EXPOSURE TO VIOLENCE, BY TYPE ] Except for physical assault, all types of exposure to violence was more common among older children (ages 14-17). The greates incidence of physical assault was most common among children between ages of 6 – 9 (Child Trends Bank, 2016). A few notable differences were also observed by gender. Males were more likely to be physically assaulted and to witness violence in the community; whereas, females were 44 more likely to be sexually assaulted and witness an incident of IPV by a family member (see Figure 15) (Child Trends Bank, 2016). Figure 18. [INSERT FIGURE – CHILDREN’S LIFETIME EXPOSURE TO VIOLENCE, BY TYPE & GENDER ] While this survey captures critical information about children’s exposure to violence in the United States, these findings likely understate their actual exposure because the children may be reluctant to disclose certain incidents out of fear or shame, or may have difficulty remembering a specific incident (Child Trends Data Bank, 2016). Similarly, for youth under age 11, family members may not be aware of every incident their child has been exposed to, or may be reticent to disclose certain incidents (or may minimize particular incidents) that implicate their or another family member’s involvement. National Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillence System (YRBSS) was developed in 1990 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to monitor health behaviors that contribute significantly to the leading causes of death, disability, and social problems among youth and young adults in th United States (CDC, 2018). The purpose of the survey is fourfold: to describe the prevalence of health-risk behavior among youth; assess trends in health behaviors over time, as well as examine the co-occurrence of said 45 behaviors; provide comparable national, state, territorial, tribal, and local data, as well as data among subpopulations of youth; and, to evaluate and improve health related policies and programs. While it may seem unusual that this data has been used to measure victimization among youth, violence has been declared to be a significant public health concern. Since 1965, homicide and suicide have consistently been among the top 15 leading causes of death in the United States (CDC, 2009). Moreover, the data shows the risk of each of these specific causes of death is disproportionately higher among youth and members of minority groups, particularly among young African-American males. Therefore, in 1979, the Surgeon General of the United States released a report that classified violence as a public health crisis, and mandated it to be one of the 15 priority areas to focus on to improve the nation’s overall health and well-being (CDC, 2009). The survey is conducted every two years with a representative sample of students in grades 9 – 12 in public and private schools in the United States. Since its introduction in 1991, it has collected data from more than 4.4 million high school students (CDC, 2018). In 2017, approximately 15,000 high school students participated in the survey. In 2017, the most common form of victimization high students reported was bullying – 19% reported to have been bullied at school, and 15% reported to have been bullied electronically (see Figure 16). Six percent of students surveyed reported to have been threatened or injured with a weapon at school, and approximately 7% reported they stayed home from school at least once because they feared for their safety (see Figure 17). Figure 19. 46 [ INSERT FIGURE – PREVALENCE OF BULLYING AMONG 9TH-12 GRADE STUDENTS ] Figure 20. [ INSERT FIGURE – PREVALENCE OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE AMONG 9TH-12 GRADE STUDENTS ] A small but significant number of students also reported being a victim of intimate partner violence. Eight percent reported being a victim of physical dating violence, and 7% reported being a victim of sexual dating violence (see Figure 18). And, over 7% of students reported they had been physically forced to have sexual intercourse when they did not want to. Figure 21. [ INSERT FIGURE – PREVALENCE OF DATING AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE AMONG 9TH-12TH GRADE STUDENTS ] As with the other surveys that have had to rely on participants self-reporting their experiences with victimization, particularly those incidents involving intimate partner violence and sexual violence, researchers generally believe these estimates are underreported. Youth, in particular, are much more reticent about reporting IPV and sexual violence than adults (O’Grady & Matthews-Creech, 2020). A youth may blame him or herself for the incident, may fear retaliation from their perpetrator and/or their 47 peers, may be struggling with feelings of extreme shame, or all of the above. Hence, they may perceive it to be safer to remain silent. Another limitation is that the survey only includes youth who attend school, and are enrolled in high-school. Thus, the estimates can not be generalized to all youth. To address this gap, the CDC has administered a number of supplemental surveys with specific subpopulations that are excluded from the YBRSS. These include a survey of middle school students (grades 6-8) in interested states, territories, tribal governments, and large urban school districts; a nationally representative survey of students in alternative high schools; and, a nationally representative survey of undergraduate students (CDC, 2018). National Child Abuse and Neglect Data The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) was established in 1988 in response to the Child Abuse and Prevention and Treatment Act (Children’s Bureau, 2018). The purpose was to create a central database to collect information on the number of incidents of child maltreatment reported to Child Protective Services agencies across the United States, as well as in Washington DC and the U.S. territories (Children’s Bureau, 2018). Each year, the Children’s Bureau submits a report to Congress that summarizes the incidence and prevalence of child abuse and neglect in the nation and its territories. This data allows researchers and lawmakers to assess for patterns and trends of child abuse and neglect. Although each state has its own defintions of child abuse and neglect that are based on standards set by federal law, the minimum standard states “any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical 48 or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm” (Children’s Bureau, 2018, p.viii). The data included in NCANDS therefore reflects all referrals received by Child Protective Services (CPS) for an allegation of abuse and neglect. Once a referral is made, CPS screens the case and makes a determination whether to file a formal report or to dismiss (Children’s Bureau, 2018). If a report is filed, CPS then makes a determination whether the case requires a formal investigation to determine if a child was maltreated or is at-risk of maltreatment, and establishes whether an intervention is needed. The majority of reports are forwarded for investigation, however some reports receive alternative responses, which focus primarily upon the needs of the family rather than focus on a determination if the child was maltreated (Children’s Bureau, 2018). NCANDS collects case-level data on all children who had a report filed with CPS. The data includes information about the characteristics of screened-in referrals (e.g., reports) of abuse and neglect that are made to CPS agencies, the children and perpetrators involved, the types of maltreatment they suffered, the dispositions of the CPS responses, the risk factors of the child and the caregivers, and the services that are provided (Children’s Bureau, 2018). In 2018, CPS agencies received a total of 4.3 million referrals alleging abuse and neglect involving 7.8 million children (see Figure 19) (Children’s Bureau, 2018). Among those referrals, approximately 56% were screened-in and approximately 45% of the children received either an investigation or an alternative response. In sum, approximately 19% of those children were found to be victims of abuse and neglect. 49 Over three-quarters (78%) of the perpetrators of such incidents were the child’s parent (Children’s Bureau, 2018). Figure 22. [ INSERT FIGURE – OFFICIAL REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT ] The majority of children (85%) suffered from a single maltreatment type. Over three-quarters of the children were found to be neglected, 18% had been physically abused, and approximately 9% had been sexually abused (Children’s Bureau, 2018). Children in their first year of life were at the highest risk for maltreatment, and females were moderately more at risk than males. Sadly, in 2018, 1,770 children died from abuse and neglect, with nearly one-half of those fatalities involving a child under the age of 1. Many of the limitations noted previously in regard to estimates drawn from other sources of official data, such as the UCR, are similarly applicable to NCANDS. First, and foremost, a referral has to made to CPS to start the process in determining whether a child has been abused or neglected. If no one reports it to authorities, it can not be captured in the data. Sadly, many incidents of child maltreatment remain in the shadows. Additionally, even when such cases do come to the attention of the authorities, not all of them are investigated. Due to limited resources, typically it is the most serious cases that garner the most attention. Therefore, some children may be screened out despite the fact they have suffered some form of maltreatment. Thus, researchers assert that the true estimates of child maltreatment are likely to be much larger than what is reflected in the official data. 50 National Public Survey on White Collar Crime Although the public generally believes that the greatest threat to their person and property comes from street crime, many will fall victim to a white-collar crime. White collar crime has been defined as the “illegal or unethical acts that violate fiduciary responsibility and public trust for personal or organizational gain.” (National White Collar Crime Center, 2010). Such a definition covers both individual and organizational offenders; and encompasses a wide range of offenses, such as embezellment, money laundering, insurance fraud, identity theft, internet fraud. Unfortunately, many of these crimes involve significant financial losses for their victims. For example, a survey conducted on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission on the prevalence of identity theft in the United States revealed 3.7% of adults (est. 3 million) reported they had been a victim of identity theft in the previous year, resulting in over $15.6 billion in financial losses for these victims (Synovate, 2007). And on an organization level, researchers and lawmakers now know the global financial crisis in 2008 was linked to the fraudulent lending activities by the mortgage industry (National White Collar Crime Center, 2010). There are numerous forms of white-collar crime, and the FBI divides these crimes into categories such as money laundering, securities and commodities fraud, bank fraud and embezzlement, environmental crimes, fraud against the government, election law violations, copyright violations, and telemarketing, healthcare, and financial institutions fraud (Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.). However, the UCR figures does not collect socioeconomic or occupational characteristics of offenders, thus the UCR data are limited about the information it makes available on white-collar crime. Consequently, the scope 51 of white-collar crime is largely unknown, and what information is available is often presented by different agencies that vary in their purpose, methodology, and definitions of the said crimes. To try to fill in these gaps, the National White Collar Crime Center created a National Public Survey on White Collar Crime (NPSWCC) to capture information on the prevalence of victimization of white collar crimes among the public, patterns of reporting behaviors, and their perceptions of crime seriousness. The data was collected from a nationally representative sample of over 2,500 adult participants by telephone interviews conducted in English and Spanish. Participants were asked about experiences within their households, s well as their own personal experiences concerning any of the following white collar crimes within the past 12 months - mortgage fraud, credit card fraud, identity theft, unnecesseary home or auto repairs, price misrepresentation, losses due to false stockbroker information, fraudulent business ventures, and Internet scams (National White Collar Crime Center, 2005; 2010). The first report was published in 2005, and a subsequent survey was conducted five years later, and a second report was published in 2010. According to the data, 24% of households and 17% of individuals reported experiencing at least one type of white-collar crime victimizations (National White Collar Crime, 2010). The most common form was credit card fraud, with approximately 40% of the survey respondents reporting that someone in their household had their credit card compromised (National White Collar Crime Center, 2010) (see Figure 20). Nearly 16% reported losing money to an Internet scam and 12% reported be a victim of Identity Theft. 52 Figure 23. [ INSERT FIGURE – HOUSEHOLD VICTIMIZATION BY WHITE COLLAR CRIME ]] Similar to reporting trends observed with other victims, very few of the respondents who stated they had been a victim of a white-collar crime in the previous year reached out to law enforcement. Approximately, only 1 out of 5 of these vctims did so (National White Collar Crime Center, 2010). The most common reporting trend reported was they had called the credit card company (31%). As with other surveys that are reliant on self-reports, the NPSWCC has a number of limitations (National White Collar Crime Center, 2010). Respondents can only report on crimes that they are aware of (e.g., they may have been a part of a fraudulent scheme at the time of the survey but thought it was legitimate, or included as part of large classaction lawsuit but do not realize they were an actual victim). Similarly, they mistakenly think a particular behavior (e.g., being billed for work not completed by a contractor they hired) is a civil rather than a criminal matter. Or, they realize they were a victim of some kind of fraudulent act and choose not to disclose it. Hence, the researchers assert the actual rate of white collar crime victimimzation is likely higher than what is reflected in this report. The Future of Crime and Victimization Research While all of these measures of crime victimization, along with countless other studies on crime victims, has helped us begin to understand the nature and scope of this 53 phenomena in our society, none are able to capture all of the information that we need. Gaps still exist, particularly for emerging crimes, such as human trafficking, Internet crimes, and mass casualty crimes, as well as those involving interpersonal violence, such as elder abuse, intimate partner violence, or child abuse. Research has found that the victim-offender relationship is one of the major factors to affect a victim’s willingness to disclose and to report the crime to authorities. Studies show that an increased social distance between the victim and the offender results in an increased reporting of victimization to the police (Gartner & Macmillan, 1995; Kaukinen, 2002). Bachman (1998) for example, found that victims of rape were more likely to report victimization events to the police when the perpetrator was unknown to them. However, research shows that most sexual assaults, including rape, are committed by someone known to the victim, which tells us that a great number of violent crimes (e.g., rape and sexual assault) go unreported. Thus, researchers must continue to refine their methodology and definitions of victimization to capture larger and more diverse populations of crime victims. But, information alone is still not enough. We have to know how to use this data to help craft policies and practices that will aid crime victims. Unfortunately, as the next section lays out, sometimes this data can be mispresented or manipulated to influence the public’s perception of crime and attitudes about particular victims of crime. The Art of Spinning Statistics: The Intersection of Data, Politics, and the Media Mark Twain was infamously quoted as saying, “There are three kinds of lies – lies, damned lies, and statistics.” In this quote, he expertly captures the persuasive power 54 of numbers, and how people often will use statistics to try to bolster a weak argument. This is commonly referred to as ‘spinning statistics.’ Nowhere is this more evident than in the media and politics, particularly when it comes to crime. As noted in the introduction of this chapter, the public conception of crime is often influenced by media and politics. According to Robinson (2011) the public generally believes that the nature of crime tends to be violent; people fear more street crime rather than white-collar and corporate crime, and even though the violent crime rate is declining, the public perceives it as widespread and out of control. This is largely because the public’s primary source of information for what’s happening in their community comes from news organizations and social media. And sadly, much of what dominate the news cycle are stories about crime, particularly violent crime. There is an old saying in journalism, “if it bleeds, it leads.” Thus, many of the lead stories on broadcast news or placed on the front page of the local newspaper involve some kind of violent crime - a homicide, a shooting, a sexual assault. It permeates our psyche and convinces us that violent crime is rampant in our society. Yet, as illustrated by the data presented in this chapter, there are far fewer violent crimes than non-violent crimes. This trend is supported by both official and unofficial statistics. In 2018, there more than seven times as many property crimes reported to law enforcement than violent crimes (FBI, 2018). And, of the nearly 8.5 million serious crimes reported to the police, homicides made up less than 0.1 percent, and rape made up less than 2 percent. This pattern is also observed in unofficial crime statistics. Of the nearly 20 million crimes reported in the National Crime Victimization Survey, less than one-third (32%) were a violent crime; and, of the violent crimes reported, approximately 12 percent were a rape or sexual assault (NCVS, 2018). Moreover, because the media 55 typically focuses on those crimes that occur within urban city centers, the public’s perception about who is a victim of a crime is similarly distorted. More often than not, stories that involve homicides involve a minority youth or young adult. While AfricanAmericans are disproportionately represented as victims of homicide, there were roughly equal numbers of White and African American homicide victims in 2018 (FBI, n.d.). However, it is not just the media that influences the public’s perception of crime and who are the victims of crime, politicians often use stories presented in the media, or a random crime statistic, to generate fear of crime in their community. As a political pundit once said, “Fear is candy to politicians because it is easy to harness, and it plays on the primal parts of human nature.” (Cuomo, 2020). Thus, some politicians will use official statistics derived from governmental agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) arrest data to draw comparisons across states, cities, and counties in order to identify which jurisdictions are “safe” or “unsafe,” or what type of crimes we should be most worried about. They then use those statistics to ask the public to fund more resources or to support a specific policy they want to enact. A recent example of this can be seen in how some politicians are responding to the immigration issue. In 2019, President Trump passed an Executive Order limiting the number of migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, and asked Congress to reallocate funds to help build more segments of the wall between the United States and Mexico to serve as deterrent to individuals who are seeking to cross the border illegally. The justification he has consistently offered for such actions is that the majority of these individuals are serious, and violent criminals, thus pose a serious threat to the United States. Yet, the data does not support his claims (Zatz & Smith, 2014). In one of the most 56 comprehensive studies to date, Light and Miller (2018) analyzed criminal, socioeconomic, and demographic data from all 50 states and Washington, DC, from 1990 to 2014, and found that undocumented immigration does not increase violence; rather, the relationship between undocumented immigration and violent crime is generally negative. Meaning, cities that had higher proportions of immigrants actually had lower crime rates. Moreover, Bersani and Piquero’s (2016) review of arrest records confirmed that immigrants commit less crime compared to documented immigrants and native-born Americans. But it is not just undocumented immigrants risk of offending that is being mis-portrayed. Data also shows that undocumented immigrants are at greater risk of victimization than native-born people, given their vulnerable status (McDonald, 2018; Zatz & Smith, 2014). None of this is intended to discount the seriousness that violent crime poses to our communities, or the harm it causes for victims and their families. This discussion merely illustrates how our perceptions of the prevalence of crime, and our conceptions about who can be a victim of a crime, can be distorted if we only rely on what we hear from the media or listen to what politicians tell us. There is an abundance of research and data available that can help to create a more realistic portrait of crime and victimization in the United States, and ultimately, to guide us when developing responses to crime and creating solutions to assist those who have been a victim of a crime. Conclusion All of the official and unofficial data on crime victimization profiled in this chapter are valuable sources of information to help us build estimates on the nature and 57 scope of victimization in the United States. However, each of these measures has limitations, thereby impeding our ability to understand the true reality of crime victimization. With emerging types of victimization (e.g., human trafficking, Internet crimes, etc) and underserved populations that are more reluctant to come forward (e.g., elder abuse victims, LGBTQ victims, undocumented immigrant victims, etc.), researchers must refine their definitions and methodologies in order to fill in these missing gaps. But it is not enough to focus on the incidence and prevalence of crime victimization, we must also devote equal attention to studying the impact of victimization on the health and wellbeing of crime victims if we want to create policy and programs that will effectively aid them with their recovery. Thus, victimology is still a young field, and it must continue to evolve and grow in the 21st century. Discussion Questions 1. What are the two largest official data sources of crime and victimization and what is the difference between them? 2. What are some other national surveys conducted on a regular basis to help measure crime victimization? 3. What are some limitations of both official and unofficial crime and victimization data that we use to create policy? 4. How do media depictions of crime influence public attitudes toward crime, victimization, and criminal justice policy? 58 59 References Bachman, R. (1998). The factors related to rape reporting behavior and arrest: New evidence from the national crime victimization survey. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25(1), 8–29. Bersani, B. E., & Piquero, A. R. (2016). Examining systematic crime reporting bias across three immigrant generations: Prevalence, trends, and divergence in selfreported and official reported arrests. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33, 835-857. Centers for Disease Control and Preve