.,. u.s, Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics Lifetime Likelihood of Victimization by Het'bert Koppel people's perception of the meaning of BJS Analyst Mat'ch 1987 annual ra tes with respect to their own The Bureau of Justice Statistics lives. If the Earth revolved around the This report provides estimates of the National Crime Survey provides sun in 180 days, all of our annual crime likelihood that a person will become a annual victimization rates based rates would be halved, but we would not victim of crime during his or her life­ on counts of the number of crimes be safer. time, or that a household will be vic­ reported and not reported to timized during a 20-year pel'iod. This police in the United States. These Calculating lifetime victimization fates contrasts with the conventional use of a rates are based on interviews I-year period in measuring crime and twice a year with about lOl,OOO For this report, lifetime likelihoods criminal victimization. Most promi­ persons in approximately 49,000 of victimization were calculated from nently, the National Crime Survey na tionally representative NCS annual victimi.zation rates and life (NCS) surveys a sample of U.S. house­ households. Those annual ra ces, tables published by the National Center 2 holds and publishes annual victimization while of obvious utility to for Health Statistics. The probability rates, and the FBI's Uniform Crime policymakel's, researchers, and that a person will be victimized at a Reports (UCR) provide annual rates of statisticians, do not convey to particular age basically depends upon crimes reported to the police. American citizens the full impact (a) the probability that the person is of crime on them nor do they still alive at that age and (b) the prob­ Annual victimization rates answer a critical question for each ability that a person of that age will be individual: What is the possibility victimized. The lifetime likelihood of Annual victimization rates alone do that I will be a crime victim? This personal victimization is derived from not convey the fun impact of crime as technical repot't is designed to the probabilities of being victimized at it affects people. No one would express shed light on this question. the various ages that constitute a life­ his or her concern by saying, "I am ter­ Steven R. Schlesinger time. A similar method is used for cal­ ribly afraid of being mugged between Director culating the long-term likelihood of January and December of this year." crimes against households. People are worried about the possibility that at some time in their lives they are rape victims annually, the lifetime Because of the assumptions involved will be robbed or raped or assaulted, or chances of suffering a rape are much in the calculations and because the data , their homes will be burglarized. gl'eater. derive from a sample survey, the num­ bers presented in this report are Annual rates can provide a false Certainly, annual rates are useful. estima tes only; they Should be inter­ sense of security by masking the real A I-year period is probably optimum preted only as indications of approxi­ impact of crime. Upon hearing that the for researchers, stati~ticians, and plan­ mate magnitude, not as exact mea­ homicide rate is about 8 to 10 per ners. It encompasses exactly one cycle sures. Essentially they are calcula ted 100,000 population, one feels safe; of seasonal variation. It is long enough values of lifetime rlsl< rather than des­ after all, 1 chance in 10,000 is not very to smooth out the impact of extraordi­ criptions of what has been observed. frightelling. Actually, however, at nary events (such as a mass murder in a recent homicide rates about 1 of every small city) and to allow time for col­ For the purposes of this report, a 133 Americans will become a murder lecting and analyzing data. On the "lifetime" begins at age 12. This is dic­ victim; for black males the prop~rtion other hand, a I-year period is short tated by the data available from the is estimated to be 1 of every 30. enough to show changes and trends in NCS, which does not cover persons Similarly, While 16 out of 10,000 women crime rates. The problem lies with younger than 12 years old. Also, "series" victimizations, those repre­ no feasible alternative to assuming con­ in table 1. Alternatively, the estimate senting three or more similar incidents stant values. can be restricted to the future, by about which the victim could not pro­ taking into account only those victimi­ vide detail on each event separately, The lifetime likelihood of victimiza­ zations that will be incurred in the have been excluded. If series victimi­ tion can be interpreted as an estimate remainder of the person's lifetime, zations were included in the calcula­ of a person's entire lifetime experience, starting at his or her current age. This tions as representing one crime inci­ starting in years prior to 1975-84 and eliminates errors due to past changes in dent, the total number of annual violent continuing into the future until the per­ annual rates. Estimates using the victimizations would increase by ap­ son's death. Such an estimate is subject latter option are presented in table 2; proximately 8%. The exclusion of to two sources of error that result from the values in table 1 constitute such series victimizations, then, results in an assuming constant annual rates: (1) the estimates for persons whose current underestimat.ion to some degree of the probable overestimation of victimiza­ age is 12. actual probabilities of victimization, tion rates in past years, and (2) the especially with regard to multiple vic­ uncertainty regarding future annual timizations. rates. Estimates of this type are shown 8IUlUal Assumption of constant rates Table 1. Lifetime likelihood of victimization The estimates of lifetime likelihood Percent of persons who will be victimized by of victimization are derived under the crime starting at 12 :lears of age Total assumption that, throughout their life­ One or more Number of victimizations times, people in the U.S. have incurred, victimizations c>ne fwo 'l'nree or more and will continue to incur, criminal victimization at the same annual rates Violent crimes, total* Total popula tion 83% 30% 27% 25% as were observed in the years 1975 Male 89 24 27 38 through 1984. Calculations are based Female 73 35 23 14 upon the average annual victimization White 82 31 26 24 rates for 1975-84 (except that data for Male 88 25 27 37 rape are for 1973-82). Annual victimi­ Female 71 36 22 13 zation rates for the population, and for , Black 87 26 27 34 any group within the population, are i Male 92 21 26 45 assumed to remain constant at the Female 81 31 26 24 average levels recorded for those Violent crimes, completed* years. For example, it is assumed that Total population 42% 32% 9% 2% Male 48 34 11 3 the rate at which white females of age Female 36 28 6 1 34 become victims of assault was the same in the past and will be the same in White 41 31 8 2 the future as it was in 1975-84. To the Black 53 35 13 4 extent that annual rates were different Rape in the past 01' may change in the future, Total female 8% 8% - - White 8 7 - - the estimates of lifetime victimization Black 11 10 1 - are inaccurate. Robbery Total population 30% 25% 5% 1% Of course victimization rates actu­ Male 37 29 7 1 ally vary from year to year. Victimiza­ Female 22 19 2 - tion data are not available for years White 27 23 4 - before the mid-1970s (when the NCS Black 51 35 12 4 was started), but crime rates as t'epor­ Assault ted by UCR indicate that annual vic­ Total popUlation 74% 35% 24% 15% timization rates probably were lower Male 82 31 26 25 then than in the period 1975-84. The Female 62 37 18 7 UCR data, however, are not suitable White 74 35 24 16 for estimating lifetime victimization Black 73 35 25 12 because they include only crimes repor­ Robbery or assault ted to the police, and because there is resulting in injury no information about the age, sex, or Total population 40% 30% 7% 2% race of the victims. Personal theft To tal popula tion 99% 4% 8% 87% Since 1981, annual victimization Male 99 3 8 88 rates reported by NCS have declined. Female 99 4 10 84 If this trend were to continue, the White 99 4 9 87 Male 99 3 8 88 lifetime victimization probabilities Female 99 4 10 86 would decrease. Black 99 5 12 81 Male 99 5 10 84 Becau~e there is very li ttle usable Female 98 7 15 76 information about past variation in . annual victimization rates, and because Note: Data are based on average victimization rates measured by the National Crime Survey for 1975-84, except for rape data, which are based on victimization rates for future changes are unpredictable in 1973-82. All crimes include attempts except where noted. See box on page 4 for crime definitions. both direction and magnitude, there is - Less than 0.5%. • Includes rape, robbery, /lnd assault. Personal victimization rates Table 2. Lifetime likelihood or victimization, by ege Based on 1975-:84 annual victimiza­ Percent of persons who will be victimized by tion rates, an estimated 5 out of 6 crime starting: at various ag::es Total people will be victims of violent crimes One or more Number of victimizations (rape, robbery, and assault), either victimizations One Two Three or more completed or attempted, at least once Violent crimes.