1

I.

Introduction
Victimology is defined as the study of the ways in which the status and behavior of crime

victims may have led to or contributed to their victimization. Specifically, household

victimization refers to crimes committed to persons and property in and around their place of
residence. This data set obviously includes a large variation of crimes, with our main focus
on property destruction, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and general theft of valuables within
the property.
From a theoretical socio-economic perspective, the relationship between household
income inequality and crime rates is perceived to be direct. It is intuitive to believe the more
money a household has, the less likely they are to be victims of crime. The higher income
groups should have more expendable income to spend on valuables (ex. Jewelry, electronics,
etc.). Another intuitive idea is that as income inequality increases, victimization of higher
income classes would increase as well.
Several research teams have hypothesized two reasons for this relationship. First, that
some citizens may resort to property crime as a means to remedy their economic struggles.
This is not a crime of personal issue, the perpetrator is simply trying to secure valuables to
pawn or sell on the black market as a source of income. In a second scenario, the perceived
income unfairness between the poor and wealthy may generate feelings of frustration and
anger among those of lesser income class, which in extreme cases may cause violent criminal
behavior (Fowles, 1996).
However, other models run by researchers in the recent future have shown that increased
income inequality along with greater segregation by income can lead to concentrations of

poverty. In this scenario, criminal victimization of the poor is more likely to rise. In fact,
studies of National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data from the previous twenty year
period (1973-1992) revealed that those with household incomes below $7,500 are more than
three times more likely to be robbed than those with incomes above $75,000 (Levitt, 1999).
This is especially prevalent in inner city communities, where poor close living quarters foster
not only unofficial segregation by race, but also increased illegal access to the homes of
neighbors and lower police presence (ex. Tenement style apartment buildings in Harlem,
NY).
For our study, we researched whether economic status, measured by annual household
income (HHI), or race of the victimized head-of-household has a significant impact on homebased crime rates in the United States from the years of 1993-2013. Due to previous trends
and increased technology in home defense (ex. Alarm systems, Cell Phones, faster response
times), we hypothesized that there would be an increased level of household victimization
among the poor, non-white ethnic groups. These groups are frequently targets of home
victimization due to both their real and perceived vulnerability, stemming from the economic
and social disadvantages that they face on a day-to-day basis.
II.

Data Description
For our study, we obtained data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS),

released bi-annually by the Bureau of Justice Statistics through their website. Data for this
particular survey is compiled from a nationally representative sample of on average 100,000
households, comprising nearly 250,000 persons age 12 and up. The survey is administered to

random households by the United States Census Bureau. Unfortunately, no geographic

identifiers are available in the data, so analysis of these data is limited to national analyses.
Specifically, the survey asks its respondents (defined as the Primary Person or Head of
Household) detailed questions on the frequency, characteristics, and consequences of their
experiences with criminal victimization in the United States. Additionally, the survey asks the
respondents information regarding characteristics of the household, including but not limited
to race, ages, household income, religion, neighborhood quality, gender demographics, etc.
This survey is also especially useful because many crimes, such as minor thefts, are not
reported to police or other law enforcement agencies. This may be due to fear of the
assailant, opinion of the police, carelessness or feeling that the event was too trivial
(Langton, 2012). If solely enforcement agency data were used (ex. FBI Uniform Crime
Reports), we may have underestimated the prevalence of home-based crimes in the United
States. The timeframe for our research was the twenty year period from 1993-2013,
encompassing the most recent available data available via the NCVS online data tools. Due
to the nature of the survey, household race and Household Income were self-reported by the
respondent. Fortunately for the purposes of our study, the NCVS provides an online Data
Analysis tool through their website. Although it did not allow for true statistical analysis (in
terms of descriptive and regression statistics), the tool made it simple to sort the data into the
years and categories needed for explanatory and dependent variables.

III.

Empirical Methods
a. Formatting the Data For Use:
For our purposes, it was beneficial to use the data as provided by the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS) online. The Data analysis tool is located at
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=nvat. Once the page has loaded, the tool offers
several Quick Tables for certain variable pairings. Unfortunately, none of the
previously created files fit the criteria of our project. Instead, we created a Custom
Table by clicking on the tab with that name. The next window is a prompt that asks
to display Personal or Household victimization. We selected the latter as its
criteria better fit the needs of our research on home-based property crimes. The next
step brings us to the NCVS Victimization Analysis Tool (NVAT). The tool is simple to
use: Select the desired years of study (1993-2013), and the variables needed for the
regression under the two drop down menus (Race and HH Income). Clicking
Generate Results will create a table with all of the relevant data neatly organized.
This table can be formatted for Excel and Stata by clicking the respective data icon.
This file is concatenated, meaning the Bureau of Justice Statistics had already
combined the yearly files into a much larger file including the years 1993-2013. For
this step, we chose to Open rather than Save the file, as we knew we would be
manipulating the variables and that at 3.4GB the file would be too large to adequately
work with. This will open the concatenated file in the typical Stata window. The next
step is to delete all of the un-needed variables from the data to make the process more
manageable.

b. Nomenclature of Variables Used

Renaming each of the sets of variables was necessary in order to simplify the
regression process and produce the results desired. Each individual year of study
(1993-2013) is labeled under a variable called time. Variables were created in the
racial groups: White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic and the corresponding household
income groups within each racial group (<$7,500, <$15,000, <$25,000, <$35,000,
<$50,000, <$75,000, and finally >$75,000). Variables for income groups are labeled
in short hand. For example: Less Than $35K Income-Asian Demographic is labeled
as lt35as in the Stata data editor for the sake of simplicity. Total responses from all
White income categories were generated as a sum and labeled as one variable
TincW. Total responses from all other races represented were also generated in the
same fashion and labeled races.
c. Chosen Regression
After experimenting with several variable combinations for regression, we ultimately
decided on _____________ to use as our model for the pattern of household crime
victimization in the United States.
d. Further Analysis
After our specific model was chosen, the results suggested that a _______ should be run
to test for _________

IV.

Conclusion
This paper presents a set of empirical results on the relationship between income and
crime victimization among different racial groups and how that pattern has changed
over time. National victimization data suggest that property crime victimizations have
become increasingly concentrated among the poor over the last twenty years,
spanning 1993-2013.

V.

References

Becker, Gary. 1968. Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach. JOURNAL OF

POLITICAL ECONOMY. Volume 76. 169-217.
Fowles, Richard.(1996): Wage Inequality and Criminal Activity: An Extreme Bounds
Analysis for the United States, 1975-1990, CRIMINOLOGY. Volume 34. 163-82.
Langton, Lynn. (2012): Criminal Victimization, 2012, US Dept. of Justice Bulletin.
October 2012. 1-16
Levitt, Steven D. (1999): The Changing Relationship between Income and Crime
Victimization, FRBNY ECONOMIC POLICY REVIEW. September 1999. 87-98