Household Poverty and Nonfatal Violent Victimization, 2008–2012, DOJ BJS, 2014

The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel - Header

Household Poverty and Nonfatal Violent Victimization, 2008–2012, DOJ BJS, 2014

• Feb. 16, 2016 • Locations: United States of America • Topics: Statistics/Trends

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Special Report

November 2014 ncj 248384

Household Poverty and Nonfatal
Violent Victimization, 2008–2012

Erika Harrell, Ph.D., and Lynn Langton, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians, Marcus Berzofsky, Dr.P.H., Lance Couzens, and
Hope Smiley-McDonald, Ph.D., RTI International

or the period 2008–12, persons living in poor
households at or below the Federal Poverty Level
(FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the
rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income
households (16.9 per 1,000) (figure 1). The percentage of
persons reporting violence to police was also higher among
households at or below the FPL. More than half of victims
of violence from poor households (51%) reported the
victimization to police, compared to 45% of victims from
high-income households.

This report uses data from the National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS) to describe the nature of nonfatal violence
against persons age 12 or older living in households
defined by their percentage above, at, or below the FPL, as
measured by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (see Methodology). The report shows how race
and Hispanic origin, location of residence, and poverty are
related to violent victimization and the reporting of violent
victimization to police. Throughout the report, the terms at
or below the FPL, poor, low income, mid-income, and high
income are used to describe household poverty levels. At
or below the FPL or poor refers to persons in households
at 0% to 100% of the FPL. Low income refers to persons

Figure 1
Rate of violent victimization, by household poverty level,
2008–2012
Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older
50
40
30
20
10
0

Poor

Low income

Mid-income

High income

Highlights
This report describes the relationship between nonfatal violent
victimization and household poverty level as measured by the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Data are from
the National Crime Victimization Survey. In 2008–12—

Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty
Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the
rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income
households (16.9 per 1,000).

Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence
involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons
above the FPL (0.8–2.5 per 1,000).

The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest
rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites
and blacks. However, the rate of violent victimization for
Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels.

Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence
compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks
(43.4 per 1,000).

Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had
violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in
rural areas (38.8 per 1,000).

Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence
similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).

Violence against persons in poor (51%) and low-income
(50%) households was more likely to be reported to police
than violence against persons in mid- (43%) and highincome (45%) households.

in households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income
refers to persons in households at 201% to 400% of the
FPL. High income refers to persons in households at 401%
or higher than the FPL. The FPL is generally considered
a more robust measure of economic status than income
alone because it takes into account the size of the household
(see Methodology).
The trend estimates presented in this report are based on
2-year rolling averages centered on the most recent year. For
example, estimates reported for 2010 represent the average
estimates for 2009 and 2010. Other tables focus on the
5-year aggregate period from 2008 through 2012, referred to
throughout the report as 2008–12. Both approaches—using
rolling averages and aggregating multiple years of data—
increase the reliability and stability of estimates and facilitate
comparisons of detailed victimization characteristics.

Persons in poor households had more than triple
the rate of serious violence compared to persons in
high-income households
In 2008–12, the rate of violent victimization was highest
for persons in poor households (39.8 per 1,000) and lowest
for persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000)
(table 1). This pattern was consistent across all types of
violent crime.
Figure 2
Rate of violent victimization, by poverty level, 2009–2012
Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older
50

40
Poor

Persons in poor households consistently had the
highest rates of violent victimization
Each year from 2009 to 2012, persons living in poor
households had a higher rate of nonfatal violent
victimization compared to persons in households above
the FPL (figure 2). However, trends in the rate of violent
victimization varied across poverty levels. The rate of violent
victimization for poor persons decreased from 43.1 per
1,000 in 2009 to 34.9 per 1,000 in 2010 and 34.4 per 1,000
in 2011. In 2012, it increased to a rate similar to that in 2009
(41.9 per 1,000). For low-income persons, the rate remained
relatively flat during the study period. For mid-income
persons, the rate declined slightly from 2009 to 2012. For
high-income persons, the rate of violence declined from
2009 (16.2 per 1,000) to 2010 (13.6 per 1,000); by 2012, the
rate was higher than it had been in 2009 (19.6 per 1,000).
In 2009, high-income persons had the lowest rate of violent
victimization, compared to persons in all other poverty levels.
By 2012, mid-income persons (19.1 per 1,000) and highincome persons (19.6 per 1,000) had similar rates of violent
victimization—both of which were lower than the rates for
low-income persons (27.6 per 1,000) and those at or below the
FPL (41.9 per 1,000).

30
Low income
20

Mid income
High income

2009

2010

2011

2012

Note: Based on 2-year rolling averages centered on most recent year. Poor refers
to households at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Low income refers
to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income refers to households at
201% to 400% of the FPL. High income refers to households at 401% or higher than
the FPL. See appendix table 2 for estimates and standard errors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Table 1
Average annual number and rate of violent victimization, by poverty level and type of crime, 2008–2012
Type of crime
Total violent crime
Serious violent crime
Rape/sexual assault
Robbery
Aggravated assault
Simple assault

All poverty levels
Number
Rate
5,930,800
23.1
1,920,600
7.5
303,000
1.2
636,500
2.5
981,100
3.8
4,010,200
15.6

Poor
Number
1,383,700
526,900
75,300
190,800
260,700
856,800

Rate
39.8
15.2
2.2
5.5
7.5
24.7

Low income
Number
Rate
1,385,700
26.5
467,800
9.0
63,300
1.2
157,900
3.0
246,600
4.7
917,800
17.6

Mid-income
Number
Rate
1,597,800
20.8
506,800
6.6
104,800
1.4
137,100
1.8
264,900
3.4
1,091,000
14.2

High income
Number
Rate
1,563,600
16.9
419,100
4.5
59,500
0.6
150,700
1.6
208,900
2.3
1,144,600
12.4

Note: Average annual number rounded to the nearest 100. Victimization rates are per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. Poor refers to households at 0% to 100% of the
Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Low income refers to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income refers to households at 201% to 400% of the FPL. High income
refers to households at 401% or higher than the FPL. See appendix table 1 for standard errors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014

Across all poverty levels, serious violence (rape or sexual
assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) accounted for
less than half of violent victimizations. However, serious
violence accounted for a greater percentage of violence
among persons in poor households (38%) than those in
high-income households (27%) (not shown in table).
Stranger violence was more common for persons
living in poor households
In 2008–12, persons in poor households had higher rates of
stranger (12.3 per 1,000) and nonstranger (24.2 per 1,000)
violence compared to persons at all other poverty levels
(table 2). The rate of intimate partner violence for persons
in poor households (8.1 per 1,000) was almost double the
rate for low-income persons (4.3 per 1,000) and almost four
times the rate for high-income persons (2.1 per 1,000).

Table 2
Rate of violent victimization, by victim–offender
relationship and poverty level, 2008–2012
Victim–offender relationship
Total
Nonstranger
Intimate partner
Other relative
Friend/acquaintance
Stranger
Unknown

All
poverty
levels
23.1
12.4
3.6
1.6
7.1
8.6
1.3

Poor
39.8
24.2
8.1
3.4
12.7
12.3
2.2

Low
MidHigh
income income income
26.5
20.8
16.9
15.3
10.1
8.1
4.3
2.8
2.1
2.4
1.2
0.9
8.6
6.1
5.1
9.1
8.4
7.0
1.3
1.3
0.9

Note: Victimization rates are per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. Poor refers to
households at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Low income refers
to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income refers to households at
201% to 400% of the FPL. High income refers to households at 401% or higher
than the FPL. See appendix table 3 for standard errors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Rates of violent victimization by poverty level and income categories were closely
aligned
The main measure of poverty for this report is a household’s
percentage above, at, or below the Federal Poverty Level
(FPL). Prior Bureau of Justice Statistics reports have examined
the relationship between annual household income and
victimization. However, annual household income may be a
misleading indicator of household wealth or poverty because
it does not take into account the number of persons in the
household. Using annual household income, household
size, and the U.S. Federal Poverty Guidelines established
by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, this
report classifies persons according to how their annual
household income and household size compare to the FPL
(see Methodology).
Although poverty level is a more robust measure than income
alone, similar patterns in the relationship between wealth and
victimization were observed regardless of whether income or
poverty was used. Persons in households in the lowest income
bracket (less than $15,000) (40.6 per 1,000) and persons in
poor households (39.8 per 1,000) had similar rates of violent
victimization, and both groups had the highest rates of violent
victimization (figure 3). Regardless of the measure used, the
rate of violence decreased as households moved above the
FPL or income level increased.

Figure 3
Rate of violent victimization, by poverty level and annual
household income, 2008–2012
Annual household income or poverty level
$75,000 or more
High income
$25,000–$74,999
Mid-income
$15,000–$24,999
Low income
Less than $15,000
Poor
0

10
20
30
40
Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older

Note: Poor refers to househholds at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty
Level (FPL). Low income refers to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL.
Mid-income refers to households at 201% to 400% of the FPL. High income
refers to households at 401% or higher than the FPL. See appendix table 4 for
estimates and standard errors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey,
2008–2012.

Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014

Persons in poor and in low-income households had higher
rates of violence by nonstrangers than strangers. For persons
in these households, about 60% of violent victimizations
were committed by someone known to the victim (not
shown in table). In comparison, among persons in mid- and
high-income households, less than half of victimizations
were committed by a nonstranger. Among high-income
households, there was no statistically significant difference in
the rates of violence by strangers and nonstrangers.
Persons in poor households had the highest rate of
violence involving a weapon
In 2008–12, persons in poor households had a higher rate of
violent victimization involving a weapon (9.6 per 1,000) and
a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000)
compared to persons above the FPL (table 3). The rate of
violence involving a weapon decreased as households moved
away from the FPL. For example, persons in high-income
households had the lowest rates of weapon (2.8 per 1,000)
and firearm (0.8 per 1,000) violence among all poverty levels.
At each poverty level, the percentage of violence in which
the offender had a weapon was lower than the percentage
not involving a weapon. However, for persons in poor
households, a greater percentage of violent victimizations
involved a weapon (24%) compared to the percentage for
persons in high-income households (16%) (not shown
in table).
Poor whites and blacks had higher rates of violent
victimization than poor Hispanics
The overall pattern of persons in poor households having the
highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both
non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks (figure 4).
The rate of violent victimization was 46.4 per 1,000 for poor
whites and 43.4 per 1,000 for poor blacks. For both groups,
persons in high-income households had the lowest rates of
violence. However, this pattern did not hold for Hispanics.
In 2008–12, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics
did not vary significantly across poverty levels.
At each of the poverty levels measured, there was no
statistically significant difference between whites and blacks
in the rate of violent victimization. Among persons in midand high-income households, the rates of violence were
similar for whites, blacks, and Hispanics. However, poor
whites and blacks had higher rates of victimization than
poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000). Poor Hispanics had similar
rates of violence as blacks living in high-income households
(22.7 per 1,000).

Table 3
Rate of violent victimization, by presence of a weapon and
poverty level, 2008–2012
Type of weapon
Total
No weapon
Weapon
Firearm
Non-firearm
Do not know if
weapon present

All
poverty
levels
23.1
16.8
4.7
1.7
3.1

Poor
39.8
27.2
9.6
3.5
6.1

Low
income
26.5
19.2
5.8
2.5
3.3

Midincome
20.8
15.3
4.1
1.3
2.9

High
income
16.9
12.8
2.8
0.8
1.9

1.6

3.0

1.5

1.4

Note: Victimization rates are per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. Poor refers to
households at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Low income refers
to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income refers to households at
201% to 400% of the FPL. High income refers to households at 401% or higher
than the FPL. See appendix table 5 for standard errors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Figure 4
Rate of violent victimization by poverty level and race or
Hispanic origin, 2008–2012
Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older
50

White
Black/African American

40
Hispanic/Latino
30

Poor

Low income

Mid-income

High income

Note: Poor refers to households at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).
Low income refers to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income refers
to households at 201% to 400% of the FPL. High income refers to households
at 401% or higher than the FPL. Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin,
unless specified. See appendix table 6 for estimates and standard errors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014

Regardless of location of residence, persons in
poor households had the highest rates of violent
victimization
Regardless of whether households were in urban, suburban,
or rural areas, persons in poor households had the highest
rates of violence (figure 5). In urban (19.9 per 1,000) and
suburban (16.1 per 1,000) areas, persons in high-income
households had the lowest rates, while in rural areas, rates
were similar for persons in mid- (15.2 per 1,000) and
high- (13.3 per 1,000) income households.
Among persons in poor households, the rates of violence
were similar in urban (43.9 per 1,000) and rural (38.8 per
1,000) areas. However, among low-, mid-, and high-income
households, rates of violent victimization were higher in
urban areas than in rural areas. For low- and mid-income
households, urban areas had the highest rates of violence.
Among high-income households, there was no statistically
significant difference in the rates of violence in urban
(19.9 per 1,000) and suburban (16.1 per 1,000) areas.
In 2008–12, poor whites (56.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks
(51.3 per 1,000) in urban households had higher rates
of violence than persons in all other types of households
(figure 6). High-income blacks in urban areas (30.1
per 1,000) had similar rates of violence as poor blacks
in suburban (35.8 per 1,000) and rural (30.1 per 1,000)
households.
Figure 5
Rate of violent victimization, by poverty level and location of
residence, 2008–2012

Figure 6
Rate of violent victimization, by poverty level, race or
Hispanic origin, and location of residence, 2008–2012
Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older

Urban

60 White
Black/African American

Hispanic/Latino

40
30
20
10
0

Poor

Low income

Mid-income

High income
Suburban

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Poor

Low income

Mid-income

High income

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older
Urban
40

Rural

50
Suburban
Rural

50
40

30
!

10
10

0
Poor

Low income

Mid-income

High income

!
Poor

Low income

Mid-income

!
!
High income

Note: Poor refers to households at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).
Low income refers to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income refers
to households at 201% to 400% of the FPL. High income refers to households
at 401% or higher than the FPL. Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin,
unless specified. See appendix table 8 for estimates and standard errors.
! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or
coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014

Violence against persons in poor and low-income
households was more likely to be reported to
police than violence against persons in mid- and
high- income households
In 2008–12, about half of violent victimizations against
persons in poor households (51%) and in low-income
households (50%) were reported to police. In comparison,
43% of victimizations against persons in mid-income
households and 45% of victimizations against persons
in high-income households were reported (table 4). The
percentage of serious violence reported to police did not
vary significantly by poverty level.
At all poverty levels, a greater percentage of serious violence
than simple assault was reported to police. However, the
percentage of serious violence reported to police among
persons in mid- (53%) and high- (52%) income households
was not significantly different from the percentage of simple
assault reported by persons in poor households (46%).

Table 4
Violence reported to police, by type of crime and poverty
level, 2008–2012
Poverty level
Total
Poor
Low income
Mid-income
High income

Total violent
crime
46.9%
50.6%
50.0
43.1
44.7

Serious violent
crime
55.7%
58.2%
59.1
52.8
52.3

Simple
assault
42.7%
45.9%
45.4
38.7
42.0

Figure 7
Violent victimization reported to police by poverty level and
race or Hispanic origin, 2008–2012
Percent
100

Among blacks, the percentage of violent
victimizations reported to police did not vary by
poverty level
The pattern of lower reporting of violence among mid- and
high-income households held true for whites but not for
blacks or Hispanics (figure 7). Among blacks, there was no
significant variation across poverty levels in the percentage
of violent victimizations reported to police. Among
Hispanics, a lower percentage of violence against persons
in mid-income households (36%) than those in either
poor (50%) or low-income (50%) households was reported
to police.
Except for mid-income households, there was no statistically
significant difference in the percentage of violence against
whites, blacks, and Hispanics reported to police at all
poverty levels. Among mid-income households, a higher
percentage of violence against blacks (53%) than against
Hispanics (36%) was reported to police.

Black/African American
White

Hispanic/Latino

Poor

Low income

Mid-income

High income

Note: Poor refers to households at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty
Level (FPL). Low income refers to households at 101% to 200%
of the FPL. Mid-income refers to households at 201% to 400% of
the FPL. High income refers to households at 401% or higher than
the FPL. Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, unless specified. See
appendix table 10 for estimates and standard errors.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014

The overall pattern of lower reporting among high-income
households generally held true in urban areas but not in
rural or suburban areas. In urban areas, violence against
persons in high-income households (43%) was less likely
to be reported to police than violence against persons in
households at lower poverty levels (figure 8). In comparison,
in rural areas, violence against victims in high-income
households (64%) was more likely to be reported to police
than violence against those in households at other poverty
levels. In suburban areas, there was no statistically significant
difference in the percentage of violence reported to police by
victims in poor (47%) and high-income (43%) households.
Among persons in poor households and in low- and
mid-income households, there was no statistically significant
difference in the percentage of violence reported to police
in urban, suburban, and rural areas. Among persons
in high-income households, the percentage of violence
reported to police in rural areas (64%) was higher than
the percentage reported in urban (43%) and suburban
(43%) areas.

Figure 8
Violent victimization reported to police, by poverty level and
location of residence, 2008–2012
Percent
100

Suburban
Rural

Urban

Poor

Low income

Mid-income

High income

Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014

Among white and Hispanic households in urban areas,
there was no variation in reporting to police across poverty
levels (figure 9). However, among black households in urban
areas, a lower percentage of violence against persons in
high-income households (36%) was reported to police than
violence against all other persons. Among black and white
suburban households, there was no statistically significant
difference between low- and high-income households in
the percentage of reported victimizations. In rural areas, the
percentage of reported violence varied across poverty levels
for blacks and whites but not for Hispanics.
Across all poverty levels in urban areas, there was no
statistically significant difference in the percentage of
violence against whites, blacks, and Hispanics reported to
police. Among persons in poor households in suburban and
rural areas, there was no statistically significant difference
in the percentage of violence against whites, blacks, and
Hispanics reported to police. However, among high-income
households in suburban and rural areas, a greater percentage
of violence against blacks was reported to police than
violence against whites.

Figure 9
Violent victimization reported to police, by poverty level,
race or Hispanic origin, and location of residence, 2008–2012
Percent
100

Urban

80
White

Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino

40
20
0

Poor

Low income

Mid-income

High income
Suburban

100
80
60
40
20
0

Poor

Low income

Mid-income

High income
Rural

100
80

60
!
!

!
20
0

Poor

Low income

Mid-income

High income

Note: Poor refers to households at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).
Low income refers to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income refers
to households at 201% to 400% of the FPL. High income refers to households
at 401% or higher than the FPL. Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin,
unless specified. See appendix table 12 for estimates and standard errors.
! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or
coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014

Characteristics of persons in households at each poverty level
In 2008–12, 14% of persons lived in poor households. Based
on the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ classification, over a third
(36%) of persons were in households at 401% or higher than
the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), classified as high-income
households (table 5).
A greater percentage of females (55%) than males (45%)
lived in poor households, and males accounted for half of
persons in high-income households (51%). While whites
accounted for 68% of all persons nationwide, they were
disproportionately represented in high-income households
(78%) and underrepresented among poor households (49%).
In comparison, blacks and Hispanics accounted for 20% to
25% of persons in poor households, and each accounted for
8% of persons in high-income households.

A greater percentage of persons in poor households (42%)
lived in urban areas compared to persons in high-income
households (29%). Likewise, a disproportionately high
percentage of persons in high-income households resided
in suburban areas (59%) compared to the national average
(52%). There was little variation across regions of the country
in the distribution of persons at different poverty levels.
There was a close relationship between income and poverty
as demonstrated by the income distribution of households
at different poverty levels. In 2008–12, 73% of persons in
poor households had an annual household income of less
than $15,000. Among low- (59%) and mid- (88%) income
households, the majority of persons fell in the $25,000 to
$74,999 income bracket. For high-income households, 80% of
persons had a household income of $75,000 or higher.

Table 5
Characteristics of persons in households, by poverty level, 2008–2012
Characteristic
Total
Sex
Male
Female
Race/Hispanic origina
White
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino
Otherb
Location of residence
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Annual household income
Less than $15,000
$15,000–$24,999
$25,000–$74,999
$75,000 or more

Total
100%
100%
48.8
51.2

Poor
13.6%
100%
45.0
55.0

Low income
20.4%
100%
47.0
53.0

Mid-income
30.0%
100%
49.2
50.8

High income
36.1%
100%
50.9
49.1

67.6%
11.8
14.3
6.3

48.6%
19.7
24.7
7.0

57.1%
14.6
21.8
6.5

70.4%
11.3
12.6
5.8

78.2%
7.8
7.6
6.4

32.0%
51.9
16.1

41.6%
38.5
20.0

33.7%
46.1
20.2

29.5%
53.3
17.2

29.5%
59.2
11.4

18.5%
22.8
35.7
22.9

16.2%
22.7
38.9
22.2

15.9%
22.7
37.8
23.6

17.9%
23.5
35.9
22.7

21.4%
22.3
33.2
23.1

11.2%
10.8
46.1
31.9

72.6%
22.7
4.7
--

6.7%
34.1
59.0
--

-2.7%
88.0
9.3

--19.5%
80.5

Note: Poor refers to households at 0% to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Low income refers to households at 101% to 200% of the FPL. Mid-income refers
to households at 201% to 400% of the FPL. High income refers to households at 401% or higher than the FPL. See appendix table 13 for standard errors. .
aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, unless specified.
bIncludes persons identified as American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander; and persons of two or more races.
--Less than 0.5%.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014

Methodology
Survey coverage
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is
an annual data collection conducted by the U.S. Census
Bureau for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The
NCVS is a self-report survey in which interviewed
persons are asked about the number and characteristics of
victimizations experienced during the prior 6 months. It
collects information on nonfatal personal crimes (rape or
sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and
personal larceny) and household property crimes (burglary,
motor vehicle theft, and other theft) both reported and not
reported to police. In addition to providing annual level and
change estimates on criminal victimization, the NCVS is
the primary source of information on the nature of criminal
victimization incidents.
Survey respondents provide information about themselves
(e.g., age, sex, race and Hispanic origin, marital status,
education level, and income) and whether they experienced
a victimization. For each victimization incident, the NCVS
collects information about the offender (e.g., age, sex, race
and Hispanic origin, and victim-offender relationship),
characteristics of the crime (including time and place of
occurrence, use of weapons, nature of injury, and economic
consequences), whether the crime was reported to police,
reasons the crime was or was not reported, and victims’
experiences with the criminal justice system.
The NCVS is administered to persons age 12 or older from
a nationally representative sample of households in the
United States. The NCVS defines a household as a group of
members who all reside at a sampled address. Persons are
considered household members when the sampled address is
their usual place of residence at the time of the interview and
when they have no usual place of residence elsewhere. Once
selected, households remain in the sample for 3 years, and
eligible persons in these households are interviewed every
6 months either in person or over the phone for a total of
seven interviews.
Generally, all first interviews are conducted in person;
subsequent interviews are conducted either in person or
by phone. New households rotate into the sample on an
ongoing basis to replace outgoing households that have been
in the sample for the 3-year period. The sample includes
persons living in group quarters, such as dormitories,
rooming houses, and religious group dwellings, and excludes
persons living in military barracks and institutional settings,
such as correctional or hospital facilities, and persons who
are homeless.

Nonresponse and weighting adjustments
In 2012, 92,390 households and 162,940 persons age 12
or older were interviewed for the NCVS. Each household
was interviewed twice during the year. The response rate
was 84% for households and 88% for eligible persons.
Victimizations that occurred outside of the United States
were excluded from this report. In 2012, less than 1% of the
unweighted victimizations occurred outside of the United
States and were excluded from the analyses.
Estimates in this report use data from the 2008 to 2012
NCVS data files, weighted to produce annual estimates
of victimization for persons age 12 or older living in U.S.
households. Because the NCVS relies on a sample rather
than a census of the entire U.S. population, weights are
designed to inflate sample point estimates to known
population totals and to compensate for survey nonresponse
and other aspects of the sample design.
NCVS data files include both person and household weights.
Person weights provide an estimate of the population
represented by each person in the sample. Household
weights provide an estimate of the U.S. household
population represented by each household in the sample.
After proper adjustment, both household and person
weights are also typically used to form the denominator in
calculations of crime rates.
Victimization weights used in this analysis account
for the number of persons present during an incident
and for high-frequency repeat victimizations (or series
victimizations). Series victimizations are similar in type but
occur with such frequency that a victim is unable to recall
each individual event or describe each event in detail. Survey
procedures allow NCVS interviewers to identify and classify
these similar victimizations as series victimizations and to
collect detailed information on only the most recent incident
in the series.
The weight counts series incidents as the actual number of
incidents reported by the victim, up to a maximum of 10
incidents. Including series victimizations in national rates
results in large increases in the level of violent victimization;
however, trends in violence are generally similar regardless
of whether series victimizations are included. In 2012, series
incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and
4% of all violent victimizations. Weighting series incidents
as the number of incidents up to a maximum of 10 incidents
produces more reliable estimates of crime levels, while the
cap at 10 minimizes the effect of extreme outliers on the
rates. Additional information on the series enumeration is
provided in the report Methods for Counting High-Frequency
Repeat Victimizations in the National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCJ 237308, BJS web) April 2012.

Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014

Standard error computations
When national estimates are derived from a sample, as
with the NCVS, caution must be used when comparing
one estimate to another or when comparing estimates over
time. Although one estimate may be larger than another,
estimates based on a sample have some degree of sampling
error. The sampling error of an estimate depends on several
factors, including the amount of variation in the responses
and the size of the sample. When the sampling error around
an estimate is taken into account, the estimates that appear
different may not be statistically different.
One measure of the sampling error associated with an
estimate is the standard error. The standard error can vary
from one estimate to the next. Generally, an estimate with a
small standard error provides a more reliable approximation
of the true value than an estimate with a large standard error.
Estimates with relatively large standard errors are associated
with less precision and reliability and should be interpreted
with caution.
To generate standard errors around numbers and estimates
from the NCVS, Taylor Series Linearization (TSL) was used.
TSL is a design-based approach that takes into account
aspects of the NCVS complex sample design by specifying
the selection method used, the stratification, and the
primary sampling units.
Previous NCVS special reports and bulletins relied on
a generalized variance function (GVF) provided by the
U.S. Census Bureau. A comparison of how TSL performs
compared to the GVFs is documented by Williams et al.1
The comparison shows that TSL estimates of the standard
errors provide less variability than the GVF.
BJS conducted tests to determine whether differences in
estimated numbers and percentages in this report were
statistically significant once sampling error was taken into
account. Using statistical programs developed specifically
for the NCVS, all comparisons in the text were tested
for significance. The primary test procedure used was
Student’s t-statistic, which tests the difference between two
sample estimates. To ensure that the observed differences
between estimates were larger than might be expected due
to sampling variation, the significance level was set at the
95% confidence level in most cases. In a few instances, the
significance level was set at 90%. Caution must be taken
when comparing estimates not explicitly discussed in
this report.
Data users can use the estimates and the standard errors of
the estimates provided in this report to generate a confidence
interval around each estimate as a measure of the margin of
error. The following example illustrates how standard errors
can be used to generate confidence intervals:
1 Williams, R., Heller, D., Couzens, L., Shook-Sa, B., Berzofsky, M.,
Smiley-McDonald, H. & Krebs, C. (In press). Evaluation of Direct Variance
Estimation, Estimate Reliability and Confidence Intervals for the National
Crime Victimization Survey.

In 2008–12, there were 24.2 violent victimizations per
1,000 persons committed by a nonstranger among
persons in poor households (see table 2). Using TSL,
BJS determined that the estimate has a standard error
of 1.6 violent victimizations per 1,000 persons (see
appendix table 3). A confidence interval around the
estimate was generated by multiplying the standard
errors by ±1.96 (the t-score of a normal, two-tailed
distribution that excludes 2.5% at either end of the
distribution). Thus, the confidence interval around the
24.2 violent victimizations per 1,000 persons estimate is
equal to 24.2 ± 1.6 X 1.96 (or 21.1 violent victimizations
per 1,000 persons to 27.3 violent victimizations per
1,000 persons). In other words, if different samples
using the same procedures were taken from the U.S.
population in 2008–12, 95% of the time the rate of
violent victimizations committed by a nonstranger
among persons in poor households would fall between
21.1 and 27.3.
In this report, BJS also calculated a coefficient of variation
(CV) for all estimates, representing the ratio of the standard
error to the estimate. CVs provide a measure of reliability
and a means for comparing the precision of estimates across
measures with differing levels or metrics. In cases where the
CV was greater than 50%, or the unweighted sample had
10 or fewer cases, the estimate was noted with a “!” symbol
(interpret data with caution; estimate is based on 10 or fewer
sample cases, or coefficient of variation exceeds 50%).
Many of the variables examined in this report may be related
to one another and to other variables not included in the
analyses. Complex relationships among variables in this
report were not fully explored and warrant more extensive
analysis. Readers are cautioned not to draw causal inferences
based on the results presented.
Measuring household income as a percentage of the
Federal Poverty Level
The main measure of poverty for this report is household
income as a percentage above, at, or below the Federal
Poverty Level (FPL). The NCVS asks the reference person
of a household about the household’s income level during
the first interview and every odd-numbered interview after
that. When household income is not asked, the income from
the previous interview is carried forward. When included,
respondents are asked to choose a household income from
1 of 14 categories (the highest category is an income of
$75,000 or more).
A household’s income may be a misleading indicator of a
household’s wealth because it does not take into account
the number of persons in the household. A household’s
income as it relates to the poverty level is a better measure
of overall wealth because it takes into account family size. In
the United States, poverty is defined by one of two measures:
the poverty threshold and the poverty guideline. The poverty

Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014

threshold is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau and is used
for all statistical measures of poverty in the United States. It
is the same in all 50 states and varies by family size, number
of children, number of adults (one or two), and whether the
reference person in the household is elderly.
The poverty guideline is defined by the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and is used to
determine eligibility for many federal and state programs.
It is defined the same for the contiguous 48 states and
Washington, DC, but is different in Alaska and Hawaii and
varies by family size. Both measures change each year as
dictated by the federal agency that oversees them. More
information on the two measures and how they differ can be
found here: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm.
The measure used by the NCVS is the poverty guideline.
The poverty guideline can be operationalized more easily
than the poverty threshold and it is commonly referred to
as the Federal Poverty Level (or FPL). While the poverty
threshold is used for official statistics from the U.S. Census
Bureau, given the information on household composition
available in the NCVS, it is more cumbersome to implement.
Furthermore, an analysis of the two measures found that
a household’s resulting percentage of the FPL did not vary
much between the two measures. One drawback to the
poverty guideline is that it is different in Alaska and Hawaii
relative to the rest of the United States and households in
these two states cannot be identified on the NCVS public
use file. Therefore, households in these two states may not
have a proper percentage of the FPL assigned. However, the
number of households in the NCVS sample in these two
states is small. As a result, the impact of not differentiating
the poverty level in these states is negligible.
To determine a household’s income as a percentage of the
FPL, two pieces of information are needed: a household’s
income and the number of people in the household.
Determining a household’s income
As described earlier, a question about household income
is asked during every other interview and households
are asked to indicate a range for their income rather than
a specific amount. These procedures are intended to
minimize the burden and intrusiveness respondents may
feel about providing their income. However, even with
these procedures, an average of 31% of households during
the study period of 2008–12 (a range between 28.4% and
32.4%) did not provide a household income when asked. To
effectively analyze criminal victimization by poverty status,
household income needed to be imputed when a household
did not provide a value. As detailed in Berzofsky et al., a

household’s missing income category was imputed using
a hot deck approach that relied on one of two methods,
depending on the household’s previous income response
status.2 When a household provided a household income
category in a previous interview, the previous income
value was used to predict the household’s current income
level. When a household had never provided a household
income value, the distribution of household income among
respondents from the interview period of interest was used
to predict the household’s current income level. Because
these procedures require linking households across their
interview waves, the imputation process could only be
implemented starting in 2008. In 2006, the scrambled
control numbers the U.S. Census Bureau uses to identify
households were changed to account for the phase-in of
the 2000 Census primary sampling units. Therefore, 2007
was used as a base year from which households in existing
sample rotation groups could be linked in 2008 and beyond.
Even with a household income assigned to all respondents,
the income categories used in the NCVS do not map well
to percentages of the FPL for two primary reasons. The FPL
changes each year based on the DHHS recommendations,
while the NCVS income categories are fixed and are the
same each year. In addition, the FPL varies based on the
number of persons in the household, while the NCVS
household income categories are the same regardless of
the number of persons in the household. Therefore, to
determine a household’s income as a percentage of the FPL,
a precise income dollar amount needs to be interpolated
based on a household’s assigned income category. This
process was done in four broad steps:
1. Stratification classes were formed based on characteristics
highly correlated to a household’s income. For this
analysis period, a household reference person’s
race and age categories were used to form income
stratification classes.
2. The distribution of income was determined within
each stratum. Using the cumulative distribution of
the income categories and assuming a log-normal
distribution, a grid search was used to find the optimal
mean and standard deviation for income across all
persons in the specified stratum.
3. The range for each income category was determined.
For a particular stratum and income category, using
the log-normal distribution, the percentile range
between the upper and lower bound for a category was
determined.
2 Berzofsky,

M., Smiley-McDonald, H., Moore, A. & Krebs, C. (In press).
Measuring Socioeconomic Status (SES) in the NCVS: Background, Options
and Recommendations.

Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014

4. An interpolated income value was assigned to each
household. Given an optimal log-normal distribution
and the inter-percentile range for an income category
in which a household resides, and using a random
uniform variate between the upper and lower bounds,
an interpolated log-income value was selected. The
exponentiated log-income value was the interpolated
income for a household.
Determining a household’s income as a percentage of
the FPL
Using the interpolated household income and the number of
persons in the household, the percentage of the FPL for the
household was calculated as—
PCT_FPL = HH_INC X 100
FPLyi
where FPLyi was the FPL in year y for i persons living in the
household.

Validating method for determining the percentage of
the FPL
After applying the above-described procedures to assign
each household a percentage of the FPL value, the
distribution of the percentage of the FPL was validated
to ensure that the distribution used in this analysis
comported with other federal benchmark surveys. The
Current Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic
Supplement (CPS-ASEC) provided a benchmark estimate of
the distribution of a household’s percentage of the FPL for
all persons, including by the race or ethnicity category (see
table number POV05 on https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/
poverty/data/incpovhlth/2012/index.html). The validation
process found that for all years from 2008 to 2012, the overall
distribution of the percentage of the FPL in the NCVS and
the distributions for all race or ethnicity categories (i.e.,
non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, and
non-Hispanic Asian) were similar to the distribution found
in the CPS-ASEC.

Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014

Appendix table 1
Standard errors for table 1: Average annual number and rate of violent victimization, by poverty level and type of crime,
2008–2012
Type of crime
Total violent crime
Serious violent crime
Rape/sexual assault
Robbery
Aggravated assault
Simple assault

All poverty levels
Number
Rate
208,600
0.7
82,500
0.3
38,800
0.1
40,600
0.2
42,200
0.2
162,600
0.6

Poor
Number
77,400
38,500
10,900
19,200
23,400
54,000

Rate
2.1
1.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
1.5

Low income
Number
Rate
73,600
1.3
29,500
0.5
13,200
0.2
12,600
0.2
20,500
0.4
59,800
1.1

Mid-income
Number
Rate
83,400
1.0
40,500
0.5
24,300
0.3
16,500
0.2
21,800
0.3
66,100
0.8

High income
Number
Rate
84,100
0.8
32,100
0.3
13,400
0.1
20,400
0.2
18,700
0.2
74,900
0.8

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Appendix table 2
Estimates and standard errors for figure 2: Rate of violent victimization, by poverty level, 2009–2012
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012

Estimate
43.1
34.9
34.4
41.9

Poor
Standard error
3.6
2.9
2.2
2.6

Low income
Estimate
Standard error
27.2
1.9
24.1
1.9
25.2
1.8
27.6
1.8

Mid-income
Estimate
Standard error
23.1
1.7
20.9
1.8
18.5
1.4
19.1
1.2

High income
Estimate
Standard error
16.2
1.0
13.6
1.1
15.2
1.4
19.6
1.7

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Appendix table 3
Standard errors for table 2: Rate of violent victimization, by
victim–offender relationship and poverty level, 2008–2012
Victim-offender relationship
Total
Nonstranger
Intimate partner
Other relative
Friend/acquaintance
Stranger
Unknown

All
poverty
levels
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.1

Poor
2.1
1.6
0.9
0.5
1.0
0.9
0.3

Low
Mid
High
income income income
1.3
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Appendix table 5
Standard errors for table 3: Rate of violent victimization, by
presence of a weapon and poverty level, 2008–2012
Type of weapon
Total
No weapon
Weapon
Firearm
Non-firearm
Do not know if
weapon present

All
poverty
levels
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.2

Poor
2.1
1.5
0.8
0.5
0.6

0.1

0.5

Low
income
1.3
1.1
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2

Midincome
1.0
0.9
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2

High
income
0.8
0.8
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Appendix table 4
Estimates and standard errors for figure 3: Rate of violent
victimization, by poverty level and annual household
income, 2008–2012
Characteristic
Annual household income
Less than $15,000
$15,000–$24,999
$25,000–$74,999
$75,000 or more
Poverty level
Poor
Low income
Mid-income
High income

Estimate

Standard error

40.6
29.1
20.9
18.1

2.2
1.8
0.9
1.0

39.8
26.5
20.8
16.9

2.1
1.3
1.0
0.8

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014

Appendix table 6
Estimates and standard errors for figure 4: Rate of violent victimization, by poverty level and race or Hispanic origin, 2008–2012
Race/Hispanic origin
White
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino

Estimate
46.4
43.4
25.3

Poor
Standard error
3.2
3.8
2.6

Low income
Estimate Standard error
27.7
1.8
27.5
2.6
21.2
1.9

Mid-income
Estimate Standard error
20.3
1.2
24.7
2.9
20.6
2.4

High income
Estimate Standard error
16.4
0.9
22.7
5.1
19.3
3.4

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Appendix table 7
Estimates and standard errors for figure 5: Rate of violent victimization, by poverty level and location of residence, 2008–2012
Location of residence
Urban
Suburban
Rural

Estimate
43.9
35.9
38.8

Poor
Standard error
2.8
3.4
3.9

Low income
Estimate Standard error
31.9
1.9
24.5
2.0
22.2
2.9

Mid-income
Estimate Standard error
26.2
1.9
19.6
1.4
15.2
1.7

High income
Estimate Standard error
19.9
1.5
16.1
1.2
13.3
2.2

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Appendix table 8
Estimates and standard errors for figure 6: Rate of violent victimization, by poverty level, race or Hispanic origin, and location
of residence, 2008–2012
Location of residence
Urban
White
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino
Suburban
White
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino
Rural
White
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino

Estimate

Poor
Standard error

Low income
Estimate Standard error

Mid-income
Estimate Standard error

High income
Estimate Standard error

56.4
51.3
27.8

5.3
5.5
3.8

36.6
32.2
24.4

3.7
3.7
2.9

23.1
34.3
26.1

1.8
5.3
4.4

19.7
30.1
17.3

1.8
6.8
2.3

41.4
35.8
23.7

4.7
6.9
3.6

26.7
21.9
18.7

2.7
3.5
3.0

21.0
18.0
15.5

1.8
3.1
2.6

15.7
18.8
21.4

1.1
8.4
6.0

43.5
30.1
18.7

5.5
5.9
3.0

22.1
25.2
16.9

3.4
7.9
3.6

15.1
8.8 !
26.3 !

1.9
3.8
14.2

13.6
5.9 !
11.8 !

2.4
2.9
5.8

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Appendix table 9
Standard errors for table 4: Violence reported to police, by
type of crime and poverty level, 2008–2012
Poverty level
Total
Poor
Low income
Mid-income
High income

Total violent
crime
1.1%
2.0%
2.1
1.8
2.3

Serious violent
crime
1.6%
3.0%
2.9
3.4
3.5

Simple
assault
1.4%
2.5%
2.6
2.4
3.0

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014

Appendix table 10
Estimates and standard errors for figure 7: Violent victimization reported to police, by poverty level and race or Hispanic
origin, 2008–2012
Race/Hispanic origin
White
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino

Estimate
51.7%
52.8
50.4

Poor
Standard error
3.1%
3.5
4.9

Low income
Estimate Standard error
48.1%
2.9%
59.4
4.9
49.8
4.2

Mid-income
Estimate Standard error
42.7%
2.4%
53.2
4.8
35.7
4.6

High income
Estimate Standard error
44.0%
2.4%
51.3
11.8
44.8
8.3

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Appendix table 11
Estimates and standard errors for figure 8: Violent victimization reported to police, by poverty level and location of residence,
2008–2012
Location of residence
Urban
Suburban
Rural

Estimate
51.2%
47.4
55.0

Poor
Standard error
2.6%
4.1
4.2

Low income
Estimate Standard error
52.3%
3.0%
47.8
3.1
50.1
5.8

Mid-income
Estimate Standard error
45.8%
3.0%
41.2
2.8
43.0
4.7

High income
Estimate Standard error
43.1%
3.2%
42.7
3.3
64.0
5.1

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Appendix table 12
Estimates and standard errors for figure 9: Violent victimization reported to police, by poverty level, race or Hispanic origin,
and location of residence, 2008–2012
Location of residence
Urban
White
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino
Suburban
White
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino
Rural
White
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino

Estimate

Poor
Standard error

Low income
Estimate Standard error

Mid-income
Estimate Standard error

High income
Estimate Standard error

51.9%
51.2
53.7

4.3%
4.0
6.9

49.2%
56.8
49.8

4.7%
6.3
5.8

46.7%
52.7
39.0

3.7%
6.3
7.2

43.0%
35.5
52.1

4.0%
8.7
5.3

47.6%
57.0
45.5

5.4%
9.5
7.0

44.9%
69.6
50.6

3.8%
6.6
6.3

41.1%
50.8
31.3

3.5%
8.7
5.5

40.7%
71.7
39.9

3.3%
15.1
12.3

57.0%
53.0
48.7 !

5.1%
9.0
11.2

53.4%
46.8
44.7

7.0%
15.5
10.3

41.6%
82.6 !
35.6 !

5.0%
12.1
10.9

64.5%
79.4 !
56.9 !

5.7%
19.1
17.8

Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014

Appendix table 13
Standard errors for table 5: Characteristics of persons in
households, by poverty level, 2008–2012
Characteristic
Total
Sex
Male
Female
Race/Hispanic origin
White
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino
Other
Location of residence
Urban
Suburban
Rural
Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Annual household income
Less than $15,000
$15,000–$24,999
$25,000–$74,999
$75,000 or more

Low
Midincome income
0.2%
0.2%

High
income
0.3%

Total
--

Poor
0.2%

0.1%
0.1

0.3%
0.3

0.2%
0.2

0.1%
0.1

0.6%
0.4
0.5
0.2

1.0%
0.9
1.0
0.4

0.8%
0.6
0.7
0.3

0.6%
0.4
0.5
0.2

0.4%
0.3
0.2
0.2

0.9%
1.1
1.3

1.3%
1.3
1.7

1.0%
1.3
1.6

0.9%
1.2
1.4

0.8%
1.0
1.0

0.4%
0.5
0.5
0.6

0.6%
0.7
0.8
0.8

0.4%
0.6
0.7
0.8

0.4%
0.6
0.6
0.7

0.5%
0.7
0.6
0.6

0.2%
0.1
0.3
0.3

0.5%
0.4
0.2
--

0.2%
0.4
0.4
--

-0.1%
0.2
0.2

--0.2%
0.2

--Less than 0.5%.
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2008–2012.

Household poverty and nonfatal violent victimization, 2008–2012 | November 2014

The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principal federal
agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization, criminal offenders, victims
of crime, correlates of crime, and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the
federal, state, tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable and valid
statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports improvements to state and
local criminal justice information systems, and participates with national and international
organizations to develop and recommend national standards for justice statistics. William J.
Sabol is acting director.
This report was written by Erika Harrell and Lynn Langton, BJS Statisticians, and Marcus
Berzofsky, Lance Couzens, and Hope Smiley-McDonald, RTI International. Jessica Stroop of
BJS and Marcus Berzofsky, Lance Couzens, Bonnie Shook-Sa, and Hope Smiley-McDonald of
RTI International verified the report.
Irene Cooperman and Morgan Young edited the report. Barbara Quinn produced the report.
November 2014, NCJ 248384

Office of Justice Programs
Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
www.ojp.usdoj.gov