Sub-national Estimates in the NCVS Bureau of Justice Statistics June 7, 2012

Utility of Sub-national Estimates Crime is always local and sometimes national. NCVS is designed to provide national estimates. National estimates are useful for many purposes. Sub-national estimates can be useful both for stakeholders at the national level as well as states and large cities.

BJS’ Approach to the Issue Identify estimates that can be made with the NCVS data and are of sufficient precision. Determine if these estimates are useful or how they can be made useful to stakeholders. This webinar is one of a number of meetings where we can present preliminary products and work with stakeholders to determine their utility.

Outline of the Presentation Present general outline of strategies for producing sub-national estimates. Present various products using these various strategies and get your reaction. Can the product be understood? Can you find yourself in these data? Is the information useful? When would you use it? Are all important distinctions made?

Range of Strategies OPTION STRATEGY 1 Direct estimates of rolling averages with core data. 2 Generic area estimates. 3 Direct estimates with boost and sample reallocation. 4 Modeled estimates with NCVS data and available auxiliary data. 5 Blended estimates with low cost boost. 6 Low cost independent local surveys. 7 Police administrative record frame.

Definitions Direct estimates are made exclusively with actual samples from the NCVS. Indirect estimates are modeled estimates using correlates of victimization with existing NCVS sample, if available, in the jurisdiction. Sample boosts refer to increases in sample size. Reallocation refers to redistributing the sample so that it is more suitable for sub-national rather than national estimates. Accumulation (rolling averages) is the combining of annual samples for greater precision, e.g. 3-years, 5-years.

Generic Area Estimates Sometimes it is sufficient to have an estimate from areas “like” yours. Estimates for areas “like” yours are formed by taking all of the NCVS interviews conducted in areas like yours. Areas “like” yours are formed by identifying a number of attributes and defining as similar those areas that have similar values on these attributes. We have illustrations with the public use files but other area identifiers are available in Census data.

Generic Areas Create a typology of “like places” using available data Region: Northeast, Midwest, South, West Population size: Not in a place Under 10,000 10,000-49,999 50,000-99,999 100,000-249,999 250,000-499,999 500,000-999,999 1,000,000 or more MSA status: Rural, Suburban, Urban Typology based on combination: MSA X Region X Population size Example: “city with a population of 250,000-500,000 in the Northeast” represents places such as Buffalo, NY, and Pittsburgh, PA.

Violent Crime Rates by Year and Type of Place 1996-98 2008-10 % change Example Very Large Cities in the Northeast 54 14 -73.7 New York, Boston Very Large Cities in the Midwest 76 32 -57.5 Chicago Very Large Cities in the South 56 37 -34.9 Houston Very Large Cities in the West 57 22 -61.4 Los Angeles Large cities in the Northeast 45 40 -9.4 Baltimore Large Cities in the Midwest 102 28 -72.3 Indianapolis Large Cities in the South 70 25 -64.3 Jacksonville Large Cities in the West 83 24 -71.0 San Jose Very Large Suburban Counties in the NE 13 16 25.2 Very Large Suburban Counties in the MW 64 -65.0 Very Large Suburban Counties in the South 21 -54.2 Very Large Suburban Counties in the West 65 26 -60.1 Small Rural Places in the Northeast 61 44 -26.8 Small Rural Places in the Midwest 38 19 -50.4 Small Rural Places in the South Small Rural Places in the West 81 -74.3

Burglary Rates Per 1,000 1996-98 2008-10 % change Very large cities in the Northeast 27.12 11.68 -56.93 Very Large cities in the Midwest 79.52 48.25 -39.33 Very large cities in the South 60.69 46.52 -23.35 Very large cities in the West 70.14 21.67 -69.11 Large cities in the Northeast 22.42 18.58 -17.15 Large cities in the Midwest 82.57 67.24 -18.57 Large cities in the South 77.65 44.55 -42.62 Large cities in the West 68.35 24.93 -63.53 Large suburban counties in the NE 71.43 14.32 -79.96 Large suburban counties in the Midwest 27.58 22.24 -19.38 Large suburban counties in the South 56.41 35.28 -37.45 Large suburban countie in the West 54.36 15.52 -71.45 Small rural places in the Northeast 50.20 38.15 -24.00 Small rural places in the Midwest 41.01 26.13 -36.29 Small rural places in the South 40.02 49.36 23.34 Small rural places in the West 49.86 28.28 -43.27

Violent Crime Rates by Year and Type of Place 1996-98 2008-10 % change Example Northeast Very Large Cities in the Northeast 54 14 -74 New York, Boston Large cities in the Northeast 45 40 -9 Baltimore Very Large Suburban Counties in NE 13 16 25 Small Rural Places in the Northeast 61 44 -27 Midwest Very Large Cities in the Midwest 76 32 -57 Chicago Large Cities in the Midwest 102 28 -72 Indianapolis Very Large Suburban Counties in MW 64 22 -65 Small Rural Places in the Midwest 38 19 -50 South Very Large Cities in the South 56 37 -35 Houston Large Cities in the South 70 -64 Jacksonville Very Large Suburban Counties in the South 21 -54 Small Rural Places in the South West Very Large Cities in the West 57 -61 Los Angeles Large Cities in theWest 83 24 -71 San Jose Very Large Suburban Counties in the West 65 26 -60 Small Rural Places in the West 81

Direct Estimates NCVS has enough sample in some states to produce estimates of reasonable precision for violent crime. Rolling up three years will allow us to make more precise estimates for big states and reasonable estimates for more states. Estimates for prevalent classes of property crime are easier. Sample boost and re-allocate allow more states to be included.

Boosts Boosts determined by the desired precision of the total violent crime estimate for the specified number of states. Relationship between boosts and states done in this manner because of the need to treat states as strata in sample reallocation. State strata for all states with population over 8M (12). CA,TX,NY,FL, IL, PA, OH,MI,GA,NC,NJ,VA State strata for all states with population over 6M (17). CA,TX,NY,FL, IL, PA,OH,MI,GA,NC,NJ,VA WA,MA,IN,AZ,TN State strata for all states with population over 5m (22). MO, MD,WI,MN,CO

California: 3-year rolling averages for violence, by type of crime Rates per 1,000   Type of Crime 2005-2007 2006-2008 2007-2009 2008-2010 Violence 21.1 18.7 15.7 14.4 Rape/sexual assault 0.8 0.6 0.5 Robbery 2.5 2.0 Aggravated assault 4.3 4.1 3.0 2.6 Simple assault 13.5 11.5 10.3 9.2 Burglary 23.7 22.3 20.7 20.3 Motor vehicle theft 12.6 12.3 11.6 9.9 Theft 123.1 119.5 113.7 117.0

California: NCVS and UCR Violent Crime Rates

California: NCVS and UCR Violent Crime Counts

40 Largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in NCVS Core counties within these MSAs are defined as those self-representing primary sampling units that are common to the MSA definitions determined by the Office of Management and Budget for the 1970-based, 1980-based, and 1990-based sample designs. Each MSA is comprised of only the core counties and not all counties within the MSA of the 40 largest MSAs from January 1979 through December 2004. The 40 largest MSAs were determined based on the number of household interviews in an MSA.

Indirect Estimates Methods that use NCVS data in combination with other data to make estimates for states and large cities. Primary method for making estimates for the 28 smallest states as well as smaller cities without sufficient sample for direct estimates. We are assessing various models using NCVS and UCR data over time.

UCR violent vs NCVS violent crime LA is high and stays high GA is average but then drops to lowest level KY is lowest but then rises to national average. Trends for each show a flattening for some in UCR (AL, GA) but a decline in the NCVS (AL, GA), others are more consistent (LA)

UCR vs NCVS for property crime GA and AL high in UCR but then low in NCVS KY is lowest in UCR but high in NCVS

Summary For many years the NCVS ignored the issue of sub-national estimates. In the last three years we have done some serious research and development work that has resulted in a multi-faceted approach to producing sub- national estimates. The future and future directions of this program will depend on the response of stakeholder groups like you. We need your feedback on how these estimates could contribute to your ability to do your job and to serve the clients that you serve. Hopefully this session is the beginning of a dialogue on these issues.

Contact Information Michael Planty, Victimization Statistics Michael.Planty@usdoj.gov