(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "WASHINGTON D.C PUBLIC ABOUT CRIME"

mal Criminal Justice Information 
Statistics Service Reports 



lization Surveys: 

ninal Victimization in the United States (annual): 
\ Comparison of 1 975 and 1 976 Findings 
\ Comparison of 1 974 and 1 975 Findings 
\ Comparison of 1 973 and 1 974 Findings 

975 (final report) 
974 (final report) 
973 (final report) 

ilnal Victimization Surveys In Boston, Buffalo, 

Cincinnati, Houston, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, 

Jew Orleans, Oakland, Pittsburgh, San Diego, San 

'ranclsco, and Washington, D.C. (final report, 1 3 vols.) 

ilnal Victimization Surveys In 13 American Cities 

summary report, 1 vol.) 

lie Attitudes About Crlma: Boston, Buffalo, Cincinnati, 

touston, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, 

Oakland, Pittsburgh, San Diego, San Francisco, and 

Vashington, D.C. (final report, 1 3 vols.) 

ilnal Victimization Surveys In Chicago, Detroit, Los 

Angeles, Now York, and Philadelphia: A Comparison of 

972and1974Findlngs 

linal Victimization Surveys In the Nation's Five 

.argeat Cities: National Crime Panel Surveys in 

Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, and 

'hlladelphla, 1972 

ilnal Victimization Surveys In Eight American Cities: A 

Jomparlson of 1 971/72 and 1 974/75 Findings 

lational Crime Surveys in Atlanta, Baltimore, 

Jleveland, Dallas, Denver, Newark, Portland, and St. 

.ouls 

ie in Eight American Cities: National Crime Panel 

Surveys in Atlanta, Baltimore, Cleveland, Dallas, 

lenver, Newark, Portland, and St. Louis Advance 

leport, 1971/72 

los and Victims: A Report on the Dayton-San Jose 

Hot Survey of Victimization 

tations of the National Crime Survey 
ilzation and Attitude Data: 

lie Opinion About Crime: The Attitudes of Victims and 

lonvictims In Selected Cities 

>l Victim Surveys: A Review of the Issues 

Potlce and Public Opinion: An Analysis of Victimization 

nd Attitude Data from 1 3 American Cities 

Production to (he National Crime Survey 

ipensatlng Victims of Violent Crime: Potential 

ioats and Coverage of a National Program 

ial Prisoner Statistics; 

Ital Punishment (annual): 
977 Advance Report 

976 (final report) 

iners In State and Federal Institutions (annual): 

'ecember 31 , 1 977, Advance Report 

'ecember 31 , 1 976 (final report) 

3U3 of State Correctional Facilities, 1974: 

dvance Report 

ey of inmates of State Correctional Facilities, 1974: 

dvance Report 

lus of Prisoners in State Correctional Facilities, 1973 

Nation's Jails: A report on the census of jails from the 

972 Survey of Inmates of Local Jails 

f ey ol Inmates of Local Jails 1972: Advance Report 



Children in Custody: Juvenile Detention and Correctional 

Facility Census 
Advance Report, 1 975 census 
Advance Report, 1 974 census 
Final Report, 1973 census 
Final Report, 1971 census 

National Survey of Court Organization: 

1 977 Supplement to State Judicial Systems 
1 975 Supplement to State Judicial Systems 
1971 (full report) 

Slate and Local Probation and Parole Systems 

State and Local Prosecution and Civil Attorney Systems 

Criminal Justice Agencies in Regions 1-10 (10 volumes) 

Trends In Expenditure and Employment Data for the Criminal 

Justlco System, 1971-75 (annual) 
Expenditure and Employment Data for the Criminal Justice 

System: 1976 (annual) 

Dictionary of Criminal Justice Data Terminology: Terms and 
Definitions Proposed for Interstate and National Dala 
Collection and Exchange 

Program Plan for Statistics, 1977-81 

Utilization of Criminal Justice Statistics Project: 

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1977 (annual) ' 
Public Opinion Regarding Crime, Criminal Justice, and 

Related Topics 
New Directions In Processing of Juvenile Offenders: The 

Denver Model 
Who Goto Detained? An Empirical Analysis of the Pre- 

Adjudlcatory Detention ol Juveniles in Denvor 
Juvenile Dispositions: Social and Legal Factors Related to 

the Processing of Denver Delinquency Cases 
Offender-Based Transaction Statistics: New Directions in 

Data Collection and Reporting 
Sentencing of California Felony Offenders 
The Judicial Processing of Assault and Burglary 

Offenders In Selected California Counties 
Pre-Adjudlcatory Detention In Throe Juvenile Courts 
Delinquency Dispositions: An Empirical Analysis of 

Processing Decisions In Three Juvenile Courts 
The Patterns and Distribution of Assault Incident 

Characteristics Among Social Areas 
Patterns of Robbery Characteristics and Thalr Occurrence 

Among Social Areas 
Crime -Specific Analysis: 

The Characteristics of Burglary Incidents 

An Empirical examination of Burglary Offender 
Characteristics 

An Empirical Examination of Burglary Offenders and 

Offense Characteristics 
Sources of National Criminal Justlco Statistics: An 

Annotated Bibliography 

Single copies are available at no charge from the National 
Criminal Justice Reference Service, Box 6000, Rockvllle, Md. 
20850. Multiple copies are for sale by the Superintendent of 
Documents, U.S, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 
20402 



IMPORTANT 

We have provided an evaluation form at the and of this 
publication, It will assist us in Improving future reports If 
you complete and return it at your convenience. It Is a 
self-mailing form and needs no stamp. 



National Crime Survey Report 



lo. SD-NCS-C-32 
une 1978 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Law Enforcement 
Assistance Administration 

National Criminal Justice Information 
and Statistics Service 



APARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
brcement Assistance Administration 

:.H. Gregg, Acting Administrator 

ratt, Assistant Administrator 
, Criminal Justice Information 
istics Service 

n H. Renshaw, Director 
i Division 



Clients. This report was prepared for the Law 
nt Assistance Administration by the Bureau of the 
the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 
icrvision was supplied by Charles R. Kindermann, 
Dawn D. Nelson and Patsy A. Klaus. Collection and 
of data for the household survey were conducted in 
of the Census under the general supervision of 
Thompson, Demographic Surveys Division, assisted 
. Murphy and Robert L. Ooodson. The report was 
i the Crime Statistics Analysis Staff under the general 
, of Robert P. Parkinson. Adolfo L. Paez directed and 
eport. The analysis was written by J. Frederick 
chnical review of the report was performed by Louis 
i, Statistical Methods Division, under the general 
of Dennis J. Schwanz. 



blication Data 

ice Information and 

s about crime. 

10, SD-NCS-C-32) 
ton, D.C.-Public opinion, 
opinion. 3, Public 

S'43'3649753 77-4173 



salo by the Superintendent of DoaumonlB, U.S. Government Printing Omco 
Washington, D.C. 20402 

Slock Number 027-WQ-OQ701-G 



>reface 



Since early in the 1970's, victimization surveys 
ave been carried out under the National Crime 
urvey (NCS) program to provide insight into the 
npact of crime on American society. As one of the 
lost ambitious efforts yet undertaken for filling 
)me of the gaps in crime data, the surveys, carried 
ut for the Law Enforcement Assistance Ad- 
linistration (LEAA) by the U.S. Bureau of the Gen- 
is, are supplying the criminal justice community 
ith new information on crime and its victims, com- 
lementing data resources already on hand for pur- 
oses of planning, evaluation, and analysis. Based 
n representative sampling of households and com- 
icrcial establishments, the program has had two 
lajor elements, a continuous national survey and 
:parate surveys in 26 central cities across the Na- 
on. 

Based on a scientifically designed sample of hous- 
ig units within each jurisdiction, the city surveys 
ad a twofold purpose: the assessment of public at- 
tudes about crime and related matters and the 
svelopment of information on the extent and 
iture of residents' experiences with selected forms 
: criminal victimization. The attitude questions 
ere asked of the occupants of a random half of the 
Busing units selected for the victimization survey, 
i order to avoid biasing respondents' answers to the 
titude questions, this part of the survey was ad- 
inistered before the victimization questions, 
'hereas the attitude questions were asked of per- 
ms age 16 and over, the victimization survey ap- 
ied to individuals age 1 2 and over. Because the at- 
;ude questions were designed to elicit personal opi- 
onsand perceptions as of the date of the interview, 
was not necessary to associate a particular time 
ame with this portion of the survey, even though 
me queries made reference to a period of time pre- 
;ding the survey. On the other hand, the victimiza- 
3n questions referred to a fixed time frame the 1 2 
onths preceding the month of interview and re- 
ondents were asked to recall details concerning 
eir experiences as victims of one or more of the 
llowing crimes, whether completed or attempted: 
pe, personal robbery, assault, personal larceny, 
irglary, household larceny, and motor vehicle 
eft. In addition, information about burglary and 
bbery of businesses and certain other organiza- 
>ns was gathered by means of a victimization 
rvey of commercial establishments, conducted 
parately from the household survey. A previous 



publication, Criminal Victimization Surveys in Wash- 
ington. D.C. (1 977), provided comprehensive 
coverage of results from both the household and 
commercial victimization surveys. 

Attitudinal information presented in this report 
was obtained from interviews with the occupants of 
4,676 housing units (8,156 residents age 16 and 
over), or 90.9 percent of the units eligible for inter- 
view. Results of these interviews were inflated by 
means of a multistage weighting procedure to pro- 
duce estimates applicable to all residents age 1 6 and 
over and to demographic and social subgroups of 
that population. Because they derived from a survey 
rather than a complete census, these estimates are 
subject to sampling error. They also are subject to 
response and processing errors, The effects of sam- 
pling error or variability can be accurately deter- 
mined in a carefully designed survey. In this report, 
analytical statements involving comparisons have 
met the test that the differences cited are equal to or 
greater than approximately two standard errors; in 
other words, the chances are at least 95 out of 100 
that the differences did not result solely from sam- 
pling variability. Estimates based on zero or on 
about 10 or fewer sample cases were considered 
unreliable and were not used in the analysis of 
survey results. 

The 37 data tables in Appendix I of this report 
are organized in a sequence that generally corre- 
sponds to the analytical discussion. Two technical 
appendixes and a glossary follow the data tables; 
Appendix II consists of a facsimile of the survey 
questionnaire (Form NCS 6), and Appendix III sup- 
plies information on sample design and size, the 
estimation procedure, reliability of estimates, and 
significance testing; it also contains standard error 
tables. 



Preface 

Crime and attitudes. 
Summary 



Crime trends 

U.S. crime trends 

Neighborhood crime trends 

Who are the offenders? 

Chances of personal victimization , . 
Crime and the media 



Fear of crime 

Crime as a deterrent to mobility 

Neighborhood safety 

Crime as a cause for moving away 

Crime as a cause for activity modification 

Residential problems and lifestyles 

Neighborhood problems and selecting a home 

Food and merchandise shopping practices 

Entertainment practices 



Local police performance 

Are they doing a good, average, or poor job?. , 
How cnn the police improve? 



Appendixes 

I. Survey data tables 

II. Survey instrument 

III. Technical information and reliability 

of the estimates 

Sample design and size 

Estimation procedure 

Reliability of estimates 

Computation and application of the 
standard error 



Glossary 

User evaluation questionnaire 



Page 
Preface .............................................. '"' 



Crime and attitudes .................................... ' 

Summary ............................................. 3 

Crime trends .......................................... 

U.S. crime trends .................................... 8 

Neighborhood crime trends ........................... 8 

Who are the offenders? .............................. 8 

Chances of personal victimization ..................... 8 

Crime and the media ................................ 9 

Fear of crime ........................................ 10 

Crime as a deterrent to mobility ..................... lo 

Neighborhood safety ................................ I0 

Crime as n cause for moving away ................... 'I 

Crime as a cause for activity modification ............. II 

Residential problems and lifestyles ..................... 12 

Neighborhood problems and selecting a home ......... 12 

Food and merchandise shopping practices ............ 12 

Entertainment practices ............................. 12 

Local police performance ............................. '4 

Are they doing a good, average, or poor job? .......... 14 

How can the police improve? ........................ I 4 

Appendixes 

I . Survey data tables ............................... 15 

II. Survey instrument ............................... 44 

III. Technical information and reliability 

of the estimates ................................. ^7 

Sample design and size ........................ 47 

Estimation procedure .......................... 47 

Reliability of estimates ........................ 48 

Computation and application of the 

standard error .............................. 49 

Glossary ............................................ 5 ' 

User evaluation questionnaire ......................... 53 



Charts 

A, 
B. 
C. 
D. 

Tables 



Summary findings about crime trends 

Summary findings about fear of crime 

Summary findings about residential problems . . 
Summary findings about police performance .'. , 



Page 

, 4 

. 5 

. 6 

. 7 



Appendix I 
Crime trends 

1 . Direction of crime trends in the Uniied States 16 

2. Direction of crime trends in the neighborhood 16 

3. Comparison of neighborhood crime with other 
metropolitan area neighborhoods 17 

4. Place of residence of persons committing neighborhood 
crimes 17 

5. Change in the chances of being attacked or robbed . 18 

6. Seriousness of crime problem relative to what newspapers 
and television report 18 

Fear of crime 

7. Fear of going to parts of the metropolitan area during the 
day 19 

8. Fear of going to parts of the metropolitan area 

at night 19 

9. Neighborhood safety when out alone during 

ihe day 20 

10. Neighborhood safety when out alone during 

the day 21 

1 1 . Neighborhood safety when out alone during 

the day 22 

1 2. Neighborhood safety when out alone at night 23 

I 3. Neighborhood safety when out alone at night 24 

14. Neighborhood safely when out alone at night 25 

15. Neighborhood dangerous enough to consider moving 
elsewhere 26 

16. Limitation or change in activities because of fear 

of crime 26 

1 7. Persona! limitation or change in activities because of fear 
of crime 27 

I 8. Persona] limitation or change in activities because of fear 
of crime 28 

Residential problems and lifestyles 

19. Most important reason for selecting present neighbor- 
hood 29 

20. Most important reason for leaving former 
residence 29 

21. Whether or not there are undesirable neighborhood 
characteristics 30 

22. Most important neighborhood problem 30 

23. Whether or not major food shopping done in the 
neighborhood 31 

24. Most important reason for not doing major food shop- 
ping in the neighborhood 31 

25. Preferred location for general merchandise 
shopping 32 

26. Most important reason for usually doing general 
merchandise shopping in the suburbs (or neighborhood) or 
downtown 33 

27. Change in the frequency with which persons went out for 
evening entertainment 34 



28. Most important reason for increasing or decreasing the 
frequency with which persons went out for evening entertain- 
ment 35 

29. Places usually visited for evening entertainment ... 36 

30. Most important reason for usually seeking evening enter- 
tainment inside or outside the city 37 

Local police performance 

3 1 . Opinion about local police performance 38 

32. Opinion about local police performance 39 

33. Opinion about local police performance 40 

34. Whether or not local police performance needs improve- 
ment 41 

35. Most important measure for improving local police per- 
formance 41 

36. Most important measure for improving local police per- 
formance 42 

37. Most important measure for improving local police per- 
formance 43 

Appendix III 

I. Individual respondent data: Standard error approxima- 
tions for estimated percentages 50 

II. Household respondent data: Standard error approxima- 
tions for estimated percentages 50 



VI 



During the 1 960's, the President's Commission on 
Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice ob- 
served that "What America does about crime de- 
pends ultimately upon how Americans see crime. . . . 
The lines along which the Nation takes specific ac- 
tion against crime will be those that the public 
believes to be the necessary ones." Recognition of 
the importance of societal perceptions about crime 
prompted the Commission to authorize several 
public opinion surveys on the matter. 1 In addition to 
measuring the degree of concern over crime, those 
and subsequent surveys provided information on a 
variety of related subjects, such as the manner in 
which fear of crime affects people's lives, circum- 
stances engendering fear for personal safety, mem- 
bers of the population relatively more intimidated 
by or fearful of crime, and the effectiveness of crimi- 
nal justice systems. Based on a sufficiently large 
sample, moreover, attitude surveys can provide a 
means for examining the influence of victimization 
experiences upon personal outlooks. Conducted 
periodically in the same area, attitude surveys dis- 
tinguish fluctuations in the degree of public concern; 
conducted under the same procedures in different 
areas, they provide a basis for comparing attitudes in 
two or more localities. With the advent of the Na- 
tional Crime Survey (NCS) program, it became 
possible to conduct large-scale attitudinal surveys 
addressing these and other issues, thereby enabling 
individuals to participate in appraising the status of 
public safety in their communities. 

Based on data from a 1974 attitudinal survey, this 
report analyzes the responses of Washington resi- 
dents to questions covering four topical areas; crime 
trends, fear of crime, residential problems and 
lifestyles, and local police performance. Certain 
questions, relating to household activities, were 
asked of only one person per household (the "house- 
hold respondent"), whereas others were ad- 
ministered to all persons age 16 and over ("in- 
dividual respondents"), including the household re- 
spondent. Results were obtained for the total 
measured population and for several demographic 
and social subgroups. 

Conceptually, the survey incorporated questions 
pertaining to behavior as well as opinion. Concern- 



ing behavior, for example, each respondent for a 
household was asked where its members shopped for 
food and other merchandise, where they lived before 
moving to the present neighborhood, and how long 
they had lived at that address. Additional questions 
asked of the household respondent were designed to 
elicit opinions about the neighborhood in general, 
about the rationale for selecting that particular com- 
munity and leaving the former residence, and about 
factors that influenced shopping practices. None of 
the questions asked of the household respondent 
raised the subject of crime. Respondents were free to 
answer at will. In contrast, most of the individual at- 
titude questions, asked of all household members 
age 16 and over, dealt specifically with matters 
relating to crime. These persons were asked for 
viewpoints on subjects such as crime trends in the 
local community and in the Nation, chances of being 
personally attacked or robbed, neighborhood safety 
during the day or at night, the impact of fear of 
crime on behavior, and the effectiveness of the local 
police. For many of these questions, response 
categories were predetermined and interviewers 
were instructed to probe for answers matching those 
on the questionnaire. 

Although the attitude survey has provided a 
wealth of data, the results are opinions. For exam- 
ple, certain residents may have perceived crime as a 
growing threat or neighborhood safety as deteriorat- 
ing, when, in fact, crime had declined and neighbor- 
hoods had become safer. Furthermore, individuals 
from the same neighborhood or with similar per- 
sonal characteristics and/or experiences may have 
had conflicting opinions about any given issue. 
Nevertheless, people's opinions, beliefs, and percep- 
tions about crime are important because they may 
influence behavior, bring about changes in certain 



'President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Ad- 
ministration of Justice. The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 
1967, pp. 49-53. 



analytical section of this report. Information con- 
cerning such experiences was gathered with separate 
questionnaires, Forms NCS 3 and 4, used in ad- 
ministering the victimization component of the 
survey. Victimization survey results appeared in 
Criminal Victimization Surveys in Washington (1977), 
which also contains a detailed description of the 
survey-measured crimes, a discussion of the limita- 
tions of the central city surveys, and facsimiles of 
Forms NCS 3 and 4. For the purpose of this report, 
individuals who were victims of the following 



1 



crimes, whether completed or attempted, during the 
12 months prior to the month of the interview were 
considered "victimized": rape, personal robbery, 
assault, and personal larceny. Similarly, members of 
households that experienced one or more of three 
types of offenses burglary, household larceny, and 
motor vehicle theft were categorized as victims. 
These crimes are defined in the glossary. Persons 
who experienced crimes other than those measured 
by the program, or who were victimized by any of 
the relevant offenses outside of the 12-month 
reference period, were classified as "not victimized." 
Limitations inherent in the victimization survey 
that may have affected the accuracy of distinguishing 
victims from nonvictims resulted from the 
problem of victim recall (the differing ability of re- 
spondents to remember crimes) and from the 
phenomenon of telescoping (the tendency of some 
respondents to recount incidents occurring outside, 
usually before, the appropriate time frame). 
Moreover, some crimes were sustained by victims 
outside of their city of residence; these may have had 
little or no effect in the formation of attitudes about 
local matters. 

Despite the difficulties in distinguishing precisely 
between victims and nonvictims, it was deemed im- 
portant to explore the possibility that being a victim 
of crime, irrespective of the level of seriousness or 
the frequency of occurrence, has an impact on 
behavior and attitudes. Adopting a simple 
dichotomous victimization experience variable 
victimized and not victimized for purposes of 
tabulation and analysis also stemmed from the 
desirability of attaining the highest possible degree 
of statistical reliability, even at the cost of using 
these broad categories, Ideally, the victim category 
should have distinguished the type or seriousness of 
crimes, the recency of the events, and/or the number 
of offenses sustained. 2 Such a procedure seemingly 
would have yielded more refined measures of the 
effects of crime upon attitudes, By reducing the 
number of sample cases on which estimates were 
based, however, such a subcategorization of victims 
would have weakened the statistical validity of com- 
parisons between the victims and nonvictims. 



^Survey results presented in this report contain attitudinal 
data furnished by the victims of "series victimizations" (see 
glossary), 



Even though nearly half of all District of Colum- 
ia residents age 16 and over indicated they had 
united or changed their activities because of crime 
i the years preceding 1974, most other indicators 
uggested that the threat of criminal victimization 
lid not strongly influence personal lifestyles or 
nobility. For instance, motives other than minimiz- 
ng the threat of crime were paramount in selecting 
lew neighborhoods, leaving old ones, and choosing 
hopping and entertainment locations. Summarily, 
hese other considerations included matters of en- 
vironmental quality, housing conditions, and con- 
venience. Also, over 80 percent of the population 
evaluated police performance as at least average, 

Six in every 10 Washington residents thought that 
:rime in the Nation was on the increase. When the 
interview focused on local crime, however, impres- 
sions were far different. Only 1 in 4 respondents 
thought that crime in their neighborhoods had in- 
creased, most rated the neighborhood crime situa- 
tion as no worse than average compared with the rest 
of the city, and fewer than half thought their per- 
sonal chances of victimization had increased. Nine 
in 10 residents said they felt safe when out alone in 
their neighborhoods during the day, and 6 in 10 so 
indicated about nighttime. 

Opinions on crime-related issues were not 
uniform across all sectors of the city's population, 
however. The differential effects of the threat of vic- 
timization were particularly apparent among 
women, the elderly, and recent victims. Women 
were much more likely than men to have expressed 
fear of being out alone in their neighborhoods at 
night, to have indicated they had changed their ac- 
tivities because of crime, and to have thought that 
their chances of robbery or attack had increased. 
Older persons were much more likely than younger 
ones to have said that they were afraid to go out in 
their neighborhoods alone at night and that they had 
changed or limited their activities because of the 
crime threat. Differences between young and old in 
the evaluation of police performance also were quite 
apparent. Young persons were much more likely 
than older residents to have given the local police an 
overall poor performance rating. Although blacks 
and whites tended to agree on most survey issues, 
blacks were more likely than whites to have said they 
changed their activities because of fear of crime and 
to have rated police performance as less than good, 



particularly in the areas of operational practices and 
community relations. 

Notwithstanding the relatively low level of con- 
cern about the threat of crime among the general 
population, recent victimization experience was 
substantially related to some response items. One in 
every five respondents for victimized households 
who had expressed dissatisfaction with their 
neighborhoods said the most important neighbor- 
hood problem was crime, and victims in general 
were more likely than any other subgroup examined 
to have contemplated moving because of crime. 
Compared with nonvictims, victims also were more 
likely to have expressed fear of going to parts of the 
metropolitan area at night and to have rated their 
chances of victimization as higher than previously. 



Chart A. Summary findings about crime trends 



Direction of U.S. crime 
(Table 1) 



Increased 

Same 

Decreased 



rv * * U L , . - Increased 

Direction of neighborhood crime 

(Table 2) Same 

Decreased 

f ,- ._,_. . Safer 

Comparative neighborhood safety 

(Table 3) Average 

Less safe 



General Identity of offenders 
(Table 4) 



Chances of being victimized 
(Table 5) 



Crime as portrayed 
by news media 
(Table 6) 



Neighbors 

Outsiders 

Don't know 

Increased 

Same 

Decreased 

More serious 
Same 

Less serious 





c 




60 




22 


8 








26 




44 


13 








49 




44 


ill 5 


5 


1 




44 




26 








42 




40 


13 








36 




49 


9 







1 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 00 

Percent 



Chart B. Summary findings about fear of crime 



Inhibits daytime movement 
(Table 7) 



Inhibits nighttime movement 
{Table 8) 



Daytime neighborhood safety 
(Table 9) 



Nighttime neighborhood safety 
(Table 12) 



Home relocation considered 
(Table 15) 



Population limiting activities 
(Table 16) 



Neighbors limiting activities 

(Table 16) 



Respondent limiting activities 
(Table 16) 



Yes 
No 

Yes 
No 

Safe 
Unsafe 

Safe 
Unsafe 

Yes 
No 

Yes 
No 

Yes 
No 

Yes 
No 





24 



41 



68 



59 




61 



47 



53 



10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

Percent 



Chart C. Summary findings about residential problems 



Reason for leaving 

old neighborhood 
(Table 20) 



Reason for choosing 
new neighborhood 
(Table 19) 



Bad neighborhood features 
(Table 21) 



Main neighborhood problem 
(Table 22) 



Location disliked 

House disliked 

Crime safety 

Location liked 

House liked 

Crime safety 

Yes 
No 

Environment 

Transportation 

Crime 









31 




34 


2 






50 




20 


3 






35 




65 








37 


U 


19 






6 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 
Percent 



Chart D. Summary findings about police performance 



Job performance rating 
(Table 31 ) 



Need for improvement 
(Table 34) 



Good 

Average 

Poor 



Yes 



No 



Main improvement 

needed 

(Table 35) 



Personnel resources 



Operational practices 



Community relations 











35 




46 


12 








81 


16 






19 




56 


2 


1 




10 20 


30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 
Percent 



Crime trends 



This section of the report deals with the percep- 
tions of Washington residents with respect to na- 
tional and community crime trends, personal safety, 
and the accuracy with which newspapers and televi- 
sion were thought to be reporting the crime problem. 
The findings were drawn from Data Tables 1 
through 6, found in Appendix I. The relevant ques- 
tions, appearing in the facsimile of the survey instru- 
ment (Appendix II), are 9a, 9c, 10a, 12, 15a, and 
1 5b; each question was asked of persons age 1 6 and 
over. 

U.S. crime trends 

Washington residents indicated a widespread but 
far from unanimous belief, at the time of the survey, 
that crime had increased in the United States over 
the previous year or two. Some 60 percent thought 
that crime had gone up; fewer, about 22 percent, 
believed that crime had remained at about the same 
level; and the smallest proportion, 8 percent, indi- 
cated that it had decreased. Ten percent didn't know 
if there had been a trend. 

Neighborhood crime trends 

In contrast, the modal (most common) response 
about crime trends in the neighborhood over the 
past year or two was that they had remained at about 
the same level (44 percent), although relatively 
more people believed that an increase (26) rather 
than a decrease (13) had occurred; 13 percent did 
not have an impression of the trend in neighborhood 
crime. 

Most residents (94 percent) rated their neighbor- 
hood crime problem as no worse than average in 
comparison to other parts of the Washington area. 
Contrasting with the 37 percent who believed their 
vicinities were less dangerous than others and the 1 2 
percent who thought they were much less dangerous, 
only 5 percent suggested that their neighborhoods 
were more or much more dangerous, Although there 
were some statistically significant differences be- 
tween the responses of members of different groups 
who considered their neighborhoods either more 
dangerous or much more dangerous, the magnitude 
of variation was quite limited. Variations among 
responses to the effect that neighborhoods were less 
dangerous also were small, except among members 
of the two largest racial groups. Relatively more 



whites (72 percent) than blacks (39) believed their 
communities were less or much less dangerous, 
whereas blacks were much more likely (54) than 
whites (24) to have felt that neighborhood crime was 
about average. 

Who are the offenders? 

The largest proportion of residents (44 percent) 
attributed most neighborhood crime to persons not 
living in the vicinity, 1 5 percent blamed neighboring 
people, and 12 percent cited both outsiders and 
nearby residents. More than 1 in 4, however, said 
they did not know where the offenders resided. 

There was some disagreement among population 
subgroups with regard to the place of residence of 
those committing neighborhood crime. A higher 
proportion of blacks than whites ( 1 8 vs. 10 percent) 
suggested neighborhood people were committing 
most crime, whereas whites were more likely than 
blacks (55 vs. 39 percent) to think that outsiders 
were the main perpetrators. Residents under age 35 
were more likely than older ones ( 1 9 vs. 11 percent) 
to have blamed neighboring residents, and persons 
age 65 and over were the least likely of any age 
group to have implicated their neighbors (7 per- 
cent). Victims of crime, who might be presumed to 
have been more knowledgeable about the identity of 
offenders because of their involvement with crime, 
were more apt than nonvictims to have had an opin- 
ion about the residence of offenders they identified 
both community people and outsiders relatively 
more often than did nonvictims. 

Chances of personal victimization 

Respondents were also asked about their percep- 
tions of any change in their chances of being at- 
tacked or robbed. Forty-two percent believed their 
chances had increased over the past year or two, and 
only 13 percent thought there had been a decrease. 
A larger proportion of recent victims (47 percent) 
than nonvictims (40) suggested that their chances of 
assault or robbery were up, and a substantially high- 
er proportion of females (47) than of males (35) 
asserted that their chances of attack were up. Rela- 
tive to other age groups, persons age 16-19 were the 
least apt to have thought that their chances of being 
victimized had gone up, whereas those age 20-24 
were most likely to have held that belief an 
unusual contrast between the responses of the two. 
youngest groups. There was no significant difference 
between the overall proportion of blacks and whites 



rating their chances of attack as having increased, 
although a nominally higher proportion of blacks 
believed their chances had gone down. 

Crime and the media 

As an additional measure of perceptions about 
crime trends, respondents were asked to compare 
the seriousness of crime to coverage of the problem 
by newspapers and television. A higher proportion 
of persons accepted than rejected the accuracy of 
media interpretations of crime, although the 
difference was small (49 vs. 45 percent). Of those re- 
jecting media accounts, 36 percent felt that crime 
was more serious and only 9 percent thought it was 
less serious than reported. In general, there was little 
meaningful opinion variation among demographic 
groups, although blacks, by a fairly large margin, 
were more likely than whites (39 vs. 30 percent) to 
have indicated that crime actually was more serious 
than portrayed by newspaper and television report- 
ing. 



Fear of crime 



Among other things, results covered thus far have 
shown that many residents of the District of Colum- 
bia believed crime had increased over the years 
leading up to the survey, and, in addition, felt their 
own chances of being attacked or robbed had risen. 
Whether or not they feared for their personal safety 
is a matter treated in this section of the report. Also 
examined is the impact of the fear of crime on ac- 
tivity patterns and on considerations regarding 
changes of residence. Survey questions lla, lib, 
He, 13a, 13b, 16a, 16b, and 16c all asked of per- 
sons age 16 and over and Data Tables 7 through 
18 are referenced here. 

Crime as a deterrent to mobility 

Some five out of every six residents said they were 
not afraid of going to parts of the metropolitan area 
they had reason to visit during the day, compared 
with 68 percent who so stated about nighttime. This 
substantial difference between proportions of resi- 
dents who indicated they felt relatively safer during 
the day than at night held for each sex, race, and age 
group, as well as for victims and nonvictims,' 

Some groups under study were less likely than 
others to indicate fear of visiting parts of the 
metropolitan area, Compared with their counter- 
parts, relatively fewer males, blacks, or persons not 
victimized expressed such fear, whether in a daytime 
or nighttime situation. There was, however, an in- 
consistency among persons distinguished by age. 
Whereas relatively more persons age 16-34 than of 
those 35 and over said they were not afraid of going 
to parts of the metropolitan area during the day (87 
vs. 8 1 percent), there was less difference of opinion 
between the two groups with respect to nighttime 
fear: 69 percent of those age 34 and younger claimed 
not to fear such excursions, compared with 67 per- 
cent of persons in the older age range, a nominal 
although statistically significant difference. 

Neighborhood safety 

_Washingtonians reported their feelings about 
being out alone in their neighborhoods during the 
day and night by selecting one of four descriptors- 
very safe, reasonably safe, somewhat unsafe, or very 
unsafe. Nine out of ten residents said they felt 

3[[ should be noted that the source questions for data covered 
]n this section (Questions 1 3a and 1 3b) referred to places in the 

10 



reasonably or very safe out alone in their neighbor- 
hood during the day, and a majority responded in 
the same manner regarding night, although the pro- 
portion dropped to about 6 in 10. 

The proportions of respondents who said they felt 
very or reasonably safe during the day were high for 
all groups under study, ranging from 3 out of every 4 
black females age 65 and over to near unanimity 
among white males age 16-19. On the matter of 
daytime safety, intergroup response variations 
chiefly involved the "very safe" and "reasonably 
safe" categories. Black females were the 
demographic group least likely to report feeling safe 
during the day when out alone in the neighborhood. 
For matching age groups, lower proportions of black 
females than of each of the other three race-sex 
groups indicated they felt safe. 

The proportion of residents who said they felt 
very or reasonably safe when out alone in their 
neighborhoods at night was, as previously indicated, 
lower than that reported for the daytime. Moreover, 
there was a wider response diversity among 
subgroups that felt very or reasonably safe when out 
alone in their neighborhood at night than during the 
day. For example, roughly 9 in 10 males age 16-19, 
whether white or black, felt secure at night, com- 
pared to about 3 in 10 white females age 65 and 
over. 

There were two other major differences in the dis- 
tribution of responses to the questions about daytime 
and nighttime neighborhood safety. Concerning 
nighttime, "reasonably safe" responses outnumbered 
"very safe" responses for all groups studied. Over- 
all, 43 percent said they felt reasonably safe, com- 
pared to only 16 percent who felt very safe. And, in 
contrast to information recorded about daytime, 
there were many subgroups for which a higher pro- 
portion suggested they felt either somewhat or very 
unsafe rather than reasonably or very safe at night. 
Age and sex were the demographic variables that 
most clearly differentiated respondents who said 
they felt secure from those who indicated they were 
at risk when out alone in their neighborhoods at 
night. Below age 50, far higher proportions of per- 
sons said they felt safe rather than unsafe. For per- 
sons age 50-64, there was no significant difference 
between the proportions who felt safe or unsafe, 
whereas the large majority of those age 65 and over 
indicated they felt threatened. Excluding persons 

metropolitan area where the respondent needed or dated to 
mn will ? " T nable to assume that high risk places, those 
ZS ," fe H a "V ere c 'Kfcd from consideration by many 
e fnfl *!* qUesU nS ap P' ied unconditionally to all 

been dlflfe! t ' **""" f '^"^ " d ubt W U ' d have 



ge 25-34, there was a downward trend with in- 
reased age in the proportion of persons who said 
hey felt safe. 

Whereas three-fourths of males reported they felt 
afeat night, 46 percent of females considered them- 
elves likewise, and the response differences between 
nales and females held at each age level. Large pro- 
lortions of both blacks and whites expressed a feei- 
ng of safety when out alone in their neighborhoods 
,t night, and there was no significant difference be- 
ween the proportion of members of each race who 
elt secure. However, when specified by age, it was 
.pparent that for both blacks and whites, the 
elatively high numbers of those who reported feei- 
ng safe applied only to persons under age 50, and a 
;lear majority of members of each race over age 64 
iCtually said they felt insecure. Higher proportions 
if both victims and nonvictims said they felt safe 
ather than unsafe at night; and, as was true for the 
[uestion concerning daytime safety, there was vir- 
ually no statistical difference between the propor- 
ions of nonvictims and victims who expressed a lack 
if security. 

Srime as a cause for moving away 

As another indication of the extent to which 
icighborhood crime caused fear, Washington re- 
pondents who had stated they felt somewhat or very 
insafe when out alone in the vicinity of their homes 
luring day or night were asked whether the 
icighborhood was dangerous enough for them to 
;onsider moving elsewhere. Four out of five of these 
esidents said they had not, whereas 16 percent sug- 
;ested that danger from crime had made them con- 
ider moving. One-fourth of persons victimized in 
973 had thought of moving because of crime; 
elatively more blacks than whites had done so. 
Neither sex nor age of the residents differentiated 
neaningfully between persons who had contem- 
ilated moving and those who had not.* 

>lme as a cause 

or activity modification 

The final measure of the extent of crime-induced 
ear was developed by a battery of questions about 
my perceived limitations or changes in the respond- 



ent's activities and in those of other individuals. 
About 83 percent of all persons age 16 and over 
thought that people in general were changing their 
activities because of crime, and a smaller propor- 
tion, 61 percent, suggested people in their neighbor- 
hood were doing so. A third question in the series 
centered on the respondents personally, and the pro- 
portion of positive answers dropped even further 
to 47 percent. 

More detailed examination of population 
subgroups revealed significant variations in propor- 
tions of those stating they personally had limited or 
changed their activities because of fear of crime, and 
one of the strongest determinants of such change was 
the age of the resident. Up to age 49, a majority of all 
respondents denied that crime was limiting or 
changing their activities; beyond that age, however, 
a majority indicated that it had done so, A general 
upward trend with age in crime-related changes was 
true for each of the four race-sex groups as well, 
even though statistical significance was lacking be- 
tween apparent differences for a few intermediate 
age categories. 

More than half (55 percent) of the city's females 
indicated changing or limiting their activities, com- 
pared to a smaller proportion of males (37). These 
response differences between the sexes held for each 
age category except the eldest one; for black males 
and females age 65 and over there was no significant 
difference between the proportions of those report- 
ing change. For whites of that age group, however, a 
somewhat higher proportion of females than of 
males said they had revised their activities. 

Overall, blacks were more likely than whites to 
have suggested that crime was limiting personal ac- 
tivity (49 vs. 42 percent). Comparing persons of op- 
posite sex, however, this difference applied only to 
those age 25 and over, excluding females age 65 and 
over. 

With regard to victims and nonvictims, there was 
no significant difference between the proportion of 
each group who indicated that fear of crime had led 
to activity changes. 



"As shown in Data Table 15, males appeared to be slightly 
nore likely than females to say they had thought about moving. 
The observation is somewhat misleading, however, because the 
ource question was asked only of persons who said they felt un- 
afe during daytime and/or nighttime. Totaling 42 percent of the 



relevant population, individuals who were asked the question in- 
cluded 25 percent of all males, contrasted with 54 percent of all 
females. Thus, 7 percent of the total population age 16 and 
over including 4 percent of males and 8 percent of females 
said they had seriously considered moving. 



11 



Residential problems and lifestyles 

The iniiial attitude survey questions were 
designed to gather information about certain specific 
behavioral practices of Washington, D.C., house- 
holders and to explore perceptions about a wide 
range of community problems, one of which was 
crime. As indicated in the section entitled "Crime 
and Attitudes," certain questions were asked of only 
one member of each household, known as the house- 
hold respondent. Information gathered from such 
persons is treated in this section of the report and 
found in Data Tables 19 through 26; the pertinent 
data were based on survey questions 2a through 7b 
In addition, the responses to questions 8a through 8f 
relating to certain aspects of personal lifestyle also 
are examined in this section; the relevant questions 
were asked of all household members age 16 and 
over Deluding the household respondent, and the 
results are displayed in Data Tables 27 through 30 
As can be seen from the questionnaire, and unlike 
he procedure used in developing the information 
discussed , the two preceding sections of this 
report, the questions that served as a basis for the 
topic, ; covered here did not reveal to respondents 
that the development of data on crime was the main 
purpose of the survey. 

Neighborhood problems 
and selecting a home 

Only about 3 percent of household respondents 
who had moved during the preceding 5 years to the 
address where interviewed cited safety from crime a 
the most .mportam reason for selecting th 
ne-ghborhood. The most often cited reason 






^sequence ""'* '"' Population 

A majority of Washingtonians (65 percent) were 

saiwftod with their community to t e exte thaUhev 

ere unable to suggest features they disl 



overcrowding were most important, and 19 per- 
cent, the second largest proportion, singled out 
crime as the major difficulty. Compared with any 
other subgroup, respondents representing victimized 
households were much more likely (48 percent) to 
indicate problems existed, and these persons were 
also more likely than those speaking for households 
not victimized (25 vs. 1 6 percent) to have said crime 
was the most important community problem. So too, 
whites were more apt than blacks (22 vs. 1 7 percent} 
to cite crime as the most important issue, and of the 
six annual family income groups, those in the lowest 
category were most likely to have identified crime 
(29),. 

Food and merchandise 
shopping practices 

Persons representing some 263,300 households 
were asked where they did their major food and 
general merchandise shopping. Seventy-two percent 
of these said they shopped for food in their neighbor- 
hood. Of the 28 percent of household respondents 
who indicated food shopping was done in stores out- 
side of the community, only 3 percent cited 
ne.ghborhood crime as the most important reason 
tor doing so, and the two most often cited reasons for 
traveling outside of the neighborhood were the lack 
or inadequacy of stores. In fact, crime was the least 
frequently given reason for not doing food shopping 
n the ne.ghborhood, and variations in subgroup 
responses or the crime category were too small to be 
meanmgful. By a small margin (51 vs. 47 percent), 
householders usually did general merchandise shop- 
dTI 1 ," S U ' ba " r nei e hbor hood areas rather than 






n Suburba " r 
areas cited crime downtown as the 

for 



esu bu because of *ne in 

the suburbs or the neighborhood was too small to 
y. eld , L statically reliable estimate. Convenient 

Terence, r rnmg m UVe behind loca <ion 
preferences for general merchandise shopping. 

Entertainment practices 



env.ronmental issues-such as th Ind 



chose, 



as in the pas, year or two. 



hereas 31 percent suggested they were going out 
;ss often and 1 4 percent more frequently. For those 
sporting reduced entertainment activity outside the 
ome, crime ranked as one of three most often men- 
oned primary reasons; in fact, there was no signifi- 
ant difference between the proportion of persons 
r ho selected crime and those who gave personal fi- 
ances or family arrangements as the main cause, 
ersonal characteristics or victim experience ap- 
eared to bear little if any relationship to the desig- 
ation of crime as the major reason for going out 
:ss. There was an obvious difference, however, be- 
veen persons under 35 and older ones. Only about 
percent of the younger age group cited crime as the 
lajor reason for reduced entertainment activity, 
ompared with 1 in 4 persons 35 years and over. 

A large majority of residents, 3 out of 4, said they 
sually stayed in the city for entertainment, and 16 
ercent stated they left the city about as often as they 
smained in it. For the 8 percent of city residents 
'ho chose suburban areas, the most readily offered 
sasons were a preference for facilities and conven- 
;nce. Crime was cited as the paramount reason for 
ot seeking entertainment in the city by about 14 
ercent of this group, The apparently large propor- 
ion of persons age 65 and over (24 percent) who 
aid they relied on suburban entertainment facilities 
ecause of their fear of city crime did not differ sig- 
ificantly from the percentages for most other age 
roups. 



Local police performance 



Following the series of questions concerning 
neighborhood safety and crime as a deterrent to per- 
sonal mobility, individuals age 16 and over were 
asked to assess the overall performance of the local 
police and to suggest ways, if any, in which police 
effectiveness might be improved. Data Tables 31 
through 37, derived from survey questions I4a and 
14b, contain the results on which this discussion is 
based. 

Are they doing a good, 
average, or poor job? 



i . . 

(46 pe e P vTrd n f 



gave poor ratings, compared to only about 5 percent 
for their white counterparts. 

How can the police improve? 

Residents were asked to suggest ways in which the 
police could improve their performance, and about 
81 percent of the population had specific sugges- 
tions. By far the largest proportion of suggestions for 
improvement were in the area of operational prac- 
tices (56 percent). The remainder of the responses 
were nearly equally divided between matters related 
to personnel resources and community relations.^ 
The specific recommendation most frequently given 
(21 percent) was to station more police in certain 
areas or at specific times; other relatively common 
" nn ""'- were for police to focus on 



assigning a poor rating 15 percent of victims sug- 
gested police were doing a poor job, whereas 1 1 per- 
cent of the nonvictims thought so. 

The city's two largest racial groups, however, 
clearly differed in their evaluations. Whites were 
about twice as likely as blacks to rate police 
performance as good (54 vs. 26 percent), higher pro- 
portions of blacks having suggested the police were 
doing an average or poor job. This difference in the 
responses of whites and blacks extended to a number 
of the sex-age subgroups under study, suggesting that 
race was strongly related to judgments about police 
performance. 

Evaluations given by residents classified accord- 
ing to age also were well defined. Older residents 
were relatively more likely to give good ratings, and 
younger ones average or poor ratings. To illustrate, 
whereas only about 6 percent of respondents age 65 
and over said the police were doing a poor job, 
about 20 percent of youngsters age 16-19 so stated. 
Conversely, about half of all senior citizens assumed 
the police were doing a good job, and only 16 per- 
cent of the youngsters thought so. As age of respond- 
ents increased, there was a distinct rise in the pro- 
portion of "good" ratings and a tendency toward a 
decrease in "poor" ratings, although the latter pat- 
tern did not hold as uniformly as the former. 

Blacks age 16-34, whether male or female, were 
the individuals most likely to say the police were 
doing a poor job. About 20 percent of these persons 

14 



tionally more than backs (26 vs 17 nercentl 



n tmud *' c ? mniunit y relations" and (2) "Don't discriminate" 



(foot, car) in certain areas or at certain times " 



to 29 percent for persons age 65 and over, although 
not all apparent increases for intermediate age 
groups were significant. In contrast, the frequency of 
recommendations for improved community rela- 
tions diminished from a high of 29 percent for the 
youngest age group to 12 percent for the eldest, 
although here again not all step-by-step decreases 
were significant. With respect to those who cited the 
third area operational practices there was no 
particular correspondence with the respondents' 
age. 

Relatively more females than males (59 vs. 53 
percent) suggested improving police operations, 
whereas a slightly higher proportion of males than 
females (23 vs. 19 percent) believed better com- 
munity relations were needed. Concerning personnel 
resources, the response rates for men and women did 
not differ significantly. 

Victimization experience had little apparent 
effect over opinions about ways of improving the 
police. For example, there was no significant 
difference between the relative frequency with which 
victims and nonvictims cited the need for an im- 
proved personnel situation. And, victims were only 
slightly more inclined than nonvictims to indicate a 
need for the police to improve their relations with 
the public. 



Appendix I 



The 37 statistical data tables in this appendix pre 
sent the results of the Washington attitudinal survc; 
conducted early in 1974. They are organizec 
topically, generally paralleling the report's analyti 
cal discussion. For each subject, the data tables con 
sist of cross-tabulations of personal (or household 
characteristics and the relevant response categories 
For a given population group, each table display 
the percent distribution of answers to a question. 

All statistical data generated by the survey an 
estimates that vary in their degree of reliability an( 
are subject to variances, or errors, associated wit! 
the fact that they were derived from a sample surve; 
rather than a complete enumeration. Constraints or 
interpretation and other uses of the data, as well a: 
guidelines for determining their reliability, are se 
forth in Appendix III. As a general rule, however 
estimates based on zero or on about 1 or fewer sam 
pie cases have been considered unreliable. Such esti 
mates, qualified by footnotes to the data tables, wcr< 
not used for analytical purposes in this report. 

Each data table parenthetically displays the siz< 
of the group for which a distribution of response: 
was calculated. As with the percentages, these bast 
figures are estimates. On tables showing the answer: 
of individual respondents (Tables 1-18 anc 
27-37), the figures reflect an adjustment based 01 
an independent post-Census estimate of the city': 
resident population, For data from household re 
spondents (Tables 19-26), the bases were generate* 
solely by the survey itself. 

A note beneath each data table identifies the qucs 



Hon tVldt" 



nc onnrr>( nF the* Afttrt Ac in 



, 

thereby enabling a respondent to furnish more than : E 
single answer, the data tables reflect only the answe'i 
designated by the respondent as being the most im 
portant one rather than all answers given. 

The first six data tables were used in preparing 
the "Crime Trends" section of the report. Table; 
7-18 relate to the topic "Fear of Crime"; Table; 
19-30 cover "Residential Problems and Lifestyles" 
and the last seven tables display information cor 
cerning "Local Police Performance." 





16 







H 

(TJ 






10 


(A 




o 


O 




ii in 
n 3 






41 O 


o* 




H k 






01 


.2* 




to 
3 W 


* 




s -a 


(0 






g> 






(0 


(H 


3 
O 


c 


O 


01 
01 tfl 






"1 C 


! 


1 


3-3 


a 


^ 




s 


(U 




% 


C 

o 

rl 
P 

ID 


01 

-p tu 
p I. 

O 01 
-Q > 


w. 


1. 


<1 ID 


x; 


a 




B 


41 
-C 






-P 


Ul 


t 


O 


O 






F. 


'i 


Ul 
0> 


01 60 

fi C 


0) 


in 
E 


o m 

E a 


E 


o 

P. 




o 


11 






o 




"B 




OJ W 


X 


K 




o 


O 


o o 


x 


H 




o 


-P 


fll 






43 to 
C 


h. 




3 CTJ 


O 


3 


S tJ 


.a 


Ul 




x; 


3 




.2* 


-P 
c 




'S 


01 




c 


4) 


rH 

n) 




n. 




o 




EH 


c 






o 






.JO 

'EZ 






a 






E 






o 






O 






9 




rH 


CO 




-P 
Ul 


^ 




'fH 


2 




-8 


(0 




2 


H 










y 






H 






o 






rl 






-P 






m 






3 
& 






(T 

PH 



COG: C^-COQJ O"Au^t^- 

dd ddo dddd 



CO & 

d d 



ON (\j r-r-o co 

CA CA f A o~\ (A, o^i 



1-- -:[ O W f-i 



-i T-I t~- o- 1 
-a IA ir\ -3- . 



T-IO O O O O 



o o o o o o 




+300) . . , , _ 

d "t -^ i J. i i J. 

ijGH+Jl ^CPQIAIAO 

J S O 0) i-l O) O( CA^A 



Ul Ul 
3 
nl Ml 



as 

45^ 



+J C 

M f-, 

ai at 







01 
H 






10 






ID 






P 






,O 






S 


(A 







0) 




i 3 


E 




c 

5 


'C 






o 






g 




M -P 


^J 




H 







(D ,a 


o 


Si 


H > 


Q 


o 




O) 


d 


in 


4th 




LI 


(D 


^D 


01 


c 


iH 


-H 




fll 


tn 


O) 


M 


-P 
3 


c 





O 


m 


o 




fif 


rl 







-P 






o) 




E 


si 


M 
1 


o 


fll 


H 


o 


-p 


01 


(A 

e 


a 

'H 


H 
Pi 01 

01 01 


o 


W 


ft, x: 


(A 


ui 




..^ 


p! 




0) 


8. 




a 


Ul 

01 


D 

o 


t^B 


I-H 


o 


O 


o 


o 


(U 


, 





o 


o 
H 


& 

H 


c 


s 


01 0) 


"2 


d 

p 


O Vi 


'to 


Ul 




a> 


o 




i. 


g 




"5 


U 


8 






B 


a> 


Ai 




o 






ra 






a 






a> 






3 






(0 






h- 




tl 






H 






O 






-P 






u 






C 






O 






H 






-P 






(Vj 






3 






O. 






o 






Q. 



rj ^i 1-1 p-i CJ (>-i 



O O O O O 



888 888888 88 

f-l l-l i-l M rH rH tH i-l iH T-| f-l 




(0 



i fO CO CO C- t-- 



-JO 

row 



oooooo 



888 

i-l i-t H 




O) 

' 

to 
ro 




& 
p 



(A 

r 

(0 
Q. 



C 
'O 
O) 

"5 

S 




"Jo 



1. 



ooo oooooo 

8'QO QOOQOQ 

QO QQQQQQ 



(0 



O) 

C 



0) 

o 



0) 

I 



(0 



o 

.0 

o> 
'5 

d 

o> 
ra 



oooooo 000*000 ooodo'd oooooo* 

o -d- o r- co t>- to eo ON -d-^o 
O I-H o o i-i IA 1-1 oj rH r<J -4 IA 

H ri pi ri rlrlHH 

cr-o c-o^O 1 ^ H N I-H c"i*o <) I^VD vo to o rj 

g 

V> 
01 

^H 

O O F-iH t^\ (*^ < 

O O i- . 
-i-iAiAiAiri Sir>Jr>JincA-4- -^IAIAIAIAIA H t** 

la 

So 
r) 

<t-< in 

;^ 

in +J 

o in 
fl' 

o^ v o H w 
M i CT- -* -3 1 EA o eptochto 

C"~ *O >- ^O IA "If ^d" C^ CA C^\ * > - - -. - 



ID 

e 
8i 

oooooo oooooo oooooo oooooo 

888888 888888 i8 



8^88 88 8g o ' 
P"*S CM C"% "^ CT^ rH tu < 

fe 

& 




01 H 









a 










X 










n 










avail 


ooooo-o OIAOOC^KH 
O--HOOOO o* d d o" d d 


i> o w CM CM o otN-J^c^t- 
oooood ddo'ddd 






C 
















' 










o 










t. 




01 






Hi 




<H 






.C 




in 










G 
3 


OI-IOIAI/\C<-I OtOOCT-OiA 


C-C^OO^U^ CO [>- rH < 0- 


5 




h 


o r-i d d ^' CM* d <H" d d CM' -J 




e 




HI 






H 


>t 


^ 






W 


(D 








H 

a 


"Q 








o 


\ 








o. 


|M *- 


u 






t. 


li 


TO 






01 


0) g 

_e 


n 


s 


Oo^rA-4i^ito totocxr>Or-i 

O OrH r^-^vO CM (^ n* [^ tO r-I 


C^O tO 0-0 tO 1A rH CM -J- O (A 

-* -a- w -t c- to o to o-- in CM" IA 

r-< r-l rH rH 


ffl 
I, 

m 

01 

W 




3 






01 


Q 'rH 


o 






c 


<l> & 


tf 






C! 

J-, 


c % 








ra 


o g 








c* 


ring >|H 








'H 


W +) 










(0 








to * 


3 1 

o a 


0) 

S 

Wl 






H 'H 


C 2 
rti 4? 


J 


-0-4-rHint-O Wtocr.c^MA-4 


^o^oo^tovD ^raotoc- 


^i 




s 






(ij) P 


| 


g 


t^t^ CM M c^-JtA 


en <t -4 -J -J- IA SinS u-,!^^ 


.3 >. 


fc. <n 


I 






S "iij 










5 o 

IH'H 


S G 


















f*H U3 


"ra s 








0) "I 


to * 








01 -P 
d 


MM 'H 








(U 




01 








JF 


'H 






(D *" 


X 


ra 


-J-O[>[^-d--t Ortryo^rHt^ 


C^CVOOtVrH (^-M^OIAVO-N 


i f) 


1 


& 


&SSEi3K SSSK^R 


KR^$3S ^afT^^r? 


3s 

O (8 





> 






-P 










Q O 


JJ W 










ra ^ 








3 


'S S 








+5 I-l 


Zu 
1 


3 




OOOOOO OOOOOO 

'8 8888 


OOOOOO OOOOOO 

88 888888 


O g 


T- 






HrH rHrHrHrHrHr-( 


O 


0) 








!ti *-" 










JU -P 


.0 










(0 








.S 










S 










c fi 















rl 


I I 





'- 1 2 

in H 




n 


** f- 


*. "^T 


u S 




t 

0) 

P 


f-*^*. ^ 

gS8|^ 0888?^ 
M S^S. 1 ^";,. 5w-Hf>e 


^^--^-,^-, f\ f 


C o 




S 


iff .tn'S-f^W o> --4<>tAo^ Si 

TH Cj^ r'trHHt ^J-rHrHrHiH!> 


cr>O IAVD tr> 4) i-TcA -d-c-aT fe 

i ^l_{ r \CriiM ^ W (A -3 1 -J p-\ b 


" 
ra 2 




o 


^ 


V 


,0 _ 




G 


^T i V ^ -4"^ ra fl> r-f oJ o^ ^fvu f3 


rHC^^S^ S oS'fJ^^i 


jSS 




p 


m fli^j^-? l O l ^^^ c ^ v OOIAlAOlA 


^^OIAIAO lArovoo i/\ IA O IA 


fu S 




H 


"5s iji 


HrntMCMf^iA^O Er-*c^oJ fA ir\*G 


HJ 




pf 


^ (S i-3 


< CE* 


n 




O 


M M 




^ Kl 




n- 






S " 



o oo ooo oooooo oo 



H 



Q) tU 
E, rH 

5> 'ol 



til % 

a 



-J U) 
O 1O 



oo ooo OQOOOO 



ooooo 

O O 'A O- ^1 

~--Ot^Q 
O H W iH O 
in CO rH rH i-l 



-H 
- 



D) 

* 
** 
CO 

C 



O 

0) 



(Q 
0) 



O 
A 

.O) 

z 

CO 



ry-jrHi-iryiA o O (M N t-- IA 
HOOOOO ododo'o' 



OtO rj ir\W vO p-. t^^J to l> 
H i-l N N N --J f4 (N ;S) C 



oooooo oooooo oooooo 

1 88 888888 




MID 
-H-rl 
IfH 



td 41 

-p If) 

O ra 

P (J 



to ill 

** "S 

si 





01 
rH 










) 












OOOOOrH OOOO'DtA 


if\O^J^^O ^^ tr ^,, 






] 


OrHOOQrH OOOOOO 


rn'oodoo oooooo 

Hi-rlrirlrl rlMrlrlrlrl 






i 










; 
















) 










a 




D 






3 




J 






i 




n 


O>ACT>-3M3O> rHC~-OrHrHcr\ 


YI 7 t "i"^ c T' r T c ^ ... .*".' 






S 


On~l'-IT 1 C r \C4 COO> 1 i'Ai-H( f \ 
HH rHOi iHCVJrHrHp-l^f 


^>S|{j 3R!3:3 


3 

rl 











Q 




> 






3 










j, 










j 










o 


. 








L) 


O) ~ 


OJ 

a 






U 


'E 


U) 




O O ir\ "H c^ N tr-0-OOr^C- 


m 


tfcrf 


rl 






4) 
(0 


(0 


1 


H i-HHNCN rHMWiriOICN 




11 


Q) ^ 


3 






3 


M ^ 


1 






:. 


_O a. 


Q 






nl 

n. 


^ 








S 


G 




















3 








u 


O 1 








Bi' 




0> 








c a 








L, H 


0) a 


tn 









x: 


>1 






M P 


% 5 


5 


^riA-ihTv-^P"! -^^-^(^(^rH 


SERK^si ^^^^"^>N 




^1 O 


o 






1 


o> 


n) 






y 


M <U 


(H 






t_j in 


w s 








p 


a 








S 


- in 








3 in 










(D 


jg rl 








o to 


O 








a) -H 


O D 


0) 






- 


p c 


'B 


Or-IIAtOU^N UM-H-OWlAO 


COC-.[^.O-rH-O Oi-l--H>O>Ot-^ 


^ 11 


1- 

O 3 
J= S 


tn 
? 

0) 


sO^t---l(OtOtr\ cr.rHlAM'OON 
^C^-^C^rHH iHHr-trH 


"^^" M 


.p m 
P u 
o a> 


.2> 1 








'a $ 


z p 








4J f. 

a ^ 


El 










M 

^A U 


,_, 


OOOOOO OOOOOO 


oooooo oooooo 


i>i^| 


? & 

* O. 


'c 


888888 888888 


8S888S 888|8 


IN 


fl> ~ 


e- 






'ra -' 


(Q 








Q P 











H 










C ^ 










o o 






89 


o" 8 


: ^ S 

[ft H 




L 


o 


o ~ 


* N 




+ 
U 


rH rf" 


ft 


D c 






^^OOQQ'"' m >OQQO^^' 
OOOOO QOOOQ 


0000^ 00000" 
O O O G_"~" O Q O O O 






H- 
O 
II 
f- 


_J^13'rH V rH> -^H rH ^, & 


-.B-.J, B . * n t. ! 


13 

ID ^> 




{. 


-J-J-t^-j'ci cr-^^ON-^'B 


ti ' 


m 




J-H 


*. rHOlC'^-<t*O<3fl)rH;^^\'^f^o3 


rH iM CA "? | Jj I 1 | *V f 1 


P ~g 




C 

H 

n 


S 0) H rH iN cv cr\ u\-O E -i w W t^i ir\-JD 

H^ TO 4J 


M rH rH C\f M C 1 "! IA-O B rH C>J W (A IA- 
3<D QJ 
S ^ 


a E 




| 


Oj'lS 


(^ 


g 




f 


(S 




13 



CQ (> ir\ H - 





Q> 

f 

to 
5 



o 



-? t- irv 0) 



000000 00 



V <0 

! 

' O 

^ o 



| 888888 88 



ll 




O < O 
O O 



I t. -P 

i ra 3 
HH o 



' 

o P,a> 



0) 

E 

c 
o 



Q 
0) 

3 
(0 

8 

^ 



oooooo 



4 



;o ooo oooooo oo 

:8 888 888888 88 



IV IV 

nl 



a- aco 
d do 



OOOOOO 00 

' 



o t- 
00* 



00* 0* rH 1 o T-* 



q oo ooo oooooo 



88888 88 




35 



So 
fi 

O 4) 
3 N 







4) 










H 




n 






H 


A 0> ~ (N t- Q" 01 tOO-O^OWC^ ^(lAtOMO^O 1>ONIA(0-^ 


1 d 


0) 




fe 


d dcJdddd dddddd H d c! H o d 9??pP 

HHHHr< HHHHflH HHHHHH rinnH H 


M C6 


M 




fit 




01 


!E 




-P 
O 




w a 


mmm 




la 








IH 






H r*4 


O 


0) 
> 






'i H 


ra 


5 






9 ni 




"d 






H 'H 


c 


a 






fn W 


*"*"* 


j> 




vO C^^l-W p-H>vO {A'AC-^C^lOJ 0-O^rHlAO f ^'-\ C ' I . ^. 


'H 


O) 0) 


o> 


5 


t2fl^R S^R^fXR JSKP^S S5KSf^^ 


iu ra 

S w 


si 


S 1 
d 






o ui 

(U PJ^ 


* 


1 






H in 
+) in 


S 


a 


at 

4) 


o^ tocMMJo^t^ o ; lnc 7 u j rH , c ?; c 7 c 7 lA 't ^^"s^SS 

^0 QIAtAtAJ-CV tOt01AI>Ir-^ ^(nNmlfiS m^^SSS 


o rt 

O 41 
HJ H 


S S 


<u 






3 3 3 


f^3 * 


-P 






won 


ra *? 


o 






-P G) k 
o S 


-* O 








C U * 


P <D 
(A 


w 

to 
g 


-P 
O 


o oooooo oooooo o o CD o o q qo i o > qqo i 

8 888888 888888 88 SgSSSg 


J fl6 


3 


a 


EH 




l co 


"w w 


in 






co a n 

-P -H 


II 


S 
o 






P. (D 
O O 


l~ 


g 






^O P. C 










H O 


OL 


''H 






O 
C -P f-> 

o o 










H IH 


_" 


P 






+> 41 










Ul ^H H 




CQ 






n) H 1) 


Q) 


3 





g 8 | 


3 f. H 
D 1 
1/1 C 




03 






C <U O 




CJ 






o w 




S! 






dl tJ 


(Q 


4J 
U 


+i 


a lff!l a Mir 1111; Hl; 

10 nC^lArTcT a! -ao^^^tS -DftTr-rH (U Q-^O^^-q! OJ 
N(^iAiA-4S N -5*0^0 S\ ! o^WiAMo-i> -*UMXO'B > 


id jS <u 
a) jj in 
in d n 
10 S ,H 
,0 h 






(J 


^^n ,v_^^_,, 6 " " " ' O {> ' " " '* " '^^" ' 


w PI a) 








. , -o " "9 ^ 


-P -P 






C 

c 


ff ^^J-Q^J-Q O>*^<t"O^-^"y ^"^"^^t^ffl ?j'^'^ 1 ^i^?t ff 


B[ C g 






T 

t 

r- 


"Sc !!e si 


'P 
in 






e 


M S S S "^ 


g 






P 


to ^ 







fa 

rH 












TJ rH 

a'KJ 


^ lri vOO 


NO CO {*>, <t f'X C?N fA 


CO (A 






CTJ nj 


O -O NO O 


f- IA ^f vo c^ rv to 


NO IA 






u 


M 










3 o 












C 












I/I 












H 












n 
H 


O Ol rl rH 


o m o i^-o -^ to 


ON cr\ 






H 
41 01 


ON tVO t- 


-3 tO ON ON (A fA IA 


CO Q. 






-P in 


rH H 


H tH rl 








o a 












0) 












53 = 












.C V. 












o o 








U 












3 




c 








> 


*2 


o 


O IA fACO 


rH IA O CO i\ CO tO 


-ate 


J> 


S 


1 


p-^ rH H [V 


IA NO CV IA tA N -O 


rH [- 


4> 
















o 










MH 


t-3 











t. 










a 


O 


o 








i 




'1 


l*N, IA tO rH 


O O CO -3 tO rH tO 


ITV r- 


rH 


en 


M. 


rH 1A -H--J- 
rH rH i-i 


O IA VA CO ON -3" IV 
rH rH -H rl 


IN tv 


) 

1 


'5 ~ 


H 








) 


C $ 










I 


^-J QJ 


O 01 


VA lAC^^D 


iT\ -3 rH rH O NO C^ 


tO IA 




g | 


u 

u O 

ra x: 


o tv <V -^ 

rH t\l n 


=3W5r7^& 


NO IA 


J 


Tf 0) 


tJ U 








H 


m k 










Hi 


* T) 


E 








II 


fit, % 


o 








u 


.c: 


IH 


M NO to >O 


CO >O <ttO M lAtO 


NO rH 


3 


Ol ,;, 

c | 


0) 
<H rj 


c>j oj N ~i 


r-l C^l N m C^\ P"l O 
rl rl r* 


OJ(^ 




a 




W 








^. 


V 


m 

H 








5 t 


JE VI 


o 








en & 


81 


5 


rH rH -TNQ 


f*J -^ VA ON ON O -4 


ON l/\ 


U H 


B 


o 

U) 


oj tn H -4 


NO rH O rH O rj O"S 


rH N 


3 cq 
oO'H 


^ 3 


TJ 


H 






E!^ 


o n 


O 

o 








-. Q> 


* 


o 








B 


C | 


in 
o 








Ir? 


M i 


o m 











n'f 1 


O .rl 


rH vO IA iN 


NO ON t^" "-J" i-l NO CA 


OJ t^- 


's 


At -P 


J3 l-i 

o 


IA -^ IA 
r^l P? H H 


3 rH (NJ rH i-I 


"13 


*Wi 'H 


V. .g 


aa 

fcfl H 


n 






UJ -p 


*J2 _p 


'rf iO 








tn fo 


^H d 


01 J3 








3 


(0 


KS o 








y -H 


*C w 


g 








-0 J 


g ~ 


ri 








3| 




5! 


ON NO (A ON 


P"\ O H -H--O rH ~3 


co o 




9 


- 1 ^ 








Q H 




in fi 


H 


rl rl rl 






*^J 


&2 








rt 


tft 


g.S 








tn 


o 

s 


3S 
^ 


O O O O 


O O O O O O O 


o o 


Ji 
Q-i 


O) 


Cl 

J 


SQ S9 
o o o 


8888888 


88 


3 O 


flB 


f 








^ 


s 










-P 4* 












to rf 


m 










Q Q 


H 










rt d 

IN O 












a rl 






N 


g" 'QQ"Q 


8,-N 


5 

-H O 






rH 






10 H 




t 

' 



3 

in 


CN O O * fc O 
H fHNQ tV &>O O 
. i-Ct rH rH [V 

flj NO H N '^-'N / " 

a t^w c-; 


4J i-H 

lit 


u <v 

g. 
n f; 

o , 




s 



t 

T 
C 

1 


d 

H 'r-\'r\ 

s C\TNO" 

5 IACDM 

rl 0) M 
< -P O 01 
H M .C 

sihis 


u O ON ^- fl) 

a 5 (7><T> rl 
-ON ONONON Q 
[A (j, (j, >. - B H 

^ w -^:^?j fa -g 
i SKS AA|^ 

"^XSSSK fe 
H m o m - - 
a in "-OUMA-P 

pSJKS^Kg 


.ctimiaation expe 
Not -victimized 
Victimized (36, 


)3: Data based 
^Estimate, based 




j 


(3 


3. 


IS 


^ 



Q) 







0) 



> 
ra 

0) 



3 

Q 



i 



eig 
har 



Wa 
hou 



tOCOO (i-iOm-^f^'AIA 

QNOO OiHO 1 " l Op'-H 



to NO 

d d 



rHHOrHpi 



1^1 -H- 

I Oi H 



tO-OCl>-OQO>l> 



n -J-5iO O 
-1 r-J H 1-1 H 



r-l D 

d q 



0) 

3 



M 
0> 

"i * 

3 .9 

* 

Q} (ft 



c 
o 



g 

$ 



0) 

3 
,2 



IA IA oj to vo f, 
o d d d d d 



O^OfJ W ON CO PMA CO -d- 

'S 1? ^ <S > C- t^ Q rH cA 

^o>cFvO vo-j3-a-b>B<i;o 



*o t- c- IM^OOOOOOJ 

^^^S t f\ (M w <o to u\ 
t^mc^ f^cncnc^c^frvri-, 



OCDO OOOOOOO 




-T^J "> 
rA'S B 

O^rH (Tj 



q x <*"? v 

'h*3 



o a- (j 

o^ CNO^ON o o> 
? BH 




* 2Zr"*"Q 1 A'A 

^J?fegSKg 












u 
H 














(0 
"1 


rH ^ t^ c-i o- 1^- LA o <> o^ f^ r^ o ^ 












g 


r-l C^ ^O 'JJ ~t r- 1 <1 CO C^ rH ^O [-1 C' 














r-l r-J i J tr\ -! H rl i-l r-l 
rl 












_p 


















o. 














3 














O 














dO 










ai 


-3 O> O O Cf, f> O' rj LA rA O UN 


01 










-^ 


r\j <I I-H O N '"V f> "-i ^ ^J -"t o^ i-i 


HJ 










t; 
O 




rl 




0) 










Ul 




-ri 




O^ 






d 




9 




01 0) )JJ 






H 
O 






C to f~ O into <f^o co t\i W t~O> 


?> rj m 










'3 


O OOO OOOOOOW OO 


a -3 o. 

Eo -H ** 






u> 




So 




jr H g. 

cl ? 


O 

-rl 


ir\ r^ t-- -a iri ^ -t a- --I E- o >o M 


q 

o 




s 




3 "^ 


^ 


1-1 f-\ r> o> T-I (i-\ oj o o r- o q -1 










H >a 




^1 r-l 1-1 I-i r-l iH 1-1 rH rH r-. 1-1 -! 


(., 


CD 






d *3 A 

s<j y 


"M 

H 

a: 




0) 

111 
















S in 






rl -p J* 






m 






t-- -^-tf-vO O OKI -3 <V O> D- fCA 


01 H" 
H -H . 
O *H ^o ' ' 






ai 
in 


f I 


o 

E5 


^ rH r-l (>. t^-d-COOHCOrH OM 
N C^C^rl OiCyOJOJcO^JP^ OJC^X 


01 43 O +> 
01 in ""^ K 






1 








a n u 

W in JJJ -q 


in 




I' 


CO o> 








L 




|U 


tn 






S - " B. 


o 




Qi 


"S "5 3 

Q S 'o 






^ i * 2 


n 


rH UN o f- r-i cr\ o t- fli l-- rvj ir\ IA 


il . 


o s 1 


01 


vO CO O> t^ -* H O O OM^ H O*O^ 


-p c ^^ ^ 


0) 


r- W CT- CO O N W EV Q. qj <-l UN rH 


in ai 


-^ W ai 
^ M Ul 

. d 

b k. 
O o - 


S 


i-l C--t^W O)lArH^C-O^Q N ^9 


5 ^1 "Oof 


i 


rl 


b " 

^ 


'T -9 
E S I 






^&" C O f 

tu s H - -^ 


c 

H 




1 

Wl ( 


"8 2i s 


si 


O QOO OOOOOOO OO 


^-3 o J^ 






H o 


JJ f" H 


45 


8 OOO QQQQOQQ QS 


W c In **" *" *> 






.H 


i_ o> ,3 

O n 


o 


CSS OSSQgSQ 99 

r-l i-l i-l i-l iH H H -i H iH tH H i-l 


fl o e '(jj g 

d2 Q C 

H m , . 


41 




f. -p 

Ul 

o -P 


i_ ^ I 

S c | 






S 1 1 2 3 


Ul 




01 -P 

in in 
3 in 


i *^ ^ 






p ro I*' I 4 B * O 


"O 

o 




U -rt 


Si m 'r* 






m P r! PI 5 


o 


C- if\ 'O rH ^o o i OMO i"~i rj t-- a) 


01 

.a " 


Q) +> 

* S 

S 
w 1 

0) ~ 

ra 


: haract eristic 


8,-. 
1--T f-^^^^^. ^^ 

S. B%'15X^of I ~i. O"'Q 

01 ^O C^W-"H--*^'^O iH tV O 
01 E *O c^ i-l tj v ^' 1 ~ l 

x OD-O -H -O^O>CT>O^O oiu--- 


^ o = | 

It 6 * B 

$ ft o t 1 

01 <H tl ? ^H 

m 01 ai O ^ 

& h " a ^ 

dSS c 

o 01 C P 

01 Tl 
"B -G 

S -p m 

ssj 
tl . 

(0 R, 01 


No neighbor! 




Ul 

H ni 

(J Ul 

.p id 

O 
01 
HJ Tli 

ni 








-P -P 










o 

r-t 


H ^^ise8Sfe9-ri 


n) fl oj 

Q 'H _ 










o 














x 


H nj ,d nJto *^ou\w%45 iR-Po 


,, 










01 


| 3 &iS I^SKUU^g |S> 


1 ! 









O) 




c 




0) 


a 




i 


w 




-(3 

o 


0) 




K 


.2 






c 
<a 


' 


1 


.c 


1 


o 

Q 


o 


1 




E 







_ . 


i 


T5 


n 


c 


9 


0) 
0) 


a 

u 

E 


Suburban 
neighbor] 


L_ 


tn 




Q 


b 




H^ 


3 






in 




C 







O 


"H 


o 1 


*3 


O 


H 


(0 


c 

Q 




j| 






a 


! 







l/l 




j- 


-p 




>* 


g 


<J 1 


& 


o 
^ 


H I 


k. 


OJ 




a. 




i 


uS 

CM 




i 
I 


(t) 




u i 


2 




D 


CO 




I 

W 1 






g 








0) 
















9 
















n) 

r-t 


-4 or^o c^ta *-t-&-> -3 ci -yf> 


to 


ONfAP C-- C^- O^ ^D to O ^O 


c-ty 








S'Sl 


u\ ^ir>0 -iiAto'in-j-jiA IAIA 


^ 


OAIAM J^IA^^JlfN 


JU 








I, in 


H ri 














0) 
















x: -P 
















4= O 
















O C 
















1) -p 
















s a l 


c- c^vor- uxoo^Dfj DXC- toir, 


O 


-ooo ot^'Ato-ocr' 


[---0 








r n C 
o 


.0 tOIAr-i -0 to C^>0 vA u% 'A vDvD 


to 


OC^-O lAtOCT'C^'-O-iO 


t^c^ 




O) 




IH rl 


ri 1 H 




rl rl " 






.E 




rl 10 
0) U 












o. 
a 














5. 


o 




0) 










3 


.G 




.ri 










a 


to 




fe, 


TO H\Hl^- f-rHrHM3-^0^-H- rH rH 


o; 


u\itMA ^[^-C^rgJ-4-iA 


to -a 


j 






k 


-D l^ltM>- O^ tO O >Q K\ OJ to O O> 


IA 


OJ t^ fO O^^O *-Q TV tA H (T\ 


IA-O 


^ 


0) 




01 


H rH 




H IH H rl 






.12 




ii 










5 






n) 












* 




IB 










Ul 


^ 














d 


c 




in 










a 


ra 

5 e 




(U 0) 


rH C^I^O IAC^JOO^D-^t "-^" C^ ^ 

r-l O 'I O O r-l O OJ rH O '-I HO 
rl H rlrlrl rlrtr* rl 


rH 


t^lA-4 -OINOIArHlVtO 
OrHIA QrHOJrHOJOO 


rl O 
H 


3 
0) 
CD 

1 


*" % 




P Li 












o 
E 




P D 
01 -P 
fO 

n 










-S 

fc 


(Q 5 


,-, 


.3 










U 


S 


Ul 

-P 

s 

d 


-s 

o 


rH CJ*^OO O^tOi-lC ^flf\t Q)H 


O 


p-\-^O C O fi O -* Q O 

odd ooooooo 


1A O 

d d 


0) 
Ul 

01 


s-i 


1 

0) 


01 f, 










JS 

s 




t. 


ri n 












lly doing 
iborhood 


by household : 


selection, < 

tores i 


O "^ fr^vO t^^OJHOrHO* O>OJ 


q 

i-H 


-OOO ~--O OJ rH -^t rH C*- 
rHrHfO r*-O^COOC^tI^rH 
WWH H rH rH M M N W 


W CA 


Figures in p 
reliable . 


w 


0) 


ll Ul 
01 


H 








9 


a .2> 


F. 

01 


f. 










tf i>i 


(A rt) 

= e 


r* 

Ul 

S 


Q) O 

m E 










s "3 
13 o 






p 










O 'H 


!*. h 


r H 












rl-P 


o 


O 


ni 
H 






OJOIA -O-^J'^trH^|f\-J' 




Ul 

<H -H 




g 


ci 

(11 


3011AH CT>IAlAIAlNPi-O i-HtO 


^ 






1o 


C (/> 


-H 
-P 


LU !> 

i-i a 


Stt^lA -^-H-i^mJ^P-l -4(^1 


^f 


IA C- 




0) -p 

n ui 


o S 


,B 


5 










cti U] 


w : 


?, 












Tt 
0) 


w 3 




a 












-a 


'd 


rf 

P 










d 


* 3 


3 


n) 
p 


lf\ vD-J-O i-H<J-O-JNlA^O [>>O 


H 


(>OO^ fOr-tOlA(r\\QvO 


(T V (I ? 


q u 


- 


Q) 


J 


OJ SNC^JO vOC^rHOJOJrHOJ t^Jl-t 
H rl rl rl rl 


S 


to H N WrHOJtOI>triO 
Hrl tHrlrH rlrH 


DOS 


01 


(0 0) 


01 


01 Ul 

-P fl 










i 


r 


a. 


H^> H 
01 fi 










j ^ 






P3 -p 










t. 


X c 














-P 0) 


^^ Hill 

.1 




s l 


ITS Nli^O *OOJlT\O*tOOCO Q*O 


-* 

d 


^QC^O (rsOO-*~*O-.t 

OOO OOi-IQOOH 


dc 


B| 






^ Is 


rl 








B 


4*1 

(A 
O 




PH O 

-P 
O 


O OOO OOOOOOO OO 

8 888 8888888 88 


o 


OOO OOOOOOO 

888 8888888 


oc 


r-l O 

0) 3 
Q O 


<O 




EH 










t -8 


CM 














t- o 


Q) 






O" "g 3^3- Q- 


S 


1r" S^" 


r-^ 


I 6 










M 




01 o 


P O 


B 

n 




c. 


? g allloiril ISs 


1^1 

a 


to O O " *E> O 

rHOC-lNOi -O 
* * CF* **CV rH c^ O^ 


o via 
n ,-, 


in b 

01 (1) 


j- 




: E' 


g s S3^"~^"V 'E-^-S 


^^ 


S ^O rH C- 


v 


D o 






pe of shopper and 
usehold character! 


2 -S 'S^>'-~- S8 C^Q^rl n fl*'* 

hj> H OOQ -H r-CT*o\O^O^Q^ a ^~* 
.Q a W -5 ^ 


iwntown shoppers 
All households 


" *rH t** W -4" &- -3 -3 A 
+1CJ01 HVJO l A*' fc *' 

ISroXl toul -OUMA-P 


Victimization exp 
Hot victimized 
Victimized (23 


DOE: Data based c 
'Estimate, based 






ff 


B in 
W 


S 






B 



33 



W 



w 



>- t^-CMB rH tH 



8 = 

Q> 

^ E 



W^o c-O 

<T <t U\v5 I 



to w 
("}P> 



= 

C 9 



** }; 
cS 



OOOOQO 



u* I IV , t t ^^^^'^''-Jt-ltJ 

2 33 



O) O 

** 

(0 C 
C 

O 




S -P O 
-P O >d 

" a& 



t 




o 
















c 
















9 *> 


O' fO O -Jf^ O 


l^OCM rH CO C^ CO ON 


rH rH rH O HI -4 O 1-"| -? -? O O 


w --M 








Si 'c! 


[ O to (J* O O 


OOO*Oi-HCO com 


c^ c^o OCJ^IA ooojOCj'O 


CM 1 ' 








si 


H 


rH ri 












-p > 
















CO 


























Q, 






3 


rH <t .AOCO 


OtooaiTO-^ -*w 


co IAO cof\cr* coo^xooco 


OrH 


3 


> 




S * 


o to IA o q cr, 

i-H H r-l i-H CM rH 


ON oo IA rv co r^ ^ 

H rH rH rH rH rl 1-1 i-l 


rH 


o o 


i 


u 




3 <U 


" 




H 




^ 


c 
















0> 




01 






rH *^io C^O^CM vCir\^ococo 


co o 


S 


3 

cr 




rl 


O O O O O O 


OOOOrHQ OO 


^ JfO lAOlA OOCOO^O-4 
rH Hr-l i-lrHrl rH rH^JV 


H rH 


3 


W 

2 




O 










^ 


I*. 




in 










! 


Q) * 




H 


O O t~- O O CM 




CO OrH -^'f\O rHC^-3OCCTO 


O-3 


a 


JZ Q) 




d 


o to o o^o o 


~*"^rH rH CM 1 


o rwco CACOO- ^oorHco'fiO 

rH rH i-H rH CM rH H 


o-o 


o 






-rl 


rl 


rl 


f* 










U +' 










IH 


e .5 


'7** 


n! U> 










>*H 
0) 


J3* fd 


i 


^ 










r. 




CJ 


,5" 


Cn i-H O' O^O O 




co oio OOV/N rHCMcno(;MCh 


ON - 


Ul 


0) 0> 


a 


s 


[r\ O !A O -4 <t 


^OC>CMlA-^fO ^J -3 


r? rH l i-l rH CM rH ;>J ,~J rH 


rH rH 


tn 

01 


few -^^ 






rl 










g e 















-g 


3 0> 


1-1 


ai 


ivj H in O O O 


rH O [*\ O r-l i-H O i-l 


O -^ Co O O Q^ -H; -H; to O -J- r-* 


CO CO 




"O H. 
Ol 


0) 

nf 


hj) 


O CO O IM O O 

r* rH H 


CO'-'OOtVCD OO 


o oo COOCM (i-\i-Hr-irMO-^ 


0<t 


u. 


c 

O = 


q 


I 










-S . 


. c 

rn M 




Q 






H OJ<A. COO^O tA^fffirHOO 


r-i CM 


(Jl V 
01 H 


WP m 

.E > 


'rt 

"3 


O. E 


ri tM 


^'"'"rT^rT ^^ 


H 




^ -9 

rj CO 




c> ( 


r. ffl 


H 








E! ""* 


(0 


. 


S-P 










. i 


2 


:p 


S 


tO -^rH IAO O 


O-^^Ot^CMO *OCV 


rH OrH OOO rHrH-^f^f-^lTV 


C\ OJ 


s? >> 


o * 


j., 


F *'w 


O O r-l O r-l O 


rH* 4 rl 


ri lACO OOO HrH-HOrVtO 
rl rl H -H r-l 


. CA 


r] rH 

"S ^ 


, g 


n 












6 

O -rl 
IH -P 




tu 


41 










CO 


jp c 


in 
el 


(J 
fi 










HJ 


o 


a 


a 


o -4-co o<ro 


CMMO^\C^iO> OO 


O !^\CO OtNO O O O t-- -* W 


T-I-O 


(U 
O) -P 


s: 


in 

41 

t-t 


p 

o 


c*% (Ac 1 ^ o cv o 

n 


H rl rl rl 


M CM rH H N O H N iH N N O 
rl rl n H 




in m 

1.3 

ai 


c 


o 


o 










<a - 


28 


p 


o 


NO,* 


r-l -^ 1A O C\ tO .N O 


i-H CJ^O -H;OO rHCM!M-i L COiA 


or^ 


rH 41 

n! in 
HJ ni 

O 


= S 
<a a 


j3 
$ 


W -P 
4) 01 


OJ rif N P\rH CM 


lAttl cr\ O CM PA i*> O 
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM tM 

rl 


IA PVri O^O COOtOC^rjM 
rH 




o H 
E' 


"S* 


Jj 


Ell too 










-d 

D Ul 


&g 
6| 


1 
p 


1 


C7i fM f> CO N O 
J QM-H O -i O 

rl r-4 r-l I-C rH rl 


1A H O I*"* ""* - -$*. 
CM CM r-l H ri r) i-t 


o -a/o- ooo otooooc^ 
r^ o <J to o O o I-H I-H CM^O 

rl CMrH r-li-lr-l AJCMNrHr-l 
H 


Sfl 


to 

-P m 
o * 

R IU 




b 


S 










io* f-. 


^^ 


O-i 












E O 


w 




H 


o o o oq q 


oooooo qq 


O OO OOO OOOOOO 


oc 


"rl 3 


O 'g 




i3 

g 


8OO O O Q 
o o o o p 


SO O O O O Q Q 
O O O O O O Q 


8 88 888 88S88S 


88 


-p +1 


8 














41 g 

to ci 


At 












. . 


C rl 


mim 




u 














A 

a 




jaency 
beristl 


s 

-p -~> 

'H O 
O 

O 


4,8 
I-l 

8S O Q 
ri IA Q 


t 1 ^-^ 

a, **^ 

-^ s ^ 

HO >? 

<} 8 

u) o o 


o - 
S rJo" 

H rH C 


-P Q 

in C 

<U 4> 






41 y 


FH r-l 


C^ tj v_^^ 


rn iH n *-^* -n 1 " 




d o 






K a 


O O *^ 
















B *~* -"^S "s^" 1 ^ 1 


*""" 0*0" Q '- 11 -' rj' -d N 


o"*^ Sfflo" SSoSS'"' 


w^ 


d <u 






9-S 


S O Q 


O o O O 11 41 tfc *-* 
IA1A O O 3 


"5 W O rT -t -Q O^c^lJM O N 


N 


41 
SCO 






rl o 


O -O 




5 -rH CMfM" ri-d"O *TX C^\ 4* 


9T 


,O 












Ml tn -J 1 '^-' -^T rH CM r-! CM (A Ci^ C^ ^ 


< 








ro 








P P 1 








^ 

.a ra 


6W p3 


0) i-H CM CM C^l IAO U i K > 
M rf 
^ 1= 


o Oi i> . j. . "9 
d<c "<35 ii^H-P OQIAU^OUS 

n MtftLi O3O1O ^i-HCMCMrA ir\O 

Jo S ,3 y 


Yictimiza 
Not vie 
Victim! 


DIE: Data 
Estimate 






J?! 






ft, 




yz 



O) 

e 
'E 



s 





H C 

[-03 



Ifl i, 

0) H 

h J3 



S-sl 



CO \r\ IH f> 0^ O^ O i 



3 
M 

M 
0) 
O 

ra 



al 
ase 



0) 

3 

(0 



OOOOOO 



n 




d ai 
fli in 
in d 



Da 
ima 







i 










>, 




BE! 


0-, ^N 


O^-OO OO^CVrHlA-J IT\^D 


ON rH -H; Q -*'^J tV C~ -4 O <7- -=t 




HM 




i a 


CA. CACA 


rjcAO cAWcArA-*<t (A ^J 


-3 IACA IACAO CO^Or^rliA-I CA-4 




O 




ti S 




H 










0) 










fl) 




-C! HJ 















6*3 










** 












O. 


m 












3 


*o 




tr) 
*- 0) 








O 
Li 






.3 3 




IA CA CA O C^ V O CO C^J 0^ C"- rH 


*O IA IA CO CA O ^O [*"> r-i u\ CA *"! A IA 


00 


to 




d *ri 
ci -tJ 


o^ co o^ 


lAr-lCQ kV^-lVCOO-4 I>[V 


IV iV rH O^-O O CO O CA^O rj rH CO IA 


ii 


o 




01 ft 

-? 1 ;! 

ti 0> 
Wl H 




H rl rH H 


rH rHr*J rHrHrl fJ^J^'i^rHrH rHrH 
H H 


+3 


b. 












c 


o 




0) 








o 

rl 


0) 




.h 








(fl 
,-H 


s 




in 
n) p| 






cy ivcc MWO o o -a- o <N o r^o 


a 

Q 


w 




d ' 


H rH rH 






D, 






r. 








O 
-p 






01 0) 










*1* 












IH 






4J O 

O B 










0) 


^ 










01 


E 


01 










l; 


c 


is 


in 

Cl 


C^- OMA 




IA rH(0 O--4U> tOCHiHCOCOC^ O^IA 


1.1 


s> 


3 

1 


01 H 


(J* O 1 . O* 


I-1M-* O-O^rHcArHtO COOi 


fy CMC^ iMCViA rHC^CA^N^N iv-v 


-p 














0) 





-o 


v o 








ri 


c 


g> 










.5 t 


01 


E! 


o 


^J- Offl 


OC- 3 lArHIAlAO-'A -^--1 


CO COCA lAi-HO COCAtV'-IN'A NO 


10 01 


u) 


5 


FH 


t-l MO 


rH rH 0- WcAlAd^O-a '-'-' 


_J >U(A -tiAQ [AIV'AiAIA"') -* C~ 


t. ^1 


t c 


Id 


Q 

ja-P 




HrHrl rHrHr-liH 1- 




M (0 
-rfrl 


c 


3 










[ti 0> 


0) 


o' 










.1 


s 

0> 


Pi 

01 
n 


o 
nj 

.S"d. 

0) rl 

B 0) 


xr\ <t*O 
O O O 


ddd d o d o o CM oo 

rl rl rl rl H rl rl 


IV CAO^ OOO <O O - O C}^ ^~T 

(A r^-J rHlAO ^ydrHtOO CA-4 
JH rHrH rHrH HrHrHrHrHN rHrH 


ounding- 
-ically i 





<H 










H -M 


JC 


Ul 

01 


CJ 'O 








fi-l 'rl 






Ifl 
f] 










0> -P 


0) 


8 










Ul Ul 

3 





Ml 

in 

01 


hO U 

9r 

ar 


vo c^- ir\ 
d do 


tv IA O (NcAOl--lv^J -O -* 

odd OOOOOH oo 


CD i-i N r~oo coiAtviAty^o ivco 

r-1 rH IA (VIVO -41V-00^0-^ aJJ 
H rH H rl rl H rl 


ro iri 

O .rl 
01 


(0 

3 


'3 


^ 

OH .P 








d *> 
m ui 

+1 10 


(ft 


B 










O 

-p 


3 


'f> 










O rH 


. 


3 


0> 








-P O. 


O 

C 


S 


(J 

n 

01 

'c! 


(A 
IA lA'A 


-OO^O oOC^IV-OiA -*C^ 

flcOIV rHIAr-lrHlA-J- -J-4 
~f 1A -tl -D 1A 1A 'A IAIA IA >A 


p-1 ^JrH OJ rH rH O^ rH CV ^O O; N CA -4 
W (?!? ?J^S CA^rH-^^r? R?c7 


O H 

q m 
ro 

-P 0) 

o a 


s 


3 


So 

.(-) 








R 


(0 






O CO 








M rl 

E a 


0> 


fl 

i 


3 


O O 

S 88 


ooo oooooo oo 

888 888888 88 


OO 000 OOOOOO 00 

8 88 888 888888 88 




c 







S S3 






0) C 


s. 






p 




rl 
O f^ 


CO O 

8S 


E 






rl 
(J 


8 


0) 01 5 


-H 

P O 










d> -4 1 


a ^-* o (v 


Ul IH 


t ^ m 






01 Q 


^-s U " 


-rt Q ^^ H " 


01 0> 


"6t 






a s 


Q 0) i-l O 


U) O O B rH-^- 

-P -T O -H CN C 


g. N 






1 


w - 








O 








^T a'""'"^ 


O CO - S C 

rv f ~? -^f~^ oj p. ' 


m 














T! 


o 

CO 

3 




of place and p 
on characterist: 


.5 g Sc^ 

Jj 5 O rH 
TJ W CA--- 
(ji rl "-< 

8. 

03 H 

w y d 

ie -oi to 01 
O ri E fri 


^? l^ ^1^" 
^Fi^ aTartQiAiAai Qg'S 

SEd: iD^i:^:G S 

^""^"^ nl u -H 
o S^ HIM OJ cQ(AiA^O y B t* 


2 ^9 S S*"' ooooo ijim 
S . 8 SSiQ Sbsoo, -3 

1 1 fe as! Hi 

OJ t, rH m o ,, 

1 & ^^ ^^5, o^-f^s^l I'^i 

1 ^ K || -i|| 4^^ ^Se 
2 S M -S 1 


)TE: Data based 
lEstimate, base 


* 




8/ r 


2 $ 


-S? > 


JH W t^" 
01 


kJ 

^i 






K "li 






R. 








E? i- 












37 





A 


^ _ 






; 


o OLJ ooo oooooc, oo 






5 

.*! 

o 








E: 












P. 








3 








O 








on 








-C 








.s 




3 
O 

5 


C-- -0 \ 0) I- in l^ovj 


o 

H 




z> 


O 'O Ol O-. -O O vQ .O vO t-- CD i-H (O ir\ 


H 




E 


r ^ 


D 









o' 








O, 


0) 






O 

-p 


u 






t, 


e 7: 






01 


CO ? 






0) 

i. 


E 






0) 


^m si 






U) 


O rf 


i, 

o 


OJ Q -o I-H f- o -cf to o> --H -Q o a^ co 


ai 


CD 7 





-I ?JrH ll^^fO O 1T\ C\ O IV !!. Q -a 

.H ^ -H ,-H ,-J rvj n M ,-, ,H 3 


C 

0) 


o. ^ 






h. 


CD i. 






q 


.9 -s 






'^ 


i 1 

Q 






-H 




01 




hi 


15 




*> O r^ ro-Ju^L CO -4 OJ O in ITS mo^ 




8 5 


01 


ir\ sOm I-H X ^\O vi>cr*CQr^c^oj ij-\u-\ 


H ai 


o 














S - 


J 






3 n 

P .H 


o s 






01 


03 |- 






o c 


Ji 






fj >l 


C h 






3 H* 


o ^ 


a 
o 


m r^rH ir\cOkV [^-'Ot^iAQac^ fO-J 1 


o ! 

11 tl 

J3 .H 


c 




i^ (f\t^ E ^'^ ">[ O-Jp-iO _^(t^ 


H 01 


a J 




ir, . n-\ rHMp^n-^irv (rM-r-, 


10 >H 
-P H! 


O | 






Q ra 

-P H> 


ti 






o w 








-4^ tr> 


CO ^ 






a - 


d> ^ 






a in 

0) 


2 


3 


00 000 000000 00 


o S 

c o 


W fc 

H , 


o 

EHI 


8 88 888 8S88SS 88 


>J 0) 








I-H 1 
H w 








Sa> 
s 

01 








-3 








o 








a 1-1 






^^ 


o 








H Hi 




tj 


g 


+> 3 
w o 




-P 


_ o in 






L(l 

J 

4> 
HJ 

'r; 


X Q CTOO 
l> o a) i-t o 

.. --. ^ 'fl 4^ 

O -^*<-^ ^-w-^. rT N ^' " 


o 1 

T) (D 




la 


o Sr? ^IR" '^ t X^.^' So>. 


01 10 

in d 




Population ch 


h Om ioK"i O^'^rtSti o'i-r) 

S. r?" -C!.Xt ^2-d-CiCl. i '^ S 
3 ^^ vxt, ^^-.t^^B ,"^1- 

*jj <U(J -POOI c-ICVfrt^t-xOffl'H^S 
HE .rjnl Illll -H-PO 

XSti ySmo o)rHr3r>Jm ir\^o u ^ S 
t/l JJ5 -^ ^, 


HOTE; Data bs 
Estimate, b 



OOOOOO OOOOOO 



oooooo oooooo 



0) 

o 

<0 



O C- CVQ C- f> lAQ-tf(OOl*>i C- - 



o 
r 

Q) 

a 

0) 

o 



*w 

8 



O 

TO 

O 

' 
'a 



eg 

CO 

a> 
S 

(0 











u 

i-H 










3 


OJ O rn IA Q ^Q or^oOO-^) r^ONOO-J (^^r^^j-to^t 










i-HOOOOO OMOOOO OOOrHQO OOOOOO 








-P 










.9 














o, 










s 

to 










a; 










-p 










.5 






o 




c 
o 






5 


T-H^r-HArH^ ^^CO^O^^ ^OO^CV^ !>-[>C^rH^O 


rt 






HJ 


vOQ3t^-C^C^-'-O -HQOU*^-^ CO^^D'^iJ^CO C^lA-^C^ON 


d 






C 




^J 

p. 


0) 




n 




o 

p. 


o 








o 

p 


c 








Li 


CO 


^.^ 






0) 


E 


w 






0) 





d 






w 

01 

w 


k. 





o 


fO^OC'JCJ^GJO^ tHvD p^ *-O ^O (O C'J CO C 1 ^ -3 ^D ON C^- C~\ rH CO M i-1 


4> 


a 


rH 


o 


tO*T\^Q-t<tl/> O^O^t^lA-J'C^ rHiHQ^'HCOT\ t^Ot^'HOr^- 

IK *-H cyfvHi-H CV^VTH-( 


1 


0) 


OJ 






p, 


o 


c 






-3 


1 


ra 






a: a> 




t 
s 






5b nj 


o 


& 
v 





co-Kf-wjajojm -3'-tfO'-QiAoj f\--icvOc^\i> cvo^rHir\'-Of^ 


11 


3 
O 


-f 
f. 

(0 


4> 


iHCOiAt^-tp^O ^11^0^0-4^-4 Q<fO*J-^C^tG O ^N O^- <?\ -J" CO 

^JtAc^r'Jc^cy ^T^|'t irt tc<\Nky ^JIAUMA-^-^ ^jiAir\ir\-^rn^ 


W> 3 

ll 






4) 








ra 


tl 
H 






H 't-5 

O , r | 


o 


Ui 

0) 






ai '<a 

01 j3 

P in 

10 


!s 


o 


a 

Q 


rHocof^oto t^'nOOJOo/ c^-TH^f-io^C- 1 <"<or^v^c^c^ 


(J Ul 


"a 
O 


g 

H 

.p 


5 


CV[>QC--OO t^C^^<ftOO O^COryCQCT''^ C^JtHO^t^xnN 


H in 
ra a> 
*) in 
o at 


B 


y 






43 a 


s? 


S 






O 0) 


a) 


3 






a 1 










m 


ra 


1 






o & 







$ 


OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO 


OJ 




a. 




888888 S88888 888888 888888 


t! 










o 
S> -P 










R 3 










O 










3g 










13 (H 










Q 










H 








SQ Q o 


P 






J 


Q q O 


tfl f) 






3 


B _ ~' 


4) a) 






i-i 


iH i-H r<\ tO 


O 1 






G 

0) 

-p 
o 


OOOOO QOOOO OOOOO OOOOO 

Q> QlTsOlAV\ OCOrHOO OO^rHtO-^f 5*tOC*-mC^- 


g 1 






ffl 


_^ rH O^ o^ C'JQ) ^--JO^O^O^S CJ^O lA^O O\ 41 r-l [f\ -j- [^ tO 0) 
_, <r rH rH rH rH b -4 rH rH rH H > rH PJ c*\ Cf\ CN ti fj fr\ J- i-d; rt> t* 

TJ ^ '*^^"K-<'^-'^ ^ O *v^^^^^* '^-i- n * W 'S 1 _*-^^'* M ^^^ rt s_-^l_i^">v^C_J O 

w w -^ *J 


01 0] 

aid 
,Q 






u 


H 


' D 






jpulatian 


O^ -^f -^f f^ -J" Q CT* -^t <J" O^ -J 1 R <7* -if -^f O\ ^J 1 3 ON -."t d/ O^ -^ g 
Ula r d T ~ l ^^^ y ~ Nh ' Br-HCVtVf^in^ ^I^^ ^ ^C % JC^tC'^^^^O BrHCVC^f\invD 

H ro aj u *u M 
J-g S ft' ra B tn 


TS; Data 
^Estimate . 






& 





o 
R 



40 











u 
c: 


s^. 

M O 


o c ~. m , "; <7 i "^i . . ^ "^ " 












aj 


H O 


















Sr^iHsO Ql Q^sOi-H CN tO<AC^ lf> 
,-1 t-t in i-l rH CM i-H 1-" 












s 


o t^ 














X 


-H ' 














c 
















o 
















H 
















4= 
















n) 

H 


Kg 


O Qs [> cr\ .-1 O CO i-H {M -^t so IA 












^ 


l^r 


O QspAsQ IA COl.A'-' O i-HsO-JCiA 
O rHrH lA^H^H CM CM iH 












+= 


-P IA 
















+* o CM 














JTJ 


O .rl " 
















s > 
















a o 


O CM-3ts_ CO rHCMOs SQ ^-OjlACA. 














In 3 


SOiAin -^t c*%c*AO t^- THOTH -t 










0) 




A ! O 


CM CM u-\ r-* r-1 H CM iH rH rl 










o 




sO O CA 












c 








Q, 

a 








<0 




-^Q" 


O i-|sOu\ CM IT\CS]T-H PA OrjfOO 


Q 

h. 








c 




~? cR 


O OAsO sO so ~*t -! PA f- " i-< m 


tu) 








1** 




o - 


O CMrH ITlrJr-H CM i-t rH 


(J 




4> 




o 

I*BI 




Hi 




$ 




3 




41 01 J!? 








-3 


0) 


a 


-3 f\J vQ C^ <f <-H m CT- ^C CO CO CO f~\ rH 


b H (U 
En w Q. 




38 


O nAtO'A tO CMrHCM CA (O-^PAi-1 


1 


o 


& 


rl 


^ 5 0) 




PAjJ 


-* ^ " ( ^ ^ 


"id 


CO _ 


p 

o 




tS 1 - "ft 


41 

n 






ft. 


I ** 






R "S 5 

- 3 *? " 


-t 


s? 


O CA"AI>- T-l QQir\ i-l (i^CMi-ltiA 


p, 








'r* [j CL. tj 




1 OJ 


SC^- 1> t> I'"' Os. IA i-l CO CA Qs _4 ^ i 


o 


o 






5 u ^ 




(N to 


r-l l|\ i-l <-< rH CM rH 


"^ 


fcl B 






^ -H J so 




i>- 




41 


0) H 

ft ,5 


o 


kN 'ni> o^o>-r\ <T\ ;N c 1 ",, tV i""N Q tH cr* 


'H K (1 ^ 

Q -H X 

a, tfl J2 ^ 




-^o 1 


O CM-tftQ O OOJC- TH O^l^-OJ<Js 


41 

W 




^ 


vQ u"\ ^-Q fO ijTh. irv O P"> -3 T\ O* u"\ F~ *N 






CM O 


* iivH-r^ r^- -sfiAts- f\ 


(U 
















to 


o ^ ^ 






a w o> 

tj ^ e ' H 




CM -* 


r-l 


0) 

iJ 


S3 g G 






_5 ' H ,S "5 




'"' 




Hi 


2 o -J 

to** C $ 






"iu 41 OB. 

P in Si Q 




i-H O 


O [>CO O- -3 -itO LTI so O Oi (O -tO 




R. 


- m "3 


[Q 


-* CMC- -d/C-lA OJONOC-OJ l>Qs 


o nl p. 

P CJ Q. 41 




45 


8 4""" !X S"S ^ RTw" ^ 


rl 


8 5 f* 


iB 


i-l CM O CO CM fn. C .t CM CM iOJ Cn, OOA 

to to <O c~-ta ta mtotcror-tv to to 


O 41 C 5 

p . a .E T 




"s 




Ul 

41 


""" Q. ^ 






a P. E' g 
q 3 iu fc, ft 




fno" 


tOCM-0 N C-^c^ W (M^tO^f 


6} 


Q C r. 






* i " O 




5 - 


O i-HHrl "n iHrHH CM i-l T-l rl H 


K, 








Q 01 U) 






TH 




(A w 


d 


o oo ooo oooooo oo 


" JS g fl) g 

>.i*P <H hi P, 




1 




-t u 


T| g 


o 


8OO OOO OOOOOO OQ 
oo ooo oooooo oo 


of HOI ul 
G PI fn 3 ji 
Ho /A ^ 


41 


3 


Q i-H OA tO PA O"s "sO ^D CM i-l CM [Js IJA 


'd H 
H 'flj 


*- 2 S, 

flj 0) 5) 

c 






H "' 

-rj c; o (Q r y 

41 -J .p JH! tJ 


1 


P7 ^t 

CM 


O rH" rH "^ !h r-1 rH r-l' Oi rH " 


ES 

01 












(11 O 


O fAi-ICA O* -:ft*Jsj^ o lA^-CilCM 


H 

OJ 


* 






3 -y H 




-P O 


" * * 1 '"TTV? 


y rH* 


C c 

j, O 






* M. CU ! rt 

^5 (F* Cl 
-J- Pi G " LI 

o <8 to 




^ (M~ 

to 


8 CM rH IA r-l Csl -! rt "~ 


S^H 
IU 
4J tl 
H d -H 


1 






a ,= IH f- .H 
O hi -d 








H <i] 


3 3 


o 

+J 

U) 

ti 


o 
o 

SO E! CM O 
o <u <o o 

-3 l> iH (*M>- 


^P 41 O -P 
ra "H h O C 

dl 41 41 " 01 

S|H N g " 
' - 1-1 ~ v 




i> Q 
H O 

8- 
Os 


o os>o PA -o r-ia-o m c-otvco 

O iH -H 1T\ t-l rHI CM i-l T-l 
i-Hi 


+> .Jj 
o ro 
+1 ..J 

(0 

o 


5 s 

r- & 


01 

-p 
<J 

10 


w o f\ oo- oooo O' R -o rH 


41 ' 

a ff 

fit 4-1 










PH 


t) 


a o - cioSo o o "AM 5 41 oi-v 


ro *ll 












3 


o vr\n~s. --o totx>^"H H 














-K 

o 


W ~~ <^fAC~- jT"Ej??_r^ 1 ri'cTl 
0> iH -^ PlfiAsO -^IV-li-'Os.> Tl'HO) 


fil Ol 












d 


Pi CM s J<s_^^ ' ^ '^s-^s^s^-s D H^ -P C4 


-I 3 












o 


' (0 (J 'H 


ffl C 














rj 01 -f-tH-'SS'CS 
<q 4110 +1CJ<U *HCM C"A -^"-O *3 B -P 


; 












1 


'Sol oi2,H4? -ioiAiAOiAHj'o.ri 


p 1 












e, 
& 


XSit'H (J3=lO lllrHrMOJCA lAvO S > 
0) IVl 00 -rl 


g ' 















d 


IA <f (0 -J -* -J iHCOta^Qi-IO -^C-MC^-SO 


IAC-C--H O 1^ 








Si 


(i-\lA-jT r \-*fl -^Wm-^^HA CMCOCOtOWMD 


IN rH OJ C^t 1 ! CV 


S 






& 


rH i-l 




1 


D) 




P H 
'H o 


^ OJ[ _ H nrtHMnN _ _ 


^^ 


^ 




In 

01 


3 !y 


lAtO If-ff'-a O i>^ If* O tO [>- C 1 ^ rHUM~-CT^O^O 


rH U\ IA O O^(^ 


rl ol 


'> 




IH 


P\!NNrHrl^H WrHOJrHrHH rH^HrH-H rH 


t^ CV OJ CV iH iH 


"3 





d 


O 01 






O -H 

h rH 


! 


S 








01 


a 


ra 








9 


i 


a 

H 


H 






01 












in >, 





1 


w 

O ft) 
H 


O^lAtOt-tt ^WO^f-^^ C^COO^rHO 


CO "" cr* ^J Q** -^t 


d 

u n) 


fl> 


[J 


-P -rl 

ttj 4J 




r>j c*- irs cr* co cr* 


S ." 


^ o 


o 

H 


^S 

0) CQ 


<ir\-5WMAU\ lA^O'-iS 1A1A1A -J-U^UMA-5^- 


IA IA IA TVU-S LA 


H In 


w C 


% 


fi'S. 






3 


b; (a 










o w 


2 c 
w c 


Q 








o 


ffl fc- 


Pi 








-P in 


So 


0) 


r-1 10 






g 0. 


E m 


P 


a h 


MVO^OPIWC- i-ic^rg-^oim rxocoto^o^ 


tO CV O *A**O O^ 


ffl D Ul 

I, 01 


5c 


j 


8 5 






H^ b) tn 

O TO 


"4** CL 


Vl 


ft m 


HHrHCNWOJ rHi-HrHHCVW C^JiHOjr^C^Vt*^ 


1-1 T-H T-I iH 1-1 C4 


C ^ u 


C ^ 




S o) 








(0 w 

*4 (J 


i 








ra H 
5 ,5 E 


It 


a 

in 




OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO 


oooooo 


3R m 
t> 

4> -H (H 


_ 


t-i 


o 


S8SS88 888888 88888S 


SSSS88 


Q ra s 

rH 0) 


'*- S 


o 

C 


H 






flit! 


8 5 


1 








o o 


e 











C -P H 

o 












'H fl P 




n 








-P 0) 3 












Ul IH O 


to 

W 


Ul 

a 


u 


II I 


8 


g,fS "9 

in c 


a> 


1 


S 


4 ^ ^ 


-0 


C 01 O 

o in 


2 


V 


0) 

P 


8OOQO' OQOQQ 1 -' '^ Q QQQ < ~' 
oOOO ooooo Qoooo 


8SS88 C 


a .c "2 
ii 4 1 ui 


w 


0) 


ra 




o^ i-: ir\ o u^ 


in c ra 


H 


2i 


1 




^RKK^S 


- jj^ 






o 


0> N} 


TJ 


ra Pl (T 
P ti 






Populatior 


d "l I *V i 1 H*l 1 "T* i .1 S 4) 1 III Z 

tlOJ^OOlAIAOl^d-OOlATAOlA ra-P*OQ*A'AOlA 

ffl H H W M rr\ ir\-O B rl N N f\ IA-O .H H (V W c~> ^^> 
^3 B 0) , 


O^ ^f <t O^ -4" C 

H rj tr\ ^t'-o n) 
Jri I 1 1 1 i 
u & o IAIAO f\ 
ra 1-1 c-j M (i-iiA>J3 


ro C (0 

B ' a | 

in 







. 


to fj -S CO & - U) --M O IV [-- rH -^-rH 0^1A^J-0 ^ J "}^ ^7 ^ 








0) 


cirAaJ^ociJ- (Atn(Oa^-DC^ (NtAw'rJojoJ tNO-Nr^r-ic^ 

3 ul HrHHrH Hrl Hrl H H 








o 


" 




O) 




|l 


ofiMWtou-* -^co^or-Jc^o 1 - -JMOO-JM tH<oo > -J'-*'-J 


M 


c 


tu 


5 


M^S^SS ^rH^s ss^^iss sdsa 


i 3 





Tl 


JH 




a -H 
** "aj 


k> 

a 











E 


rH 


H 




] r^ 




0) 


} 




a n 


In 


B? 


o a> 

-H o 


co^-ao--icn ^-iNoa)c^^ --;<a ^i^t^-o ooxm-ONTO 


3H 
cfl 


O o 

*- o 


c 
o 

'H 


-P -rl 

rt -p 

fj O 


(oc^oavi^: o-JM4oo S.EJS^.ihS? SS^SSiA 

^i/NYrvm^f-J ir\i/\ir\^ri/Mf\ -JJ-^-^TU^^A^J u^*w*j*j*n-j* 


a) " 

H V 





8 


5 1 s. 




rt O.-H 


^ e 


U 






5 P -r> 

B) in 


n 


a 






i> ai in 


IK O 


0) 


H w 




q +1 ' 






Q> OJ 






B ^ 


-p 


y o 


mO'Oo^o -* w IT, t^i c^ -* T ^ t ^ ;' H . ^^ *? "t ^ "? *^ ^ 


"58 


w 


f< 


irt O 


rH(arHrHcvi>- csdpo-d-rH 9^39 ^Id !f> ^9 5? i? & ?j 


c S 


Q_ 


^ 


^ ifi 


\ rH CV OJ 1<-HT> W N PI (A (^ rH rH rH !\t N N rH rH rH rH ** IN 


COO 


^J 




0> flJ 1 




. -H 


JDtf Itl 


in 


ft, f^ 




Pt -P Cl 


C .H 


01 

in 

a 

Q 






dM 


V O 
Q, 3C 


ft 




000000 000000 000000 000000 


'38.^ 


E 


<H 


8 


888888 88EJ888 8S8 888 


41 O (U 


** o 

w x 


O 
1 


EH 




,1 M 

_+ ai o 

rH rl 


O ">! 


-P 






C S 










o n> 










.H M H 3 




P 




***-\ *^*** 


-P ai a 




.p 






w x: o 


h- 
CO 


CO 

-6 1 


O 
rl 

8 


gg 8 8 







1 


y 


ti 8"888 SgwS^.^ ^^w; M ^^^A h 


R ra o 

Tl 


n 


I 


a 


S-Sd-SS & ii;ii;S- o .v_^*_~ o o 


'S -a w 

ara 
tn .> 


H 




ro 




1 0) 






o 
Q 


S ^ rrj ' a -t+4.'S 


n! 3 fl> 

4J B)-P 






O 


d ^ "^g^tnS.^'irH^K'^^ .MHHRK'KSS S^NW'&fAS' 


0(2 jj 
















<t 


IH 3 s E ^ 


in 






i 




1 " 






o 


id 








ffi 


w 





Appendix II 

Survey instrument 

Form NCS 6, the attitude survey instrument, con- 
tains two batteries of questions. The first of these, 
covering items 1 through 7, was used to elicit data 
from a knowledgeable adult member of each house- 
hold (i.e., the household respondent). Questions 8 
through 16 were asked directly of each household 
member age 16 and over, including the household 
respondent. Unlike the procedure followed in the 
victimization component of the survey, there was no 
provision for proxy responses on behalf of in- 
dividuals who were absent or incapacitated during 
the interviewing period. 

Data on the characteristics of those interviewed, 
as well as details concerning any experiences as vic- 
tims of the measured crimes, were gathered with sep- 
arate instruments, Forms NCS 3 and 4, which were 
administered immediately after NCS 6. Following is 
a facsimile of the latter questionnaire; supplemental 
forms were available for use in households where 
more than three persons were interviewed. Fac- 
similes of Forms NCS 3 and 4 have not been in- 
cluded in this report, but can be found in Criminal 
Victimization Surveys in Washington, 1977. 



O.M.B. No. 4I-S72052: Aocroval Expires June 30. 197-1 


FOFIH NCS-6 NOTICE ~ Your report m ihe Census Bureau Is confidential by law (Title 13, U.S. 
u-!-> Code . ll may be seen only by sworn Census employees and may be used only for 
it nil si cal purposes. 


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ft. COnllOl [lUliltief 
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL CRIME SURVEY M P "" "" '""' 
CENTRAL CITIES SAMPLE 


ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE 


B. Named household head 


* 4a. Why did you leave Iheie? Any olher reason? iwix ait mat apply) 
iS) i PJ Location - closer lo lob, family, Mends, school, shopping, etc., here 
2 PJ House (apartment] or property characle/lsllcs - size, quality, 
yard space, elc. 
a P] Wanted teller housing, own home 
4 PJ Wanted cheaper housing 
5J~] Ho choice - evicted, building demolished, condemned, etc. 
6 CD Change In living arrangements - marital status, wanted 
to live alone, elc. 
7J^j8ad element moving In 
aQ Crime In old neighborhood, afraid 
9 r~] Didn't like neighborhood characteristics - environment, 
problems with neighbors, olc. 


C. Reason lor nonintervicw 
1 Q TYPE A 7 zQTYPE B 3d TYPE C 

Race or head 
jjj) i PJ While 
zQ] Negro 
3 Q] Other 
TYPE Z 7 
InltiY *w not oblalntd for - 
Line number 


6& 


Ill mote Irian nna reason) 
b. Which reason would you say was the mosl Imporlant? 

J27) Fnrnr ffsm lumber 





Sis) 


5a. Is (here anything you don'l like about this neighborhood? 
|!B) oQNo-iKIPlooa 


CENSUS USE ONLY 


! $$ 


o^ iQTraliic, parking 
^ ' z Q Environmental problems- trash, noise, overcrowding, etc. 
3 Q Crime or fear of crime 
flQ Public transportation problem 
sQ Inadequate schools, shopping (acllllles, etc. 
e Q Bad element moving In 
7 Q Problems with neighbors, characteristics of neighbors 
n Q (liter - SoocJIv 


HOUSEHOLD ATTITUDE QUESTIONS 

Ask only household respondent 


Before we get to the major portion of Ihe survey, 1 would like to ask 
you a lew questions ielaled to subjects which seem lo be ol some 
concern lo people. These questions ask you what you think, what 
you feel, your altitudes and opinions. 
1. How long have you lived al tills address? 
Sflj) i d] Less than 1 year "^ 
2pjl-!years V ASK fa 


fir more rhan ono answer) 
b. Which problem would you say Is the mosl setlous? 

310) PjiMr Hum niunbOl 


4 PI More than 5 ye.ns - SKIP fo 60 


6a. Do you do your major food shopping In this neighborhood? 

331) L~l Yos -SKIP lo 7a 
^-^ No - Why not? Any othei reason? (Warn ail ihai apply) 
l (~]No stores in neighborhood, others more convenient 
aQstoros In neighborhood Inadequate, prefers (better) 
stores elsewhere 

3 Q High prices, commissary or PX cheaper 
4|^] Crime or loar ol crime 
B pi Olher -Specl/y 


t 2a. Why did you select this particular neighborhood? Any olher reason? 

fMart all thai apply) 
i Q Ne ghborhood character sties - lypo of neighbors, environment, 
streets, parks, etc. 

z QGood schools 
3 Q Safe (rom crime 
a p'1 Only place housing could be found, lack ol c tolce 


5(1 Plice was fight 
, 6 PJ Location- close to job, family, (rlends, school, shopping, etc. 

7 PJ House (apartment) or properly characteristics - slie, quality, 
yard space, elc. 

a PJ Always lived In this neighborhood 
a f~l Othei - Spoeiry 


fll more than one reason) 
b. Which reason would you say Is Ihe most Important? 

333) Enlor /lorn num&or 


la. When you shop lor things other than lood, such as clothing and general 
merchandise, do you USUALLY go lo suburban 01 neighborhood shopping 


III mow (lian ono reason; 
__ b. Which reason would you say was Ihe most Important? 

OM) 

FntKt rinm number 


^H) 1 Q Suburban or neighborhood 
z Q Downtown 


* b. Why Is lhal? Any other reason? (Mark an tnai apply) 


3a, Where did you live before you moved here? 

Zpj Ins de limits of this city J 
3 PJ Somewhere e SB In U.S. -Spocllyy 


zQ Belter transportation 
aQMore convenient 
4 O Bflller selection, more stores, mora choice 
sQ Alrald o! crime 

6 D S I' 8 hour5 better 
7 Q Better prices 
BQPiefers (bellor) stores, location, seivlce, employees 
3 pi Other - SMctlv 


, County 


b. Did you live inside the llmils of a city, lown, village, etc.? 

iCJNo 
2pj YES - Color name Ol City, (own, elc,-, 



(II mote than one reason) 

c. Which one would you say Is the mosl Important reason? 

-?*y Knioi Item number 




> INTERVIEWER - Complete Interview with household. respondent, 
beginning with Individual AtlltirtB Questions. 



45 



INDIVIDUAL ATTITUDE QUESTIONS - Ask each household member 16 or older 


KEYER - BEGIN NEW RECORD 


CHECK (k Look at lla and b. Was box 3 or 4 marked In either Item? 
ITEM B *f QYes-dSKifc Q No -SKIP lor? 


/r~5. Line number iflame 


lie. Is the neighborhood dangerous enough to make you think seriously 
^^^ about moving somewhere else? 

Q3) oQNo- SKIP to 12 

* Yes - Why don't you? Any other reason? (ir* eti i/>ai apply) 
QH) i Q Can't afford to s[j] Plan to move soon 
sQCan'l find other housing e[^] Health or age 
a Q] Relatives, friends nearby T^Olhi'r - Specify 
4 Q Convenient lo work. etc. 


8a, How olten do you go out in the evening lor entertainment, such as 
to restaurants, theaters, etc.? 
iCTjX iQOncea week or more *[^2 or 3 limes a year 

z Q Less than once a webh - s Q Less than 2 or 3 times a 
more than once a nonlh year or never 

3| 1 About once a month 


b. Do you go to these places more or less now than you did a year 
, or two ago? 

r 1 1 a i -- 

^y I Q About the same - SKIP lo Chech flam A 
2 pj ore > Why? Any other reason? (M^ aii mat apply) 

(?*y ' Q Money situation ^ Q Family reasons (marriage, 

2 D Places to BO, people h * M . """"'I 
logo with B[_| Activities, job, school 

s[3 Convenience a Q Crime or fear ol crime 
4Q Health (own) loQwanlto, Ilka to, enjoyment 


Ill mo/o than ono reason) 

d. Which reason would you say Is the most important? 

\ J Enrol lltlnt nimhflr 


12. How do you think your neighborhood compares with others In this 
metropolitan area in terms ol crime? Would you say il Is - 
(W5J iQ Much more dangerous? 4Q Less dangerous? 
2 D More dangerous? sQ Much less dangerous? 
a Q About average? 




Ha. Are there some pails of this metropolitan area where you have a 
reason to go or would like to go DURING THE DAY, but are afraid 
to because of fear of crime? 
@ Q G No v s - Which setlion(s)? 


(II mow than ons reasonj 

.-. c. Which reason would you say Is the mosl important? 
(jjf) 

V.-" 1 J fta, IMUH numhor 




CHECK ik ls bo " 1. Z, w S ">arKed ^ Ba? 

ITEM A iff D N - SKIP lo Sa Q Yes - ASK 3d 


^ ' - NurnWr ol spoeltlt; places mentioned 


b. How about AT NIGHT - are there some pails of Ihls area where you have a 
reason lo go or would like to go but are afraid to because of (ear of crime? 

(3M) 0(~I No Yes - Which sectlonfsl? 


d. When you do go out to restaurants or theaters In the evening, Is II 
usually In the city or oulsltte of Ihe city? 

(343) ' CH Usually In the city 
2Q Usually outside of the city 
sQAboutequal-SK/ProM 




-* Number ol snocl/yc Dlaces mentioned 


e. Why do you usually go (outside Ihe city /In the city)? Any other 
JL reason? tUaik all that apply) 
(43) i f^j More convenient, familiar, easier to get there, only place available 
2 Q] Parking problems, traffic 
3 L~D Too much crime In other place 
4 O More to do 
sQ Prefer (belter) facilities (restaurants, theaters, elc.l 
6 Q More expensive In other area 
7Q Because of friends, relatives 
a I~~| Other - Soacltv 


14a. Would you say, In general, that your local police ate doing a good 
job, an average Job, or a poor fob? 
(360) iQGDOd 3 Q Poor 
zQAverage 4QOon't know - SKIP to isn 


* b. in what ways could they improve? Any other ways? {Ma,h an that eppiy) 
fJil) 1 Q No Improvement needed - SKIP lo I5n 
zQHIre more policemen 
a Q Concentrate on more important duties, serious crime, etc. 
4[^]Be more prompt, responsive, alert 
5 Qj Improve training, raise qualifications or pay, lecrultment policies 
6 [31 Be more courteous, Improve attitude, community relations 
7QDon'ldlscr)mlnate 
a Q Need more traffic control 

9 Q Need more policemen of particular type (fool, car) In 
certain areas or al certain times 

loQDon'l know 
1 1 n Other - Specify 


(II more tlan one losson) 
I, Which feason would you say Is Ihe most Important? 

v'V Enlei Item number 


9a. Now I'd like to get your opinions about crime In general. 
Within the past year or two, do you think thai crime In your 
f . neighborhood has Increased, decreased, or remained about the same? 
(H5J i n Incieased 4 Q Don't know ~ SKIP lo c 
zQ] Decreased sQ Haven't lived hero 
3 Q Same - SKIP lo c lhal long - SKIP to c 


ill maro Iftan ono way) 

c. Which would you say Is the mosl important? 

\?.L/ Enfor Item numDei 


b. Were you thinking about any specific kinds of crimes when you said 
you think crime in your neighborhood has (increased/decreased)? 
ffi) aQ NO Yes - What kinds ol crimes? 


15a. Now 1 have some more questions about your opinions concerning crime. 
Please lake this card. /Hand rospondonl Altitude Flashcaid, NCS-574) 
,_. Look at the FIRST set ol statements. Which one do you agree with most? 

^y I QMy chances of being attacked or robbed havo GONE UP 
In Ihe past few years 

aQ] My chances of being attacked or robbed have GONE DOWN 
In lha past few years 

aOM/etjancai of being attacked or robbed haven't changed 
In the past few years 

4 Q No opinion 


m 


e.'How about any crimes which may be happening In your neighborhood - 
would you say they are committed mostly by the people who live 
_. here in this neighborhood or mostly by outsiders? 
0*y |Q No crlmns happening sQOulslders 
^ In neighborhood <Q E qually by both 
2D People living here BQrjon't know 


10*. Within the past year or two do you think lhal crime In the United 
States has increased, decreased, or remained about the same? 

'Hr ea5ed ,W* 3 R s nT,, "Wfcf 

2Q Decreased J 4Q Don't know J 


b. Which ol the SECOND group do you agree with mosl? 
^ij) I Q Crime Is LESS serious than ttto newspapers and TV say 
aQCrtnw Is MORE serious than the newspapers and TV say 
3 Q Crime Is about as serious as the newspapers and TV say 
A O No opinion 


b, Were you thinking about any specific kinds ol crimes when you said 
you think crime In Ihe U.S, has (Increased/decreased)? 




16a. Do you think PEOPLE IN GENERAL have limited or changed their 
activities In the past few years because they ate atrald of crime? 


lla. How safe do you (eel or would you leel being out alone in your 
neighborhood AT NIGHT? 
(JMj) i Q Very safe aQSomewhal unsafe 
Z |~1 Reasonably safe 4 d Very unsafe 


b. Do you think that mosl PEOPLE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD have limited or 
changed thelractlvltles In Ihe past few years because they are afraid of crime? 
& ' D Vea 2 G No 


b, How about DURING THE DAY - how safe do you leel or would 
__ you feel being oul alone in your neighborhood? 
Q51) I Q Very safe 3 Q Somewhat unsafe 
z[~| Reasonably safe 4|~~lVery unsafe 


c. In general, have YOU limited or changed your activities in the past few 
-. years because of crime? 
3$ 'DYes aQNo 


> INTERVIEWER - Continue Interview with this respondent on NCS-3 



Pagel 



46 



Appendix 



and reliability of the estimates 



Survey results contained in this publication are 
based on data gathered during early 1974 from per- 
sons residing within the city limits of Washington, 
D.C., including those living in certain types of group 
quarters, such as dormitories, rooming houses, and 
religious group dwellings. Nonresidents of the city, 
including tourists and commuters, did not fall within 
the scope of the survey. Similarly, crewmembers of 
merchant vessels, Armed Forces personnel living in 
military barracks, and institutionalized persons, 
such as correctional facility inmates, were not under 
consideration. With these exceptions, all persons age 
1 6 and over living in units designated for the sample 
were eligible to be interviewed. 

Each interviewer's first contact with a unit 
selected for the survey was in person, and, if it were 
not possible to secure interviews with all eligible 
members of the household during the initial visit, in- 
terviews by telephone were permissible thereafter. 
Proxy responses were not permitted for the attitude 
survey. Survey records were processed and 
weighted, yielding results representative both of the 
city's population as a whole and of various sectors 
within the population. Because they are based on a 
sample survey rather than a complete enumeration, 
the results are estimates. 

Sample design and size 

Estimates from the survey are based on data ob- 
tained from a stratified sample. The basic frame 
from which the attitude sample was drawn the 
city's complete housing inventory, as determined by 
the 1970 Census of Population and Housing was 
the same as that for the victimization survey. A 
determination was made that a sample roughly half 
the size of the victimization sample would yield 
enough attitudinal data on which to base reliable 
estimates. For the purpose of selecting the victimiza- 
tion sample, the city's housing units were distributed 
among 105 strata on the basis of various charac- 
teristics. Occupied units, which comprised the ma- 
jority, were grouped into 100 strata defined by a 
combination of the following characteristics: type of 
tenure (owned or rented); number of household 
members (five categories); household income (five 
categories); and race of head of household (white or 
other than white), Housing units vacant at the time 



of the Census were assigned to an additional four 
strata, where they were distributed on the basis of 
rental or property value. A single stratum incorpor- 
ated group quarters. 

To account for units built after the 1 970 Census, a 
sample was drawn, by means of an independent 
clerical operation, of permits issued for the con- 
struction of residential housing within the city. This 
enabled the proper representation in the survey of 
persons occupying housing built after 1970. 

In order to develop the half sample required for 
the attitude survey, each unit was randomly assigned 
to 1 of 1 2 panels, with units in the first 6 panels being 
designated for the attitude survey. This procedure 
resulted in the selection of 5,862 housing units. Dur- 
ing the survey period, 717 of these units were found 
to be vacant, demolished, converted to nonresiden- 
tial use, temporarily occupied by nonresidents, or 
otherwise ineligible for both the victimization and 
attitude surveys. At an additional 469 units visited 
by interviewers it was impossible to conduct inter- 
views because the occupants could not be reached 
after repeated calls, did not wish to participate in the 
survey, or were unavailable for other reasons. 
Therefore, interviews were taken with the occupants 
of 4,676 housing units, and the rate of participation 
among units qualified for interviewing was 90.9 per- 
cent. Participating units were occupied by a total of 
8,484 persons age 16 and over, or an average of 1.8 
residents of the relevant ages per unit. Interviews 
were conducted with 8,156 of these persons, result- 
ing in a response rate of 96.1 percent among eligible 
residents. 



adjustment to account for situations where at least 
one but not all eligible persons in a household were 
interviewed; (4) a household noninterview adjust- 
ment to account for households qualified to partici- 
pate in the survey but from which an inter-view was 
not obtained; (5) a household ratio estimate factor 
for bringing estimates developed from the sample of 
1970 housing units into adjustment with the com- 
plete Census count of such units; and (6) a popula- 
tion ratio estimate factor that brought the sample 
estimate into accord with post-Census estimates of 
the population age 12 and over and adjusted the 
data for possible biases resulting from under- 
coverage or overcoverage of the population. 

The household ratio estimation procedure (step 
5) achieved a slight reduction in the extent of sam- 
pling variability, thereby reducing the margin of er- 
ror in the tabulated survey results. It also compen- 
sated for the exclusion from each stratum of any 
households already included in samples for certain 
other Census Bureau programs. The household ratio 
estimator was not applied to interview records 
gathered from residents of group quarters or of units 
constructed after the Census. For household vic- 
timization data (and attitude data from household 
respondents), the final weight incorporated all of the 
steps described above except the third and sixth. 

The ratio estimation factor, second element of the 
final weight, was an adjustment for bringing data 
from the attitude survey (which, as indicated, was 
based on a half sample) into accord with data from 
the victimization survey (based on the whole sam- 
ple). This adjustment, required because the attitude 
sample was randomly constructed from the vic- 
timization sample, was used for the age, sex, and 
race characteristics of respondents. 

Reliability of estimates 

As previously noted, survey results contained in 
this report are estimates. Despite the precautions 
taken to minimize sampling variability, the estimates 
are subject to errors arising from the fact that the 
sample employed was only one of a large number of 
possible samples of equal size that could have been 
used applying the same sample design and selection 
procedures. Estimates derived from different sam- 
ples may vary somewhat; they also may differ from 
figures developed from the average of all possible 
samples, even if the surveys were administered with 
the same schedules, instructions, and interviewers, 

The standard error of a survey estimate is a 
measure of the variation among estimates from all 
possible samples and is, therefore, a gauge of the 



precision with which the estimate from a particular 
sample approximates the average result of all possi- 
ble samples. The estimate and its associated stand- 
ard error may be used to construct a confidence in- 
terval, that is, an interval having a prescribed proba- 
bility that it would include the average result of'all 
possible samples. The average value of all possible 
samples may or may not be contained in any particu- 
lar computed interval. However, the chances are 
about 68 out of 100 that a survey-derived estimate 
would differ from the average result of all possible 
samples by less than one standard error. Similarly, 
the chances are about 90 out of 100 that the 
difference would be less than 1.6 times the standard 
error; about 95 out of 100 that the difference would 
be 2.0 times the standard error; and 99 out of 100 
chances that it would be less than 2.5 times the 
standard error, The 68 percent confidence interval 
is defined as the range of values given by the esti- 
mate minus the standard error and the estimate plus 
the standard error; the chances are 68 in 1 00 that the 
average value of all possible samples would fall 
within that range. Similarly, the 95 percent confi- 
dence interval is defined as the estimate plus or 
minus two standard errors. 

In addition to sampling error, the estimates pre- 
sented in this report are subject to nonsampling er- 
ror, chiefly affecting the accuracy of the distinction 
between victims and nonvictims. A major source of 
nonsampling error- is related to the ability of re- 
spondents to recall whether or not they were vic- 
timized during the 1 2 months prior to the time of in- 
terview. Research on recall indicates that the ability 
to remember a crime varies with the time interval 
between victimization and interview, the type of 
crime, and, perhaps, thesocio-demographic charac- 
teristics of the respondent. Taken together, recall 
problems may result in an understatement of the 
"true" number of victimized persons and house- 
holds, as defined for the purpose of this report. 
Another source of nonsampling error pertaining to 
victimization experience involves telescoping, or 
bringing within the appropriate 12-month reference 
period victimizations that occurred before or after 
the close of the period. 

Although the problems of recall and telescoping 
probably weakened the differentiation between vic- 
tims and nonvictims, these would not have affected 
the data on personal attitudes or behavior. 
Nevertheless, such data may have been affected by 
nonsampling errors resulting from incomplete or er- 
roneous responses, systematic mistakes introduced 
by interviewers, and improper coding and process- 



ing of data. Many of these errors also would occur in 
a complete census. Quality control measures, such as 
interviewer observation and a reinterview program, 
as well as edit procedures in the field and at the 
clerical and computer processing stages, were 
utilized to keep such errors at an acceptably low 
level. As calculated for this survey, the standard er- 
rors partially measure only those random nonsam- 
pling errors arising from response and interviewer 
errors; they do not, however, take into account any 
systematic biases in the data. 

Regarding the reliability of data, it should be 
noted that estimates based on zero or on about 10 or 
fewer sample cases have been considered unreliable. 
Such estimates are identified in footnotes to the data 
tables and were not used for purposes of analysis in 
this report. For Washington, a minimum weighted 
estimate of 500 was considered statistically reliable, 
as was any percentage based on such a figure. 

Computation and application 
of the standard error 

For survey estimates relevant to either the in- 
dividual or household respondents, standard errors 
displayed on tables at the end of this appendix can 
be used for gauging sampling variability. These er- 
rors are approximations and suggest an order of 
magnitude of the standard error rather than the pre- 
cise error associated with any given estimate. Table I 
contains standard error approximations applicable 
to information from individual respondents and Ta- 
ble II gives errors for data derived from household 
respondents. For percentages not specifically listed 
in the tables, linear interpolation must be used to ap- 
proximate the standard error. 

To illustrate the application of standard errors in 
measuring sampling variability, Data Table 1 in this 
report shows that 59.8 percent of all Washington 
residents age 16 and over (532,800 persons) 
believed crime in the United States had increased. 
Two-way linear interpolation of data listed in Table 
I would yield a standard error of about 0.5 percent. 
Consequently, chances are 68 out of 100 that the 
estimated percentage of 59.8 would be within 0.5 
percentage points of the average result from all 
possible samples; i.e., the 68 percent confidence in- 
terval associated with the estimate would be from 
59.3 to 60.3. Furthermore, the chances are 95 out of 
100 that the estimated percentage would be roughly 
within 1.0 percentage point of the average for all 
samples; i.e., the 95 percent confidence interval 
would be about 58.8 to 60.8 percent. Standard er- 
rors associated with data from household respond- 



ents are calculated in the same manner, using Table 
II. 

In comparing two sample estimates, the standard 
error of the difference between the two figures is ap- 
proximately equal to the square root of the sum of 
the squares of the standard errors of each estimate 
considered separately. As an example, Data Table 
12 shows that 25.2 percent of males and 9.0 percent 
of females felt very safe when out alone in the 
neighborhood at night, a difference of 16.2 percen- 
tage points. The standard error for each estimate, 
determined by interpolation, was about 0.9 (males) 
and 0,5 (females). Using the formula described 
previously, the standard error of the difference 
between 25.2 and 9.0 percent is expressed as 
V(0,9)2 + (0,5)2 .which equals approximately 1.0. 
Thus, the confidence interval at one standard error 
around the difference of 16.2 would be from 15. 2 to 
17.2 (16.2 plus or minus 1 .0) and at two standard er- 
rors from 14.2 to 18.2. The ratio of a difference to its 
standard error defines a value that can be equated to 
a level of significance. For example, a ratio of about 
2.0 (or more) denotes that the difference is signifi- 
cant at the 95 percent confidence level (or higher); a 
ratio ranging between about 1.6 and 2.0 indicates 
that the difference is significant at a confidence level 
between 90 and 95 percent; and a ratio of less than 
about 1 .6 defines a level of confidence below 90 per- 
cent. In the above example, the ratio of the 
difference (16. 2) to the standard error (1.0) is equal 
to 1 6.2, a figure well above the 2.0 minimum level of 
confidence applied in this report. Thus, it was con- 
cluded that the difference between the two propor- 
tions was statistically significant. For data gathered 
from household respondents, the significance of 
differences between two sample estimates is tested by 
the same procedure, using standard errors in Table 
II. 



49 



CO 

o 
o 

** 

<D 
O 

o 
a 

o 

<u 
^.j 

n 

E 


0) 

.2 
M 

o 

* 

CO 

E 
I 

Q. 

a 





"S 

(TJ 
(0 



TO 

c 

o 

I 

(A 



w 

3 



<D 

2 



*. 



HtHOOOO 



o o o o o 



c^i r*- a- -^ <>-o -4- 1<~. M H 






M 
0) 
O) 

(Q 
** 

(D 
O 

0) 

a 







(A 
0) 



01 

o 

1 
.1 

o 

a 
a 



0) 



<o 
o 

c 
a 



| 


o 
o 



X 



<o 



f, O 

u ' 

10 

S 



i-IC-lAf-\OJ 



iHiHOOOO 



firy H M 
' ' d d 



io o ( 
if\ O I 

r N IA< 



r-iW'AO'AO 



50 



Age The appropriate age category is determined 
by each respondent's age as of the last day of the 
month preceding the interview. 
Annual family income Includes the income of the 
household head and all other related persons 
residing in the same household unit. Covers the 
12 months preceding the interview and includes 
wages, salaries, net income from business or 
farm, pensions, interest, dividends, rent, and 
any other form of monetary income. The income 
of persons unrelated to the head of household is 
excluded. 

Assault An unlawful physical attack, whether ag- 
gravated or simple, upon a person. Includes at- 
tempted assaults with or without a weapon. Ex- 
cludes rape and attempted rape, as well as at- 
tacks involving theft or attempted theft, which 
are classified as robbery. 

Burglary Unlawful or forcible entry of a residence, 
usually, but not necessarily, attended by theft. 
Includes attempted forcible entry. 

Central city The largest city of a standard 
metropolitan statistical area (SMSA). 

Community relations Refers to question 14b (ways 
of improving police performance) and includes 
two response categories; "Be more courteous, 
improve attitude, community relations" and 
"Don't discriminate." 

Downtown shopping area The central shopping 
district of the city where the respondent lives. 

Evening entertainment Refers to entertainment 
available in public places, such as restaurants, 
theaters, bowling alleys, nightclubs, bars, ice 
cream parlors, etc. Excludes club meetings, 
shopping, and social visits to the homes of rela- 
tives or acquaintances. 

General merchandise shopping Refers to shopping 
for goods other than food, such as clothing, fur- 
niture, housewares, etc. 

Head of household For classification purposes, 
only one individual per household can be the 
head person, In husband-wife households, the 
husband arbitrarily is considered to be the head. 
In other households, the head person is the in- 
dividual so regarded by its members; generally, 
that person is the chief breadwinner. 

Household Consists of the occupants of separate 
living quarters meeting either of the following 
criteria: (1) Persons, whether present or tem- 
porarily absent, whose usual place of residence 



is the housing unit in question, or (2) Persons 
staying in the housing unit who have no usual 
place of residence elsewhere. 

Household attitude questions Items 1 through 7 of 
Form NCS 6. For households that consist of 
more than one member, the questions apply to 
the entire household. 

Household larceny Theft or attempted theft of 
property or cash from a residence or its immedi- 
ate vicinity. Forcible entry, attempted forcible 
entry, or unlawful entry are not involved. 

Household respondent A knowledgeable adult 
member of the household, most frequently the 
head of household or that person's spouse. For 
each household, such a person answers the 
"household attitude questions." 

Individual attitude questions Items 8 through 16 
of Form NCS 6. The questions apply to each 
person, not the entire household. 

Individual respondent Each person age 16 and 
over, including the household respondent, who 
participates in the survey. All such persons 
answer the "individual attitude questions." 

Local police The police force in the city where the 
respondent lives at the time of the interview. 

Major food shopping Refers to shopping for the 
bulk of the household's groceries. 

Measured crimes For the purpose of this report, 
the offenses are rape, personal robbery, assault, 
personal larceny, burglary, household larceny, 
and motor vehicle theft, as determined by the 
victimization component of the survey. Includes 
both completed and attempted acts that occur- 
red during the 12 months prior to the month of 
interview. 

Motor vehicle theft Stealing or unauthorized tak- 
ing of a motor vehicle, including attempts at 
such acts. Motor vehicles include automobiles, 
trucks, motorcycles, and any other motorized 
vehicles legally allowed on public roads and 
highways. 

Neighborhood The general vicinity of the respon- 
dent's dwelling. The boundaries of a neighbor- 
hood define an area with which the respondent 
identifies. 

Nonvictim See "Not victimized," below. 

Not victimizedFor the purpose of this report, per- 
sons not categorized as "victimized" (see below) 
are considered "not victimized." 

Offender The perpetrator of a crime. 

Operational practices Refers to question 14b (ways 
of improving police performance) and includes 
four response categories: "Concentrate on more 

51 



important duties, serious crime, etc."; "Be more 
prompt, responsive, alert"; "Need more traffic 
control"; and "Need more policemen of particu- 
lar type (foot, car) in certain areas or at certain 
times." 

Personal larceny Theft or attempted theft of prop- 
erty or cash, either with contact (but without 
force or threat of force) or without direct con- 
tact between victim and offender. 
Personnel resources Refers to question 14b (ways 
of improving police performance) and includes 
two response categories; "Hire more policemen" 
and "Improve training, raise qualifications or 
pay, recruitment policies." 

Race Determined by the interviewer upon obser- 
vation, and asked only about persons not related 
to the head of household who were not present at 
the time of interview. The racial categories dis- 
tinguished are white, black, and other, The 
category "other" consists mainly of American 
Indians and/or persons of Asian ancestry. 
Rape Carnal knowledge through the use of force 
or the threat of force, including attempts. 
Statutory rape (without force) is excluded. In- 
cludes both heterosexual and homosexual rape. 
Rate of victimization See "Victimization rate," 

below. 

Robbery Theft or attempted theft, directly from a 
person, of property or cash by force or threat of 
force, with or without a weapon. 
Series victimizationsThree or more criminal 
events similar, if not identical, in nature and in- 
curred by a person unable to identify separately 
the details of each act, or, in some cases, to re- 
count accurately the total number of such acts. 
The term is applicable to each of the crimes 
measured by the victimization component of the 
survey. 

Suburban or neighborhood shopping areas Shop- 
ping centers or districts either outside the city 
limits or in outlying areas of the city near the 
respondent's residence, 
Victim See "Victimized," below. 
Victimization A specific criminal act as it affects a 
single victim, whether a person or household. In 
criminal acts against persons, the number of vic- 
timizations is determined by the number of vic- 
tims of such acts. Each criminal act against a 
household is assumed to involve a single victim, 
the affected household. 

Victimization rate For crimes against persons, the 
victimization rate, a measure of occurrence 
among population groups at risk, is computed 



on the basis of the number of victimizations per 
1,000 resident population age 12 and over. For 
crimes against households, victimization rates 
are calculated on the basis of the number of vic- 
timizations per 1,000 households. 
Victimized For the purpose of this report, persons 
are regarded as "victimized" if they meet either 
of two criteria: (1) They personally experienced 
one or more of the following criminal victimiza- 
tions during the 1 2 months prior to the month of 
interview: rape, personal robbery, assault, or 
personal larceny. Or, (2) they are members of a 
household that experienced one or more of the 
following criminal victimizations during the 
same time frame: burglary, household larceny, 
or motor vehicle theft. 



52 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION 

USER EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE 



Washington, D.C. : Public Attitudes About Crime 
SD-NCS-C-32 



Dear Reader: 

The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration is interested in your comments and suggestions 
about this report. We have provided this form for whatever opinions you wish to express about it. Please 
cut out both of these pages, staple them together on one corner, and fold so that the Law Enforcement 
Assistance Administration address appears on the outside. After folding, use tape to seal closed. No 
postage stamp is necessary. 
Thank you for your help. 



1. For what purpose did you use this report? 



2. For that purpose, the report D Met most of my needs D Met some of my needs D Met none of my needs 



3. How will this report bo useful to you? 

D Data source D Othor (please specify! 

D Teaching materiel 



D Reference for article or report D Will not bo useful to me (please explain) 

U General Information 

D Criminal justice program planning ~ 



4. Which parts of the report, if any, were difficult to understand or use? How could they be improved? 



5, Can you point out specific parts of the text or table notes that are not clear or terms that need to be defined? 



Page 1 



6. Are there ways this report could be improved that you have not mentioned? 



7. Please suggest other topics you would like to see addressed in future analytic reports using National Crime 
Survey victimization and/or attitude data. 



8. In what capacity did you use this report? 

G Researcher 

Q Educator 

D Student 

L I Criminal justice agency employee 

Q Government other than criminal justice - Specify. 

D Other- Specify 



Page 2 



g, If you used this report as a governmental employee, please indicate the level of government. 
Federal D City 

IJ State D Other - Specify 

[H County , , 



10. If you used this report as a criminal justice agency employee, please indicate the sector in which you work. 
D Law enforcement (polico) d Corrections 

D Legal services and prosecution Q Parole 

Cl Public or private defense services D Criminal justice planning agency 
Cl Courts or court administration Q Other criminal justice agency - Specify type 
D Probation 



11. If you used this report as a criminal justice employee, please indicate the type of position you hold. 
Mark all that apply. 

n Agency or institution administrator D Program or project manager 

D General program plnnner/evaluator/analyst D Statistician 

D Budget plannor/evaluator/annlyst D Other - Specify , _ 

D Operations or management plannor/ovaluator/annlyst 



12. Additional comments 



PageS 



SD-NCS-C-32 



OPTIONAL 

Name 



Telephone 
( ) 



Number and street 
City " 



Slate 



ZIP Code 



{Fold here) 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration 

Washington, O.C. 20531 



POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

JUS-436 




Director, Statistics Division 

National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service 

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Washington, D.C. 20531 



(Fold here) 



SD-NCS-C-32 



NCJRS REGISTRATION 



The National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) abstracts documents published in the criminal justice field. Persons 
who are registered with the Reference Service receive announcements of documents in their staled fields of interest and order 
forms for free copies of LEA A and NCJISS publications. If you are not registered with the Reference Service, and wish to be, 
please provide your name and mailing address below and check the appropriate box. 



Name Telephone 


D Please send me a 
NCJRS registration 
form. 

D Please send me the 
reports listed 
below. 


Number and street 


City State ZIP Code 


(Fold here) 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Law Enforcement Aasiatance Administration 

Washington, D.C. 20531 



POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

JUS-436 




User Services Department 2 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service 

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Box 6000 

Rockvllle, Maryland 20850 



(Fold here) 



If you wish to receive copies of any of the National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics 
Service reports listed inside the front cover, please list them below and include your name and ad- 
dress in the space provided above.