Local-Area Crime Survey, [United States], 2015, 2016 (ICPSR 38920)
Version Date: Apr 29, 2024 View help for published
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
United States. Bureau of Justice Statistics;
Westat
https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR38920.v1
Version V1
Alternate Title View help for Alternate Title
Summary View help for Summary
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) entered into a cooperative agreement with Westat to develop and evaluate a lower-cost, subnational companion survey of victimization as one piece of the subnational estimates program. The Local-Area Crime Survey (LACS) was fielded in 2015 and 2016 and is intended for use by states, municipalities, or other jurisdictions and entities to assess levels and trends in public safety. The LACS is modeled in part after the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), conducted for BJS by the U.S. Census Bureau. One of the two major statistical programs on crime produced by the U.S. Department of Justice, the NCVS is the nation's primary source of information about criminal victimization, whether reported or not reported to police. The core NCVS methodology includes a mix of in-person and telephone interviews with household members age 12 and older selected from an area probability sample to produce reliable national-level estimates. As another part of the subnational estimates program, BJS worked with the Census Bureau to enhance and reallocate the NCVS sample to support subnational estimates for the 22 most populous states and potentially substate areas within those states. For the most part, this direct estimation component of the program will not support estimates at the local level. See the NCVS Subnational Estimates webpage on the BJS website for more information.
The goals of this research were to (1) develop and test a relatively inexpensive survey design (2) that could be administered by local jurisdictions or their vendors (3) to produce cross-jurisdiction estimates and estimates of change over time within jurisdictions that may be compared with similar estimates using NCVS data. In addition to questions about victimization experiences, the LACS included questions about perceptions of community safety and police efficacy. The rationale for including these items was that they were relevant to all households, not just victims. The hope was that these items would increase survey response rates as non-victims would have important questions to answer. The LACS served as a platform for assessing the value of these questions for the planned NCVS instrument redesign. For more information, see the NCVS Instrument Redesign webpage on the BJS website.
Citation View help for Citation
Export Citation:
Funding View help for Funding
Subject Terms View help for Subject Terms
Geographic Coverage View help for Geographic Coverage
Smallest Geographic Unit View help for Smallest Geographic Unit
Core based statistical area (CBSA)
Restrictions View help for Restrictions
Access to these BJS-sponsored data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a NACJD Restricted Data Use Agreement available from the ResearchDataGov website, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.
Restricted Data Use Agreements available on the NACJD website are provided for reference only. Please visit the ResearchDataGov website to download the appropriate Restricted Data Use Agreement and submit your request. Once approved, data may be accessed from a requester secure site via ICPSR's secure download procedures.
Distributor(s) View help for Distributor(s)
Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)
Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection
Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose
The goals of this research were to (1) develop and test a relatively inexpensive survey design (2) that could be administered by local jurisdictions or their vendors (3) to produce cross-jurisdiction estimates and estimates of change over time within jurisdictions that may be compared with similar estimates using NCVS data.
Sample View help for Sample
The sample universe for the field test included residential addresses in the 40 largest CBSAs (as of 2015) in the United States. All adults in residential households were eligible for the study; those living in institutional settings, including group quarters, were excluded from the study. The sampling frame for both years used an address-based sample (ABS), with a U.S. Postal Service (USPS) list of addresses. In year 1 of the study, three of the CBSAs were oversampled to generate sub-CBSA estimates. These substrata were defined based on police jurisdiction boundaries in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. In year 2 of the study, oversamples were included for Chicago and Philadelphia, and the year 2 sample included a 25% overlap with the year 1 sampled addresses (the remaining addresses were selected from the most recent, available address frame).
The year 1 target number of completed surveys for each of the 37 non-oversampled CBSAs (all CBSAs except Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Chicago) was 2,100 completed surveys. The target sample sizes for the three oversampled CBSAs were 7,500 completed surveys for Los Angeles, 7,500 for Chicago, and 9,363 for Philadelphia. Based on a general assumption of a 50% response rate and 11% vacancy rate, the starting sample was 229,475.
The year 2 sample design was similar, although there were 38 non-oversampled CBSAs (Los Angeles was not oversampled in year 2). The year 2 target sample sizes for the non-oversampled and two oversampled CBSAs were the same as for year 1. The study design included randomly assigning a portion of the sampled addresses to be included in both years. The 25 percent overlap sample was selected from the year 1 sample while the new portion of the year 2 sample was selected from the most recent USPS address lists using the same procedures as used in year 1.
Sampled addresses were randomly assigned to equal-sized treatment groups by sorting the sample within CBSA (or CBSA stratum) and instrument (person-level survey or incident-level survey) by state, county, Census tract and Census block group, then numbering the addresses from 1 to 'x' repeatedly until all addresses were assigned a number (where 'x' equals the number of experimental treatments in that year of the field test). The research team developed two instrumentation approaches for collecting victimization data. One instrument version was based on collecting information about individual incidents (coined the "incident-level survey" or ILS). In this version, the household proxy respondent was asked to enumerate victimization incidents, then link those incidents to the relevant adult victim described in a roster. A second version was based on collecting victimization prevalence for each adult household member (the "person-level survey" or PLS).
The population of inference for the LACS was all residential adults, and a single household member acted as a proxy for the remaining adult household members. In year 2, this was done separately for the new and overlap portions of the sample. The starting sample in year 1 was 229,475, split between the PLS and the ILS instrument. In year 2, the starting sample of 217,250 was slightly smaller because one of the CBSAs oversampled in year 1 (Los Angeles) was not oversampled in year 2.
Time Method View help for Time Method
Universe View help for Universe
The target population is all persons 18 or older living in households in the 40 largest core based statistical areas (CBSAs). The universe of respondents for the LACS was all residential adults. A single household member acted as a proxy for the remaining, adult household members. Excluded are persons not living within these 40 CBSAs and persons under age 18, as well as those living in group quarters, who are crews of vessels, in institutions (e.g., prisons and nursing homes) or members of the armed forces living in military barracks.
Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation
Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)
Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection
Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables
Response Rates View help for Response Rates
The Year 1 sample included almost 230,000 addresses with just under 94,000 households returning a survey. The overall response rate for the LACS is 47.1 percent using the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) method RR3 (AAPOR 2016). Response rates varied greatly by CBSA (from 28 percent to 59 percent). Due to the Year 2 sample and data collection experiments, the Year 2 sample yielded a lower response rate than Year 1. The overall Year 2 response rate was 40.9 percent (RR3). For more information on the LACS response rates, see National Crime Victimization Survey Local-Area Crime Survey: Field Test Methodology Report (NCJ # 254519).
HideOriginal Release Date View help for Original Release Date
2024-04-29
Version History View help for Version History
2024-04-29 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:
- Performed consistency checks.
- Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.
Weight View help for Weight
Since the main purpose of the LACS was to develop a methodology to produce local (e.g., CBSA or stratum within CBSA) estimates, the weighting procedures were constructed primarily to support CBSA-level estimates. This approach required 40 separate weightings, one for each CBSA, without regard to any data collected from the other CBSAs. Separate weights were developed for each condition version of the instrument. The rationale was that different instrument structures could substantially affect estimates, especially of victimizations.
In Year 1, the weighting procedure implemented for each of the 40 CBSAs, separately for the ILS and PLS, involved the following steps:
In Year 2, the base weight calculation for the sampled address was more complex due to the overlap portion of the sample. Otherwise, the weighting steps were the same as for Year 1.
All estimates have errors due to sampling, rather than observing, the full population of households and adult persons in the CBSA. To estimate the sampling errors (the standard errors of the estimates), a replication method of variance estimation was implemented. Replicate variance estimation allows for easily computable design-consistent variance estimators for a wide variety of descriptive and analytic statistics. A grouped jackknife variance estimator was used that involved creating a set of replicate weights. Rust and Rao (1996) call this the stratified jackknife (JK2) method. These replicate weights are used to produce standard errors of CBSA-level estimates.
A separate set of weights was created for each instrument (ILS and PLS) so that each set sums to the number of households and adults for each CBSA. For more information on the LACS weighting and methodology, see National Crime Victimization Survey Local-Area Crime Survey: Field Test Methodology Report (NCJ # 254519).
Final weights and replicate weights on the Year 1 data files include:
Final weights and replicate weights on the Year 2 data files include:
With these replicate weights, the jackknife variance estimator can be computed using any of a number of standard packages such as SAS, SUDAAN, R, STATA, and WesVar.
HideNotes
The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.
One or more files in this data collection have special restrictions. Restricted data files are not available for direct download from the website; click on the Restricted Data button to learn more.