U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bureau of Justice Statistics
September 2010, NCJ 227379
Special Report
For a list of publications in this series go to http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245
Highlights
27.6%
Household member
present
Victim of
violent
crime
All household
burglaries
3,713,000
All household
burglaries
3,713,000
Household
member victim
of violent crime
266,560
27.5%
Offender was
a stranger
65.1%
Offender was
not a stranger
Unknown offender
No violence
72.4%
Household member
not present
Household
member victim
of violent crime
7.2%
26%
7. 4 %
National Crime Victimization Survey
Victimization During Household Burglary
Shannan Catalano, Ph.D.,
BJS Statistician
n estimated 3.7 million household
burglaries occurred each year on
average from 2003 to 2007. In about
28% of these burglaries, a household member
was present during the burglary. In 7% of all
household burglaries, a household member
experienced some form of violent victimization
(figure 1).
These estimates of burglary are based on a
revised definition of burglary from the standard
classification in the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS). Historically,
burglary is classified as a property crime except
when someone is home during the burglary and
a household member is attacked or threatened.
When someone is home during a burglary and
experiences violence, NCVS classification rules
categorize the victimization as a personal (rape/
sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and
simple assault) rather than a property crime
(household burglary, theft, and motor vehicle
theft). In this report, the definition of household
burglary includes burglaries in which a
household member was a victim of a violent
crime (see Methodology).
Figure 1.
Number and percent distribution of household burglaries, 2003–2007
• An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on
average from 2003 to 2007.
• A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglar-
ies and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.
• Simple assault (15%) was the most common form of violence
when a resident was home and violence occurred. Robbery
(7%) and rape (3%) were less likely to occur when a household
member was present and violence occurred.
• Offenders were known to their victims in 65% of violent bur-
glaries; offenders were strangers in 28%.
• Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence
occurred during a burglary while a resident was present. About
12% of all households violently burglarized while someone was
home faced an offender armed with a firearm.
• Households residing in single family units and higher density
structures of 10 or more units were least likely to be burglarized
(8 per 1,000 households) while a household member was present.
• Serious injury accounted for 9% and minor injury accounted
for 36% of injuries sustained by household members who were
home and experienced violence during a completed burglary.
A
2 Victimization During Household Burglary
Table 1.
Household burglaries, by type, 2003–2007
Average annual
number of burglaries
Percent of burglaries
Type of burglary
Household
member present
Household member
experienced violence
Household burglary 3,713,000 27.6 % 7.2 %
Completed 3,083,750 26.7 % 8.0 %
Forcible entry 1,134,230 15.5 4.9
Unlawful entry 1,949,520 33.3 9.7
Attempted forcible entry 629,250 32.0 % 3.4 %
Note: Percent present is calculated as the number of households in which someone was home during a
burglary (N=1,025,520) divided by the number of household burglaries (N=3,713,000). Percent experienc-
ing violence is calculated as the number of households experiencing violence (N=266,560) divided by the
number of household burglaries (N=3,713,000).
“Home invasion” has been used widely to describe an array of victimizations
“Home invasion” has been used broadly to describe any crime
committed by an individual unlawfully entering a residence
while someone is home. More narrowly, home invasion has
been used to describe a situation where an offender forcibly
enters an occupied residence with the specific intent of
robbing or violently harming those inside.
The limited numbers of states incorporating the term “home
invasion” into their state statutes include the intent on the part
of the offender in their definition. In part, these statutes have
defined intent as—
• A person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling with
the intent of committing a violent crime;
• A person knowingly enters the dwelling place of another
with the knowledge or expectation that someone (one or
more persons) is present;
• The unauthorized entering of any inhabited dwelling or
other structure belonging to another with the intent to use
force or violence upon the person of another.
Public perception and media reports of home
invasion do not necessarily include intent
Public perception and media reports of home invasion do not
necessarily include intent on the part of the offender.
Situations reported by the media as home invasion include—
• An offender forcibly enters a home to rob the household of
specific items, including cash, drugs, or other items— spe-
cific households or residents may become a target either to
“settle a score” or because residents are perceived as vulnera-
ble, such as persons with disabilities and the elderly.
• An offender enters a residence falsely believing no one is
home and a confrontation occurs between the resident and
the offender.
• A household member returns home while a burglary is in
progress and a confrontation occurs between the household
member and the offender.
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
estimates of nonfatal crimes and the
consequences to victims do not include offender
motivation
The NCVS provides estimates of nonfatal violent and property
crime and the consequences to victims. If a victim suffers
violence during a burglary, NCVS classification rules
categorize the victimization as a personal rather than a
property crime. Some of these burglaries measured by the
survey may fall under the broad definition of home invasion.
Between 2003 and 2007—
• A household member was home in 28% of the 3.7 million
average annual burglaries that occurred between 2003 and
2007 (table 1).
• In nonviolent burglaries, household members knew the
offender in 30% of the burglaries taking place while some-
one was home; the offender was a stranger in 24%. The
identity of the offender was unknown in 46% of burglaries.
• On average, household members became victims of violent
crimes in about 266,560 burglaries annually. Offenders
known to their victims accounted for 65% of these burglar-
ies; strangers accounted for 28%.
Because the NCVS does not determine offender motivation for
entering an occupied household, the survey cannot address the
more stringent application of the term “home invasion” that
includes offender intent. Additionally, the NCVS does not
distinguish between a household member who is present when
the offender gains entry and one who arrived home
unexpectedly while the burglary was in progress.
Figure 2.
September 2010 3
PercentRate
Percent of violent household burglary
Findings include household characteristics
of burglaries of both occupied and
unoccupied residences
The findings on household burglary in this
report are presented in three parts. Household
characteristics of burglaries of both occupied
(household member present) and unoccupied
(household member not present) residences are
examined in Tables 1 through 4. Burglary
characteristics of occupied households, such as
method of entry and type of damage, are
examined in Tables 5 through 14. Characteristics
of violence during household burglaries that took
place while someone was home are examined in
Tables 15 through 20.
Violence during household burglaries
remained stable from 2000 to 2007
Between 2000 and 2007 the rate of household
burglary of unoccupied households declined from
25.8 to 21.2 victimizations per 1,000 households
(figure 2). In contrast, the rate of household
burglary when someone was home remained
stable between 2000 (8.5 per 1,000 households)
and 2007 (8.3 per 1,000 households. The
percentage of these burglaries that included
violence remained stable between 2000 (6.3%) and
2005 (5.7%). Between 2005 and 2007, however,
there is some indication of an increase in the
percentage of violent burglaries from 5.7% to 7.7%.
Households composed of single females
with children had the highest rates of
burglary while someone was present
Households composed of married couples
without children experienced the lowest rates of
both types of burglary—when no one was home
(14 per 1,000 households) and while a household
member was present (4 per 1,000 households)
(table 2). Households composed of single males
were more likely than those composed of single
females to experience a burglary while no one
was home. However, households composed of
single males and single females were equally
likely to experience a burglary while the
residence was occupied.
Single heads of households—male (59 per 1,000
households) and female (54 per 1,000
households)—living with children experienced
the highest rates of burglary while no household
member was present. Households composed of
single females with children had the highest rate
of burglary while someone was home (22 per
1,000 households). There was no consistent
pattern in the risk of being present during a
Table 2.
Average annual household burglary, by household composition and head of
household characteristics, 2003–2007
Rate per 1,000 households
Characteristics
Average annual
number of
households
Household member
not present
Household
member present
Household composition
Households without children 58,104,000 17.3 5.8
Married couples 26,018,350 13.5 3.7
Single male 14,219,630 24.6 6.9
Single female 17,866,020 17.1 8.0
Households with children 29,405,670 28.2 10.5
Two-parent 22,395,420 19.9 7.2
Single male 1,041,190 58.7 13.7
Single female 5,969,060 54.1 22.3
Other
a
29,365,170 29.0 12.9
Race of head of household
b
116,874,850 23.0 8.8
White 96,089,150 21.6 8.5
Black 14,556,460 32.5 10.3
American Indian/Alaska Native 671,650 57.0 19.6
Asian Pacific Islander 4,546,100 12.6 5.2
More than one race 1,011,500 45.4 18.1
Hispanic/Latino origin head of household 116,248,780 23.0 8.8
Hispanic or Latino 12,335,710 26.4 11.9
Non-Hispanic or Latino 103,913,070 22.6 8.4
Age of head of household 116,874,850 23.0 8.8
12-19 1,085,100 58.8 26.9
20-34 26,609,020 30.2 11.2
35-49 36,445,680 32.4 12.9
50-64 29,341,680 19.9 7.0
65 or older 23,393,370 12.2 4.8
a
Includes a combination of children, adult relatives, and other adults not related to household members
living together. The NCVS is unable to disentangle these more complex household structures involving
common law marriages, domestic partnerships, and alternative familial living arrangements.
b
Head of household is a classification defining one and only one person residing in each housing unit as
the head. It implies that the person is either the homeowner (or in the process of buying the unit) or the
person responsible for renting the unit. The head of household must be age 18 or older with two excep-
tions: all household members are under age 18 or the head of household is under age 18 and married to
someone age 18 or older.
Figure 2.
Household burglary, 2000-2007
*See Criminal Victimization, 2006—Technical Notes, BJS Web, 12 December 2007.
4 Victimization During Household Burglary
burglary between households composed of
single males with children and other household
compositions.
Residences with an American Indian or
Alaska Native head of household
experienced higher rates of burglary
Households having an American Indian or
Alaska Native head of household (57 per 1,000
households) experienced higher rates of burglary
when no one was home than any other race.
A slightly different pattern in the likelihood of
experiencing a burglary was observed for
households victimized while occupied.
Residences having an American Indian, Alaska
Native, or a person of more than one race as the
head of household were equally likely to be home
during a burglary.
Households with a white head of household were
somewhat less likely than those with a black
head of household to experience a burglary
while a household member was present. Asian
and Pacific Islander head of households were the
least likely to be present during a burglary.
Households with a head of household ages
12 to 19 had the highest rates of burglary;
ages 65 or older had the lowest rates
Burglary rates declined for households with
heads of households in older age groups.
Households with a head of household age 65 or
older had the lowest rates of burglary—12 per
1,000 households while no one was home and 5
per 1,000 households while the residence was
occupied. Households with a head of household
age 12 to 19 had the highest rates of
burglary—59 per 1,000 households when no one
was present and 27 per 1,000 households while
the residence was occupied.
Higher income households experienced
lower rates of burglary
Rates of household burglary were generally
lower for higher income households than lower
income households (table 3).
Across all categories, the risk of burglary was
higher for households living in rental properties.
Households living in rental properties
experienced higher rates of burglary when no
one was home and while the residence was
occupied than those who owned or were in the
process of buying their homes.
Table 4.
Average annual household burglary, by type of housing and number of units in
the structure, 2003–2007
Average annual
number of households
Rate per 1,000 households
Housing structure
Household member
not present
Household member
present
Type of housing
House or apartment 110,403,770 22.1 8.5
Hotel, motel, or rooming
house 127,160 36.5 ^ 3.1^
Mobile home 5,656,090 32.4 11.1
Student quarters 453,450 4.3 1.3 ^
Other units
a
234,380 3.6 2.9
Number of units
b
1 79,766,660 22.1 7.9
2 5,638,510 31.3 13.0
3 1,602,980 26.0 15.8
4 3,462,380 28.7 13.5
5-9 5,950,620 25.1 10.4
10 or more 14,415,580 19.7 8.3
Group quarters unit 408,570 41.4 29.3
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
a
Includes residences that are temporarily unoccupied, quarters that are not a house such as a condo or
duplex, temporary living quarters, and general quarters.
b
A housing unit is a group of rooms or a single room occupied as separate living quarters or intended
for occupancy as separate living quarters. To be considered separate living quarters, the occupant must
live and eat separately from all other persons on the property and have direct access to their living quar-
ters from the outside or through a common hall or lobby.
Table 3.
Average annual household burglary, by household income and ownership,
2003–2007
Rate per 1,000 households
Characteristics
Average annual
number of
households
Household member
not present
Household member
present
Household income
Less than $7,500 4,992,420 47.2 18.5
$7,500 to $14,999 8,294,260 34.3 15.9
$15,000 to $24,999 11,407,660 29.4 11.7
$25,000 to $34,999 11,074,270 23.8 10.0
$35,000 to $49,999 14,045,700 23.9 9.0
$50,000 to $74,999 15,364,730 18.6 7.0
$75,000 or more 21,336,190 16.8 5.7
Home ownership
Own 80,230,680 18.9 6.7
Rent 35,012,820 33.5 13.9
September 2010 5
Single-unit housing and housing with 10 or
more units were least likely to be
burglarized while someone was home
Household members living in mobile homes (32
per 1,000 households) were more likely than
those living in any other type of housing to
experience a burglary while no one was home,
with one exception—hotels, motels, and
rooming houses. Households living in mobile
homes were equally likely as those staying in a
hotel, motel, or rooming house to experience a
burglary while no one was present (table 4).
Households residing in houses or apartment
complexes (9 per 1,000 households) were
somewhat less likely than those living in mobile
homes (11 per 1,000 households) to be
burglarized while someone was home.
There was no consistent pattern in the risk of
experiencing a burglary when no one was home
by the number of units in a housing structure.
However, a pattern was observed when a
household member was home. Households
residing in single-family units and households
residing in higher density structures consisting
of 10 or more units (8 per 1,000 households)
generally had lower rates of household burglary
while a household member was present.
Damaging or removing a door was the
most common type of entry in forcible and
attempted forcible entry burglaries
Removing or damaging a window screen during
a forcible entry was equally likely to occur
whether the residence was occupied (11%) or
unoccupied (9%) (table 5). In comparison,
tampering with a door handle was less likely to
occur while a household member was present
(20%) than when no one was home (26%).
Attempted forcible entry burglaries differed
somewhat from forcible burglaries. Damaging or
removing window screens were an equally likely
method of an attempted entry by an offender to
occupied (22%) or unoccupied (18%) residences
(table 6). However, burglars were more likely to
attempt to enter a household by tampering with
door handles or locks when household members
were not in the residence (30%) than while the
residence was occupied (19%).
Table 5.
Method of entry and type of damage in completed household burglary involving
forcible entry, 2003–2007
Household member not present Household member present
Method of entry and
type of damage
Average annual
number Percent
Average annual
number Percent
Window 462,430 48.8 % 80,670 47.0 %
Pane damaged or removed 284,340 30.0 47,360 27.6
Screen damaged or removed 83,250 8.8 19,380 11.3
Lock damaged or unlocked 71,720 7.6 9,780 5.7
Other damage* 23,120 2.4 4,150 2.4 ^
Door 696,290 73.4 % 120,800 70.4 %
Damaged or removed 412,860 43.5 76,050 44.3
Screen damaged or removed 15,800 1.7 6,970 4.1
Handle/lock removed or
tampered 242,660 25.6 33,700 19.6
Other damage* 24,970 2.6 4,080 2.4 ^
Other entry* 13,060 1.4 % 4,420 2.6 %^
Note: Forcible entry is a completed burglary in which force, such as breaking a window or slashing a
door screen, is used to gain entry to a residence. Percentages will not add to 100 because households
may report more than one type of damage.
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
*Other unspecified entry or damage.
Table 6.
Method of entry and type of damage in attempted household burglary involving
forcible entry, 2003–2007
Household member not present Household member present
Method of entry and
type of damage
Average annual
number Percent
Average annual
number Percent
Window 187,800 44.1 % 105,550 56.1 %
Pane damaged, broken,
removed, or cracked 85,920 20.2 46,650 24.8
Screen damaged or
removed 75,440 17.7 40,460 21.5
Lock damaged or
tampered 17,090 4.0 7,940 4.2
Other damage* 9,350 2.2 10,500 5.6
Door 316,890 74.5 % 108,080 57.5 %
Damaged or removed 159,810 37.6 56,270 29.9
Screen damaged or
removed 16,450 3.9 9,570 5.1
Handle/lock removed or
tampered 125,550 29.5 35,340 18.8
Other damage* 15,080 3.5 6,900 3.7
Other entry* 5,100 1.2 %^ 3,340 1.8 %^
Note: Attempted forcible entry is a burglary in which force was used in an unsuccessful attempt to
gain entry to a residence. Percentages will not add to 100 because households may report more than
one type of damage.
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
*Other unspecified entry or damage.
6 Victimization During Household Burglary
Table 7.
Method of entry in household burglary involving unlawful entry, by presence of
household member, 2003–2007
Household member not present Household member present
Method of entry
Average annual
number Percent
Average annual
number Percent
Total 1,217,030 100.0 % 623,520 100.0 %
Someone let the offender in 19,960 1.6 % 109,810 17.6 %
Offender pushed way inside 2,750 0.2 ^ 73,790 11.8
Open door or window 209,430 17.2 168,560 27.0
Unlocked door or window 481,230 39.5 174,760 28.0
Had key 95,740 7.9 22,490 3.6
Picked lock or window 49,600 4.1 14,020 2.2
Unknown means through
locked door or window 64,340 5.3 10,720 1.7
By other means 260,870 21.4 38,890 6.2
Don't know 33,110 2.7 10,480 1.7
Note: Unlawful entry is a completed burglary committed by someone having no legal right to be on the
premises even though no force was used to gain entry. An offender may gain access to a residence when
household members are not present by being let in by an individual not living in the household, such as
a visiting guest, housekeeper, or repair person. Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
Offenders used an open door or window to
gain unlawful entry in 17% of unoccupied
residences
In 40% of unlawful entries to unoccupied
residences, offenders gained access through an
unlocked door or window (table 7). A smaller
percentage (5%) of unlawful entries while no one
was home was through a locked door or window
by unknown means; 8% of offenders used a key
to the residence to gain access.
For households occupied at the time of the
burglary, offenders were equally likely to gain
unlawful entry through an open (27%) or
unlocked (28%) door or window. Respondents in
18% of burglaries of occupied residences stated
that someone inside the home let the offender in;
12% stated that someone inside opened the door
and the offender pushed their way in. Nearly 4%
stated that the offender had a key to the
residence and used the key to gain access.
Household members were at work during a
quarter of burglaries that took place while
no one was home
In households in which no one was home about
a quarter stated that household members were at
work when the burglary occurred (table 8). A
similar percentage (23%) of households were
away from their residences and engaged in
leisure activities when the burglary took place.
Victims in 38% of households burglarized while
someone was home were asleep at the time of the
burglary while 44% of households stated that
household members were engaged in other
activities in the home when the offender gained
entry to the residence.
Households burglaries that occurred when no
one was home were more likely to occur between
the daytime hours of 6 am and 6 pm (43%) than
between the hours of 6 pm to 6 am (26%) (table
9). Conversely, a household member was more
likely to be present during a nighttime burglary
(61%) than during one that occurred between
the daytime hours of 6 am and 6 pm (33%).
Table 8.
Victim activity during household burglaries, by presence of household member,
2003–2007
Household member not present Household member present
Type of activity
Average annual
number Percent
Average annual
number Percent
Total 2,612,060 100.0 % 1,024,230 100.0 %
Working or on duty 656,180 25.1 % 38,470 3.8 %
On the way to or from work 38,460 1.5 14,160 1.4
On the way to or from school 36,840 1.4 1,630 0.2
On the way to or from other
place 53,990 2.1 9,000 0.9
Shopping/errands 176,280 6.7 16,980 1.7
Attending school 39,860 1.5 1,560 0.2
Leisure activity away from
home 607,640 23.3 48,120 4.7
Sleeping 144,370 5.5 389,880 38.1
Activities at home 80,190 3.1 450,910 44.0
Other activity* 167,380 6.4 26,590 2.6
Don't know 610,870 23.4 26,920 2.6
Note: Respondents may report at home activities when someone other than a household member is in
the residence at the time of the burglary. Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.
*The other activity category is specified when it is not clear what the respondent was doing or where the
respondent was at the time of the victimization. Examples include the respondent was in the hospital or
taking care of a sick friend.
Table 9.
Time of occurrence of household burglaries, by presence of household member,
2003–2007
Household member not present Household member present
Time of day
Average annual
number Percent
Average annual
number Percent
Total 2,683,270 100.0 % 1,021,430 100.0 %
Daytime (6 am - 6 pm) 1,159,450 43.2 % 336,340 32.9 %
Nighttime (6 pm - 6 am) 697,940 26.0 626,150 61.3
Don't know time of day 825,880 30.8 58,940 5.8
September 2010 7
With the exception cash, items were more
likely to be stolen when residents were not
home at the time of a burglary
Purses, wallets, credit cards (29%), electronics
(33%), and personal items (31%) made up a
larger percentage of items stolen curing a
burglary that occurred when no one was home
compared to burglaries that took place when a
household member was present (table 10).
Firearms were stolen in 4% of burglaries of
unoccupied households. Cash was equally likely
to be stolen regardless of whether a household
was occupied or unoccupied during the
household burglary. Fifty-five percent of
households burglarized while a resident was
home, stated that no items were taken during the
burglary compared to 25% of households
burglarized while no one was home.
Households burglarized while no one was
home were more likely to suffer greater
economic losses
Households burglarized while no one was home
were more likely to suffer greater economic
losses than those burglarized while occupied
(table 11). Thirty percent of households
burglarized while no one was home had stolen
items valued at more than $1,000; 17% of
burglaries with household members present
experienced thefts of $1,000 or greater.
Households burglarized while a household
member was present were more likely to suffer
losses of less than $250, compared to other
categories.
About three-quarters of all household
burglaries by forcible entry while no one
was home were reported to the police
The percentages of burglaries reported to the
police, forcible, unlawful, and attempted forcible
entry burglaries were equally likely to be
reported regardless of whether a household
member was home at the time of the burglary
(table 12). However, differences were observed
among forcible entry, unlawful entry, and
attempted forcible entry in the percentages of
burglaries by household members being present
and household members not being present.
For households burglarized while no one was home,
forcible entry burglaries (73%) were more likely to be
reported to the police than unlawful (41%) or
attempted forcible (41%) entry burglaries. More than
three-quarters (78%) of households with members
present during a forcible burglary reported the crime,
52% reported unlawful burglary, and 62% reported
attempted forcible entry. These differences were not
statistically significant.
Table 11.
Economic loss in household burglaries where property was stolen, 2003-2007
Household member not present Household member present
Property value
Average annual
number Percent
Average annual
number Percent
Total 2,011,130 100.0 % 459,230 100.0 %
No property loss 20,700 1.0 % 6,690 1.5 %
Less than $10 26,520 1.3 8,720 1.9
$10 to $49 145,130 7.2 53,720 11.7
$50 to $249 496,530 24.7 140,610 30.6
$250 to $999 535,110 26.6 114,370 24.9
$1,000 or more 601,860 29.9 79,570 17.3.
Monetary value not Known 185,280 9.2 55,540 12.1
Note: Includes cash and non-cash property. Households may report both cash and non-cash losses.
Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Table 10.
Type of items taken, 2003–2007
Household member not present Household member present
Type of item
Average annual
number Percent
Average annual
number Percent
No items taken 676,360 25.2 % 566,300 55.2 %
Cash 147,410 5.5 58,590 5.7
Purse, wallet, credit cards 774,610 28.8 106,700 10.4
Electronics 876,650 32.6 131,460 12.8
Jewelry, watches, keys 355,430 13.2 54,080 5.3
Personal items
a
823,890 30.7 164,190 16.0
Household items
b
597,890 22.2 86,340 8.4
Firearms 94,960 3.5 7,630 0.7
Food/liquor 92,460 3.4 14,330 1.4
Other items taken 178,260 6.6 31,770 3.1
Note: Totals may exceed 100% because households may report more than one item stolen.
a
Includes stamps, coin collections, recreational equipment, clothing, luggage, bicycles or bicycle parts,
and animals or livestock.
b
Includes silver, china, tools, machinery, and farm or garden produce.
Table 12.
Household burglary reported to police, by type of entry, 2003–2007
Percent of household burglaries while—
Type of burglary Member not present Member present
All burglary 52.4 % 58.6 %
Completed burglary 54.5 % 57.8 %
Forcible entry 73.1 78.2
Unlawful entry 40.8 52.2
Attempted forcible entry 40.8 % 62.2 %
8 Victimization During Household Burglary
For households burglarized while residents were
not present, the most common reasons for not
reporting the victimization to the police were
that the burglary was considered a minor crime
(30%), the resident could not identify the
offender or the resident lacked proof (18%), the
police would not bother investigating the crime
(15%), or that the crime was discovered too late
(10%) (table 13).
Offenders were known to their victims in a
third of households burglarized when a
household member was present
Offenders were known to their victims in about a
third of the 1 million average annual burglaries
from 2003 to 2007 that took place with a
household member present (table 14). About a
quarter of households with a member present
during a completed rather than an attempted
burglary stated that the offender was a stranger;
42% stated that the offender was unknown.
Households were less likely to know the offender
in attempted forcible entry burglaries. The
offender was known to household members in
about 13% of households that experienced an
attempted forcible entry; the relationship to the
offender was unknown in 62% of these entries.
Violence during the course of a burglary
may be examined by two different means
The general risk of violence may be examined as
a percentage of all household burglaries of
residences that were occupied (household
member present) and unoccupied (household
member not present) during the burglary. The
specific risk of violence may be examined as a
percentage of the number of burglaries with a
household member present during the course of
the burglary (see Methodology).
Table 14.
Household burglary of occupied residences, by victim-offender relationship,
2003–2007
Type of burglary
Relationship All burglary Completed
a
Attempted forcible entry
Total 1,025,520 824,320 201,200
Offender known to the victim 29.5 % 33.5 % 13.1 %
Intimates (current or former
) 10.6 11.9 5.0
Relatives/known
acquaintances 18.9 21.6 8.0
Strangers 24.2 24.1 24.5
Unknown offender
b
46.3 42.4 62.4
Note: Totals may exceed 100% because estimates include multiple offenders. Percentages are calculated
as the number of households victimized by each victim offender category divided by the number of
households burglaries in which someone was present.
a
Includes forcible entry and unlawful entry without force.
b
Survey respondents may not have been able to provide information on the offender because the
respondents were not the household members present during the burglary, or the respondents may not
have been able to see the offender clearly because of dim lighting (darkness), concealed identity, or other
reasons.
Table 13.
Reasons for not reporting household burglary to police, by presence of
household member, 2003–2007
Percent of reasons for not reporting when—
Reason Member not present Member present
Not important enough to report
Minor crime 29.5 28.6
Not clear a crime occurred 4.4 5.9
Inconvenient 5.3 4.5
Private or personal matter 7.5 17.6
Police could not help
Could not identify offender/lack of proof 17.9 14.6
No insurance, loss less than deductible 4.3 3.1
Could not recover or identify property 8.5 4.1
Police would not help
Police ineffectiveness 6.8 4.6
Police biased 1.5 2.6
Police would not bother 14.6 13.1
Crime was discovered too late 10.1 6.4
Reasons related to the offender
Child offender 1.8 2.7
Protect offender 2.3 4.5
Afraid of reprisal 0.9 6.1
Offender was a police officer 0.1 ^ --
Other reasons
Don't know why I did not report it 1.5 1.4
Other reason given 0.1 ^ 0.3 ^
Other reason not listed 11.5 12.1
Total not reported 1,181,990 396,170
Note: Percent may exceed 100% because households may report more than one reason for not reporting
to the police.
--No cases were present for this category.
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases. Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.
September 2010 9
An assault occurred in 5% off all household
burglaries
In 7% of all household burglaries, someone was
home at the time and experienced a violent
victimization (figure 1, table 15). This translates
to about 266,560 household burglaries out of
about 3.7 million taking place each year on
average.
Simple assault (15%) was the most
common form of violence during a com-
pleted burglary when a resident was home
A household member was present in roughly 1
million burglaries from 2003 to 2007. Of these
households, 26% (or 266,560) experienced some
form of a violent victimization during the
burglary (figure 1, table 16).
The type of violence against household members
present at the time of a burglary varied by
burglary category. Simple assault was the most
common form of violence experienced by
household members present during completed
(15%) and attempted (6%) burglaries. Robbery
was more likely to occur when a burglary was
completed rather than attempted. A robbery
occurred in 7% of completed burglaries,
compared to 1% of attempted forcible entries. An
aggravated assault against a household member
was equally likely to occur during a completed or
an attempted burglary. A rape or sexual assault
occurred in about 3% of households
experiencing a completed burglary.
Residents present during a burglary were
equally likely to be victimized by an
intimate partner (current or former) as
they were by a stranger
One or more household members knew the
offenders in some manner in 65% of the 266,560
burglaries that took place while someone was
present and experienced violence (table 17).
Overall, household members knew
approximately a third of these offenders as
intimates (current or former) (31%), or relatives,
Table 16.
Type of violence that occurred during household burglaries when someone was
home, by type of burglary, 2003–2007
Type of burglary
Type of violence All burglary Completed* Attempted forcible entry
Total 26.0 % 29.7 % 10.6 %
Rape/sexual assault 2.2 % 2.7 % -- %
Robbery 5.8% 7.0% 0.9%
Assault 18.0 % 20.0 % 9.7 %
Aggravated assault 4.6 4.9 3.4
Simple assault 13.3 15.1 6.3
Total average annual number of
burglaries of occupied residences 1,025,520 824,320 201,200
Note: Percentages are calculated as the number of households that experienced a violent crime divided
by the number of burglaries in which households were occupied.
--No cases were present for this category.
*Includes forcible entry and unlawful entry without force.
Table 15.
Type of violence that occurred during household burglaries, by type of burglary,
2003–2007
Type and percent of burglaries
Type of violence All burglary Completed* Attempted forcible entry
Total 7.2% 8.0% 3.4%
Rape/sexual assault 0.6 % 0.7 % -- %
Robbery 1.6 % 1.9 % 0.3 %
Assault 5.0 % 5.3 % 3.1 %
Aggravated assault 1.3 1.3 1.1
Simple assault 3.7 4.0 2.0
Average annual number of
burglaries 3,713,000 3,083,750 629,250
Note: Estimates may not add to total due to rounding. Percentages are calculated as the number of
households in which someone experienced a violent crime during a household burglary divided by
the number of household burglaries.
--No cases were present for this category.
*Includes forcible entry and unlawful entry without force.
Table 17.
Victim-offender relationship in violent household burglary, 2003–2007
Type of burglary
Relationship All burglary Completed
a
Attempted forcible entry
Victim knew offender 65.1 % 66.2 % 51.7 %
Intimates (current or former) 31.1 31.5 26.3
Relatives/known acquaintances 34.0 34.7 25.5
Strangers 27.5 26.5 39.7
Unknown offender
b
7.4 7.3 8.5
Total average number of burglaries
where someone experienced violence 266,560 245,180 21,380
Note: Percentages are calculated as the number of households victimized by each victim offender
relationship category divided by the number of violent household burglaries.
a
Includes forcible entry and unlawful entry without force.
b
Survey respondents may not have been able to provide information on the offender because the
respondents were not the household members present during the burglary.
10 Victimization During Household Burglary
well-known individuals, or household
acquaintances (34%). A stranger perpetrated the
violence in 28% of households burglarized while
someone was home and violence occurred.
Findings for completed burglaries were similar
to those for all burglaries. Household members
knew offenders in some manner in two-thirds of
completed burglaries involving violence. Despite
the apparent differences between victim-
offender relationships, when violence occurred
during a completed household burglary,
individuals present were equally likely to be
victimized by an intimate partner (current or
former) (32%) as they were by a stranger (27%).
Victims in violent burglaries were equally likely
to report knowing the offender in some manner
in an attempted forcible burglary as they were to
report the offender as a stranger.
Thirty percent of individuals experiencing
violence during a completed burglary faced
an armed offender
Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when
burglarizing a home while residents were present
and violence occurred (table 18). Household
members faced an offender with a firearm in
about 12% of all households burglarized while
someone was home and violence occurred.
Household members present during a completed
burglary were less likely to face an armed
offender (30%) than an unarmed offender
(63%). Those present and violently victimized
during an attempted forcible entry were equally
likely to face an armed or an unarmed offender
(38%). Offenders were armed with a firearm in
23% of burglaries in households (73,000 on
average) burglarized by a stranger where
violence occurred (table 19).
Table 18.
Presence of weapon in violent household burglary, by type of burglary,
2003–2007
Type of burglary
Type of weapon All burglary Completed* Attempted forcible entry
No weapon present 60.5 % 62.6 % 37.6 %
Weapon present 30.1 % 29.5 % 37.7 %
Firearm 12.4 12.5 10.8 ^
Sharp weapon 10.6 10.1 16.3 ^
Other weapon type 7.2 6.8 ^ 10.6 ^
Do not know if offender had weapon 9.3 % 8.0 % 24.7 %^
Total average number of burglaries where
someone experienced violence 266,560 245,180 21,380
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
*Includes forcible entry and unlawful entry without force.
Table 20.
Injury in violent household burglary, by type of burglary, 2003–2007
Type of burglary
Type of injury All burglary Completed* Attempted forcible entry
Not injured 55.7 % 52.5 % 92.3 %
Injured 44.3% 47.5% 7.7%
Serious injury 8.5 9.2 --
Minor injury 33.4 35.6 7.7 ^
Rape/sexual assault without other
injuries 2.4 ^ 2.6 ^ --
Total 266,160 244,780 21,380
--No cases were present for this category.
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
*Includes forcible entry and unlawful entry without force.
Table 19.
Presence of weapons in violent household burglary committed by a stranger, by
type of burglary, 2003–2007
Type of burglary
Type of weapon All burglary Completed* Attempted forcible entry
No weapon present 40.2 % 40.2 % 40.2 %
Weapon present 45.5 % 46.6 % 37.4 %^
Firearm 23.3 25.5 6.2 ^
Sharp weapon 15.8 13.8 31.2 ^
Other weapon type 6.5 * 7.3 * --
Do not know if offender had weapon 14.2% 13.2%* 22.3%^
Total 73,360 64,860 8,500
^Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
--No cases were present for this category.
*Includes forcible entry and unlawful entry without force.
Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Supplementary
Homicide Reports,
2003-2007
According to the FBI’s Supplementary
Homicide Reports, 430 burglary-related
homicides occurred between 2003 and 2007
on average annually. This number translates
to less than 1% of all homicides during that
period.
Between 2003 and 2007, approximately 2.1
million household burglaries were reported to
the FBI each year on average. Household
burglaries ending in homicide made up
0.004% of all burglaries during that period.
September 2010 11
Household members were injured in
almost half of all completed burglaries
involving violence
Household members were more likely to be
injured during a completed burglary (48%) than
an attempted forcible entry burglary (8%) when
a household member was present and violence
occurred (table 20). Serious injury accounted for
9% and minor injury accounted for 36% of
injuries sustained by household members who
were home and experienced a violent crime
during a completed burglary. Most household
members who were present during a violent
burglary (92%) were not injured.
Methodology
Data sources
The National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS) gathers data on crimes against persons
ages 12 or older and their households, reported
and not reported to the police, from a nationally
representative sample of U.S. households. The
survey provides information about victims (age,
gender, race, Hispanic origin, marital status,
income, and education level), offenders
(genders, race, approximate age, and victim-
offender relationship), and the nature of the
crime (time and place of occurrence, use of
weapons, nature of injury, and economic
consequences). Between 2003 and 2007, 40,320
households were interviewed annually on
average with a 91% household response rate.
Except for data on homicides, all estimates
presented in this report were generated from the
NCVS. For more information on NCVS
Methodology, see the Methodology section of
Criminal Victimization Statistical Tables on the
BJS Web site. Homicide data are from the
Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) to the
Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR),
which are collected by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI).
Definition of household burglary in the NCVS
The legal definition for “household burglary”
may vary among jurisdictions. For the NCVS,
household burglary is defined as the entry or
attempted entry to a residence or adjacent
structure when a person has no right to be there.
This crime usually, but not always, involves theft.
Forcible entry is a completed burglary in which
force, such as breaking a window or slashing a
door screen, was used to gain entry to the
residence. Unlawful entry is a completed
burglary committed by someone having no legal
right to be on the premises even though no force
was used to gain entry. Attempted forcible entry
is a burglary in which force was used in an
unsuccessful attempt to gain entry.
Missing data in the National Crime
Victimization Survey
As with any data collection, in the NCVS missing
data vary by survey item. The impact of missing
data depends on the specific survey item under
examination. In Victimization During Household
Burglary, there was no missing data associated
with any of the burglary or violent crime
estimates that occurred when residents were
present in the household. In contrast, the
variable 'Household Income' is consistently
characterized by high levels of missing data due
to reluctance on the part of survey respondents
to disclose their income. In this report, 22% of
income data was missing for households
victimized while no one was home and 20% for
households that were victimized while someone
was present in the household.
Appendix Table 1.
Standard errors and confidence intervals for key estimates in victimization during household
burglary
.
95%-confidence interval
Characteristic Estimate One standard error Lower Upper
Household member present 27.6 % 1.72 % 24.23 % 30.97 %
Percent violent of all household burglary 7.2 0.94 5.37 9.03
Percent violent of occupied household burglary 26.0 2.98 20.17 31.83
Note: Standard errors were calculated using programs developed by the Census Bureau to calculate NCVS general variance
parameters.
12 Victimization During Household Burglary
This report, Victimization During Household
Burglary, differs from other NCVS reports in
that a different coding approach was constructed
to combine burglaries where a household
member was present and experienced a violent
crime with burglaries that took place while no
one was home. Presenting the analyses in this
manner allows for a comparison of the
characteristics of present and non-present
burglaries and the examination of the co-
occurrence of a resident’s presence and
subsequent victimization. As a result, estimates
presented in this report are not comparable to
victimization estimates of burglary or personal
crime contained in other NCVS reports. This
approach was used previously in Household
Burglary, 1985 (NCJ 96021).
Household member is defined as a household
member if the individual is using the sample
address as his or her usual place of residence at
the time of the interview or is staying
temporarily at the sample address at the time of
the interview and does not have a usual place of
residence elsewhere.
Household burglary with household member not
present is defined as any household burglary (as
classified in this report) that is committed while
a residence is not occupied by any household
members.
Household burglary with a household member
present is defined as any household burglary
committed while one or more household
members are present in the household.
Violent household burglary is defined as any
household burglary committed while one or
more household members are present and
violence occurs between the offender and
household members.
General and specific risk
The estimates of risk in this report use measures
that may include multiple victimizations per
household, and as such do not represent a true
risk measure based on the prevalence of
victimizations in the population. However, the
two estimates are close.
For example, in 2005, approximately 2.5% of
households experienced a household burglary
victimization (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/
pub/pdf/cnh05.pdf) while the current report
estimates a rate of 3.2 household burglaries per
100 households (32 per 1,000 households),
including ones in which violence occurred.
Standard error computations
Comparisons of percentages and rates were
tested to determine if observed differences were
statistically significant. Differences described as
higher, lower, or different passed a test at the 0.05
level of statistical significance (95%-confidence
level). Differences described as somewhat,
lightly, or marginally passed a test at the 0.10
level of statistical significance (90%-confidence
level). Caution is required when comparing
estimates not explicitly discussed in the report.
Estimates based on 10 or fewer cases have high
relative standard errors. Care should be taken
when comparing these estimates to other
estimates, especially when both are based on 10
or fewer sample cases.
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Washington, DC 20531
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
DOJ/BJS
Permit No. G-91
*NCJ~227379*
13 Victimization During Household Burglary
The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of
the U.S. Department of Justice. James P. Lynch is director.
This Special Report was written by Shannan Catalano,
Ph.D. Alexia Cooper verified the report.
Georgette Walsh and Jill Duncan edited the report, Tina
Dorsey produced the report, and Jayne Robinson prepared
the report for final printing under the supervision of Doris
J. James.
September 2010, NCJ 227379
This report in portable document format and in ASCII and its
related statistical data and tables are available at the BJS World
Wide Web Internet site: <http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/
index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2172>.
Office of Justice Programs
Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov
