Questioning Canadian Criminal Incidence Rates: A Re-Analysis of the 2004 Canadian Victimization Survey

By Nazaretian, Zavin; Merolla, David M. | Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, April 2013 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Questioning Canadian Criminal Incidence Rates: A Re-Analysis of the 2004 Canadian Victimization Survey

Nazaretian, Zavin, Merolla, David M., Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Beginning in 1988, Statistics Canada implemented a victimization survey as part of the Canadian General Social Survey (GSS). This effort followed the success of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NVCS) in the United States in 1976. Victimization surveys are designed to complement police data from the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) and provide estimates of crime incidence determined from victims' accounts. Further, victimization surveys allow criminologists to investigate unreported crimes, the victims of crime, and the contextual setting of criminal incidents. In addition to the United States and Canada, the United Nations and United Kingdom each conduct regular victimization surveys to provide researchers and policy makers with the empirical data needed to understand crime and to protect their citizens.

Like all surveys, victimization surveys can suffer from inaccurate recall by survey respondents. Unfortunately, most official analysts that estimate criminal incidence rates rely on a practice known as capping to deal with inaccurate responses (Genn 1988; Farrell and Pease 2007). Capping describes the process whereby data analysts attempt to correct for response bias by limiting the number of individual victimization incidents that any individual victim can represent in official rates. For instance, in the Canadian Victimization Survey (CVS), although each respondent is queried about the details of up to 20 crimes, official statistics are based on a cap of only 3 incidents per respondent. That is, a respondent who reports being victimized 20 times only accounts for 3 incidents in the official tabulation of national incidence rates (Statistics Canada 2005).

The practice of capping is particularly troubling, given that abundant empirical evidence indicates that individuals who are victims of a crime are likely to be victimized again (Farrell and Pease 2001; Farrell, Tseloni, and Pease 2005). The prevalence of repeat victimization suggests that individuals reporting a larger number of victimizations may be relaying genuine accounts; capping crime reports, therefore, may lead to a substantial under-estimation of criminal incidence (Farrell, Sousa, and Weisel 2002). The current study addresses the degree to which capping affects estimates of criminal incidence in Canada. Estimates of criminal incidence using different capping levels from the 2004 CVS indicate that capping results in a significant under-estimation of the number of crimes that take place in Canada. Further, the patterns of repeat victimization seen in the CVS suggest that many reports may be genuine accounts of victimization incidents. Given the uncertainty regarding the effects of capping, this article concludes that models of response accuracy should be developed, and that a range of criminal incidence rates should be presented in official reports.


Capping in victimization surveys

Any attempt to estimate crime incidence from survey data must weigh the risk of not counting actual victimizations versus that of including incidents that did not occur within the survey time window. When collecting data based on retrospective victimization surveys, researchers generally attempt to correct for the contradictory effects of memory decay and telescoping. Memory decay occurs because respondents tend to forget events that happened in the more distant past. Telescoping, in contrast, refers to the inclusion of criminal incidents that did not occur inside the survey time window. In general, researchers believe that memory decay leads to an under-reporting of criminal incidents, whereas telescoping leads to an over-estimation of criminal incidents (Gottfredson and Hindelang 1977; Schneider and Sumi 1981; Skogan 1981; Wolfer 1999; Farrell et al 2002).

Early victimization researchers questioned the effect of respondent recall on reported victimization rates (Biderman 1980; Reiss 1980; Skogan 1981). In each case, the primary question being raised is: Do attempts at preserving the integrity and accuracy of victimization surveys skew the gross rate of crime incidents reported?

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Questioning Canadian Criminal Incidence Rates: A Re-Analysis of the 2004 Canadian Victimization Survey


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?