Supporting Statement – 2016 Supplemental Victimization Survey (SVS)
A. Justification
1. Necessity of the Information Collection
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) requests clearance to conduct the 2016 Supplemental Victimization Survey (SVS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The BJS is authorized to collect statistics on victimization under Title 42, United States Code, Section 3732 of the Justice Systems Improvement Act of 1979 (Attachment 1). The NCVS and all related contacts and protocols for the 2016 collection year were separately approved by OMB (OMB NO: 1121-0111), and this request is specifically for a supplemental data collection instrument that will be added to the approved NCVS core from July through December of 2016 (Attachment 2). The SVS is primarily an effort to measure the prevalence of stalking victimization among persons, the characteristics of stalking victims, and patterns of reporting to the police and other authorities. The SVS was also designed to collect important characteristics of stalking such as the physical and emotional impact on victims, offender information, measures of self-protective actions, and the criminal justice system response.
BJS first collected the SVS in 2006. The SVS was the second national survey to collect information on stalking victimization; the first was the National Violence Against Women Survey, collected from November 1995 to May 1996, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Although the SVS was administered and collected in 2006 it was designed in 2005, shortly before Federal stalking laws changed.
The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 amended the law to include an expanded definition of cyberstalking and victim harm.a The definition of cyberstalking was expanded to include all communications via software that used the Internet or Internet-based technologies. The law also changed to include substantial emotional harm to the victim and not just actual or reasonable fear.
In 2013, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was amended to include elements of presence, intimidation, emotional distress, and cyberstalking.b First, an element of presence was included to apply to any persons stalking another person within the United States waters or territorial jurisdictions; and not just within states. Second, the stalker’s intent had to be to kill, injure, harass, or place a person under surveillance; and this list was expanded to include intimidation. Third, the definition of substantial emotional distress was also expanded and further defined in 2013 to “causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress.”c Finally, the definition of cyberstalking was expanded to include any electronic communication, which includes interstate and foreign electronic communication.
In 2015, BJS statisticians redesigned the 2006 SVS survey instrument so that it paralleled the 2005 and 2013 updates to VAWA. The 2016 instrument was redesigned to begin with a screener instrument asking about each element of VAWA’s stalking definition. If a respondent screens in as a stalking victim, based on responses to the screener, the survey continues with the incident portion, which focuses on details of the stalking victimization.
After the instrument was initially redesigned, BJS convened a Technical Review Panel (TRP) in June 2015. The TRP’s primary objectives were to assist BJS in the technical and substantive assessment of the redesigned SVS instrument; evaluate the goals, purpose, burden, and value of each item; and to review and comment on proposed item revisions. The TRP also discussed expanding the SVS age range from persons age 18 or older to persons age 16 or older. Currently, no national-level data collections include information on stalking victimization among persons ages 16 or 17.
Based on the TRP recommendations, BJS’s revisions primarily focused on the screener instrument. The TRP recommended ordering the screener questions in a way that respondents were first asked if they experienced any of the unwanted contacts or behaviors (course of conduct), followed by questions on repetition, actual and reasonable fear, substantial emotional distress, and relatedness of the behaviors.
Additionally, the list of unwanted contacts and behaviors for traditional stalking and stalking with technology were expanded. Separate questions were developed on fear and substantial emotional distress as they are different concepts. Finally, questions were added about the connection between the unwanted contacts and behaviors, or if they were committed by the same person or group of persons.
The revisions to the 2016 SVS will allow BJS to estimate stalking prevalence for persons age 16 or older in the United States, and incorporate the elements of the VAWA definition of stalking. The expansions made to the stalking screening questions will allow for better measurement of the types of stalking behaviors experienced by respondents, specifically stalking with technology. In addition, improvements made to questions about the stalking incident will improve the ability to describe the characteristics of stalking victimizations.
BJS is requesting a one-year OMB clearance from June of 2016 through June of 2017 with data collection conducted from July through December of 2016. During the 6-month data collection period, the supplement will be administered to all NCVS respondents age 16 or older, following the completion of the NCVS screener (NCVS-1) and the NCVS crime incident report (NCVS-2; if applicable NCVS crimes were reported).
2. Needs and Uses
The SVS will provide national-level data on the prevalence and nature of stalking victimization. In addition, due to the expected prevalence rate and redesigned state sampling plan, it is likely that state estimates of stalking victimization may be produced for the largest 22 states. The data being collected through the SVS are needed to more fully understand stalking and to obtain a clearer picture of its impact on society and consequences suffered by victims. Most importantly, the SVS will capture both stalking reported and not reported to the police or other authorities. Understanding this “dark figure” helps to inform victim outreach efforts, resource allocation, and to gain a better understanding of victim decision-making and the resulting consequences. For example, research has demonstrated an association between reporting to the police, receiving victim services, and being involved in the criminal justice process.d The findings from the SVS will not only be beneficial to the general public by increasing awareness of this crime but they also will have significance for legislators, policymakers, and law enforcement in making sound decisions regarding these criminal acts and providing assistance to its victims.
Uses of SVS data
Table 1 below details the estimates that will be produced with the 2016 SVS data. With the 2016 SVS data, BJS will be able to examine prevalence estimates of traditional stalking and stalking with technology; characteristics of stalking victims and offenders; physical and emotional impacts on victims; measures of self-protective actions; and the criminal justice system response.
Table 1. Types of estimates that can be generated from the 2016 SVS
Estimates that can be generated from the 2016 SVS |
Relevant questions |
Percent of persons age 16 or older who experienced stalking victimization in the past 12 months |
SQ1a, SQ1b, SQ1c, SQ1d, SQ1e, SQ1f, SQ1g, SQ1h, SQ1i, SQ1j, SQ1k, SQ1l; SQ2; SQ3a or SQ3b; SQ4 or SQ5 or SQ6 |
Percent of persons age 16 or older who experienced traditional stalking victimization in the past 12 months |
SQ1a, SQ1b, SQ1c, SQ1d, SQ1e, SQ1f; SQ2; SQ3a or SQ3b; SQ4 or SQ5 or SQ6 |
Percent of persons age 16 or older who experienced stalking with technology victimization in the past 12 months |
SQ1g, SQ1h, SQ1i, SQ1j, SQ1k, SQ1l; SQ2; SQ3a or SQ3b; SQ4 or SQ5 or SQ6 |
Type of stalking behavior experienced: |
|
|
SQ1a |
|
SQ1b |
|
SQ1c |
|
SQ1d |
|
SQ1e |
|
SQ1f |
|
SQ1g |
|
SQ1h |
|
SQ1i |
|
SQ1j |
|
SQ1k |
|
SQ1l |
Percent of stalking victims age 16 or older who experienced fear |
SQ3a |
Percent of stalking victims age 16 or older who experienced substantial emotional distress |
SQ3b |
Percent of stalking victims age 16 or older who experienced both fear and substantial emotional distress |
SQ3a + SQ3b |
Percent of stalking victims age 16 or older who experienced reasonable fear |
SQ4, SQ5, SQ6 |
Demographic characteristics of persons age 16 or older who experienced stalking victimization in the past 12 months |
NCVS core + SQ1a, SQ1b, SQ1c, SQ1d, SQ1e, SQ1f, SQ1g, SQ1h, SQ1i, SQ1j, SQ1k, SQ1l; SQ2; SQ3a or SQ3b; SQ4 or SQ5 or SQ6 |
Number of stalking offenders |
Q1 |
Demographic characteristics of single stalking offenders |
Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7 |
Demographic characteristics of multiple stalking offenders |
Q8a, Q8b, Q9, Q10a, Q10b, Q11a, Q11b, Q12, Q13 |
How long the stalking victimization had been occurring, by type of stalking victimization |
Q14a |
How often the stalking victimization had been occurring, by type of stalking victimization |
Q15 |
The perceived offender motivation for stalking victimization, by type of stalking victimization |
Q16 |
Other attacks, attempted attacks, or threats experienced by stalking victims |
Q17a, Q17b, Q18a, Q18b, Q19a, Q19b |
Percent of stalking victimization reported to the police, by type of stalking victimization |
Q20 |
Reasons for not reporting to the police among those who did not report, by type of stalking victimization |
Q21 |
Who reported the victimization to the police, by type of stalking victimization |
Q22 |
Percent of stalking victimizations where criminal charges were filed against the offender, by type of stalking victimization |
Q25a |
Percent of stalking victims that sought victim services |
Q27 |
Percent of stalking victims that received victim services |
Q28a |
Type of victim services received among those who sought services, by type of stalking victimization |
Q28b |
Reasons victim services were not received among those who sought assistance, by type of stalking victimization |
Q28c |
Percent of stalking victims that have engaged in various self-protective actions, by type of stalking victimization |
Q29, Q30 |
Emotional distress experienced as a result of stalking victimization, by type of stalking victimization |
Q33, Q34, Q35, Q36a, Q36b, Q37 |
Financial and work or school loss (direct and indirect) attributed to the stalking victimization, by type of stalking victimization |
Q38, Q39, Q40, Q41 |
The estimates that can be generated through the SVS are needed by a wide range of government agencies and victim advocacy groups, as well as to provide the general public with reliable data on the prevalence and characteristics of stalking. The paragraphs below provide examples of some of the users and uses of the 2006 SVS statistics.
Government agencies
Bureau of Justice Statistics. The 2006 SVS data enabled BJS to report on “new and emerging” crime types and to expand the array of crime types against persons that are counted as part of national crime statistics (beyond the traditional crime types reported by the FBI). BJS used the data from the 2006 SVS to produce a report on stalking victimization, titled Stalking Victimization in the United States, which was later revised in Stalking Victims in the United States – Revised (Attachment 3). The report covered topics such as the percentage of persons age 18 or older who had experienced one or more types of stalking during the prior year; the characteristics of stalking victims; duration and frequency of stalking; types of stalking behaviors experienced; the victim-offender relationship; and the percentage of stalking victimizations that went unreported to police.
BJS disseminated the report through a press release and the BJS website. Through AskBJS, the BJS email account that allows data users to ask statisticians specific data questions, BJS responded to external requests from the public and media regarding the report findings. BJS also made the 2006 SVS data available for public use and download through the archives at the University of Michigan’s Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR).
Other federal agencies. The 2006 SVS was a collaborative effort between the BJS, the Office on Violence Against Woman (OVW) and the NIJ. The OVW funded the 2006 SVS data collection in the interest of obtaining data on the prevalence of stalking victimization and the impact of stalking on victims. The NIJ assisted in the design of 2006 SVS instrument and co-authored the final report. These data on the prevalence of stalking and the characteristics of victims can assist agencies like OVW and the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) in identifying populations that may be particularly vulnerable, and appropriately targeting knowledge and prevention campaigns. Both OVW and OVC publicized the release of the 2006 SVS report and included a link to the report on their website.
Victim advocates
SVS data assist the Stalking Resource Center, a program of the nonprofit organization National Center for Victims of Crime, and other victim advocacy groups in understanding the impact, seriousness, and harms associated with stalking victimization, as well as the needs of stalking victims. In addition to the data from the NCVS and the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) that focus on traditional street crimes, the SVS statistics provide victim advocates with a more complete sense of the range of victims that may require assistance. The Stalking Resource Center uses the 2006 SVS data and findings on their website, and as a current resource for victims and other interested parties.
Media outlets and the general public
Findings from the 2006 SVS report have been reported by various news and advocacy organizations. The findings from the 2006 SVS are widely cited in research and professional journals about the nature of stalking victimization. In addition, the resulting report is the basis for BJS’s responses to public and press inquiries concerning stalking victimization.
3. Use of Information Technology
The 2016 SVS will be conducted in a fully automated interviewing environment using computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) methods whereby field representatives (FRs) use a laptop computer to read questions and record answers. The use of CAPI technologies reduces data collection costs as well as respondent and interviewer burden. Furthermore, automated instruments afford the opportunity to implement inter-data item integrity constraints which minimize the amount of data inconsistency. More consistent data, in turn, reduces the need for extensive post-data collection editing and imputation processes which will significantly reduce the time needed to release the data for public consumption. The use of technology results in more accurate data products that are delivered in a more timely fashion giving data users access to information while it is still relevant.
4. Efforts to Identify Duplication
One contemporary survey currently collects information about stalking victimization. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), sponsored by the CDC, is a nationally based data collection that asks the U.S. population age 18 or older about their experiences with stalking victimization. Even though the NISVS and SVS are both nationally-based collections, their methodological and substantive differences keep them from being duplicative.
The NISVS is a nationally representative random digit dial (RDD) telephone survey of the noninstitutionalized population age 18 or older. The 2016 SVS is a nationally representative sample of U.S. households and interviews persons age 16 or older. The NISVS includes behaviorally specific questions on stalking victimization, as well as intimate partner violence and sexual violence, which assess respondents’ victimization in their lifetime and during the 12 months prior to the interview. The NISVS collects information at the perpetrator level and characteristics of the victimization by that perpetrator. The SVS includes behaviorally specific questions focused exclusively on stalking, including an expansion of the types of stalking behaviors experienced, and asks respondents about behaviors experienced in the 12 months prior to the interview. Specifically, the SVS includes more behaviorally specific questions on stalking with technology (i.e. using tracking applications; using social media apps). The NISVS classifies respondents as stalking victims if they have experienced multiple stalking behaviors or a single stalking behavior multiple times; and they must have felt very fearful (actual fear) or fear that they or someone close to them would be harmed or killed by the stalking perpetrator (reasonable fear).e The SVS definition of stalking victimization is similar in that it includes repetition of the behaviors, as well as actual fear and reasonable fear. However, the SVS also classifies stalking as repeated behaviors that would cause the respondent substantial emotional distress, or any level of fear (not just defined as “very fearful” like the NISVS), which is consistent with the VAWA definition of stalking. BJS has consulted with members of the CDC NISVS staff in an effort to coordinate these different collections, identifying areas where definitions and measurement can be consistent even with varying purposes and objectives.
The NISVS and SVS questions overlap in some areas, for example, both surveys ask victims about the frequency and duration of the stalking, whether stalking was reported to police, or if the victims sought assistance from a victim service agency. Both surveys also ask victims if they missed work or school as a result of the stalking victimization. Unlike the SVS, however, the NISVS questions do not go into further detail regarding the perpetrator’s motive for stalking, other types of specific threats or attacks the victim may have experienced by the stalking perpetrator, reasons for not reporting the stalking victimization to police, types of crime victim services received, self-protective actions taken by the victim, and potential costs to the victim.
5. Efforts to Minimize Burden
The NCVS is a household-based sample and does not impact small businesses or small entities. To minimize the burden for individual respondents and reduce nonresponse rates, supplemental questionnaires like the SVS are designed to take no longer than 15 minutes to administer.
FRs will alert respondents to the additional burden from the supplement at the beginning of the SVS interview. The field representatives will be instructed to inform respondents that “From time to time, the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice collects information on special topics. There is currently a special topic on unwanted contacts or behaviors you may have experienced. We estimate these questions will take between 5 to 15 minutes depending on your circumstances.”
The 2016 SVS will be conducted using CAPI. Approximately 45% of the NCVS interviews are conducted face-to-face in the sampled households (including all first interviews, all replacement households and all households requiring personal contact to obtain a response). The remaining 55% of NCVS interviews are collected using telephone.
To help minimize burden, the SVS consists of a screener and an incident interview. Only respondents that report an eligible stalking victimization will receive the incident interview. The screener is approximately 4 minutes and captures information on whether the respondent had experienced unwanted contacts or behaviors in the past 12 months, whether these unwanted contacts or behaviors were repeated, and whether they were fearful or experienced substantial emotional distress, or experienced reasonable fear (by experiencing other types of crimes). The incident instrument asks detailed questions about the nature and characteristics of the stalking victimization. The screener plus the incident interview is expected to take less than 13 minutes.
6. Consequences of Less Frequent Collection
Person-level stalking data was last collected as an NCVS supplement in 2006. With the subsequent changes to the questionnaire for 2016, BJS is now in the position to continue to field a consistent recurring supplement on stalking. Other supplements to the NCVS, such as the School Crime Supplement (OMB NO: 1121-0184) and the Police-Public Contact Survey (OMB NO: 1121-0260), are typically conducted on a biennial basis. Particularly because of the growing and evolving nature of stalking, the BJS anticipates conducting the SVS every two years in order to identify trends and changes in the nature of this crime.
The 2016 data will provide baseline information that can be used to track changes and trends in stalking victimization over time. By repeatedly conducting the SVS, the BJS builds up the sample sizes and then has the capacity to combine several years of data to generate reliable estimates about the most serious cases of stalking. If the supplement were conducted every three or four years, rather than every two years, statisticians would have more difficulty combining data sets and providing timely data on the most serious cases of stalking. Further, a larger gap between data collections may also inhibit the identification of trends and changing types of stalking and victimization risk.
7. Special Circumstances
Collection is consistent with the guidelines in 5 C.F.R. 1320.9.
8. Adherence to 5 CFR 1320.8(d) and Outside Consultations
The research under this clearance is consistent with the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6. Comments on this data collection effort were solicited in the Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 23, page 6050 on February 4, 2016 and Vol. 81, No. 67, pages 20422-20423 on April 7, 2016. No comments were received during the 60 day period.
The U.S. Census Bureau, the BJS, and outside experts collaborated to develop the final version of the questionnaire and procedures used to collect this supplemental information. For the 2016 SVS, principal consultants from the BJS were Dr. William Sabol, Dr. Jennifer Truman, Dr. Rachel Morgan, Dr. Lynn Langton, and Dr. Michael Planty. Principal persons consulted from the Census Bureau included Ms. Meagan Meuchel, Ms. Jill Harbison, Mr. Timothy Gilbert, Ms. Mandi Martinez, and Ms. Mary Davis. Outside experts included Dr. TK Logan from the University of Kentucky, Dr. Bonnie Fisher from the University of Cincinnati, Ms. Michelle Garcia from the Stalking Resource Center, and Ms. Cindy Southworth from the National Network to End Domestic Violence.
In June of 2015, BJS hosted a TRP to discuss the 2016 redesign of the SVS. Participants included subject matter experts from academia and research professionals. Participants discussed a variety of topics, including survey contents, stalking definitional issues, and methods for data collection. TRP members provided substantive and technical comments on the redesigned SVS instrument. Their feedback was incorporated into the 2016 instrument. TRP members included –
Dr. Bethany Backes, National Institute of Justice
• Ms. Rosie Hidalgo, Office on Violence Against Women
• Ms. Jasmine D’Addario-Fobian, Office for Victims of Crime
• Ms. Meagan Meuchel, U.S. Census Bureau
• Mr. Timothy Gilbert, U.S. Census Bureau
• Ms. Jill Harbison, U.S. Census Bureau
• Ms. Dawn Nelson, U.S. Census Bureau
• Ms. Mandi Martinez, U.S. Census Bureau
• Ms. Jessica Holzberg, U.S. Census Bureau
• Ms. Aleia Clark Fobia, U.S. Census Bureau
• Dr. Mikel Walters, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC
• Dr. Sharon Smith, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC
• Ms. Michelle Garcia, Stalking Resource Center
• Ms. Cindy Southworth, National Network to End Domestic Violence
• Dr. TK Logan, University of Kentucky
• Dr. Bonnie Fisher, University of Cincinnati
• Dr. Roger Tourangeau, Westat
9. Paying Respondents
No payment or gifts are provided to respondents in return for participation in the supplement.
10. Assurance of Confidentiality
All NCVS information about individuals or households is confidential by law – Title 42, United States Code, Sections 3789g and 3735 (formerly Section 3771) and Title 13, United States Code, Section 9. Only Census Bureau employees sworn to preserve this confidentiality may see the survey responses. Even BJS, as the sponsor of the survey, is not authorized to see or handle the data in its raw form. All unique and identifying information is scrambled or suppressed before it is provided to BJS statisticians. Data are maintained in secure environments and in restricted access locations within the Census Bureau. All data provided to BJS must meet the confidentiality requirements set forth by the Disclosure Review Board at the Census Bureau.
In a letter signed by the Director of the Census Bureau, sent to all participants in the survey, respondents are informed of this law and assured that it requires the Census Bureau to keep all information provided by the respondent confidential. The letter also informs respondents that this is a voluntary survey. Furthermore, in addition to the legal authority and voluntary nature of the survey, the letter informs respondents of the public reporting burden for this collection of information, the principal purposes for collecting the information, and the various uses for the data after it is collected which satisfies the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974.
11. Justification for Sensitive Questions
The SVS asks about stalking victimization experiences that may be sensitive for some respondents. Given the objective of the SVS--to estimate the amount of stalking victimization in the Nation--this is inevitable. The SVS does not ask questions relating to sexual behaviors, drug use, religious beliefs, or other matters commonly considered private or of a sensitive nature. SVS interviewers receive training and guidance on how to ask sensitive questions. The importance of estimating crime levels, as well as the potential value of detailed information about victimization for designing crime prevention strategies, is explained to any respondent who seems hesitant to answer. All respondents have the option of refusing to answer any question.
12. Estimate of Respondent Burden
Only respondents age 16 or older that complete the NCVS-1 and NCVS-2 (if applicable) are eligible to receive the SVS instrument. We estimate that 124,400 NCVS respondents age 16 or older will be eligible to be interviewed for the SVS between July and December of 2016. We estimate each SVS screening interview will take, on average, 0.07 hours (4 minutes) and each full interview (screener plus incident interview) for persons experiencing stalking victimization will take, on average, 0.20 hours (12.25 minutes) to complete. Based on the prevalence estimates from the 2006 SVS, we expect that about 1.5% of respondents will be victims of stalking victimization in the 2016 SVS.
The final burden estimate assumes that the total NCVS sample from July through December of 2016 will be approximately 104,100 households yielding approximately 124,400 persons age 16 or older. Based on the 2006 SVS response rate, and the response rates for the 2014 NCVS Identity Theft Supplement (ITS) and 2015 NCVS Police Public Contact Survey (PPCS) (used as comparable rates since administered to persons age 16 or older), we expect that about 90%, or 111,960 of the 124,400 eligible respondents will be interviewed. Based on the 2006 SVS results, it is expected that 1.5% of the 111,960 interviewed respondents will be victims of stalking and therefore follow the long interview path in the questionnaire. The remaining 98.5% will not be victims of stalking and, as such, will follow the short interview path. As stated above, our assumption is that the short interview path will take about 4 minutes and the long interview path will take 12.25 minutes. Total expected respondent burden is therefore estimated to be 8,055 hours (see Table 2 for calculation).
Table 2. SVS estimated burden hours
|
Number of SVS Persons |
Time per interview (hours) |
Burden hours (AxB) |
Total Expected SVS Eligible Persons |
124,400 |
|
|
Expected SVS Interviews |
111,960 |
|
|
Expected SVS Short Interviews |
110,280 |
.07
|
7,720 |
Expected SVS Long Interviews |
1,679 |
.20
|
336
|
Expected SVS Noninterviews |
12,440 |
|
|
2016 SVS Burden Hours Estimate |
|
|
8,055
|
2006 SVS Burden Hour Estimate on File |
|
|
4,444 |
Change in Respondent Burden Hours from 2006 to 2016 |
|
|
3,611
|
13. Estimate of Respondent’s Cost Burden
There are no costs to respondents other than their time to respond.
14. Costs to Federal Government
There are no capital or start-up costs associated with this data collection.
BJS Cost Estimate Summary
The estimated cost for BJS staff is $73,282 for the 2016 Supplemental Victimization Survey, and covers overall program management, data analysis, publication review, and dissemination activities.
Table 3. Estimated BJS costs for the 2016 SVS
Staff salaries |
Estimated Cost |
GS-12 Statistician, BJS (20%) |
$17,564 |
GS-13 Statistician, BJS (20%) |
$20,887 |
GS-15 Supervisory Statistician, BJS (3%) |
$4,355 |
GS-13 Technical Editor, BJS (3%) |
$3,133 |
GS-12 Production Editor, BJS (2%) |
$1,756 |
GS-13 Digital Information Specialist, BJS (2%) |
$2,089 |
Subtotal salaries |
$49,784 |
Fringe benefits (28% of salaries) |
$13,939 |
Subtotal: Salary and fringe |
$63,723 |
Other administrative costs of salary and fringe (15%) |
$9,558 |
Total estimated costs |
$73,282 |
The U.S. Census Bureau will act as the data collection agent for the 2016 SVS. Census will develop, test, and finalize the 2016 SVS survey instrument, develop all data collection support and training materials, train interviewers and support staff, and collect, process, and disseminate the 2016 SVS data.
Table 4. Estimated U.S. Census Bureau costs for the 2016 SVS
Division |
Estimated Cost |
CSM (Cognitive Testing) |
$94,222 |
DSMD (Sample Design and Estimation) |
$69,574 |
ADSD (Instrument Development) |
$57,320 |
DSD (Data Processing) |
$144,972 |
FLD (Data Collection) |
$224,433 |
ADDP (Survey Operations and Project Management) |
$239,098 |
Total estimated costs |
$829,619 |
The total estimated cost to the Federal Government for the 2016 SVS activities is $902,901. For the 2016 SVS, the OVW bears $475,000 of the cost. The BJS bears the remaining $427,901 cost of the survey.
15. Reasons for Change in Burden
The change in total burden is due to the increase in sample size related to the revised NCVS state sample design being implemented in 22 states as described in section B. In addition, the previous SVS data collection only included persons age 18 or older; and the 2016 SVS will sample all persons age 16 or older. Based on the NCVS sample size increase and including respondents age 16 or older, we estimate that 124,400 NCVS respondents age 16 or older will be eligible to be interviewed for the SVS between July and December of 2016, compared to 86,850 persons age 18 or older that were estimated to be eligible in 2006. This represents an estimated increase of 3,611 from the 4,444 hours previously requested in 2006.
16. Project Schedule and Publication Plans
Through May of 2016, Census will develop and test the CAPI instrument to ensure that it functions as designed and that all survey skip patterns have been properly programmed. This testing will be done in consultation with BJS. By early June of 2016, Census will develop and distribute all training materials to their FRs. Interviewing for the 2016 SVS will be conducted from July through December of 2016 by the Census Bureau FRs. Processing of the data will take place on an ongoing basis between August 2016 and April 2017. The computer processing, editing, imputation, and weighting of the data will be completed by the end of May 2017. The Census Bureau will prepare and deliver a 2016 NCVS/SVS micro-data user file and accompanying file documentation including a nonresponse bias report to BJS by June of 2017.
The BJS will be responsible for the statistical analysis and publication of the data from the 2016 SVS. BJS will produce a report examining the prevalence and nature of stalking victimization by the fourth quarter of 2017. The report will contain similar analyses to the report produced from the 2006 SVS.f Key estimates to be presented include—
the prevalence of stalking victimization;
the type of behaviors experienced by stalking victims;
the victim and offender characteristics;
the psychological and physiological consequences of stalking victimization;
the percentage of victims who reported to the police or sought victim services, by type of stalking;
and the types of behaviors that victims engage in to prevent stalking victimization.
Due to the expected 1.5% prevalence rate and the redesigned state sampling plan, it is likely that in addition to national estimates, state estimates of stalking victimization can be produced for the largest 22 states. Given the expected variability by state, the type and number of estimates will be determined based on realized sample cases and acceptable measures of precision.
The data will be archived for public download and use at the University of Michigan ICPSR immediately following the publication of the BJS report.
17. Display of Expiration Date
N/A.
18. Exceptions to the Certificate Statement
N/A. There are no exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions. Collection is consistent with the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.9.
a Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, 109 U.S.C. § 3402 et seq. (2005). Retrieved from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr3402enr/pdf/BILLS-109hr3402enr.pdf.
b Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2013, 113 U.S.C. § 2261A et seq. (2013). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s47enr/pdf/BILLS-113s47enr.pdf.
c Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2013, 113 U.S.C. § 2261A et seq. (2013). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s47enr/pdf/BILLS-113s47enr.pdf.
d Langton, Lynn. 2011. Use of Victim Service Agencies by Victims of Serious Violent Crime, 1993-2009. U.S. Department of Justice Special Report (NCJ 234212), available at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/uvsavsvc9309.pdf.
e Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Basile, K.C., Walters, M.L., Chen, J., & Merrick, M.T. (2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization – National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 63(SS08), 1‐18.
f The report Stalking Victims in the United States – Revised is available at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svus_rev.pdf.
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| Author | langtonl |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2021-01-23 |