Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp.

205-210, 1997
Copyright © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
Pergamon Printed in the USA. All rights reserved
0047-2352/97 $17.00 + .00
PII S0047-2352(97)00005-6

VICTIMIZATION RATES FOR DOMESTIC TRAVELERS

CHARLESF. WELLFORD

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice

University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland 20742

ABSTRACT

Despite widespread concern about the criminal victimization of travelers, empirical research has not
been conducted to estimate the extent of this victimization. Research reported in this article estimates the
rates of victimization for the population while not traveling. These estimates are generated using special
analyses of the national crime victimization survey and the national traveler survey. Results indicate
substantially lower rates of victimization for the public while traveling. The discussion suggests why
such differences may exist. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

INTRODUCTION prehensive information on domestic travelers'

In recent years a number of serious and
widely publicized crimes have raised questions
about the probability of victimization for do-
mestic travelers in the United States. Although
the media have highlighted the especially seri-
ous crimes (e.g., the homicide of tourists leav-
ing the Miami Airport or stopping at a roadside
rest stop), no one has explored the question of
whether travelers are more or less likely to be
victimized than nontravelers. This article ad-
dresses this question by using data from two na-
tional ongoing surveys to estimate the probabil-
ity of criminal victimization for the general
population. I This effort is the first attempt to
use victimization data from nationally recog-
nized and tested data sources to provide corn-
victimization. 2
DATA
There are a number of reasons why a better
understanding of the victimization of travelers
is important. First, the travel industry has been
affected by the media reports reflecting the ap-
parent decision of some travelers to alter their
vacationing behavior in response to a fear of
victimization? This has both economic and so-
cial consequences. Second, crime prevention ef-
forts need to be guided by realistic assessments
of the likelihood of victimization. Current ef-
forts to protect travelers (e.g., putting armed
guards at rest stops) may be more efficient if

205
206 C. F. WELLFORD
guided by better assessments of victimization
probabilities. Finally, victimization of travelers
offers an opportunity to assess theories of
crime, especially those that rely on the role of
the victims and place and location guardians.
Beginning in 1972, the U.S. Department of
Justice has led the development of the National
Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The Bu-
reau of Justice Statistics in the Department of
Justice is the primary sponsor for the NCVS
through contract with the Bureau of Census in
the U.S. Department of Commerce. The NCVS
is a continuing survey of individuals in a repre-
sentative sample of housing units across the
United States. The National Crime Victimiza-
tion Survey includes approximately 60,000 house-
holds in the sample, with interviews conducted
in these households every six months over a three-
year period. 4 The NCVS was reviewed by a
panel of the National Academy of Sciences and
has been found to be a highly reliable and valid
estimator of the extent of criminal victimization
in the United States. The second data source
used for this effort is the National Travel Survey
(NTS) conducted since 1979 by the U.S. Travel
Data Center. This survey is conducted each
month by telephone with a national probability
sample of 1,500 adult (eighteen years of age
and older) residents of the contiguous United
States. In the NTS, individuals are questioned
about their traveling behavior during the previous
month and year, and the travel of members in
their household. In this travel survey, a traveler
is defined as an individual who travels more
than one hundred miles one way away from
home. The current article uses this definition of
a domestic traveler. 5
Combining these two national surveys, re-
searchers are able to estimate the probability of
criminal victimization during a one-year period
for domestic travelers eighteen years of age and
older and compare them to the victimization
rates for the general population in the same age
range. This, essentially, involves using the Na-
tional Crime Victimization Survey to estimate
the numerator of such crime victimization rates
(the number of victimizations) and the National
Travel Survey to estimate the appropriate de-
nominators (the number of travelers). In order
to specify the victimizations of those individu-
als who were one hundred miles away from
home at the time of their victimization, the Bu-
reau of the Census produced special analyses of
the NCVS to identify these victimizations. 7
RESULTS
Descriptive data for the victimizations of the
general population and travelers are contained
in Table 1. As can be seen, in 1994 there were
43,663,240 total victimizations estimated for
the year with 40,762,070 victimizations for
those eighteen years of age and older. Travelers
accounted for 1,106,780 victimizations with
1,084,880 of the traveler victimizations being
reported by those eighteen years of age and
older. Those under eighteen reported approxi-
mately 22,000 victimizations. The distribution
of victimizations for the general population and
travelers were essentially the same, with ap-
proximately three-fourths of the victimizations
for both groups being property crimes. Because
those travelers eighteen years of age and older
account for the overwhelming proportion of
crimes, the distribution of total traveler crimes
and crimes for travelers eighteen and over by
crime type is essentially the same. For these
data, excluding the victimizations of travelers
less than eighteen years of age does not affect
the findings and conclusions.
Table 2 provides information on the national
crime victimization rates for individuals eigh-
teen years of age or older (these rates do not in-
clude criminal victimizations that occurred while
citizens were traveling in the United States). These
data indicate the rate of victimization per 1,000
citizens for the year 1993-1994 (the most recent
year for which data are available) to be 213 for
total victimizations, 168 for property victimiza-
tions, and forty-five for personal victimizations.
This reflects the fact that approximately 20 per-
cent of individuals in the United States eighteen
years of age or above each year are victims of
crime and that the vast majority of these crimes
(close to 75 percent) are property crimes. Table
2 also displays the results for criminal victim-
ization probabilities per day be dividing the
yearly rates by 365. This results in estimates of
per day probabilities of .62 for total crime, .49
 Victimization Rates for Domestic Travelers 207

TABLE 1
VICTIMIZATION COMPARISONS: NATIONAL ESTIMATESAND ESTIMATESFOR TRAVELERS

All 18+ Only

Number of victimizations
Total 43,663,240 40,762,070
Travelers 1,106,780 1,084,880
Total travelers 42,556,450 39,677,190

National (%) Travelers(%) Travelers18+ (%)

Crime distribution
Personal 26 24 23
Property 74 76 77

Victimization of
All Victim Types Those 18+
Percent of all victimizations
(where victim is traveler)
Total 2.5 2.7
Personal 2.3 2.8
Violence/Personal 1.9 2.4
Pick-pocketing 11.0 12.6
Property 2.6 2.6

National Travelers Trips Travel Per Day

Victimization rates per 1,000
(per day, total trips, and year)
Personal 45 (.13) 1.7 .3 (1.38) .05 (18)
Property 168 (.49) 5.9 .9 (4.14) .30 (110)
Total 213 (.62) 7.6 1.2 (5.52) .35 (128)

for property crime, a n d . 13 for personal crime home area than they do traveling away from
per 1,000 adults. Also in Table 2, the results for home one hundred miles or more during the
the national crime victimization rate for those year. The rate per l,O00 travelers, therefore,
eighteen years of age and above are calculated will be less than the crime rates when they are
for males and females. The data show that in their home area due to differences in the time
males have substantially higher rates of victim- available to be victimized. The second rate, the
ization than do females (male rates of 259/1,000 rate per l,O00 trips, suffers the same compari-
for total crime, 210 for property, and 49 for per-
sonal, while rates for females are 156/1,000 for
total crime, l l 8 for property, and 38 for per-
sonal, while rates for females are 156/1,000 for TABLE2
total crime, 118 for property, and 38 for per- NATIONALCRIMEVICTIMIZATIONRATESFORTHOSE t 8
sonal). YEARS OF AGE OR GREATER (LEss TRAVELERS
VICTIMIZATION) PER YEAR
Table 3 contains comparable rates for the
traveling population eighteen years of age or Crime Type Total Males Females
older. The crime victimization rates for travel- Personal 45 49 38
ing victims are expressed in four ways. First is Property 168 210 118
Total 213 259 156
the rate of victimization per 1,000 travelers.
This rate would appear to be directly compara- Personal per day .13 .13 .10
ble to national victimization rates, however, it is Property per day .49 .58 .33
Total per day .62 .71 .43
not because people spend more time in their
208 C. F. WELLFORD

TABLE 3 30-40 percent higher rates of criminal victim-

VICTIMIZATION RATES FOR TRAVELING POPULATION 18 ization for the general population compared to
YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER the traveling population eighteen years of age or
Per 1,000 travelers older holds throughout the comparisons of Ta-
Personal 1.7 bles 2 and 3. These data strongly indicate that
Property 5.9
Total 7.6
the probability of criminal victimization is sub-
Per 1,000 trips stantially less for the traveling population than
Personal 1.9 it is for the population when not traveling.
Property 5.9
Total 7.8
Table 4 provides the criminal victimization
Per day rates for the traveling population eighteen years
Personal .05 of age and older disaggregated by gender. As
Property .3
Table 4 indicates (and consistent with the na-
Total .35
Per traveling year tional data) rates of criminal victimization for
Personal 18.3 male travelers are significantly higher than those
Property 109.5
of female travelers. Comparing total crime rates,
Total 127.8
the difference is 10.8/1,000 travelers for males
compared to 4.4 per thousand female travelers.
Comparisons using the per traveling year esti-
son problem. This rate reflects the probability mation indicate the total rate is 183/1,000 for
of victimization per 1,000 trips of varying males, compared to 110 for females, a differ-
lengths. Although the average length of these ence of 30 percent. Comparing the rates for the
trips and the total amount of travel each year traveling population with the rates for males
(the average trip length being a little over three and females in the general population in Table
days and the average number of days in travel 2, substantially lower rates of victimization in
per year being approximately twenty) is known all categories are seen. For example, the esti-
from the U.S. Department of Justice (1994), mate of the total crime victimization rate per
these are still not directly comparable to na- year for the general population of males is 259;
tional rates because of differences in exposure for the traveling population it is 183. The total
time. The third calculation in Table 3, therefore, victimization rate for females in the general
provides the estimate of crime victimization per population is 156; for the traveling population it
day of travel, which is comparable to the na-
tional per day victimization rates. In Table 3, a
rate is finally calculated that is based upon these
per day rates projected (multiplied by 365) to a TABLE 4

situation where a person is traveling one hun- VICTIMIZATION RATES FOR TRAVELING POPULATION 18
YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER BY GENDER
dred miles or more away from home full-time
during the year. These rates of criminal victim- Ma~s Fema~s
ization per traveling year are comparable to the Per 1,000 travelers
national victimization rates presented in Table 2. Personal 2.3 1.1
Comparing the data in Table 2 and 3, it is Property 8.5 3.3
Total 10.8 4.4
clear that the traveling population has signifi- Per 1,000 trips
cantly lower rates of victimization by any of Personal 2.8 .6
these measures than they would experience if Property 7.9 3.5
Total 10.7 4.1
they were not traveling. 8 For example, compar- Per day
ing the total crime victimization rate per travel- Personal .1 .02
ing year of 127.8 to the total crime victimiza- Property .4 .28
Total .5 .3
tion rate (less travelers' victimizations) per year Per traveling year
of 213, it is notable that the rate for travelers is Personal 37 8
approximately 40 percent less than the rate for Property 146 102
Total 183 110
the nontraveling. This pattern of approximately
 Victimization Rates for Domestic Travelers
is 110. The differences are particularly signifi-
cant in personal crime rates for females (thirty-
eight compared to eight per year), however,
these estimates are based on such small num-
bers of victimizations for female travelers that
they may be highly unstable.
The data on criminal victimization disaggre-
gated by gender reflects the primary findings of
this study: (1) significantly lower levels of vic-
timization for traveling males and females than
in the general population; and (2) a continuation
of the pattern found in the general population of
male travelers having higher rates of victimiza-
tion than female travelers.
DISCUSSION
The data analyzed in this article demonstrate
support for two overarching conclusions: first,
the rate of criminal victimization for all crime
types for domestic travelers eighteen years of
age and above is substantially less than the rate
of victimization for the general population; sec-
ond, the differences in victimization rates by
gender found in the general population are also
found in the traveling population. In addition,
the crime patterns in the traveling population
are similar to those in the general population
with approximately 75 percent of all victimiza-
tions being property crimes.
Given these findings of differences in vic-
timization rates for travelers, the next goal is to
understand why these differences exist. Two
broad categories of hypotheses are available to
explain these differences, one drawing from
routine activities theory and other stressing dif-
ferences between the traveling and nontraveling
populations.
In its simplest form, routine theory (see Fel-
son, 1993) argues that a criminal event requires
a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the
absence of that which can prevent the crime (ei-
ther people or environmental barriers). Given
that there are those motivated to commit crime,
any variation in victimization rates is thought to
be a reflection of the extent of persons or char-
acteristics of crime locations that can prevent
the crime. Routine activity theory suggests that
209
travelers would have lower crime rates because
they make greater efforts to secure their prop-
erty, travel in situations that will increase
guardianship (most travelers travel in groups of
two or more) and observation of each other's
behavior, and locate themselves in areas that are
heavily patrolled and have high levels of secu-
rity (especially in high tourist areas, security is-
sues have been given much greater attention in
recent years). In fact, many of the most highly
publicized instances of traveler victimization
occurred when travelers placed themselves in
relatively unprotected areas and locations (e.g.,
getting lost, frequenting high crime areas).
The second approach to explaining these dif-
ferences would emphasize differences in the
populations of travelers and nontravelers. The
suggestion could be made that individuals who
live in low crime areas are more likely to travel;
therefore, the traveling population would have
lower rates of victimization when traveling and
when they are not traveling. This approach
would assume that low income households have
higher rates of victimization than high income
households and that household income levels
are positively related to levels of travel. This
approach, however, must consider the fact that
travel estimates indicate that 75 percent of the
population travels each year. In this sense there
may be little difference between the characteris-
tics of the traveling and nontraveling popula-
tion. In addition, this approach would have to
confront the fact that total victimization rates
are not strongly associated with income. For ex-
ample, in 1993 the total victimization rate for
those with incomes above $75,000 was 429/
1,000; the comparable rate for those under
$75,000 was 407. Still, this approach should be
included in future research on the sources of
differences in victimization for travelers and the
general population.
These data, while not explaining the differ-
ences in victimization rates for those traveling
and those not traveling, do specify these differ-
ences. It appears reasonable to suggest that the
efforts undertaken by travelers and by host ar-
eas to avoid crime and provide increased secu-
rity have reduced levels of victimizations for
travelers relative to the rates observed when that
population is not traveling. Future research
210 C. F. W E L L F O R D
should explore this suggestion. Better under-
standing of the dynamics of crimes against trav-
elers and how they are avoided may offer in-
sight into victimizations and their avoidance for
nontravelers.
NOTES
1. Throughout this article the rates for domestic travel-
ers and the general population are discussed. As approxi-
mately 75 percent of the adult population of the United
States travels each year, these two groups are essentially the
same people. The rates refer to their victimization while
traveling and while not traveling. They are referred to as
general or national rates and traveler rates for ease of pre-
sentation and discussion.
2. National crime victimization data do not include ho-
micides. This offense, therefore, is not included in the follow-
ing discussion. The number of homicides is so small relative
to the total number of victimizations that this exclusion does
not change any of the findings reported.
3. In 1994, for the first time in the history of the White
House Conference on Travel in the United States, crimes
against tourists was included on the agenda. The Summer
1993 newsletter of the Travel Industry Association of Amer-
ica cited crimes as a factor in decreases in the rate of in-
crease in domestic travel.
4. See U.S. Department of Justice (1994) for a detailed
discussion of the NCVS methodology.
5. Travel Industry Association of America (1994) pro-
vides a detailed description.
6. The NCVS collects data on crimes for those twelve
years of age and above, while the travel survey provides in-
formation on those eighteen years of age and above. This re-
port, therefore, considers the criminal victimization of those
eighteen years of age or greater. Victimizations, particularly
during periods of travel, are found to be quite infrequent for
those under eighteen in the NCVS.
7. In the NCVS, victims are asked to estimate the dis-
tance from their home to where the victimization occurred.
The greatest distance category is fifty miles or more. For
each victimization with a distance response of fifty miles or
more, the Bureau of the Census calculated the exact dis-
tance and filtered out all of those where the victimization
had occurred one hundred miles or more from the victim's
home. Support for these analyses by the Bureau of the Cen-
sus was provided by the Travel Industry Association of
America (TIAA). All analyses and conclusions are the re-
sponsibility of the author and do not reflect the position of
the TIAA or the Bureau of the Census.
8. Given the size of N in these tables, almost any differ-
ence would be statistically significant. The use of the term
significant reflects the fact that rates are 30-40 percent
higher for the nontraveling population.
REFERENCES
Felson, M. (1993). Routine activities and crime prevention
in the developing metropolis. Criminology 25:913-31.
Travel Industry Association of America. (1994). Survey of
travelers. Location: Travel Industry Association of America.
U.S. Department of Justice. 0994). National Crime Victim-
ization Survey Redesign. NCJ-151172. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice.