Homicide Studies

http://hsx.sagepub.com/

Who You Calling Old? Measuring ''Elderly'' and What It Means for Homicide
Research
Lynn A. Addington
Homicide Studies 2013 17: 134 originally published online 12 October 2012
DOI: 10.1177/1088767912461784

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/17/2/134

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Homicide Research Working Group

Additional services and information for Homicide Studies can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://hsx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://hsx.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/17/2/134.refs.html

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2014

461784
912461784Homicide StudiesAddington
2012
HSX17210.1177/1088767

Article
Homicide Studies

Who You Calling Old? 17(2) 134­–153

© 2012 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
Measuring “Elderly” and sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1088767912461784
What It Means for hs.sagepub.com

Homicide Research

Lynn A. Addington1

Abstract
Although Americans are less likely to experience violent crime as they age, research
interest in elderly victims of violence is growing. An initial question that has been
overlooked concerns how best to measure “elderly.” In the homicide literature, the
most common definition is a single category of age 65 and older. With U.S. adults
living longer, healthier, and more active lives, use of a single category may no longer
adequately capture this heterogeneous population. The present study explores how
a multiple-category definition of elderly might inform the study of homicide by
identifying patterns that could promote more tailored explanations.

Keywords
elderly < subtypes, victimization, methodology, NIBRS < methodology, public policy

Although Americans are less likely to experience violent crime as they age, research
interest in elderly victims of violence is growing. One reason for this attention is the
so-called “graying” of America, which has been spurred by longer lifespans and the
aging of the Baby Boomer generation. The population aged 65 and older is growing at
a faster rate than those under 45 (Howden & Meyer, 2011). By 2030, one in five
Americans will be over age 65, which translates into more than 72 million people
(Vincent & Velkoff, 2010). For the oldest old population, the number of U.S. adults
over age 85 is expected to reach 9.6 million in 2030, which is double its numbers from
2003 (He, Sengupta, Velkoff, & DeBarros, 2005).
1
American University, Washington, DC, USA

Corresponding Author:
Lynn A. Addington, Department of Justice, Law & Society, American University, 4400 Massachusetts
Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20016-8043, USA.
Email: adding@american.edu

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2014

Addington 135

In the area of homicide research, a small but growing body of work has identified
various correlates associated with elderly victims. An initial question that has been
overlooked in this literature concerns how to measure “elderly.” Although many
researchers define elderly as those aged 65 and older, this age demarcation is not used
consistently. The failure to use a standard definition is not surprising given the lack of
consensus across disciplines regarding who is elderly. With older adults living longer,
healthier, and more active lives, the use of a single category may no longer be adequate
to capture this heterogeneous population. Given the growing interest in studying
elderly homicide, now is an important time to address how best to define elderly and
in particular whether a multiple-category measure could assist in identifying trends,
developing tailored explanations, and promoting targeted policies and programs. The
present study seeks to explore this issue by examining the current definition of elderly
and then assessing a single- versus multiple-category measure of elderly. The implica-
tions for future research also are discussed.

Measuring Who Is “Elderly”

“Elderly” is a deceptively complex term to define due to differences in the aging
process and the resulting heterogeneity in the older population (Aronow, Fleg, &
Pepine, 2011). Considering specific characteristics such as common health, physical,
or cognitive abilities rather than using a stark chronological age is considered the
best practice for measuring elderly among gerontologists and those in the medical
fields (Aronow et al., 2011; Blowers, 2004). Although individualized measures can
more validly define elderly and generate more consistent comparisons across studies,
researchers also acknowledge that practical needs exist to quickly identify the elderly
population (Denton & Spencer, 1999). Here chronological age becomes the default
metric. Although using a particular age demarcation provides a convenient defini-
tion, it is unclear what this age should be. Researchers have used various ages rang-
ing from 50 to 75 (Blowers, 2004; Brank, 2007; Denton & Spencer, 1999, 2002;
Orimo et al., 2006). Divergence arises even among agencies that serve this popula-
tion (Brank, 2007). For example, the definition of elderly for Adult Protective
Services varies by state with most states using either age 60 or 65 to define elderly
(Stiegel & Klem, 2007).
Despite this lack of consensus, one of the most common definitions of elderly is age
65 and above (Denton & Spencer, 1999; Orimo et al., 2006). The basis for this age is
believed to have its origins in Bismarckian Germany and the designation of 65 as the
age citizens could participate in the national pension plan. Age 65 was selected based
on the belief that most would die before reaching this age in the 19th century (Brank,
2007; Orimo et al., 2006). More recently, the use of age 65 as the basis for full retire-
ment by the U.S. Social Security Administration likely encouraged defining elderly
using this criterion.1
Given the fact people now are living longer and are more active later in their lives,
especially in industrial countries like the United States (He et al., 2005), some

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2014

136 Homicide Studies 17(2)

researchers question the logic of adhering to age 65 to define elderly (Denton &
Spencer, 1999, 2002; Orimo et al., 2006). Denton and Spencer (1999, 2002) compared
40 years of Canadian life table data. Based on longer lifespans, they recommended
using age 70 rather than 65 to define elderly (Denton & Spencer, 1999) and 90 rather
than 85 to identify the oldest old population (Denton & Spencer, 2002). Orimo and his
colleagues examined longitudinal health from Japan to conduct a similar inquiry.
Based on their findings of healthier and more active older adults, they suggested
changing the definition of elderly to age 75 and above.
In the homicide literature, a fairly clear consensus has formed around using age 65
and above as the measure of elderly. One of the first examples is seen in Wolfgang’s
classic 1958 work, Patterns in Criminal Homicide. The vast majority of more recent
studies also use age 65 (Abrams, Leon, Tardiff, Marzuk, & Sutherland, 2007; Bachman,
1993; Chu & Kraus, 2004; Fox & Levin, 1991; Kennedy & Silverman, 1990; Nelsen
& Huff-Corzine, 1998; Titterington & Reyes, 2010; Weaver, Martin, & Petee, 2004).
A few studies use younger ages including 60 (Fazel, Bond, Gulati, & O’Donnell, 2007;
Krienert & Walsh, 2010) and 50 (Karch & Nunn, 2011). For all these studies, little
explanation is given for the elderly measure that is used. At most, researchers com-
ment on the lack of a standard definition and a reliance on previous studies’ use of age
65 (Bachman, 1993; Nelsen & Huff-Corzine, 1998). Karch and Nunn acknowledge
that previous studies use a range of ages (from 50 to 65) and explicitly note their use
of 50 as an effort to be overinclusive of fatal elder abuse cases.
If elderly is defined by only a single category, this measure combines a fairly het-
erogeneous group, no matter what age demarcation is selected. Multiple categories
provide a way to balance the convenience of using a chronological age definition with
the recognition of differences in the elderly population. The U.S. Bureau of the Census
provides a useful illustration of this strategy. Although the Census uses age 65 and
above to define the “elderly”, it also uses the additional age subcategories of 65 to 74
(the “young old”), 75 to 84 (the “aged”), and age 85 and above (the “oldest old”; U.S.
Bureau of Census, 1996).2 Multiple-category definitions of elderly, particularly use of
a category to distinguish the “oldest old,” are regularly used in the public health litera-
ture. As with elderly, definitions of these elderly subpopulations vary. For the oldest
old, the most common age demarcation parallels Census’s use of 85, but ages ranging
from 75 to 90 have been used and recommended (Boscoe, 2008; Denton & Spencer,
2002; McLaughlin, Connell, Heeringa, Li, & Roberts, 2010). In the homicide litera-
ture, researchers rarely make any distinctions among the elderly.3 Krienert and Walsh
(2010) provide one example where they define elderly as those aged 60 and above
with the subcategories of 60 to 69, 70 to 79, and 80 and above, but they do not discuss
why these particular subcategories are selected.
A multiple-category measure of elderly could advance homicide research by iden-
tifying patterns, promoting more nuanced explanations of elderly homicide, and sup-
porting targeted programs and policies. Using subcategories to define the elderly could
enable the identification of patterns otherwise masked by a single category, both
within the elderly groups and across other nonelderly groups. A multiple-category

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2014

Addington 137

definition could promote more nuanced explanations by reiterating the heterogeneity

of the elderly population. Many explanations of elderly homicide utilize lifestyle or
routine activity–based explanations (Kennedy & Silverman, 1990; Nelsen & Huff-
Corzine, 1998). In discussing their findings, researchers make broad statements that
might not be accurate when defining elderly by a single category. For example, the
greater risk of elderly homicides occurring at home is explained as the result of “the
elderly rarely leav[ing] their domicile” (Chu & Kraus, 2004, p. 88) and being “less
mobile” (Abrams et al., 2007, p. 1669). The decreased use of firearms to kill elderly
victims is because “perpetrators may conclude that firearms are not needed to kill frail
homebound elderly victims” (Abrams et al., 2007, p. 1669). These studies define
elderly as those aged 65 and older, but these explanations depict this group as being
comprised of homebound, sickly, isolated individuals.4
Subcategories of elderly victims would highlight the different activities of the
elderly population, particularly for the “young old” who are increasingly working past
retirement age as well as maintaining active lifestyles when they do retire (He et al.,
2005; Holder & Clark, 2008). A multiple-category definition also could support pro-
grams targeting at-risk elderly populations. Using a single category to define elderly
might overemphasize the risks of certain crimes for the young old and underemphasize
those for the oldest old. Bachman and Meloy (2008) discuss the variety of programs
for the community-dwelling elderly that promote guardianship, assist family caregiv-
ers, and help detect victimization. Such programs could use more specific information
about risks for different elderly groups to better serve these populations.
As the foregoing discussion highlights, the measurement of elderly is in need of
attention by homicide researchers. The present study explores a multiple-category
definition of elderly. To assess this definition and examine how it might inform the
study of elderly homicide, this multiple-category measure will be compared with a
single category to ascertain differences across victim and incident characteristics.

Method
Data

This study uses data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime
Reporting Program (UCR). Specifically it relies on data from the UCR’s National
Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which provide the necessary victim and
incident details, including incident location and clearance status. This study uses
victim-level data from 2007 and 2008 NIBRS, which constitute two of the more
recent years of publicly-available data (National Archive of Criminal Justice Data,
2009, 2010). Two years of data are used to expand the number of cases in order to
minimize possible variations due to the fact that relatively few homicides are commit-
ted against those aged 65 and above. The cases analyzed are all murders and nonneg-
ligent manslaughters (referred to as “murder” for shorthand). For 2007 and 2008,
6,662 murder victims were reported in NIBRS.

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2014

138 Homicide Studies 17(2)

One caveat in analyzing NIBRS data is their limited coverage. NIBRS is a substan-
tial departure in the UCR’s crime data collection for law enforcement agencies and it
requires a lengthy certification process. As a result, the conversion to NIBRS has been
gradual. By 2008, 31 states were NIBRS certified. Within these 31 states, not all agen-
cies submit data in NIBRS format. NIBRS agencies covered approximately 25% of
the U.S. population in 2007 and 2008 (JRSA, n.d.). Law enforcement agencies that
participate in NIBRS tend to represent smaller population areas. In 2007 and 2008, no
agency covering a population of more than 1 million participated in NIBRS. Because
participation in NIBRS is voluntary, NIBRS states and law enforcement agencies do
not constitute a representative sample of U.S. law enforcement agencies or states. This
nonrepresentativeness of NIBRS suggests exercising caution when interpreting the
results and generalizing beyond the NIBRS-participating agencies included in this
study (but see, Addington, 2008).

Variables
Victim age. To compare definitions, “elderly” is defined using both a single category
(65 and older) and three categories (65-74, 75-84, and 85 and older). These age groups
are based on the most common definition of elderly in the homicide literature and the
elderly subclassifications used by the U.S. Census.5 This study also uses the associated
Census terms of “young old” (65-74), “aged” (75-84), and “oldest old” (age 85 and
older) to distinguish among these groups. The frequencies for these age groups as well
as all variables used in this study are presented in Appendix. As indicated in Appendix,
the smallest percentage of homicides is seen for those aged 65 and older. Within the
elderly category, the young old (65-74) constitute almost half (48%) of all murders
against victims aged 65 and older.
Defining the nonelderly comparison groups also presents a challenge, and the lit-
erature provides little guidance. In elderly homicide research, some studies use a
dichotomous measure of above or below age 65 (i.e., Abrams et al., 2007; Bachman,
1993; Chu & Kraus, 2004; Fazel et al., 2007; Titterington & Reyes, 2010). Others use
various categories that typically distinguish young children and teenagers from the
young and middle-aged adult populations (i.e., Chu & Kraus, 2004; Kennedy &
Silverman, 1990; Nelsen & Huff-Corzine, 1998). The present study follows this latter
practice. Since no consistent age categories are used to define the nonelderly popula-
tion, the following four classifications are generated: 17 and younger (to identify chil-
dren and teenagers), 18 to 25 (to capture the age group at greatest risk for homicide),
26 to 54 (to categorize the young and middle adult population), and 55 to 64. The 55
to 64 age category corresponds to Census’s designation of the “older” population and
is used to explore possible similarities between elderly groups and this older adult
group. Future work is needed to ascertain the most appropriate comparison groups.
Victim characteristics. In addition to age, victim characteristics include race, sex, and
victim–offender relationship. Victim sex includes male and female. Previous studies
present two sets of findings concerning victim sex. When looking across age groups,

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2014

Addington 139

more elderly women than younger women are murder victims, but when looking
among the elderly, more men than women are victims of homicide (Krienert & Walsh,
2010, for a summary). For race, White and non-White victims are compared because
of the small number of minority victims who are not African American such as Asians
and Native Americans. Findings from previous studies suggest that elderly victims of
homicide tend to be White; however, patterns can vary depending on the data used
especially for certain city-specific collections (Krienert & Walsh, 2010, for a sum-
mary; Titterington & Reyes, 2010).
The third victim characteristic examined is victim–offender relationship. This vari-
able includes six categories: intimate partners, family members, friends/acquaintances,
otherwise known, strangers, and unknown.6 To minimize the analytical challenges
with the large amount of missing data for victim–offender relationship, a category of
“unknown” victim–offender relationship is included to capture those cases where the
relationship was specified as unknown as well as cases where no information was
known about the offender. NIBRS allows multiple victim–offender relationships.
Since the vast majority (75%) of cases involves a single relationship, the first NIBRS
code is used. Victim–offender relationship is of particular interest given previous find-
ings that elderly homicides tend to involve strangers and family members (Bachman,
1993; Krienert & Walsh, 2010).
Incident characteristics. Four incident characteristics are examined: location, weapon,
circumstances, and clearance. Although NIBRS collects a wide range of incident loca-
tions, this study dichotomizes location as whether the incident occurred at home or
not. Home location is the focus given its high frequency as a crime location for many
victims but especially among elderly victims (Krienert & Walsh, 2010; Nelsen &
Huff-Corzine, 1998).7
For weapon, the categories include: firearm, knife, personal contact, other, and
unknown/missing.8 Although NIBRS allows for reports of up to three weapons per
each offense in the incident, the decision was made to count only the first weapon
reported. This decision rule greatly simplifies the analysis and includes the vast major-
ity of weapons (84%) since most of the cases involved only one weapon. Previous
studies produce mixed results regarding weapons. Some indicate the majority of
elderly homicides occur with a firearm and others suggest blunt objects or personal
weapons are more commonly used (see Krienert & Walsh, 2010, for a summary).
Although NIBRS collects several circumstance codes, this study focuses on two in
particular: argument-related and felony-related.9 Argument-related circumstance is
selected as this category is the most commonly reported of all homicide circum-
stances. This variable is measured using “arguments” coded in the NIBRS circum-
stance variable. Felony-related circumstances are selected due to prior research
suggesting the frequency of murders among the elderly that occur with another crime
(Fox & Levin, 1991; Krienert & Walsh, 2010; Nelsen & Huff-Corzine, 1998). To
fully capture felony-related murders, this measure includes both victims where the
NIBRS circumstance variable is coded “other felony” and victims of a crime in addi-
tion to the homicide.

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2014

140 Homicide Studies 17(2)

The fourth incident characteristic concerns clearance. For this study, clearances
include cases involving either an arrest of at least one offender or an exceptional clear-
ance. Exceptional clearances occur when a suspect is identified but circumstances
beyond the law enforcement agency’s control prevent an arrest (such as death of the
offender; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2004). Previous research suggests that age is
related to likelihood of clearance. Homicides involving young victims are consistently
more likely to be cleared and to be cleared faster than cases involving adults, especially
older victims (see Riedel, 2008, for a discussion of the literature; Addington, 2007).

Analyses Conducted
As this study is exploratory in nature, it relies on bivariate analyses to compare initial
patterns between use of a single-category and multiple-category definition of elderly.10
Here contingency tables are used to examine these relationships. To compare specific
relationships between and across single- and multiple-category definitions of elderly
and other age groups, 95% confidence intervals are reported.11 Adjustments for mul-
tiple comparisons (such as Bonferroni corrections) are not applied given the explor-
atory nature of this work. Due to the relatively small amount of missing data for all
variables except victim–offender relationship, complete case analysis is an appropri-
ate approach (Allison, 2002). For victim–offender relationship, an “unknown” cate-
gory is used to capture these missing cases.

Findings
Table 1 compares victim characteristics by age. The table includes a column using the
single-category definition of elderly (aged 65 and above) as well as columns for these
same victims regrouped into the three elderly subcategories. As reported in Table 1,
substantively different patterns among the elderly subcategories are observed for vic-
tim sex and victim–offender relationship, particularly between the oldest old and other
two groups. None of these differences, though, is statistically significant. Statistically
significant and different patterns are observed when the single- and multiple-category
elderly measures are compared with the nonelderly age groups. For victim sex, using
the single 65 and older category indicates that 43.8% of elderly homicide victims are
female and that this group is statistically significantly larger than the nonelderly
groups.12 When the elderly category is separated into the three groups, different pat-
terns are observed. Comparing across all age groups, the 65-to-74 and 75-to-84-year-
old groups are significantly larger and statistically different from all but the youngest
(below 17) group. The oldest old group is the only age category where a majority of
victims are female and that is statistically significantly larger than all the nonelderly
age groups. For victim race, similar patterns are observed across age groups whether
elderly is defined using a single- or multiple-category measure. A larger percentage of
elderly victims are White as compared to all the nonelderly groups with the exception
of the 55- to 64-year-olds.

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2014

 Table 1. Victim Characteristics by Age of Victim, NIBRS 2007-2008.

Victim age Elderly subcategories

Under 17 18-25 26-54 55-64 65 plus 65-74 75-84 85 plus

percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage
[95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI]
(n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n)
Victim sex
Female 34.5 16.0 24.0 27.7 43.8 41.0 41.4 60.0
[31.1-38.2] [14.3-17.8] [22.5-25.4] [23.4-32.4] [38.2-49.6] [33.1-49.4] [32.7-50.8] [44.3-73.8]
(239) (280) (801) (105) (127) (57) (46) (24)
Total 692 1,751 3,342 379 290 139 111 40
N = 6,454, χ2 = 168.6 (p < .05); χ2 = 175.3 (p < .05) a
Victim race
White 48.7 35.9 48.1 65.5 74.5 74.5 72.7 79.5
[45-52.5] [33.6-38.2] [46.4-49.8] [60.6-70.1] [69.1-79.2] [66.5-81.1] [63.7-80.2] [64-89.4]
(329) (619) (1,581) (247) (213) (102) (80) (31)
Total 675 1,726 3,288 377 286 137 110 39
N = 6,352, χ2 = 226.8 (p < .05); χ2 = 227.4 (p < .05)a

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2014

Victim–offender relationship
Intimate 0.7 6.8 14.3 13.7 16.6 17.3 14.4 20.0
partner [0.3-1.7] [5.7-8.1] [13.2-15.6] [10.6-17.6] [12.7-21.3] [11.8-24.5] [9-22.2] [10.3-35.2]
(5) (119) (480) (52) (48) (24) (16) (8)
Family 34.8 2.4 5.0 12.4 21.0 15.8 24.3 30
[31.4-38.4] [1.8-3.2] [4.3-5.8] [9.4-16.1] [16.7-26.1] [10.6-22.9] [17.2-33.1] [17.9-45.7]
(243) (42) (168) (47) (61) (22) (27) (12)

(continued)

141
 142
Table 1. (continued)

Victim age Elderly subcategories

Under 17 18-25 26-54 55-64 65 plus 65-74 75-84 85 plus

percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage
[95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI]
(n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n)
Friend/ 12.2 20.8 19.5 15.8 15.9 20.1 9.9 17.5
acquaintance [9.9-14.8] [18.9-22.7] [18.2-20.9] [12.5-19.9] [12.1-20.5] [14.3-27.6] [5.6-17] [8.6-32.4]
(85) (364) (654) (60) (46) (28) (11) (7)
Otherwise 12.9 7.0 6.5 8.4 7.9 9.4 6.3 7.5
known [10.6-15.6] [5.8-8.2] [5.7-7.4] [6-11.7] [5.3-11.6] [5.5-15.4] [3-12.6] [2.4-20.8]
(90) (122) (219) (32) (23) (13) (7) (3)
Stranger 6.6 12.5 10.8 10.3 10.3 10.8 12.6 2.5
[5-8.7] [11.1-14.2] [9.8-11.9] [7.6-13.8] [7.3-14.4] [6.6-17.1] [7.6-20.2] [0.4-15.7]
(46) (220) (361) (39) (30) (15) (14) (1)
Unknown/ 32.8 50.6 43.8 39.3 28.3 26.6 32.4 22.5
missing [29.4-36.4] [48.2-52.9] [42.1-45.5] [34.5-44.3] [23.4-33.7] [19.9-34.6] [24.4-41.7] [12.1-37.9]

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2014

(229) (887) (1,465) (149) (82) (37) (36) (9)
Total 698 1,754 3,347 379 290 139 111 40
N = 6,468, χ2 = 1008.3 (p < .05)a
a
Two χ2 statistics are reported. The first is for contingency tables using the “65 plus” category for elderly, and the second is for the tables using the three-
category definition for elderly. Due to cells with expected counts less than 5, χ2 values are not reported for victim–offender relationship for the contingency
table using the three-category definition.
Addington 143

For victim–offender relationship, interesting patterns are observed for the known
relationships of family and friends when multiple categories are used to define elderly.
For family relationships, defining elderly with one category suggests that 21% are
killed by a family member. The over-65 group is significantly different from all the
other age groups and is second only to the youngest (under 17) group for having the
largest percentage of victims killed by a family member. When using the elderly sub-
categories, the young old (65-74) are similar to the 55 to 64 age group and statistically
different from the other nonelderly groups. Both the 75 to 84 and 85 and older groups
differ in a statistically significant way from all the nonelderly age groups except the
under 17 group. For homicides committed by friends, using the single 65-and-older
definition of elderly suggests no statistically significant differences across age groups.
A similar pattern is observed for the young old (65-74) and oldest old (85 and above).
For the aged (75-84), a significantly smaller percentage are killed by friends than for
the 18 to 25 and 26 to 54 groups.
Table 2 presents the incident characteristics. For home location and clearance, the
elderly subcategories do not differ in a statistically significant way from one another.
In looking across the age categories for home location, the elderly (measured using
above 65) are statistically significantly different from all other age groups and have the
largest percentage of victims killed at home. When the elderly subcategories are used,
the young old (65-74) and aged (75-84) are larger and significantly different from all
the nonelderly age groups with the exception of the 55 to 64 group. The oldest old are
only significantly larger from the 18 to 25 and 26 to 54 groups. For clearance, no sta-
tistically significant differences are observed when comparing elderly with nonelderly
groups when either a single- or multiple-category definition is used.
For the murder circumstances, using a single-category definition for elderly sug-
gests that the oldest and youngest age groups have the lowest percentage of argument-
related murders. Looking among the multiple categories of elderly, a smaller percentage
of argument-related murders are observed for the oldest age groups (75-84 and 85 and
older), but these differences are not statistically significant. Comparing these catego-
ries of elderly with the nonelderly age groups suggests different patterns than when the
single 65 and older measure is used. The young old (65-74) are similar to all non-
elderly age groups. The aged (75-84) show the same pattern as when a single-category
measure of elderly is used. The oldest old are significantly different only from the 18
to 25 and 26 to 54 groups. For the felony-related circumstance, the 65 and older single
category is larger than and significantly different from all age groups but the 55 to 64.
When using three elderly categories, this pattern is replicated for all but the oldest old.
The oldest old do not differ in a statistically significant way from any other age group
with the exception of the youngest (under 17).
For weapons, interesting patterns are observed for knives and personal contact
weapons. For knives, defining elderly using a single category indicates that a greater
percentage of elderly are killed using knives than the youngest two age groups (under
17 and 18-25) and that the elderly do not differ in a statistically significant way from the
other two age groups. For the multiple categories of elderly, a smaller percentage of
murders involving knives are observed for the oldest age groups (75-84 and 85 and

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2014

 Table 2. Incident Characteristics by Age of Victim, NIBRS 2007-2008.

Victim age Elderly subcategories

144
Under 17 18-25 26-54 55-64 65 plus 65-74 75-84 85 plus
percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage
[95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI]
(n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n)
Home location
Home 63.9 38.9 51.3 68.1 78.6 79.9 76.6 80
[60.3-67.4] [36.7-41.2] [49.6-53] [63.2-72.6] [73.5-83] [72.4-85.7] [67.8-83.5] [64.8-89.7]
(446) (683) (1,718) (258) (228) (111) (85) (32)
Total 698 1,754 3,347 379 290 139 111 40
N = 6,468, χ2 = 280.9 (p < .05); χ2 = 281.2 (p < .05)a
Clearance
Cleared 62 55.4 57.9 59.4 63.1 64.7 64 55
[58.4-65.6] [53-57.7] [56.2-59.6] [54.3-64.2] [57.4-68.5] [56.5-72.2] [54.6-72.3] [39.6-69.5]
(433) (971) (1,938) (225) (183) (90) (71) (22)
Total 698 1,754 3,347 379 290 139 111 40
N = 6,468, χ2 = 13.1 (p < .05); χ2 = 14.4 (p < .05)a
Argument-related circumstance
Argument 11 23 25.9 24 14.1 18.7 10.8 7.5
related [8.9-13.6] [21.1-25] [24.4-27.4] [20-28.6] [10.6-18.6] [13.1-26.1] [6.2-18.1] [2.4-20.8]

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2014

(77) (403) (866) (91) (41) (26) (12) (3)
Total 698 1,754 3,347 379 290 139 111 40
N = 6,468, χ2 = 85.5 (p < .05); χ2 = 88.8 (p < .05)a
Felony-related circumstance
Felony 4.4 6.7 7.1 10.8 17.6 18 18 15
related [3.1-6.2] [5.6-7.9] [6.3-8] [8.1-14.4] [13.6-22.4] [12.4-25.3] [11.9-26.3] [6.9-29.6]
(31) (117) (237) (41) (51) (25) (20) (6)
Total 698 1,754 3,347 379 290 139 111 40
N = 6,468, χ2 = 61.3 (p < .05) a

(continued)
 Table 2. (continued)

Victim age Elderly subcategories

Under 17 18-25 26-54 55-64 65 plus 65-74 75-84 85 plus

percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage
[95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI] [95% CI]
(n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n)
Weapon
Firearm 42.3 76.8 64.2 45.4 37.9 43.2 36 25
[38.6-46] [74.8-78.7] [62.6-65.8] [40.4-50.4] [32.5-43.6] [35.2-51.5] [27.7-45.4] [14-40.5]
(295) (1,347) (2,149) (172) (110) (60) (40) (10)
Knife 7.6 9.5 13.7 16.1 17.6 21.6 15.3 10
[5.8-9.8] [8.2-11] [12.6-14.9] [12.7-20.1] [13.6-22.4] [15.5-29.2] [9.7-23.3] [3.8-23.8]
(53) (167) (458) (61) (51) (30) (17) (4)
Personal 28.7 4.6 10.1 19.5 22.1 15.8 24.3 37.5
contact [25.4-32.1] [3.7-5.7] [9.1-11.2] [15.8-23.8] [17.7-27.2] [10.6-22.9] [17.2-33.1] [24-53.2]
(200) (81) (338) (74) (64) (22) (27) (15)
Other 10.9 4.5 5.2 7.4 11.7 9.3 10.8 22.5
[8.8-13.4] [3.6-5.6] [4.5-6] [5.1-10.5] [8.5-16] [5.5-15.4] [6.2-18.1] [12.1-37.9]
(76) (79) (173) (28) (34) (13) (12) (9)

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2014

Unknown/ 10.6 4.6 6.8 11.6 10.7 10.1 13.5 5
missing [8.5-13.1] [3.7-5.6] [6-7.7] [8.7-15.2] [7.6-14.8] [6-16.3] [8.3-21.2] [1.2-17.9]
(76) (80) (229) (44) (31) (14) (15) (2)
Total 698 1,754 3,347 379 290 139 111 40
N = 6,468, χ2 = 589.0 (p < .05)a
a
Two χ2 statistics are reported. The first is for contingency tables using the “65 plus” category for elderly, and the second is for the tables using the three
category definition for elderly. Due to cells with expected counts less than 5, χ2 values are not reported for felony-related circumstance or weapon for the
contingency table using the three-category definition.

145
146 Homicide Studies 17(2)

older) than the young old, but these differences are not statistically significant.
Comparing these three categories of elderly with the nonelderly age groups suggests
different patterns than when the single 65 and older measure is used. The young old age
group has a significantly higher percentage of homicides using a knife than any non-
elderly groups with the exception of the 55- to 64-year-olds. No statistically significant
differences are observed when comparing the other elderly categories with the non-
elderly. For personal contact weapons, defining elderly using a single category indi-
cates that a greater percentage of elderly are killed using these weapons than the 18 to
25 and 26 to 54 groups, but the elderly do not significantly differ from the below 17 or
55 to 64 groups. When three elderly subcategories are compared, a statistically signifi-
cant and larger percentage of oldest old are killed using personal weapons than the
young old (37.5% vs. 15.8%). Looking across the nonelderly age groups, the young old
are significantly smaller than the youngest group and larger than the 18 to 25 group.
The aged (75-84) show a pattern similar to the single elderly category. A statistically
significant and larger percentage of the oldest old are killed using personal weapons
than every nonelderly age group with the exception of the youngest (under 17).

Discussion and Conclusions

The motivation for the present research originated from a lack of consensus regarding
how to measure “elderly” and ways to capture the heterogeneity of this population. As
such, the current study sought to explore how a multiple-category definition of elderly
might facilitate homicide research, especially with regard to identifying patterns, devel-
oping explanations, and promoting targeted policies and programs. As the findings
obtained illustrate, a multiple-category definition of elderly identifies both similarities
and differences within elderly and nonelderly age groups. These patterns are otherwise
masked by using a single-category definition of elderly. Although the comparisons
within the three subcategories of elderly show many similarities, the most common
substantive (but not always statistically significant) differences are observed between
the young old (65-74) and oldest old (85 and older) groups. A higher percentage of the
oldest old victims are female, killed by family members, and killed by personal contact
weapons as compared to young old victims. A higher percentage of young old than old-
est old victims are killed with knives and in argument-related circumstances. Using a
multiple-category definition of elderly also highlights similarities across elderly and
nonelderly age groups. Of particular interest are similarities between the youngest and
oldest victims of homicide. These similarities include a higher percentage of murders by
family members and using personal contact weapons and a lower percentage of argu-
ment-related murders than observed for other age groups. These patterns within the
elderly categories as well as between the oldest and youngest victims provide future
research opportunities to explore these relationships in greater depth.
Based on these patterns, a multiple-category definition of elderly provides some ini-
tial age-based explanations. Previous studies have relied on lifestyle/routine activity
explanations for elderly homicide. The findings obtained by this study highlight the
importance of distinguishing the routine activities between oldest old and young old. As

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2014

Addington 147

more young old continue in the workforce past traditional retirement age and maintain
active lifestyles when they do retire, these differences may become more pronounced.
This explanation can be illustrated by the fact that the single-category (over 65) elderly
definition masked similarities between the 55 to 64 group and the young old 65 to 74
group, particularly for homicides committed by a family member and occurring at home.
Conversely, the similarities between the oldest and youngest victims suggest possible
ways to compare lifestyles especially for homicides involving family members and per-
sonal contact weapons. Both groups may be more dependent on family members for
caregiving and this exposure increases the opportunity for these crimes. In addition to
lifestyle/routine activity explanations, previous research suggests that the elderly are at
greater risk for serious injury or death because of their increased physical weakness (Chu
& Kraus, 2004). Findings that personal contact weapons are more commonly used
against the oldest old murder victims suggest that a “frailty hypothesis” might be more
applicable for the oldest old category of elderly than the younger old, who are primarily
killed using firearms. Finally, these findings confirm demographic patterns of aging. The
increased percentage of female victims among the oldest old is likely due to longevity of
females and the disproportion of females in this population group.
These patterns and initial explanations can support policies and programs that tar-
get at-risk elderly populations. The patterns for the oldest victims (being female, killed
by family members, and killed by personal contact or other weapons) suggest similari-
ties with victims of nonfatal elder abuse. National studies indicate that most elder
abuse affects females above 80 and is committed by a family member, especially an
adult child (Teaser et al., 2006). These findings lend support for programs for the
community-dwelling elderly (especially the oldest old) that assist family caregivers
and help detect victimization (Bachman & Meloy, 2008). Parallels between the young-
est and oldest victims also suggest lessons might be learned from the best practices to
prevent child abuse and other violence that could benefit prevention programs and
victim services for the elderly.
The ultimate goal for this study is to start a conversation about the best practices for
measuring the elderly population.13 Although this article presents an important first
step, it is not without its limitations. One limitation is the use of NIBRS data. NIBRS
data provide relevant information including location and clearance measures, not other-
wise readily available, but these data do not cover all murders or all states. Eleven
states have over 1 million people aged 65 and older. Not all of those states are included
in NIBRS.14 Another limitation is the fact that a multiple-category definition can result
in small numbers and may not always be practical for multivariate analysis. Despite
these limitations, this study provides initial support for the utility of a multiple-cate-
gory definition of elderly. More work is needed to examine this issue and ultimately to
achieve consensus on the best practice and a standard for defining the elderly. In addi-
tion to more accurately measuring the elderly population, a standard definition would
facilitate comparisons across studies and advance knowledge in the field. Now is a
particularly important time to develop such a standard given both that attention to
studying elderly violent victimization is increasing and the population above age 65
continues to grow in size and diversity.

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2014

148 Homicide Studies 17(2)

Appendix
Frequencies for Variables Used
Variable Frequency (%)

Age
Under 17 698 (10.5)
18-25 1,754 (26.3)
26-54 3,347 (50.2)
55-64 379 (5.7)
65 plus 290 (4.4)
  65-74 139 (2.1)
  75-84 111 (1.7)
  85 plus 40 (0.6)
Unknown/missing 194 (2.9)
Victim characteristics
Sex
  Male 5,016 (75.3)
  Female 1,602 (24)
  Missing 44 (0.7)
Race
  White 3,069 (46.1)
  Non-White 3,438 (51.6)
  Unknown/missing 155 (2.2)
Victim–offender relationship
  Intimate partner 711 (10.7)
  Family 602 (9.0)
  Friend/acquaintance 1,227 (18.4)
  Other known 496 (7.4)
  Stranger 707 (10.6)
  Unknown/missing 2,919 (43.8)
Incident characteristics
Location
  Home 3,450 (51.8)
  Other location 3,212 (48.2)
Weapon
  Firearm 4,164 (62.5)
  Knife 801 (12.0)
  Personal contact 801 (12.0)
  Other 401 (6.0)
  Unknown/missing 495 (7.4)
Argument-related circumstance
   Argument related 1,500 (22.5)
   Not argument related 5,162 (77.5)
Felony-related circumstance
  Felony related 483 (7.3)
   Not felony related 6,179 (92.7)
Clearance
  Cleared 3,854 (57.9)
  Not cleared 2,808 (42.1)

N = 6,662.

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2014

Addington 149

Acknowledgments
My thanks to Marc Riedel for organizing this special issue. I also thank Marc and the anony-
mous reviewers as well as Suzanne Perumean-Chaney and Callie Rennison for their thoughtful
feedback on an earlier version of this article.

Author’s Note
This work originated from a presentation at the 2011 Homicide Research Working Group
Annual Meeting in New Orleans and benefitted from discussions at that meeting.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Notes
1. Even the Social Security Administration’s standard has changed in recognition of an
increasing lifespan. The age of full retirement has begun increasing gradually for those
born after 1938 until it reaches 67 for those born after 1959 (SSA, n.d.).
2. Census (1996) also uses the terms “frail elderly” and “centenarians” to further distinguish
within the elderly population. The term “frail elderly” designates those aged 65 and above
who have significant physical and cognitive health problems. It is used to emphasize the
fact that not all elderly individuals have these limitations. The term “centenarians” desig-
nates those aged 100 and over.
3. In addition to the common practice of a single-category definition, the failure to subcatego-
rize may also be due to the practical problem of small sample sizes, which limits multivari-
ate analyses.
4. These paradigms of the elderly are not limited to researchers. Many in the general public
hold similar views that the elderly are reclusive, vulnerable, isolated, and powerless (see
Lyons, 2009, for a review of the literature; Barrett & Cantwell, 2007). Barrett and Cantwell
note commonly held—and incorrect—perceptions include that the elderly are poor, lonely,
easily angered, and more likely to live in nursing homes.
5. Using Census definitions has the added benefit of providing ready denominators from
which to estimate victimization rates for these population groups.
6. The specific recodes include the following: intimate partner (current, former, common law
spouses, current boy/girlfriend, and homosexual relationships), family members (which
include parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, stepchildren), friends
(friends and acquaintances), otherwise known (which includes neighbors, employers,
employees), strangers, and unknown (specified unknown and missing).
7. Unlike other data collection efforts such as the Chicago Homicide Dataset, NIBRS only
collects “home” and does not specify if it was the victim’s home or not.

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2014

150 Homicide Studies 17(2)

8. Firearms include handguns and long guns, whether automatic or not; personal contact
includes personal weapons (i.e., hands and feet), blunt objects, and asphyxiation; and other
includes all other weapons such as poison, fire, and explosives. Unknown/missing captures
those cases where the weapon is not known.
9. NIBRS circumstance codes include whether the crime was related to an argument, assault
on a police officer, drug dealing, gangland, juvenile gang, lovers’ quarrel, mercy killing,
other felony, or other circumstance. Although NIBRS allows the collection of up to two
circumstance codes, only the first is used for this study since 98.5% of the cases have only
one circumstance code. These circumstance codes are not without criticism due, in part,
to the lack of definitional guidance given to law enforcement by the UCR Program. As
such, their validity has been questioned (Loftin, 1986; see also Addington, 2004). Given
the exploratory nature of the present study, this information is used to examine elderly
homicide patterns identified by previous research utilizing variables derived from the cir-
cumstance codes.
10. This descriptive work also builds off of Maltz’s (2010) recommendation for to take time
to “visualize” data before engaging in complex multivariate comparisons. Although Maltz
focuses on using graphic analyses to visualize the data, similar explorations can be per-
formed using bivariate analyses and other descriptive work.
11. This study reports Pearson’s chi-square and confidence intervals, both of which assume
simple random sampling. NIBRS data are not collected as part of a purposeful SRS
design. Although the more common practice among researchers using NIBRS data is to
report these statistics, others have opted not to do so (e.g., Taylor, Holleran, & Topalli,
2009). The decision to report these statistics in the present study is based on an inter-
est in providing a metric to compare the relative precision for each of the age groups
examined.
12. The similarity reported in Table 1 between the confidence intervals for the below 17 and 65
and older groups is due to rounding.
13. This conversation also would benefit from discussions of whether a standard definition
should be used for both victims and offenders. I thank the anonymous reviewers for sug-
gesting this distinction particularly for offenders who are incarcerated and may experience
an accelerated aging process.
14. These 11 states are California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas (Howden & Meyer, 2011). Michigan is
100% NIBRS. Ohio and Texas report less than fully in NIBRS format, and counties in
Georgia and Illinois are NIBRS certified (JRSA, n.d.).

References
Abrams, R. C., Leon, A. C., Tardiff, K, Marzuk, P. M., & Sutherland, K. (2007). “Gray murder”:
Characteristics of elderly compared with nonelderly homicide victims in New York City.
American Journal of Public Health, 97, 1666-1670.
Addington, L. A. (2004). The effect of NIBRS reporting on item missing data in murder cases.
Homicide Studies, 8, 193-213.

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2014

Addington 151

Addington, L. A. (2007). Hot vs. cold cases: Examining time to clearance for homicides using
NIBRS data. Justice Research and Policy, 9, 87-112.
Addington, L. A. (2008). Assessing the extent of nonresponse bias on NIBRS estimates of vio-
lent crime. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24, 32-49.
Allison, P. (2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Aronow, W. S., Fleg, J. L., & Pepine, C. J. (2011). ACCF/AHA 2011 expert consensus docu-
ment on hypertension in the elderly. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 57,
2037-2114.
Bachman, R. (1993). The double edged sword of violent victimization against the elderly: Pat-
terns of family and stranger perpetration. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 5, 59-76.
Bachman, R., & Meloy, M. L. (2008). The epidemiology of violence against the elderly: Impli-
cations for primary and secondary intervention. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice,
24, 186-197.
Barrett, A. E., & Cantwell, L. E. (2007). Drawing on stereotypes: Using undergraduates’
sketches of elders as a teaching tool. Educational Gerontology, 33, 327-348.
Blowers, A. N. (2004). Exploiting the aged in familial settings. In C. T. M. Coston (Ed.),
Victimizing vulnerable groups: Images of uniquely high-risk crime targets (pp. 71-82).
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Boscoe, F. P. (2008). Subdividing the age group of 85 years and older to improve US disease
reporting. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 1167-1170.
Brank, E. M. (2007). Elder research: Filling an important gap in psychology and law. Behav-
ioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 701-716.
Chu, L. D., & Kraus, J. F. (2004). Predicting fatal assault among the elderly using the National
Incident-Reporting System crime data. Homicide Studies, 8, 71-95.
Denton, F. T., & Spencer, B. G. (1999). How old is old? Revising the definition based on life
table criteria. Mathematical Population Studies, 7, 147-159.
Denton, F. T., & Spencer, B. G. (2002). Some demographic consequences of revising the defi-
nition of old age to reflect future changes in life table probabilities. Canadian Journal on
Aging, 21, 349-356.
Fazel, S., Bond, M., Gulati, G., & O’Donnell, I. (2007). Elderly homicide in Chicago: A research
note. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 629-639.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2004). Uniform crime reporting handbook. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/handbook/
ucrhandbook04.pdf
Fox, J. A., & Levin, J. (1991). Homicide against the elderly: A research note. Criminology, 29,
317-327.
He, W., Sengupta, M., Velkoff, V. A., & DeBarros, K. A. (2005). 65+ in the United States: 2005
(Current Population Reports, P23-209). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Holder, K. A., & Clark, S. L. (2008). Working beyond retirement age. Presentation at the Ameri-
can Sociological Association Annual Meeting. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/
www/laborfor/Working-Beyond-Retirement-Age.pdf
Howden, L. M., & Meyer, J. A. (2011). Age and sex composition: 2010: 2010 Census Briefs.
Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce.

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2014

152 Homicide Studies 17(2)

JRSA. (n.d.). Status of NIBRS in the states. Retrieved from: http://www.jrsa.org/ibrrc/background-

status/nibrs_states.shtml
Karch, D., & Nunn, K. C. (2011). Characteristics of elderly and other vulnerable adult victims
of homicide by a caregiver: National Violent Death Reporting System—17 US States,
2003-2007. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 137-157.
Kennedy, L. W., & Silverman, R. A. (1990). The elderly victim of homicide: An application of
the routine activities approach. Sociological Quarterly, 31, 307-319.
Krienert, J. L., & Walsh, J. A. (2010). Eldercide: A gendered examination of elderly homicide in
the United States, 2000-2005. Homicide Studies, 14, 52-71.
Loftin, C. (1986). The validity of robbery-murder classifications in Baltimore. Violence and
Victims, 1, 191-204.
Lyons, I. (2009). Public perceptions of older people and ageing: A literature review. Dublin, Ire-
land: National Centre for the Protection of Older People. Retrieved from http://www.ncpop
.ie/Year%201%20Reports/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20NCPOP%20Lit%20Rev%20
1%20IL%2001_12_09Cover%20inc22_01_10.pdf
Maltz, M. D. (2010). Look before you analyze: Visualizing data in criminal justice. In
A. P. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative criminology. New York, NY:
Springer Science + Media LLC.
McLaughlin, S. J., Connell, C. M., Heeringa, S. G., Li, L. W., & Roberts, J. S. (2010). Success-
ful aging in the United States: Prevalence estimates from a national sample of older adults.
Journal of Gerontology, 65, 216-226.
National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. (2009). National incident-based reporting system,
2007: Extract files. Ann Arbor, MI: Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social
Research.
National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. (2010). National incident-based reporting system,
2008: Extract files. Ann Arbor, MI: Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social
Research.
Nelsen, C., & Huff-Corzine, L. (1998). Strangers in the night: An application of the lifestyle-
routine activities approach to elderly homicide victimization. Homicide Studies, 2, 130-159.
Orimo, H., Ito, H., Suzuki, T., Araki, A., Hosoi, T., & Sawabe, M. (2006). Reviewing the defini-
tion of “elderly.” Geriatrics Gerontology International, 6, 149-158.
Riedel, M. (2008). Homicide arrest clearances: A review of the literature. Sociology Compass,
2/4, 1145-1164.
SSA. (n.d.). The full retirement age is increasing. Retrieved from http://ssa.gov/pubs/agein-
crease.htm
Stiegel, L., & Klem, E. (2007). Age-threshold eligibility for Adult Protective Services: Compari-
son chart of criteria by state. Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/
migrated/aging/about/pdfs/Age_Threshold_Eligibility_Criteria_for_Adult_Protective_Ser-
vices_by_State.authcheckdam.pdf
Taylor, T. J., Holleran, D., & Topalli, V. (2009). Racial bias in case processing: Does victim race
affect police clearance of violent crime incidents? Justice Quarterly, 26, 562-591.

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2014

Addington 153

Teaser, P. B., Dugar, T. A., Mendiondo, M. S., Abner, E. L., Cecil, K. A., & Otto, J. M. (2006).
The 2004 Survey of State Adult Protective Services: Abuse of adults 60 years of age and
older. Washington, DC: National Center on Elder Abuse.
Titterington, V. B., & Reyes, N. C. (2010). Elder homicide in urban America: An exploratory
analysis of Chicago, Houston and Miami. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 6, 228-249.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1996). 65+ in the United States, Current Population Reports, Spe-
cial Studies. Washington, DC: Author.
Vincent, G. K., & Velkoff, V. A. (2010). The next four decades. The older population in the
United States: 2010 to 2050: Population estimates and projections. Washington, DC:
Bureau of the Census. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p25-1138.pdf
Weaver, G. S., Martin, C. D., & Petee, T. A. (2004). Culture, context, and homicide of the
elderly. Sociological Inquiry, 74, 2-19.

Author Biography
Lynn A. Addington is an associate professor in the Department of Justice, Law & Society at
American University in Washington, DC. Her research focuses on violent victimization, the mea-
surement of crime, and utilization of national crime statistics. Her publications have appeared in a
range of outlets including the American Behavioral Scientist, Journal of Quantitative Criminology
and Justice Quarterly. She also is the co-editor (with James P. Lynch) of Understanding Crime
Statistics: Revisiting the Divergence of the NCVS and UCR (2007, Cambridge University Press).

Downloaded from hsx.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2014