From the NCVS, it is easiest to derive the means of the various data presented. With that said, this means will not necessarily be particularly meaningful, as most of the numbers shown in the survey are only loosely related to each other. While the report serves well to illustrate the prevalence of different types of victimization across the United States and in different demographic groups, it does so by presenting an array of numbers that it is not meant to sum up. For example, it would be possible to find the mean of the different types of crime, but it would not serve a useful purpose, especially compared to the total number, which would instead illustrate the situation. The report also does not identify any means because it is focused on singular categories and total numbers. Similar considerations apply to population statistics and the other types of data provided, where they do not form a coherent data set for central tendency analysis.
The case for the mode and the median is the same, where finding them for the provided data would not be productive. However, they are also affected by the absence of large and detailed data sets in the survey, as presented in the document. What numbers are provided are small in quantity and large in size, reaching hundreds of thousands and millions. As a result, they do not repeat often enough to justify the usage of the mode. The information provided by the determination of the median would also be largely meaningless, as it would contribute nothing to the understanding of any issues. Overall, the report is not well-suited for central tendency analysis by its nature because it does not provide a coherent dataset for the procedure.